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

[chengkp75]

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

 

Actually, it is CBP that determines the fines for PVSA, not DOD. The OP's circumstance was in fact an exemption, since they were allowed to board in violation. The exemptions are for situations outside the control of the cruise line or passenger, and in this case it was a failure on the part of the passenger, and I'm a bit surprised they were allowed to board at all, but it may have been thought by the CBP agent involved to be along the lines of airline delay causing missed boarding.

 

And as a note regarding the "national security" aspect of the PVSA, of the tens of thousands of US jobs on PVSA vessels, about 95% of them are not qualified (lack of seagoing experience, insufficient license) to work on a ship involved in military sealift operations. With the exception of NCL's POA, the Blount ships, and maybe the American Cruise line ships (not sure of the tonnage/horsepower on these ships), all other PVSA vessels do not require unlimited oceans/unlimited tonnage (deck) or unlimited horsepower (engine) USCG licenses.

[Bollinge]

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 American seafarers from being eroded away....

 

 

 

Is this why hundreds of American-owned cruise ships are crewed exclusively by a cadre of American Citizen seafarers?

 

As we often say in England, the law is an ass. Especially some passed way back in 1886.

[chengkp75]

Is this why hundreds of American-owned cruise ships are crewed exclusively by a cadre of American Citizen seafarers?

 

As we often say in England, the law is an ass. Especially some passed way back in 1886.

 

As I've said in the past, this is not the Cruise Vessel Services Act, it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Then look at the international definition of a "passenger" vessel: any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers. As I've stated many times in the past, the PVSA protects not only cruise ships, but also the smaller vessels I've noted in previous post. 82 nations, many with no cruise ships under their flag, have maritime cabotage laws of some form. The EU restricts "coastwise" trade between two ports of one EU nation to EU flagged ships. While the UK does not have cabotage laws, per se, they do have laws and regulations that make it economically unfeasible to operate a foreign flag vessel in coastwise traffic. Are there any ferries in the UK that only serve UK ports that are not UK flagged?

 

And, as much as the topic of how the PVSA annoys CC members, CLIA has stated that none of its member cruise lines are interested in modifying or repealing the PVSA, as it would have a marginal, if any, impact on their bottom line, and could result in increased costs.

[bUU]

As we often say in England, the law is an ass. Especially some passed way back in 1886.

Yet the American people haven't been able to set it aside despite the repeated attempts of well-known and well-regarded Members of Congress. So there must be something there that you're missing - someone else's priorities and concerns that you're ignoring or devaluing to make it seem like your own are the only ones worth considering.

[Bollinge]

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

 

P&O Ferries to re-register liners to save money - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-15727637

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Forums mobile app

[jimbo5544]

As I've said in the past, this is not the Cruise Vessel Services Act, it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Then look at the international definition of a "passenger" vessel: any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers. As I've stated many times in the past, the PVSA protects not only cruise ships, but also the smaller vessels I've noted in previous post. 82 nations, many with no cruise ships under their flag, have maritime cabotage laws of some form. The EU restricts "coastwise" trade between two ports of one EU nation to EU flagged ships. While the UK does not have cabotage laws, per se, they do have laws and regulations that make it economically unfeasible to operate a foreign flag vessel in coastwise traffic. Are there any ferries in the UK that only serve UK ports that are not UK flagged?

 

And, as much as the topic of how the PVSA annoys CC members, CLIA has stated that none of its member cruise lines are interested in modifying or repealing the PVSA, as it would have a marginal, if any, impact on their bottom line, and could result in increased costs.

As usual, thanks for bringing saneness and information to a discussion, your knowledge is always appreciated here.

[bUU]

Wow. I feel so badly for the folks who would perhaps have to accept lower wages as a result of that. I would be so upset if I was forced to accept Bahamas wages for my work, just because the employers in the industry I worked in made some kind of "flag of convenience" arrangement.

[BlerkOne]

Wow. I feel so badly for the folks who would perhaps have to accept lower wages as a result of that. I would be so upset if I was forced to accept Bahamas wages for my work, just because the employers in the industry I worked in made some kind of "flag of convenience" arrangement.

