Passenger Vessel Services Act summary to date

[paul929207]

But new itinerary is Seattle-Glacier Bay- Vancouver then Vancouver - Hawaii.

 

The way I see that is either as one "trip" Seattle-Hawaii with the stop in Vancouver as the foreign port which might not be allowed or 2 trips each only starting or ending in a U.S. port with a foreign port as the other end/beginning that is okay. Besides, the cruise line would not allow it if it wasn't, as they are the ones who are fined, not the passenger.

As I understand it, this is only allowed if the passenger spends 24 hours or more between cruises in Vancouver.

[vjmatty]

As I understand it, this is only allowed if the passenger spends 24 hours or more between cruises in Vancouver.

 

Or if they change ships, there should be no PVSA problem.... especially if they are from different cruise lines.

 

Come to think of it, I don't see where the same ship would stay in a port 24 hours or more.

[Pam in CA]

But new itinerary is Seattle-Glacier Bay- Vancouver then Vancouver - Hawaii.

 

The way I see that is either as one "trip" Seattle-Hawaii with the stop in Vancouver as the foreign port which might not be allowed or 2 trips each only starting or ending in a U.S. port with a foreign port as the other end/beginning that is okay. Besides, the cruise line would not allow it if it wasn't, as they are the ones who are fined, not the passenger.

If it were ONE cruise, not a B2B, it would be OK. But since it's two separate cruises, they would have to stay overnight before re-boarding.

 

The PVSA is a very complicated and confusing regulation. As I understand it, even if they got off the ship and embarked on another ship the same day, it wouldn't be allowed.

[paul929207]

If it were ONE cruise, not a B2B, it would be OK. But since it's two separate cruises, they would have to stay overnight before re-boarding.

 

The PVSA is a very complicated and confusing regulation. As I understand it, even if they got off the ship and embarked on another ship the same day, it wouldn't be allowed.

I think if they changed cruise lines they could get away without overnighting between cruises. That way neither company would be violating the PVSA.

[vjmatty]

I think if they changed cruise lines they could get away without overnighting between cruises. That way neither company would be violating the PVSA.

 

Perhaps they could be charged with conspiracy, knowing our government :rolleyes:

[Pam in CA]

Perhaps they could be charged with conspiracy, knowing our government :rolleyes:

Yup. Gitmo, the new vacation spot. :)

[richwmn]

If it were ONE cruise, not a B2B, it would be OK. But since it's two separate cruises, they would have to stay overnight before re-boarding.

 

The PVSA is a very complicated and confusing regulation. As I understand it, even if they got off the ship and embarked on another ship the same day, it wouldn't be allowed.

From the standpoint of the PVSA, it doesn't matter how the cruise line markets the cruise. Violation is based solely on where each individual passenger embarks and debarks. So in this case, the cruise would be from Seattle to Hawaii which would not be allowed either as a single cruise or as a B2B.

[smeyer418]

But new itinerary is Seattle-Glacier Bay- Vancouver then Vancouver - Hawaii.

 

The way I see that is either as one "trip" Seattle-Hawaii with the stop in Vancouver as the foreign port which might not be allowed or 2 trips each only starting or ending in a U.S. port with a foreign port as the other end/beginning that is okay. Besides, the cruise line would not allow it if it wasn't, as they are the ones who are fined, not the passenger.

no it doesn't matter that it stopped/ended/restarted(although one foreign stop was required for a PVSA if they went back to the original port) in Vancover. Its where they started on the ship and got permanently off. The regs are clear. The same ship transported them between two different US ports. They started in one US port on the same ship and ended in other. That is what is called transported. The fact that the ship said it ended in Vancover and started again is of no moment at all. In your senario it would be ok to start in Miami take a 3 day cruise to the Bahamas where the cruise ends and then get back on the same ship immediately for a new cruise that ends in Fort Lauderdale...it ain't kosher.

[Traveler353]

It is a government regulation. Loop holes galor. Exceptions to every rule is the rule.

[smeyer418]

Or if they change ships, there should be no PVSA problem.... especially if they are from different cruise lines.

 

Come to think of it, I don't see where the same ship would stay in a port 24 hours or more.

