Passenger services act

[dan40]

Read the whole thing - I have.

 

It is a CruiseCritic thread. As is this one. Neither are authoritative.

[dan40]

The CBP regulations promulgated pursuant to the PVSA are found at

section 4.80a of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR

4.80a) and are reflective of the above cited Office of the Attorney

General decisions. These regulations provide, among other things, that

a non-coastwise-qualified vessel which ``embarks'' a passenger at a

port in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws (a

``coastwise port'') will be deemed to have landed that passenger in

violation of the PVSA if the passenger ``disembarks'' at a different

coastwise port on a voyage to one or more coastwise ports and a

``nearby foreign port or ports'' (as defined in 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(2); see

also 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(2)). The terms ``embark'' and ``disembark'' are

words of art which are defined as going on board a vessel for the

duration of a specific voyage, and leaving a vessel at the conclusion

of a specific voyage, respectively. (See 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(4).)

The references in section 4.80a to ``nearby foreign ports''

(defined in 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(2)) are the results of attempts by CBP to

apply an Office of the Attorney General's opinion dated February 26,

1910 (28 O.A.G. 204). In that case, a foreign-flag vessel transported

615 passengers on a voyage around the world, beginning in New York and

concluding in San Francisco. The Attorney General opined that since the

primary object of the voyage was to visit various parts of the world on

a pleasure tour returning home via California, and not to be

transported in domestic commerce, the transportation was not in

violation of the PVSA.

 

Sea to Vancouver and Vancouver to Hawaii would seem to be 2 different 'specific voyages.'

[tnsail]

The PVSA does not apply to "cruises", it applies to ships. A foreign flagged ship cannot transport passengers between two US ports without a stop in a distant foreign port. The PVSA does not care if it is one cruise, twenty cruises or not a cruise at all. A foreign cargo ship on a commercial cargo run, stopping at the same ports, would also be in violation of the PVSA if it allowed a person or persons (from any country) to board the ship in Seattle and disembark in Honolulu.

 

You are WRONG.... The first "cruise" is basically a re-positioning cruise.... The second cruise is a cruise from a foreign port to and American port returning to a foreign port....

 

The OP will disembark from the first cruise in Vancouver and then will board a cruise leaving Vancouver to Hawaii and return to Vancouver.... It does not make any difference that it is the same ship....

 

Your problem is that your are saying that the OP is not disembarking the ship but they are in Vancouver....

 

Joey

[cherylandtk]

All this disagreement about whether or not the OP would be disembarking (or not) in Vancouver has already been answered by how this situation has been dealt with in the past. In order to be considered an actual disembarkation, the traveller must stay in port for at least 24 hours OR change ships. OP would be doing neither, so this trip would not be considered disembarking in Vancouver and this B2B is a violation of the PVSA.

[Cuizer2]

You are WRONG.... The first "cruise" is basically a re-positioning cruise.... The second cruise is a cruise from a foreign port to and American port returning to a foreign port....

 

The OP will disembark from the first cruise in Vancouver and then will board a cruise leaving Vancouver to Hawaii and return to Vancouver.... It does not make any difference that it is the same ship....

 

Your problem is that your are saying that the OP is not disembarking the ship but they are in Vancouver....

 

Joey

The OP is not returning to Vancouver. The OP is sailing from Seattle to Honolulu and disembarking in Vancouver. If the OP stayed on the ship for the next cruise, which would be to Ensenada, the combination of the three is would fine. However, a cruise from Seattle to Vancouver to Honolulu with additional stops in between is a violation of the PVSA because the ship is transporting people from one US city to another without a stop at a foreign distant port.

[Cuizer2]

The CBP regulations promulgated pursuant to the PVSA are found at

section 4.80a of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR

4.80a) and are reflective of the above cited Office of the Attorney

General decisions. These regulations provide, among other things, that

a non-coastwise-qualified vessel which ``embarks'' a passenger at a

port in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws (a

``coastwise port'') will be deemed to have landed that passenger in

violation of the PVSA if the passenger ``disembarks'' at a different

coastwise port on a voyage to one or more coastwise ports and a

``nearby foreign port or ports'' (as defined in 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(2); see

also 19 CFR 4.80a(b)(2)). The terms ``embark'' and ``disembark'' are

words of art which are defined as going on board a vessel for the

duration of a specific voyage, and leaving a vessel at the conclusion

of a specific voyage, respectively. (See 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(4).)

