Exemption from PVSA

[nukesubsailor]

I understand that the Passenger Vessel Services Acts outlaws Princess from taking a passenger from one US port to another US port without having visited a distant foreign port.

I have looked at two cruises, one 10 day and one 13 day, that would be fun to do back to back.  The first is the 10 day from NYC to Quebec City starting Oct. 12th..  The ship arrives in Quebec City at 9:00 AM on Oct. 21st but the cruise doesn't end until 7:00 AM on Oct 22nd.  The second cruise is the 13 day from Quebec City to Ft. Lauderdale starting at on Oct 22nd but does not sail from Quebec City until 5:00 PM on Oct. 23rd.  

Would the fact that the ship sits in Quebec City from the morning of Oct 21st until the afternoon of Oct 23rd along with the fact that there are two separate bookings provide an exemption that would make it possible to do these cruises without violating the PVSA?

[RDC1]

Nope.  It is still the same ship with no break between bookings.  

[paul929207]

I tried for a similar pair of cruises for last October and was denied.

[Thrak]

Gotta love being thwarted by a law from 1886...

[Colo Cruiser]

Have to be gone from the ship for 24 hours (at the cruise end) and either change ships or have a new booking.

No exemptions.

 

[Hlitner]

Just thinking out loud about this kind of situation.  I would think that booking a single back-to-back cruise (with one booking number) would be a PVSA violation.   But what if the OP books them as two separate cruises (with their own booking numbers)?   Not sure.

 

Hank

[Colo Cruiser]

2 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Just thinking out loud about this kind of situation.  I would think that booking a single back-to-back cruise (with one booking number) would be a PVSA violation.   But what if the OP books them as two separate cruises (with their own booking numbers)?   Not sure.

 

Hank

Will not work. They will catch it.

[RDC1]

4 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Just thinking out loud about this kind of situation.  I would think that booking a single back-to-back cruise (with one booking number) would be a PVSA violation.   But what if the OP books them as two separate cruises (with their own booking numbers)?   Not sure.

 

Hank

Still a violation.  As far as the law is concerned it is a continuous cruise.

[RDC1]

18 minutes ago, Thrak said:

Gotta love being thwarted by a law from 1886...

A law that exists for a perfectly valid reason.  Since it covers a great deal more then cruise ships.

[Cruise Junky]

do a B2B starting in Quebec if there's something interesting after the 13 day version

[Murphey]

I'm missing something, we did the b2b, NYC - QC then QC-NYC.  The only difference is ending in NYC instead of FLL.  What is my brain missing?  (Or, misreading?)

[Cruise Junky]

1 minute ago, Murphey said:

I'm missing something, we did the b2b, NYC - QC then QC-NYC.  The only difference is ending in NYC instead of FLL.  What is my brain missing?  (Or, misreading?)

Round trip..ie NYC to NYC only have to visit a foreign port which of course Quebec is but a one way between two different US Ports.. ie. NYC to Ft. Lauderdale has to visit a Foreign DISTANT port which Quebec isn't.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Cruise Junky

[Murphey]

14 minutes ago, Cruise Junky said:

Round trip..ie NYC to NYC only have to visit a foreign port which of course Quebec is but a one way between two different US Ports.. ie. NYC to Ft. Lauderdale has to visit a Foreign DISTANT port which Quebec isn't.

 

Oh brother......I'm surprised the cruise companies haven't rallied to get rid of it....there must be some current maritime benefit to retaining the law.  Thanks Cruise Junky.

[Colo Cruiser]

5 minutes ago, Murphey said:

 

Oh brother......I'm surprised the cruise companies haven't rallied to get rid of it....there must be some current maritime benefit to retaining the law.  Thanks Cruise Junky.

NCL did it for NCL Pride of America Hawaii cruises many years ago.

[Cruise Junky]

3 minutes ago, Murphey said:

 

Oh brother......I'm surprised the cruise companies haven't rallied to get rid of it....there must be some current maritime benefit to retaining the law.  Thanks Cruise Junky.

last time it was looked at was to strengthen it...a push from NCL on it's Hawaiian route but I agree with you.  This is why so many ships leave from Vancouver instead of Seattle for Alaska. They can do the one ways.  Seattle are all round trip.