 

Nobody is forced. If subject to US labor laws, nobody could afford to cruise, cruise lines would go bankrupt, and there would be no cruises or jobs. One of the reasons there are no US mass market cruise lines. They went under. :cool:

[chengkp75]

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

 

P&O Ferries to re-register liners to save money - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-15727637

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Forums mobile app

 

Wow. I feel so badly for the folks who would perhaps have to accept lower wages as a result of that. I would be so upset if I was forced to accept Bahamas wages for my work, just because the employers in the industry I worked in made some kind of "flag of convenience" arrangement.

 

Welcome to the maritime industry. Flags of convenience, or open registries, account for well over half of the world's shipping, and Panama, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands together account for 40% of the tonnage. Heck, about half of the world's tonnage is under what are known as "targeted flags", meaning they are on black lists or watch lists of various international MOU (memorandum of understanding) organizations, or national agencies like the USCG for repeated failures to meet international safety, training, working condition, and environmental concerns, based on Port State Control inspections of the flag states' ships.

 

As a note, those ferries are not considered "coastwise" (since their route is UK to the continent), hence not covered under other laws that make foreign flag operations in coastwise trade in the UK feasible only for UK flagged vessels. And the UK tonnage tax regime mentioned is open to ships flying EU member flags as well as UK, an application of the EU's cabotage laws.

[klfrodo]

I haven't read EVERY post, but have read many.

 

One question I have is,,

The story reports that they had their birth certificates in their checked luggage.

They were denied boarding due to not being able to prove citizenship.

They were able to boarding the ship in Key West.

 

Why?

Boarding in Key West and debarking in Miami now made this a non-closed loop cruise thereby requiring passports. Right?

[chengkp75]

I haven't read EVERY post, but have read many.

 

One question I have is,,

The story reports that they had their birth certificates in their checked luggage.

They were denied boarding due to not being able to prove citizenship.

They were able to boarding the ship in Key West.

 

Why?

Boarding in Key West and debarking in Miami now made this a non-closed loop cruise thereby requiring passports. Right?

 

Not really. The cruise itself is still a closed loop cruise. What changes is the passenger manifest from Key West onwards. Because this changed during the voyage, the manifest provided at sail away is no longer valid, and a new one has to be submitted to CBP as soon as possible. Due to the reduced time available to CBP to screen passengers from the manifest, they treat the re-entry interview differently. While all passengers are still allowed to use the DL/BC form of documentation (if they weren't, then the whole passenger list would have needed passports suddenly), the typical closed loop CBP interview at disembarkation (face matches photo ID, ID name matches name on manifest that we've cleared, "Have a nice day"), becomes, at the discretion of the CBP officers, more like a cruise entering from overseas, or an airplane from overseas, but using the DL/BC documentation and some additional keystrokes and questions.

 

This happens all the time when flights are delayed, weather delays, or even medical disembarkations or deaths, the manifest changes and the entire cruise could be subject to the more intense interview at disembarkation, most times folks don't even notice, or think their CBP agent was having a bad day.

[dd likes to cruise]

I believe I read a family member was able to get them their birth certificates from the luggage and give it to them in Key West

[evandbob]

I booked a 21 day total B2B Journeys cruise on the Glory 2 winters ago, 10 days MIA to SJU, then 11 days SJU to MIA.

 

My Mom died and because I naturally stayed for her funeral, I was unable to get to MIA for the start of the cruise. I switched my flight my MIA to Antigua, flew there the night before the Glory arrived. This was about the 4th or 5th day of the first 10 day leg. After clearing Antigua's Customs, I was allowed to board the Glory, but only after I presented them with a copy of Mom's death certificate. Carnival specifically requested documentation to verify the exception allowing me to board without penalty.

 

Lest anyone think I was cold hearted cruising immediately after.Mom died, she was 96 yrs old, had 3 kids (I was still the "baby"), 9 grandkids, and 19 great grand kids. Her funeral was a celebration of her life.

