Something I learned about repositioning cruises and the PVSA

[sbtagent]

Does anyone know of any US flagged cruise ships. Wonder if this act is obsolete?

 

 

And the captain has to be born and raised in the Estados Unidas ? No ( un-qualified ) Canadians or Scandinavian ?

[Clarea]

Does anyone know of any US flagged cruise ships. Wonder if this act is obsolete?

Pride of America sails Hawaii.

[chengkp75]

Does anyone know of any US flagged cruise ships. Wonder if this act is obsolete?

 

The only US flag cruise ship is the NCL Pride of America. What do you mean by obsolete? Should this be repealed just because there are no US flag ship? Why are there no US flag ships? Because the crew costs, including the additional training required would be considerably more. Also, the technical requirements and inspection costs of US flag are more. Should we allow foreign airlines to carry passengers between US cities?

 

As I've posted on other threads, the only way to guarantee your rights and expectations of service (look at the thread about medical service) as US citizens would be to have US flag ships. Everyone is jumping on the fact that Panama has not issued a final report on the Carnival Spendor fire, after two years, and that the Bahamas may not issue final reports on the Triumph and Grandeur fires, but they forget that a foreign flag ship is sovereign territory of the country it is flagged in, and their laws apply (US has some limited criminal authority for cruises entering US).

[chengkp75]

And the captain has to be born and raised in the Estados Unidas ? No ( un-qualified ) Canadians or Scandinavian ?

 

And the Captains on Norwegian flag ships can be other than Norwegians? (I know about the "second registry" that Norway instituted to allow foreign crew on Norwegian ships, but coastwise shipping in Norway is limited to Norwegian first registry, correct? That is what both the PVSA and Jones Act do, protect coastwise shipping for US flag shipping. Nearly every country restricts coastwise shipping to their own shipping.

[BillB48]

I believe you would have to spend at least one night in Vancouver for this to be legal under PVSA, but I know there are others more tuned into the nuances of the PVSA than I am. If you search the archives for threads on "PVSA" you will find several that discuss similar itineraries, so you may get a better idea, and posting in the "ask a cruise question" forum may get you some more responses.

 

I went back and looked over the reg, as far as I can tell it is silent when it comes to spending a night, week or longer. It only speaks to a non coastwise vessel between two US ports, by changing ships there would not be a violation as the second ship would be starting from a foreign port. It would be similar to flying from LAX to YVR, changing planes and then flying from YVR to SEA.

 

I agree it might be a good idea to go over to Ask a Cruise question and see if you can get smeyer418 to respond. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and being a lawyer is an added benefit. As for me, I only drove by a Holiday Inn yesterday!

[chengkp75]

I went back and looked over the reg, as far as I can tell it is silent when it comes to spending a night, week or longer. It only speaks to a non coastwise vessel between two US ports, by changing ships there would not be a violation as the second ship would be starting from a foreign port. It would be similar to flying from LAX to YVR, changing planes and then flying from YVR to SEA.

 

I agree it might be a good idea to go over to Ask a Cruise question and see if you can get smeyer418 to respond. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and being a lawyer is an added benefit. As for me, I only drove by a Holiday Inn yesterday!

 

Being a US mariner, I know the brush strokes of the PVSA, and I know that there is a deal of difference between the written act and its interpretation by CBP. Put me in the Holiday Inn category as well. There are several legal eagles that answer on the general forums about PVSA more than any particular line's board.

[FLACRUISER99]

A big thanks to all the folks who responded to my enquiry, I also believe it's legal but it's great to have folks back you up!:D

[nelblu]

The only US flag cruise ship is the NCL Pride of America. What do you mean by obsolete? Should this be repealed just because there are no US flag ship? Why are there no US flag ships? Because the crew costs, including the additional training required would be considerably more. Also, the technical requirements and inspection costs of US flag are more. Should we allow foreign airlines to carry passengers between US cities?

 

As I've posted on other threads, the only way to guarantee your rights and expectations of service (look at the thread about medical service) as US citizens would be to have US flag ships. Everyone is jumping on the fact that Panama has not issued a final report on the Carnival Spendor fire, after two years, and that the Bahamas may not issue final reports on the Triumph and Grandeur fires, but they forget that a foreign flag ship is sovereign territory of the country it is flagged in, and their laws apply (US has some limited criminal authority for cruises entering US).

