Jump to content

Potential Permanent PVSA Exemption for Alaska Until ...


Ken the cruiser
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Thankfully this has finally been resolved.

Not necessarily. You still can’t book a B2B cruise from Seattle to Anchorage and then back to Seattle, even if you stop at a Canadian port along the way on each leg. Or, book a B2B from Boston to Quebec and then from Quebec to New York or Ft Lauderdale or even Boston for that matter. Just saying … 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, intr3pid said:

First of all,  your entire argument is hinged on a supposed inability to change the wordings of a law that interlocks with another that has 160+ signatories, the vast majority of which have no PVSA equivalent.  Australia, for example, has one of the highest per capita cruise penetration in the world without an old protective law  I hope there is a better argument here than that it's "too difficult to change the wording".  Actually, as of the last count I saw, there are around 80 nations that have maritime cabotage laws in some form, including some of the flag of convenience nations, and that represent the vast majority of the world's tonnage.  And, if you knew how much debate there has been at the IMO over whether the vegetable oil from a ship's fryer is "food waste" or "oily waste" (which determines how it is handled onboard, and disposed of), you would know that no decision there is "easy".

 

Let's talk about your reference to USCG inspection rights on ships.  USCG has no expertise nor experience in creating, upholding, and enforcing environmental standards without appropriate  environmental oversight.  Their right to board a vessel is irrelevant if the standards they are operating with are antiquated in the first place.  Both Norway and Germany have design boards whose crafty laws have resulted in much more environmentally friendly ships being built today.  An abstract PVSA theory might exist in the US textbooks - the actual results of proper environmental oversight are found elsewhere.  The USCG does not promulgate environmental standards, that is left to the EPA (I don't know your views on whether they are "antiquated" or not), and the setting of those standards has nothing to do with the PVSA and whether it is antiquated or not.  You really have no idea what is in the PVSA if you think there are environmental standards in it.  The USCG is charged with enforcing the standards set by others, and from my personal experience undergoing USCG inspection, I have to show them the condition, operation, my crew's training and competency in operation of the equipment, and all record keeping, and have never had a violation in 46 years, due to "proper oversight".

 

As for the ships being caught violating the environmental standards, how long do you think that went on before it was caught?  Let's refer to the Alaskan dumps.  How long?  Years - almost half a decade.  Before anyone noticed.  And even then it was a whistleblower.  It proves (A) how incompetent such governance is in the US waters and (B) why the PVSA has achieved almost nothing to date on its own to prevent such acts from happening. You make my point.  Yes, the Alaska discharges (and I won't go into a technical discussion of whether any pollution actually happened from them or not) went on for years, that is a court documented fact.  It is also a fact that the USCG may have inspected the ships annually (depending on the largesse of Congress), and that the flag state also did not discover the violations.  I am more referring to the 200+ violations found on Carnival ships after being convicted of those Alaska violations, and most of those violations did involve actual pollution.  These violations were discovered when the ships were subjected to more frequent, mandated inspections by the court appointed auditor, and Carnival knew they were coming.  So, which system is better prepared to catch violations, the foreign flag ships (where inspection is not mandated, and depends on funding), where it is at best once a year, or the US flag ship which is mandated for inspection 4 times a year?

 

"But, but, these ships weren't PVSA governed?"  Well, I got news - 99% of the cruise ships in the US waters aren't.  99% of the times the law will do nothing to stop such violations from happening.  And, again, if the foreign ships could be regulated more strictly, as is done with US flag ships, wouldn't it lead to better enforcement?

 

As for the Staten Island ferry example, is the premise here that the ferry will think of a cruise ship as unfair competition?  Because a cruise ship is ferrying passengers between two NYC islands?  That there is no way to change the wording of a law that saw exemptions provided and passed by the legislators in a matter of weeks this year for Alaska?  The act passed for Alaska is a time limited, specific exemption for certain ships, and was presented as such as a covid releif package.  It has not been challenged in court to see if it actually stands up to legal standards.  And, all the SI ferry would need to ask the court is "why is Alaska exempted?  I provide transportation between two US states, why can't I be foreign flag?"  And, closer to the topic, the AMHS could ask the court "what is the justification for the 1000 passenger lower limit on this bill, other than to prevent my business from benefitting as the larger ships do?"  (And that is the actual reason that the limit is there).

