Missed the ship...$300 per person to get on at the first port. WHY?

[Ocean Dancer]

I would of taken that $900 and rented a car, driven the keys and have fun with family for the day, then spent the balance on a fun keys and Miami trip. Problem solved! Plus being the off season car rentals and hotels are cheap. I'd rather drive down 7 mile bridge, etc then take a boat. Plus you don't have to leave before sunset!

That makes no sense since the cruise was already paid for.

[riclop]

We just cruised on the Victory. We met someone on the ship whose neice and nephew had their birth certificates in their checked luggage. When they found the luggage the ship had left. They got charged $300 per person to get on in Key West. To me that seems ridiculous.....they already paid, incurred stress, and extra costs. This doesn't seem right to me.

Not too smart.

[DisneyDatknee]

Yikes. I would have ditched the cruise if I had to pay $900 to get back on. I do agree with one of the posters that they could have had some time in the Keys. Carnival could have refunded their port taxes which is about $100-$150 per person.

 

Passports are better. :hearteyes:

[S.S.Oceanlover]

Yikes. I would have ditched the cruise if I had to pay $900 to get back on. I do agree with one of the posters that they could have had some time in the Keys. Carnival could have refunded their port taxes which is about $100-$150 per person.

 

Passports are better. :hearteyes:

 

Not if they are in your luggage on the ship and you're not.

 

Bill

[S.S.Oceanlover]

"I know people are enjoying feeling superior over people making mistakes with their ID"

 

 

It's not superior it's being responsible. I still contend the scenario makes no sense.

 

Not sure what part of the story makes no sense. They arrive at the port in Miami, hand over their luggage to the porters who then load it onto the carts and then have it put on the ship.

 

The pax in question go inside to go onboard and at the desk they realize the birth certificates are in their luggage which is on the ship.

 

By the time they find the pax luggage the ship has sailed and they are left at the dock in Miami and must catch up to the ship in Key West.

 

I am surprised they were even allowed to board at another U.S. port. Since they were allowed the fine of $300pp was levied against the 3 pax that missed the ship for vioilating the PVSA.

 

Bill

[OceansOfTravels]

They're lucky they stopped in Key West first, if they had any other port first, and considering they're traveling on a birth certificate, I would assume that they didn't have a passport on hand, they would've been S.O.L.

[easyboy]

They were lucky they eventually made the cruise.

[martinchem]

Too bad they didn't have FTTF or Platinum (presumption)status, their luggage would have been available in their cabin for retrieval in plenty of time to board.

[Pyrate13]

Have you been on Carnival Yet???

 

mpdog42

 

 

Sorry, I don't understand this comment. What does it have to do with the PVSA law?:confused:

[ray98]

but, the luggage was ON the ship, did they get to the ship 1/2 hour before departure? Sorry but this makes no sense. Get an officer or security person, and retrieve the luggage. Most people arrive several hours early. This is why we never leave U.S. soil without a passport which is either in my computer bag or my wife's purse.

 

Of course it makes sense.....there are thousands of bags below deck during embarkation. It isn't as simple as strolling down there and grabbing it.

[dd likes to cruise]

Of course it makes sense.....there are thousands of bags below deck during embarkation. It isn't as simple as strolling down there and grabbing it.

 

Especially since any employee that would have to be looking for those bags, has more duties at that time of day then they can handle already. So who should be looking for the bags?

[NJporkroll]

We just cruised on the Victory. We met someone on the ship whose neice and nephew had their birth certificates in their checked luggage. When they found the luggage the ship had left. They got charged $300 per person to get on in Key West. To me that seems ridiculous.....they already paid, incurred stress, and extra costs. This doesn't seem right to me.

 

 

 

Your regurgitating 3rd party info, from strangers. How could you even think the story is as told. You're basically trying to answer, an unanswerable question. That's conjecture.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Rich_NY]

Your regurgitating 3rd party info, from strangers. How could you even think the story is as told. You're basically trying to answer, an unanswerable question. That's conjecture.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I was at guest services when the ship pulled away with the Aunt at the desk, as well as later speaking with her at the pool about it.

[bUU]

Ah ok, got it now. The emphasis on "foreign port" got me. Thanks. So the problem isn't a lack of foreign port, but rather that they didn't return to the same US port they departed.

It is both. The emphasis you need is that the law specifies a distant foreign port. As a previous poster mentioned, Cozumel is not distant. Aruba would be. The rules for what is a distant foreign port are specified in the regulations.

 

That sounds like some arbitrary law-making.

It isn't. It is very deliberate law-making adopted in 1886, directly and intentionally aimed at protecting the cadre of America seafarers from being eroded away, leaving our nation without sufficient qualified crew to staff militarized civilian vessels in a response to an attack. Edited August 21, 2017 by bUU

[NJporkroll]

I was at guest services when the ship pulled away with the Aunt at the desk, as well as later speaking with her at the pool about it.

 

 

 

OK, thx that clears it up. Totally reliable 3rd party info.

 

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 flavors last night...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Ocean Dancer]

OK, thx that clears it up. Totally reliable 3rd party info.

 

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 flavors last night...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Who's Ferris?

[LH25]

OK, thx that clears it up. Totally reliable 3rd party info.

 

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 flavors last night...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

:D "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."

[chengkp75]

It is both. The emphasis you need is that the law specifies a distant foreign port. As a previous poster mentioned, Cozumel is not distant. Aruba would be. The rules for what is a distant foreign port are specified in the regulations.

 

It isn't. It is very deliberate law-making adopted in 1886, directly and intentionally aimed at protecting the cadre of America seafarers from being eroded away, leaving our nation without sufficient qualified crew to staff militarized civilian vessels in a response to an attack.