 

You're kidding of course. As a customer I know what to expect from a cruise line. Just because of this act does not mean that all US customers are going to be treated like dogs or get screwed. There are courts and courts of public opinion that would really impact these public traded companies. Think of the tourist business dollar if the cruise lines would be able to sail in/out of US ports. I'd love to sail out of NY an visit Wash. DC, Baltimore, Savannah, etc. Similar up/down the west coast would be fantastic.

 

Ps. I'm only addressing cruise ships only.

[chengkp75]

You're kidding of course. As a customer I know what to expect from a cruise line. Just because of this act does not mean that all US customers are going to be treated like dogs or get screwed. There are courts and courts of public opinion that would really impact these public traded companies. Think of the tourist business dollar if the cruise lines would be able to sail in/out of US ports. I'd love to sail out of NY an visit Wash. DC, Baltimore, Savannah, etc. Similar up/down the west coast would be fantastic.

 

Ps. I'm only addressing cruise ships only.

 

No, I'm not joking. As I've said, most countries have cabotage laws that restrict coastwise shipping (freight or passenger) to their own flag. Just because the US is the largest shipping country in the world, and the standard of living in the US makes it unprofitable to operate US flag cruise ships, should we remove a requirement that would protect someone who was able to provide one? As I said, the airlines have this protection, why not cruise lines?

 

Yes, and think of all those tourist dollars that go to Indonesia, Phillipines, and Eastern Europe in the pay packets of the international crew.

 

I'm not saying that all passengers are getting screwed on foreign flag ships, what I'm saying is you only have to read the many, many posts where people complain that their rights are being violated (cabin searches), or that medical services are not up to US standards, and that complaints should be made to the USCG, or the state medical board, to understand that when you board a foreign flag ship, you aren't in Kansas anymore. I've even seen where posters here phrase the Cruise Passenger Bill of Rights as LAW, not just a CLIA guideline.

 

If you think the court of public opinion is so strong, what happened to the expected backlash of public opinion after the Splendor, Concordia, and Triumph, not to mention the sexual assault cases from the 80's and 90's.

[FLACRUISER99]

Can chengkp75 or anyone else explain who benefits by making consecutive cruises that each is ok by the PVSA illegal to book B2B? This does not make any sense to me and I do understand the rational for having cabotage laws.

[chengkp75]

Can chengkp75 or anyone else explain who benefits by making consecutive cruises that each is ok by the PVSA illegal to book B2B? This does not make any sense to me and I do understand the rational for having cabotage laws.

 

The two B2B cruises are considered to be one journey, starting in one US port and ending in another. It is handled the exact same way on airlines.

 

You could book Air Canada for a trip from New York to Toronto. You could also book Air Canada for a trip from Toronto to Chicago. You could not book a trip from New York to Toronto to Chicago on Air Canada, this would be considered a domestic flight, and would need to be booked on a US air carrier.

 

Nearly all countries have cabotage laws, and cabotage extends to maritime, air, and ground transportation. Without cabotage laws, foreign ships, planes, and trains (mostly in Europe) could carry goods and passengers from one city to another. As most cruisers find out when something like the Grandeur or Triumph happen, the US is not the investigative body for incidents like this, but are only consultants to the flag state's regulatory body. If coastwise shipping or domestic air travel were opened to foreign carriers, we would lose our control over the safety, environmental, and economic factors in transportation. Just think if foreign air carriers were allowed to fly passengers domestically, what would happen to US flight crews. They would be replaced with lower salaried foreign crews, over which we would have no regulation, and whose paycheck would go to their home country. It is the same with maritime transportation.

 

To go back to the Splendor and Triumph fires, while the USCG can issue an advisory to the industry about recommendations for improved safety on these foreign flag ships, they cannot pass any laws or regulations that are more stringent than IMO regulations that would be binding on foreign ships. USCG regulations for US ships are in many areas stricter than IMO, but because the ship is US flag, they can enforce the regulations.

 

Environmental regulations and laws are different for US ships and foreign ships when a pollution incident happens in US waters. Do we want foreign ships with limited liability transporting cargo from one US port to another?

[njhorseman]

The two B2B cruises are considered to be one journey, starting in one US port and ending in another. It is handled the exact same way on airlines.

