Anyone ever disembark their cruise a few days early?

[The Traveling Man]

3 minutes ago, MichiganBound said:

What is DSC?  I don't know.  I paid for the full cruise and didn't request nor expect any kind of refund.  Departing early was my choice.  

Daily Service Charge, aka "gratuities."

[The Traveling Man]

3 hours ago, cassie55 said:

That's not the case. NCL has plenty of itineraries that visit two or more ports consecutively in the same country. All the Greek Islands cruises for example. And several that visit 2 French ports followed by 3 Spanish.

You are correct that many cruise itineraries have consecutive ports of call in the same country, but that is not the concern.  The EU has laws with a similar effect as the PVSA in the US which prohibits a foreign-flagged ship from both embarking and disembarking passengers at a US port without including a call at a foreign port somewhere during the itinerary.  As stated previously in this thread, the EU laws, as explained by an NCL captain on a Mediterranean cruise, result in VAT being charged throughout the cruise if the ship never stops at a non-EU port at some time during the cruise.

[GeezerCouple]

3 hours ago, cassie55 said:

That's not the case. NCL has plenty of itineraries that visit two or more ports consecutively in the same country. All the Greek Islands cruises for example. And several that visit 2 French ports followed by 3 Spanish.

 

I think what you are describing is different.

My understanding is that cabotage refers to the transportation (of goods or passengers) in the sense of taking X from Port A to Port B... and not just a "day visit", but leaving the goods/passengers in the next port.

 

So a cruise visiting 3 French ports, where all passengers arrive on the ship and all depart on the ship again at each port, isn't a cabotage violation.  Leaving passengers behind is, however.  So there can be issues about violating cabotage laws as well as whether the country will allow someone to leave the vessel and *stay* in the country rather than leaving again when the ship departs.

 

GC

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, cassie55 said:

That's not the case. NCL has plenty of itineraries that visit two or more ports consecutively in the same country. All the Greek Islands cruises for example. And several that visit 2 French ports followed by 3 Spanish.

Yes, they do, but you are misunderstanding cabotage laws.  There are cruises in the US where a foreign flag cruise ship has more than the home port in the US (think Miami and Key West), and these are legal, because at some point during the cruise the ship visits a port in another country.  Also, people are not allowed to get on in Miami, and then depart the ship in Key West (they can get off for a port call, but have to return to the ship).  EU cabotage laws say that the only ships that can transport passengers between ports in one EU nation, must be EU flagged.  Most of the major cruise ships are not EU flagged.  Now, what I mean by "transporting passengers between ports" is where a passenger gets on in a Greek port, and gets off (either permanently disembarks, or leaves the ship for a day or two, effectively and legally turning the cruise into two cruises) in another Greek port without visiting a country other than Greece in between.  That is where cabotage laws come into play.  Further, countries within the EU allow the member nations to restrict the transport between islands within the nation to only those ships flying the nation's flag.  So, only a Greek flag ship can ferry passengers between Greek islands, and jumping off and getting back on a cruise in the Greek islands could run afoul of this area of cabotage as well, even if the cruise ship was from another EU nation.

[pdmlynek]

On 4/5/2022 at 7:37 PM, julig22 said:

Yes, people can get off the ship early but you can't just get off the ship in a foreign country without prior authorization.  So the appropriate customs/immigration people have to be available at the port to allow you to legally stay.  And if you just don't return, NCL gets fined (and they will pass that fine to you).

I'd start with NCL Guest Services.

 

Well, it doesn't matter if you get off at Copenhagen or Amsterdam: both Denmark and Netherlands are Schengen countries, so if the passenger is legally able to get off in DK, he is also able to get off at NL.

 

NCL is fined when there is a cabotage violation, meaning, that the passenger did not travel internationally.  In this case, it is international.  Or is there more to it?

[pdmlynek]

On 4/6/2022 at 1:04 PM, The Traveling Man said:

Mike, I think the rules for paying customers are a bit different than those for crew or staff like entertainers.  Some of those folks come and go at just about every port. 

Actually, the rules for the purposes of cabotage, and the associated penalties are surprisingly the same.  Well, they were when I looked into this 10 years ago, and read the many requests by the cruise line to let a mechanic or a doctor or another staff member on and off without the $300 penalty, most or all of which were denied.  But it might have changed.

[njhorseman]

8 hours ago, pdmlynek said:

Actually, the rules for the purposes of cabotage, and the associated penalties are surprisingly the same.  Well, they were when I looked into this 10 years ago, and read the many requests by the cruise line to let a mechanic or a doctor or another staff member on and off without the $300 penalty, most or all of which were denied.  But it might have changed.

