Interesting PVSA decision

[Shmoo here]

A friend is doing a B2B2B - Sydney, Aus to Honolulu - Honolulu to Vancouver - Vancouver to San Diego, and the cruise line has told them they can't do it because Honolulu to San Diego is against the PVSA.

 

It's my understanding that, when doing any B2B combo, the cruise is looked at as from where a person first boards the ship and where that same person debarks the same ship.

 

So, IMO, my friend  is boarding in Sydney (a foreign port - PVSA doesn't apply) and disembarking in San Diego.

 

Am I wrong?

Edited yesterday at 01:08 AM by Shmoo here

[CruiserBruce]

Is SYD-HNL and HNL-Vancouver being sold as separate segments from Vancouver to San Diego, or not? If not, that is one US port to another US port without a distant foreign port.

 

I am guessing the cruise lines know more than us on this.

 

 

[Shmoo here]

29 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Is SYD-HNL and HNL-Vancouver being sold as separate segments from Vancouver to San Diego, or not? If not, that is one US port to another US port without a distant foreign port.

 

I am guessing the cruise lines know more than us on this.

 

 

Yes, Sydney to Honolulu is one cruise and Honolulu to Vancouver is another and Vancouver to San Diego is a third.  I'm just confused, because I understood that the PVSA (in regard to B2B cruises) looks at where a passenger boards the ship initially and the debarks the SAME ship.  In this case Sydney to San Diego.  There's no break in Honolulu.  Just a turn around day.  

Edited yesterday at 01:53 AM by Shmoo here

[klfrodo]

Violates PVSA

Vancouver is not categorized as a Distant Foreign Port.

should the friend book a separate ship from Vancouver to San Diego, then that would work

[GeezerCouple]

4 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

A friend is doing a B2B2B - Sydney, Aus to Honolulu - Honolulu to Vancouver - Vancouver to San Diego, and the cruise line has told them they can't do it because Honolulu to San Diego is against the PVSA.

 

It's my understanding that, when doing any B2B combo, the cruise is looked at as from where a person first boards the ship and where that same person debarks the same ship.

 

So, IMO, my friend  is boarding in Sydney (a foreign port - PVSA doesn't apply) and disembarking in San Diego.

 

My understandiing is that each leg is *not* kept separate, so there is the "full cruise", but there can be more than one "interim" (my word; not sure what cruise lines call them) cruise within the full cruise.  And *any* interim - or pair of interim - cruises must not violate PVSA.

 

That is, IF the itinerary would allow someone to embark in one USA city (A) and disembark in a different USA city (B), the PVSA does apply,  That is, *if* there IS a valid itinerary for a passenger to go from A to B, the PVSA can be violated, even if a passenger doesn't actually get ticketed that way.  And a single cruise from A to B wouldn't be allowed, so neither is this one.

(I'm not referring to someone departing mid-cruise, although that also causes difficulties.)

 

If the person switched ships or if there was, somehow, a one-day break, that would be okay.

 

GC

[StollyBolly]

It’s all pretty crazy, is it not?   

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Shmoo here said:

A friend is doing a B2B2B - Sydney, Aus to Honolulu - Honolulu to Vancouver - Vancouver to San Diego, and the cruise line has told them they can't do it because Honolulu to San Diego is against the PVSA.

 

It's my understanding that, when doing any B2B combo, the cruise is looked at as from where a person first boards the ship and where that same person debarks the same ship.

 

So, IMO, my friend  is boarding in Sydney (a foreign port - PVSA doesn't apply) and disembarking in San Diego.

 

Am I wrong?

You are not wrong. The cruise line is wrong as is anyone who has posted on this thread who says this is a PVSA violation.

All that matters is where the passenger first boards the ship and where they ultimately disembark, not the individual segments. In this case the passenger will be boarding in Sydney and disembarking in San Diego. By embarking in Sydney, the passenger has boarded in a foreign port which makes disembarkation legal in any US port. 

 

Cruise line customer service agents don't have the foggiest idea of what is legal or illegal under the PVSA. Your friend needs to run this up the corporate ladder to someone who actually knows the law.

[njhorseman]

24 minutes ago, GeezerCouple said:

And *any* interim - or pair of interim - cruises must not violate PVSA.

No...all that matters is where the passenger initially embarks and finally disembarks, not any individual segments.

 

[njhorseman]

56 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

Yes, Sydney to Honolulu is one cruise and Honolulu to Vancouver is another and Vancouver to San Diego is a third.  I'm just confused, because I understood that the PVSA (in regard to B2B cruises) looks at where a passenger boards the ship initially and the debarks the SAME ship.  In this case Sydney to San Diego.  There's no break in Honolulu.  Just a turn around day.  

You have every right to be confused...the itinerary is legal.

[njhorseman]

39 minutes ago, klfrodo said:

Violates PVSA

Vancouver is not categorized as a Distant Foreign Port.

should the friend book a separate ship from Vancouver to San Diego, then that would work

No...

[GeezerCouple]

1 minute ago, njhorseman said:

No...all that matters is where the passenger initially embarks and finally disembarks, not any individual segments.

 

Yes, that would make sense, and that's what I used to think when I first encountered this question.
But unfortunately, some passengers cruise requests are refused (or they have their fare refunded before sailing).

 

GC 

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

Is SYD-HNL and HNL-Vancouver being sold as separate segments from Vancouver to San Diego, or not? If not, that is one US port to another US port without a distant foreign port.

 

I am guessing the cruise lines know more than us on this.

 

 

No...the cruise is legal and cruise line customer service departments are clueless about such matters.

All that matters is where the passenger embarks and where they ultimately disembark, not how the cruise line sells the segments.