The references in section 4.80a to ``nearby foreign ports''

(defined in 19 CFR 4.80a(a)(2)) are the results of attempts by CBP to

apply an Office of the Attorney General's opinion dated February 26,

1910 (28 O.A.G. 204). In that case, a foreign-flag vessel transported

615 passengers on a voyage around the world, beginning in New York and

concluding in San Francisco. The Attorney General opined that since the

primary object of the voyage was to visit various parts of the world on

a pleasure tour returning home via California, and not to be

transported in domestic commerce, the transportation was not in

violation of the PVSA.

 

Sea to Vancouver and Vancouver to Hawaii would seem to be 2 different 'specific voyages.'

Why don't you ask the CBP, they are the ones that enforce the PVSA.

[Cuizer2]

All this disagreement about whether or not the OP would be disembarking (or not) in Vancouver has already been answered by how this situation has been dealt with in the past. In order to be considered an actual disembarkation, the traveller must stay in port for at least 24 hours OR change ships. OP would be doing neither, so this trip would not be considered disembarking in Vancouver and this B2B is a violation of the PVSA.

This is correct.

[dan40]

Is the 24 hour rule part of the PVSA or is that a bureaucratic decision?

Since that other thread discussed the possibility of a 48 hour requirement.

But nowadays how the actual law reads means nothing when the politicians wish to break a law for their own benefit.

[Cuizer2]

Is the 24 hour rule part of the PVSA or is that a bureaucratic decision?

Since that other thread discussed the possibility of a 48 hour requirement.

But nowadays how the actual law reads means nothing when the politicians wish to break a law for their own benefit.

 

This is why I said call the CBP. They are responsible for enforcing the PVSA.

[CruiserKid]

There are a couple of options for taking these two cruises:

 

1. Book it and get it in writing from Carnival a document showing the two bookings and stating that these two cruises together is not a violation of the PVSA. In addition, if Carnival is fined for carrying these passangers, Carnival will be responsible for payment of the fine. (I think with this kind of request, your Personal Vacation Planner will make sure it is okay before accepting this type of booking).

 

2. Take a chance and if you get fined, your cruise will cost an extra $300 per person.

 

I am very interested in finding out the final outcome. Please post your final outcome. If anyone has experienced something similar, please post.

[candigirl41]

Thanks, guess I was comparing oranges to apples. Didn't even think about the closed loop thing.

 

Candi

[Socref124]

Technically speaking your combined itinerary is Seattle to Honolulu. You cannot do that, even with a "stop" in Vancouver, BC. If the ship were to leave on a different day, or if you were on two different cruise lines, then you would be allowed.

David

David, I must disagree. Technically speaking, these are two seperate cruises, therefore, Vancouver to Honolulu is permissable. If this were a 19 day cruise then your input would be correct, however, the OP is going on two seperate cruises. The first cruise is a 7 day from Seattle to Alaska and back ending in Vancouver. The OP's second cruise is a 12 day from Vancouver to Honolulu.

[trock]

Perhaps, I too, am misunderstanding.. but 'all' those people that tack on the Cruise to Nowhere in the beginning or end of their cruises (out of NYC) are breaking this rule also?

[zqvol]

There are two ways around this problem:

 

1) Book a different ship for the Alaska cruise. The PSVA applies to the ship, not multiple ships.

 

2) Continue on the cruise from Hawaii to Ensenada. Then the ship is transporting you from Seattle to Ensenada, which is perfectly fine under the PVSA.

 

I assume that you are a maritime attorney with your advice. Thank goodness you are not my maritime attorney because you are completely incorrect.

 

The OP is booking two separate voyages.

 

There is no issue.

[cherylandtk]

Is the 24 hour rule part of the PVSA or is that a bureaucratic decision?

Since that other thread discussed the possibility of a 48 hour requirement.

But nowadays how the actual law reads means nothing when the politicians wish to break a law for their own benefit.

