Would this violate PVSA?

[o-state girl]

I am looking at doing a B2B cruise on the Spirit.  The first cruise leaves Honolulu and ends in Vancouver.  The second cruise begins in Vancouver, sails to Alaska, and ends in Seattle.  Would this itinerary be allowed under the PVSA or would the government consider it a single cruise that begins in the US and ends in the US?

[klfrodo]

I believe this would be a PVSA violation

[jimbo5544]

Ask your TA or PVP

[1025cruise]

Yes, this is a PVSA violation. You start in Honolulu and end in Seattle.

[wardamnweagle]

Yeah, when you book it notifies you of that fact. I’ll be on the Vancouver to Seattle leg!

[coevan]

on our Alaskan cruise passports were required if you wanted to visit Canada

[BlerkOne]

If you somehow manage to booked it and Carnival discovers, they will cancel one of the cruises/

[cdm289]

A few years ago we were booked on a 7 day Alaska from Seattle to Seattle.  There was a 1 day re-positioning cruise from Vancouver to Seattle.  I so badly wanted to add that to my 7 day as we live in Canada and so it would be easier to fly to Vancouver plus an extra cruise day would have been wonderful.  Sadly, we were not allowed and were specifically told that if we booked it separately, the cruise line (it was Holland America) that they would cancel the reservation.  

 

People answering above seem very certain but I would check with Carnival as they would be able to tell you for sure.

 

 

[Shmoo here]

9 minutes ago, cdm289 said:

A few years ago we were booked on a 7 day Alaska from Seattle to Seattle.  There was a 1 day re-positioning cruise from Vancouver to Seattle.  I so badly wanted to add that to my 7 day as we live in Canada and so it would be easier to fly to Vancouver plus an extra cruise day would have been wonderful.  Sadly, we were not allowed and were specifically told that if we booked it separately, the cruise line (it was Holland America) that they would cancel the reservation.  

 

People answering above seem very certain but I would check with Carnival as they would be able to tell you for sure.

 

 

If you were told you couldn't do that B2B combo (Vanc/Seattle; Seattle round trip) due to the PVSA, you were told incorrectly.

 

The PVSA applies to a passenger embarking and debarking from the same ship (regardless if it's one cruise or multiple ones) if the embarkation and debarkation ports are 2 different US ports.

 

I wouldn't necessarily accept an answer given by someone answering the phones with giving the correct answer, either.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Shmoo here

[o-state girl]

Kind of a bummer to hear the answers, but they were as I suspected.  I guess it will save me a little bit of money since I can't put these two cruises together.  I really wish they would make some exceptions to the PVSA for back to back cruises like this that actually stop in another country at some point in the itinerary.  Thank you for all the replies.

[Shmoo here]

1 minute ago, o-state girl said:

Kind of a bummer to hear the answers, but they were as I suspected.  I guess it will save me a little bit of money since I can't put these two cruises together.  I really wish they would make some exceptions to the PVSA for back to back cruises like this that actually stop in another country at some point in the itinerary.  Thank you for all the replies.

Any cruise on a foreign flagged ship must stop at a foreign port.  The difference is in whether it's a NEAR foreign port or a DISTANT foreign port.

 

The law says that a foreign flagged ship cannot transport passengers between 2 different US ports without a stop in a DISTANT foreign port.

 

There are no distant foreign ports between Canada/Hawaii/US mainland.

 

 

[o-state girl]

I've heard the "distant" wording before...I just wish they would change the act to "any" foreign port.  I understand why they created the law in the first place...I just think that it might be slightly antiquated by today's standards (just my uninformed opinion).

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, o-state girl said:

I've heard the "distant" wording before...I just wish they would change the act to "any" foreign port.  I understand why they created the law in the first place...I just think that it might be slightly antiquated by today's standards (just my uninformed opinion).

When looked at from the narrow perspective of the cruise industry, it may appear antiquated.  But, remember, it is the "Passenger" Vessel Services Act, not the "Cruise" Vessel Services Act.  The definition of a "passenger vessel" is any vessel that carries more than 12 people for hire.  To change this international definition, you would need to get the majority of maritime nations to agree to this through the IMO.  As such, the PVSA protects all the ferries, commuter boats, water taxis, casino boats, whale watching and other excursion boats, dinner cruises, and large charter fishing vessels that fly the US flag.  The "distant" foreign port requirement was added to allow at least some foreign ships to transport passengers from one US port to another.  Prior to that amendment, even a cruise from FLL to LA that stopped in South America was illegal.

[soremekun]

So this was enacted to give US flagged ships a virtual monopoly in transporting people between US ports?

Why not let competition decide?

Do other countries have such a law?

Edited October 21, 2019 by soremekun

[whitshel]

Kinda just like the airlines, you cant take Air Canada from San Diego to Kansas City.  Not Allowed.  Makes sense to me.

[soremekun]

Australia, for example,  allows cruises to nowhere.

 

Cruise lines openly violated the PVSA up until about 3 years ago and there was no collapse of the passenger vessel industry.

 

The US occasionally grants exceptions to this Act.  

 

The only aspect that makes sense is that the workers may not have the proper paperwork to work in the US.  I wonder how Australia deals with that.

