Back to Back Cruises Not Allowed???

[Toyz711]

also on the star for sept 17th sailing. we have a group on the roll call boards. there are plans for a meet 'n greet on the star bar on monday morning, 10am, for our CC roll call group. click on this link and meet the group.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=362401

we won't be able to help you with the change of your plans, we are fun to talk to.

[Jana]

I won't comment on the intelligence of this particular law but I will say that most countries have something similar.

 

In the narrow context of a cruise this type of law may appear to have questionable benefit. Consider, however, the fact that these laws generally cover many forms of passenger transportation. The picture changes. Most countries do not want foreign owned passenger transport companies dominating their market.

 

While these laws were often conceived and implemented as trade protection, in this day and age there are also security considerations.

 

You won't get an argument from me on most of your statement, but as the law pertains to the current passenger cruise industry, -not ferries, not cargo ships- right now, it's silly, awkward, costly to implement and outdated.

 

As far as security is concerned, it would be a lot easier for the U.S. Coast Guard to control security on a ship that goes from New York to Miami or Seattle to San Diego, visiting only U.S. ports, than one that is required to go to the Bahamas or even Canada.

 

Don'tcha think?

 

Jana

[Globaliser]

In the narrow context of a cruise this type of law may appear to have questionable benefit. Consider, however, the fact that these laws generally cover many forms of passenger transportation. The picture changes. Most countries do not want foreign owned passenger transport companies dominating their market.

 

While these laws were often conceived and implemented as trade protection, in this day and age there are also security considerations.

It may be that this type of law can be justified in some contexts. But the actual law we're concerned with is specific to passenger shipping. So it could be done away with if it no longer makes sense, without any risk to any law covering any other mode of transport.

 

Moreover, the experience of those countries which are prepared to open up their markets to foreign-owned companies doesn't generally suggest that there are either adverse safety or security considerations. Look at the airline industry in Europe, for example, where any EU airline can fly any route between any EU points. The key is to make sure that there is in fact adequate regulation of safety and security, rather than to fall back on nationality of ownership.

[shoreguy]

. Look at the airline industry in Europe, for example, where any EU airline can fly any route between any EU points. The key is to make sure that there is in fact adequate regulation of safety and security, rather than to fall back on nationality of ownership.

 

But those same airlines can not fly between two US cities and you don't see US carriers flying routes intra EU. It is all a bout protectionism

[Globaliser]

But those same airlines can not fly between two US cities and you don't see US carriers flying routes intra EU. It is all a bout protectionism

Agreed - where the protectionism exists, that's what it is. Safety and security shouldn't be problems.

 

I should have said a bit more about the back history. Originally, the EU countries had the traditional system. Every country's domestic services could only be operated by that country's airlines, and every international service between two EU countries was subject to the usual inter-governmental agreements about the number of airlines, frequencies, capacities, etc.

 

The EU moved, en bloc, to a system where all that was swept away. For example, an Irish airline can (and frequently does) fly from Germany to Italy or between two airports in France. No special permission is needed. The old laws have been swept away.

 

The EU's suggested to the US that this should be taken a step further, and that the US should join into this free aviation market by extending this area across the Atlantic to include the US. Any EU or US airline should be free to fly between any two points anywhere in the entire area. But at the moment the US doesn't want to play, which is why we currently have the situation you describe.

[shoreless]

And even within the US, there have been similar rules/laws? Until recently, Southwest Airlines wasn't allowed to fly some domestic routes in or around Texas... don't remember the exact rule, or exactly who it was protecting...American Airlines, maybe.

[2inTul]

And even within the US, there have been similar rules/laws? Until recently, Southwest Airlines wasn't allowed to fly some domestic routes in or around Texas... don't remember the exact rule, or exactly who it was protecting...American Airlines, maybe.

 

No, it was not to protect American Airlines, it was to protect the new DFW airport. The agreement was that Fort Worth and Dallas would close their inner city airports to commercial traffic, Meacham Field and Love Field, and all metroplex commercial traffic would use DFW. Fort Worth, Dallas, and ALL of the airlines using the two airports agreed to this. Then along came Southwest and convinced Dallas to let them use Love Field for intrastate regional flights. It went on from there.