 

You could book Air Canada for a trip from New York to Toronto. You could also book Air Canada for a trip from Toronto to Chicago. You could not book a trip from New York to Toronto to Chicago on Air Canada, this would be considered a domestic flight, and would need to be booked on a US air carrier.

 

Nearly all countries have cabotage laws, and cabotage extends to maritime, air, and ground transportation. Without cabotage laws, foreign ships, planes, and trains (mostly in Europe) could carry goods and passengers from one city to another. As most cruisers find out when something like the Grandeur or Triumph happen, the US is not the investigative body for incidents like this, but are only consultants to the flag state's regulatory body. If coastwise shipping or domestic air travel were opened to foreign carriers, we would lose our control over the safety, environmental, and economic factors in transportation. Just think if foreign air carriers were allowed to fly passengers domestically, what would happen to US flight crews. They would be replaced with lower salaried foreign crews, over which we would have no regulation, and whose paycheck would go to their home country. It is the same with maritime transportation.

 

To go back to the Splendor and Triumph fires, while the USCG can issue an advisory to the industry about recommendations for improved safety on these foreign flag ships, they cannot pass any laws or regulations that are more stringent than IMO regulations that would be binding on foreign ships. USCG regulations for US ships are in many areas stricter than IMO, but because the ship is US flag, they can enforce the regulations.

 

Environmental regulations and laws are different for US ships and foreign ships when a pollution incident happens in US waters. Do we want foreign ships with limited liability transporting cargo from one US port to another?

 

The US has more authority over issues that affect the health and safety of US citizens who are passengers on foreign-flagged cruise ships than you're suggesting. Two examples:

 

(1) In 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., ruled that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships operating in US waters. This ruling applies to passenger accommodations.

 

(2)The Centers for Disease Control has legal jurisdiction to enforce its Vessel Sanitation Program for all ships carrying 13 or more passengers having a foreign itinerary with US ports. Obviously by definition this covers all foreign-flagged ships both home porting in the US (as all of them must make at least one call in a foreign port) and every ship making as little as a single port call in the US as part of its itinerary.

 

I'd suggest that if legal push came to shove, and the US passed safety laws more stringent than IMO regulations, based on precedent there's a reasonable chance the courts would rule in favor of the US having the right to enforce those laws for all ships making port in the US, not just US-flagged ships.

[chengkp75]

The US has more authority over issues that affect the health and safety of US citizens who are passengers on foreign-flagged cruise ships than you're suggesting. Two examples:

 

(1) In 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., ruled that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships operating in US waters. This ruling applies to passenger accommodations.

 

(2)The Centers for Disease Control has legal jurisdiction to enforce its Vessel Sanitation Program for all ships carrying 13 or more passengers having a foreign itinerary with US ports. Obviously by definition this covers all foreign-flagged ships both home porting in the US (as all of them must make at least one call in a foreign port) and every ship making as little as a single port call in the US as part of its itinerary.

 

I'd suggest that if legal push came to shove, and the US passed safety laws more stringent than IMO regulations, based on precedent there's a reasonable chance the courts would rule in favor of the US having the right to enforce those laws for all ships making port in the US, not just US-flagged ships.

 

I'm not saying that the US doesn't have ANY jurisdiction, just that most laws will not apply.

 

I'm not sure of the precedent used to enact the ADA on foreign cruise ships, though of course I know it does apply.

 

One note about the CDC. Through its USPH division, it has the mandate to prevent the bringing into the country any disease. To do this, they inspect ALL foreign ships that call in US ports, not just cruise ships. They do inspect ALL cruise ships that enter US ports as well, and apply the VSP program. Please note that the VSP was developed by the cruise industry itself, not the USPH, and therefore is something of a self-regulation. While USPH inspectors can inspect and enforce the VSP while the ship is in US waters, once outside US waters, the cruise lines COULD ( I won't say DO) allow the requirements to lapse, and there would be no ramifications. If a passenger observed a violation of the VSP while in a foreign port or at sea, and reported it to the USPH, the only thing USPH could do would be to inspect the ship at next US port, and if no violations were found AT THAT TIME, there would be no penalty.

 

However, things like OSHA do not apply on foreign ships.

 

If the USCG had the authority to enforce stricter safety regulations, such as those imposed on US ships by the USCG, on foreign ships, why hasn't it been done?