FYI, the current penalty is $812 !!

 

Here's the definition used to determine whether someone is a passenger :

 

"Passenger Defined Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b), a passenger is any person carried on a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business. o CBP has interpreted this regulation to mean that a “passenger” within the meaning of the PVSA is any person transported on a vessel who is not directly and substantially connected with the operation of the vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business."

 

I think it's rather clear why an entertainer is considered  a passenger under that interpretation. However a mechanic should be granted an exception under this definition:

"• Technicians conducting maintenance or repairs on the vessel"

 

I'm taking the examples above from 

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf

Edited April 14, 2022 by njhorseman

[chengkp75]

47 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

I think it's rather clear why an entertainer is considered  a passenger under that interpretation.

It also depends on whether that entertainer is signed on the crew manifest or not.  If they are, they are crew for CBP, if not, then passenger.  I would be surprised if the lines would leave an entertainer in a "passenger" status, even when they are granted "passenger status" as far as life aboard the ship, since this would affect their ability to travel to/from the ship.  Entertainers can be considered "substantially connected to the ship's business", since the ship's business includes entertainment.  However, CBP is very clear that corporate employees (CEO, etc) onboard the ship are passengers.  The difference is that the entertainer does a part of the ship's business, while the corporate executive does not, even if he/she affects the company's business.

Edited April 14, 2022 by chengkp75

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

It also depends on whether that entertainer is signed on the crew manifest or not.  If they are, they are crew for CBP, if not, then passenger.  I would be surprised if the lines would leave an entertainer in a "passenger" status, even when they are granted "passenger status" as far as life aboard the ship, since this would affect their ability to travel to/from the ship.  Entertainers can be considered "substantially connected to the ship's business", since the ship's business includes entertainment.  However, CBP is very clear that corporate employees (CEO, etc) onboard the ship are passengers.  The difference is that the entertainer does a part of the ship's business, while the corporate executive does not, even if he/she affects the company's business.

Chief I disagree with your statement that corporate employees such as the CEO are passengers. In fact page 14 of the CBP's interpretive document I've cited specifically states the opposite:

 

"EXAMPLES: Transportation of the following individuals on a noncoastwise-qualified vessel would not result in a violation of the PVSA because the activity and work aboard the vessel while the vessel is in transit between coastwise points is “directly and substantially” related to the operation, navigation, ownership, or business of the vessel itself:

...

Ownership or Business of the Vessel • The officers of a company owning a vessel, and, if the corporate owner, the members of its board of directors, if acting in their official capacities while onboard the vessel"

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

It also depends on whether that entertainer is signed on the crew manifest or not.  If they are, they are crew for CBP, if not, then passenger.  I would be surprised if the lines would leave an entertainer in a "passenger" status, even when they are granted "passenger status" as far as life aboard the ship, since this would affect their ability to travel to/from the ship.  Entertainers can be considered "substantially connected to the ship's business", since the ship's business includes entertainment.  However, CBP is very clear that corporate employees (CEO, etc) onboard the ship are passengers.  The difference is that the entertainer does a part of the ship's business, while the corporate executive does not, even if he/she affects the company's business.

As always, thank you for sharing your knowledge.

[ontheweb]

22 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Chief I disagree with your statement that corporate employees such as the CEO are passengers. In fact page 14 of the CBP's interpretive document I've cited specifically states the opposite:

 

"EXAMPLES: Transportation of the following individuals on a noncoastwise-qualified vessel would not result in a violation of the PVSA because the activity and work aboard the vessel while the vessel is in transit between coastwise points is “directly and substantially” related to the operation, navigation, ownership, or business of the vessel itself:

...

Ownership or Business of the Vessel • The officers of a company owning a vessel, and, if the corporate owner, the members of its board of directors, if acting in their official capacities while onboard the vessel"

Unless they were having a board meeting onboard, how would members of the board of directors be acting in their official capacity while onboard?

[chengkp75]

25 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Chief I disagree with your statement that corporate employees such as the CEO are passengers. In fact page 14 of the CBP's interpretive document I've cited specifically states the opposite:

All I can say is that when I worked for Norwegian, during the inaugural voyages, the corporate officers, from Corporate food & beverage, corporate hotel operations, VP's, and even the technical superintendents (my boss), were onboard and legally listed as passengers.

