Is there a way to avoid this PVSA violation?

[Gilford57]

We just booked two cruises back-to-back on the Nieuw Statendam. HAL accepted the bookings and the deposits, but this morning they told us it violated the Passenger Vessel Services Act and we had to cancel one or both bookings.  I have an alternative idea that I am wondering if it might work.  Before I get back with them, I hope others may have had a similar situation and could share any knowledge.  Here are the cruises:

1. Boston to Quebec City 10/2 - 10/8.
2. Quebec City to Fort Lauderdale 10/8 - 10/22.  Boarding is 10/8 with an overnight in Quebec City and departure on 10/9. 

 

Suppose we departed the ship on 10/8 and reboarded on 10/9.

• Would this satisfy the PVSA?
• Would HAL let us do this?

[jayhawk66]

I once cruised RT Boston to Quebec City and return. I don’t understand why your booking violates the PVSA.

[puppycanducruise]

3 minutes ago, jayhawk66 said:

 I don’t understand why your booking violates the PVSA.

It violates the PVSA because the passenger is embarking in Boston and disembarking in Ft Lauderdale without a stop in a distant foreign port.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by puppycanducruise

[Gilford57]

1 minute ago, jayhawk66 said:

I once cruised RT Boston to Quebec City and return. I don’t understand why your booking violates the PVSA.

Round trip Boston to Boston is OK because it stops in at least one foreign port.  Boston to Ft. Lauderdale is not OK because it must stop in a "distant" foreign port in order to travel between two different US cities. 

[jayhawk66]

2 minutes ago, Gilford57 said:

Round trip Boston to Boston is OK because it stops in at least one foreign port.  Boston to Ft. Lauderdale is not OK because it must stop in a "distant" foreign port in order to travel between two different US cities. 

I don’t understand. Boston to Quebec, first cruise. Quebec to Ft. Lauderdale second. Both individually legal but not together? What am I missing?

[puppycanducruise]

3 minutes ago, jayhawk66 said:

I don’t understand. Boston to Quebec, first cruise. Quebec to Ft. Lauderdale second. Both individually legal but not together? What am I missing?

It's illegal because when you put the 2 cruises together, the passenger gets on in Boston and off in Ft Lauderdale without a stop in a distant foreign port.  If the passenger changed ships I think it would be okay but that is not the case.

[Ferry_Watcher]

This law is so antiquated. 

[rafinmd]

44 minutes ago, Gilford57 said:

uppose we departed the ship on 10/8 and reboarded on 10/9.

• Would this satisfy the PVSA?
• Would HAL let us do this?

I THINK if you disembarked 10/8 with all your luggage and completely checked out of the ship and reboarded 10/9 it would technically satisfy the PVSA but I still doubt you would be allowed to do it.  I suspect HAL would be unwilling to tackle the possible hassle of proving to satisfy the authorities that you were really off the ship.  Would you be willing and able to board NCL Pearl September 30 in Boston, disembark October 7,and embark the HAL cruise October  8?

 

Roy

[richwmn]

16 minutes ago, jayhawk66 said:

I don’t understand. Boston to Quebec, first cruise. Quebec to Ft. Lauderdale second. Both individually legal but not together? What am I missing?

The PVSA defines cruise differently than the cruise lines. PVSA defines cruise as passenger getting on the ship at one port and exiting at another, regardless of how the cruise line breaks it up. So, in this case, the passenger is getting on the cruise in Boston, and ending in Fort Lauderdale - a violation.

[Gilford57]

4 minutes ago, rafinmd said:

I THINK if you disembarked 10/8 with all your luggage and completely checked out of the ship and reboarded 10/9 it would technically satisfy the PVSA but I still doubt you would be allowed to do it.  I suspect HAL would be unwilling to tackle the possible hassle of proving to satisfy the authorities that you were really off the ship.

That is exactly what my thought were.

5 minutes ago, rafinmd said:

Would you be willing and able to board NCL Pearl September 30 in Boston, disembark October 7,and embark the HAL cruise October  8?

That is great idea that just might work.  I will check it out.