[njhorseman]

I'm not saying that the US doesn't have ANY jurisdiction, just that most laws will not apply.

 

I'm not sure of the precedent used to enact the ADA on foreign cruise ships, though of course I know it does apply.

 

One note about the CDC. Through its USPH division, it has the mandate to prevent the bringing into the country any disease. To do this, they inspect ALL foreign ships that call in US ports, not just cruise ships. They do inspect ALL cruise ships that enter US ports as well, and apply the VSP program. Please note that the VSP was developed by the cruise industry itself, not the USPH, and therefore is something of a self-regulation. While USPH inspectors can inspect and enforce the VSP while the ship is in US waters, once outside US waters, the cruise lines COULD ( I won't say DO) allow the requirements to lapse, and there would be no ramifications. If a passenger observed a violation of the VSP while in a foreign port or at sea, and reported it to the USPH, the only thing USPH could do would be to inspect the ship at next US port, and if no violations were found AT THAT TIME, there would be no penalty.

 

However, things like OSHA do not apply on foreign ships.

 

If the USCG had the authority to enforce stricter safety regulations, such as those imposed on US ships by the USCG, on foreign ships, why hasn't it been done?

 

Because they don't consider it important enough to cause an international furor? Actually it's likely because the US law doesn't specifically permit them to. The basis of the ADA ruling in Spector was the court's interpretation that Congress intended ADA to apply to US citizens who are passengers on cruise ships. The ruling also made it clear that the ADA did not apply to the ships' internal operations...for example cruise lines do not have to abide by anti-discrimination provisions of ADA when hiring crew. That also provides insight into why OSHA isn't applicable...the US can't interfere with the internal operations of a foreign-flagged ship. But, it is very clear that as long as it was intended in the legislation, the courts have ruled the US does have authority to regulate matters of passenger health and safety.

 

Another example of the US stepping in on matters of passenger health and safety is the 2010 Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Law:

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3360enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3360enr.pdf

 

Of course we can also look the role of the NTSB and USCG in the investigations of the recent widely publicized fires on Carnival and Royal Caribbean cruise ships, which occurred on foreign-flagged ships while in international waters. Yes, the flag countries are technically in charge of those investigations, but are they really doing the heavy lifting, or is it the NTSB and USCG?

[BillB48]

Can chengkp75 or anyone else explain who benefits by making consecutive cruises that each is ok by the PVSA illegal to book B2B? This does not make any sense to me and I do understand the rational for having cabotage laws.

 

In a broad sense cabotage laws no doubt protect the US from a lot of foreign low price operators to come within the US borders and just skim the most profitable routes. That kind of cherry picking would just wind up leaving the less profitable routes (surface or air) to domestic operators. This certainly would not be in our favor even though you might be able to fly from JFK to LAX cheaper than going by Greyhound. I also don't believe there is a huge desire on the part of the cruise business to wholesale to become completely eligible for a coastwise endorsement. The occasional crack that the cruising public falls into as seems to me as overkill and could be addressed in a similar manner as it already is in certain areas of the PVSA. There are already albeit very targeted exemptions, in the PVSA that could be used in a similar fashion. For example Puerto Rico is excluded from the PVSA until a qualified coastwise ship is available for that route. Even though Puerto Rico is exempt from the PVSA while it is not exempt from the Jones Act. The point is they could do it if there were the desire to create these exemptions to allow some exceptions. The trouble that arises is..... you just don't what these laws will look like when they get finished tinkering with them... as in the law of unintended consequences. Look what almost happened when NCL tried to tighten the PVSA requirements for it's US flagged Hawaii ships competitors. That effort could have wrecked the cruise business for the West Coast and Alaska.

 

I just don't see by letting some cruise passengers string a couple of B2B2Bs together is somehow going to lead to Trans Discount Airlines from some flag of convenience swoop in start providing service from Tupelo to Tuskegee, putting the local carrier out of business. Many portions of the PVSA are protecting a non existent industry and I wish this good be addressed with a bit of practical logic.

[chengkp75]

Because they don't consider it important enough to cause an international furor? Actually it's likely because the US law doesn't specifically permit them to. The basis of the ADA ruling in Spector was the court's interpretation that Congress intended ADA to apply to US citizens who are passengers on cruise ships. The ruling also made it clear that the ADA did not apply to the ships' internal operations...for example cruise lines do not have to abide by anti-discrimination provisions of ADA when hiring crew. That also provides insight into why OSHA isn't applicable...the US can't interfere with the internal operations of a foreign-flagged ship. But, it is very clear that as long as it was intended in the legislation, the courts have ruled the US does have authority to regulate matters of passenger health and safety.