[peajay84]

Not sure if they booked the trip themselves, but this is in large print on the screen when you go to book this cruise from Miami-Key West-Cozumel-Miami

 

Advisory

 

• 2139: Due to U.S. regulations applicable to this sailing, guests who miss boarding the ship at the embarkation port will not be permitted to begin their voyage at another port within the 50 U.S. States, and must instead meet the ship at a foreign port.
  

They are lucky they were allowed to board in Key West.

[TerReuv]

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:

 

Passports would not have helped. They still would have had to pay. The problem was leaving your documentation in your luggage.

[Bollinge]

 

This happens all the time when flights are delayed, weather delays, or even medical disembarkations or deaths, the manifest changes and the entire cruise could be subject to the more intense interview at disembarkation, most times folks don't even notice, or think their CBP agent was having a bad day.

 

 

And all this is to protect the thousands of US seafarers' jobs on cruise ships and to safeguard the homeland from potential terrorist attackers from Miami boarding in Key West instead?

 

Has the world gone mad in the name of so-called security?

[Bollinge]

Of course, there are not thousands of US seafarers crewing cruise ships, I would think a few hundred out of tens of thousands of other nationalities who are prepared to work for less.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[The4Cruisers]

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.

 

Not true. It takes time for the baggage to reach the cabins. Even with the classes you stated.

[chengkp75]

 

This happens all the time when flights are delayed, weather delays, or even medical disembarkations or deaths, the manifest changes and the entire cruise could be subject to the more intense interview at disembarkation, most times folks don't even notice, or think their CBP agent was having a bad day.

 

And all this is to protect the thousands of US seafarers' jobs on cruise ships and to safeguard the homeland from potential terrorist attackers from Miami boarding in Key West instead?

 

Has the world gone mad in the name of so-called security?

 

Not sure where you're going with this? So, you feel that both the PVSA and the WHTI are crazy, stupid laws? What the WHTI does is ease travel for US and Canadian citizens, by allowing them to cruise on a closed loop cruise without having to obtain a passport, so this is actually contradictory to "so-called security". The WHTI is also what makes the disembarkation interview with CBP much more cursory, saving travelers time, something that is also contradictory to "so-called security". And the WHTI would apply even if it was on a US flag ship, if a passenger joins in Key West, the manifest changes and the clearance procedure changes with it. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the PVSA.

 

And again, ask the folks employed by your Shetland Island, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Bristol ferries, and so on, whether they feel the need for protective laws that keep these vessels under the UK flag. Same legislation as the PVSA. You couldn't take a cruise ship from Southampton to Bristol with several port stops in the UK, and no ports outside the UK, without it being UK flag.

[chengkp75]

Of course, there are not thousands of US seafarers crewing cruise ships, I would think a few hundred out of tens of thousands of other nationalities who are prepared to work for less.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

And no, the PVSA does not protect tens of thousands of crew on cruise ships, but it does protect the tens of thousands of crew on passenger vessels, of the types I have listed. Cruise ships are not the only passenger vessels in the world.

[mpdog42]

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

 

 

Sorry Didn't try to Hijack, Just a personal note to the Poster!

 

Mike

Mpdog42

[mpdog42]

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.

 

You forgot the part of also being a RINO and a Hero Vet who gets his Medical Care at the Mayo Clinic, same as me (sic)

 

Mike

mpdog42

Edited August 22, 2017 by mpdog42
addidition

[Pyrate13]

And all this is to protect the thousands of US seafarers' jobs on cruise ships and to safeguard the homeland from potential terrorist attackers from Miami boarding in Key West instead?

 

Has the world gone mad in the name of so-called security?

 

 

Umm, I believe these laws were enacted long before the current world wide call for more security, not that that is the reason for them. :rolleyes:

[nealstuber]

Not sure where you're going with this? So, you feel that both the PVSA and the WHTI are crazy, stupid laws? What the WHTI does is ease travel for US and Canadian citizens, by allowing them to cruise on a closed loop cruise without having to obtain a passport, so this is actually contradictory to "so-called security". The WHTI is also what makes the disembarkation interview with CBP much more cursory, saving travelers time, something that is also contradictory to "so-called security". And the WHTI would apply even if it was on a US flag ship, if a passenger joins in Key West, the manifest changes and the clearance procedure changes with it. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the PVSA.

