Does the PVSA apply in this case? Eastern Canada 2024 Cruises

[bonvoyagie]

There are exceptions to the far foreign port such as Victoria for AK cruises out of Seattle. Vancouver and Quebec are foreign ports therefore outside the reach of the PVSA. The PVSA does not allow a foreign flagged vessel to operate between any two US cities without visiting a far foreign port. Most violations occur on repositioning cruises. Most of them avoid conflicts examples include using the ABC islands when repositioning along the east coast ie New York to Miami or New Orleans. The Panama Canal offers far foreign ports for east to west coast repos - most of which end in San Diego, LA or SF. The next step is the Pacific Coastal which ends in Vancouver - then they usually sail with just the crew to Seattle. You can take the train from Vancouver to Seattle and then do the next AK cruise. We have done the Boston to Quebec and return to Boston as a single cruise with no issues. 

[chengkp75]

8 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

I think if you were to sail from NYC to Quebec, switch ships, and return to Boston there may be an issue. 

 

8 hours ago, njhorseman said:

Correct. 

No, the simple fact of changing ships makes this two separate voyages. Both are PVSA compliant.

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, bonvoyagie said:

There are exceptions to the far foreign port such as Victoria for AK cruises out of Seattle. Vancouver and Quebec are foreign ports therefore outside the reach of the PVSA.

Not sure what you mean here.  Victoria is not an exception to the "distant foreign port" rule.  Victoria is used as the "foreign port call" for a closed loop Alaska cruise out of Seattle.  You cannot go from Seattle on a one way cruise to Alaska (getting off in Alaska).  These cruises have to start or end in Canada, which makes them outside the purview of the PVSA.  Saying that Victoria is an exception to the PVSA would be like saying that Southampton, England, is an exception, since it is also a one way cruise that starts or ends in a foreign port.

[njhorseman]

4 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

No, the simple fact of changing ships makes this two separate voyages. Both are PVSA compliant.

You're absolutely right.

I misread the post by @BirdTravels and somehow didn't see the words "switch ships ". 

[chengkp75]

7 hours ago, dbrown84 said:

yeah, I got that.  I was wonder if a B2B was literally two cruises right after each other.  I was wondering if you took the LA to Vancouver, hung out in Vancouver for a week or two, then took the Vancouver to Seward, would that also be a no go.  At this point, it's just for my curiosity.  not like I plan on doing this or anything.  I was just intrigued by the post

No.  You embarked the first ship in LA and permanently disembarked (meaning you paid your bill, took your luggage off the ship, and the ship sailed out of port without you), ending the first voyage.  When you board the second ship (even if it were the same ship as your first cruise), in Vancouver, you are starting a new voyage, ending in Seward.  Because you left the ship, and it proceeded without you, and you left at the designated port that you paid for transportation to, then even a break as little as one day between cruises would be legal.

[bonvoyagie]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:31 AM, chengkp75 said:

Not sure what you mean here.  Victoria is not an exception to the "distant foreign port" rule.  Victoria is used as the "foreign port call" for a closed loop Alaska cruise out of Seattle.  You cannot go from Seattle on a one way cruise to Alaska (getting off in Alaska).  These cruises have to start or end in Canada, which makes them outside the purview of the PVSA.  Saying that Victoria is an exception to the PVSA would be like saying that Southampton, England, is an exception, since it is also a one way cruise that starts or ends in a foreign port.

The PVSA defines both near and far foreign ports. in essence, a far foreign port is defined as those outside of north and what used to be called central America. You are correct that closed loop cruises can and most times do visit a near foreign port such as Victoria Canada, and Ensenada Mexico. Open loop cruises used for repositioning ships along either coast or between coasts must visit a far foreign port such as the ABC islands or ports in Columbia and cannot use North Amercian ports to qualify for the PVSA. 

 

There is also something to be said for how the cruise line sells the cruise, for example if they sold a cruise as say Seattle to San Fransisco via Alaska they would have to visit a far foreign port which would be hard to do as there are no far foreign ports along that route. They can however break this up and sell a Seattle to Alaska ending in Vancouver BC, and then Vancouver BC to San Fransisco. On the east coast it is a bit easier as the ABC islands are considered to be in South America and considered far foreign ports so for example you are cruising between NYC and Miami a short trip to Aruba would satisfy the PVSA. Back-to-back cruises like Boston to Quebec and back and Vancouver to AK and back are viewed as combining two open loop cruises.  