 

Another example of the US stepping in on matters of passenger health and safety is the 2010 Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Law:

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3360enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3360enr.pdf

 

Of course we can also look the role of the NTSB and USCG in the investigations of the recent widely publicized fires on Carnival and Royal Caribbean cruise ships, which occurred on foreign-flagged ships while in international waters. Yes, the flag countries are technically in charge of those investigations, but are they really doing the heavy lifting, or is it the NTSB and USCG?

 

You are obviously a lawyer, while I am just a poor merchant mariner, so I will defer some of your points to your expertise. I would like some clarification, though, for a layman:

 

1. With regards to the ADA, was the court's intention that the ships provided a "structure" or accommodation that was in the US, while the ship was in US waters? Is there precedent for a civil case under the ADA where the passenger was injured due to something claimed to be in violation of the ADA while at sea or in a foreign port? Just trying to see how far the jurisdiction goes.

 

2. I don't see anything (in a brief read) of the Safety and Security Law that says the FBI has jurisdiction to investigate incidents, or that the US has the ability to prosecute incidents, only that the ship must inform the FBI that an incident has occurred. I remember the assault cases that instigated this law, and the major outcome was the crew member was transferred to a vessel that did not call on US ports. It specifies that the company is required to notify passengers of the "jurisdictional authority and law enforcement processes", but does not state that these are granted to the US. Am I missing something?

 

While the USCG and NTSB are "doing the heavy lifting" on these investigations, can they do anything about them? They can issue advisories, but that is about it, it is still up to the flag state to initiate any new safety regulations. If the USCG or NTSB were "in charge" wouldn't there have been a final report on the Splendor, and a push to do what Carnival is doing to the Triumph (routing electrical cables separately for the two engine rooms)?

 

It is my belief that as a signatory to IMO, we cannot impose more stringent requirements on foreign ships than their flag state allows. I have met with this in reverse, when a foreign country boards a US flag ship in a foreign port as part of a port state control inspection. We were nearly denied permission to sail because our USCG approved equipment was not what the foreign official though met his countries law. Messages between USCG HQ and the foreign authority led to our clearing.

 

For BillB48:

 

You are correct that once you let the camel get his nose under the tent, there's no stopping him. As you say, the law of unintended consequences runs rampant in DC.

 

1. NCL itself got an exemption to the PVSA to start up the Hawaii operation, because none of the ships were built in the US. While this has not worked out too badly for the US government, or the cruising public, it was a disaster for NCL, for reasons of their own making. The main driving force behind the bill was to flog off an unwanted, incomplete cruise ship hull that the US government had made mortgage guarantees on.

 

2. When NCL tried to tighten the PVSA in 2008, they were only looking for the foreign ships to make Ensenada an advertised port of call, and to allow passengers ashore, instead of the midnite arrival and 2 hour port call, just to clear the requirement of the PVSA. The whole 48 hour or percentage of time in foreign port came from god knows where, and would have had a significant immpact on WC cruising.

 

3. If you allowed the cruise ships to make one way transport between US ports allowed, what would stop, say, the Alaskan Marine Highway saying that its Bellingham, WA to Alaska run is a passenger cruise and they should be allowed to flag to the Bahamas. Unintended consequences. And given the US's sense of justice and fair play, these kinds of things could be brought under the umbrella of discrimination.

 

You say that the PVSA is protecting a non-existent industry. Why can't Americans care as much about their shipping as their steel, auto and farm industries? I guess it is because shipping is used as the example of what will happen if we don't protect our industries. The US has gone from the largest merchant fleet in the world after WWII, to the 26th ranked fleet today, and most of that tonnage is either coastwise Jones Act tonnage or military chartered. Shipbuilding for commercial vessels are almost non-existant. On the other hand, look at what the NCL Hawaii operations have brought to the Hawaiian economy. Nearly everything used on the ship was purchased in the state, so taxes were paid, the money remained in the state, and many companies grew to meet the cruise ship demands.

