Exemption from PVSA

[martincath]

16 hours ago, cherylandtk said:

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.

This interpretation sounds very plausible - in fact it was my own original understanding of the law until I found contradictory cases! Like any sensible person I am happy to change my opinion when I acquire new data. The cruise originally referred to by Rabbit, then confirmed by Griller actually going on it and staying overnight in a hotel in Quebec would not have been allowed if this interpretation were correct...

 

The legal point about swapping terminals within one port authority area was actually first clarified by Princess in 2006 when they screwed up Crown/QM2 berthing in Brooklyn/Manhattan and wanted to swap the ships around - CBP ruled then that these were then not valid round trip cruises but Coastwise Transportation, so a violation of the PVSA. That ruling remains in effect (CROSS gets updated when rulings are altered).

 

Therefore at the time of Grillers cruise, which they confirmed was booked AFTER the cruiseline became aware that combining the two B2B cruises would be a violation due to using different terminals in the New York area, they should have been refused the booking. They were not - they were asked to stay overnight in Quebec as a workaround. Since lines never knowingly allow violations of the PVSA to be booked they wouldn't have done this for a new booking unless it was a valid workaround.

 

What happened with the folks who booked before the change of docks that made the B2B illegal isn't clear from the posts above. Grillers mention of hearing that an exemption was granted could not have actually been correct (the statement, not your claim to have heard it Griller!) because of the ruling I link above - but it's possible that the line paid for the Quebec hotel for all the impacted folks, or even just ate the PVSA fine levied (I cannot imagine that the number of folks who both booked these 2 cruises B2B AND did so in advance of the change of terminal was particularly large, and changing the terminal was within the line's control so passing along fines would have led to a huge backlash).

 

I cannot for the life of me track down the ruling that I recall seeing with a minimum break time, so unfortunately I still can't give definitive proof of exactly what CBP interpretation of a minimum time between cruises has to be to separate into two different cruises. Trawling through decades of CBP decisions just isn't worth my time since this isn't a cruise combo that I'm trying to do personally, so I'm calling it quits on any further attempt to persuade people after this - if that means you still don't believe me, then so be it. I could even be wrong and the ruling I think I saw a mere fever-dream - I'm not quite arrogant enough to think that I'm infallible!

 

I'll finish by offering a different and definitely valid alternative to OP though - there are other Canadian ports involved on both these cruises, so if OP got off the first cruise before QC or boarded the second after QC, it would be 100% legal to book them both. Schlepping from Halifax or Charlottestown to Quebec would be pricey though so I'd still recommend my original suggestion of blowing off cruise 1 and instead flying into Toronto and doing a land tour as the best of all possibilities, even if I'm right that one night ashore in QC would be enough - flying on Porter from New York to Toronto is extremely pleasant, like air travel used to be back in the day, and also very affordable.

[RDC1]

The discussion is rather academic.

 

The only question is if Princess will book it.

 

Based upon past postings and previous years I doubt it.  The only exception was the year that Grillers referenced and that was a unique situation.

 

The OP should call and try all of your methods and see if Princess agrees with any of them and report back.  They will need to talk with a supervisor and get connected to the department that deals with deviations.

 

 

[nukesubsailor]

16 hours ago, RDC1 said:

The discussion is rather academic.

 

The only question is if Princess will book it.

 

Based upon past postings and previous years I doubt it.  The only exception was the year that Grillers referenced and that was a unique situation.

 

The OP should call and try all of your methods and see if Princess agrees with any of them and report back.  They will need to talk with a supervisor and get connected to the department that deals with deviations.

 

 

I am the original poster.  My travel agent called Princess as if to make the booking.  The Princess representative got an error message stating that the desired booking could not be made as it would be in violation of the PVSA.

Thank you all for your posts.  I am disappointed that we cannot do this back to back.  We hate flying and airports so we like cruises of 21 - 28 days length with only having to make one round trip of air travel.  That usually means doing back to back cruises.  We had hoped to do this as it would take us to some places we haven't yet cruised to.

[RDC1]

3 hours ago, nukesubsailor said:

I am the original poster.  My travel agent called Princess as if to make the booking.  The Princess representative got an error message stating that the desired booking could not be made as it would be in violation of the PVSA.

Thank you all for your posts.  I am disappointed that we cannot do this back to back.  We hate flying and airports so we like cruises of 21 - 28 days length with only having to make one round trip of air travel.  That usually means doing back to back cruises.  We had hoped to do this as it would take us to some places we haven't yet cruised to.

The original agent will get that message.  Ask your TA to speak to a supervisor and the department that approves deviations (the same group that would approve someone leaving a cruise early).  You can then bounce a couple of the alternatives that have been proposed here to see if they will approve any, such as disembarking for a night or two in Quebec and staying at a hotel. I do not think that they will, but have seen stranger things happen. I would at least give it a try.  I did a few years ago. 

 

Or here is another alternative.  Go one way on one cruise line, then catch the cruise to FLL on a different line.  For example you can take the Princess cruise from NYC to Quebec  from Sept 24 to October 4.  Take the train from Quebec City to Montreal, spend the night.  Then you can take the Zaandam on HAL from Montreal to FLL, Oct 5 to 16.  It is a nice train ride between the two cities. I have taken it a few times.

