Passenger Vessel Services Act summary to date

[smeyer418]

I don't think that you can claim a PVSA violation fine because, as a reasonable individual, you knew/should have known that the trip you were booking was in violation. And I'm pretty sure that "intentional violations of law/regulation" are about the same as criminal acts and, thus, not covered.

There must be people out there who this has happened to(in an emergency)....sure you can claim anything. remember the fine is NOT against you. Its against the cruise company. It is NOT a criminal act. Its a civil fine.

[vjmatty]

TravelSafe seems to have the best coverage.... if you get their "Cancel for any reason" policy, which they will cover NYers for, it costs about $358 for the cruise and flight. You have to insure the cruise and flight together.

[cvanhorn]

Has anyone been fined the $300 for a PVSA violation

 

 

That is not an individual fine, it is the cruise line that is fined $300 per passenger. The passengers are not fined and the cruise line does not try to collect from the passenger as it was their problem to deviate the itenerary (such as high seas, etc.) Used to happen quite often for NCL in Hawaii having to not go to Fanning Island due to weather and just pay the fine. Also, Alaska cruies sometimes have problems with not being able to make their Canadia stop for PVSA purposes, but not often, usually if they are delayed they still manange an hour in the middle of the night to do the paperwork which satisfies PVSA even if passengers don't get to get off the ship.

[SeattleCruiselover]

That is not an individual fine, it is the cruise line that is fined $300 per passenger. The passengers are not fined and the cruise line does not try to collect from the passenger as it was their problem to deviate the itenerary (such as high seas, etc.) Used to happen quite often for NCL in Hawaii having to not go to Fanning Island due to weather and just pay the fine. Also, Alaska cruies sometimes have problems with not being able to make their Canadia stop for PVSA purposes, but not often, usually if they are delayed they still manange an hour in the middle of the night to do the paperwork which satisfies PVSA even if passengers don't get to get off the ship.

 

Really? Princess bills pax for it all of the time, and so do most of the others. And I have seen them take pax to collections who don't pay up.

[smeyer418]

Really? Princess bills pax for it all of the time, and so do most of the others. And I have seen them take pax to collections who don't pay up.

the cruise contract allows the Cruise line to bill. Its only collectible if the fine is actually imposed. The CG administers the fine and all fines are public records but this still doesn't tell me if anyone collected it back from their insurance....

[cvanhorn]

After further research, I see you are correct and I am wrong. I apologize for speaking up before doing enough research.

[smeyer418]

After further research, I see you are correct and I am wrong. I apologize for speaking up before doing enough research.

 

Thanks-I not sure who you aimed this out but I have done research on this a long time ago. It is surely more complicated than it needs to be. that's what the boards are for.....

[Cruisin' Chick]

In the Princess Patters during the Hawaiian cruises, you are warned that if you don't get back on the ship during the Hawaiian stops, you can be fined. So if you miss the boat, so to speak in Honolulu and don't get back on, you are in violation of the PVSA, so Princess gets fined and you the passenger are responsible for paying up.

[sunneesmile]

I don't think that you can claim a PVSA violation fine because, as a reasonable individual, you knew/should have known that the trip you were booking was in violation. And I'm pretty sure that "intentional violations of law/regulation" are about the same as criminal acts and, thus, not covered.

 

Leaving out whether or not trip insurance would/would not pay for a PVSA fine and also leaving out whether or not the cruise lines would charge back a passenger for the fine.....if there was a poll of "reasonable individuals" who cruise, I seriously doubt even half would know whether or not an itinerary was in violation. People such as yourself and others who posted on the previous PVSA string do have knowledge of such things, for a variety of reasons, but I truly suspect that most people who book cruise vacations are not going to be saavy about PVSA regs.

[cvanhorn]

I can see the passenger being responsible for the fine if they "jump ship" in Hawaii or Alaska, but is it really the passengers fault if the Captain decides to "slow down" to give the passengers a more comfortable ride and doesn't have time to stop at the "foreign" port? How about all of NCL's missed stops at Fanning Island back before NCLA, does anyone know if they passed those fines on to the passengers or was our government giving them "waivers" even back then, or did they just eat the fines?

[cvanhorn]

Leaving out whether or not trip insurance would/would not pay for a PVSA fine and also leaving out whether or not the cruise lines would charge back a passenger for the fine.....if there was a poll of "reasonable individuals" who cruise, I seriously doubt even half would know whether or not an itinerary was in violation. People such as yourself and others who posted on the previous PVSA string do have knowledge of such things, for a variety of reasons, but I truly suspect that most people who book cruise vacations are not going to be saavy about PVSA regs.