 

The "rule" that you are looking for is the Wright Amendment, and because of the previous agreement between Fort Worth and Dallas it allowed Southwest to fly routes from Texas to specific other states. The Wright Amendment did not restrict Southwest in any way.

 

Southwest has distorted the truth about this to make them appear to be the the underdog on this issue.

 

The DFW airport was 'conceived' in 1961 when the Civil Aeronautics Board ordered hearings on proposals to construct a joint airport, land was purchased in 1966. Air Southwest started in 1967, it changed its name to Southwest Airlines in 1971. The Dallas-Fort Worth regoinal airport agreement was 'old news' before Southwest even started flying, they knew exactly what they were in for. They just dont want to play by the same rules.

[broberts]

Moreover, the experience of those countries which are prepared to open up their markets to foreign-owned companies doesn't generally suggest that there are either adverse safety or security considerations. Look at the airline industry in Europe, for example, where any EU airline can fly any route between any EU points. The key is to make sure that there is in fact adequate regulation of safety and security, rather than to fall back on nationality of ownership.

 

The EU is an economic union moving towards a political union. Trade wise the contries in the EU are analogus to the states in the USA. As a whole the EU still has protectionist passenger transport rules when most non-EU countries are involved.

 

Free trade vs protectionism is a debate that I'd just as soon avoid. At least on this board.

[broberts]

You won't get an argument from me on most of your statement, but as the law pertains to the current passenger cruise industry, -not ferries, not cargo ships- right now, it's silly, awkward, costly to implement and outdated.

 

I don't really disagree, but I do think it would be difficult to construct and enforce a law that would permit non-US flagged cruise ships to carry passengers between two different US ports without an intervening international stop.

 

We all know what a cruise is, but let the lawyers at some law and pretty soon rowboats are going to qualify. And, brief "cruises" might start competing with profitable ferry routes.

[seamama1]

Well, my whole point is that the TA should have caught this in the preliminary booking process so these folks wouldn't have to be disappointed later on. And since Dr. J booked those 3 cruises almost a year ago, was still allowed to make final payment on all 3 and only found out after the documents were issued, I would say this TA is not on the ball.

 

It looks to me like NCL called the TA and cancelled the sale. Where do you imagine the travel agent liability come into this......

 

NCL offered the deal, NCL took the booking - and the money - and issued the dox - and cancelled .....

 

I don't see any TA fault here.....

[blueyesdm]

This whole PSA thing has me soo confused. I called Princess to ask them about it and the girl didn't know anything. I said I was taking a cruise on NCL from SEA to VAN and than from VAN to SF on a Princess ship. She isn't sure if this is going to be ok or not. I"m not sure who to call now!! We leave on Saturday and I can't get a straight answer. I don't want to have a problem once I get to Vancouver and them tell me I can't get on my Princess cruise. Has anyone ever had a prob with this before??? Who can I call that is actually going to give me a correct answer??

[Globaliser]

I called Princess to ask them about it and the girl didn't know anything. I said I was taking a cruise on NCL from SEA to VAN and than from VAN to SF on a Princess ship.

I would have thought that this would be OK. Neither company is transporting you between two US ports, which is what the PSA is directed at. Each company will take you on an international journey.

[Jim Gallup]

Wait, this story gets even better.

If you cruise from a US Port on a foreign flag ship, have a heart attack and need to leave the cruise before you have called at the required foreign port, you still must pay the $300 fine to the US Customs Service.

 

And even better.

If you die on a cruise that has not yet reached the required foreign port, your heirs or your estate will still be required to pay the $300 fine to the US Government.

 

And better yet.

Last week I was sailing on a cruise that started in Seattle. The first evening, a passenger was very ill and had to be debarked at Port Angeles, Washington in the middle of the night. US Customs ruled that even though she had been transported between 2 American Ports without calling at a foreign port, the fact that she was still in the same American State meant that she had been on a ferry rather than a cruise ship - so no fine was imposed. Go figure............................

No wonder that everybody is so confused about this crazy law.

