B2B and the PVSA

[DallasGuy75219]

On 5/15/2024 at 11:38 AM, TRLD said:

Cannot think of any other port with cruises coming from and going to US ports with enough traffic to have multiple ships from the same cruise line in port.

Definitely Miami.

 

But it's not so much the number of ships in port as the number of one-way itineraries, particularly (1) repositioning cruises at the beginning and end of the Alaska season and (2) the weekly one-way cruises between Vancouver and Alaska.

[TRLD]

51 minutes ago, DallasGuy75219 said:

Definitely Miami.

 

But it's not so much the number of ships in port as the number of one-way itineraries, particularly (1) repositioning cruises at the beginning and end of the Alaska season and (2) the weekly one-way cruises between Vancouver and Alaska.

Not the same Miami is a US port going to foreign ports or loop cruises.

 

Vancouver is a foreign port with cruises going to different US ports. 

 

 

Edited May 16 by TRLD

[cruisinsince75]

On 5/14/2024 at 7:42 PM, eclue said:

They need to abolish the PVSA  - it is outdated and serves no purpose today. I have had two trips ruined because of it.

 

I totally agree!

[cruisinsince75]

On 5/15/2024 at 9:44 AM, suzyed said:

OK, this is from the horse's mouth AFTER I had already booked a B2B on Discovery LA>Vancouver>Alaska>Seattle online:
 

Good Afternoon,

 

These back-to-back voyages violate what is called the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). PVSA prohibits ships from embarking in one US port and disembarking in a different US port. The only exception to this rule would allow passengers to be transported between two U.S. ports if the cruise itinerary includes a port call at a "distant foreign port". Distant foreign ports do not include Canada, Mexico, Central America, Bermuda and most Caribbean islands. South America and the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao) do qualify as distant foreign ports. 

 

Unfortunately Princess.com only views reservations as their own individual voyages and does not take the guest’s back-to-back voyages as a whole into consideration. However our reservation system does run reports weekly to identify reservations that would violate the PVSA and advises us to notify the guest.

 

We understand you’ve already opted to cancel both bookings, but still wanted to provide this insight for future reference.

 

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused,

 

Guest Services

 

 

Princess Cruises

24305 Town Center Drive,

Santa Clarita, CA 91355

Thank you for posting this.  It makes sense now on why Repo or Panama Canal cruises stop have a stop in the ABC islands or South America (Columbia).

[suzyed]

52 minutes ago, TRLD said:

Not the same Miami is a US port going to foreign ports or loop cruises.

 

Vancouver is a foreign port with cruises going to different US ports. 

 

 

But it's not a DISTANT foreign port, surprisingly.  I tried to tell them is was very distant from Florida where we live! They weren't buying it! LOL!

[cr8tiv1]

Distant foreign port "usually" means a different continent (ABC islands/South America).  Near means the same (North American/Hawaii/Ensenada. North America, Alaska, Victoria).  In case of Florida, some of the Caribbean Islands count as "near".

[TRLD]

25 minutes ago, cr8tiv1 said:

Distant foreign port "usually" means a different continent (ABC islands/South America).  Near means the same (North American/Hawaii/Ensenada. North America, Alaska, Victoria).  In case of Florida, some of the Caribbean Islands count as "near".

Most of the Caribbean islands are near. The ABC islands are far.

[cr8tiv1]

Correct, that is why the Caribbean Islands satisfy the Near Foreign Port for closed loops out of FLL, Miami, TX, New Orleans, Tampa, etc.

 

AND ABC Islands satisfy Distant Foreign Ports for Ocean to Ocean Panama Canal crossings.

[Felipe45]

On 5/14/2024 at 5:42 PM, eclue said:

They need to abolish the PVSA  - it is outdated and serves no purpose today. I have had two trips ruined because of it.

 

Or just tinker around the edges a bit. 

• Like stating a "covered vessels" definition, (to effectively exempt larger passenger vessels);
• Like maybe reducing the fine to $1.00 per passenger.

 

Things like that; (maybe some lawyers can figure out the details, and unexpected consequences?).

Edited August 12 by Felipe45
gramer

[cr8tiv1]

6 minutes ago, Felipe45 said:

Or just tinker around the edges a bit. 

• Like stating a "covered vessels" definition, (to effectively exempt larger passenger vessels);
• Like maybe reducing the fine to $1.00 per passenger.

