Leaving mid way threw cruise

[3rdGenCunarder]

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.

 

That's more restrictive than the current law. And it would add more foreign ports, possibly reducing the number of US ports on a cruise, thereby reducing money flowing into the US. Makes no sense to me, but hey, it's the government in action...

[doublebzz]

The curiosity is overwhelming: Pray tell, why such a question???

 

Lets assume the question was not a prank and the OP was well intended. One possible scenario is that these folks are first time cruisers and are concerned they can't tolerate the ship's movement. So they board the ship in Seattle and are, in fact, seasick all the way to Ketchikan. Does anyone doubt the cruise line would make special arrangements for guests in this situation? I know OP's question implies they are just going to leave the ship without notification but lets also assume the question was poorly worded and was not the OP's intention.

[serendipity1499]

I'd love to see it repealed.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 is a lot to be protected.. It is protecting U.S. Shipping & should never be repealed.. Why would any one want to put U.S. Shipping companies & Airlines out of business?

 

American Cruise Lines which has 7 or 8 cruise ships could be put out of business.. Their ships go between 25 to 30 different U.S. cities..One of the their ships the American Spirit plies the Alaskan Waters..

 

It could also put many United States Airlines out of business because if they repealed the PVSA it would allow any Airline in the world to carry Psgrs between U.S. Cities..

 

Can you imagine how many people in the U.S. Transportation industry would be out of work..Who is going to pay for them when they lose their jobs..The taxes that YOU & I pay will certainly increase:eek:..!

 

Please be careful what you wish for!

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[PatsyAnne]

On a round trip Seattle cruise a week ago, the captain said he often leaves a couple of passengers behind in Ketchikan, but that was without luggage. [emoji79] This was in response to a question from a passenger who had been a couple of minutes late the day before (but made it).

[serendipity1499]

Lets assume the question was not a prank and the OP was well intended. One possible scenario is that these folks are first time cruisers and are concerned they can't tolerate the ship's movement. So they board the ship in Seattle and are, in fact, seasick all the way to Ketchikan. Does anyone doubt the cruise line would make special arrangements for guests in this situation? I know OP's question implies they are just going to leave the ship without notification but lets also assume the question was poorly worded and was not the OP's intention.

 

Even if a Psgr had to disembark in another U.S. City because of illness the fine of $300 per person would be assessed & have to be paid.. I'm sure the cruise line would charge their credit card...Perhaps the Psgrs Insurance Company would reimburse them, but it's not a guarantee..

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[donaldsc]

Why are you "just" curious? Are you planning to try to sneak off or are you planning to tell the ship people that you are leaving? What police force are you trying to escape from (LOL - maybe)?

 

DON

Edited August 22, 2015 by donaldsc

[wander]

This all brings back memories of "famous" (on CC and News Media) situation on the Volendam (Grand Voyage, Asia-South Pacific) in the early 2000s. A passenger was removed from the ship near Dutch Harbor (Alaska) by the Coast Guard due to an outstanding arrest warrant. From the Captain and the news media we learned that after the fact, based on a few the items he brought with him onto the ship, it was highly suspected that the man did not intend to stay with the ship for the full cruise, but rather disembark somewhere in Asia, without luggage, and simply disappear.

 

According to the Captain at the time, the outstanding arrest warrant was known when the passenger embarked in Vancouver, BC, but to arrest him there would have then required extradition. Waiting till we got into US waters off Dutch Harbor - he could immediately be sent back to LA area for processing. (No ports on the cruise until Russia.)

 

While all onboard knew about the unexpected disembarkation, we were not told who, what or why. However, the next morning in the daily summary version of the NY Times, one of the headlines read something like: Accused Pedophile Priest removed from the Volendam in Dutch Harbor. That got our attention I must say.

 

Yes, he was one of the Priests being sought by California for deeds they were being accused of in the past. As one would expect, the rest of that day there was a lot of chatter onboard about the situation, particularly amongst the Duplicate Bridge group as he was a regular there.

