can you board at a different port?

[juicyjuju]

Does anyone know if Cunard would ever allow embarkation at a port that is after the official embarkation? For example there is a 28 day segment listed on the Queen Victoria that ends in San Francisco, close to my home. I couldn't do 28 days because I couldn't get that much time off work but I would join the cruise in Hawaill if they would let me.

[Kamloops50]

Does anyone know if Cunard would ever allow embarkation at a port that is after the official embarkation? For example there is a 28 day segment listed on the Queen Victoria that ends in San Francisco, close to my home. I couldn't do 28 days because I couldn't get that much time off work but I would join the cruise in Hawaill if they would let me.

 

If you want to board in Hawaii bound for San Francisco , that is a big NoNo according to the US Government. More info should be given.

[Scrapnana]

That would be prohibited by the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act) that says a foreign flagged ship can not take passengers from one US port to another without a stop at a "distant foreign port". The ship is fined (which they pass on to passengers) if they do not follow the rule.

[transatlantic fan]

Mrs “Bucket” once missed the Qe2 in Southampton and boarded in Copenhagen:D

[BlueRiband]

Does anyone know if Cunard would ever allow embarkation at a port that is after the official embarkation? For example there is a 28 day segment listed on the Queen Victoria that ends in San Francisco, close to my home. I couldn't do 28 days because I couldn't get that much time off work but I would join the cruise in Hawaill if they would let me.

 

As others have pointed out the US PSVA won't allow Cunard or any other non-US flagged ship to take passengers directly from Hawaii to California. (NCL's Pride of America is a US-flagged ship.) In order to join any ship midway through its itinieary you would still have to pay the full fare. The only way to pay less is to negotiate a pro-rated fare - something not likely to happen unless the voyage isn't selling well.

[DDBINK1]

I don't understand the logic to that rule/law. Why would they think it would be wrong or illegal and fine a cruise company for selling a partial cruise to a passenger and not allowing the ship to go from one US port to another. I am sure it is a labor rule or something like that but in this day and age when we can travel from almost every country to another, I would think the laws could be updated.

 

I do understand the economics to the selling of the entire cruise of course.

[capnpugwash]

I think that the restriction is enshrined in US protectionism as shown in the Jones Act which states categorically thus:

 

The Jones Act requires that commerce between U.S. ports on the inland and

intracoastal waterways be reserved for vessels that are:

 

▪ U.S. Built

▪ U.S. Owned

▪ Registered under U.S. Law

▪ U.S. Manned

 

That seems pretty clear to me.

[Dancer Bob]

I once missed a Miami departure and joined the ship in San Juan, but it was continuing to Caribbean ports, so I suspect that would satisfy PSVA and Jones Act.

[Colin_Cameron]

I once missed a Miami departure and joined the ship in San Juan, but it was continuing to Caribbean ports, so I suspect that would satisfy PSVA and Jones Act.

 

Not knowing your cruise ports it's difficult to be certain.

 

If you cruise from US port A, stop at ports B, C and D then back to A again, one of your stops must be a 'foreign port'.

 

However, if you cruise from US port A, stop at ports B, C and D then on to US port E, one of your stops must be a 'distant foreign port'.

 

I don't remember the definition of distant but years ago we cruised from LA to Fort Lauderdale and our 'distant foreign port' was Aruba.

 

Always wondered what happens in situations like your's, or where someone misses the boat during the cruise and has to fly home, or falls ill and has to leave the cruise.

 

Regards, Colin.

[DDBINK1]

I think that the restriction is enshrined in US protectionism as shown in the Jones Act which states categorically thus:

 

The Jones Act requires that commerce between U.S. ports on the inland and

intracoastal waterways be reserved for vessels that are:

 

▪ U.S. Built

▪ U.S. Owned

▪ Registered under U.S. Law

▪ U.S. Manned

 

That seems pretty clear to me.

 

It is clear no doubt, but it makes no sense these days with every body able to go almost everywhere in the world and products, even ships being built with parts from mutliple countries, and not to mention FREE TRADE ZONES. Even the Teamsters have permitted trucks from Mexico and Canada to bring and deliver products into the US. I do agree it is a form of protectionism. Maybe I should write my congressman? Of course if it does nothing to make him richer then he would ignore it. ha ha.

[Kamloops50]

I don't understand the logic to that rule/law. Why would they think it would be wrong or illegal and fine a cruise company for selling a partial cruise to a passenger and not allowing the ship to go from one US port to another. I am sure it is a labor rule or something like that but in this day and age when we can travel from almost every country to another, I would think the laws could be updated.

 

I do understand the economics to the selling of the entire cruise of course.

 

The main part of the law is to protect American seaman on American registered ships(labor law). The other is to keep (from 1890) cheap foreign flagged ships from carrying goods between Hawaii/Alaska and the mainland. All ships that carry goods from the mainland US to Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico have to be US flagged ships with American crews.

Also applies in the reverse .

[Oahucruiser]

We live in Hawaii and the only way we can sail to the U.S. mainland is if we dock at a foreign port before going to the ports in California, Washington or Alaska. Vancouver and Tijuana are two places that ships spend a day or a couple of hours in before continuing to a U.S. port.

[Underwatr]

All ships that carry goods from the mainland US to Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico have to be US flagged ships with American crews.

Also applies in the reverse .

There's a specific exception for Puerto Rico.

[BlueRiband]

There's a specific exception for Puerto Rico.

 

You're right in that there is currently an exception for passenger ships to and from Puerto Rico. (That exemption would be revoked should a US line decide to operate that service.) There is no Puerto Rico exemption for cargo ships and only US vessels work those routes.

 

Both the PVSA and Jones Act are about US protectionism and those who like the status quo would lobby hard to keep it that way.

[Underwatr]

Indeed. I blame thread drift (that's my story and I'm sticking with it...).

[Scrapnana]

A recent thread about the PVSA.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1896516&highlight=pvsa