Passenger Vessel Services Act

[fsalzer]

We just got off Summit's repositioning cruise to Alaska (LA-Vancouver; May 12-May 25). I noticed in the May 24 edition of Celebrity Today! instructions for B2B passengers. Summit's May 25-June 1 cruise appears to be from Vancouver to Seward.

 

I understand that the Passenger Vessel Services Act prohibits foreign-flagged vessels' transportation of passengers between US ports without visiting a distant foreign port. I believe that Vancouver is a nearby foreign port.

 

How can passengers be transported on Summit between Los Angeles, CA and Seward, AK? What am I missing? Has the law changed?

 

Fred

[DaveFr]

Fred,

 

I think the answer is that the Passenger Services Act does not apply to the B2B cruises because they are considered two separate cruises which were booked separately. In fact, both cruises visited some of the same places in Alaska. Since the two cruises were: LA to Vancouver and Vancouver to Seward, there wasn't a single cruise between two US ports that would have required a visit to a distant foreign port.

 

This is probably as clear as mud. :D

[smeyer418]

a b2b would be considered one cruise for PSA purposes. The fine is $300 per person. Maybe the cruise line is just eating it for those that are doing it. Although in theory the CG who enforces this could bar the ship for a period of time from any US port for an intentional violation.

[DaveFr]

a b2b would be considered one cruise for PSA purposes. The fine is $300 per person. Maybe the cruise line is just eating it for those that are doing it. Although in theory the CG who enforces this could bar the ship for a period of time from any US port for an intentional violation.

If the B2B is considered to be one cruise for PSA purposes then it would not violate the PSA because it would be considered: A cruise between different US ports where no permanent disembarkation at an US port is permitted along the way, but at least one port is a nearby foreign port

[Cruise Gypsy]

We just got off Summit's repositioning cruise to Alaska (LA-Vancouver; May 12-May 25). I noticed in the May 24 edition of Celebrity Today! instructions for B2B passengers. Summit's May 25-June 1 cruise appears to be from Vancouver to Seward.

 

I understand that the Passenger Vessel Services Act prohibits foreign-flagged vessels' transportation of passengers between US ports without visiting a distant foreign port. I believe that Vancouver is a nearby foreign port.

 

How can passengers be transported on Summit between Los Angeles, CA and Seward, AK? What am I missing? Has the law changed?

 

Fred

 

You are correct that a B2B cruise between LA and Seward would be a violation of the PSA since Canada is not considered a distant foreign port and it is not a round trip cruise from LA. Remember, Canadian citizens could book the B2B cruise.

[Cruise Gypsy]

You are correct that a B2B cruise between LA and Seward would be a violation of the PSA since Canada is not considered a distant foreign port and it is not a round trip cruise from LA. Remember, Canadian citizens could book the B2B cruise.

 

I am wrong about Canadian citizens as I stated above - the PSA applies to all passengers. (My DH just reminded me of that):)

[C 2 C]

I understand that the Passenger Vessel Services Act prohibits foreign-flagged vessels' transportation of passengers between US ports without visiting a distant foreign port. I believe that Vancouver is a nearby foreign port.

 

Roundtrip cruises to Hawaii from San Diego "visit" Ensenada for 1 hour prior to returning to San Diego. Is this not a similar situation?

[BurBunny]

A B2B sailing from Los Angeles to Seward via Vancouver would normally be considered a violation of PSA. Princess and Holland America do not permit people to B2B their repos to Vancouver continuing on their 1-nighters from YVR to Seattle for this reason.

 

However, because the RT Hawaii sailings *are* RT, and not between 2 US ports, Ensenada is sufficient. Same thing with the short visits to Victoria on the RT Seattle sailings to Alaska.

[BEAV]

One of the most misunderstood aspects of this law is the different foreign port requirements for cruises that begin and end in the same US port vs sailings that begin in one US port and end in a different US port. In other words, round trip sailings vs one-way cruises.

 

Round Trip sailings: Sailings that begin and end at the same US port must call at any foreign port, be it distant or not.

 

One Way sailings: Sailings that begin in one US port but end at a different US port must call at a distant foreign port. For the sake of this particular conversation, Canadian ports in British Columbia (Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, etc) are not defined as distant foreign.

 

So according to the laws, sailing a back to back from LA to Seward is not legal. The only way around this that I can see would be for the passenger to actually start out in Ft Lauderdale and sail the Panama Canal to LA first. Ft Lauderdale to Seward is legal since the Panama Canal cruises stop at a distant foreign port (often Aruba). So the question is, did Summit sail the Panama Canal immediately preceeding the LA-Vancouver cruise?

 

As Burbunny stated, we tried to sail a back-to-back San Francisco-Vancouver-Seattle cruise on HAL a few years ago. HAL made our two bookings, accepted our payment, issued two sets of documents, only to find out 10 days before sailing our names were flagged when US Customs & Immigration was reviewing the manifests of both sailings. HAL offered to pay the $300 per person fine in order to let us travel, however US Immigration still said 'no'. It was explained to us the only way to make the back-to-back legal would be to spend at least 24 hours in Vancouver "between" cruises. This is course was not possible as the cruise arrived Vancouver at the typical 7:00-8:00am and departed on the next sailing at 5:00pm the same day.

 

I'd love to know how Celebrity orchestrated folks to successfully sail a LA-Seward back-to-back.

[BEAV]

So the question is, did Summit sail the Panama Canal immediately preceeding the LA-Vancouver cruise?

 

 

I just answered my own question by going to the roll call section. The only way that I can think to legally sail LA to Seward would have been to board the ship in Ft Lauderdale on April 14 and sail the following voyages:

 

4/14 Ft Lauderdale to LA.

4/28 LA to Hawaii to LA

5/12 LA to Vancouver

5/25 Vancouver to Seward

 

Ft Lauderdale to Seward is legal since Panama Canal cruises call at a distant foreign port (often times Aruba).

[fsalzer]

I just spoke with Celebrity customer service and was told (as I expected) that a LA-Seward B2B was illegal. The CSR has no idea why there was a B2B notice in Summit's May 24 Celebrity Today!

 

Perhaps there is in Celebrity Today! at the end of every cruise a standard B2B notice and it was published by mistake. (I do understand that FLL - Seward would be a legal 48-day cruise).

 

For reference, this is what I believe to be the codification of the Passenger Vessel Services Act:

19CFR4.80a

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/19cfr4.80a.htm

 

Fred

[TomMMD]

We just got off Summit's repositioning cruise to Alaska (LA-Vancouver; May 12-May 25). I noticed in the May 24 edition of Celebrity Today! instructions for B2B passengers. Summit's May 25-June 1 cruise appears to be from Vancouver to Seward.

 

I understand that the Passenger Vessel Services Act prohibits foreign-flagged vessels' transportation of passengers between US ports without visiting a distant foreign port. I believe that Vancouver is a nearby foreign port.

 

How can passengers be transported on Summit between Los Angeles, CA and Seward, AK? What am I missing? Has the law changed?

 

Fred

 

 

 

The PVSA requirements come into play if the trip starts and ends in a U.S. port.

[BEAV]

 

Perhaps there is in Celebrity Today! at the end of every cruise a standard B2B notice and it was published by mistake.

 

I wondered the same thing.

[DaveFr]

For reference, this is what I believe to be the codification of the Passenger Vessel Services Act:

19CFR4.80a

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2002/aprqtr/19cfr4.80a.htm

 

Fred

Fred,

 

Thanks for the link. The source I used to assert that there would not be a violation of the PSA was apparently incorrect. Sorry about the misinformation.

[fsalzer]

Dave,

 

Last June, I booked for this spring two separate cruises (LA-Vancouver; Vancouver-Whittier) on Diamond Princess. Two days after booking Princess caught it and canceled the cruises due to the PSVA. :( We then booked Summit repo cruise. Great weather! Great fun!

 

Fred

[LeftcoastBC]

One of the most misunderstood aspects of this law is the different foreign port requirements for cruises that begin and end in the same US port vs sailings that begin in one US port and end in a different US port. In other words, round trip sailings vs one-way cruises.

 

Round Trip sailings: Sailings that begin and end at the same US port must call at any foreign port, be it distant or not.

 

One Way sailings: Sailings that begin in one US port but end at a different US port must call at a distant foreign port. For the sake of this particular conversation, Canadian ports in British Columbia (Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, etc) are not defined as distant foreign. .

 

a very interesting thread. but...my undersanding was that Good Ol Prince Rupert qualified as "Distant" am I wrong in this assumption?

[BEAV]

a very interesting thread. but...my undersanding was that Good Ol Prince Rupert qualified as "Distant" am I wrong in this assumption?

 

Very interesting. Do you recall where you read/heard that? If true, Prince Rupert would be the 'qualifying' stop for a LA to Seward itinerary. If, of course, the itinerary included Prince Rupert.

[BEAV]

a very interesting thread. but...my undersanding was that Good Ol Prince Rupert qualified as "Distant" am I wrong in this assumption?

 

The article below offers a comprehensive view of the Passenger Services Act, as well as states that no Canadian ports are considered as "distant foreign". Although the article was written in 1999, I'm not aware of any changes to the law that would change Prince Rupert's designation.

 

http://www.sealetter.com/Oct-99/alancol.html

[LeftcoastBC]

The article below offers a comprehensive view of the Passenger Services Act, as well as states that no Canadian ports are considered as "distant foreign". Although the article was written in 1999, I'm not aware of any changes to the law that would change Prince Rupert's designation.

 

http://www.sealetter.com/Oct-99/alancol.html

 

It has been a long time. I have no recall of where and certainly do not claim my memory or where I got it from as acurrate. I have read Walker's article in the past and it's clear from his side that PR does not qualify.

 

I believe now as I type it was something to do with the Mercury when it first made it's stops in Rupert several years ago. It was only there for an hour or so at that time. At that time I believe it was sailing from Seattle return so it may have only have been for a "near foreign" need.

 

The PSA certainly affects the Alaska runs of "Foreign" flags doesn't it.

 

As an aside I note that the cruiselines are returning to Columbia on their Panama runs to the West Coast. Saving cost on fuel vs. going to Aruba I believe.

[BEAV]

Hypothetically speaking, if Prince Rupert were to ever be designated as a "distant foreign" port, that would pave the way for cruise lines to begin sailing from Seattle to Seward/Whittier. Vancouver would stand to lose cruise ships, assuming the cruise lines would want to base ships in Seattle for the purpose of easier accessibility for their supposed US-based target market.

[LeftcoastBC]

That is happening already regardless. With the newer ships being faster and all.

 

I'm going to assume then that PR still does not qualify and my original though was incorrect.

[nu2sea]

Thanks for the discussion and the reference links, guys!

 

Susan

[DaveFr]

The article below offers a comprehensive view of the Passenger Services Act, as well as states that no Canadian ports are considered as "distant foreign". Although the article was written in 1999, I'm not aware of any changes to the law that would change Prince Rupert's designation.

 

http://www.sealetter.com/Oct-99/alancol.html

BEAV,

 

Now I'm really confused.:confused: The article you cited is the source I relied upon for the conclusion that the B2B of LA to Vancouver and then Vancouver to Seward was not in violation of the PSA because permanent disembarkation was not allowed at a US port and a nearby foreign port (Vancouver) was visited. After defining terms, the article reaches the following conclusions about the effect of the PSA:

• A cruise which starts and ends in the same US port, visits a nearby or distant foreign port, and where no permanent disembarkation is permitted during the cruise at any US port (because there has been no transportation BETWEEN US ports (Huh?)
  
• A cruise between different US ports where no permanent disembarkation is permitted along the way, but at least one port is a nearby foreign port
  
• A cruise between US ports where permanent disembarkation IS allowed at a US port along the way, but only if the ship visits a distant foreign port and any permanent disembarkation takes place at a subsequent US port
  
• A "cruise to nowhere" from a US port where the ship travels beyond US territorial waters and keeps moving
  
• Any cruise which visits US ports but where no permanent disembarkation is allowed along the way and the cruise begins or ends at a distant or nearby foreign port

I used the second bullet and, possibly incorrectly, modified the language to say that no permanent disembarkation at a US port is permitted along the way. I don't know if the author left out "US port" by mistake or it was a deliberate omission.

 

It seems to me that the second bullet would allow a cruise in accord with the PSA between Los Angeles and Seward that didn't allow permanent disembarkation along the way and made a stop in a Canadian port such as Vancouver or Prince Rupert. What do you think or do you think the author's analysis of the PSA may be in error?

 

What a mess this is. :rolleyes:

[Nancyquilts]

Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could take a few minutes away from their special pork projects and bring this up to date? It must have been appropriate when ships were still made in the U.S. It is no longer appropriate or useful in this day and age. JMHO. Nancy

[LeftcoastBC]

DaveFr... in his article on sealetter Walker admitted to two things .... being a lawyer and that he might be wrong. So he could be I guess.

 

In your own link to "Customs rules" you at least made the Prince Rupert Q clear.... thks

 

2)" Nearby foreign port means any foreign port in North America,

Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West yadd yadda..."