Edited August 22, 2015 by wander

[Boytjie]

Lets assume the question was not a prank and the OP was well intended. One possible scenario is that these folks are first time cruisers and are concerned they can't tolerate the ship's movement. So they board the ship in Seattle and are, in fact, seasick all the way to Ketchikan. Does anyone doubt the cruise line would make special arrangements for guests in this situation? I know OP's question implies they are just going to leave the ship without notification but lets also assume the question was poorly worded and was not the OP's intention.

 

There are always exceptions that are made. Recent cases were a cruise ship in the Gulf of Mexico had lost power (IIRC) and was towed to the nearest port which was not the same as the departure port and technically in violation of the PSVA. Also when a plane on a HAL excursion crash and people died, their families disembarked (either in Sitka or Ketchikan).

 

It is not the cruise line that allows it to happen, it is whichever US government agency it falls under. In case of a violation, the ship is fined, not the passenger; the ship may pass it on to the passenger.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Boytjie

[serendipity1499]

Just found this article explaining the Jones Act (not to be confused )& the PVSA which by the way many people think is one in the same..

 

http://www.cruiseco.com/Resources/jones_act.htm

 

Quote The Jones Act is the everyday name for Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883; 19 CFR 4.80 and 4.80b). Its intent is very simple, to promote a healthy U.S-Flag fleet and protect that fleet from unfair foreign competition, the Jones Act requires that cargo moving between U.S. ports be carried in a vessel that was built in the United States and is owned (at least 75 percent) by American citizens or corporations. Since the Jones Act vessels are registered in the United States, our general labor and immigration laws require that crewmembers be American citizens or legal aliens. (In fact most maritime nations have an equivalent to the Jones Act - (50 countries).

 

<SNIP>

 

Quote Does the Jones Act apply to passengers? The Act, no; the principle, yes. What is known as the Passenger Vessel Act (PSA) of 1886 (46 U.S.C. 289) states that “no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, under penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported or landed.”

 

Another question we are frequently asked is, can the Jones act be waived or suspended? the answer is Yes, but only during a national emergency. However, over time, a number of exceptions have been made, for example Canadian vessels may transport passengers between Rochester and Alexandria Bay, New York and between southern Alaska and U.S. ports until an American carrier enters the markets. Similarly, foreign vessels may transport passengers between Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland as long as a U.S. carrier does not provide such service. Foreign-flagged cruise ships may carry passengers from a U.S. port as long as they return them to the same port (a "cruise to nowhere"). Foreign vessels may also call at intermediate U.S. ports as long as no passenger permanently leaves the vessel at those ports and the vessel makes at least one call at a foreign port. Unquote

[BourbonNBluesLuvr]

Just found this article explaining the Jones Act (not to be confused )& the PVSA which by the way many people think is one in the same..

 

http://www.cruiseco.com/Resources/jones_act.htm

 

Quote The Jones Act is the everyday name for Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883; 19 CFR 4.80 and 4.80b). Its intent is very simple, to promote a healthy U.S-Flag fleet and protect that fleet from unfair foreign competition, the Jones Act requires that cargo moving between U.S. ports be carried in a vessel that was built in the United States and is owned (at least 75 percent) by American citizens or corporations. Since the Jones Act vessels are registered in the United States, our general labor and immigration laws require that crewmembers be American citizens or legal aliens. (In fact most maritime nations have an equivalent to the Jones Act - (50 countries).

 

<SNIP>

 

Quote Does the Jones Act apply to passengers? The Act, no; the principle, yes. What is known as the Passenger Vessel Act (PSA) of 1886 (46 U.S.C. 289) states that “no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports or places in the United States, under penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported or landed.”