 

-----------------------------------------

 

"This is what it's all about, my comfort, and my ability to have a cheap vacation, and to heck with all else."

 

Ahh, the strawman. 

 

Your smartphone has 90% of the manufacturing labor sourced from Asia.  The clothes you are wearing have 70% of the work completed in the likes of Mexico and Bangladesh.  The computer you are typing your posts from has sky high foreign content.  Do you ever care to ask why these products are so affordable yet super useful? 

 

Theory of comparative advantage.  Economics 101.  Who is better at doing what.  Yes, I absolutely want an affordable vacation - a better vacation - where a superior service is provided more cost effectively.  I don't want an antiquated law determining where my hard-earned money goes - or whose out-of-date skills I have to protect.

All of the items you mention must meet US law when they are imported to the US to provide consumer protection.  The cruise lines do not have to follow US law.  

And for Amazed, who keeps denigrating the "steamboat safety" concept, let me propose an area where I feel that a US flag cruise ship provides better service to the customer than a foreign flag one.  Professional mariners in the deck and engine departments on all ships are required to have actual firefighting training, so lets disregard them as equal between US flag and foreign flag ships.  Let's look at cruise ship crew, where the hotel department makes up the majority of the crew, and the majority of the fire teams.  On the foreign flag ship, the only crew with any firefighting training at all are those assigned to the fire teams, and their training is limited to onboard simulated fires.  Many of them have never even seen a ship's fire.  Now, on the US flag ship, every single crew member, whether a cabin steward, a dishwasher, the garbage guys or the laundry crew, must have taken a 40 hour training, on shore, that includes donning an SCBA, and standing at the business end of a fire hose and putting out a fire in a confined steel space.  I think that provides a far better service of safety to the passengers than the foreign flag crew.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

Not necessarily. You still can’t book a B2B cruise from Seattle to Anchorage and then back to Seattle, even if you stop at a Canadian port along the way on each leg. Or, book a B2B from Boston to Quebec and then from Quebec to New York or Ft Lauderdale or even Boston for that matter. Just saying … 😎

Uh, yes you could book a back to back Boston to Quebec, and then Quebec to Boston, and while you couldn't book the two back to back Alaska cruises you mention (Seattle/Anchorage, Anchorage/Seattle), that is only because the individual cruises could not be booked, but a round trip Seattle/Anchorage/Seattle is legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AmazedByCruising said:

The law originally and officially meant to make sure steamboats were safe, and I do doubt that that was the real reason for making it a law as lobbying is not a recent invention. I guess the owners of gambling ships back then didn't want their ship to explode either. 

Let's see what's wrong with all of this.  Who would do the lobbying for the PVSA back in 1886?  Let's see, was it the shipbuilders, who were building ships that were not capable of ocean voyages, so could not be built overseas?  Was it maritime labor, when the first maritime union in the US was only formed 11 years prior, and what was the atmosphere for organized labor in the 1800's?  Or was it the shipowners who would face additional cost if they were forced to be US flag?

 

I don't think there were dedicated "gambling ships" back then, but all ships running coastal, interharbor, and river traffic back then were "steamboats", using boilers and most were built of wood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Uh, yes you could book a back to back Boston to Quebec, and then Quebec to Boston, and while you couldn't book the two back to back Alaska cruises you mention (Seattle/Anchorage, Anchorage/Seattle), that is only because the individual cruises could not be booked, but a round trip Seattle/Anchorage/Seattle is legal.

I was always under the impression because of the PVSA you could not book an individual Boston/Quebec (or Montreal) cruise immediately followed by a Quebec (or Montreal)/Boston cruise without at least a one day separation in Quebec (or Montreal) for the same reason you could not book individual cruises from Seattle/Anchorage and then Anchorage/Seattle.

 

If I might ask, what's the difference?

 

Update: The Quebec (or Montreal) B2B is legal because the "B2B" cruise starts at a US port and ends at the same US port (Boston) with a Canadian disembarkation port in the middle whereas with the Alaska "B2B", the cruise starts in a US port and ends at the same US port (Seattle), but with a potentially "different" US disembarkation port in the middle which would require a "distant" foreign port to be in the mix. That's the difference. Right??

