PVSA Violations That Didn't Occur!!!

[Cruisin' Chick]

I guess I am just not a lemming blindly following...

 

Just because something is a law or a rule or a government statute does not mean it is a GOOD one. I do not think the PVSA was intended to s@rew a guy out of his hard earned vacation or doing that serves any real purpose - even if the guy made a mistake. The only way to effect change is if more people speak up in the proper venues.

 

To whoever posted that the agency doesn't have to justify its decision...your attitude is the scariest of all - one of the great things about this country is the people's ability to question what the government is doing without fear of retribution.

 

sorry, but as one (and I think I wasn't the one on this thread) who said this, it's not scary, but it is reality that it's the authority this agency was given by Congress over a century ago. I would prefer not to have to stop in Ensenada on our Hawaiian cruises but we and many other passengers treat that stop as a stationary day at sea (as well as packing, as it's the day before disembarkation). I also don't use my phone while driving and try to obey traffic laws as it sucks to have to pay traffic fines and take traffic school...in addition to the idea that many of those laws keep me from crashing into another car or a car crashing into me.

 

and I imagine that customs help us in many ways..I might not know why certain laws exist or not, but just because I don't understand, it doesn't mean I should disrespect them.

It's easy to sit behind your computer screen and say "Oh - it is a hard lesson to learn" but I hope for none of you ever find yourselves in a similar situation - yes you can plan - fly in the day before & buy insurance but sometimes there is just a "perfect storm" of events that can not be planned for.

 

at least if I try to fly in the day before and things don't work out, that's just life. the OP would have had a plan B if he had a flight the day before but left his ID at home...as long as there was other flights later on that day or early the next day. He would have to pay a change fee in that case, but would have still been able to get on a plane in time. It wasn't the CBP's, the cruise line's, or the airline's fault he didn't bring his ID. I doubt if this is what happened to any of the 14 he keeps mentioning. He doesn't know why they were able to get on the ship, but he knows why he didn't.

 

And yes, we do check the stove (as well as the thermostat, the garage door...). My hubby is very organized with his checklist....while I take care of the itinerary info (rental cars, hotels, etc). We didn't do any cruises in the last 12 months, but we did go on six road trips between August and May (oh, the joys of having a daughter in college). Between hubby and myself, we did a pretty good job, even when packing up the rental car and leaving around 6am as we did for at four of these trips. For a cruise, we would be even more careful as there is the deadline for getting on the ship.

[chengkp75]

I go away for a nice Labor Day weekend at the lake, and come back to find folks still wrangling over this. Okay, last word from me.

 

I may well have been wrong about there being B2B considerations, given the OP's anecdotal evidence, and I freely admit it. That being said:

 

Remember I said there are laws that apply to common carriers. Common carriers are cruise lines, airlines, trains, buses, ferries, etc. Also remember that much of US "law" is not written in the statute books, but is based on court precedent. So there may well be a court decision, at some level of the judiciary, that defines how CBP handles cases of PVSA violations caused by another common carrier's fault, that may have been based on statutes or previous court decisions that had nothing to do with the PVSA or even airlines, but where the judge found precedent in similar instances in other sectors of the transportation industry to hold over to a PVSA case.

 

This case has nothing to do with the cruise line "applying" the PVSA arbitrarily. When the passengers who missed embarkation due to airline problems contacted the cruise line, the cruise line either contacted CBP for a decision as to whether or not CBP would allow downstream boarding, or they had previously received guidance from CBP as to when there would be a violation or not (based on CBP rules in turn based on past court decisions as to the interpretation of the statute). At no time did the cruise line "knowingly violate" the Act, they allowed some passengers to board based on decisions from CBP and told the OP that he could not board based on decisions from CBP. If CBP had rulings that passengers who missed embarkation due to airline fault could not board later, then the cruise line would have told those folks the same thing they told the OP. When the cruise line told the 14 passengers that they could board in Ketchikan, it was based on decisions by CBP, not by any possible refund of the fine by airlines or any other reason.

 

As for the CBP applying the Act arbitrarily, see my comments above regarding "case law". What may to the outside observer seem discretionary and arbitrary, may in fact be based on court precedent.

 

As for the quote from Hank (hlitner), the cruise line cannot hold you hostage on the ship. If you want to disembark in any port, you have the right and ability to do so, but the cruise line has told you in the ticket contract that if your disembarkation causes a violation of the PVSA, they will pass the fine on to you. Many people are disembarked in violation of the PVSA for medical reasons, or even death (yes, the deceased counts against the PVSA), and the cruise line will be fined, and they will either apply for an exemption, or pass the fine to the passenger (or family of the deceased) for them to pursue an exemption and refund of the fine. This, however, is a far different thing (allowing a person to leave the ship in violation of the act) than knowingly allowing someone to board in violation of the act. And Hank has it slightly wrong, in that you can disembark early, in violation of the Act, without permission, simply by walking off the ship.

[sparks1093]

I go away for a nice Labor Day weekend at the lake, and come back to find folks still wrangling over this. Okay, last word from me.

 

I may well have been wrong about there being B2B considerations, given the OP's anecdotal evidence, and I freely admit it. That being said:

 

Remember I said there are laws that apply to common carriers. Common carriers are cruise lines, airlines, trains, buses, ferries, etc. Also remember that much of US "law" is not written in the statute books, but is based on court precedent. So there may well be a court decision, at some level of the judiciary, that defines how CBP handles cases of PVSA violations caused by another common carrier's fault, that may have been based on statutes or previous court decisions that had nothing to do with the PVSA or even airlines, but where the judge found precedent in similar instances in other sectors of the transportation industry to hold over to a PVSA case.

 

This case has nothing to do with the cruise line "applying" the PVSA arbitrarily. When the passengers who missed embarkation due to airline problems contacted the cruise line, the cruise line either contacted CBP for a decision as to whether or not CBP would allow downstream boarding, or they had previously received guidance from CBP as to when there would be a violation or not (based on CBP rules in turn based on past court decisions as to the interpretation of the statute). At no time did the cruise line "knowingly violate" the Act, they allowed some passengers to board based on decisions from CBP and told the OP that he could not board based on decisions from CBP. If CBP had rulings that passengers who missed embarkation due to airline fault could not board later, then the cruise line would have told those folks the same thing they told the OP. When the cruise line told the 14 passengers that they could board in Ketchikan, it was based on decisions by CBP, not by any possible refund of the fine by airlines or any other reason.

 

As for the CBP applying the Act arbitrarily, see my comments above regarding "case law". What may to the outside observer seem discretionary and arbitrary, may in fact be based on court precedent.

 

As for the quote from Hank (hlitner), the cruise line cannot hold you hostage on the ship. If you want to disembark in any port, you have the right and ability to do so, but the cruise line has told you in the ticket contract that if your disembarkation causes a violation of the PVSA, they will pass the fine on to you. Many people are disembarked in violation of the PVSA for medical reasons, or even death (yes, the deceased counts against the PVSA), and the cruise line will be fined, and they will either apply for an exemption, or pass the fine to the passenger (or family of the deceased) for them to pursue an exemption and refund of the fine. This, however, is a far different thing (allowing a person to leave the ship in violation of the act) than knowingly allowing someone to board in violation of the act. And Hank has it slightly wrong, in that you can disembark early, in violation of the Act, without permission, simply by walking off the ship.

 

Great point about case law and the only thing that I would add is this could change from circuit court jurisdiction to circuit court jurisdiction, with CBP being only bound to follow the case law in the circuit court jurisdiction it pertains to.