New York-Quebec-Quebec-Fort Lauderdale October 18-November 9

[BEAV]

On 6/22/2024 at 7:53 AM, Texas Tillie said:

So, what Vince posts is we have a part of the law that makes sense inside a law that makes absolutely no sense under current circumstances. This is the US government, why should we be surprised! 😮🙄😏

 

Patty

Either Canada, or British Columbia, has a similar law. A few years ago we sailed Celebrity from SF to Vancouver. The first two stops were Victoria and Nanaimo. I arranged through Celebrity reservations to disembark in Victoria, spend the night there, then reboard the following day in Nanaimo. 
 

It wasn’t until the day after we sailed from SF that the ship’s immigration officer called our stateroom and told us although we could disembark in Victoria, we couldn’t reboard in Nanaimo. The violation? We couldn’t be “transported” from Nanaimo to Vancouver aboard a foreign flagged vessel. No doubt that law was to protect the BC ferry system from foreign ships doing the same thing. The fact the itinerary included several Alaskan ports between Nanaimo and Vancouver was immaterial. 
 

So this experience once again points to a general lack of knowledge of these laws on the part of call center and sales personnel, necessitating it be moved up the chain.
 

 

Edited June 23 by BEAV

[Roland4]

1 hour ago, BEAV said:

Either Canada, or British Columbia, has a similar law. A few years ago we sailed Celebrity from SF to Vancouver. The first two stops were Victoria and Nanaimo. I arranged through Celebrity reservations to disembark in Victoria, spend the night there, then reboard the following day in Nanaimo. 
 

It wasn’t until the day after we sailed from SF that the ship’s immigration officer called our stateroom and told us although we could disembark in Victoria, we couldn’t reboard in Nanaimo. The violation? We couldn’t be “transported” from Nanaimo to Vancouver aboard a foreign flagged vessel. No doubt that law was to protect the BC ferry system from foreign ships doing the same thing. The fact the itinerary included several Alaskan ports between Nanaimo and Vancouver was immaterial. 
 

So this experience once again points to a general lack of knowledge of these laws on the part of call center and sales personnel, necessitating it be moved up the chain.
 

 

Having never heard of this in 20 years in the industry, I asked Mr. Google and found this;

 

Stated very broadly, the CTA protects Canadian marine interest, including not allowing foreign flagged ships to embark passengers in one Canadian port and disembark them in a different Canadian port.

 

The CTA is the Canadian Transportation Act.

 

Learned something new today!

[daleandrews]

This is the general rule in most countries.  Restricting coastal trades to vessels (or aircraft) that are registered in that country is commonly referred to as "cabotage" restrictions.  Historically these rules have been around a long time and are premised on not only providing an economic incentive to citizens of the host country but also (hopefully) assuring an available fleet of vessels and aircraft in case they are needed in times of military crisis.  The restrictions are particularly difficult in the context of the United States -- where there is a huge market for transportation between cities that are often far apart -- particularly so in the airport context.  On the ocean front, the requirement that U.S. built, registered, and crewed vessels are the only ones that can ply the domestic intercostal trades is particularly difficult given the economic reality that U.S. vessels are markedly more expensive to build and operate than are foreign vessels.  Nonetheless, the laws persist.  Ahh well, there we have it!

[Roland4]

1 hour ago, daleandrews said:

This is the general rule in most countries.  Restricting coastal trades to vessels (or aircraft) that are registered in that country is commonly referred to as "cabotage" restrictions.  Historically these rules have been around a long time and are premised on not only providing an economic incentive to citizens of the host country but also (hopefully) assuring an available fleet of vessels and aircraft in case they are needed in times of military crisis.  The restrictions are particularly difficult in the context of the United States -- where there is a huge market for transportation between cities that are often far apart -- particularly so in the airport context.  On the ocean front, the requirement that U.S. built, registered, and crewed vessels are the only ones that can ply the domestic intercostal trades is particularly difficult given the economic reality that U.S. vessels are markedly more expensive to build and operate than are foreign vessels.  Nonetheless, the laws persist.  Ahh well, there we have it!

Several years ago, in a similar discussion on this board, a very knowledgeable poster (whom I cannot remember) defended the PVSA by asking what would happen if it was abolished and "foreign interests" bought the Staten Island Ferry and reflagged it??

[daleandrews]

2 hours ago, Roland4 said:

Several years ago, in a similar discussion on this board, a very knowledgeable poster (whom I cannot remember) defended the PVSA by asking what would happen if it was abolished and "foreign interests" bought the Staten Island Ferry and reflagged it??

Yeah, I mean if we ended up going to war what would we do if we could not control the Staten Island Ferry???