 

Edited by Ken the cruiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

I was always under the impression because of the PVSA you could not book an individual Boston/Quebec (or Montreal) cruise immediately followed by a Quebec (or Montreal)/Boston cruise without at least a one day separation in Quebec (or Montreal) for the same reason you could not book individual cruises from Seattle/Anchorage and then Anchorage/Seattle.

 

If I might ask, what's the difference?

Boston to Quebec ends in a foreign port, and Quebec to Boston starts in a foreign port.  Each is legal under the PVSA, since they start/end in foreign ports, meaning they are by definition foreign voyages.  The back to back becomes a Boston closed loop cruise, which is also legal under the PVSA.  You could not book a Boston/Quebec, with a Quebec NYC as a back to back, however.  In this case, each leg;  Boston/Quebec and Quebec/NYC are legal (again starting or ending in a foreign port), but when put together become illegal.

 

Now, the Alaska cruises.  Seattle to Anchorage is not allowed by PVSA, since it goes from one US port to another, without a "distant" foreign port.  Anchorage to Seattle is the same, and neither would be offered, since they are not legal.  However, if they were offered, when combined as a back to back, it again becomes a closed loop cruise, which only requires a foreign port, not a "distant" foreign port.

 

So, the Boston/Quebec/Boston cruise has both individual legs legal, and the combined B2B legal.  The Boston/Quebec/NYC cruise has both individual legs legal, but the combined B2B is not legal.  The Seattle/Anchorage/Seattle cruise has both individual legs illegal, but the combined B2B is legal.

 

Since the 80's, when it was ruled that closed loop cruises could include more than the original port (since going from Miami to Key West, for instance, even with a foreign port later in the cruise, would be "transportation between US ports), CBP looks at where the passenger embarks and where the passenger "permanently" disembarks as to whether the cruise is legal under the PVSA.  The ruling in the 80's said that passengers could "temporarily" disembark the vessel if they were to re-embark the same ship the same day, for onward voyage.  It does not matter how the cruises are advertised or sold, or how they are booked, it is the start and final destinations that determine the legality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Boston to Quebec ends in a foreign port, and Quebec to Boston starts in a foreign port.  Each is legal under the PVSA, since they start/end in foreign ports, meaning they are by definition foreign voyages.  The back to back becomes a Boston closed loop cruise, which is also legal under the PVSA.  You could not book a Boston/Quebec, with a Quebec NYC as a back to back, however.  In this case, each leg;  Boston/Quebec and Quebec/NYC are legal (again starting or ending in a foreign port), but when put together become illegal.

 

Now, the Alaska cruises.  Seattle to Anchorage is not allowed by PVSA, since it goes from one US port to another, without a "distant" foreign port.  Anchorage to Seattle is the same, and neither would be offered, since they are not legal.  However, if they were offered, when combined as a back to back, it again becomes a closed loop cruise, which only requires a foreign port, not a "distant" foreign port.

 

So, the Boston/Quebec/Boston cruise has both individual legs legal, and the combined B2B legal.  The Boston/Quebec/NYC cruise has both individual legs legal, but the combined B2B is not legal.  The Seattle/Anchorage/Seattle cruise has both individual legs illegal, but the combined B2B is legal.

 

Since the 80's, when it was ruled that closed loop cruises could include more than the original port (since going from Miami to Key West, for instance, even with a foreign port later in the cruise, would be "transportation between US ports), CBP looks at where the passenger embarks and where the passenger "permanently" disembarks as to whether the cruise is legal under the PVSA.  The ruling in the 80's said that passengers could "temporarily" disembark the vessel if they were to re-embark the same ship the same day, for onward voyage.  It does not matter how the cruises are advertised or sold, or how they are booked, it is the start and final destinations that determine the legality.

Thanks! The light came on after I initially posted my response, but thanks for taking the time to make the differences crystal clear. 😎

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/29/2021 at 3:06 PM, nocl said:

Or more that you really do not care about the people working on those ships today and would not mind at all if their jobs went away as long as it benefits you and your cruising choices. chengkp75 is clearly in favor of those people currently working on US ships, their jobs and livelihood.