 

Another question we are frequently asked is, can the Jones act be waived or suspended? the answer is Yes, but only during a national emergency. However, over time, a number of exceptions have been made, for example Canadian vessels may transport passengers between Rochester and Alexandria Bay, New York and between southern Alaska and U.S. ports until an American carrier enters the markets. Similarly, foreign vessels may transport passengers between Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland as long as a U.S. carrier does not provide such service. Foreign-flagged cruise ships may carry passengers from a U.S. port as long as they return them to the same port (a "cruise to nowhere"). Foreign vessels may also call at intermediate U.S. ports as long as no passenger permanently leaves the vessel at those ports and the vessel makes at least one call at a foreign port. Unquote

 

Hello Again,

 

And just to clarify some of the USC Sections the article you are quoting lists...46 USC 883 has also be recodified...again for those interested in reading...

 

Here are new Code Sections:

 

1 The provisions of 46 App. U.S.C. § 883 were recodified by Pub. L. 109-304 (Oct. 6, 2006) and are now contained in various sections of Title 46 U.S.C. Chapter 121, Documentation of Vessels (46 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12152) and Title 46 U.S.C. Chapter 551, Coastwise Trade (46 U.S.C. §§ 55101-55121).

...specifically 55102

 

And to those who claim the Jones Act is the same as the PVSA...if they read the actual text of Section 27 that your article mentioned they will see that is says..."merchandise"...If my Cruise Line of choice ever starts referring to me as merchandise...time to shop elsewhere !!

 

So, I'll let others decide what Act is applicable ! :)

 

Here is an excerpt from the actual text:

 

SEC. 27. JONES ACT - TRANSPORTATION OF MERCHANDISE BETWEEN POINTS IN UNITED STATES IN OTHER THAN DOMESTIC BUILT OR REBUILT AND DOCUMENTED VESSELS; INCINERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AT SEA (46 App. U.S.C. 883 (2002)).6 No merchandise, including merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State (as defined in section 2101 of title 46, United States Code), or a subdivision of a State, shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture of the merchandise (or a monetary amount up to the value thereof as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, etc...etc...etc

 

BBL

Edited August 22, 2015 by BourbonNBluesLuvr

[3rdGenCunarder]

Hello Again,

 

And just to clarify some of the USC Sections the article you are quoting lists...46 USC 883 has also be recodified...again for those interested in reading...

 

Here are new Code Sections:

 

1 The provisions of 46 App. U.S.C. § 883 were recodified by Pub. L. 109-304 (Oct. 6, 2006) and are now contained in various sections of Title 46 U.S.C. Chapter 121, Documentation of Vessels (46 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12152) and Title 46 U.S.C. Chapter 551, Coastwise Trade (46 U.S.C. §§ 55101-55121).

...specifically 55102

 

And to those who claim the Jones Act is the same as the PVSA...if they read the actual text of Section 27 that your article mentioned they will see that is says..."merchandise"...If my Cruise Line of choice ever starts referring to me as merchandise...time to shop elsewhere !!

 

So, I'll let others decide what Act is applicable ! :)

 

Here is an excerpt from the actual text:

 

SEC. 27. JONES ACT - TRANSPORTATION OF MERCHANDISE BETWEEN POINTS IN UNITED STATES IN OTHER THAN DOMESTIC BUILT OR REBUILT AND DOCUMENTED VESSELS; INCINERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AT SEA (46 App. U.S.C. 883 (2002)).6 No merchandise, including merchandise owned by the United States Government, a State (as defined in section 2101 of title 46, United States Code), or a subdivision of a State, shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture of the merchandise (or a monetary amount up to the value thereof as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, etc...etc...etc

 

BBL

 

Cruise directors like to joke about how much people eat by saying we embark as passengers and are loaded off as cargo!

[3rdGenCunarder]

There are always exceptions that are made. Recent cases were a cruise ship in the Gulf of Mexico had lost power (IIRC) and was towed to the nearest port which was not the same as the departure port and technically in violation of the PSVA. Also when a plane on a HAL excursion crash and people died, their families disembarked (either in Sitka or Ketchikan).