[Jim Gallup]

And one final thought:

 

If you book a Seattle round trip cruise to Alaska, but somehow manage to miss the ship in Seattle, you still have a chance to join it later - in Juneau for example. But if you do that, you are no longer taking a Seattle round trip cruise. Now it is a one-way cruise from Juneau to Seattle. This means that when your ship stops in Victoria or Vancouver to satisfy the foreign port requirement for all of the Seattle round-trip passengers, you will be in violation of the Passenger Services Act, because you alone are on a different cruise than the others. You can only meet the PSA requirements by stopping at a Distant Foreign Port - and your ship is not going there. So you will be required to pay the $300 per person fine to the US Customs Service.

 

This is one of many good reasons to fly into your embarkation port a day or two early.

[smeyer418]

...Last week I was sailing on a cruise that started in Seattle. The first evening, a passenger was very ill and had to be debarked at Port Angeles, Washington in the middle of the night. US Customs ruled that even though she had been transported between 2 American Ports without calling at a foreign port, the fact that she was still in the same American State meant that she had been on a ferry rather than a cruise ship - so no fine was imposed. Go figure............................

No wonder that everybody is so confused about this crazy law.

 

I am glad that someone found a rule so that sanity would prevail. Most times if you get the documenation of an illness to the cruise line, the penalty will be remitted.

[Jim Gallup]

This summer season in Alaska we medically debarked over 100 passengers from my ship. All had solid documentation on their illnesses. Not one was waived from paying the $300 fine.

My Port Agents advised us to stop even trying to get it waived. US Customs just isn't interested in hearing about it.

[mikedw]

I am glad that someone found a rule so that sanity would prevail. Most times if you get the documenation of an illness to the cruise line, the penalty will be remitted.

 

 

Cruise line has nothing to do with that fee. You'll get the bill from the Dept of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Don't pay and they'll get a judgement against you.

 

Michael

Hagerstown, MD

[electricron]

While inconvient to say the lease, the Passenger Services Act wasn't designed soley to protect the American shipping industry, it also protects American shipbuilders and sailors.

 

Shipyard craftsmen and sailors aboard American ships are high paying jobs.

 

The USA is big enough, with sufficient shipyards, and sufficent population, to man and build ships that it requires.

 

It also gives the US government the ability to regulate the U.S. shipping industry to maintain high standards for environmental and worker safety.

 

There's no need to wait for the world to catch up to us. I am all for it.

[smeyer418]

Cruise line has nothing to do with that fee. You'll get the bill from the Dept of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Don't pay and they'll get a judgement against you.

 

Michael

Hagerstown, MD

 

The fine is levied against the cruise line. Not you. Its for them transporting someone in violation of the law. You need to get the info to the cruise line since they have to send it to the CG which imposes the fine not ICE. and that I am sure of. If you know someone who actually had the fine against them personally please let me know and give me the citation. The CG prints all the fines and they are against the cruise line. the cruise line just collects it from you...The cruise line can get a judgement if you fail to pay them.

[mikedw]

My mistake, I honestly thought ICE took care of that.

 

Michael

[Globaliser]

While inconvient to say the lease, the Passenger Services Act wasn't designed soley to protect the American shipping industry, it also protects American shipbuilders and sailors.

 

Shipyard craftsmen and sailors aboard American ships are high paying jobs.

 

The USA is big enough, with sufficient shipyards, and sufficent population, to man and build ships that it requires.

 

It also gives the US government the ability to regulate the U.S. shipping industry to maintain high standards for environmental and worker safety.

Ah, yes, and what a fine job the PSA has done of all that. So well that just about the only shipbuilding left in the US is of warships.

 

Reminds me of that well-known slogan that there will be no war. But there will be such a struggle for peace that not a single stone will be left standing.

[cruizinwithkids]

A year or two ago, I read about the rule(s) on this board and am thankful that I did.

 

My mother lives in FL in winter and MA in summer. I thought I would take the Dawn from NY to Miami and drive her back. Basically just planning on packing light and getting off the ship with my carryon.

 

I would think that passengers missing the Dawn in Canaveral/Orlando happens more often than other places. We paid a lot for our Disney shore excursion through NCL, but it was a nice relaxing feeling knowing the ship wouldn't leave without us. We were quite late getting back, though I don't remember why.