It wouldn't change cruising substantially, and any cruising changes would only be of economic benefit to the US. 

 

The only noticeable change to the cruiser is that cruises to nowhere and US-only cruises would be allowed.

 

The ships and crew would be as they are now.  Ships would not suddenly hire more Americans or become US flagged, or do anything that increases their expenses unnecessarily.   

 

So what would happen if a cruise ship didn't go to other countries?

Provisions and fuel would be sourced 100% from US suppliers

Excursions would be 100% with US providers

On-shore spending would be 100% in the US

 

Frankly, a US-only eastern seaboard cruise doesn't sound that bad.  Or maybe a US-only cruise along the gulf coast.  The West coast perhaps.  More options in Hawaii.   All of those people from within the US and beyond, coming to the US to spread money across the US.   Not seeing how that's in any way a negative for the US.  

 

I have nothing against those working on ships in the US or beyond.  On the other hand, I do have something against protectionist laws that unnecessarily increase costs.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Boston to Quebec ends in a foreign port, and Quebec to Boston starts in a foreign port.  Each is legal under the PVSA, since they start/end in foreign ports, meaning they are by definition foreign voyages.  The back to back becomes a Boston closed loop cruise, which is also legal under the PVSA.  You could not book a Boston/Quebec, with a Quebec NYC as a back to back, however.  In this case, each leg;  Boston/Quebec and Quebec/NYC are legal (again starting or ending in a foreign port), but when put together become illegal.

 

Now, the Alaska cruises.  Seattle to Anchorage is not allowed by PVSA, since it goes from one US port to another, without a "distant" foreign port.  Anchorage to Seattle is the same, and neither would be offered, since they are not legal.  However, if they were offered, when combined as a back to back, it again becomes a closed loop cruise, which only requires a foreign port, not a "distant" foreign port.

 

So, the Boston/Quebec/Boston cruise has both individual legs legal, and the combined B2B legal.  The Boston/Quebec/NYC cruise has both individual legs legal, but the combined B2B is not legal.  The Seattle/Anchorage/Seattle cruise has both individual legs illegal, but the combined B2B is legal.

 

Since the 80's, when it was ruled that closed loop cruises could include more than the original port (since going from Miami to Key West, for instance, even with a foreign port later in the cruise, would be "transportation between US ports), CBP looks at where the passenger embarks and where the passenger "permanently" disembarks as to whether the cruise is legal under the PVSA.  The ruling in the 80's said that passengers could "temporarily" disembark the vessel if they were to re-embark the same ship the same day, for onward voyage.  It does not matter how the cruises are advertised or sold, or how they are booked, it is the start and final destinations that determine the legality.

Do you look at that and say, "Thankfully we have a law in place to prevent someone from embarking in Boston, going to Quebec, and then disembarking in NYC".  Or do you look at the situation and think that it's nonsense and it shouldn't matter to which port the ship returns at the end of that time? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, D C said:

Do you look at that and say, "Thankfully we have a law in place to prevent someone from embarking in Boston, going to Quebec, and then disembarking in NYC".  Or do you look at the situation and think that it's nonsense and it shouldn't matter to which port the ship returns at the end of that time? 

 

I look at it and think that at least the cruise lines are fortunate enough to be allowed to base foreign flag ships in the US and operate them in closed loop cruises.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, D C said:

Do you look at that and say, "Thankfully we have a law in place to prevent someone from embarking in Boston, going to Quebec, and then disembarking in NYC".  Or do you look at the situation and think that it's nonsense and it shouldn't matter to which port the ship returns at the end of that time? 

I wonder how much of an issue it would cause to all concerned if the powers that be simply eliminated the reference to "distant" in the "distant foreign port" requirement? Would that then resolve the B2B issue where different US embarkation/disembarkation ports are involved as long as the itinerary includes an applicable "foreign port"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, D C said:

It wouldn't change cruising substantially, and any cruising changes would only be of economic benefit to the US. 