I agree, but they would sure know if they find an extra $300 per person on their SS cards or credit card later.:D

[sunneesmile]

I agree, but they would sure know if they find an extra $300 per person on their SS cards or credit card later.:D

 

As I said, my point is not whether they get charged after the fact, or if insurance would/would not cover.....but simply stating that most cruise vacationers have no knowledge of the legalese of violations such as this. They are trusting that the cruise lines are operating within the regs. What is unfolding is really a shame. It makes what should be a carefree, relaxing experience a lot less attractive.

[vjmatty]

As I said, my point is not whether they get charged after the fact, or if insurance would/would not cover.....but simply stating that most cruise vacationers have no knowledge of the legalese of violations such as this. They are trusting that the cruise lines are operating within the regs. What is unfolding is really a shame. It makes what should be a carefree, relaxing experience a lot less attractive.

 

This is true.... I once without thinking about it tried to book a B2B that violated the PVSA and the booking agent told me it was an illegal cruise.

[sunneesmile]

This is true.... I once without thinking about it tried to book a B2B that violated the PVSA and the booking agent told me it was an illegal cruise.

 

Great point Ginny. But they told you. What about people booking the questionable Hawaii and Alaskan cruises for example? Most of them have no idea this issue even exists. At a meeting at my TA a few weeks back, I discussed it within a small group I was sitting with. Out of 10 people who cruise at least 1-2 times each year, not one person knew about it. Looked at me like I had two heads. And my TA really was not too happy that I brought it up. Go figure

[smeyer418]

I can see the passenger being responsible for the fine if they "jump ship" in Hawaii or Alaska, but is it really the passengers fault if the Captain decides to "slow down" to give the passengers a more comfortable ride and doesn't have time to stop at the "foreign" port? How about all of NCL's missed stops at Fanning Island back before NCLA, does anyone know if they passed those fines on to the passengers or was our government giving them "waivers" even back then, or did they just eat the fines?

NCL didn't make the cruisers pay it when it deviated from Fanning Island for any reason(mostly medical). They paid a one time fine of $1,000,000 a couple of years ago for all the misses of Fanning Island. they only make you pay if you have to leave the ship-not if its the ships fault you don't stop at a foreign port-

[Cruisin' Chick]

As I said, my point is not whether they get charged after the fact, or if insurance would/would not cover.....but simply stating that most cruise vacationers have no knowledge of the legalese of violations such as this. They are trusting that the cruise lines are operating within the regs. What is unfolding is really a shame. It makes what should be a carefree, relaxing experience a lot less attractive.

 

this is why this is an important issue to be discussed here. Obviously the cruiselines didn't feel it was a big deal if the ships stopped for an hour for a service stop in Ensenada. I would guess that most passengers didn't mind not getting off the ship there, especially if they cruise frequently on the West Coast (all the Baja cruises stop there). It was only NCL that decided to make a squawk about the short stops, hoping that getting the CPB onboard with a 48-hour stop in Ensenada for the RTs to Hawaii, would cause Princess, Celebrity and Holland to either drop the popular RTs or move the embarkation port to Ensenada. NCL was banking on many of the would-be passengers would then switch to the NCLA cruises.

 

As for the TAs that don't bring up the subject, I'm guessing that they don't want to scare anyone from booking the RTs.

[DAGVBSB]

I don't think that you can claim a PVSA violation fine because, as a reasonable individual, you knew/should have known that the trip you were booking was in violation. And I'm pretty sure that "intentional violations of law/regulation" are about the same as criminal acts and, thus, not covered.

 

Yes, but if the PVSA rules are CHANGED, then when you booked the cruise it was not in violation. For those who booked a few months ago, if the change occurs now, how can they be held responsible for booking an illegal cruise? It wasn't illegal at time of booking....

 

 

I can see the passenger being responsible for the fine if they "jump ship" in Hawaii or Alaska, but is it really the passengers fault if the Captain decides to "slow down" to give the passengers a more comfortable ride and doesn't have time to stop at the "foreign" port? How about all of NCL's missed stops at Fanning Island back before NCLA, does anyone know if they passed those fines on to the passengers or was our government giving them "waivers" even back then, or did they just eat the fines?

 

I was on the NCL Star in 2002. Due to a medical emergency, we had to turn around and did not go to Fanning Island. We did not receive any bill for the PVSA violation and in fact, each passenger got a $50 onboard credit since we were not able to go to Fanning Island. (of course the cruise line got it back because they were able to sell shore excursions in Kona and Lahania which were not on the original itinerary.....)

