Photos of Our Snowy Getaway Sail-Away from NYC

[barnacle_boy]

Wouldn't Victoria BC be considered a nearby port??:confused:

 

 

The "distant foreign port" applies to foreign flagged vessels on voyages that disembark in a US port different from the port of embarkation. It does not apply on voyages that disembark in the same US port of embarkation. In that case, foreign flagged ships may visit nearby foreign ports to satisfy the requirements of the PVSA. Thus, cruise ships can sail Alaskan itineraries round trip from Seattle with a stop in Victoria. However, a cruise embarking in Seattle and disembarking in Ketchikan via Victoria would result in a transportation violation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[bob brown]

The best one is the snow scene with "Miami Beach" as a backdrop...love the irony of that.

I think it's safe to say the Getaway will never see snow again, or at least until it reposition's some day or is sold by NCL...probably not even then...

 

As for having to debark all passenger's in Nassau, due to the PVSA...

they could have legally taken them on to Miami, if they would have extended the cruise to visit a "distant foreign port", such as Aruba, Bonaire, or Curacao before ending at Miami, but since this cruise was a last minute addition, made possible by the 'Bud Light Hotel' charter for the Superbowl....they could not have done that without further changeing the original schedule for the ship at Miami.....

So they had to sail empty to Miami. They could have sold the short segment from Nassau to Miami, but not to any of the passenger's coming from New York. Hardly worth it. The old law is complicated.....

[barnacle_boy]

The old law is complicated.....

 

 

It's actually pretty straightforward. It was designed to protect US shipping lines from foreign competition on domestic routes between US ports. Although the law was passed more than a century ago, the same ideology also exists today in similar laws that prevent foreign airlines from operating domestic flights within the US. Cabotage protects the unions and the transportation companies, but arguably at the expensive of consumers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[bob brown]

It's actually pretty straightforward. It was designed to protect US shipping lines from foreign competition on domestic routes between US ports. Although the law was passed more than a century ago, the same ideology also exists today in similar laws that prevent foreign airlines from operating domestic flights within the US. Cabotage protects the unions and the transportation companies, but arguably at the expensive of consumers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

But....in the case of airlines, there is domestic service available. Not the same in passenger shipping....

Instead of 'protecting' US built, registered, and operated ships (with the exception of the Pride of America, and small coastal and riverboats), what the law has accomplished has been to virtually eliminate them.

American corporations still own most of the cruise ships, but sadly, only employ a tiny fraction of American's as crewmember's.

And because of this, are restricted from operating domestic cruises.

[barnacle_boy]

But....in the case of airlines, there is domestic service available. Not the same in passenger shipping....

Instead of 'protecting' US built, registered, and operated ships (with the exception of the Pride of America, and small coastal and riverboats), what the law has accomplished has been to virtually eliminate them.

American corporations still own most of the cruise ships, but sadly, only employ a tiny fraction of American's as crewmember's.

And because of this, are restricted from operating domestic cruises.

 

 

It's incredibly anachronistic to apply today's situation towards an understanding of the intent behind a law enacted a century ago. Back then there were domestic passenger lines, and the threat of foreign competition on domestic routes was a very real fear. By understanding the initial intent behind the law, it makes it easy to conclude that any direct point to point travel between US ports will somehow be subject to penalties under the PVSA. That was my point. The issue of its effects on the US passenger ship industry is another matter altogether.

 

On that front, I'd like to point out that the need for domestic passenger shipping routes has essentially been eliminated in many parts of the US by the expansion of infrastructure and air travel. Since 1886, countless bridges and tunnels have sprung up around the country that have connected areas that were separated by water and only accessible by domestic passenger ship service. There's little need for passenger ship service between areas that you can simply drive or fly to today.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[sailingnut]

great pictures!!!!!!!!!:)

[agargoyle]

Hi,

 

All very interesting thoughts but we were on a cruise out of NY -- it was the Jewel while the Breakaway was being built.

 

NCL changed the route instead of NY-FL-GSC-Nassau it was Nassau-GSC-FL and then NY.

 

It was announced that this was a test cruise to see if the the route would work for the Breakaway. The thought was to have one ship go one way and the other other ship reverse it.

 

IT DID NOT WORK. Everyone had to get off the ship in FL because everyone had to go through customs since the ship was returning from foreign port to the US for the first time.

 

People ended up sitting in the terminal for nearly 2 hours, without food, water or their medication. People that had excursions planned just walked off the ship with a quick run through customs.

 

Everyone hated it and that was expressed loudly to the high ranking crew members.

 

IMHO, it is not law that prevents the reverse route but keeping customers happy.

 

So it can be done but not easily.

[barnacle_boy]

Hi,

 

 

 

All very interesting thoughts but we were on a cruise out of NY -- it was the Jewel while the Breakaway was being built.

 

 

 

NCL changed the route instead of NY-FL-GSC-Nassau it was Nassau-GSC-FL and then NY.

 

 

 

It was announced that this was a test cruise to see if the the route would work for the Breakaway. The thought was to have one ship go one way and the other other ship reverse it.

 

 

 

IT DID NOT WORK. Everyone had to get off the ship in FL because everyone had to go through customs since the ship was returning from foreign port to the US for the first time.

 

 

 

People ended up sitting in the terminal for nearly 2 hours, without food, water or their medication. People that had excursions planned just walked off the ship with a quick run through customs.

 

 

 

Everyone hated it and that was expressed loudly to the high ranking crew members.

 

 

 

IMHO, it is not law that prevents the reverse route but keeping customers happy.

 

 

 

So it can be done but not easily.

 

I'm sorry to hear that you had a poor experience. It sounds like corporate, specifically their GC, let you down. However, despite the fact that the PVSA is enforced by US Customs and Border Protection, the PVSA had nothing to do with your experience in Florida. Any passengers arriving from a foreign country, whether they are on a US flagged or a foreign flagged vessel, have to pass through US Customs. An interesting anecdote, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[puddles99]

Thanks for posting the pics - we really loved this unique sailing!

[mitsugirly]

These pictures are just priceless. It's not often you see a cruise ship covered in snow. I can't help but look at them and laugh...while I sit here in 0 degree weather with tons of snow outside. I just feel like saying nah-nah-nah-boo-boo. :p

[thephillykid]

I wonder how far south she got until the snow melted.

The ship could pick up speed, as the snow weights tons.