 

Since you're mixing the Wiki version of the Jones Act and the PVSA, let me clear things up. In 1886 there were no militarized civilian vessels, and maritime labor was barely organized, let alone a viable political force. The PVSA was an outgrowth of the Steamboat Act of 1852. In those days, there were countless explosions and fires on the steamboats plying the rivers and harbors of the US. Congress wanted to protect the US public from great harm or death, and so instituted the Steamboat Inspection Service (the precursor to the USCG's Marine Safety Division), which was authorized to inspect all steamboats in the US and ensure they met the new safety requirements set forth in the Steamboat Act. Vessel owners reacted by flagging their steamboats in foreign countries to avoid the cost of compliance with the Act, so Congress then passed the PVSA, forcing all domestic passenger trade to be restricted to US flag vessels. What the PVSA does do is ensure that all domestic passenger vessels: cruise ships, ferries, water taxis and commuter boats, duck boats and sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, casino boats, dinner cruises, and large charter fishing boats, must meet US tax laws, US labor laws, US discrimination and accessibility laws, US environmental laws, and most importantly USCG safety regulations.

[nealstuber]

Who's Ferris?

 

 

 

Matthew Broderick

 

Guess you had to be there.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

Since you're mixing the Wiki version of the Jones Act and the PVSA, ...

Actually, it was probably Michener's Alaska.

[chengkp75]

Actually, it was probably Michener's Alaska.

 

And he deals with the Jones Act in that book, not the PVSA, and the Jones Act was enacted by Senator Jones from Washington state, at the behest of Seattle store owners who saw the lucrative Alaska trade being undercut by Canadian suppliers and shippers. Still had nothing to do with protecting US maritime jobs, just with continuing to line the Seattle tycoons' pockets.

[bUU]

That's really strange, given how many of us regard the PVSA in very specific, and different manner. For example:

The United States has been a maritime power for much of its history with a major shipbuilding industry, successful American vessel owners and operators and an experienced cadre of merchant mariners. Our maritime capability was an important factor in World War II, giving us the capability to supply Europe in the early years and to provision our troops in recapturing the islands in the Pacific. ... The Passenger Services Act has protected the U. S. shipbuilding industry and American seamen for 110 years...

[bogle & Gates, PLLC. https://www.djc.com/special/maritime/c10009803.html]

 

Even politicians, like Sen. John McCain, when they refer to the PVSA in Congress, refer to in the context of protecting the cadre of seafarers and benefiting unions. <shrug>

[JaniceB]

I was curious and then realized immediately when they said Key West. The Jones Act not fond of it.

[chengkp75]

That's really strange, given how many of us regard the PVSA in very specific, and different manner. For example:[bogle & Gates, PLLC. https://www.djc.com/special/maritime/c10009803.html]

 

Even politicians, like Sen. John McCain, when they refer to the PVSA in Congress, refer to in the context of protecting the cadre of seafarers and benefiting unions. <shrug>

 

While this has been the consequence of the acts, this was not the original intention of the acts. And, in fact the one act of Congress that ensured our maritime capability in WWII was not the Jones Act, but the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which established, among other things, construction and operation subsidies for US flag ships. Even with the PVSA and the Jones Act, Roosevelt felt, rightly it turns out, that more was needed, as US merchant shipping had dropped after the first war. Ironically, this Act, which produced the largest merchant marine in the world, also has been the major contributor to its decline to about 19 or lower in world fleets. This is because the maritime unions and the ship owners used the subsidies to price ourselves out of economic competition with the rest of the world. Any time a US shipyard claimed that building a US flag ship would cost more than the last one, the shipowners said "OK", because the difference was passed to the taxpayer, rather than looking for an innovative technology that would cut shipbuilding cost. Similarly, when unions demanded pay raises, the shipowners said "OK", because the difference was passed to the taxpayer. When the subsidies were ended, the US merchant marine floundered.

 

And yet, Senator McCain is a vocal opponent of the Jones Act in particular, having taken money from the agriculture lobby to get the foreign grain aid sent on foreign ships so that the agribusiness can pay less.

[nealstuber]

While this has been the consequence of the acts, this was not the original intention of the acts. And, in fact the one act of Congress that ensured our maritime capability in WWII was not the Jones Act, but the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, which established, among other things, construction and operation subsidies for US flag ships. Even with the PVSA and the Jones Act, Roosevelt felt, rightly it turns out, that more was needed, as US merchant shipping had dropped after the first war. Ironically, this Act, which produced the largest merchant marine in the world, also has been the major contributor to its decline to about 19 or lower in world fleets. This is because the maritime unions and the ship owners used the subsidies to price ourselves out of economic competition with the rest of the world. Any time a US shipyard claimed that building a US flag ship would cost more than the last one, the shipowners said "OK", because the difference was passed to the taxpayer, rather than looking for an innovative technology that would cut shipbuilding cost. Similarly, when unions demanded pay raises, the shipowners said "OK", because the difference was passed to the taxpayer. When the subsidies were ended, the US merchant marine floundered.

 

 

 

And yet, Senator McCain is a vocal opponent of the Jones Act in particular, having taken money from the agriculture lobby to get the foreign grain aid sent on foreign ships so that the agribusiness can pay less.

 

 

 

A lot of good stuff in this post, and I think we can agree that fining passengers $300 to join a cruise ship they missed in POM and picked up in Key West will do nothing to insure US sealift capacity (passengers or cargo) in time of war.

DOD regularly makes exceptions when weather or other emergency circumstance forces a cruise ship out of compliance with the PVSA. I don't see why the same could not be done in OP's circumstance.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums