Interesting PVSA decision

[Ferry_Watcher]

36 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Thanks! But, unfortunately, I got this one wrong.

 

I think you have chimed in on other questionable B2Bs - that is what I remembered, my friend.

[Shmoo here]

OK, everyone here's a direct copy update on the situation:

 

UPDATE: After being told multiple time that we were in violation despite what I understood, we adjusted our plans to spend more time in Australia before the cruises. I spent half of my day changing flights, hotels, plans, etc. (everything but call DCL to cancel the Vancouver to San Diego portion of the trip).

Guess who calls at 4:30PM and left me a voicemail? DCL saying that I was not in violation of the PVSA as I'm boarding the ship in Sydney and sailing to the US, not sailing US to US as they originally thought even though I explained it multiple times over multiple days & calls. I tried to call the rep back but they were not available so I will try again tomorrow. At this point though, I've already adjusted my plans and I'm sticking with these new plans. I'll just fly home from Vancouver.

[njhorseman]

25 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

Guess who calls at 4:30PM and left me a voicemail? DCL saying that I was not in violation of the PVSA as I'm boarding the ship in Sydney and sailing to the US, not sailing US to US as they originally thought even though I explained it multiple times over multiple days & calls.

Bingo.

 

Too bad your friend had already changed their plans on the assumption that Disney was not going to approve the itinerary.

[Shmoo here]

8 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Bingo.

 

Too bad your friend had already changed their plans on the assumption that Disney was not going to approve the itinerary.

I believe he thought he'd never actually gotten the information to the proper person.  Oh, well, he's happy with what he was finally able to set up.

[ontheweb]

8 hours ago, Shmoo here said:

I believe he thought he'd never actually gotten the information to the proper person.  Oh, well, he's happy with what he was finally able to set up.

It is of course good that he is happy with his final plans, but he never should have had to go through all that hassle. It would have been so much easier for Disney to allow their higher ups to check and then approve when they saw there was no PVSA violation.

[bob brown]

Here’s a new case to ponder…

I am currently aboard Pearl Seas Cruises, Pearl Mist, (registered in the Marshall Islands), on a two week Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway cruise from Milwaukee to Quebec City.  A few of our passengers are continuing on the next cruise, from Quebec City to Portland.  I view this B2B as a clear PVSA violation, and asked the

 Purser if they indeed sell it, and they said that since “it’s two separate cruises, it’s okay.”🤔

[ontheweb]

5 minutes ago, bob brown said:

Here’s a new case to ponder…

I am currently aboard Pearl Seas Cruises, Pearl Mist, (registered in the Marshall Islands), on a two week Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway cruise from Milwaukee to Quebec City.  A few of our passengers are continuing on the next cruise, from Quebec City to Portland.  I view this B2B as a clear PVSA violation, and asked the

 Purser if they indeed sell it, and they said that since “it’s two separate cruises, it’s okay.”🤔

Do they get off for a day? If so, it would seem to be ok. If not, I would agree with you that it seems to be a clear violation.

[bob brown]

32 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Do they get off for a day? If so, it would seem to be ok. If not, I would agree with you that it seems to be a clear violation.

We all spend our last night aboard, while docked at QC, but the next cruise sails later in the same day,  most of us disembarks…

[new_cruiser]

On 10/2/2024 at 8:56 AM, Ferry_Watcher said:

 

Luckily, Celebrity was able to contact most of the impacted passengers prior to them arriving in Seattle.  And yes, I was present for one couple who didn't know being told that they would need to disembark in Victoria, and then get to Vancouver to be able to take the 'next' cruise. 

 

I'm curious if they were allowed to leave luggage on board. Helicopter or seaplane are the nicest ways to get from Victoria to the cruise port in Vancouver. Bus-to-ferry-to-bus is annoying and time consuming. But baggage weight is more limited on the helicopter than on most airlines (50 lb per passenge) and more limited on seaplanes on the sea plane (8 lb cheapest fare to 25 lb for the highest fare).

