Does Britain have a law like the US Passenger Vessel Services Act?

[Tom O.]

The U.S. Law "US Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1887" is the law that prohibits foreign flagged ships from picking up and dropping off passengers in a US port without visiting a foreign port in between.

I was wondering if Britain had something similar, because every time I look at HAL cruises that go around the British Isles, I only find ones that start and finish in Amsterdam. Why aren't there any cruises that start and finish in Southampton?

Maybe this is just a HAL thing, I haven't checked other cruise lines. But I didn't want to fly into Amsterdam for a visit to Britain!

[Alberta Quilter]

I don't think there is a similar law but don't know for sure. I think it's more of a matter of reduced amount of HAL ships. The Ryndam used to do cruises out of Dover/Harwich but the Ryndam was transferred to P&O last year. I've been looking for a HAL cruise around the British Isles for a few years now and the only one that comes close is the Prinsedam and it's not quite what I want (partially because of the Amsterdam embarkation/debarkation).

 

Princess has regular cruises around the British Isles, if that is of interest to you.

[Hlitner]

To the best of our knowledge no other country in the world has any law as silly/stupid as the PVSA. There are quite a few cruises that allow you to circle the UK and stop any multiple ports (we did one on the Ruby Princess last year). When one limits themselves to one (or only a few cruise lines) it can have a more significant impact (itinerary wise) than any law.

 

Hank

Edited January 15, 2016 by Hlitner

[InTheWASide]

To the best of our knowledge no other country in the world has any law as silly/stupid as the PVSA. There are quite a few cruises that allow you to circle the UK and stop any multiple ports (we did one on the Ruby Princess last year). When one limits themselves to 1 (or only a few cruise lines) it can have a more significant impact (itinerary wise) than any law.

 

Hank

 

Greece is one that does... or did... I think they repealed it but unsure if it was in part, in full, or temporarily.

 

Almost everywhere else if they do have one it's called a Cabotage law so as you do a Google search that could be a helpful term to incorporate

[YXU AC*SE]

In a word, no. Cruise travel vis-a-vis cabatoge was liberalized in Jan 1995 amongst EU member nations. [source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992R3577]

 

Heathrow is a wildly expensive airport to fly in and out of - departure taxes aka Air Passenger Duty is 102.50$USD per pax, and Passenger Service Charge is 60.20$USD per pax. Comparatively, departures from AMS have a Passenger Service Charge of 15.60$USD per pax. Given that most of us North Americans are budgeting air + cruise, I would argue that a price advantage of almost 300$USD per cabin booked is meaningful.

 

Additionally there are likely overall logistical / provisioning concerns that give a cost advantage to AMS as well.

 

 

Scott.

[Donny-Joe]

Almost all countries have some kind of cabotage law, though the specific terms of that law may be different from the PVSA in the US. From what I can tell on the internet, the UK allows some amount of cabotage traffic from foreign-flagged vessels, and seems to be wide open to EU-flagged vessels (which would include HAL).

 

It may be that it's just more convenient for HAL to sail out of Amsterdam, since they have more infrastructure in place in terms of suppliers and vendors and so forth. It's very convenient for a cruise line to have a limited number of locations where they do major food restocking and so forth.

[Tampa Girl]

In a word, no. Cruise travel vis-a-vis cabatoge was liberalized in Jan 1995 amongst EU member nations. [source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992R3577]

 

Heathrow is a wildly expensive airport to fly in and out of - departure taxes aka Air Passenger Duty is 102.50$USD per pax, and Passenger Service Charge is 60.20$USD per pax. Comparatively, departures from AMS have a Passenger Service Charge of 15.60$USD per pax. Given that most of us North Americans are budgeting air + cruise, I would argue that a price advantage of almost 300$USD per cabin booked is meaningful.

 

 

Scott.

 

And I don't think that Gatwick is any cheaper. It is costing us over $250 pp for taxes ad PSC's to fly BA into that airport. However, if we were to take a U.S. airline to fly into Heathrow, the taxes ad PSC's are only less than half.

[Tom O.]