[chengkp75]

23 minutes ago, Ferry_Watcher said:

This law is so antiquated. 

No, it is not.  It protects the Alaska Marine Highway System and the Puget Sound ferries in your home town, as well as any sightseeing, whale watching, or dinner cruises that sail out of Seattle.  In fact, the allowance for a cruise from one US port to another, with a call at a "distant" foreign port, was a bone thrown to the cruise industry, fairly recently, to allow those cruises at all.  Remember, by US law, which was enacted as a requirement for agreeing to the SOLAS convention, a "passenger" vessel is any vessel that carries "more than 12 people for hire".  It is not the "Cruise" Vessel Services Act.  To carve out cruise ships from other passenger vessels, and survive a challenge from those small vessels who would be excluded from the financial benefits of foreign flag operation, would require a change in the language of SOLAS, so requiring a majority vote of the 143 nations signatory to SOLAS.

[chengkp75]

36 minutes ago, rafinmd said:

I THINK if you disembarked 10/8 with all your luggage and completely checked out of the ship and reboarded 10/9 it would technically satisfy the PVSA but I still doubt you would be allowed to do it.

While the technical wording of the PVSA says that the "transportation" ends when the passenger "permanently" disembarks the vessel (this was a change added around the 80's or 90's to allow for US ports of call in addition to the embarkation port), and others have suggested that this would work, I believe that there would need to be a full calendar day off the ship to qualify as "permanent" disembarking (i.e. get off on the 8th, and reboard on the 10th, so the 9th is off the ship).

[baelor]

21 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

It protects the Alaska Marine Highway System and the Puget Sound ferries in your home town, as well as any sightseeing, whale watching, or dinner cruises that sail out of Seattle.  In fact, the allowance for a cruise from one US port to another, with a call at a "distant" foreign port, was a bone thrown to the cruise industry, fairly recently, to allow those cruises at all. 

Could you elaborate?  Genuinely curious, since I am a PNW person.  I have never heard of this law before--how does it protect the ferries, etc.?

[quack2]

1 hour ago, puppycanducruise said:

It violates the PVSA because the passenger is embarking in Boston and disembarking in Ft Lauderdale without a stop in a distant foreign port.

 

 

Quebec is not a distant foreign port?  What about Victoria?

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, quack2 said:

Quebec is not a distant foreign port?  What about Victoria?

A "distant" foreign port is defined as one not in North or Central America, the Caribbean, Bahamas, or Bermuda.

 

27 minutes ago, baelor said:

Could you elaborate?  Genuinely curious, since I am a PNW person.  I have never heard of this law before--how does it protect the ferries, etc.?

The PVSA restricts "coastwise" (from one US port to another US port, without an intervening foreign port) passenger transportation to US flag vessels.  Therefore, those vessels I mentioned, along with all "passenger" vessels operating in the US must meet USCG safety regulations, US labor laws, pay US taxes, and generally support the US economy.  And, as I said, a "passenger" vessel is any vessel carrying more than 12 people for hire, so it covers every ferry, commuter boat, water taxi, whale watching boat, sightseeing boat, dinner cruise boat, casino boat, river cruise boats, and even large charter fishing boats that operate in the US.

 

If large cruise vessels are allowed to cruise "domestically" (no foreign port call), then that places all the other companies, even if they don't compete directly with the cruise lines, to challenge the law as being discriminatory, as it costs far more to operate as a US flag vessel than a foreign vessel.  The Maritime Administration estimates it costs over 3 times as much to operate a vessel under US flag, and nearly 5 times a much in crew costs.  So, if all these domestic vessels were allowed to be foreign flag, how long do you think it would take for them to go foreign flag, with the loss of revenue to the US, loss of jobs to the US, and loss of oversight by USCG?

[puppycanducruise]

11 minutes ago, quack2 said:

Quebec is not a distant foreign port?  What about Victoria?

No they are not DISTANT in terms of the PVSA.  I believe the ABC islands and South America are distant but Canada is not.

Oh, I see I posted the same time as the chief.  Thanks for the clarification.

Edited April 20, 2022 by puppycanducruise

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, puppycanducruise said:

No they are not DISTANT in terms of the PVSA.  I believe the ABC islands and South America are distant but Canada is not.