 

The only noticeable change to the cruiser is that cruises to nowhere and US-only cruises would be allowed.  Actually, cruises to nowhere are specifically allowed by the PVSA, and are only not "allowed" by the cruise lines themselves, since they would need work visas for the crew, which has absolutely nothing to do with the PVSA.

 

The ships and crew would be as they are now.  Ships would not suddenly hire more Americans or become US flagged, or do anything that increases their expenses unnecessarily. What he is talking about is the loss of jobs in other passenger vessels, those that everyone on CC discounts as they don't work on "cruise ships".  As I've said, the PVSA provides employment for tens of thousands of US citizens, on passenger vessels other than cruise ships.  

 

So what would happen if a cruise ship didn't go to other countries?

Provisions and fuel would be sourced 100% from US suppliers  Doesn't happen now, even with the ships homeported, and storing in the US.  Ship's spares and supplies are frequently sourced overseas for these ships (since they are built overseas), and all of this comes into the US as "bonded stores in transit to ship", meaning that no customs duty is paid on these imports.

Excursions would be 100% with US providers

On-shore spending would be 100% in the US

 

Frankly, a US-only eastern seaboard cruise doesn't sound that bad.  Or maybe a US-only cruise along the gulf coast.  The West coast perhaps.  More options in Hawaii.   All of those people from within the US and beyond, coming to the US to spread money across the US.   Not seeing how that's in any way a negative for the US.  Please send your financial projections to the cruise lines, since their marketing teams don't seem to agree that there would be any significant change in their bottom line with these itineraries.

 

I have nothing against those working on ships in the US or beyond.  On the other hand, I do have something against protectionist laws that unnecessarily increase costs.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ken the cruiser said:

I wonder how much of an issue it would cause to all concerned if the powers that be simply eliminated the reference to "distant" in the "distant foreign port" requirement? Would that then resolve the B2B issue where different US embarkation/disembarkation ports are involved as long as the itinerary includes an applicable "foreign port"?

The "distant" foreign port concept was a bone thrown to the cruise lines to allow them to have cruises between different US ports.  CBP did not want the cruise lines to be able to use a "technical" stop at the Bahamas (3-4 hours out of the way) to allow cruises to go between different ports, so they require a port that is "distant".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The "distant" foreign port concept was a bone thrown to the cruise lines to allow them to have cruises between different US ports.  CBP did not want the cruise lines to be able to use a "technical" stop at the Bahamas (3-4 hours out of the way) to allow cruises to go between different ports, so they require a port that is "distant".

So, if the powers that be were to magically remove the "distant" portion of the requirement, it would really not be that big of a deal except for maybe Cartagena, Colombia when it comes to Panama Canal cruises and eliminating the "different US embarkation/disembarkation port" issue we've been discussing. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The "distant" foreign port concept was a bone thrown to the cruise lines to allow them to have cruises between different US ports.

 

We need to say good-bye to the hyperbole,    this is just pure comedy to me and its playing out like the TV series LOST where they just make up the script from week to week.

 

Who threw the bone?   The USCG?,  DHS,     somebody back in the 1800's maybe,  Grover Cleveland Alexander?

 

Get over it,  PVSA,   as it relates to cruising is changing before our very eyes and that is a good thing.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ken the cruiser said:

I wonder how much of an issue it would cause to all concerned if the powers that be simply eliminated the reference to "distant" in the "distant foreign port" requirement? Would that then resolve the B2B issue where different US embarkation/disembarkation ports are involved as long as the itinerary includes an applicable "foreign port"?

It's funny because in the name of being protectionist, the law essentially says "You're welcome here in the US so long as you go someplace else to let your passengers off and provide economic benefit to another country before coming back".   The result is a minimization of ship time (and spending) in the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, D C said:

It's funny because in the name of being protectionist, the law essentially says "You're welcome here in the US so long as you go someplace else to let your passengers off and provide economic benefit to another country before coming back".   The result is a minimization of ship time (and spending) in the US. 