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by RDC1

[jagoffee]

On 3/28/2019 at 7:57 AM, Thrak said:

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

 

On 3/28/2019 at 8:16 AM, RDC1 said:

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

 

On 3/28/2019 at 10:44 AM, RDC1 said:

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

RDC1, OK, I will bite.

How can you possible defend the aspect of this law that pertains to cruise ships? What possible American Industry or Labor force can the cruise portion protect?  No cruise ships have been built nor are they likely to be built in the US.  

A 1886 law can not be modified to fix the “stupid stuff” and still protect the appropriate industries and unions?

Harassing American citizens and cruise companies that wish to cruise between US ports without an unnecessary stop in Mexico or someplace else does not seem worth it.

Just  modify the law to say that Ocean cruise companies are excluded. 

 

I am not even sure this particular law applies, but I understand restricting foreign Airlines from carrying passengers from one US city to another US city.  At least that is protecting US jobs and the airline industry.

 

Which cruise company is being protected by this outdated law?

 

I do look forward to understanding your support.  Thank you.

[RDC1]

21 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

 

 

RDC1, OK, I will bite.

How can you possible defend the aspect of this law that pertains to cruise ships? What possible American Industry or Labor force can the cruise portion protect?  No cruise ships have been built nor are they likely to be built in the US.  

A 1886 law can not be modified to fix the “stupid stuff” and still protect the appropriate industries and unions?

Harassing American citizens and cruise companies that wish to cruise between US ports without an unnecessary stop in Mexico or someplace else does not seem worth it.

Just  modify the law to say that Ocean cruise companies are excluded. 

 

I am not even sure this particular law applies, but I understand restricting foreign Airlines from carrying passengers from one US city to another US city.  At least that is protecting US jobs and the airline industry.

 

Which cruise company is being protected by this outdated law?

 

I do look forward to understanding your support.  Thank you.

The law applies to ALL passenger vessels that carry more than 10 people in the US.  That includes ferries, tour boats, passengers vessels, etc.  Quite an industry.  A lot more then cruise lines

 

Also if you notice none of the cruise lines are interested in requesting changes.  NCL tried require stronger enforcement in the requirement on US to Hawaii closed loop trips, but then backed off when it appeared that it would result in more enforcement than they wanted (impacting Alaska as well).  I referenced those documents earlier if you want to read.

 

So it protects a major industry in the US, and a portion of that industry (the cruise industry) does not want it changed, so why should they.

 

If you notice the most recent change was to tighten enforcement that eliminated the old loophole that allowed cruises to nowhere.  

Edited March 30, 2019 by RDC1

[skynight]

9 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

 

 

RDC1, OK, I will bite.

How can you possible defend the aspect of this law that pertains to cruise ships? What possible American Industry or Labor force can the cruise portion protect?  No cruise ships have been built nor are they likely to be built in the US.  

A 1886 law can not be modified to fix the “stupid stuff” and still protect the appropriate industries and unions?

Harassing American citizens and cruise companies that wish to cruise between US ports without an unnecessary stop in Mexico or someplace else does not seem worth it.

Just  modify the law to say that Ocean cruise companies are excluded. 

 

I am not even sure this particular law applies, but I understand restricting foreign Airlines from carrying passengers from one US city to another US city.  At least that is protecting US jobs and the airline industry.

 

Which cruise company is being protected by this outdated law?

 

I do look forward to understanding your support.  Thank you.

I'll chime in here. The law is what it is, only Congress can change it. Do you think Congress is ready to even discuss a new law? I don't. They have far more important things on their minds.

Just a few being protected

NCL with it's Hawaii cruises.

American Cruise Lines which runs river and coastal cruises.

River cruises along the Mississippi and other U.S. rivers.

 

The only ones that even have a slight chance to lobby to change this law are the U.S. based cruise companies themselves. I don't think these companies are interested.

 

 

 

[jagoffee]

7 minutes ago, RDC1 said:

The law applies to ALL passenger vessels that carry more than 10 people in the US.  That includes ferries, tour boats, passengers vessels, etc.  Quite an industry.  A lot more then cruise lines

 

Also if you notice none of the cruise lines are interested in requesting changes.  NCL tried require stronger enforcement in the requirement on US to Hawaii closed loop trips, but then backed off when it appeared that it would result in more enforcement than they wanted (impacting Alaska as well).  I referenced those documents earlier if you want to read.

 

So it protects a major industry in the US, and a portion of that industry (the cruise industry) does not want it changed, so why should they.

 

 

That was a quick answer, thank you.

 

You do not specifically mention it, but is an airplane considered a vessel in your example?

 

So only American (and other) cruise passengers are inconvenienced and the Cruise companies do not want the law modified to exempt Ocean cruise companies?  

Does not seem logical to me, but I do thank you for explaining your position.

 

Not the first time that I have been baffled by government regulations.

[chengkp75]

12 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

 

 

RDC1, OK, I will bite.

How can you possible defend the aspect of this law that pertains to cruise ships? What possible American Industry or Labor force can the cruise portion protect?  No cruise ships have been built nor are they likely to be built in the US.  

