Leaving mid way threw cruise

[Keith1010]

If you want to leave the cruise before it ends, then contact the cruise line to see if that is possible.

 

Keith

[GUT2407]

Just say your sick.

[richwmn]

So (getting another bag of popcorn), this is not about Ketchikan, so the mystery writer may not be interested, but re disembarkation:

 

1. These situations occurred in Caribbean/Med/Baltic seas:

-Have regularly seen passengers disembark in random international ports with their luggage--a family, once. A couple of times there were medical emergencies--with ambulance at the pier--& we watched as the companions disembarked.

Getting off at foreign ports is not a violation of the PVSA

 

-A couple got off in Livorno & didn't tell anyone their plan to rent a car & reboard in Civitavecchia. The gossip I recall from dinner was that they bought themselves a world 'o pain.

Foreign port again

-Have also seen passengers join the ship--again with luggage--in ports along the itinerary. We've assumed their flights were delayed & so they had to catch up to the ship in the next port.

Should only happen at a foreign port

2. Have read of performers & lecturers joining/departing ships mid-cruise, priorly arranged.

Most likely if this happened at a US port they were considered crew. Crew are not covered by the PVSA, only passengers

3. What about folks who get put off the ship in "the next port" after bad behavior, per the printed rules (& per gossip)?

Again - if the "next port" is foreign, no problem. If the port is US it would be a violation - but there are exceptions for some reasons (eg medical) and this might be covered.

[jtl513]

Let's say someone boarded in Tampa and abruptly decided to get off in a port where no visa is required ... like Cozumel maybe? They tell the ship that they are leaving so there is no "search" done, and the ship is not delayed departing. Would there be any legal or financial repercussions?

[serendipity1499]

Let's say someone boarded in Tampa and abruptly decided to get off in a port where no visa is required ... like Cozumel maybe? They tell the ship that they are leaving so there is no "search" done, and the ship is not delayed departing. Would there be any legal or financial repercussions?

I doubt there would be any legal problems, but (big but) They may have to go through Mexican Customs.. That's why it's important to arrange any disembarkation in another port with the cruise line..

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[doublebzz]

Years ago I had flown to Puerto Rico and, after a few days, I decided I want to return to Florida on a cruise ship. It would be my first cruise aboard the old Carnival Mardi Gras. I was told that I could not board in San Juan but I could fly to St Thomas, meet the ship there, and sail back to Miami which I did. Can any of the sea lawyers on this thread explain why this was not a violation of U.S. law?

[serendipity1499]

So (getting another bag of popcorn), this is not about Ketchikan, so the mystery writer may not be interested, but re disembarkation:

 

1. These situations occurred in Caribbean/Med/Baltic seas:

-Have regularly seen passengers disembark in random international ports with their luggage--a family, once. A couple of times there were medical emergencies--with ambulance at the pier--& we watched as the companions disembarked.

 

-A couple got off in Livorno & didn't tell anyone their plan to rent a car & reboard in Civitavecchia. The gossip I recall from dinner was that they bought themselves a world 'o pain.

 

-Have also seen passengers join the ship--again with luggage--in ports along the itinerary. We've assumed their flights were delayed & so they had to catch up to the ship in the next port.

 

2. Have read of performers & lecturers joining/departing ships mid-cruise, priorly arranged.

 

3. What about folks who get put off the ship in "the next port" after bad behavior, per the printed rules (& per gossip)?

 

None of your examples have anything to do with this discussion! Please don't confuse the Issue..

 

This discussion is about Psgrs boarding in a USA port & may want to disembark in a USA port.. It CAN NOT be done unless the ship stops in a distant foreign port.. If the Psgrs try to disembark in another USA port, & the ship does not go to a distant foreign port they would be in violation of the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Service Act) !

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[JB&JLG74]

I read the articles provided by serendipity1499, but still do not think that the Jones Act is exclusively cargo. The Maritime Law Center says (emphasis mine):

* * *

Generally, the Jones Act prohibits any foreign built or foreign flagged vessel from engaging in coastwise trade within the United States. A number of other statutes affect coastwise trade and should be consulted along with the Jones Act. These include the Passenger Services Act, 46 USC section 289 which restricts coastwise transportation of passengers * * *

The essential term that has given rise to various interpretations of what constitutes "coastwise trade". The federal courts have given a very wide interpretation of the term. * * *

The Passenger Services Act provides the legislation that controls the operation of passenger vessels in coastwise trade.

 

The Jones Act regulates coastwise trade. Passenger vessels engage in coastwise trade. I didn't see any reference to an exclusion for passenger vessels.

 

Bottom line: The articles referenced provide a fascinating look at these laws and explain why common usage of the term Jones Act includes both laws (as noted by the poster who spoke with an officer at a Meet and Greet). So I stand by my casual statement that if one were to leave the ship mid-cruise that there may be problems with the Jones Act. I was not trying to be hyper-technical or to write a legal brief.