Oh, I see I posted the same time as the chief.  Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, and Canada has a similar law (not as restrictive as to ship nationality, but more so on fines) to the PVSA, the Coastwise Trading Act.

[hallpau]

Question for chengkp75:  Would you be allowed to do a b2b2b by starting your cruise in Quebec City - Boston - Quebec City - Ft. Lauderdale?  I've been waiting on an answer from Seattle for close to a week.

Thank you.....

[RuthC]

23 minutes ago, hallpau said:

Question for chengkp75:  Would you be allowed to do a b2b2b by starting your cruise in Quebec City - Boston - Quebec City - Ft. Lauderdale?  I've been waiting on an answer from Seattle for close to a week.

Thank you.....

Yes, since in this example you are not starting in the US.
The PVSA only applies to passengers going from one US city to a foreign country and back to a US city. In this instance the passenger is starting in Canada and ending in the US, so the PVSA isn't a concern. 

If the passenger returns to the US city where they started, a near foreign port is all that's required. 
If the passenger returns to a different US city from the US city in which they started, a distant foreign port is required. 

[hallpau]

Just now, RuthC said:

Yes, since in this example you are not starting in the US.
The PVSA only applies to passengers going from one US city to a foreign country and back to a US city. In this instance the passenger is starting in Canada and ending in the US, so the PVSA isn't a concern. 

If the passenger returns to the US city where they started, a near foreign port is all that's required. 
If the passenger returns to a different US city from the US city in which they started, a distant foreign port is required. 

I totally agree with you based on everything I've found online about PVSA but the first HAL rep said not legal, so I asked them to recheck their information and now I've been waiting for almost a week with no reply.  

[chengkp75]

20 minutes ago, hallpau said:

I totally agree with you based on everything I've found online about PVSA but the first HAL rep said not legal, so I asked them to recheck their information and now I've been waiting for almost a week with no reply.  

I agree with Ruth, this would be legal.  The problem is that Customer Service reps have almost no clue as to what is legal and what is not, which is why most problematic cruises are allowed to be booked in the first place.  What happens then, is that the itinerary goes to a "compliance" department, where specialists in legal matters determine whether or not the multiple cruises meet the PVSA or not, and this sometimes takes weeks to resolve.

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I agree with Ruth, this would be legal.  The problem is that Customer Service reps have almost no clue as to what is legal and what is not, which is why most problematic cruises are allowed to be booked in the first place.  What happens then, is that the itinerary goes to a "compliance" department, where specialists in legal matters determine whether or not the multiple cruises meet the PVSA or not, and this sometimes takes weeks to resolve.

🤦‍♂️ It would be nice if the various cruise lines actually taught these things to the phone representatives. 

 

The concept of starting in a foreign country is different from sailing from one US port to another is really not that complex.

[rafinmd]

I wonder if HAL is being super cautious and disallowing any combination of cruises which has an illegal component.  They might be concerned about what would happen if you cancelled or were a no show for the first leg.  A few years ago I tried to book a combination on MS Amsterdam,  Seattle to Vancouver to San Diego to Hong Kong.  Seattle to Hong Kong is obviously legal but there would have been painful consequences if I cancelled the final leg.

 

Roy

[kochleffel]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

🤦‍♂️ It would be nice if the various cruise lines actually taught these things to the phone representatives. 

 

The concept of starting in a foreign country is different from sailing from one US port to another is really not that complex.

 

How many of us have had a phone representative tell us that New Mexico, Hawaii, or Alaska is a foreign country? Well, a cruise representative wouldn't be talking about New Mexico, but it happens with airlines.

[zgscl]

17 hours ago, ontheweb said:

🤦‍♂️ It would be nice if the various cruise lines actually taught these things to the phone representatives. 

 

The concept of starting in a foreign country is different from sailing from one US port to another is really not that complex.

What an absurd idea. Phone representatives are required to have no idea what they are talking about and then make up an incorrect answer with 100% confidence. I am pretty sure this was written into the constitution and has also been adopted by the United Nations 🤣