A 1886 law can not be modified to fix the “stupid stuff” and still protect the appropriate industries and unions?

Harassing American citizens and cruise companies that wish to cruise between US ports without an unnecessary stop in Mexico or someplace else does not seem worth it.

Just  modify the law to say that Ocean cruise companies are excluded. 

 

I am not even sure this particular law applies, but I understand restricting foreign Airlines from carrying passengers from one US city to another US city.  At least that is protecting US jobs and the airline industry.

 

Which cruise company is being protected by this outdated law?

 

I do look forward to understanding your support.  Thank you.

 

1 minute ago, RDC1 said:

The law applies to ALL passenger vessels that carry more than 10 people in the US.  That includes ferries, tour boats, passengers vessels, etc.  Quite an industry.  A lot more then cruise lines

 

Also if you notice none of the cruise lines are interested in requesting changes.  NCL tried require stronger enforcement in the requirement on US to Hawaii closed loop trips, but then backed off when it appeared that it would result in more enforcement than they wanted (impacting Alaska as well).  I referenced those documents earlier if you want to read.

 

 

Actually, the  international legal definition of a "Passenger" vessel is any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers.  To modify the PVSA to no longer apply to cruise ships, you would first need to get the IMO (and a majority of its 174 member nations) to agree to change the definition of "passenger vessel", or no modification or limitation to the PVSA would withstand the first challenge in court from a US ferry line (like the Alaska Maritime Highway) as to why they are being discriminated against by having to remain US flag when other passenger vessels are allowed the economic benefits of being foreign flag.

 

I see that your viewpoint on the PVSA is biased by reading Wikipedia and their incorrect reasons for the Act.  At the time the Act was passed, first off, no one built passenger vessels for the US anywhere but the US, so it was not to protect the shipbuilding industry.  At that time as well, maritime unions were just in their infancy, and had absolutely no clout, so the Act was not enacted at the behest of maritime labor.  The PVSA was enacted as a result of the Steamboat Act of 1852, which was enacted in turn to protect passengers from the rash of steamboat explosions and fires that were very common in the US at that time.  One result of the Steamboat Act was the formation of the Steamboat Inspection Service, which is the precursor to today's USCG Marine Inspection Division.  When steamboat owners found out that they would be subject to additional cost for inspections and safety equipment, they threatened to flag their steamboats to foreign flag, so the PVSA was enacted to compel ship owners to remain US flagged.  So, the PVSA, instead of "harassing" passengers, protects the hundreds of thousands of passengers who use passenger vessels in the US (on ferries, commuter boats, sight seeing boats, casino boats, etc) by requiring them to meet the more stringent USCG passenger vessel safety regulations, rather than the international regulations.

 

The PVSA protects hundreds of thousands of US jobs on passenger vessels in the US, and contribute millions of dollars to the US economy.

 

Airlines are protected by the Civil Aviation Act to prevent foreign airlines from carrying passengers domestically in the US.

[jagoffee]

Thank you all for the further definitions and explanations.  I now have a better understanding.

Edited March 30, 2019 by jagoffee

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, jagoffee said:

That was a quick answer, thank you.

 

You do not specifically mention it, but is an airplane considered a vessel in your example?

 

So only American (and other) cruise passengers are inconvenienced and the Cruise companies do not want the law modified to exempt Ocean cruise companies?  

Does not seem logical to me, but I do thank you for explaining your position.

 

Not the first time that I have been baffled by government regulations.

No, an airplane is covered by the Civil Aviation Act, as I mentioned.

 

The PVSA applies to all passengers, regardless of nationality, if transported between two US ports.  And, as I've stated previously in this thread, and if you look up case studies of the PVSA relating to the NCL request to force the foreign flag cruise lines to adhere to the "intent" of the Act, as well as the "letter", you will see statements made by CLIA, saying that none of their member cruise lines (which include all major lines like RCI, NCL, Carnival, as well as US coastal lines like Blount and American Cruise Lines) feel that a revision or repeal of the PVSA will have any positive effect on their bottom line, and possibly a negative one.  CLIA and Puerto Rico lobbied for 10 years to get an exemption to the PVSA (which goes away as soon as there is any viable US flag passenger service between PR and mainland US), only to have 1 cruise line schedule routine one way service between PR and mainland US (Carnival), and they abandoned the itinerary after about 1-2 years due to low occupancy.

[RDC1]

Here is some interesting congressional testimony on the subject back in 1998

 

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw105-65.000/hpw105-65_1.HTM

 

Note that a lot of the testimony about benefits are from individual ports talking about massive increases in traffic to their ports.  A view not necessarily shared by the cruise industry

 

A view not necessarily shared by the industry in its 2007 report.

 

The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA, 2007) polled its own members on their sentiments toward the potential repeal of the PVSA and reported that “While a reformed Passenger Vessel Services Act might add some new U.S. ports to cruise itineraries, most of our members believe that this would not be significant, especially in light of the restrictions that likely would be attached.” Thus CLIA is currently not advocating a change to the PVSA.

Edited March 30, 2019 by RDC1