[serendipity1499]

Years ago I had flown to Puerto Rico and, after a few days, I decided I want to return to Florida on a cruise ship. It would be my first cruise aboard the old Carnival Mardi Gras. I was told that I could not board in San Juan but I could fly to St Thomas, meet the ship there, and sail back to Miami which I did. Can any of the sea lawyers on this thread explain why this was not a violation of U.S. law?

 

That's a good question! It may have been in violation of the PVSA but our Govt. at that time may not have been as vigilant about it & maybe the person who told you this was not up to date on the law..

 

I do know that when I worked in the Airline industry in the 70's & 80's we had to be extremely careful about the PVSA Act only because we had flights which originated in Detroit, stopped in New York & then went on to Brussels.. We had to put those Psgrs who boarded in Detroit into protective custody in NYC..

 

Puerto Rico is an exception to the PVSA..Don't know if St. Thomas is?

[serendipity1499]

I read the articles provided by serendipity1499, but still do not think that the Jones Act is exclusively cargo. The Maritime Law Center says (emphasis mine):

* * *

Generally, the Jones Act prohibits any foreign built or foreign flagged vessel from engaging in coastwise trade within the United States. A number of other statutes affect coastwise trade and should be consulted along with the Jones Act. These include the Passenger Services Act, 46 USC section 289 which restricts coastwise transportation of passengers * * *

The essential term that has given rise to various interpretations of what constitutes "coastwise trade". The federal courts have given a very wide interpretation of the term. * * *

The Passenger Services Act provides the legislation that controls the operation of passenger vessels in coastwise trade.

 

The Jones Act regulates coastwise trade. Passenger vessels engage in coastwise trade. I didn't see any reference to an exclusion for passenger vessels.

 

Bottom line: The articles referenced provide a fascinating look at these laws and explain why common usage of the term Jones Act includes both laws (as noted by the poster who spoke with an officer at a Meet and Greet). So I stand by my casual statement that if one were to leave the ship mid-cruise that there may be problems with the Jones Act. I was not trying to be hyper-technical or to write a legal brief.

 

Why are you ignoring the last part of the sentence which specifically states that the PVSA restricts coastwise transportation of PASSENGERS..I stand by my interpretation which says the JONES act controls trade (cargo) & the PVSA controls Passengers..

 

Quote A number of other statutes affect coastwise trade and should be consulted along with the Jones Act. These include the Passenger Services Act, 46 USC section 289 which restricts coastwise transportation of passengers * * unquote

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[doublebzz]

 

Puerto Rico is an exception to the PVSA..Don't know if St. Thomas is?

 

I think the exception is St. Thomas. Puerto Rico is considered a U.S. port; St. Thomas a foreign port in this situation. Probably why you can buy duty free in St. Thomas and not Puerto Rico.

[BourbonNBluesLuvr]

Why are you ignoring the last part of the sentence which specifically states that the PVSA restricts coastwise transportation of PASSENGERS..I stand by my interpretation which says the JONES act controls trade (cargo) & the PVSA controls Passengers..

 

Quote A number of other statutes affect coastwise trade and should be consulted along with the Jones Act. These include the Passenger Services Act, 46 USC section 289 which restricts coastwise transportation of passengers * * unquote

 

Hello,

 

Just a slight clarification to some of the info you have presented...just to be technical...:D...46 USC 289 has been amended and re-codified under 46 USC 55103...for those who want to look it up.

 

I find discussions of the PVSA quite fascinating. I first became aware of the law when we booked a cruise to Hawaii several years ago...and I was told we would be checking in at San Diego, and would then be bused to Ensenada to start the cruise...and when I noticed that the previous cruise of that specific ship was debarking in San Diego, I was thrown for a loop...thus my research began.

 

BBL

Edited August 22, 2015 by BourbonNBluesLuvr

[doublebzz]

Is there general agreement that PVSA is an anachronism and should be repealed? It original intention was to protect U.S. merchant marine jobs and, for a long while, if anything, it has had exactly the opposite effect.

[Blue Mudshark]

Puerto Rico is an exception to the PVSA..Don't know if St. Thomas is?

It's complicated.

 

Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are often treated differently under US law. Neither is "incorporated", and by default, a reference to the USA in the law does not include unincorporated territories; and the US Constitution, by default, is not effect in unincorporated territories. Specific laws can make specific exceptions to the defaults, or otherwise provide different treatment under the law. One specific US law is The Puerto Rico Passenger Ship Act (PL 98-563), which provides for specific exceptions for Puerto Rico to the PVSA and its rules about "coastwise" passenger service.

