Overnight away from the ship?

[Essiesmom]

But the cruise is really two cruises, one from Sydney to Honolulu, and the other from Honolulu to Vancouver. The OP says it is a B2B. I can't find any place that lists the cruise as one long cruise. So as far as the gov't would be concerned, the first cruise ends in Honolulu, and the second starts in Honolulu. So, getting off in Kona would be a violation. EM

[Gonzo70]

But the cruise is really two cruises, one from Sydney to Honolulu, and the other from Honolulu to Vancouver. The OP says it is a B2B. I can't find any place that lists the cruise as one long cruise. So as far as the gov't would be concerned, the first cruise ends in Honolulu, and the second starts in Honolulu. So, getting off in Kona would be a violation. EM

 

You are not looking at this correctly. The government would view the OP as taking two separate cruises since they debark in Hawaii for an overnight and "catch" the ship at another part. The first cruise starts in Australia, the second ends in Canada - so PVSA is a non-issue. If the government looked at each listed cruise segment published by the cruise line rather than the actual trip the passenger is taking then back-to-backs such as Hawaii to Vancouver followed by an Alaska cruise ending in Seward would be legal. They are not because the government would view the back-to-back as a single journey with the ship transporting one from Hawaii to Alaska with stopping only at near foreign ports, but no distant parts. That is where your confusion/misunderstanding is occurring.

[TravelerThom]

There was a recent (maybe last 2 months) thread that I can't find about a repositioning series of cruises. As I remember it, Cruise 1 was from Florida via Aruba and/or Cartagena and Panama Canal to San Diego; immediately following Cruise 2 was from San Diego to Vancouver; then immediately following cruise 3 was from Vancouver to Alaska. Each of these cruises is PVSA legal on their own, Cruises 1 plus 2 are legal, Cruises 1 plus 2 plus 3 are legal, BUT Cruises 2 plus 3 are in violation going from San Diego to Alaska without a distant foreign stop.

 

Thom

[Gonzo70]

There was a recent (maybe last 2 months) thread that I can't find about a repositioning series of cruises. As I remember it, Cruise 1 was from Florida via Aruba and/or Cartagena and Panama Canal to San Diego; immediately following Cruise 2 was from San Diego to Vancouver; then immediately following cruise 3 was from Vancouver to Alaska. Each of these cruises is PVSA legal on their own, Cruises 1 plus 2 are legal, Cruises 1 plus 2 plus 3 are legal, BUT Cruises 2 plus 3 are in violation going from San Diego to Alaska without a distant foreign stop.

 

Thom

 

Correct. Cartagena being in South America is a DISTANT foreign port, so can be transported from one US port (Florida) to another (San Diego). Cruises 2 & 3 only call upon near foreign ports, so could not start in San Diego and end in Alaska.

[TravelerThom]

Correct. Cartagena being in South America is a DISTANT foreign port, so can be transported from one US port (Florida) to another (San Diego)....

And, as I'm sure you know, the ABCs (Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao) qualify as Distant. Aruba is often the only Distant port on repositionings. The ABCs are close to South America, but not as close as Trinidad, so I'm not sure why the ABCs get Distant status and Trinidad doesn't (at least I don't think it does). Anyone have an answer for that?

 

Thom