 

Or to put it in a nutshell, if you are starting and ending in the same port any foreign port will do, If you are starting and ending in different US ports then you must use a far foreign port.

[yakcruiser]

Can we all agree that this law needs to be eliminated.  It was written over 100 years ago and is really not applicable anymore. We do not have shipyards capable of building giant cruise liners and most American workers do not want to work on a cruise ship regardless of what you pay them. The only people still benefitting from this law are a handful of workers in Hawaii. Just think how much cheaper the Pride of America cruises would be.

[chengkp75]

35 minutes ago, yakcruiser said:

Can we all agree that this law needs to be eliminated.  It was written over 100 years ago and is really not applicable anymore. We do not have shipyards capable of building giant cruise liners and most American workers do not want to work on a cruise ship regardless of what you pay them. The only people still benefitting from this law are a handful of workers in Hawaii. Just think how much cheaper the Pride of America cruises would be.

Incorrect. The PVSA still protects tens of thousands of US citizens and provides hundreds of millions in US economic revenue.  You are looking at the Act through the very narrow view of cruise lines and not what the Act's title represents; all passenger vessels.

[ronrythm]

On 10/1/2023 at 1:13 PM, yakcruiser said:

Can we all agree that this law needs to be eliminated.  It was written over 100 years ago and is really not applicable anymore. We do not have shipyards capable of building giant cruise liners and most American workers do not want to work on a cruise ship regardless of what you pay them. The only people still benefitting from this law are a handful of workers in Hawaii. Just think how much cheaper the Pride of America cruises would be.

So when did the Alaska Marine Highway move to Hawai’i?

[yakcruiser]

57 minutes ago, ronrythm said:

So when did the Alaska Marine Highway move to Hawai’i?

Most all the workers would still be American citizens if this law was repealed. If they can find enough workers. Just like our Washington State ferry system which cancels numerous sailings every week due to shortage of workers. And most of their boats are old although not as old as our boats here in Washington. We have boats 50 and even 64 years old because boats here have to be built in Washington State and we only have one shipyard capable of building such boats and the price is exorbitant. And yes, I'm sure there are few small yards on the East Coast that benefits from this law too but at what cost to the taxpayer?

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, yakcruiser said:

Most all the workers would still be American citizens if this law was repealed.

What incentive would they have to retain US citizens, when they could hire international crew like the cruise ships do, for an estimated 1/5 of the cost of US crew (from US Maritime Administration figures).  And, that figure includes repatriation airfare for the foreign crew. And, if there is a shortage of US crew, that is even more incentive to hire foreign crew.

 

4 hours ago, yakcruiser said:

We have boats 50 and even 64 years old because boats here have to be built in Washington State and we only have one shipyard capable of building such boats and the price is exorbitant.

So, if you allow foreign built ships into the ferry system, how do they get here?  I don't see a Washington State Ferry type vessel crossing the Pacific from China.  And, with the exception of the AMHS mainline vessels, I don't see these coming from overseas shipyards either.

 

And, what of the other 700 ferries operated by 190 companies, let alone the sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, and charter fishing boats, that employ tens of thousands of US citizens?  These ferries account for over 100 million passenger trips a year (only about 12 million passengers sail on cruise ships from the US annually), and every dollar of that ferry revenue stays in the US economy, unlike foreign flag ship operators, who pay zero tax on ship revenues, and can pay foreign crew who take that money to their home country's economy.

On 10/1/2023 at 4:13 PM, yakcruiser said:

Just think how much cheaper the Pride of America cruises would be.

Sure, when you cut out the 4 times a year USCG inspections for what the foreign flag ships get (one or two non-mandatory inspections, depending on budget, that don't require the stricter safety regulations that US flag vessels need to meet), and the requirement to have USCG approved safety and lifesaving equipment, and you remove the USCG mandated training and certification of the officers and crew, as the foreign flag ships do, you can cut fares quite a bit, but "at what cost to the passengers?"