 

We used the helicopter when we started our trip flying into Victoria and cruised out of Vancouver - very convenient & enjoyable.

[crzndeb]

As someone who did a B5B on same ship last year, starting in Sydney and ending in Seattle, it was perfectly fine. And all legs booked separately. 
1st leg- Sydney-Sydney

2nd leg- Sydney to Sydney

3rd leg- Sydney- Honolulu 

4th leg- Honolulu- Vancouver

5th leg- Vancouver- Seattle

 

Also did this in the opposite direction in 2012, on a B3B. Seattle-Honolulu—Sydney. This issue comes up every single year, and mostly for the repos to Australia. I definitely educated myself years ago, after friends were able to book the illegal 2 legs, Seattle-Vancouver-Honolulu and were not told they couldn’t until after hotels and flights were booked. 

Edited October 4 by crzndeb

[Flatbush Flyer]

On 10/3/2024 at 5:06 AM, ontheweb said:

It is of course good that he is happy with his final plans, but he never should have had to go through all that hassle. It would have been so much easier for Disney to allow their higher ups to check and then approve when they saw there was no PVSA violation.

Actually, what would’ve been easiest would be to let the OP do the cruise and Disney eat the fine which isn’t very much in the big picture.

[Shmoo here]

5 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

the fine which isn’t very much

It's pretty substantial

Penalty

* $798 for each passenger transported and landed after November 2, 2015.

[Flatbush Flyer]

44 minutes ago, Shmoo here said:

It's pretty substantial

Penalty

* $798 for each passenger transported and landed after November 2, 2015.

For the example I cited, that $800 per person fine would be less than 8% of a double occupancy balcony cabin fare on the multi-segment premium cruise cited. No worse than a “fare sale” and a decent gesture since it was the cruise line’s screw-up.

[Shmoo here]

41 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

For the example I cited, that $800 per person fine would be less than 8% of a double occupancy balcony cabin fare on the multi-segment premium cruise cited. No worse than a “fare sale” and a decent gesture since it was the cruise line’s screw-up.

And, of course, there's the probability that, since the cruise line allowed the violation, they could incur additional penalties, including being banned from the ports involved.

[njhorseman]

8 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Actually, what would’ve been easiest would be to let the OP do the cruise and Disney eat the fine which isn’t very much in the big picture.

It would have taken a Disney employee who understood the PVSA less than 30 seconds to determine that the cruise was legal. It took me less than 10 seconds.

You can't get a PVSA question that is much easier than this one was.

 

 

 

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

For the example I cited, that $800 per person fine would be less than 8% of a double occupancy balcony cabin fare on the multi-segment premium cruise cited. No worse than a “fare sale” and a decent gesture since it was the cruise line’s screw-up.

Huh? 

A decent gesture since it was the cruise line's screw-up? That makes no sense. The cruise line didn’t know it screwed up until it was too late...the passenger had already changed their plans by canceling the last segment. 

And no cruise line is going to knowingly violate the PVSA to sooth a passenger's ruffled feathers.  

[njhorseman]

BTW, the PVSA violation fine is now $971 per passenger. 

Reference: 19 CFR 4.80 (b) (2) 

[Shmoo here]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

BTW, the PVSA violation fine is now $971 per passenger. 

Reference: 19 CFR 4.80 (b) (2) 

Hmmm the PVSA I have (2019) says:

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Shmoo here said:

Hmmm the PVSA I have (2019) says:

Yes, that was correct 5 years ago when that informed compliance document was published, but the law includes a provision for adjustment of the fine for inflation and the latest value, which is is documented in the regulations...CFR means Code of Federal Regulations...is $971. That's why I cited the regulation, 19 CFR 4.80 (b) (2) , so that anyone would be able to verify the $971 fine. If you enter 19 CFR 4.80 (b) (2) in an internet search engine you'll find it.

Edited October 8 by njhorseman