[TheRabbit]

39 minutes ago, Murphey said:

I'm missing something, we did the b2b, NYC - QC then QC-NYC.  The only difference is ending in NYC instead of FLL.  What is my brain missing?  (Or, misreading?)

That is OK as you returned to the same port. Several years ago we did one half of this, Q to NYC. The ship did not return to the normal port for NYC, instead it was moved to New Jersey. People already booked B2B before the change had to get off and spend a night in a hotel I think. Maybe someone here remembers this incident in 2015 and knows more.

[martincath]

3 hours ago, nukesubsailor said:

...Would the fact that the ship sits in Quebec City from the morning of Oct 21st until the afternoon of Oct 23rd along with the fact that there are two separate bookings provide an exemption that would make it possible to do these cruises without violating the PVSA?

It doesn't matter a jot what the SHIP does, it's whether YOU stay onboard! In theory there is a way to do this though - if you fully disembarked at the end of cruise 1 (you and ALL your stuff), stayed in a hotel Oct 21st and/or 22nd, then only reboarded for the start of cruise 2 on Oct 23rd you should actually meet the criteria provided the paperwork was all filed correctly with a full 24hr plus gap. But you'd have to get it in writing in advance from Princess confirming the separate bookings and that there is a gap between them to break the voyage, pay full rate for both cruises even though you missed at least one day & night onboard, and obviously find alternative accommodation at your own expense in Quebec City.

 

All of this would meet the letter of the law and CBP's interpretation thereof according to other case files over the years, but given the doubling-up on some ports and the extra expenses involved, just flying in to Quebec early and spending time on land would seem more sensible, as well as giving you enormously better leaf-peeping potential as you could drive inland to wherever the best colouration is. You could even do both Montreal and Toronto justice before the cruise with 3+ days in each and have enough flexibility with a ~10day timeframe to take VIA rail if you didn't want to just rent a car and drive yourselves around between cities.

[RDC1]

29 minutes ago, Murphey said:

 

Oh brother......I'm surprised the cruise companies haven't rallied to get rid of it....there must be some current maritime benefit to retaining the law.  Thanks Cruise Junky.

Lots of benefit.  It basically impacts just about any ship carrying passengers in the US including Ferry boats, passenger boats, tour boats, etc. 

[chengkp75]

32 minutes ago, Murphey said:

 

Oh brother......I'm surprised the cruise companies haven't rallied to get rid of it....there must be some current maritime benefit to retaining the law.  Thanks Cruise Junky.

The PVSA, note that it is the Passenger vessel act, relates to far more than cruise ships, it covers every vessel that carries more than 12 passengers within the US (ferries, tour boats, commuter boats, etc).

28 minutes ago, Colo Cruiser said:

NCL did it for NCL Pride of America Hawaii cruises many years ago.

NCL got a waiver for the construction aspect of the Act, but the ship is still required to meet all other aspects of the Act.  And that was granted because NCL took over the construction of the Pride of America after the initial owner went bankrupt leaving the US government on the hook for the loan to build the ship.

27 minutes ago, Cruise Junky said:

last time it was looked at was to strengthen it...a push from NCL on it's Hawaiian route but I agree with you.  This is why so many ships leave from Vancouver instead of Seattle for Alaska. They can do the one ways.  Seattle are all round trip.

The request from NCL was merely for CBP to enforce the "intent" of the law as well as the "letter", when foreign flag ships were cruising to Hawaii from the West Coast using Ensenada as a "port stop" of 2 hours at midnight to qualify as the "foreign port" requirement.  It was CBP that started talking about requiring a given proportion of port calls to be foreign, and this was rejected by NCL as well, since that would affect their Alaska cruises.

[Colo Cruiser]

14 minutes ago, martincath said:

It doesn't matter a jot what the SHIP does, it's whether YOU stay onboard! In theory there is a way to do this though - if you fully disembarked at the end of cruise 1 (you and ALL your stuff), stayed in a hotel Oct 21st and/or 22nd, then only reboarded for the start of cruise 2 on Oct 23rd you should actually meet the criteria provided the paperwork was all filed correctly with a full 24hr plus gap. But you'd have to get it in writing in advance from Princess confirming the separate bookings and that there is a gap between them to break the voyage, pay full rate for both cruises even though you missed at least one day & night onboard, and obviously find alternative accommodation at your own expense in Quebec City.