In a word, no. Cruise travel vis-a-vis cabatoge was liberalized in Jan 1995 amongst EU member nations. [source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992R3577]

 

Heathrow is a wildly expensive airport to fly in and out of - departure taxes aka Air Passenger Duty is 102.50$USD per pax, and Passenger Service Charge is 60.20$USD per pax. Comparatively, departures from AMS have a Passenger Service Charge of 15.60$USD per pax. Given that most of us North Americans are budgeting air + cruise, I would argue that a price advantage of almost 300$USD per cabin booked is meaningful.

 

Additionally there are likely overall logistical / provisioning concerns that give a cost advantage to AMS as well.

 

 

Scott.

 

Thanks for the heads up on airfares. I had not even priced airline tickets yet. if I could save $300 on airfare (because of differences in taxes), it would be worthwhile. I wanted to include a land trip with this British vacation, so I guess I could take a ferry across to Britain for that.

Or I could just cruise with Princess, which I have done many times in the past. But I don't like the large Princess ships that usually do Northern Europe.

Do you, or anyone else, know where I can find a list of airports and their taxes? It would be interesting to compare.

[YXU AC*SE]

Actually, i think the cruiseline is trying to do that math for you, in getting you to a more attractive all-in price, realizing most ppl won't book one without the other.

 

As to your tax question, here is a partial EU summary: http://www.ebaa.org/documents/document/20140116101401-aviation_taxes_in_europe_-_a_snapshot_jan_2014.pdf

 

The easiest way to confirm would be to use a tool like ITA Matrix 3.0 (http://matrix.itasoftware.com/) and look at the itemized accessorial charges.

 

For example, round-trip from London, ON YXU to London, UK LHR yields the following:

 

AC YQ [fuel] surcharge (YQ) CA$356.00

London Ontario Airport Improvement Fee (SQ) CA$15.00

Canadian Harmonized Sales Tax (ON) (RC) CA$1.95

Canadian Air Travelers Security Charge (CA) CA$25.91

United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty (GB) CA$146.20

United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge (UB) CA$85.80

 

versus AMS:

 

KL YR [fuel] surcharge (YR) CA$456.00

Toronto Airport Improvement Fee (SQ) CA$8.00

Canadian Harmonized Sales Tax (ON) (RC) CA$2.99

AC YQ [fuel] surcharge (YQ) CA$86.00

London Ontario Airport Improvement Fee (SQ) CA$15.00

Canadian Air Travelers Security Charge (CA) CA$25.91

Netherlands Noise Surcharge (VV) CA$0.80

Netherlands Security Service Charge (CJ) CA$18.80

The Netherlands Passenger Service Charge (RN) CA$22.20

 

Scott.

Edited January 15, 2016 by YXU AC*SE

[sail7seas]

Most countries with a coast have some sort of cabotage laws.

 

[chengkp75]

To the best of our knowledge no other country in the world has any law as silly/stupid as the PVSA. There are quite a few cruises that allow you to circle the UK and stop any multiple ports (we did one on the Ruby Princess last year). When one limits themselves to one (or only a few cruise lines) it can have a more significant impact (itinerary wise) than any law.

 

Hank

 

About 80 countries have maritime cabotage laws. Brazil, Japan, China, and Russia are the major ones that come to my mind.

 

The EU limits coastwise trade (i.e. picking up a passenger in Naples and dropping them in Genoa to EU member flag ships. However, if a non-EU flag ship picks up a passenger in Naples, goes to Marseilles, and then drops the passenger in Genoa, that is allowed. This is the law that was referenced earlier, but it excludes the majority of cruise ships which are flagged in Panama or the Bahamas.

 

The UK does not have cabotage laws per se, but they have other restrictions on ship ownership and operation that makes it economically unsound to operate a foreign flag ship exclusively within the UK.

[Tom O.]