 

Do we really want to leave the implementation of a reduced or modified PVSA to today's politicians? If the last couple of decades are examples, god help us.

[njhorseman]

Chengkp75:

 

I'm not a lawyer, but as part of my primary business career I spent a lot of time working with state legislatures and regulatory agencies developing draft legislation and regulations, so I'm used to reading and understanding laws and court decisions. I also had a secondary business career as a travel agency owner, so I try to keep abreast of law as it applies to the travel industry...in particular cruising.

 

I'm not going to attempt to slice and dice Spector and go through every sentence of the ruling to ascertain all its nuances.

 

All I'm saying is that if the US wants to it can exert more control over cruise ships flying foreign flags...and the information I cited are recent examples of how it can. Cruise lines with billions of dollars invested in their ships that primarily operate in the US, carrying US citizens as the majority of their passengers, home porting a majority of their ships in the US, having their corporate headquarters located in the US and having their stock traded on US stock exchanges are going to find it increasingly difficult to hide behind the skirts of their flag countries. Did you notice how a couple press conferences given by US Senators suddenly lit a fire under CLIA, and magically we now have a "Passenger Bill of Rights" that all CLIA members have agreed to follow...and which is also expected to be adopted internationally? Why is that? Very simply...the industry knows it's very vulnerable to the US adopting laws that they won't like one bit...and that they're going to have to obey, foreign-flagged or not. They're trying to head off that onerous possibility as well as trying to gain some positive PR traction by suddenly adopting a "Bill of Rights".

[njhorseman]

Chengkp75:

 

As an aside, I see you're from Maine. About 40 years ago, as a relatively young man in my mid 20's, I was asked to be our industry's principal witness at a hearing that as I recall was held in the State House in Augusta. The good citizens of Maine were not too happy about this outsider (I think the protesters actually called me a "flatlander" ) coming into Maine and asking for increased insurance premiums. It got so intense that when the hearing concluded the state police actually had to escort me out of the building from a side basement door and drove me to my motel, because I couldn't risk taking a taxi. The whole event was such big news that I actually got to watch myself on TV that night on the local newscast.

 

I know now that my boss knew what was going to happen, and wanted no part of it so set me up. The next year I refused to return by myself, and insisted that my boss also go...and do the testifying, while I just served as the valet who carried the paperwork.

[Cuizer2]

followed by the repo on 10/27 from Boston to Tampa... Boston, Massachusetts; Basseterre, St. Kitts; Castries, St. Lucia; Bridgetown, Barbados; Willemstad, Curacao; Oranjestad, Aruba; Tampa, Florida

 

Several on our CC thread have said "no can do"....it's a violation of the PVSA. It seems there are a number of opinions about the legality of this itinerary. I think we're OK and have an email from Resolutions saying it's OK.....sure hope so. :)

 

Both of the stops in red above make the repo cruise perfectly legal.

[varoo]

We're on the Brilliance 10/20 RT Boston... Boston, Massachusetts; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Bar Harbor, Maine; Portland, Maine; Boston, Massachusetts

 

followed by the repo on 10/27 from Boston to Tampa... Boston, Massachusetts; Basseterre, St. Kitts; Castries, St. Lucia; Bridgetown, Barbados; Willemstad, Curacao; Oranjestad, Aruba; Tampa, Florida

 

Several on our CC thread have said "no can do"....it's a violation of the PVSA. It seems there are a number of opinions about the legality of this itinerary. I think we're OK and have an email from Resolutions saying it's OK.....sure hope so. :)

 

Both of the stops in red above make the repo cruise perfectly legal.

Sue, you are fine and have no PVSA violation with this itinerary.

 

Cuizer2 is correct as the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao) are classified as "distant" foreign ports, thus satisfying the requirement of the PVSA.

 

Enjoy your cruise!

