Passenger Vessel Services Act

[BEAV]

Dave,

 

In re-reading the article, I can see your confusion. In one section, the author states any port in Canada or Mexico as being designated "near by foreign", which is correct. His sentence "a 'distant foreign port' means any other port, except a U.S. port" could be confused to think any port in Canada or Mexico is distant foreign. But you have to understand the context of the 2nd sentence. At least I think this is where your confusion lies.

 

Rest assured, Prince Rupert (or Vancouver, Victoria & Nanaimo) are not distant foreign ports. If they were, we would be seeing cruises sailing today between Seattle and Seward/Whittier.

 

Hope that helps!

[DaveFr]

BEAV,

 

I wasn't confused about whether Vancouver, for example, is a nearby or distant port. The confusion arose because, based upon the article you cited, a Seattle to Seward cruise that stopped in Vancouver and didn't allow permanent disembarkation until Seward should be allowed by the PSA.

 

The author stated that the PSA would allow a cruise between US ports in the following circumstance: "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." Thus, my example above of a Seattle to Seward cruise that didn't allow permanent disembarkation at intermediate stops and that stopped in a nearby foreign port (Vancouver) would appear to be allowable according to the author's analysis. The fact that such a cruise is apparently not allowed under the PSA, indicates to me that the author's analysis is incorrect.

 

The author draws a distinction between a cruise between different US ports that allow or do not allow permanent disembarkation at intermediate stops. In the former case, he says a distant foreign port must be visited while, as above, he says only a nearby foreign port must be visited if permanent disembarkation is not allowed at intermediate ports.

 

Based upon what I've learned here, I believe the author's conclusion should have been that the PSA only allows a cuise between different US ports if a distant foreign port is visited at some point on the cruise. Of course, my conclusion may not be entirely correct either. Frankly, the PSA is worse than the Rule Against Perpetuities. :D

[BEAV]

Dave,

 

Thanks, now I understand and see your confusion, based on the way the author laid out the case. I absolutely agree it appears he's more or less talking out of both sides of his mouth! Thankfully, we know the true points of the law and can see beyond any incorrect statements.

 

Perhaps a link to a discussion other than the one I selected wouldn't have raised confusion. These laws are difficult enough to understand as they are without further confusion by the writings of one particular author.

[Cruise Gypsy]

Anybody have any theories why the cruise lines are not fighting harder to get the PSA revised or repealed - a lot has happened in 100+ since it was written.

 

The two big dogs in the fight, Carnival Corp and Royal Caribbean Corp, seem like they could join up on this one and have some influence.

 

I heard a couple theories such as:

 

1. The cruise lines don't want to upset the dock workers union

2. The cruise lines don't want to advertise to the that the ships aren't subject to American laws.

3. The PSA also applies to airlines so a change would affect more than just cruise ships.

 

We live in Seattle so we know the business we lose to Vancouver as well as we do a lot of Repo cruises so the PSA became old a long time ago.

Just curious about other opinions:confused:

[fsalzer]

I heard a couple theories such as:

...

3. The PSA also applies to airlines so a change would affect more than just cruise ships.

 

As best I can tell the Passenger Vessel Services Act applies only to vessels.

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

Perhaps there's some other law that applies to airlines.

Fred

[Cruise Gypsy]

As best I can tell the Passenger Vessel Services Act applies only to vessels.

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

Perhaps there's some other law that applies to airlines.

Fred

 

Boy, I need to get my "Act" straight - I thinks it is the Jones Act that also covers Airlines, not the PSA.:o

[Rev22:17]

Fred,

 

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?

 

The basic answer is that passengers who book these itineraries back to back must complete all formalities of disembarkation in Vancouver. Having formally disembarked, they can then re-embark aboard the same vessel. In most cases, the cruise line has the back to back passengers meet in a lounge where a representative escorts them off the vessel, hands out new cruise cards for the second cruise, and allows them to reboard.

 

BTW, the same rules would apply to flying from Boston to Detroit, with a connection in Toronto, on Air Canada. It's legal, even if the same plane makes both flights, so long as the passenger physically gets off of the airplane and then reboards for the connecting segment.