For PVSA purposes this is very simply a cruise from Sydney to San Diego and thus perfectly legal.

[Shmoo here]

14 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

You are not wrong. The cruise line is wrong as is anyone who has posted on this thread who says this is a PVSA violation.

All that matters is where the passenger first boards the ship and where they ultimately disembark, not the individual segments. In this case the passenger will be boarding in Sydney and disembarking in San Diego. By embarking in Sydney, the passenger has boarded in a foreign port which makes disembarkation legal in any US port. 

 

Cruise line customer service agents don't have the foggiest idea of what is legal or illegal under the PVSA. Your friend needs to run this up the corporate ladder to someone who actually knows the law.

Yes, the cruise line involved is Disney and, in the PVSA world, they are newbies.  I had already advised my friend to escalate it to the compliance department, if he was told he couldn't do it.  I'm not sure whether he did that or not, but, even then, the Disney lawyers are not as practiced in how to apply the PVSA as some other lines.

 

That said, it's also true that cruise lines can adhere to a stricter policy in regards to cruise legalities that the law actually mandates as evidenced by those lines who require passports on cruises that at passport is not really required.

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, GeezerCouple said:

Yes, that would make sense, and that's what I used to think when I first encountered this question.
But unfortunately, some passengers cruise requests are refused (or they have their fare refunded before sailing).

 

GC 

Passenger requests are refused because the cruise line customer service agents don't understand the law and can't be expected to so they are instructed to reject the booking. Often the case has to be run up the corporate ladder to someone in the corporate legal department who actually understands the law.

 

The types of cruises where customers have gotten refunds are not similar to this one. It typically happens on repositioning cruises at the beginning or end of the Alaska cruise season. B2B cruises such as a first segment from Seattle cruising to Alaskan ports, and ending in Vancouver, followed by a second segment starting in Vancouver visiting Mexico and ending in Los Angeles. Each individual segment is legal but you can't do the B2B which is Seattle to Los Angeles because that would require a distant foreign port. 

[njhorseman]

Just now, Shmoo here said:

Yes, the cruise line involved is Disney and, in the PVSA world, they are newbies.  I had already advised my friend to escalate it to the compliance department, if he was told he couldn't do it.  I'm not sure whether he did that or not, but, even then, the Disney lawyers are not as practiced in how to apply the PVSA as some other lines.

 

That said, it's also true that cruise lines can adhere to a stricter policy in regards to cruise legalities that the law actually mandates as evidenced by those lines who require passports on cruises that at passport is not really required.

Personally I don't think the passport requirement is fully analogous to this situation, but I understand where you're coming from.

[Host Kat]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

... Cruise line customer service agents don't have the foggiest idea of what is legal or illegal under the PVSA...

 

And often they, as well as some TAs, incorrectly refer to the Jones Act instead of the correct PVSA.

 

Here is an oldie but goodie Cruise Critic article that may be helpful for those reading this thread. The article was last updated January 07, 2020.

 

Jones Act and PVSA: What's the Difference, and How Do They Affect My Cruise?

[1025cruise]

The cruise is not illegal. The issue is the cruise line isn't seeing the first leg to know it's legal.

[ontheweb]

It really does not help the potential cruise passenger that it is legal if the cruise line is not allowing it because of their misinterpretation of the law. 😢

[Hlitner]

I wonder if the OP has a single booking # for the entire voyage (from Sydney) of if it was booked as separate cruises (back to back to back) which would subject it to PVSA restrictions.

 

As to blindly accepting that the cruise line always gets it right...humbug!  But in this case, might makes right and the cruise line holds all the cards.

 

Hank

[Flatbush Flyer]

11 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

Yes, Sydney to Honolulu is one cruise and Honolulu to Vancouver is another and Vancouver to San Diego is a third.  I'm just confused, because I understood that the PVSA (in regard to B2B cruises) looks at where a passenger boards the ship initially and the debarks the SAME ship.  In this case Sydney to San Diego.  There's no break in Honolulu.  Just a turn around day.  

Incorrect. Even if part or all (e.g., one segment or one cruise) of the multisegment cruises violates PVSA, the CBP can interpret PVSA pretty much however they choose. How it is booked can influence the interpretation (as often happens in Vancouver changeovers).

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Incorrect. Even if part or all (e.g., one segment or one cruise) of the multisegment cruises violates PVSA, the CBP can interpret PVSA pretty much however they choose. How it is booked can influence the interpretation (as often happens in Vancouver changeovers).

No...you're the one who is wrong. There is one governing principle for the PVSA, and that is where the passenger initially embarks and ultimately disembarks, not how the cruise line sells the segments.

There is zero chance that USCBP would rule this itinerary non-compliant. The only problem is the cruise line's failure to understand the law.

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

I wonder if the OP has a single booking # for the entire voyage (from Sydney) of if it was booked as separate cruises (back to back to back) which would subject it to PVSA restrictions.

 

As to blindly accepting that the cruise line always gets it right...humbug!  But in this case, might makes right and the cruise line holds all the cards.

 

Hank

Booking as a single cruise or B2B is irrelevant. The passenger is embarking in Sydney and disembarking in the US, which makes the cruise legal.

[Hlitner]

56 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Booking as a single cruise or B2B is irrelevant. The passenger is embarking in Sydney and disembarking in the US, which makes the cruise legal.

I guess the cruise line, with all their lawyers, does not agree with your interpretation of the statute.

 

Hank

[Shmoo here]

3 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I wonder if the OP has a single booking # for the entire voyage (from Sydney) of if it was booked as separate cruises (back to back to back) which would subject it to PVSA restrictions.

On Disney cruises each cruise is it's own booking #.  

[Flatbush Flyer]

Here is the Sept. 2019 revised PVSA.

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