Well, not really.  Because the ship goes to a foreign port, it becomes a foreign voyage, so outside of US law for the most part.  And, if the cruising public wanted more US ports, for instance going from Charleston to Jacksonville and Miami before going to one foreign port and back to Charleston, don't you think the cruise lines would offer this?  Again, send your itinerary suggestions to the cruise line marketing people to educate them on what the cruising market really wants.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, not really.  Because the ship goes to a foreign port, it becomes a foreign voyage, so outside of US law for the most part.  And, if the cruising public wanted more US ports, for instance going from Charleston to Jacksonville and Miami before going to one foreign port and back to Charleston, don't you think the cruise lines would offer this?  Again, send your itinerary suggestions to the cruise line marketing people to educate them on what the cruising market really wants.

 

 

People tend to try to find ways around laws that are costly to them.  The cruise industry has figured out that the way around the protectionist law is to include foreign ports.  Cruises go to foreign ports BECAUSE it make them foreign voyages.  It gets around the law.  I somehow doubt that the intent of the law was to encourage spending in foreign ports while discouraging spending in the US.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, D C said:

 

 

People tend to try to find ways around laws that are costly to them.  The cruise industry has figured out that the way around the protectionist law is to include foreign ports.  Cruises go to foreign ports BECAUSE it make them foreign voyages.  It gets around the law.  I somehow doubt that the intent of the law was to encourage spending in foreign ports while discouraging spending in the US.  

You still haven't answered why there are not multipe US ports on the existing itineraries, if the market was there for them.  The intent was to regulate domestic trade, which does not take foreign spending into consideration.  And, can you give me an accurate figure for the amount of spending that is done in foreign ports as opposed to US ports on the existing itineraries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

You still haven't answered why there are not multipe US ports on the existing itineraries, if the market was there for them.  The intent was to regulate domestic trade, which does not take foreign spending into consideration.  And, can you give me an accurate figure for the amount of spending that is done in foreign ports as opposed to US ports on the existing itineraries.

Like these two Princess cruises, for example, that we would not be allowed to book as a B2B since the first one goes on July 23 from Ft Lauderdale to Quebec and the second goes on Aug 5 from Quebec to New York City?

 

Cruise Details - 13-Day Canada & Colonial America - Princess Cruises

 

Cruise Details - 10-Day Classic Canada & New England - Princess Cruises

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Let's see what's wrong with all of this.  Who would do the lobbying for the PVSA back in 1886?  Let's see, was it the shipbuilders, who were building ships that were not capable of ocean voyages, so could not be built overseas?  Was it maritime labor, when the first maritime union in the US was only formed 11 years prior, and what was the atmosphere for organized labor in the 1800's?  Or was it the shipowners who would face additional cost if they were forced to be US flag?

 

I don't think there were dedicated "gambling ships" back then, but all ships running coastal, interharbor, and river traffic back then were "steamboats", using boilers and most were built of wood.

 

Lobbying isn't necessarily done by companies or unions. I think, but cannot prove it, that the much earlier Steamboat Inspection Service was not entirely based on uproar about accidents that politicians felt should be addressed. 

 

I've seen it happen myself. Leaving out all details, there was an NGO, completely paid for by the government, that would be useless without law X. After law X didn't make it the boss told us that his only priority was to keep the jobs. He didn't care at all about the disasters that would happen without law X, my impression was and still is that nobody at the organization cared. It was about jobs. That was in 2012, but it would have been the same in 1887 or 1871.

 

 

The safety of passengers (let me be clear: pax on cruise ships, not the duck boats or ferries or whoever does coastal transportation of people) is not increased by a law if the only result is not that the ships get safer, but sail to a so called far port which the passengers don't care for. 

 

Besides PVSA, I don't think it's really needed that the government makes sure that chlorine levels in a pool are OK to protect he public. There are enough ambulance chasers making sure that the companies even rethink opening a window because it happens that a guest lets a toddler fall through the window and then blames the company.  

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ken the cruiser said:

I was always under the impression because of the PVSA you could not book an individual Boston/Quebec (or Montreal) cruise immediately followed by a Quebec (or Montreal)/Boston cruise without at least a one day separation in Quebec (or Montreal) for the same reason you could not book individual cruises from Seattle/Anchorage and then Anchorage/Seattle.

 

If I might ask, what's the difference?

