Back to back illegal?

[rsail203]

We're looking at a Seattle to Vancouver Solstice Alaska cruise followed by a Vancouver to Hawaii cruise. Based on previous postings on this board, I believe that this would be illegal. Is that correct?

[tunaman2011]

Greetings

 

Is this trip all on the same ship? If you take this trip all on the same ship then it would seem to violate the PVSA since you have not stopped at a far foreign port.

 

Good Sailing

Tom

[A Sixth?]

Greetings

 

Is this trip all on the same ship? If you take this trip all on the same ship then it would seem to violate the PVSA since you have not stopped at a far foreign port.

 

Good Sailing

Tom

 

So Nassau is a distant port (about 185 stat miles from Miami) and Vancouver isn't? (about 121 stat miles from Seattle)

 

What's the magic number?

 

(here's a neat distance calculator I found... http://www.distance.to/Seatle/Vancouver )

Edited December 7, 2014 by A Sixth?

[edgee]

If you travel RT from the same U.S. port it is not necessary to stop at a distant foreign port...just any foreign port. If you travel between two different U.S. ports you must stop at a distant foreign port. Not sure what your example is about Nassau but it is not a distant foreign port under the law's definition. Also, there is an exception for San Juan, in case that plays into your Nassau example.

Edited December 7, 2014 by edgee

[rsail203]

Back to back on the same ship.

 

If I were to take an Alaska cruise on a different ship and get off that ship in Vancouver, would it then be legal to take Solstice from Vancouver to Hawaii, the same day, or the next day?

[Cruise Junky]

Yes, it's illegal. You're sailing Seattle to Honolulu. Which is a no no unless hitting a foreign distant port.

[WestLakeGirl]

Same ship for both legs, you cannot do

 

Different ship for each leg is no problem

[A Sixth?]

If you travel RT from the same U.S. port it is not necessary to stop at a distant foreign port...just any foreign port. If you travel between two different U.S. ports you must stop at a distant foreign port. Not sure what your example is about Nassau but it is not a distant foreign port under the law's definition. Also, there is an exception for San Juan, in case that plays into your Nassau example.

 

You can do a Florida 3 day Nassau followed by 4 Day no problem can't you?

 

There must be a definition of "Distant" somewhere... does anyone know what it is?

[fleckle]

If I were to take an Alaska cruise on a different ship and get off that ship in Vancouver, would it then be legal to take Solstice from Vancouver to Hawaii, the same day, or the next day?

Yes, that would be perfectly fine and no problem whatsoever.

 

The reason is that you will not initially be boarding the Solstice in a US port if you do it that way, so there is no PVSA violation.

 

[WestLakeGirl]

Look up PVSA in Wikipedia, or on one of the many threads here on Cruise Critic, it's all spelled out there in the law

[Shmoo here]

So Nassau is a distant port (about 185 stat miles from Miami) and Vancouver isn't? (about 121 stat miles from Seattle)

 

What's the magic number?

 

(here's a neat distance calculator I found... http://www.distance.to/Seatle/Vancouver )

 

To travel between 2 different US cities (as this B2B would do) you must stop at a distant foreign port. All other cruises must stop at any (nearby or distant) foreign port.

 

A nearby foreign port is described (by the PVSA) as:

A “nearby foreign port” is defined as "any port in North America, Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West Indies (including the Bahama Islands, but not including the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles, i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao)." 19 CFR § 4.80a(a)(2).

 

So, Vancouver cannot be a distant foreign port. Nassau, likewise is not a distant foreign port.

[A Sixth?]

To travel between 2 different US cities (as this B2B would do) you must stop at a distant foreign port. All other cruises must stop at any (nearby or distant) foreign port.

 

A nearby foreign port is described (by the PVSA) as:

A “nearby foreign port” is defined as "any port in North America, Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West Indies (including the Bahama Islands, but not including the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles, i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao)." 19 CFR § 4.80a(a)(2).

 

So, Vancouver cannot be a distant foreign port. Nassau, likewise is not a distant foreign port.

 

So you can't do a Bermuda, Bahamas, Panama, Mexico or Alaska B2B?

[Kamloops50]

You can do a Florida 3 day Nassau followed by 4 Day no problem can't you?

 

There must be a definition of "Distant" somewhere... does anyone know what it is?

 

If you do two closed loop cruises then you only need to stop in a foreign port.

A closed loop port is any cruise that starts and ends in the same port .

In Alaska cruises from Seattle or San Francisco are closed loop. They are only required to stop in a foreign port like Victoria BC or Prince Rupert.

[Shmoo here]

So you can't do a Bermuda, Bahamas, Panama, Mexico or Alaska B2B?

 

I'm not sure what sort of cruise you're asking about.

 

All that matters is where the passenger got on the ship and where they got off (regardless if it's one cruise or any combination of B2B cruises).

 

If the embarkation port and the debarkation ports are 2 different US cities, then the cruise must stop at a distant foreign port.

 

If the embarkation port and the debarkation ports is the same US city, then any foreign port visit is OK.

 

If the embarkation port or the debarkation port is a foreign port (with the other being a US port), then the PVSA does not apply.

 

For example, a passenger may board a ship in Miami, cruise through the Panama Canal, with the cruise ending in Vancouver. Any foreign port visit will satisfy the PVSA. However, if the cruise begins in Miami, cruises the Panama Canal and ends in, say, San Diego, then the ship must make a stop at a distant foreign port.

 

Back to the original posters proposed B2B, boarding in Seattle and disembarking in Hawaii, there are no distant foreign ports along that line of travel, so it violates the PVSA.

