They cancelled my cruise

[Boytjie]

If HAL had to go ahead and transport you it would break the PSVA and be fined for every passenger illegally transported.

 

If HAL was in error in allowing these two cruises to be booked as you did, it should attempt to make things right for you. Providing the cruise you hoped to have is unfortunately not an option.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[*Miss G*]

I am sorry I submitted a review and will not post again.

 

No no! Don't do that! I found your thread invaluable. I had no idea there were rules against that itinerary! I would be as annoyed as you are if that had happened to me.

[VMax1700]

Sorry to slightly hijack OP's thread, but while so many people have Jones act and PSVA interpretations fresh in their minds (bUU - it's you! ;) ) can someone advise me if my planned B2B's for next year are 'legal'? I am thinking about doing an 11 day Partial Panama Canal on Zuiderdam immediately followed by the transatlantic repositioning to Europe. I think I'm ok, but all this talk about distant ports................:')

[RuthC]

... can someone advise me if my planned B2B's for next year are 'legal'? I am thinking about doing an 11 day Partial Panama Canal on Zuiderdam immediately followed by the transatlantic repositioning to Europe. I think I'm ok, but all this talk about distant ports................:')

The 11-day partial Panama Canal cruise is "legal" as it is a closed loop cruise, both beginning and ending in the same US port, including a stop at a foreign port ("near" or "distant" doesn't matter, but I believe this cruise includes "distant"). It's on HAL's regular routes.

The trans-At cruise doesn't come under the PVSA as it starts in the US, but doesn't end there.

You will start (on the Zuiderdam) in the US, and end (on the trans-At) outside the US. You are not impacted by the PVSA.

[Tinknock50]

+1

 

I think what may have upset the OP is that she was given alternative solutions for a way to still enjoy her vacation. It seems like she preferred to hear she was "right" rather than hear solutions that would allow her to still take her trip. I will fully admit that this situation stinks and HAL made a mistake. Should she be compensated in some form? I believe that HAL [or really her TA for that matter] could/should do something to "ease the pain" from a customer service standpoint. But the reality is, as Roz so simply stated, it is not the end of the world to have a one night "cruise" cancelled when it was really just being used a a form of transport. The stress of cancelling all her plans, including house-sitters and car repairs, not to mention time off work, just out of principle seems to me like making a mountain out of a molehill. Now she has no vacation to enjoy, which at least in my opinion, is worse than the inconvenience of finding a way to get to Seattle from very-close-by Vancouver.

 

Guess I am being weird here, but I generally avoid deciding what is important to others is not valid because it is not important to me.

[VMax1700]

The 11-day partial Panama Canal cruise is "legal" as it is a closed loop cruise, both beginning and ending in the same US port, including a stop at a foreign port ("near" or "distant" doesn't matter, but I believe this cruise includes "distant"). It's on HAL's regular routes.

The trans-At cruise doesn't come under the PVSA as it starts in the US, but doesn't end there.

You will start (on the Zuiderdam) in the US, and end (on the trans-At) outside the US. You are not impacted by the PVSA.

 

Thank you! that is what I thought, but, as I said, I was getting very confused with all the talk.

[bUU]

I think I'm ok, but all this talk about distant ports................:')

You've got both "A" and "C" of the ABCs (you only need one) so you'd be safe, even if your second leg was a trip back to the US (to a different US port from that from which you embarked on the first leg),

[sail7seas]

Yes, V Max, your itineary as sgagtex should be okay. :)... as wll as very enjoyable.

[sail7seas]

I know what you mean but sometimes there seems little harm in putting the catastrophe of the moment i into some perspective IMO most of these 'end of the world issues' are miis takes.

 

the sun will rirse tomorrow and ships will sail all wiill pass. in good time. :)

Edited April 6, 2017 by sail7seas

[joekerstef]

I get why OP is mad with HAL, but shouldn't their travel agent have been aware of the regulations and not tried to make the booking in the first place? A lot of folks on the CC boards here weren't aware of Jones Act and PVSA, but a travel professional I would think certainly should have known that the planned trip would run afoul of the law. Think I'd look for a new agent before I permanently write off the cruise line here but YMMV. (No, I'm not a paid HAL plant.)

[bUU]

I get why OP is mad with HAL, but shouldn't their travel agent have been aware of the regulations and not tried to make the booking in the first place? .. Think I'd look for a new agent before I permanently write off the cruise line here but YMMV. (No, I'm not a paid HAL plant.)

You're absolutely correct. I mentioned much earlier in the thread that this is a violation of paragraph #1 in the travel agents' documented code of ethics.

 

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Bostonjetset]

Guess I am being weird here, but I generally avoid deciding what is important to others is not valid because it is not important to me.

 

 

Not weird at all. You have the right to your opinion as do I (and as does the OP).

 

I also didn't say the OP's issue was not valid. I certainly agree that she has a valid complaint. However it is my personal opinion that cancelling everything because one day will not be as planned comes off as a bit dramatic. Sort of the "chopping off ones nose to spite ones face" scenario. It seems an awful lot of work and stress to cancel an entire vacation to stay home and wallow in despair (then create a CC account to rant about it) because of someone else's mistake that can be easily corrected.