 

Things like that; (maybe some lawyers can figure out the details, and unexpected consequences?).

PVSA does serve a purpose for general commerce.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t benefit Hawaii nor Alaska and Cruise ships.  I agree, it does need to be modernized.  I doubt that the Federal government would ever lower the fine.  

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Felipe45 said:

Like stating a "covered vessels" definition, (to effectively exempt larger passenger vessels);

The problem is that once you start to talk about foreign vessels, you enter into international and maritime law, and in maritime law, a "passenger vessel" is described as "any vessel that takes more than 12 persons for hire.  So, until you get the majority of the 140+ nations that are signatory to the IMO to agree that the definition of "passenger vessel" needs to change, it's not going to happen.

 

And, until CLIA and it's member cruise lines decide that a change to the PVSA would benefit their bottom lines, they won't bother spending the money to try to change it.

[Felipe45]

Not clear why U.S. laws would have to apply more broadly than intended by the lawmakers? 

 

If a proposed amendment somehow limited the applicability of a provision to "covered vessels" - and exempted others, then it is not clear how some international committee's definition would apply in its stead? 

 

The 140+ nations could keep their international definitions, and an amendment to U.S. law use its own definitions, as the U.S. law makers may deem to fit? 

[Felipe45]

For example, 

 

“COVERED PASSENGER VESSEL.—The term ‘covered passenger vessel’ means a vessel  of at least 100 gross tons, that is transporting more than 1000 passengers. 

 

“COVERED PASSENGER VESSEL.—The term ‘covered passenger vessel’ does not mean any and all cruise-criticizing "passenger vessels (e.g., boats of at least 100 gross tons). 

 

Covered does not mean a canopy, but rather a ship that would be 'covered' by a provision of law.

[TRLD]

On 8/12/2024 at 12:14 PM, Felipe45 said:

Or just tinker around the edges a bit. 

• Like stating a "covered vessels" definition, (to effectively exempt larger passenger vessels);
• Like maybe reducing the fine to $1.00 per passenger.

 

Things like that; (maybe some lawyers can figure out the details, and unexpected consequences?).

That would also require changes to international maritime agreements which include the definitions for passenger vessel.

 

Also keep in mind that there are numerous passenger vessels including ferries, small cruiseships, tour boats that sail under US law and labor requirements that PVSA governs. 

[TRLD]

37 minutes ago, Felipe45 said:

For example, 

 

“COVERED PASSENGER VESSEL.—The term ‘covered passenger vessel’ means a vessel  of at least 100 gross tons, that is transporting more than 1000 passengers. 

 

“COVERED PASSENGER VESSEL.—The term ‘covered passenger vessel’ does not mean any and all cruise-criticizing "passenger vessels (e.g., boats of at least 100 gross tons). 

 

Covered does not mean a canopy, but rather a ship that would be 'covered' by a provision of law.

The law applies to any ship carrying more than 12 people.

[Ellipooh]

48 minutes ago, TRLD said:

The law applies to any ship carrying more than 12 people.

I believe @Felipe45 was suggesting an amendment to the law, changing “12” to “1000”

[TRLD]

54 minutes ago, Ellipooh said:

I believe @Felipe45 was suggesting an amendment to the law, changing “12” to “1000”

Point is that the change would take more than that, it would require changes in international agreements concerning the definition of passenger vessel.

 

The approach he stated is also problematic in that it would also exclude a number of other vessels other than large cruise ships.

 

There are reasons why the law still exists and is really not outdated, except for a few cruisers that get inconvenienced on fairly rare occasions.

 

Funny thing is even the cruise lines do not lobby to change. After all a change would allow others to intrude on their playground.

Edited August 30 by TRLD

[Felipe45]

I do not work for the cruise lines, and the cruise lines might not be the lobbyist to the law makers, purely on behalf of their passengers. 

 

I was trying to open my mind, from the literally stated context a legal "repeal" - as in all-or-none.  I.E., The posters of such topics might have no problem with the provisions of law still being applied to the often mentioned ferry boats, or to smaller river boats?  I believe that they might be open to mere amendments of the PVSA, that would neither ruin or inconvenience their trips.