 

Update: The Quebec (or Montreal) B2B is legal because the "B2B" cruise starts at a US port and ends at the same US port (Boston) with a Canadian disembarkation port in the middle whereas with the Alaska "B2B", the cruise starts in a US port and ends at the same US port (Seattle), but with a potentially "different" US disembarkation port in the middle which would require a "distant" foreign port to be in the mix. That's the difference. Right??

 

There is no difference between a Boston/Quebec/Boston B2B and the Seattle/Anchorage/Seattle B2B, they are both legal.  Both B2B combinations are considered to be closed loop cruises, beginning and ending in the same US port. CBP does not care that they are advertised as separate cruises or one cruise, they see that you embarked in one US port, and "permanently" disembarked in the same US port.  The ""disembarkation" port in the "middle" of a B2B is of no consequence to CBP, because you did not permanently disembark the vessel.  You got off the vessel in the morning, and got back on the same vessel later that day, just as if it were an ordinary port of call, in CBP's eyes.

 

The difference is that you can book a Boston/Quebec or Quebec/Boston leg separately, as both are also legal under the PVSA.  However, the Seattle/Anchorage or Anchorage/Seattle legs could not be booked separately since they are both illegal under the PVSA, as they start in one US port and end in another US port, without a distant foreign port.  However, when put together, they become a legal closed loop cruise.

 

Here is the PVSA simply:

 

Rule 1:  CBP does not care how many separate cruises you put together, or whether the segments of your cruise is sold as one cruise, or whether it is sold as separate cruises that you choose to put together, or even whether you book one segment in January and the second segment in June.  The question you must ask yourself is: "where did I get on the ship, and where am I actually leaving the ship to go home".  Nothing else matters.

 

Now ask the questions:

 

Am I getting on the ship in a foreign port?  If yes, then the PVSA does not apply to any combination of cruises you stick together.

 

Am I getting off the ship in a foreign port?  If yes, then again the PVSA does not apply to any combination of cruises you stick together.

 

Am I getting on the ship in a US port, and permanently leaving the ship in the same US port?  If yes, then the PVSA is satisfied if there is one foreign port somewhere in all the cruises you stick together.  It does not matter whether there is an advertised "disembarkation" port or two in the middle of your cruises, if you don't get off, take your luggage, and leave the vessel for good, you did not disembark in CBP's eyes.

 

Am I getting on the ship in a US port, and permanently leaving the ship in a different port, regardless of what "disembark/embark" ports there are in the various cruises you stick together?  If yes, then there must be a "distant" foreign port somewhere during the various cruises you've stuck together.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

There is no difference between a Boston/Quebec/Boston B2B and the Seattle/Anchorage/Seattle B2B, they are both legal.  Both B2B combinations are considered to be closed loop cruises, beginning and ending in the same US port. CBP does not care that they are advertised as separate cruises or one cruise, they see that you embarked in one US port, and "permanently" disembarked in the same US port.  The ""disembarkation" port in the "middle" of a B2B is of no consequence to CBP, because you did not permanently disembark the vessel.  You got off the vessel in the morning, and got back on the same vessel later that day, just as if it were an ordinary port of call, in CBP's eyes.

 

The difference is that you can book a Boston/Quebec or Quebec/Boston leg separately, as both are also legal under the PVSA.  However, the Seattle/Anchorage or Anchorage/Seattle legs could not be booked separately since they are both illegal under the PVSA, as they start in one US port and end in another US port, without a distant foreign port.  However, when put together, they become a legal closed loop cruise.

 

Here is the PVSA simply:

 

Rule 1:  CBP does not care how many separate cruises you put together, or whether the segments of your cruise is sold as one cruise, or whether it is sold as separate cruises that you choose to put together, or even whether you book one segment in January and the second segment in June.  The question you must ask yourself is: "where did I get on the ship, and where am I actually leaving the ship to go home".  Nothing else matters.

 

Now ask the questions:

 

Am I getting on the ship in a foreign port?  If yes, then the PVSA does not apply to any combination of cruises you stick together.

 

Am I getting off the ship in a foreign port?  If yes, then again the PVSA does not apply to any combination of cruises you stick together.

 

Am I getting on the ship in a US port, and permanently leaving the ship in the same US port?  If yes, then the PVSA is satisfied if there is one foreign port somewhere in all the cruises you stick together.  It does not matter whether there is an advertised "disembarkation" port or two in the middle of your cruises, if you don't get off, take your luggage, and leave the vessel for good, you did not disembark in CBP's eyes.