The PVSA itself is a very simply worded piece of legislation, it's the supporting codes that tend to get very detailed. I believe the 24 hour rule is more of a policy than a piece of enacted legislative code. But the definition of embark and disembark (as it pertains to a passenger on multiple cruise segments on the same ship) is written into the CFR:

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

 

19CFR 4.80(a)4

[Traveler353]

Expecting to get the facts from this thread is like believing that everything you read on Wikipedia is fact. So much mis-information and personal opinion based on nothing.:p

[DAllenTCY]

To Socref124 and others.....it isn't up to Carnival Cruise Lines. The Canadian Government will require a 24 hour stay, otherwise you have not "disembarked" in Canada at all. As I said before, you cannot disembark and embark the same ship on the same day and satisfy immigration. You might get away with it, but it is not a legal booking. Because you will be travelling on Austrailian passports, it may be different for you. A US Citizen would not be allowed to do this itinerary, however.

 

David

[aussie2324]

Whow I only went to bed for 8 hours. I can not believe the response.Thankyou all for your input. I am waiting for replies from CCL and out TA. I would rather call but I don't have a phone # can any-one help there. If we can not do this as a B2B I will have to change our Alaskan cruise from the 9/7/2010 and do the one before on the 8/31/2010 which is Seattle to Seattle then spend a few day's in Seattle and up to Vancouver then reboard the Spirit for the Hawaiian leg on the 9/14/2010. I did not realise I would open such a can of worms. But thankyou all so much for your concern and help. But in the end my question was not answered unless you are a maritime lawyer.;)

[amybeth4]

I do beleive it is a foreign port, not distant foreign port. Miami to Nassau is a prime example. The distance between the to is not far at all, so it wouldn 't qualify as a "distant, foreign" port, but yet there are many, many, many sailings from Miami to Bahamas weekly!!!!

 

It doesn't have to be a "distant foreign port" (such as Aruba or South America) if it's a closed-loop cruise, meaning starting and ending in the same city, as is the case with the cruises you're talking about.

[DAllenTCY]

I'm glad that you asked.....possibly we saved you quite a bit of angst.

David

[aussie2324]

It doesn't have to be a "distant foreign port" (such as Aruba or South America) if it's a closed-loop cruise, meaning starting and ending in the same city, as is the case with the cruises you're talking about.

 

This is not a closed loop cruise. First cruise is Seattle to Glacier Bay back to Vancouver second cruise is Vancouver to Hawaii. After that the Ship heads back to Eseanda(not spelt correctly) This is it's first cruise out of Seattle. Normally it sails out of Vancouver to Alaska back to Vancouver then Vancouver to Hawaii. They have never had a problem.

[amybeth4]

This is not a closed loop cruise. First cruise is Seattle to Glacier Bay back to Vancouver second cruise is Vancouver to Hawaii. After that the Ship heads back to Eseanda(not spelt correctly) This is it's first cruise out of Seattle. Normally it sails out of Vancouver to Alaska back to Vancouver then Vancouver to Hawaii. They have never had a problem.

 

Yeeeeeeaaaaaaaah, but I was referring to the following quote, not the OP's question:

 

I do beleive it is a foreign port, not distant foreign port. Miami to Nassau is a prime example. The distance between the to is not far at all, so it wouldn 't qualify as a "distant, foreign" port, but yet there are many, many, many sailings from Miami to Bahamas weekly!!!!

[petro772]

Too many chiefs applauding the song (the words in the rule) and missing the sermon (the correct interpretation). The cruises are good--enjoy. ;)

[Cuizer2]

David, I must disagree. Technically speaking, these are two seperate cruises, therefore, Vancouver to Honolulu is permissable. If this were a 19 day cruise then your input would be correct, however, the OP is going on two seperate cruises. The first cruise is a 7 day from Seattle to Alaska and back ending in Vancouver. The OP's second cruise is a 12 day from Vancouver to Honolulu.

The PVSA does not apply to cruises, it applies to ships. One foreign flagged ship is taking someone from Seattle to Honolulu without stopping at a distant foregin port. That is a violation of the PVSA, even if it involves multiple consecutive cruises over a long period of time.

[Cuizer2]

Perhaps, I too, am misunderstanding.. but 'all' those people that tack on the Cruise to Nowhere in the beginning or end of their cruises (out of NYC) are breaking this rule also?

A cruise to nowhere is a closed loop cruise. As such, it does not transport anyone from one US city to another US city. If the ship stops at any ports, during a closed loop cruise it must stop at at least one foreign port. If it doesn't stop at any ports, then it doesn't have to stop at a foreign port.