 

I believe that too much is inferred by the mere title of laws, say by using a legal term, "passenger vessel" in the title.  For example, a law could have the word "reduce" in the title, yet increase that very same thing that the "title" infers might be reduced (e.g., inflation?).

How many posts repeat the title of laws.  They could title it the "Cruise Critic Act" if they wished.

 

The "1000 passengers" figure and the quoted term "covered passenger vessel" were actual excerpts from a bill/proposed U.S. law, (that would not apply to ALL passenger vessels). 

If a provision of law (requirement or prohibition) does not apply to all passenger vessels (i.e., not "covered"), then there would be no need for 140+ countries to agree upon changing a definition of any or all passenger vessels.

 

And, the term "covered" is a kind of common adjectival term, having specific meaning when used in a section of law; we would not substitute some other internationally-defined term for the words used in our own national laws. 

I am not a lawyer proposing any specific law, but I believe that making adjustments (with both winners and losers) might benefit the passengers of cruise ships. 

Edited August 31 by Felipe45

[Felipe45]

The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act (2021) temporarily waived the foreign stop requirement of the PVSA, without changing the definition of "passenger vessel".

 

I believe that the smart people who figured out a temporary waiver could also figure out how to make such provisions permanent.

[skynight]

Forget it. The laws are not changing.

[TRLD]

30 minutes ago, Felipe45 said:

The Alaska Tourism Restoration Act (2021) temporarily waived the foreign stop requirement of the PVSA, without changing the definition of "passenger vessel".

 

I believe that the smart people who figured out a temporary waiver could also figure out how to make such provisions permanent.

Yes it temporarily removed the requirement to stop at a Canadian port while leaving everything else in place. That requirement was restored as soon as Canada reopened to cruise ships.

 

The cruise lines lobby for everything else, yet they do not lobby for changes to PVSA in any systemic fashion. The reason why is any change would open the door to more competition and risk their rather profitable business.

 

As far as changes there are large numbers that would line up against changes including the small ship lines that are in compliance, the mariner unions, small ship manufacturers, etc.

 

On the other side lets see if the cruise lines will not push for it, you have a few cruiseline passengers that cannot do a few cruise combinations.

 

Will not change, no real interest to do so.

 

 

Edited August 31 by TRLD

[cr8tiv1]

3 hours ago, skynight said:

Forget it. The laws are not changing.

 

The PVSA applies to so few passengers and there is always a work around.  Trust me, I still have connections to Hawaii and there are many reasons that Alaska and Hawaii should be exempt from the similar Jones Act (for "real" economic reasons).  It's not going to happen in my lifetime.

 

It is extremely complicated and not an easy fix.  

[Cruise Raider]

On 8/30/2024 at 9:19 PM, cr8tiv1 said:

 

The PVSA applies to so few passengers and there is always a work around.  Trust me, I still have connections to Hawaii and there are many reasons that Alaska and Hawaii should be exempt from the similar Jones Act (for "real" economic reasons).  It's not going to happen in my lifetime.

 

It is extremely complicated and not an easy fix.  

We were on that first cruise back out on the Majestic to Alaska from Seattle in July 2021.  Canada wasn’t accepting cruise ship passengers in port during that time so, I believe there were waivers to the PVSA granted. I honestly can’t remember if our ship had stopped there or if it was skipped entirely.  But, we didn’t have to go through immigration because our only stops were within the US.  The US senators from Alaska were fighting to get that waiver permanently in the event that Canada refused to allow cruise ship docking in one of their ports.  Well, the Canadian government sure saw the writing on the wall and opened up pretty quickly after that.  
I can see where Hawaii and Alaska would sure benefit from having a carve out in that law, as they rely so heavily on tourism for their economic well being.  Cruising is back full force now, though .. so much so that Juneau is beginning to limit the number of cruise ships in their port on any given day.  
Perhaps the longer sailings they are now offering are a direct result of that?  Maybe not?  
 

You are 100% correct that the fix is complicated and is on no congress persons’s list as a top priority now.  
I wanted to continue on the Majestic from Seattle RT, then it heads up to Vancouver before ending in Los Angeles as a B2B2B.  I would have had to get off in Seattle and caught back up with the ship in Vancouver for this, as to not violate the PVSA.  That defeats the purpose of a B2B so, we decided to just fly home from Seattle.  I suppose we could have stayed on up to Vancouver but that port is usually a bit chaotic, we chose not to disembark there.