 

It is not the cruise line that allows it to happen, it is whichever US government agency it falls under. In case of a violation, the ship is fined, not the passenger; the ship may pass it on to the passenger.

 

And sometimes exceptions aren't made. When we were on QM2 recently, the theme was Cunard history. Commodore Warwick, her first Master, gave a few talks. One was about his scrapbooks, and stories that went with things he saved. One time on QE2, weather kept them out of a necessary foreign port. I think it was Hawaii to LA or San Diego with a stop in Mexico (probably Acapulco, which was a tender port for QE2). Without the Mexico stop, he embarked passengers in one US port and disembarked them in another. He showed a copy of the fine that was sent to him personally--in his name, not Cunard's. IIRC, it was for something like $25,000. He said he sent the fine to Cunard HQ and doesn't know if it was ever paid.

[doublebzz]

There is a lot to be protected.. It is protecting U.S. Shipping & should never be repealed.. Why would any one want to put U.S. Shipping companies & Airlines out of business?

 

American Cruise Lines which has 7 or 8 cruise ships could be put out of business.. Their ships go between 25 to 30 different U.S. cities..One of the their ships the American Spirit plies the Alaskan Waters..

 

It could also put many United States Airlines out of business because if they repealed the PVSA it would allow any Airline in the world to carry Psgrs between U.S. Cities..

 

Can you imagine how many people in the U.S. Transportation industry would be out of work..Who is going to pay for them when they lose their jobs..The taxes that YOU & I pay will certainly increase:eek:..!

 

Please be careful what you wish for!

 

I did not intend that airlines be included in any repeal/modification of the PVSA. If cruise ships could sail coastal itineraries, my sense is that it would be a job creator. More jobs in ports, more purchasing in U.S. ports and perhaps more American staff on the ships themselves.

 

By the way, I don't see where PVSA applies to airlines. Does any of the experts know if the act was modified to include airlines or is the foreign airline restriction covered by a separate act.

[serendipity1499]

Cruise directors like to joke about how much people eat by saying we embark as passengers and are loaded off as cargo!

 

Now that too is quite funny!!!:D:D

 

And sometimes exceptions aren't made. When we were on QM2 recently, the theme was Cunard history. Commodore Warwick, her first Master, gave a few talks. One was about his scrapbooks, and stories that went with things he saved. One time on QE2, weather kept them out of a necessary foreign port. I think it was Hawaii to LA or San Diego with a stop in Mexico (probably Acapulco, which was a tender port for QE2). Without the Mexico stop, he embarked passengers in one US port and disembarked them in another. He showed a copy of the fine that was sent to him personally--in his name, not Cunard's. IIRC, it was for something like $25,000. He said he sent the fine to Cunard HQ and doesn't know if it was ever paid.

 

It probably was paid, or they would have put the Capt's name on the famous "List", so many of us used to laugh about.. Every time we went through customs, when I worked at JFK, many of us felt they went through our bags with a fine tooth comb.. So many of my Friends were wondering if our names were on the famous "List".. Years ago ladies used to carry loose face powder for their faces...(That was a long time ago) One time when going through Customs in Hawaii the Inspector opened special face powder I had purchased as a gift for my Mom.. I actually thought he was going to put his fingers in it to sift through the powder...:eek: If he had, I would have just left it at his station..

[serendipity1499]

I did not intend that airlines be included in any repeal/modification of the PVSA. If cruise ships could sail coastal itineraries, my sense is that it would be a job creator. More jobs in ports, more purchasing in U.S. ports and perhaps more American staff on the ships themselves.

 

By the way, I don't see where PVSA applies to airlines. Does any of the experts know if the act was modified to include airlines or is the foreign airline restriction covered by a separate act.

 

It does apply to airlines.. I'm retired from an International Carrier & we always had to watch out for that..The act was never modified.. It always included Airlines..

