Exemption from PVSA

[Cruise Junky]

4 minutes ago, martincath said:

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!

RDC is talking about rejoining the same ship at a different Canadian port though, not just ending it a day early to get around the law.

[martincath]

Just now, Cruise Junky said:

RDC is talking about rejoining the same ship at a different Canadian port though, not just ending it a day early to get around the law.

Actually RDC specifically (and wrongly) stated that getting off in one Canadian port and rejoining in another does not work to avoid PVSA - I gave multitudinous examples that in fact it does work in my reply that you quoted;-)

 

I'm happy to be proven wrong on the exact amount of time that constitutes a valid break from one voyage into two on the same vessel, but there IS an amount of time that makes a break legal to re-embark the same vessel in the same port. Otherwise it would be illegal to cruise one-way on the first or any subsequent seasonal NYC to Quebec trip, spend potentially weeks in Canada on land, then reboard the same vessel for the end-of-season repo down to FLL. Going full reductio ad absurdum on the point, if there was no amount of time that made for a legal break one could not cruise one-way to Canada then one-way to the US a decade later if it was on the same vessel without having to return to the same US starting port - does anyone imagine that is actually illegal?

 

All that is open to clarification is how long the break must be  to embark on the same vessel again in the same port - and I'm not the only person to mention breaking a cruise with a day between them on these boards...

[RDC1]

46 minutes ago, martincath said:

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!

 

46 minutes ago, martincath said:

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!

Yes and that is a totally different situation.  There they are terminating their trip in a different country, Canada to avoid going back to Seattle on the ship.

 

In this case they would be boarding a Princess ship in one city, and disembarking the same ship in a different US city.  They would be doing so using a bookings that cover the complete period, even if they choose to get off somewhere in Canada for a couple of days.  It will not fly. If they changed cruise lines then yes, but same cruise line, same ship, nope.  Now if they took the earlier cruise and spent the intervening time in Canada 10-12 days then yes, but just getting off early and reboarding the same ship in the same city, with the ship never having left the city no way.

[PrincessLuver]

2 hours 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. 

 

The NCL American Pride meets the PVSA because only ships built in the U.S., owned by U.S. companies and staffed with American crew are allowed to ferry passengers from one U.S. Port to another, according to US. ... As a result — even today, more than a century later — the law still affects who certain commercial ships, like cruise ships, can hire.

 

It was built in September 2002.

 

The NCL American Pride has an American crew falling under US Labor Laws and because it is based in Hawaii waters there is no casino gambling which I am sure impacts  profitability for NCL too.

 

I imagine most cruise lines are happy to meet the PVSA requirements because it allows them to make much larger profits by not having to follow USA labor laws and other guidelines and be flagged in more lenient countries.

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

The NCL American Pride meets the PVSA because only ships built in the U.S., owned by U.S. companies and staffed with American crew are allowed to ferry passengers from one U.S. Port to another, according to US. ... As a result — even today, more than a century later — the law still affects who certain commercial ships, like cruise ships, can hire.

 

It was built in September 2002.

 

The NCL American Pride has an American crew falling under US Labor Laws and because it is based in Hawaii waters there is no casino gambling which I am sure impacts  profitability for NCL too.

 

I imagine most cruise lines are happy to meet the PVSA requirements because it allows them to make much larger profits by not having to follow USA labor laws and other guidelines and be flagged in more lenient countries.

However, as I stated, the POA has a waiver of the PVSA construction requirement, since it was not totally built in the US.  It was started at the Litton shipyard in Pascagoula, MS, for its original owner, Hawaiian American Cruises, who subsequently went bankrupt.  NCL bought the partially completed ship from the US government, and had it towed to Germany where she was completed.  I worked for NCL in their Hawaiian US flag operations.

 

The lack of a casino really has no effect on the profitability of the POA, since the cruise fares are so much higher than foreign flag ships.

 

Most cruise lines do not meet PVSA requirements, which is why they cannot transport passengers between US ports.  I think that is what you meant.

 

CLIA has previously mentioned that none of their member cruise lines are interested in revising or repealing the PVSA, as they feel it would have no benefit to their bottom line.

[martincath]

4 minutes ago, RDC1 said:

Now if they took the earlier cruise and spent the intervening time in Canada 10-12 days then yes, but just getting off early and reboarding the same ship in the same city, with the ship never having left the city no way.

So your interpretation is that a 10 day break is legal, but a 1 day break is not. I must admit that I'm somewhat dubious of this given your lack of understanding of a much more obvious PVSA-compliance point, but I'll bite - where did you get this info?

[bemis12]

I think one of you two should just suck it up, walk away and let the other guy I have the last word.

Edited March 29, 2019 by bemis12

[RDC1]

Very simply I did that trip.  Cruised to Quebec, spent close to 2 weeks in Canada, and then caught the same ship to Houston a few years ago when Princess still had the ship leaving out of Houston.  It was the Caribbean Princess do the run then.

 

A that time people talked about the what you are suggesting.  It did not work.

