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

[chengkp75]

Has something to do with the Jones Act! Which is up for review this year or next in congress!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

It actually has nothing what so ever to do with the "Jones Act", which applies strictly to cargo vessels. The PVSA (Passenger Vessel Service Act) is what applies to passenger (cruise) vessels, and what is applicable to this thread, which you would have known if you read the thread. And Senator McCain has been fighting for revision or repeal of the Jones Act for nearly as long as he's been in Congress, and hasn't succeeded yet.

[bUU]

And keep in mind that even when these regulations come up for review in Congress, the changes being promoted are as likely as not to strengthen the regulations, protecting American interests, rather than relax them, fostering foreign interests. Over the last decade or so there have been efforts to push the CBP to require longer port calls in distant foreign ports, such as Vanuatu, Kiribati and the ABC Islands, rather than eliminating the requirement. In an environment where "America First" is a rallying cry, it is possible that such changes could gain more traction especially with the recent upswing in Mississippi River cruising.

[Cyber Kat]

If they embark at one US port (Key West) and debark at a different US port (Miami) without visiting a distant foreign port they violate the PSA. Mexico, Canada, and most Caribbean islands are not considered distant foreign ports. The ABC islands are considered a distant foreign port which is why open loop repo cruises often go to one of those.

 

 

 

I don't really wish to get involved in the many arguments going on in this thread, but I do not understand this whole issue of sailing from a US port and the requirement to return to the same US port, when the cruise lines do repositioning cruises all the time.

 

Do these repo cruises always go to one of these "ABC" islands? I'm not familiar with the reference, nor am I that familiar with the itineraries of repo cruises.

 

Why are they considered "distant" ports while Mexico and other Caribbean ports are not? Is "distant" defined specifically in miles in the law? I would think "distant" would vary depending on the distance from port to port.

 

FYI these are legitimate questions, not arguments disguised as questions. I'm trying to understand this law and frankly law is one of those things I have a difficult time wrapping my head around - which is why I always hire a lawyer when it's necessary. [emoji12]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[bUU]

Do these repo cruises always go to one of these "ABC" islands? I'm not familiar with the reference, nor am I that familiar with the itineraries of repo cruises.

Here's a page on Cruise Critic that lists the repositioning cruises for 2017:

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1212

 

The first one that is US-to-US is Norwegian Dawn, April 23. Note how it goes to Cartagena, a distant foreign port (because it is not in North America nor Central America, but rather is in South America). The second one is Serenade of the Seas, October 20: Curaçao and Aruba (two of the three ABC islands).

 

Why are they considered "distant" ports while Mexico and other Caribbean ports are not? Is "distant" defined specifically in miles in the law?

In CBP regulations:

19 CFR § 4.80a Coastwise transportation of passengers.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms will have the meaning set forth below:

(1)Coastwise port means a port in the U.S., its territories, or possessions embraced within the coastwise laws.

(2)Nearby foreign port means any foreign port in North America, Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West Indies (including the Bahama Islands, but not including the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles, i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao). A port in the U.S. Virgin Islands shall be treated as a nearby foreign port.

(3)Distant foreign port means any foreign port that is not a nearby port.

...

I would think "distant" would vary depending on the distance from port to port.

The distance of concern is distance from the United States itself, not any specific port.

[chengkp75]

And keep in mind that even when these regulations come up for review in Congress, the changes being promoted are as likely as not to strengthen the regulations, protecting American interests, rather than relax them, fostering foreign interests. Over the last decade or so there have been efforts to push the CBP to require longer port calls in distant foreign ports, such as Vanuatu, Kiribati and the ABC Islands, rather than eliminating the requirement. In an environment where "America First" is a rallying cry, it is possible that such changes could gain more traction especially with the recent upswing in Mississippi River cruising.

 

While you are correct that there have been efforts to "strictly enforce" the PVSA, the requirement for longer stays at "distant" foreign ports isn't quite right. NCL wanted CBP to enforce the PVSA's requirement that a closed loop cruise call at any foreign port, as the foreign flag ships were sailing from the West Coast to Hawaii, and using a two hour at midnight (technical stop) in Ensenada to fulfill the foreign port requirement without allowing any passengers to actually have a port call at a foreign port. NCL only wanted this "technical" stop to become an actual port call. CBP, upon reviewing NCL's application decided to require longer stops at foreign ports for all closed loop cruises, going so far as to require the majority of port time to be in foreign ports. NCL realized that this would affect even their Alaskan cruises, so testified against this proposed change. It was finally decided that the Ensenada calls had to be long enough, at a time of day when passengers would want to go ashore, and would have to be an advertised port of call.

 

There was never any debate about open-jaw cruises. Also, CLIA has no interest in revising or repealing the PVSA, so the most important lobby group affected by the law would not be supporting any changes.

[bUU]

CBP, upon reviewing NCL's application decided to require longer stops at foreign ports for all closed loop cruises, going so far as to require the majority of port time to be in foreign ports.

What I was referring to was the requirement that each of those stops be at least 48 hours long. [Source] These days, a 48 hour port call is rare, among the itineraries we have been considering. Refresh my memory: Was it more typical ten years ago, that such a provision in the regulation would have been considered (at least by CBP) reasonable?