 

A few years ago DH and I took a land trip to Portugal and specially scheduled a flight that gave us a day stopover in the Açores en route. We hired a guide and everything. Well the airline decided 4 hours before leaving to change our flight to one the next day with no explanation at all. We were pissed and go no compensation at all. However we didn't cancel our trip because one day would be not as planned. We went and had a great time. Now it is water under the bridge. Many posters on here were just giving the OP alternatives so she could still salvage the bulk of her vacation and enjoy herself. She is choosing to forego this option and it's her right to do so but we also have the right to state our opinions on it once she opened it for discussion on a public forum.

 

I am interested to know what other options HAL is providing (obc perhaps?) to make this right and whether she will even entertain them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[richwmn]

I get why OP is mad with HAL, but shouldn't their travel agent have been aware of the regulations and not tried to make the booking in the first place? A lot of folks on the CC boards here weren't aware of Jones Act and PVSA, but a travel professional I would think certainly should have known that the planned trip would run afoul of the law. Think I'd look for a new agent before I permanently write off the cruise line here but YMMV. (No, I'm not a paid HAL plant.)

Unfortunately many so called travel agents are simply order takers. They have never seen a cruise ship, let alone been on one. They know how to fill out the form and take the commission.

 

In this case, I think the travel agent might have know enough to be dangerous. It appears that the agent might have tried to "get around" the PVSA in some manner that wasn't caught until final manifest checks. There have been many reports on CC of PSVA violations being caught in the 3 week out time frame.

[styles27]

Guess I am being weird here, but I generally avoid deciding what is important to others is not valid because it is not important to me.

 

 

Not weird at all and thank you for saying it! :)

[styles27]

Not weird at all. You have the right to your opinion as do I (and as does the OP).

 

I also didn't say the OP's issue was not valid. I certainly agree that she has a valid complaint. However it is my personal opinion that cancelling everything because one day will not be as planned comes off as a bit dramatic. Sort of the "chopping off ones nose to spite ones face" scenario. It seems an awful lot of work and stress to cancel an entire vacation to stay home and wallow in despair (then create a CC account to rant about it) because of someone else's mistake that can be easily corrected.

 

A few years ago DH and I took a land trip to Portugal and specially scheduled a flight that gave us a day stopover in the Açores en route. We hired a guide and everything. Well the airline decided 4 hours before leaving to change our flight to one the next day with no explanation at all. We were pissed and go no compensation at all. However we didn't cancel our trip because one day would be not as planned. We went and had a great time. Now it is water under the bridge. Many posters on here were just giving the OP alternatives so she could still salvage the bulk of her vacation and enjoy herself. She is choosing to forego this option and it's her right to do so but we also have the right to state our opinions on it once she opened it for discussion on a public forum.

 

I am interested to know what other options HAL is providing (obc perhaps?) to make this right and whether she will even entertain them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

The OP has already cancelled and had most of her money refunded.

 

She didn't just "create a CC account to rant about it" as you suggest.

She's been a member of CC since May 2016

[3rdGenCunarder]

Not weird at all. You have the right to your opinion as do I (and as does the OP).

 

I also didn't say the OP's issue was not valid. I certainly agree that she has a valid complaint. However it is my personal opinion that cancelling everything because one day will not be as planned comes off as a bit dramatic. Sort of the "chopping off ones nose to spite ones face" scenario. It seems an awful lot of work and stress to cancel an entire vacation to stay home and wallow in despair (then create a CC account to rant about it) because of someone else's mistake that can be easily corrected.

 

A few years ago DH and I took a land trip to Portugal and specially scheduled a flight that gave us a day stopover in the Açores en route. We hired a guide and everything. Well the airline decided 4 hours before leaving to change our flight to one the next day with no explanation at all. We were pissed and go no compensation at all. However we didn't cancel our trip because one day would be not as planned. We went and had a great time. Now it is water under the bridge. Many posters on here were just giving the OP alternatives so she could still salvage the bulk of her vacation and enjoy herself. She is choosing to forego this option and it's her right to do so but we also have the right to state our opinions on it once she opened it for discussion on a public forum.

 

I am interested to know what other options HAL is providing (obc perhaps?) to make this right and whether she will even entertain them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Like you, I would have looked for a plan B to rescue at least some of the trip. But it was all-or-nothing for OP. I wonder if HAL offered any suggestions of an alternate way to get from Vancouver to Seattle so that the flight home could be salvaged.

[Boytjie]

Sorry to slightly hijack OP's thread, but while so many people have Jones act and PSVA interpretations fresh in their minds (bUU - it's you! ;) ) can someone advise me if my planned B2B's for next year are 'legal'? I am thinking about doing an 11 day Partial Panama Canal on Zuiderdam immediately followed by the transatlantic repositioning to Europe. I think I'm ok, but all this talk about distant ports................:')

 

As Ruth said, you are not affected by the PVSA. The act only deals with ships embarking passengers in a US port and disembarking them in a US port.