 

But why would you want to put the U.S. Cruise lines out of business.. "American Cruise Lines" & other cruise lines who ply all the U.S. rivers could suffer.. There are many people working in the U.S. Cruise industry who already have these jobs.. Look them all up..

 

http://americancruiselines.com/?gclid=CLHXlNK-vccCFRc8gQodvd0Ahw

 

Are you willing to pay higher taxes so that a NON-US. carrier could carry psgrs between two U.S. Points & put so many people out of work? I'm not!

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[BourbonNBluesLuvr]

I did not intend that airlines be included in any repeal/modification of the PVSA. If cruise ships could sail coastal itineraries, my sense is that it would be a job creator. More jobs in ports, more purchasing in U.S. ports and perhaps more American staff on the ships themselves.

 

By the way, I don't see where PVSA applies to airlines. Does any of the experts know if the act was modified to include airlines or is the foreign airline restriction covered by a separate act.

 

Hello,

 

Certainly not an expert...But I believe since the PVSA and applicable Federal Statute regulating it are contained in the "Shipping" Section of the USC...(46 USC)...it is therefore not applicable to Air Traffic. Certainly, there are similar Airline cabotage laws/regulations and statutes and those I believe will be contained in 49 USC "Transportation///Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs"...

 

But again, I am no expert ! :D

 

 

BBL

[Mary Ellen]

Doing a search on a screen name I know is very familiar with the PVSA, I found:

Both the PVSA and Jones Acts can trace their heritage back to the Steamboat Act of 1852. This act was passed due to the disastrous explosion of the boiler aboard the steamboat Sultana, resulting in a loss of 1500 lives. This act started the movement towards inspection of vessels and training and documentation of crew. The subsequent PVSA (and later Jones Act) were an outgrowth of this by restricting "coastwise" traffic (that traffic that is solely within US waters, to US flag shipping, so that all ships would meet the same standards of safety. The term "cabotage" means to protect domestic trade from outside interests. As the maritime acts allow, this protection does not cover a US ship owner from economic competition (US flag cargo ships cost an average of $2 million per year per ship more than a foreign flag ship), but it does restrict those ships to those that meet the safety requirements of the regulating agency (originally the Steamboat Inspection Service, and now the USCG). USCG regulations for shipping are far and away more stringent than the IMO regulations that foreign ships follow, and are a big reason for the cost differential. As another poster stated, there is a similar act that proscribes Air Canada from carrying a passenger directly from Detroit to New York (though that's why there are all these "partner airlines" with flights that have numbers from both airlines).

 

What most don't realize, and certainly most CC readers, is that the PVSA does not only affect the cruise industry, in fact there was no cruise industry when it was enacted. It does in fact regulate every ferry, dinner cruise, and charter fishing vessel in the US, and requires them to be US flag. Could you imagine if none of these ships were crewed by US crews, or had to meet USCG safety requirements? Or even pay US taxes?

 

Japan, Russia, China, and Brazil are some countries that I know of off the top of my head that have similar cabotage laws to the PVSA and Jones Act. About 40 countries around the world practice some form of maritime cabotage, even the EU disallows passenger carriage between EU ports within a member country unless the ship is flagged within the EU. Great Britain does not specifically have cabotage laws, but their laws place so many restrictions on foreign ships that it is not economically feasible to have a foreign flag coastwise ship.

What most don't understand is that the PVSA covers more than the cruise industry. If not for the PVSA, then every ferry, commuter boat, water taxi, whale watching boat, dinner cruise, casino boat, and charter fishing boat in the US would be capable of flagging to foreign flag, hiring non-US crew, not meeting US labor or tax laws, and not having to meet the stricter USCG safety regulations. US jobs would be lost, the economies of the ports would suffer, since the crew would not be living there but taking their salaries out of the country, and maritime accidents and incidents would increase.

 

The PVSA was enacted long before the cruise industry existed, to protect all US coastwise shipping.