[smeyer418]

Yes, but if the PVSA rules are CHANGED, then when you booked the cruise it was not in violation. For those who booked a few months ago, if the change occurs now, how can they be held responsible for booking an illegal cruise? It wasn't illegal at time of booking....

 

 

 

 

I was on the NCL Star in 2002. Due to a medical emergency, we had to turn around and did not go to Fanning Island. We did not receive any bill for the PVSA violation and in fact, each passenger got a $50 onboard credit since we were not able to go to Fanning Island. (of course the cruise line got it back because they were able to sell shore excursions in Kona and Lahania which were not on the original itinerary.....)

 

I have no doubt, none at all, that the cruise lines will not intentionally violate the rule. So they will change the cruise to make it "legal". remember the penalty for an intentional violation by a cruise line can be that they bar the ship or cruise line for some period. That doesn't mean the cruise lines will take the change lying down, if they go to court they will ask for an injunction to prevent enforcement and abide what ever the court orders. It is possible that CBP will voluntarily delay enforcement for some period but I wouldn't think they would violate the rule once its final and not subject to an enforcement delay.

[SeattleCruiselover]

Yes, but if the PVSA rules are CHANGED, then when you booked the cruise it was not in violation. For those who booked a few months ago, if the change occurs now, how can they be held responsible for booking an illegal cruise? It wasn't illegal at time of booking....

 

You are only billed if the cruise line gets a citation and you are the cause of, or party to, it. Unfortunately, this has occasionally happened even if the cruise line should have picked up the violation in their res system and did not.

[smeyer418]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/washington/31regulate.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212242652-+IKQnTBWHYFRA7fj7MXPtA

[SeattleCruiselover]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/washington/31regulate.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212242652-+IKQnTBWHYFRA7fj7MXPtA

 

That supports the contention that we ought to be hearing something any day now.....

[smeyer418]

That supports the contention that we ought to be hearing something any day now.....

or they won't do anything and let it die. It can go both ways...

[cvanhorn]

Good article, but as this was already posted in the Federal Register in November 2007 and now (with possible changes) is on Mr. Cherkoff's desk for final review it doesn't sound like this will affect anything as long as they do it by 1 November. Or am I all wrong again?

[DAGVBSB]

I have no doubt, none at all, that the cruise lines will not intentionally violate the rule. So they will change the cruise to make it "legal". remember the penalty for an intentional violation by a cruise line can be that they bar the ship or cruise line for some period. That doesn't mean the cruise lines will take the change lying down, if they go to court they will ask for an injunction to prevent enforcement and abide what ever the court orders. It is possible that CBP will voluntarily delay enforcement for some period but I wouldn't think they would violate the rule once its final and not subject to an enforcement delay.

 

I agree that the cruise lines will make the changes to become legal, but what if those changes affect passengers. For example, let's say they switch the embarkation port from Las Angeles to Ensenada. Now those passengers have to pay for transportation to Ensenada. (whether it be additional transportation or a change in air plans, it will most likely cost them.)

It's a shame that anyone may end up having to pay more just because NCL is trying to create a monopoly.

 

Let's face it, NCL is the bad guy in this and you can try and sugar coat it any way you want, but it's NCL, NCL, NCL who is behind these PVSA changes. It's a shame that they think so little of the people they are affecting (both cruisers and workers in the ports) in order to save one ship......

[weberman]

Good article, but as this was already posted in the Federal Register in November 2007 and now (with possible changes) is on Mr. Cherkoff's desk for final review it doesn't sound like this will affect anything as long as they do it by 1 November. Or am I all wrong again?

 

From my Public Administration Law classes it seems that what was published in the NY Times was an Action: Request for Proposed Interpretation; Solicitation of Comments. As I read the NY Times article it would seem to me that what is being required is that any new Proposed Regulation be published by June 1, 2008 and no Final Regulation be issued after November 1, 2008.

 

What was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2007 does not "in my opinion" rise to the level of a Proposed Regulation but rather a Request for Proposed Interpretation and Solicitation of Comments. CBP has apparently not yet made a determination of what they want as a Final Rule nor published the Proposed Regulation in the Federal Register but only issued an interpretation (opinion) as to the rule and its potential effect. I do not claim to be an expert and may be totally wrong but that is my interpretation.

 

The CBP opinion as written makes no sense and if you read the filed comments that were made, they were almost unanimous against the rule.