 

 

 

And again, ask the folks employed by your Shetland Island, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, Bristol ferries, and so on, whether they feel the need for protective laws that keep these vessels under the UK flag. Same legislation as the PVSA. You couldn't take a cruise ship from Southampton to Bristol with several port stops in the UK, and no ports outside the UK, without it being UK flag.

 

 

 

Again, all very good factually accurate helpful information with tons of detail. But please explain what interests are served by having these folks shell out $300 pp to join a ship in one FL port instead of the other.

 

These folks were not traveling on passports, but if they were, what US interest would be served by making it easier for them to board the ship in Cozumel rather than Key West?

 

Nobody would intentionally book a cruise ship to get from Key West to Miami by way of a couple of ports in the Caribbean. Is there even a seagoing service (that would have to be US flagged) between these to ports that would be undercut by what these passengers did?

 

There is a huge disconnect between what these laws are supposed to do and what happens in practice. While I appreciate the history and maritime law lessons and always enjoy learning from you, all of this information obscures the fact that it's stupid for the US to force a foreign flagged shipping company to charge US customers $300/pp to join a ship in one US port instead of another when the travel was never planned that way.

 

And with respect to the U.K., we have not cruised the British Mainland but we have been to Bermuda. There was no hassle when we got off the ship in Hamilton and boarded later that day at Kings Warf.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited August 22, 2017 by nealstuber

[chengkp75]

Again, all very good factually accurate helpful information with tons of detail. But please explain what interests are served by having these folks shell out $300 pp to join a ship in one FL port instead of the other.

 

These folks were not traveling on passports, but if they were, what US interest would be served by making it easier for them to board the ship in Cozumel rather than Key West?

 

Nobody would intentionally book a cruise ship to get from Key West to Miami by way of a couple of ports in the Caribbean. Is there even a seagoing service (that would have to be US flagged) between these to ports that would be undercut by what these passengers did?

 

There is a huge disconnect between what these laws are supposed to do and what happens in practice. While I appreciate the history and maritime law lessons and always enjoy learning from you, all of this information obscures the fact that it's stupid for the US to force a foreign flagged shipping company to charge US customers $300/pp to join a ship in one US port instead of another when the travel was never planned that way.

 

And with respect to the U.K., we have not cruised to the British Islands but we have been to Bermuda. There was no hassle when we got off the ship in Hamilton and boarded later that day at Kings Warf.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Actually, the US is not "forcing a foreign flag shipping company to charge US customers $300/pp". The US government, and CBP in particular, are always careful to note in their literature regarding the PVSA, that the fine is to the cruise line, and they don't care who the passenger is. It is the cruise lines' ticket contracts where you give them the right to pass this fine on to you.

 

While, possibly, no one would book a cruise between Key West and Miami, what if the next cruise line decides to offer cruises between Miami and Galveston on a foreign flag vessel. They could argue in court that since these people were allowed to cruise from Key West to Miami, then they should be allowed to offer cruises from Miami to Galveston. Its all about precedent, which is one of the bases of US law. Or a dinner cruise boat operator wants to run between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale, he would then have a sufficient legal precedent to offer this on a foreign flag boat.

 

Just look at the exemption to the PVSA granted for Puerto Rico, and there are a couple of other standing exemptions like some ferries on lakes between US and Canada, where foreign flag cruise ships are allowed to carry passengers between one US port (San Juan) and another (mainland US), these exemptions go away as soon as a US flag ship starts to provide the service.

 

As to whether or not the travel was planned that way, that's the only reason it was allowed, and I'm frankly surprised that it was allowed at all, with or without the fine.

 

If you could get the entire maritime world to change the definition of "passenger vessel" to separate cruise ships from all other passenger vessels, then you might have a chance of getting a change to the PVSA.

 

And regards to your example of Bermuda, the ship did not transport you between the two ports, you used land transportation, so there was no "coastwise" shipping. The ship entered Bermuda, and docked in Hamilton. It then docked in Kings Wharf, and then left Bermuda. Where is there any "coastwise" transportation of passengers between Bermudan ports?