 

Am I getting on the ship in a US port, and permanently leaving the ship in a different port, regardless of what "disembark/embark" ports there are in the various cruises you stick together?  If yes, then there must be a "distant" foreign port somewhere during the various cruises you've stuck together.

Holy moly, 16 posts on this subject , we get it already 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

There is no difference between a Boston/Quebec/Boston B2B and the Seattle/Anchorage/Seattle B2B, they are both legal.  Both B2B combinations are considered to be closed loop cruises, beginning and ending in the same US port. CBP does not care that they are advertised as separate cruises or one cruise, they see that you embarked in one US port, and "permanently" disembarked in the same US port.  The ""disembarkation" port in the "middle" of a B2B is of no consequence to CBP, because you did not permanently disembark the vessel.  You got off the vessel in the morning, and got back on the same vessel later that day, just as if it were an ordinary port of call, in CBP's eyes.

 

The difference is that you can book a Boston/Quebec or Quebec/Boston leg separately, as both are also legal under the PVSA.  However, the Seattle/Anchorage or Anchorage/Seattle legs could not be booked separately since they are both illegal under the PVSA, as they start in one US port and end in another US port, without a distant foreign port.  However, when put together, they become a legal closed loop cruise.

 

Here is the PVSA simply:

 

Rule 1:  CBP does not care how many separate cruises you put together, or whether the segments of your cruise is sold as one cruise, or whether it is sold as separate cruises that you choose to put together, or even whether you book one segment in January and the second segment in June.  The question you must ask yourself is: "where did I get on the ship, and where am I actually leaving the ship to go home".  Nothing else matters.

 

Now ask the questions:

 

Am I getting on the ship in a foreign port?  If yes, then the PVSA does not apply to any combination of cruises you stick together.

 

Am I getting off the ship in a foreign port?  If yes, then again the PVSA does not apply to any combination of cruises you stick together.

 

Am I getting on the ship in a US port, and permanently leaving the ship in the same US port?  If yes, then the PVSA is satisfied if there is one foreign port somewhere in all the cruises you stick together.  It does not matter whether there is an advertised "disembarkation" port or two in the middle of your cruises, if you don't get off, take your luggage, and leave the vessel for good, you did not disembark in CBP's eyes.

 

Am I getting on the ship in a US port, and permanently leaving the ship in a different port, regardless of what "disembark/embark" ports there are in the various cruises you stick together?  If yes, then there must be a "distant" foreign port somewhere during the various cruises you've stuck together.

Thanks! That clears all that up. Now, one more question. From your viewpoint, what would be the severe negative impacts associated with simply eliminating the word "distant" from the term "distant foreign port" associated with any PVSA guidance that references that term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

Lobbying isn't necessarily done by companies or unions. I think, but cannot prove it, that the much earlier Steamboat Inspection Service was not entirely based on uproar about accidents that politicians felt should be addressed. 

So, who did the lobbying?  Still don't understand this.  Who benefits from the PVSA, at a time when it did not exist previously, and ships were free to be whatever flag they wished.  What else caused the Steamboat Inspection Service to be founded?  I am really interested to know, because the Steamboat Inspection Service was formed before the PVSA, in 1871 (preceding by 15 years), based on the failures of various Steamboat Acts, starting in 1838 and 1852.  If you believe that a modern NGO with today's lobbying climate is anywhere near what the recently formed SIS (with likely less than 60-80 inspectors, and no money or transportation to allow lobbying in 1886, you have a real fantastic sense of history.

 

1 hour ago, AmazedByCruising said:

Besides PVSA, I don't think it's really needed that the government makes sure that chlorine levels in a pool are OK to protect he public. There are enough ambulance chasers making sure that the companies even rethink opening a window because it happens that a guest lets a toddler fall through the window and then blames the company.

So, if there are enough ambulance chasers to "oversee" the cruise industry, why are there still violations of public health requirements, and outbreaks of illness on ships?  And, know what, the cruise lines have not "rethought" the windows, because they were in the right.  Where did you hear this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...