 

Norm.

[Rev22:17]

Cruise Gypsy,

 

Boy, I need to get my "Act" straight - I thinks it is the Jones Act that also covers Airlines, not the PSA.:o

 

The Jones Act covers transportation of goods. The Passenger Services Act covers transportation of passengers. The rules in both acts are substantially similar.

 

Norm.

[Rev22:17]

Cruise Gypsy,

 

Anybody have any theories why the cruise lines are not fighting harder to get the PSA revised or repealed - a lot has happened in 100+ since it was written.

 

The two big dogs in the fight, Carnival Corp and Royal Caribbean Corp, seem like they could join up on this one and have some influence.

 

I heard a couple theories such as:

 

1. The cruise lines don't want to upset the dock workers union

2. The cruise lines don't want to advertise to the that the ships aren't subject to American laws.

3. The PSA also applies to airlines so a change would affect more than just cruise ships.

 

We live in Seattle so we know the business we lose to Vancouver as well as we do a lot of Repo cruises so the PSA became old a long time ago.

Just curious about other opinions:confused:

 

It's the members of Congress who don't want to upset the maritime unions, making it politically impracticable to alter the Passenger Services Act to any great degree. Nonetheless, the Passenger Services Act is not a significant burden to the cruise industry anyway.

 

The Passenger Services Act permits the following.

 

>> 1. A vessel of U. S. registry may transport passengers between any ports of the United States, without restiction.

 

>> 2. Any vessel that has not called at another port may return passengers to their port of embarkation. (This provision permits a "cruise to nowhere" that spends all of its time at sea.)

 

>> 3. Any vessel that has called at any foreign port en route may return passengers to their port of embarkation.

 

>> 4. Any vessel that has called at a "distant" foreign port en route may disembark passengers at any port.

 

>> 5. Any vessel may disembark passengers at any foreign port.

 

>> 6. Any vessel that embarked passengers in a foreign port may disembark those passengers in any port.

 

For purposes of the Passenger Services Act, the ports of Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean islands other than Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao are "near" while the ports of Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, the Pacific Islands, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa are "distant."

 

And if you look at all of the itineraries operated by the major cruise lines, you'll note that they meet at least one of these criteria. Celebrity's "Panama Canal" itinerary from Los Angeles (or San Diego) to Fort Lauderdale calls at a "distant" foreign port, Aruba, to comply with #4, while Celebrity's "Hawai'i" itnerary round trip from Los Angeles stops briefly in a foreign port, Ensendada, to comply with provision #3. Celebrity's Caribbean and Mexican Riviera itineraries also comply with provision #3 while the Alaska and Transatlantic itineraries comply with either provision #5 or provision #6.

 

Norm.

[fsalzer]

The basic answer is that passengers who book these itineraries back to back must complete all formalities of disembarkation in Vancouver. Having formally disembarked, they can then re-embark aboard the same vessel. In most cases, the cruise line has the back to back passengers meet in a lounge where a representative escorts them off the vessel, hands out new cruise cards for the second cruise, and allows them to reboard.

 

Perhaps you speak from personal experience but that didn't work for me.

 

I tried that argument with Princess and it was still deemed a violation of the PVSA. Celebrity customer service (posted earlier on this thread) told me the same. The excerpt below seems to substantiate their position. However, I suppose it depends upon the applicable definition of "voyage".

 

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

Excerpt from 19 CFR 4.80A:

"(4) Embark means a passenger boarding a vessel for the duration of a

specific voyage and disembark means a passenger leaving a vessel at the

conclusion of a specific voyage. The terms embark and disembark are not

applicable to a passenger going ashore temporarily at a coastwise port

who reboards the vessel and departs with it on sailing from the port."

 

Fred

[BEAV]

Norm,

 

Although I don't doubt what you're saying about disembarking in Vancouver, then turning right around and embarking with new cruise cards, our experience with HAL was such that US Immigrations said we'd have to remain in Vancouver 24 hours in order to make it all "legal". Of course this wasn't an option as the ship arrived and departed the same day.