 

Another point that most don't know is that many countries have cabotage laws like the PVSA and Jones Act, restricting coastwise traffic to ships flagged in their country. China has laws similar to the PVSA, which is why Carnival is looking to build ships in China and flag them in China, so that they can take advantage of strictly Chinese itineraries. The EU has similar laws, restricting coastwise traffic to EU members. So, you could not take a cruise from Naples to Genoa on a Bahamian flag cruise ship, but you could on a French flag ship (without going to a port in another country). Sound familiar?

Having read a good number of his posts on the topic over the years, I must say that I'm in no hurry to repeal the PVSA.

[Fouremco]

And sometimes exceptions aren't made. When we were on QM2 recently, the theme was Cunard history. Commodore Warwick, her first Master, gave a few talks. One was about his scrapbooks, and stories that went with things he saved. One time on QE2, weather kept them out of a necessary foreign port. I think it was Hawaii to LA or San Diego with a stop in Mexico (probably Acapulco, which was a tender port for QE2). Without the Mexico stop, he embarked passengers in one US port and disembarked them in another. He showed a copy of the fine that was sent to him personally--in his name, not Cunard's. IIRC, it was for something like $25,000. He said he sent the fine to Cunard HQ and doesn't know if it was ever paid.

Wonderful story to illustrate how silly the enforcement of some laws can be sometimes.

[doublebzz]

It does apply to airlines.. I'm retired from an International Carrier & we always had to watch out for that..The act was never modified.. It always included Airlines..

 

But why would you want to put the U.S. Cruise lines out of business.. "American Cruise Lines" & other cruise lines who ply all the U.S. rivers could suffer.. There are many people working in the U.S. Cruise industry who already have these jobs.. Look them all up..

 

http://americancruiselines.com/?gclid=CLHXlNK-vccCFRc8gQodvd0Ahw

 

Are you willing to pay higher taxes so that a NON-US. carrier could carry psgrs between two U.S. Points & put so many people out of work? I'm not!

 

Really? PVSA was enacted in the latter part of the 19th century. Can you enlighten me on what airlines were in existence then.

 

I don't want to put anyone out of business. My assessment is that more jobs would be created if PVSA was modified to permit ocean-going cruise ships to make stops at American ports without an intervening distant country.

 

Whenever any law is enacted at the behest of some special interest, it generally helps that special interest and harms the rest of the public.

 

I believe the preceding poster is correct; 49 USC 4170 contains the prohibition against foreign air carriers landing between two U.S. cities.

[serendipity1499]

Really? PVSA was enacted in the latter part of the 19th century. Can you enlighten me on what airlines were in existence then.

 

 

UMMM...The Cruise Lines were not in existence at that time either!.. There were only trans-atlantic or trans-pacific Liners at that time.. My Grandmother & Grandfather came over to this country on a Liner out of Europe.. But there were ferry boats & smaller boats which plied the lakes & rivers at that time. to move people...

 

I don't want to put anyone out of business. My assessment is that more jobs would be created if PVSA was modified to permit ocean-going cruise ships to make stops at American ports without an intervening distant country.

 

But then all the other U.S. cruise lines would be out of business too! There probably are at least 6 to 10 U.S. Cruise lines that have many boats & small ships which travel throughout the United states & up & down both the East & West coasts & the gulf..Those are the ones who could suffer if Foreign flagged carriers were permitted to carry Psgrs between U.S. cities & many of their workers would be un-employed..

 

I don't want to see that...

 

 

Whenever any law is enacted at the behest of some special interest, it generally helps that special interest and harms the rest of the public.

 

I believe the preceding poster is correct; 49 USC 4170 contains the prohibition against foreign air carriers landing between two U.S. cities.