Even though ones gets off the cruise before the end and stays in a hotel they are not officially disembarked until the cruise is officially finished.

Princess would never go for this as it puts them in a position of a violation.

[Colo Cruiser]

6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The PVSA, note that it is the Passenger vessel act, relates to far more than cruise ships, it covers every vessel that carries more than 12 passengers within the US (ferries, tour boats, commuter boats, etc).

NCL got a waiver for the construction aspect of the Act, but the ship is still required to meet all other aspects of the Act.  And that was granted because NCL took over the construction of the Pride of America after the initial owner went bankrupt leaving the US government on the hook for the loan to build the ship.

The request from NCL was merely for CBP to enforce the "intent" of the law as well as the "letter", when foreign flag ships were cruising to Hawaii from the West Coast using Ensenada as a "port stop" of 2 hours at midnight to qualify as the "foreign port" requirement.  It was CBP that started talking about requiring a given proportion of port calls to be foreign, and this was rejected by NCL as well, since that would affect their Alaska cruises.

Ensenada rather than sailing the 1000 miles to Kiritimati and back to satisfy the law?

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Colo Cruiser said:

Rather than sailing the 1000 miles to Kiritimati to satisfy the law.

Actually, all NCL was looking for was for the other cruise lines to make the Ensenada port call a real port call, advertising it as a port call (which they didn't), and doing it during the day so passengers could go ashore and visit the city like any other port, not just have the port paperwork signed.

[martincath]

15 minutes ago, Colo Cruiser said:

Even though ones gets off the cruise before the end and stays in a hotel they are not officially disembarked until the cruise is officially finished.

Princess would never go for this as it puts them in a position of a violation.

This is why I said they'd have to clear it in advance, i.e. have a contract with Princess to be delivered to Quebec on Day X then a separate contract on Day X+1 or more for the trip back to the US. A time-based break IS 100% legal, otherwise no US drydock would be compliant with PVSA if any pax booked the trips both before and after - so it's just down to how LONG a gap makes the two voyages legally separate.

 

Getting back on again the same day has definitely been deemed a violation - but I believe an overnight break does comply with CBP's interpretation of the law. CROSS is a real b*gger for finding specific cases (searching PVSA and "passenger vessel services act" brings up two distinctly different lists of rulings) but if you trawl through enough of those rulings I'm sure you'll find one that confirms the minimum 'break' time, though I honestly can't recall whether it was 'one day' or '24hrs' used in the ruling... I see Cheng already chipped in above, perhaps he can confirm.

[RDC1]

13 minutes ago, martincath said:

This is why I said they'd have to clear it in advance, i.e. have a contract with Princess to be delivered to Quebec on Day X then a separate contract on Day X+1 or more for the trip back to the US. A time-based break IS 100% legal, otherwise no US drydock would be compliant with PVSA if any pax booked the trips both before and after - so it's just down to how LONG a gap makes the two voyages legally separate.

 

Getting back on again the same day has definitely been deemed a violation - but I believe an overnight break does comply with CBP's interpretation of the law. CROSS is a real b*gger for finding specific cases (searching PVSA and "passenger vessel services act" brings up two distinctly different lists of rulings) but if you trawl through enough of those rulings I'm sure you'll find one that confirms the minimum 'break' time, though I honestly can't recall whether it was 'one day' or '24hrs' used in the ruling... I see Cheng already chipped in above, perhaps he can confirm.

It really does not.  There are all sorts of ways one can try and game the system, but the enforcement of the law does not allow it.  It also doesn't work to get off at a port in Canada and then rejoin at another canadian port.

[martincath]

30 minutes ago, RDC1 said:

It really does not.  There are all sorts of ways one can try and game the system, but the enforcement of the law does not allow it.  It also doesn't work to get off at a port in Canada and then rejoin at another canadian port.

There are MANY people who get off in Victoria and take the ferry/floatplane to Vancouver in order to get around an otherwise illegal B2B. Search these boards and check the Roll Calls for the cruises right before/after AK cruising season and you will find posts after post going back as long as these boards have existed of folks doing this! Ending or starting a voyage in a country other than the US means the PVSA is NEVER a factor - Celebrity even has a standard paperwork charge of $65 to arrange it!