 

[FLACRUISER99]

In a broad sense cabotage laws no doubt protect the US from a lot of foreign low price operators to come within the US borders and just skim the most profitable routes. That kind of cherry picking would just wind up leaving the less profitable routes (surface or air) to domestic operators. This certainly would not be in our favor even though you might be able to fly from JFK to LAX cheaper than going by Greyhound. I also don't believe there is a huge desire on the part of the cruise business to wholesale to become completely eligible for a coastwise endorsement. The occasional crack that the cruising public falls into as seems to me as overkill and could be addressed in a similar manner as it already is in certain areas of the PVSA. There are already albeit very targeted exemptions, in the PVSA that could be used in a similar fashion. For example Puerto Rico is excluded from the PVSA until a qualified coastwise ship is available for that route. Even though Puerto Rico is exempt from the PVSA while it is not exempt from the Jones Act. The point is they could do it if there were the desire to create these exemptions to allow some exceptions. The trouble that arises is..... you just don't what these laws will look like when they get finished tinkering with them... as in the law of unintended consequences. Look what almost happened when NCL tried to tighten the PVSA requirements for it's US flagged Hawaii ships competitors. That effort could have wrecked the cruise business for the West Coast and Alaska.

 

I just don't see by letting some cruise passengers string a couple of B2B2Bs together is somehow going to lead to Trans Discount Airlines from some flag of convenience swoop in start providing service from Tupelo to Tuskegee, putting the local carrier out of business. Many portions of the PVSA are protecting a non existent industry and I wish this good be addressed with a bit of practical logic.

Yes that's is what I tried to say.

[Cuizer2]

The trouble that arises is..... you just don't what these laws will look like when they get finished tinkering with them... as in the law of unintended consequences. Look what almost happened when NCL tried to tighten the PVSA requirements for it's US flagged Hawaii ships competitors. That effort could have wrecked the cruise business for the West Coast and Alaska.

 

I just don't see by letting some cruise passengers string a couple of B2B2Bs together is somehow going to lead to Trans Discount Airlines from some flag of convenience swoop in start providing service from Tupelo to Tuskegee, putting the local carrier out of business. Many portions of the PVSA are protecting a non existent industry and I wish this good be addressed with a bit of practical logic.

 

That is the point (in red) many people miss. Many posters want the law repealed. However, the last time someone attempted to modify this law, it was to make it stronger - not weaker.

 

The law exists to protect an industry that existed then, but not now. The law has union backing, and I really don't see much of an attempt to weaken it gathering much support. The bottom line, it affects a small segment of the population that isn't going to gain much sympathy from the general public, so the union backing is enough to keep this law from being weakened. The cruise industry is doing fine with the law in place. As long as someone doesn't try another NCL like move, everything will be fine.

 

So, if you want to take a B2B cruise, just make sure you don't start and end at two different US ports without first stopping at a distant foreign port. Just so everyone is clear, there are NO distant foreign ports in North or Central America. The closest distant foreign ports are the islands near South America, aka the ABC islands.

[Desert Cruizers]

A lady on our Hawaii to Vancouver, April 27, 20114 to May 9, 2014 was considering continuing on with an Alaska cruise on the Radiance, not sure what the final ruling was but several suggested they didn't think that was possible. I believe the question came from Vancouver not being considered a foreign port.

[chengkp75]

A lady on our Hawaii to Vancouver, April 27, 20114 to May 9, 2014 was considering continuing on with an Alaska cruise on the Radiance, not sure what the final ruling was but several suggested they didn't think that was possible. I believe the question came from Vancouver not being considered a foreign port.

 

It's not that Vancouver is not a foreign port, its that it is not considered a "far foreign port" by the definition of the PVSA. "Open jaw" cruises, which pick up a passenger in one US port, and leave them in another US port, must visit a "far foreign port" to allow a foreign flag ship to do it. On the WC, there are no far foreign ports north of Central America. Mexico and Canada do not qualify as far foreign ports.

[varoo]

A lady on our Hawaii to Vancouver, April 27, 20114 to May 9, 2014 was considering continuing on with an Alaska cruise on the Radiance, not sure what the final ruling was but several suggested they didn't think that was possible. I believe the question came from Vancouver not being considered a foreign port.

Vancouver is a "nearby" foreign port and as such does not satisfy the PVSA requirement for a "distant" foreign port in such circumstances.

 

However, what the lady wants to do will be legal if she stays on for another 7 days and does the round-trip back-to-back on Radiance, northbound from Vancouver to Seward and then southbound from Seward to Vancouver, so that her final disembarkation occurs in Vancouver.

 

For that matter, she could just disembark when she initially arrives in Vancouver and change to a different ship for the trip up to Alaska if she wants to end up in Alaska.

 

In situations similar to hers in the past, to avoid PVSA restrictions we have used both of these methods , at different times for different reasons. Perfectly legal and no problem at all.