 

/QUOTE]

 

There is NO prohibition against Foreign Carriers landing between two U.S. Cities at all.. Many of our flights landed, discharged or embarked psgrs in New York then went on to Atlanta or Detroit or Boston to discharge or embark more psgrs & v.v.. We were just not permitted to carry Psgrs for disembarkation between any U.S. cities

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[doublebzz]

1840 Cunard Lines established

 

1873 Holland America (formerly Netherlands American Steamship Co.) established

 

1886 PVSA enacted

[serendipity1499]

1840 Cunard Lines established

 

1873 Holland America (formerly Netherlands American Steamship Co.) established

 

1886 PVSA enacted

 

Exactly...But Cunard & Holland America were not Cruise lines that we know today.. They strictly were transatlantic Steamers which moved people back & forth from Europe across the Atlantic or to other areas of the world... My Grandfather & Grandmother came across on one of those ships, & they only went into New York at that time..

 

Quote From 1873 to 1989, it was a Dutch shipping line, a passenger line, a cargo line and a cruise line operating primarily between the Netherlands and North America. As part of this rich legacy, it was instrumental in the transport of many hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Netherlands to North America. During the first 25 years the company carried 400,000 people from Europe to the Americas. Other North American ports were added during the early 20th century. Though transportation and shipping were the primary sources of revenue, in 1895 HAL offered its first vacation cruise. Its second vacation cruise, from New York to Palestine, was first offered in 1910.

 

By the late 1960s, the golden era of transatlantic passenger ships had been ended by the introduction of air travel. HAL ended transatlantic service during the early 1970s, leaving the North Atlantic passenger trade for Cunard's RMS Queen Elizabeth 2.Unquote

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[Fouremco]

P&O lays claim to having invented cruising. Its website has a very interesting article on the history of cruising, and includes the following:

 

On 14 March 1843 P&O placed an historic, pioneering advertisement in the 'Times' of London for a round voyage in the 782-ton paddle steamer TAGUS. The advertisement read:

 

INTERESTING and CLASSIC EXCURSION

Steam to Constantinople, calling at

Gibraltar, Malta, Athens, Syria, Smyrna, Mytilene and the Dardenelles.

 

P&O and other lines that followed their lead initially used ships from their existing fleets. The first vessel built exclusively for luxury cruising was the Prinzessin Victoria Luise of Germany, designed by the general manager of Hamburg-America Line. The ship was completed in 1900.

 

All of which is interesting but has little to do with PVSA. I've not uncovered a date for the first actual cruise (not passenger liner sailing) out of the USA, but I doubt that it was before 1886.

[serendipity1499]

If anyone is interested Capt. Albert's Blog traces the History of HAL complete with the old fashioned pictures...It's quite interesting.. I was only was able to skim through Part one as Brandy is nagging me to feed her...Plan to come back later to re-read part one & then go on to the rest of his blog..

 

http://www.hollandamericablog.com/holland-line-ships-past-and-present/an-outline-of-the-history-of-holland-america-line-part-1/.

Edited August 22, 2015 by serendipity1499

[3rdGenCunarder]

It does apply to airlines.. I'm retired from an International Carrier & we always had to watch out for that..The act was never modified.. It always included Airlines..

 

But why would you want to put the U.S. Cruise lines out of business.. "American Cruise Lines" & other cruise lines who ply all the U.S. rivers could suffer.. There are many people working in the U.S. Cruise industry who already have these jobs.. Look them all up..

 

http://americancruiselines.com/?gclid=CLHXlNK-vccCFRc8gQodvd0Ahw

 

Are you willing to pay higher taxes so that a NON-US. carrier could carry psgrs between two U.S. Points & put so many people out of work? I'm not!

 

Some of those river cruise lines go in and out of business all the time anyway, even with protection. I wouldn't lift a finger to protect American Cruise Lines (worst cruise EVER), but if you're worried about those lines, change the law only as it relates to ships over a certain size, or ships sailing to saltwater ports. I would like to see more variety in coastal itineraries, and I think changing the laws would lead to that.