[njhorseman]

Just now, ontheweb said:

Unless they were having a board meeting onboard, how would members of the board of directors be acting in their official capacity while onboard?

Most anything they do would qualify because when they're on board they are observing and assessing the quality of everything that takes place on the ship....food, entertainment, cleanliness, customer service, training. They meet with the officers .

 

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

All I can say is that when I worked for Norwegian, during the inaugural voyages, the corporate officers, from Corporate food & beverage, corporate hotel operations, VP's, and even the technical superintendents (my boss), were onboard and legally listed as passengers.

That may  be how they're carried on the manifest but for PVSA violation purposes they clearly would not create a violation because of the specific regulatory interpretation in CBP's document.

 

Chief, I know you worked on NCL's US-flagged ship(s) in Hawaii. Did you also work on any of NCL's Bahamian-flagged ships?  Obviously on the US-flagged ships the whole PVSA "are you a passenger or not" issue is moot as anyone can legally disembark anywhere in Hawaii.

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Most anything they do would qualify because when they're on board they are observing and assessing the quality of everything that takes place on the ship....food, entertainment, cleanliness, customer service, training. They meet with the officers .

 

However, the same document states:

 

CBP found that the transportation of a terminal operations staff member aboard a vessel to observe the "day-to-day activities aboard the ship" to become familiar with vessel operations may foster the business of the shipping company, but it does not connect the staff member directly and substantially with the business of the vessel itself.

 

Board members are not "connected directly and substantially" with the business of the vessel itself. I would say that this makes most corporate officers not directly in the chain of command for the vessel in particular (such as hotel operations, food & beverage) in particular, are not connected to "the vessel itself".  As noted above, while they may improve the company, and by that, the ship, they are not directly connected to the vessel operation.

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

However, the same document states:

 

CBP found that the transportation of a terminal operations staff member aboard a vessel to observe the "day-to-day activities aboard the ship" to become familiar with vessel operations may foster the business of the shipping company, but it does not connect the staff member directly and substantially with the business of the vessel itself.

 

Board members are not "connected directly and substantially" with the business of the vessel itself. I would say that this makes most corporate officers not directly in the chain of command for the vessel in particular (such as hotel operations, food & beverage) in particular, are not connected to "the vessel itself".  As noted above, while they may improve the company, and by that, the ship, they are not directly connected to the vessel operation.

You're ignoring the specific language of the exception as it relates to the company officers and directors.

All that is required for the officers and directors is to be "acting in their official capacity while onboard the vessel".

 

[pdmlynek]

2 hours ago, njhorseman said:

FYI, the current penalty is $812 !!

 

Here's the definition used to determine whether someone is a passenger :

 

"Passenger Defined Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 4.50(b), a passenger is any person carried on a vessel who is not connected with the operation of such vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business. o CBP has interpreted this regulation to mean that a “passenger” within the meaning of the PVSA is any person transported on a vessel who is not directly and substantially connected with the operation of the vessel, her navigation, ownership, or business."

 

I think it's rather clear why an entertainer is considered  a passenger under that interpretation. However a mechanic should be granted an exception under this definition:

"• Technicians conducting maintenance or repairs on the vessel"

 

I'm taking the examples above from 

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf

Thanks for the clarification.  I appreciate it.  

 

Would the US regulations apply in events occurring Europe as well since the vessel is owned by a US cruise line?

[chengkp75]

30 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Chief, I know you worked on NCL's US-flagged ship(s) in Hawaii. Did you also work on any of NCL's Bahamian-flagged ships?

Yes, on the Sky prior to reflagging it.

[chengkp75]

11 minutes ago, pdmlynek said:

Thanks for the clarification.  I appreciate it.  

 

Would the US regulations apply in events occurring Europe as well since the vessel is owned by a US cruise line?

First off, almost no cruise ship is owned by a "US cruise line".  While the cruise lines may have their headquarters in the US, they are incorporated elsewhere, which is why they don't pay any taxes.  And, no, the PVSA and its fines only apply to cruises to/from the US.  Just as in the EU, a non-EU flag cruise ship could not do a cruise entirely with Italian ports (say down one side and up the other).  That would be limited to an EU member nations' flagged vessel (Holland, Malta, Italy are the major EU cruise line flags).

[geleisen]

On 4/13/2022 at 11:57 AM, chengkp75 said:

Further, countries within the EU allow the member nations to restrict the transport between islands within the nation to only those ships flying the nation's flag.  So, only a Greek flag ship can ferry passengers between Greek islands, and jumping off and getting back on a cruise in the Greek islands could run afoul of this area of cabotage as well, even if the cruise ship was from another EU nation.