 

The voyage this individual is talking about is one block of time. Which in the back to back is sold, even with two booking number as a solid block of time.  Even if they get off  and spend the night, then get back on, for all practical purposes they are completing the same voyage on the same ship between two cities.  If Princess sold a trip to Quebec, terminated that voyage and sold a two to 3 day voyage in between the two trips then it would probably work with the people staying off ship (not booking that voyage) but having booking that are adjacent in time no way.

 

If what you are suggesting worked then there would be a lot of work arounds in play that cruise lines do not allow.

 

Call Princess ask to speak to a supervisor about a potential booking that may conflict PVSA, have them connect you to the appropriate department and give them the two scenerios and see what they say.

 

I know I have done what I suggested.  

Edited March 29, 2019 by RDC1

[Griller]

8 hours ago, nukesubsailor said:

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?

When we did a similar cruise two years ago we had 2 separate  bookings and left the ship when it arrived in Quebec City, spent a night on land in a hotel and rejoined the ship for the next cruise.

Worked for us and a few others, the problem was that the ship left from Brooklyn and came back to  Bayonne, nearly within sight of each other but different ports.

Originally the cruise  was round trip Brooklyn and passengers who booked while it was that were allowed an exemption but we booked late so had to work around it.

[RDC1]

Hhere are some past discussions on this exact topic the first is on Royal Caribbean where a number of people were sold the B2B only for them to contact them later and tell them it was a violation.  

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/1912457-serenade-october-7-2015-fall-foliage-northbound-cruise/

 

Here is another one.  On post 41 someone tried the get off stay over night in a hotel and then board the new cruise and was told No.

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/topic/2470554-must-cancel-first-leg-of-b2b-due-to-jones-actpassenger-services-act-options/page/2/

 

That discussion post 42 someone (after consulting with an attorney) also indicates that what I did (the over two week stay, actually 20 days) might not be allowed, but Princess did not question or stop it.

Edited March 29, 2019 by RDC1

[RDC1]

6 minutes ago, Griller said:

When we did a similar cruise two years ago we had 2 separate  bookings and left the ship when it arrived in Quebec City, spent a night on land in a hotel and rejoined the ship for the next cruise.

Worked for us and a few others, the problem was that the ship left from Brooklyn and came back to  Bayonne, nearly within sight of each other but different ports.

Originally the cruise  was round trip Brooklyn and passengers who booked while it was that were allowed an exemption but we booked late so had to work around it.

I seem to recall that there was a stream about that trip.  That the cruise line jumped through hoops because it was originally a round trip, but then had to make a change to a different NYC area port, that technically put them in violation. That it was a somewhat unique situation.

 

I have been hunting for that stream but have not been able to locate it.

Edited March 29, 2019 by RDC1

[TheRabbit]

13 minutes ago, Griller said:

When we did a similar cruise two years ago we had 2 separate  bookings and left the ship when it arrived in Quebec City, spent a night on land in a hotel and rejoined the ship for the next cruise.

Worked for us and a few others, the problem was that the ship left from Brooklyn and came back to  Bayonne, nearly within sight of each other but different ports.

Originally the cruise  was round trip Brooklyn and passengers who booked while it was that were allowed an exemption but we booked late so had to work around it.

This is what happened in 2015 with an October sailing. Cruise line may have ate the penalty. Back then I think it was around $300 per person. It looks like it is closer to $770 now. A few that book after the change did have to get off over night.

[Griller]

22 minutes ago, TheRabbit said:

This is what happened in 2015 with an October sailing. Cruise line may have ate the penalty. Back then I think it was around $300 per person. It looks like it is closer to $770 now. A few that book after the change did have to get off over night.

I was wrong saying we did it 2 years ago, it was 4 years ago we did it on the sailings you mention.  Time flies.

 

I was told that Princess got an exemption for passengers booked before the change of port. I seem to remember I read at the time that  it was because QM2 had  to be in Brooklyn on the day the ship returned so Princess' ship got rescheduled to Bayonne which is not normally a port they use.

 

I don't hold out much hope of passengers being able to book B2B NY - QC and QC to FLL even with getting off overnight.  Unlikely to happen.

That's a shame because I would do it in a heartbeat.

And its annoying the trip back is only 13 days, not good for OBC. Needs to be 14 days.

[RDC1]

5 hours 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.

This link includes the federal register publication and associated letter related to the Ensenada issue

 

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/oira/0651/meetings/752.pdf

[RDC1]

29 minutes ago, Griller said:

I was wrong saying we did it 2 years ago, it was 4 years ago we did it on the sailings you mention.  Time flies.

 

I was told that Princess got an exemption for passengers booked before the change of port. I seem to remember I read at the time that  it was because QM2 had  to be in Brooklyn on the day the ship returned so Princess' ship got rescheduled to Bayonne which is not normally a port they use.

 

I don't hold out much hope of passengers being able to book B2B NY - QC and QC to FLL even with getting off overnight.  Unlikely to happen.

That's a shame because I would do it in a heartbeat.

And its annoying the trip back is only 13 days, not good for OBC. Needs to be 14 days.