AC YQ [fuel] surcharge (YQ) CA$356.00

London Ontario Airport Improvement Fee (SQ) CA$15.00

Canadian Harmonized Sales Tax (ON) (RC) CA$1.95

Canadian Air Travelers Security Charge (CA) CA$25.91

United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty (GB) CA$146.20

United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge (UB) CA$85.80

 

versus AMS:

 

KL YR [fuel] surcharge (YR) CA$456.00

Toronto Airport Improvement Fee (SQ) CA$8.00

Canadian Harmonized Sales Tax (ON) (RC) CA$2.99

AC YQ [fuel] surcharge (YQ) CA$86.00

London Ontario Airport Improvement Fee (SQ) CA$15.00

Canadian Air Travelers Security Charge (CA) CA$25.91

Netherlands Noise Surcharge (VV) CA$0.80

Netherlands Security Service Charge (CJ) CA$18.80

The Netherlands Passenger Service Charge (RN) CA$22.20

 

Scott.

 

Thanks Scott. I am shocked that there is fuel surcharge when oil is so cheap (US$30.00 per barrel).

 

After checking an online airline ticket agency, I found that you are correct, Amsterdam is about $300 cheaper (RT) than Heathrow.

Even cheaper was Dublin - $450 cheaper. I got excited about flying round trip to Dublin (from Las Vegas - my nearest major airport) for only $950. But I don't know of any cruises that commence in Ireland.

 

Cheng - Thank you for the update on the cabotage laws. You always have the most accurate information.

[YXU AC*SE]

Fuel surcharge is a game that airlines play to bury base fare costs. There are lots of instances where these 'surcharges' exceed the base ticket price or when they exceed the airlines' full per-seat fuel cost. Air Canada is egregiously bad for this.

 

Scott.

Edited January 15, 2016 by YXU AC*SE

[dockman]

To the best of our knowledge no other country in the world has any law as silly/stupid as the PVSA. There are quite a few cruises that allow you to circle the UK and stop any multiple ports (we did one on the Ruby Princess last year). When one limits themselves to one (or only a few cruise lines) it can have a more significant impact (itinerary wise) than any law.

 

Hank

 

An absolutely archaic law that has been kept in place for decades because of lobbyists,spearheaded by Matson who wants NO changes to the Jones act even as relates to cruise / not cargo ships for fear that it might open the door to COMPETITION for them in the cargo area.

 

 

NCL convinced Hawaii senator Inouye into allowing them to have a monopoly on inter island cruises in return for NCL hiring american staff and having several ships there....that great plan lasted about three months and then lo and behold NCL found that Americans did not want to work all the long hours etc....and NCL sure didn't want to pay overtime etc....and of course big hotels in Hawaii also don't want extra competition from inter island cruise ships. With such limited land and very very few new hotels a vibrant cruise industry is exactly what Hawaii NEEDS to be able to accommodate more tourists without having to pave even more of paradise.

 

Prior to the INOUYE gift NCL was saiing from HNL all the way to fanning island...a four day round trip to get around the PSA....many passengers had no idea WHY half of their cruise vacation was spent sailing off to a little speck of an island in the middle of the Pacific rather than sailing around the Hawaiian Islands which is what they wanted ( as did Hawaii sightseeing companies, restaurants, tee shirt sellers, etc).

 

The PSA is also why you can't get on a ship in SFO etc and get off in Hawaii without having to sail to Vancouver or Ensenada first...a nice gift for Canada and Mexico

 

So now in Hawaii you have ONE NCL ship that charges double or triple or more what a comparable Caribbean cruise sells for....Hawaii is and should be one of the greatest cruise spots on the planet ...year round near perfect weather, beautiful diverse islands and fantastic sightseeing. How very sad that lobbyists control politicians to this extent.

 

Perhaps someday the HVCB/ visitors bureau will stand up to the lobbyists and Hawaii will be exempt from the PSA and when it happens there will likely be five or more ships sailing 3, 4, 7 day cruises around the Hawaiian Islands year round at Caribbean type pricing.

[chengkp75]

An absolutely archaic law that has been kept in place for decades because of lobbyists,spearheaded by Matson who wants NO changes to the Jones act even as relates to cruise / not cargo ships for fear that it might open the door to COMPETITION for them in the cargo area.

 

 

NCL convinced Hawaii senator Inouye into allowing them to have a monopoly on inter island cruises in return for NCL hiring american staff and having several ships there....that great plan lasted about three months and then lo and behold NCL found that Americans did not want to work all the long hours etc....and NCL sure didn't want to pay overtime etc....and of course big hotels in Hawaii also don't want extra competition from inter island cruise ships. With such limited land and very very few new hotels a vibrant cruise industry is exactly what Hawaii NEEDS to be able to accommodate more tourists without having to pave even more of paradise.