Are you certain about this? This seems like it would be a blatant violation of single market rules. I admit that I never specifically looked at any cases about ferries, but I do a bit of work in EU law and generally it is not allowed to discriminate against businesses from another EU nation unless there are very limited and specific reasons like security concerns, etc. 

And within Greece, there are definitely non-Greek flagged vessels doing ferry runs. Half the SeaJets fleet are Cypriot. Just like you can fly non-Greek aeroplanes within the country. (Ryanair and Volotea, for instance)  

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, geleisen said:

Are you certain about this? This seems like it would be a blatant violation of single market rules. I admit that I never specifically looked at any cases about ferries, but I do a bit of work in EU law and generally it is not allowed to discriminate against businesses from another EU nation unless there are very limited and specific reasons like security concerns, etc. 

And within Greece, there are definitely non-Greek flagged vessels doing ferry runs. Half the SeaJets fleet are Cypriot. Just like you can fly non-Greek aeroplanes within the country. (Ryanair and Volotea, for instance)  

Well, technically, it is up to the EU member nation how it wants to handle "island trade".  Since the "liberalization" of cabotage trade at the end of the 20th century, EU member nations can compete in island trades, but it is up to the nation in question as to what regulations they require for operations in cabotage trade, so that they can effectively avoid having "non-resident" vessels in the trade by regulation, and to define public service regulations on island transportation.

[geleisen]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, technically, it is up to the EU member nation how it wants to handle "island trade".  Since the "liberalization" of cabotage trade at the end of the 20th century, EU member nations can compete in island trades, but it is up to the nation in question as to what regulations they require for operations in cabotage trade, so that they can effectively avoid having "non-resident" vessels in the trade by regulation, and to define public service regulations on island transportation.

I am pretty sure that if the regulation had the effect of preventing other countries from participating in the market, it would go to the CJEU. 
I just looked at the regulation on this, and saw the derogations that member states have are quite limited. I mean, obviously the member state can do what it wants within the confines of EU law, however, it seems pretty clear that if they regulated with an intent to prevent vessels from other member states from operating, this would be a violation. 

Sorry, not to take away from the other points you made or the general content of the thread, but I do think that it would be extremely difficult to prevent an EU flagged vessel to perform service under the same conditions as vessels flagged in the home state. 

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, njhorseman said:

Most anything they do would qualify because when they're on board they are observing and assessing the quality of everything that takes place on the ship....food, entertainment, cleanliness, customer service, training. They meet with the officers .

 

Are they really considered board members while traveling on the ship?

 

Once upon a time, I was a school board member. Before being elected I was asked to attend a "so you want to be a school board member" workshop. One of the things emphasized is that you were only a school board member when sitting on the school board as part of the school board. Outside of that, you were not functioning as a board member. I guess there were some exceptions as I know we were tasked to do physical inspections of our different schools, but the general principle was that you were only a member when doing official duties.

[mscdivina2016]

On 4/5/2022 at 6:40 PM, The Traveling Man said:

We will be on the Getaway for its TA from NYC a couple of weeks from now.  After Southampton, it continues to Copenhagen via Amsterdam.  We'd like to book the cruise, but pack our bags and depart the ship at Amsterdam.  Other than emergencies like medical issues, has anyone ever been able to do this?  Who do you contact at NCL and what hoops do you have to jump through?

As of last month the answer is still no.

I have 3 requests and all have been denied due to Covid.

One is for a the ports of Seattle and Vancouver.

One is for Southampton England and Le Havre and finally with Barcelona and a France port, Niece I believe.

In the past we have done it at least a half dozen times.

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, ontheweb said:

Are they really considered board members while traveling on the ship?

 

Once upon a time, I was a school board member. Before being elected I was asked to attend a "so you want to be a school board member" workshop. One of the things emphasized is that you were only a school board member when sitting on the school board as part of the school board. Outside of that, you were not functioning as a board member. I guess there were some exceptions as I know we were tasked to do physical inspections of our different schools, but the general principle was that you were only a member when doing official duties.

If there's a legitimate business purpose or meeting involved then yes, they're a board member while on the ship...no different than when you were doing an inspection of a school. 

 

It's not so much the board members who are likely to be on the ship as it is company executives. Currently only one member of NCLH's board is an NCLH employee, Frank Del Rio. All the other board members are outside directors.