I don't believe that this is true if its a different ship its ok. The law says a ship can't transport not a cruise line....but different cruise lines would surely be allowed.

[Cuizer2]

But new itinerary is Seattle-Glacier Bay- Vancouver then Vancouver - Hawaii.

 

The way I see that is either as one "trip" Seattle-Hawaii with the stop in Vancouver as the foreign port which might not be allowed or 2 trips each only starting or ending in a U.S. port with a foreign port as the other end/beginning that is okay. Besides, the cruise line would not allow it if it wasn't, as they are the ones who are fined, not the passenger.

 

The PVSA does not apply to "trips" or cruises, it applies to the ship. A foreign flagged SHIP cannot transport a person from one US city to another US city without a stop at a distant foreign port.

[paul929207]

The PVSA does not apply to "trips" or cruises, it applies to the ship. A foreign flagged SHIP cannot transport a person from one US city to another US city without a stop at a distant foreign port.

... and Vancouver does not count as distant.

 

I think it was Carnival or NCL that used to go to Fanning Island (1000 miles or so west of Hawaii), so they could sail oneway from the mainland to Hawaii & the reverse.

[Cuizer2]

... and Vancouver does not count as distant.

 

I think it was Carnival or NCL that used to go to Fanning Island (1000 miles or so west of Hawaii), so they could sail oneway from the mainland to Hawaii & the reverse.

You are correct, Vancouver is not a distant foreign port. Fanning Island is.

 

There are no distant foreign ports in North or Central America.

[smeyer418]

... and Vancouver does not count as distant.

 

I think it was Carnival or NCL that used to go to Fanning Island (1000 miles or so west of Hawaii), so they could sail oneway from the mainland to Hawaii & the reverse.

It was NCL and it was so they could go from one Hawaii island and return to the same Hawaii Island after visiting the other Hawaii Islands. It was so it could meet the requirements for its non US flagged vessels of visiting at least one foreign port and Fanning Island in Kirbuti is closer than anyplace else.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanning_Island

 

BTW Kiributi also has Tarawa as one of its islands...

Edited June 8, 2009 by smeyer418

[richwmn]

I happened to pick up a copy of last Saturday's (9/12/09) Atlanta Journal & Constitution and found that Air Canada has file suit against the US Dept of Transportation. It seems that some of Air Canada's sports charters fall afoul of the PVSA. Air Canada is trying to claim that each "season long charter" is one voyage with multiple stops overnight. The problem mostly seems to stem from the fact that they pick up passengers as they go along, and leave them as they wish -- so some passengers are transported between US cities without a "distant" foreign stop.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/11/financial/f125130D77.DTL

http://www.canada.com/sports/Canada+fighting+move+sports+charter+flights/1980775/story.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-air-canada-sports-team-travel,0,1299549.story

http://m.yahoo.com/w/ysportshome/home/blogs/article?offset=0&urn=urn%3Anewsml%3Asports.yahoo%2Cyhoo%3A20050301%3Anhl%2Carticle%2Cyhoo-ept_sports_nhl_experts-187445%3A1&_ts=1252136783&_intl=us&_lang=en&_ym=1

 

 

Rich

[Putterdude]

I am not at all sure that this is a PVSA issue but it has been interesting fodder in Canada as well because the outcome will effect professional sports teams on both sides of the border be they NHL, MLB, NBA or professional soccer teams. It has been reported that Canada will retaliate against US teams and their carriers should the decision go against Air Canada. I would like to think that people on either side of our border are bigger than this spat and can overcome their differences in an amicable manner.:)

[Cuizer2]

I would like to think that people on either side of our border are bigger than this spat and can overcome their differences in an amicable manner.:)

 

People are. However, it is not the "people" that are creating the problem (or raising a stink) in the first place.

[G'ma]

I don't believe that this is true if its a different ship its ok. The law says a ship can't transport not a cruise line....but different cruise lines would surely be allowed.

 

Bulletin:

 

A cruise line operates SHIPS.