 

Prior to the INOUYE gift NCL was saiing from HNL all the way to fanning island...a four day round trip to get around the PSA....many passengers had no idea WHY half of their cruise vacation was spent sailing off to a little speck of an island in the middle of the Pacific rather than sailing around the Hawaiian Islands which is what they wanted ( as did Hawaii sightseeing companies, restaurants, tee shirt sellers, etc).

 

The PSA is also why you can't get on a ship in SFO etc and get off in Hawaii without having to sail to Vancouver or Ensenada first...a nice gift for Canada and Mexico

 

So now in Hawaii you have ONE NCL ship that charges double or triple or more what a comparable Caribbean cruise sells for....Hawaii is and should be one of the greatest cruise spots on the planet ...year round near perfect weather, beautiful diverse islands and fantastic sightseeing. How very sad that lobbyists control politicians to this extent.

 

Perhaps someday the HVCB/ visitors bureau will stand up to the lobbyists and Hawaii will be exempt from the PSA and when it happens there will likely be five or more ships sailing 3, 4, 7 day cruises around the Hawaiian Islands year round at Caribbean type pricing.

 

While this is a cruise forum, so most everyone here thinks in terms of the cruise industry solely, the PVSA has much more far reaching effects than limiting cruise vacations. Without the PVSA, every ferry, commuter boat, dinner cruise, casino boat, and charter fishing boat in the US would be allowed to flag to a flag of convenience, bypassing US labor laws, and USCG regulations, which are significantly stricter than the IMO regulations that nearly every other country adheres to.

 

And, your facts are incorrect. You cannot get on a ship in SFO and get off in Hawaii with only a call at Vancouver or Ensenada, the ship is required to make a call at a "distant" foreign port when not making a closed loop. There are no distant foreign ports in North or Central America.

 

Prior to NCL, American Hawaiian Lines operated the Independence and the Constitution, both of which were PVSA vessels that had been flagged out to foreign, causing them to lose their right to PVSA service. Congress then passed a bill to give them the right to return to PVSA service, so the NCL deal is not unique. Also, one reason that Congress granted NCL the right to operate the ships under US flag in PVSA trade, was that the US Government owned the partially built Pride of America and the components of a sister vessel due to loan guarantees, when American Hawaiian went bankrupt during construction. NCL paid the loan off to the US government (basically full price for a completed ship) and then had to pay to complete the ship.

 

The period of ramping up and ramping down from one US flag ship, the Pride of Aloha, through the Pride of America, to the Pride of Hawaii was 4 years.

 

And the POA adds more to the Hawaiian economy than a foreign flag ship operating from the West Coast. Those ships fuel and store on the West Coast. The POA must buy fuel and all supplies in Hawaii, or pay Hawaiian companies to transport the supplies to the islands. All fresh produce is bought from an island co-op on Maui.

 

And sorry, NCL has always paid overtime to the POA crew, as per US labor laws.

 

And finally, NCL does not have a monopoly on cruising in Hawaii. Any company that wants to build a US flag cruise ship can do so, and do the same itinerary as the POA. If any of the other cruise lines had picked up the POA hull from Lytton's shipyard, they could have gotten the same deal that NCL got. One reason Sen. Inouye wanted the cruise ships, whether under American Hawaiian or NCL, was that he hoped to have Hawaiian's working the ships. NCL tried that, and found that the Hawaiian's, being close to home, didn't want to stay on the ships for extended time, and NCL had to hire elsewhere.

 

Edited to add one more correction. Your reference to Matson shows that you are confusing the PVSA with the Jones Act, which was introduced to limit cargo shipments between the lower 48 and Alaska originally. PVSA traces back through several steamboat inspection laws to around the 1860's in response to boiler explosions on Mississippi river boats. In order to ensure that all river traffic in the US was regulated by the Steamboat Inspection Service (a precursor to the USCG maritime safety division), the PVSA made it mandatory for passenger vessels in the US to be US flagged.