I had tried it, was declined then made 2 separate booking separated by 2 cruises, booked a land tour of the eastern provinces plus a few days in both Montreal and Quebec City to spend the time while waiting for the ship to come back.

[Ken the cruiser]

We were having difficulty figuring all of this out until we asked Ms Google and found this on Wikipedia and it explained it for us:

 

The handful of U.S.-flagged cruise ships in operation are registered in the U.S. to permit cruises between the Hawaiian Islands, or from the continental U.S. to Hawaii.

 

The Passenger Vessel Services Act, however,

• does not prohibit foreign-flagged ships departing from and returning to the same U.S. port, provided the ship visits any foreign port;
• does not prohibit foreign-flagged ships departing from a U.S. port, visiting a distant foreign port, and then continuing to a second U.S. port. However, in order to embark in a U.S. port and disembark in a second U.S. port, the vessel must visit a distant foreign port outside of North America (Central America, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and all of the Caribbean except Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao, count as part of North America);

[polmcs]

7 hours 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 "pogrt 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.

 

 

We did an San Pedro-HI circle trip back in 2003. Ensenada was the foreign port of call. We “visited” Ensenada on the last night of the cruise. I say visited as we sailed into the harbor, did a 180 and sailed straight back out again without ever docking. Last time we did the HI circle cruise Ensenada was the first port of call and we spent the first full day of the cruise docked at the port. 

[polmcs]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by polmcs
Duplicate post

[cherylandtk]

There is no ‘24 hour break’ rule in the regulation. It’s a common misunderstanding.  What they look at (to determine if there was a break in travel ) is when the ship next leaves the port and whether you were on it or not.  

 

Thus, all the folks who leave in Victoria but rejoin in Vancouver are legal, as they broke their journey by being off the ship from Victoria to Vancouver. Two separate trips, regardless of how long between the two ports.

 

Alternatively, if your ship stayed in port for 3 days, you disembarked the first day, spent two nights on land and rejoined the ship the third day, it is still the same trip—you are on the ship when it next leaves port.

[caribill]

9 hours 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.

Not true.

 

Situation: Person missed Hawaii cruise embarkation in Los Angeles and flew to Hawaii to join the cruise which ends up back in Los Angeles.

 

PVSA prohibits the Hawaii-Los Angeles itinerary even with a stop in Ensenada as that is not a distant foreign port.

 

Person had to disembark in Ensenada since Hawaii to Ensenada does not violate PVSA.

 

Cruise went on to end in Los Angeles. No PVSA violation as passenger left ship in Ensenada.

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

We were having difficulty figuring all of this out until we asked Ms Google and found this on Wikipedia and it explained it for us:

 

The handful of U.S.-flagged cruise ships in operation are registered in the U.S. to permit cruises between the Hawaiian Islands, or from the continental U.S. to Hawaii.

 

The Passenger Vessel Services Act, however,

• does not prohibit foreign-flagged ships departing from and returning to the same U.S. port, provided the ship visits any foreign port;
• does not prohibit foreign-flagged ships departing from a U.S. port, visiting a distant foreign port, and then continuing to a second U.S. port. However, in order to embark in a U.S. port and disembark in a second U.S. port, the vessel must visit a distant foreign port outside of North America (Central America, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and all of the Caribbean except Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao, count as part of North America);

Couple of points where Google gets it wrong.  The POA, the only remaining US flag large cruise ship was granted a waiver of the construction requirement (her not being built in the US, which would have disqualified her from the PVSA trade), but was limited to only sailing in the Hawaiian Islands or between Hawaii and mainland US when transiting to/from a drydock.

 

And, second, the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao) are part of South America.

[bemis12]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

 

And, second, the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao) are part of South America.

 

That was the point they were making when they said "except".

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, bemis12 said:

 

That was the point they were making when they said "except".

Yes, misread where the qualifying phrase fit in.  No morning coffee yet.

[Colo Cruiser]

5 hours ago, caribill said:

Not true.

 

Situation: Person missed Hawaii cruise embarkation in Los Angeles and flew to Hawaii to join the cruise which ends up back in Los Angeles.

 

PVSA prohibits the Hawaii-Los Angeles itinerary even with a stop in Ensenada as that is not a distant foreign port.

 

Person had to disembark in Ensenada since Hawaii to Ensenada does not violate PVSA.

 

Cruise went on to end in Los Angeles. No PVSA violation as passenger left ship in Ensenada.

Not true.......talking about a normal cruise (Quebec overnight) as indicated in my post with no missed ports.  🙄

[Hlitner]

15 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

..……………………………………………..

 

CLIA has previously mentioned that none of their member cruise lines are interested in revising or repealing the PVSA, as they feel it would have no benefit to their bottom line.

Interesting and also somewhat surprising.    You would think that some cruise lines would be interested in an East Coast (USA) itinerary which could include ports like Boston (and other NE ports), NYC, Charleston, etc.   Around 40% of the US population lives along (and near) the East Coast so we are talking a very large potential market.

 

Hank