[chengkp75]

What I was referring to was the requirement that each of those stops be at least 48 hours long. [Source] These days, a 48 hour port call is rare, among the itineraries we have been considering. Refresh my memory: Was it more typical ten years ago, that such a provision in the regulation would have been considered (at least by CBP) reasonable?

 

No, it was pretty much completely out of left field when CBP proposed these restrictions, the 48 hour/port call and 50% or more in foreign ports. NCL and Senator Innouye were both vocally against these proposed changes, and CBP backed down to what NCL originally wanted, simply a port call that met the "intent" of the PVSA as well as the "letter" (which the "technical" stop did).

[DirtyDawg]

I'd agree. To be clear, I have not advocated entitlement at any point. I responded to a question that asked if Carnival should be responsible for the costs, and suggested it would make good business sense - and here we are quite a few posts later! :eek:

 

WOW there were quite a few posts about your suggestion!

 

It might make business sense for the cruise line to pay the fine in certain circumstances. I'm not sure if it would make sense for a new customer cruising in an inside cabin, for example, as they don't contribute very much to the bottom line on an individual basis. Unless they are heavy drinkers and gamblers or course (or art buyers, Spa customers etc.). ;) It may make more sense for a repeat suite cruiser, or a cruiser with a history of being very profitable (heavy drinkers or gamblers etc.). The the loss of future business from those types of customers would affect the cruise line's bottom line much more.

 

As others have said, none of the cruise lines cover the fine presently and I would not expect that to change when demand is high like it is today. If demand weakens and/or a lot of new supply comes on the market, we might see a change, or a selective change.

 

Happy cruising, ....... and don't miss the boat!

[BNBR]

A $900 investment to generate $3,000 in extra revenue is silly; a $900 investment to generate $90,000 in revenue is smart.

 

You do realize it's not one or the other. Carnival has more than $900 available in operating cash. And if you think spending $900 to generate $3,000 is silly, I don't even know how to respond to that. Maybe that's one of those comments you'll laugh about later... I'd gladly spend $900 to get $3,000 back, I guess you wouldn't?

[BNBR]

WOW there were quite a few posts about your suggestion!

 

It might make business sense for the cruise line to pay the fine in certain circumstances. I'm not sure if it would make sense for a new customer cruising in an inside cabin, for example, as they don't contribute very much to the bottom line on an individual basis. Unless they are heavy drinkers and gamblers or course (or art buyers, Spa customers etc.). ;) It may make more sense for a repeat suite cruiser, or a cruiser with a history of being very profitable (heavy drinkers or gamblers etc.). The the loss of future business from those types of customers would affect the cruise line's bottom line much more.

 

As others have said, none of the cruise lines cover the fine presently and I would not expect that to change when demand is high like it is today. If demand weakens and/or a lot of new supply comes on the market, we might see a change, or a selective change.

 

Happy cruising, ....... and don't miss the boat!

 

Appreciate the thoughtful response. :D

 

I wonder if they would make exceptions for a very high level guest. Would the experience at the port have been different if it were a Star class guest? Just curiosity I guess, not sure anyone would know the answer here.

[bUU]

You do realize it's not one or the other.

Every dollar invested competes with every other way that dollar can be invested. You praised that logic earlier in the thread, yet here you don't seem to wish to operationalize your understanding of it. There are unlimited opportunities for Carnival to spend another $900 on things that many guests will enjoy, i.e., the $90,000 in revenue. No matter how many times you beat your drum, that's still going to beat the $3,000 in revenue you're advocating they divert that $900 investment toward.

[nealstuber]

The tens of thousands of people working on passenger vessels from Calais, Maine to Seattle, Washington.

 

 

 

Ok, I'm convinced. Thanks for taking the time to make multiple posts so I could see the wisdom of a government following its laws and a cruise company following its contract.

 

It took me a couple of days to absorb your "slippery slope" argument as it is so clear that Carnival has no intention of competing with ferry services and the passengers in question did not put themselves in this circumstance to get non US coastwise passage to from Key West to Miami, by way of Cozumel, when they were in Miami in the first place.

 

So I'm with you in this. Now the guy who thinks ordering something he doesn't like and expecting a different dinner out of it makes him a good customer, not so much. I can honestly say DW and I have never asked for something different for free after being served what we ordered. And its a terrible analogy anyway. It's a lot more like ordering a glass of wine when the county you're in says you cant have one at the time. I don't think any restaurant would risk their license to serve you, but if the down side was just a fine to the restaurant, I could certainly see them offering to pass that cost along to the customer.

Anyway, I got my answer. And so did OP.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[sanger727]

You do realize it's not one or the other. Carnival has more than $900 available in operating cash. And if you think spending $900 to generate $3,000 is silly, I don't even know how to respond to that. Maybe that's one of those comments you'll laugh about later... I'd gladly spend $900 to get $3,000 back, I guess you wouldn't?

 

 

 

Sure it is. The have a question in front of them that would cost $900. And they can make the choice to pay that $900 to make 3 people happy; 3 people who may or may not have ever spent a dime with carnival in the past or in the future. Or to keep that $900 in the operating budget to spend on other things.

 

I'm a little confused how this has turned into a customer service issue anyway. I may have missed it but I don't recall the OP ever saying that the involved people were mad and were not going to use carnival again over it. Just that the OP was bothered by it. Maybe the people involved understood the issue and were fine with it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[csoud68]

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.

if they had a passport like you, i would bet it would be in thier luggage.:o