[Kamloops50]

I'm not sure what sort of cruise you're asking about.

 

All that matters is where the passenger got on the ship and where they got off (regardless if it's one cruise or any combination of B2B cruises).

 

If the embarkation port and the debarkation ports are 2 different US cities, then the cruise must stop at a distant foreign port.

 

If the embarkation port and the debarkation ports is the same US city, then any foreign port visit is OK.

 

If the embarkation port or the debarkation port is a foreign port (with the other being a US port), then the PVSA does not apply.

 

For example, a passenger may board a ship in Miami, cruise through the Panama Canal, with the cruise ending in Vancouver. Any foreign port visit will satisfy the PVSA. However, if the cruise begins in Miami, cruises the Panama Canal and ends in, say, San Diego, then the ship must make a stop at a distant foreign port.

 

Back to the original posters proposed B2B, boarding in Seattle and disembarking in Hawaii, there are no distant foreign ports along that line of travel, so it violates the PVSA.

 

What is highlighted in red is legal . These cruises will normally stop in other ports as well.

[Kamloops50]

So you can't do a Bermuda, Bahamas, Panama, Mexico or Alaska B2B?

 

Yes you can do a Alaska B2B because from Seattle or San Francisco.

From Vancouver BC or even an Alaska port you can legally do a B2B. Because it is a cruise from one US port to a Canadian port.

[Cruise Junky]

So you can't do a Bermuda, Bahamas, Panama, Mexico or Alaska B2B?

 

Of course you can. What you can't do is cruise from one US port and end in a different US port without hitting a foreign distant port.

[tunaman2011]

So Nassau is a distant port (about 185 stat miles from Miami) and Vancouver isn't? (about 121 stat miles from Seattle)

 

What's the magic number?

 

(here's a neat distance calculator I found... http://www.distance.to/Seatle/Vancouver )

 

Greetings

 

There is no magic number. Nassau is not a far foreign port. The definition is contained within the law. The law says that you must visit a port outside of North America (Central America, Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Caribbean are all considered North America). The law also designates Aruba, Curacao, and Bonaire as far foreign ports. This law only come into play when you start your cruise at one US port and end your cruise at a different US port. If your cruise returns you to the same port then the law does not apply.

 

Good Sailing

Tom

Edited December 7, 2014 by tunaman2011

[cruisestitch]

Yes the law still applies, the part where it says that a closed loop cruise need only visit ANY foreign port applies.

[whitshel]

So you can't do a Bermuda, Bahamas, Panama, Mexico or Alaska B2B?

 

Yes, but you are missing the point, you are talking about round trip cruises (starting and ending in the same us port) you may take as many of those as you like back to back as long as it starts and ends in the same us port.

 

The op is talking about one way cruises, starting in one US port and ending in another US port, those need a distant port somewhere between the 2 ports. That's why all one way cruises to Hawaii start or end in either Ensenada or Vancouver and not Seattle, LA or San Diego.

 

99% of cruise ships are foreign flagged so they cant transport pax from one US port to another US port without that distant port. Kinda like you can't take a British Airways plane from LAX to JFK, same theory....

[A Sixth?]

Okay I guess I get it. Same US port at start and end no problem.... what I still don't get is like the OP is doing.

 

Doesn't the first cruise end at the part one of the B2B, then you re-board for the second part? They make you check back into the US before getting back on the ship.

 

It makes no sense to me. That Jones thing is just plain weird in the case of modern cruising IMHO.... :p

[A Sixth?]

Holly Cow!!!

 

I just checked that Jones Act thingy and it was drafted in 1920!!! :eek::p

 

Back in the days of ship immigration and well before air travel.

 

Maybe it's time to take a look at a nearly 100 year old law and bring it at least into the jet age. :cool:

 

(I just read that it was the last gasp of the Prohibition!!! And it's still around??? LOL!!! Why can't the cruise industry lobby to get rid of it? )

Edited December 7, 2014 by A Sixth?

[Kamloops50]

Holly Cow!!!

 

I just checked that Jones Act thingy and it was drafted in 1920!!! :eek::p

 

Back in the days of ship immigration and well before air travel.

 

Maybe it's time to take a look at a nearly 100 year old law and bring it at least into the jet age. :cool:

 

Look for the "Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA)" , it's what affects passenger ships . The Jones act is only for cargo and working conditions on American Ships.

Many people confuse the two acts.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Kamloops50

[brfan]

Okay I guess I get it. Same US port at start and end no problem.... what I still don't get is like the OP is doing.

 

Doesn't the first cruise end at the part one of the B2B, then you re-board for the second part? They make you check back into the US before getting back on the ship.

 

It makes no sense to me. That Jones thing is just plain weird in the case of modern cruising IMHO.... :p

 

It doesn't matter, it is where you get on the ship and where you get off the ship. It doesn't matter how many cruises you do in between. If you get on in one US port and depart another US port on the same ship you must visit a far foreign port (eg. Aruba).

[A Sixth?]

Look for the "Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA)" , it's what affects passenger ships . The Jones act is only for cargo and working conditions on American Ships.

Many people confuse the two acts.

 

The Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (sometimes abbreviated to PVSA, Passenger Services Act, or PSA) is a protectionist piece of United States legislation which came into force in 1886 relating to cabotage.

 

It sure is confusing. :confused:

 

Can we all at least agree that in 2014 a law restricting leisure travel by sea makes absolutely no sense. :D

 

Especially ones that are 100 and 130 years old!!!

 

edit Can you imagine if they decided to apply all this to air travel!!!! And you thought travel is a pain now! :D

Edited December 7, 2014 by A Sixth?