[ronrythm]

6 hours ago, yakcruiser said:

Most all the workers would still be American citizens if this law was repealed. If they can find enough workers. Just like our Washington State ferry system which cancels numerous sailings every week due to shortage of workers. And most of their boats are old although not as old as our boats here in Washington. We have boats 50 and even 64 years old because boats here have to be built in Washington State and we only have one shipyard capable of building such boats and the price is exorbitant. And yes, I'm sure there are few small yards on the East Coast that benefits from this law too but at what cost to the taxpayer?

Do you really think a foreign flag vessel is going to be using American citizens? Speaking of ferries, how you followed how many foreign ferry accidents there are? Do you want that to happen to your Washington ferries? I’m amenable to changing the PVSA to allow foreign built vessels, since the federal government’s poor policies destroyed our ship building capability, but I want them American flagged, crewed and subject to American regulations.

[shof515]

6 hours ago, yakcruiser said:

Most all the workers would still be American citizens if this law was repealed. If they can find enough workers. Just like our Washington State ferry system which cancels numerous sailings every week due to shortage of workers. And most of their boats are old although not as old as our boats here in Washington. We have boats 50 and even 64 years old because boats here have to be built in Washington State and we only have one shipyard capable of building such boats and the price is exorbitant. And yes, I'm sure there are few small yards on the East Coast that benefits from this law too but at what cost to the taxpayer?

 

Florida shipyard built multiple ferry's for New York City. they are shipyards elsewhere in the states that can build ferry besides Washington.

[yakcruiser]

6 hours ago, shof515 said:

 

Florida shipyard built multiple ferry's for New York City. they are shipyards elsewhere in the states that can build ferry besides Washington.

Washington State had a protectionist law requiring all the ferries to be built in Washington. After talking to a friend who lives on the islands this morning, I found out that they repealed the law a month ago hoping to find other shipyards to bid in order to save money.

[yakcruiser]

Boy did I ever step in it for taking this thread off topic. I will just go to the bar and have a beer next time we make a three-hour pitstop in Victoria or Ensenada remembering how lucky I am to be on a cruise in the first place.

[jorytravelar]

NCL Sky, Sail 1, Baltimore to Quebec City, Sept 7-18 (2 or more ports US and Canada.)

 

NCL Sky, Sail 2, Quebec City to NYC, Sept 18-28 (again 2 or pore Cnada and US ports.)

 

I was told by a travel agent these two cruises booked together would violate PVSA?  These are not offered by NCL as a reposition.

 

Thanks...

[shof515]

3 minutes ago, jorytravelar said:

NCL Sky, Sail 1, Baltimore to Quebec City, Sept 7-18 (2 or more ports US and Canada.)

 

NCL Sky, Sail 2, Quebec City to NYC, Sept 18-28 (again 2 or pore Cnada and US ports.)

 

I was told by a travel agent these two cruises booked together would violate PVSA?  These are not offered by NCL as a reposition.

 

Thanks...

that is a violation. as discussed in earlier posts the issue is the embarkation and disembarkation port. you are going from balitmore to new york without going to a distant foreign port of call. quebec city is not a distant foreign port of call. only the abc islands qualify as distant foreign port of call

[jorytravelar]

10 minutes ago, shof515 said:

that is a violation. as discussed in earlier posts the issue is the embarkation and disembarkation port. you are going from balitmore to new york without going to a distant foreign port of call. quebec city is not a distant foreign port of call. only the abc islands qualify as distant foreign port of call

Thanks for your response.  Its too bad that ncl packaged it seperately as two sails.  It allows me to book on the ncl website, but as the travel agent pointed out, they would eventually cancel 

[IAcruising]

On 9/28/2023 at 7:54 PM, shof515 said:

this is why on almost all of the reposition cruises they always go to the ABC islands to meet that requirement like the NYC to New Orleans cruises

 

I originally wondered why our Encore repo next April stops in Colombia for maybe 4-hours or so. Now I know it's because Colombia is in South America. Fun facts.

 

[bonvoyagie]

15 hours ago, jorytravelar said:

NCL Sky, Sail 1, Baltimore to Quebec City, Sept 7-18 (2 or more ports US and Canada.)

 

NCL Sky, Sail 2, Quebec City to NYC, Sept 18-28 (again 2 or pore Cnada and US ports.)

 

I was told by a travel agent these two cruises booked together would violate PVSA?  These are not offered by NCL as a reposition.

 

Thanks...

If the return trip ended in Baltimore it would be OK as it would become a closed loop cruise. It is the ending in NYC that is the issue.