Edited January 16, 2016 by chengkp75

[dockman]

While this is a cruise forum, so most everyone here thinks in terms of the cruise industry solely, the PVSA has much more far reaching effects than limiting cruise vacations. Without the PVSA, every ferry, commuter boat, dinner cruise, casino boat, and charter fishing boat in the US would be allowed to flag to a flag of convenience, bypassing US labor laws, and USCG regulations, which are significantly stricter than the IMO regulations that nearly every other country adheres to.

 

And, your facts are incorrect. You cannot get on a ship in SFO and get off in Hawaii with only a call at Vancouver or Ensenada, the ship is required to make a call at a "distant" foreign port when not making a closed loop. There are no distant foreign ports in North or Central America.

 

Prior to NCL, American Hawaiian Lines operated the Independence and the Constitution, both of which were PVSA vessels that had been flagged out to foreign, causing them to lose their right to PVSA service. Congress then passed a bill to give them the right to return to PVSA service, so the NCL deal is not unique. Also, one reason that Congress granted NCL the right to operate the ships under US flag in PVSA trade, was that the US Government owned the partially built Pride of America and the components of a sister vessel due to loan guarantees, when American Hawaiian went bankrupt during construction. NCL paid the loan off to the US government (basically full price for a completed ship) and then had to pay to complete the ship.

 

The period of ramping up and ramping down from one US flag ship, the Pride of Aloha, through the Pride of America, to the Pride of Hawaii was 4 years.

 

And the POA adds more to the Hawaiian economy than a foreign flag ship operating from the West Coast. Those ships fuel and store on the West Coast. The POA must buy fuel and all supplies in Hawaii, or pay Hawaiian companies to transport the supplies to the islands. All fresh produce is bought from an island co-op on Maui.

 

And sorry, NCL has always paid overtime to the POA crew, as per US labor laws.

 

And finally, NCL does not have a monopoly on cruising in Hawaii. Any company that wants to build a US flag cruise ship can do so, and do the same itinerary as the POA. If any of the other cruise lines had picked up the POA hull from Lytton's shipyard, they could have gotten the same deal that NCL got. One reason Sen. Inouye wanted the cruise ships, whether under American Hawaiian or NCL, was that he hoped to have Hawaiian's working the ships. NCL tried that, and found that the Hawaiian's, being close to home, didn't want to stay on the ships for extended time, and NCL had to hire elsewhere.

 

Edited to add one more correction. Your reference to Matson shows that you are confusing the PVSA with the Jones Act, which was introduced to limit cargo shipments between the lower 48 and Alaska originally. PVSA traces back through several steamboat inspection laws to around the 1860's in response to boiler explosions on Mississippi river boats. In order to ensure that all river traffic in the US was regulated by the Steamboat Inspection Service (a precursor to the USCG maritime safety division), the PVSA made it mandatory for passenger vessels in the US to be US flagged.

 

 

You obviously know more about it then i do.

 

Bottom line is I continue to think it is a very bad law as written that is kept in place via lobbyist yes including MATSON who represent a lot of special interest to the detriment of the traveling public. It is permitted to get on a ship in Vancouver and get off in Hawaii or vice versa but as you say you can't go sfo/yvr and then get off in HNL.

 

There are indeed many provisions some of which affect ferries etc. But that does not mean that parts of it could not be changed. It's not an all or nothing proposition.

 

There is a lot of sentiment in Hawaii (and alaska and puerto rico etc) to change these laws and have more competition.

 

Hawaii could and should have a VIBRANT cruise product offering real choice for 3 , 4, and 7 night cruises....that is NOT going to happen with the current regulations.

 

In effect NCL does indeed have a monopoly on interisland on interisland only cruising as NO WAY is any company going to build a big cruise ship in the USA and pay millions of dolars more than it cost to build outside the USA. The LAST large cruise ship built in american shipyards was over 50 years ago. The NCL pride of america was started in Mississippi with heavy federal subsidies but was NOT finished there. It was towed to a german shipyard for completion.

 

PS. NCL ultimately did pay US overtime after being caught trying to cheat and being ordered by DOL to pay up over 500 K.