Edited October 21, 2019 by soremekun

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, soremekun said:

Australia, for example,  allows cruises to nowhere.

 

Cruise lines openly violated the PSVA up until about 3 years ago and there was no collapse of the passenger vessel industry.

 

The US occasionally grants exceptions to this Act.  

 

The only aspect that makes sense is that the workers may not have the proper paperwork to work in the US.  I wonder how Australia deals with that.

Actually, the "cruises to nowhere" in the US were specifically allowed by the PVSA, and still are, so no, the cruise lines did not "openly violate" the PVSA.  What killed the US "cruises to nowhere" was a CBP ruling that crew on foreign ships engaging in cruises to nowhere had to have H1-B work visas, instead of the much easier to obtain C1 or D crew visas.  And, what killed the "cruises to nowhere" was a small casino vessel used to transport people from Miami to a resort in the Bahamas, that the operator decided to use for "cruises to nowhere" in between trips to the Bahamas.

 

Exceptions are granted typically in cases of weather causing delayed boarding, or mechanical failure of the ship causing it to end voyage early or not call at a foreign port.  Exemptions from the PVSA may be passed, like Puerto Rico, but with the proviso that as soon as a US flag operation is in place on the route, the exemption goes away.  CLIA and Puerto Rico lobbied for 10 years to get their exemption, and only one cruise line, Carnival, decided to initiate one way cruises between PR and the mainland, and this only lasted about 2 years, before it was stopped due to lack of demand.

 

Having worked on a US flag vessel that was allowed to work in Australian waters, one way the Oz government keeps a hand in the industry is requiring that a certain percentage of the crew be Australian citizens.  Their coastwise cabotage law also only grants a limited number of voyages to any ship applying for exception, and this license must be continually renewed.

[soremekun]

@chengkp75🤯

Amazing wealth of knowledge.   Thanks!

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, soremekun said:

So this was enacted to give US flagged ships a virtual monopoly in transporting people between US ports?

Why not let competition decide?

Do other countries have such a law?

Yes, virtually every maritime nation has cabotage laws, including China, Japan, Russia, Brazil, and the EU.

 

Despite the assertions of Wikipedia regarding the PVSA (maritime labor wasn't around when the act was passed, and no one was building small passenger vessels in foreign countries and bringing them to the US), the PVSA was enacted to enforce safety regulations on passenger ships.  During the 1800's, there were many fires and explosions on steamboats plying US harbors and rivers.  In an act to prevent this, the US passed the Steamboat Act of 1838, and a subsequent act in 1852.  These acts created the Steamboat Inspection Service (the precursor of today's USCG Department of Marine Inspection, the guys you see on the cruise ships), to inspect and enforce new safety regulations for the steamboats.  These inspections and the required safety measures cost the ship owners money, so they retaliated by flagging their steamboats in foreign countries.  The PVSA, passed in 1886, made it mandatory that all passenger vessels operating in US coastal waters (coastwise trade), had to be US owned, US built, and US flagged.  This made it mandatory for all these vessels to meet the standards of the Steamboat Service, and subsequently the USCG.  Foreign flag ships, even those cruise ships home porting in the US, do not meet USCG regulations, the USCG can only determine if the ships meet the international SOLAS requirements.

[Joe817]

Dammmmm....this is fascinating! Thanks chengkp75!

[chengkp75]

Forgot to add Canada, whose Coastal Trading Act puts the fines from the PVSA to shame, up to $5000.

[Shmoo here]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Forgot to add Canada, whose Coastal Trading Act puts the fines from the PVSA to shame, up to $5000.

I love reading your posts.  I learn something new every time.

[BlerkOne]

2 hours ago, soremekun said:

So this was enacted to give US flagged ships a virtual monopoly in transporting people between US ports?

Why not let competition decide?

Do other countries have such a law?

 

It remains to protect a nearly non-existent ship building industry in the US. Basically impossible for a large passenger vessel to be US flagged these days.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

 

It remains to protect a nearly non-existent ship building industry in the US. Basically impossible for a large passenger vessel to be US flagged these days.

How does it protect an industry, if that industry doesn't build anything?  Is it giving subsidies to the shipyards to remain in business and pay their workers who have no work?  Nope.  Why aren't US passenger vessels built in the US?  Because it is too expensive, so how is the PVSA protecting that industry?  It remains to protect the several hundred thousand jobs that US citizens hold on all the passenger vessels I named in my previous post.  It also remains to protect US waters by ensuring that US flag vessels meet the strictest safety standards in the world.

[BlerkOne]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

How does it protect an industry, if that industry doesn't build anything?  Is it giving subsidies to the shipyards to remain in business and pay their workers who have no work?  Nope.  Why aren't US passenger vessels built in the US?  Because it is too expensive, so how is the PVSA protecting that industry?  It remains to protect the several hundred thousand jobs that US citizens hold on all the passenger vessels I named in my previous post.  It also remains to protect US waters by ensuring that US flag vessels meet the strictest safety standards in the world.

 

We've already been around this bend in the river. When the PVSA was enacted, there was a ship building industry and so was protectionist. It still exists because Congress doesn't want to cross unions to get rid of it.

 

We all know how the strictest safety standards in the world keep duck boats afloat. Cough.