[G'ma]

I happened to pick up a copy of last Saturday's (9/12/09) Atlanta Journal & Constitution and found that Air Canada has file suit against the US Dept of Transportation. It seems that some of Air Canada's sports charters fall afoul of the PVSA. Air Canada is trying to claim that each "season long charter" is one voyage with multiple stops overnight. The problem mostly seems to stem from the fact that they pick up passengers as they go along, and leave them as they wish -- so some passengers are transported between US cities without a "distant" foreign stop.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/09/11/financial/f125130D77.DTL

http://www.canada.com/sports/Canada+fighting+move+sports+charter+flights/1980775/story.html

http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-air-canada-sports-team-travel,0,1299549.story

http://m.yahoo.com/w/ysportshome/home/blogs/article?offset=0&urn=urn%3Anewsml%3Asports.yahoo%2Cyhoo%3A20050301%3Anhl%2Carticle%2Cyhoo-ept_sports_nhl_experts-187445%3A1&_ts=1252136783&_intl=us&_lang=en&_ym=1

 

 

Rich

 

This scenario flaunts the laws of "cabotage" not the Maritme law.

 

Cabotage means that a foreign airline cannot transport U.S. citizens from one U.S. airport to another U.S. airport. It's a totally different animal. Cabotage is worldwide.

 

An American=owned airline can't take passengers from, say, Rome to Milan for the purpose of transportation.

 

Lately, Cabotage has been applied to merchant and commercial vessels also.....

[vjmatty]

Bulletin:

 

A cruise line operates SHIPS.

 

Yes, but if the law states that "a ship" cannot transport between US ports, that would tend to suggest that changing ships satisfies the Act.

[Don_In_AZ]

What I don't understand about NCL's problems is this...

 

What has changed since NCL laid out it's original business case for NCLA. PVSA was in effect then...as it is now. Were favorable changes to the PVSA (perhaps promised by a certain Senator) part of their operating assumptions?

 

The economy tanked I know but it seems like they are complaining about competitor issues that were occuring long prior to that.

 

Don

Edited September 18, 2009 by Don_In_AZ

[smeyer418]

Bulletin:

 

A cruise line operates SHIPS.

you know sometime you are just onery. yes I understand. But changing ships on the same cruise line might be considered deliberately flaunting the law. An agreement between two cruise lines to do it probably would be illegal too. Something which is illegal sometimes can't be made legal by a deliberate subterfuge. that is why I said it might not be ok on the same cruise line but surely would be ok on another cruise line if it was individual booked without an agreement between the cruise lines. The rule is you can't do something indirectly than you can't do directly but when people do this themselves through two different cruise lines is not the cruise line transporting them.

and cabotage is the formal term for coastwise(intracountry) transporting of goods and people and its always applied to merchant and other vessels. That is what the term originally meant. Its only lately with the advent of world wide travel(particularly air travel) that its meaning has been expanded.

[smeyer418]

What I don't understand about NCL's problems is this...

 

What has changed since NCL laid out it's original business case for NCLA. PVSA was in effect then...as it is now. Were favorable changes to the PVSA (perhaps promised by a certain Senator) part of their operating assumptions?

 

The economy tanked I know but it seems like they are complaining about competitor issues that were occuring long prior to that.

 

Don

 

 

I don't believe NCL was complaining except about the technical non passenger getting off stops that certain cruise lines were doing to meet the letter but perhaps not the spirit of the PVSA. NCL committed to 3 ships in Hawaii. for that commitment it was able to finish two ship hull's that were started in the US, overseas and reflag a foreign built ship for Hawaii only use(it couldn't do Alaska or other US ports on a continuing basis) It committed a third ship over time. When one of the ships destined for Hawaii was delayed(though no fault of NCL), it brought the other two ships on right away and when the third ship was completed it brought the third ship on line in Hawaii- I think before it had intended to have the three ships there. One ship has been profitable. Two are marginal but the third has been a disaster. You know hindsight and the market issues is always a look back. The foreign flagged ships that allow gambling, duty free sales and non US crew have a distinct advantage on income and costs.

Edited September 18, 2009 by smeyer418

[Cuizer2]

Bulletin:

 

A cruise line operates SHIPS.

 

Bullentin:

 

Smeyer418 understands the PVSA.

 

The fact that you didn't understand his post doesn't change that.

[wcdancer]

What is the current status of this PVSA thread from 2008? It is now February 2012 and I am wondering what has transpired? Any info available?