 

I don't know if any of these items was the specific reason for the specific incident with different laws for Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, but I suspect it was related to these or similar laws and legal precedents.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Blue Mudshark

[Fouremco]

None of your examples have anything to do with this discussion! Please don't confuse the Issue..

 

This discussion is about Psgrs boarding in a USA port & may want to disembark in a USA port.. It CAN NOT be done unless the ship stops in a distant foreign port.. If the Psgrs try to disembark in another USA port, & the ship does not go to a distant foreign port they would be in violation of the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Service Act) !

Small point of clarification: the OP's scenario was silent as to the point of embarkation. It could have been either a US or Canadian port.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Fouremco

[serendipity1499]

I think the exception is St. Thomas. Puerto Rico is considered a U.S. port; St. Thomas a foreign port in this situation. Probably why you can buy duty free in St. Thomas and not Puerto Rico.

 

How can St. Thomas be considered a Foreign port when it's part of the U.S. Virgin Islands? We've purchased duty free Liquor in the terminal in Puerto Rico many times..

[serendipity1499]

Small point of clarification: the OP's scenario was silent as to the point of embarkation. It could have been either a US or Canadian port.

 

True..I did forget about that..It would be nice if the OP came back & participated in this discussion..

[doublebzz]

How can St. Thomas be considered a Foreign port when it's part of the U.S. Virgin Islands? We've purchased duty free Liquor in the terminal in Puerto Rico many times..

 

I am not the expect on international or U.S. law as some of the posters seem to be but, clearly, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are treated differently with regard to tariffs.

I suspect the the Puerto Rico terminal is considered a tax free zone like in U.S. airport duty free stores. However, you can't buy tax free in retail stores in Puerto Rico like you can in St. Thomas, for instance.

[doublebzz]

True..I did forget about that..It would be nice if the OP came back & participated in this discussion..

 

I doubt the OP really wanted a answer. It did spark an interesting discussion, however.

[serendipity1499]

It's complicated.

 

Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are often treated differently under US law. Neither is "incorporated", and by default, a reference to the USA in the law does not include unincorporated territories; and the US Constitution, by default, is not effect in unincorporated territories. Specific laws can make specific exceptions to the defaults, or otherwise provide different treatment under the law. One specific US law is The Puerto Rico Passenger Ship Act (PL 98-563), which provides for specific exceptions for Puerto Rico to the PVSA and its rules about "coastwise" passenger service.

 

I don't know if any of these items was the specific reason for the specific incident with different laws for Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, but I suspect it was related to these or similar laws and legal precedents.

 

Thanks for the clarification.. I have not delved into all the differences, but did know that Puerto Rico was an exception.. I know that I'm relearning a lot of history.. I don't remember the territories as being discussed in our history lessons in school.. This thread certainly has been interesting to me..

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[Mary Ellen]

Is there general agreement that PVSA is an anachronism and should be repealed? It original intention was to protect U.S. merchant marine jobs and, for a long while, if anything, it has had exactly the opposite effect.

 

It also covers airlines. Thai airlines used to have a flight from DFW to Bangkok, with a stop in Seattle. They were not permitted to carry passengers between DFW and SEA - who did not continue on to Thailand.

[Fouremco]

True..I did forget about that..It would be nice if the OP came back & participated in this discussion..

I always wonder about why someone posts a question and then disappears. Perhaps OP is waiting for the dust to settle. :)

[doublebzz]

It also covers airlines. Thai airlines used to have a flight from DFW to Bangkok, with a stop in Seattle. They were not permitted to carry passengers between DFW and SEA - who did not continue on to Thailand.

 

I doubt many airlines flew to Thailand when PVSA was originally passed in the 1880's but airlines were probably added by amendment in more recent times. Maybe it should apply to airlines but I still hold my opinion that the application to cruise ships should be repealed.

[3rdGenCunarder]

Is there general agreement that PVSA is an anachronism and should be repealed? It original intention was to protect U.S. merchant marine jobs and, for a long while, if anything, it has had exactly the opposite effect.

 

I'd love to see it repealed. It would give cruise lines freedom to offer more varied "one way" cruises. The law was supposed to protect the US shipping industry. And how many ocean-going cruise ships are registered in the US? NCL has one or two, are there any others?

 

Not much there to be protected.

[Shmoo here]

I'd love to see it repealed. It would give cruise lines freedom to offer more varied "one way" cruises. The law was supposed to protect the US shipping industry. And how many ocean-going cruise ships are registered in the US? NCL has one or two, are there any others?

 

Not much there to be protected.

 

There was an attempt to change the law (not repeal) but the changes were so far unacceptable that it didn't pass.

 

The proposed changes included things like, ship must make a full day stop (in some cases an overnight) at a foreign port (now only a courtesy call to process paperwork is required) for all itineraries. And the number of foreign ports had to equal the number of US ports visited.