PVSA Violations That Didn't Occur!!!

How does US Customs & Border Protection (CBP) learn about a violation of the Passenger Vessel Services Act, aka PVSA, PSA and 19 CFR 4.80a - Coastwise Transportation of Passengers? I know for a fact that 14 passengers boarded a cruise ship in Ketchikan, AL after missing embarkation in Vancouver, BC (names were redacted on an Embarking Revenue Passenger List received from CBP). This cruise only visited Alaskan ports after departing Vancouver and ended in Whittier, AL. These ports were listed on the passenger manifest; there was no visit to a far-distant foreign port.

The original cruise schedule between Vancouver, BC and Whittier, AL would not fall under this law because it starts in a foreign port and ends in a US port. As I understand, any passenger who embarks from a port after Vancouver, causes a violation of the PVSA because they traveled between US ports without visiting a far-distant, foreign port. CBP said that no Act violations were placed against this ship's captain or cruise line due to the embarkation of these 14 passengers. How can this be? Who is responsible for identifying or reporting such violations?

I assume all 14 passengers missed embarkation due to airline flight problems preventing their timely arrival in Vancouver. I met and talked with two of them because I joined the land portion of my cruise tour in Anchorage.

I temporarily lost my travel documents and could not board my flight to Vancouver. This caused me to miss embarkation. I immediately called the cruise line to tell them what happened. I was told that if I went to Ketchikan after rearranging my flights, I would be denied boarding because by doing so I would cause a PVSA violation. I was told that any "personal reason" for missing embarkation would prevent me from boarding in another port along the ship's route. But, if an airline had caused the problem, I could board after travel arrangements were made. "Personal reason" can include traffic accidents, flat tires, etc. Evidently it is this cruise lines policy to knowingly violate the PVSA as long as an airline caused missed embarkation.

I was told by a cruise representative that "the airlines will reimburse the cruise line if they were the cause of missed embarkation". That would explain a lot. But, the violation should still show up on the ship's captain's record and that in itself should cause a captain great concern. Is there a final passenger disembarkation manifest that has to be cross referenced against any Embarking Revenue Passenger List in order to identify PVSA violations?

The reason for missing embarkation has nothing to due with the illegal transportation of passengers by ships between US ports. I simply don't understand how a cruise line can treat a customer so perversely.

I posted this information so others would know how they may be treated in similar situations. I don't know if something exists that allows this to occur. So, if a reader can assist, please post a reply.

Surely someone as knowledge as you should know that the abbreviation for Alaska is AK, not AL. AL is the abbreviation for Alabama.

How do you know that the cruise line did not have to pay the $300 PVSA violation fine to CBP for the 14 passengers? Do you work in the cruise line's corporate office? Did you consider the possibility of the extenuating circumstances of an airline-caused problem led to the cruise line to decide to pay the fine and not bill the passengers?

Why should the cruise line's corporate policy cause the captain any great concern? I doubt his license is in any jeopardy since he didn't make the decision. It's the cruise line that has to answer to CBP for its corporate policy.

Most cruise lines offer "first port protection" to those who either book their flights through the cruise line or purchase the cruise lines insurance. As long as the failure to make the embarkation port was for a documentable issue affecting a general population (weather or flight cancellation) the fine can either be waived or the cruise line insurance (which is mostly a self-insured fund) will cover it.

Regularly on these boards you will find threads on how to willfully skirt the law by someone who wished to embark late or disembark early a cruise that would end up transporting them to two different USA ports. On such cruises as round-trip Miami with first port Key West, or round-trip New York with first port Boston, on every sailing there is someone who simply for their own convenience will want to join late; "I lost my passport but got a replacement the day after embarkation" is a story the cruise lines hear over and over and over. And unfortunately for the OP it is not their job to try to ferret out if anyone legitimately did so from the long list of those who are deliberately trying to design their own itinerary, rules be damned.

Okay, I've got a few questions. First off, how is it that you saw a Passenger Manifest to see that the names were "redacted"? Who at CBP told you that there were no PVSA violations? Do you work for CBP?

Now, putting that aside, there is no "permanent record" for the Captain, like our parents used to threaten us with about school. The Captain is not responsible for booking the passengers, and is not responsible for whether or not they violate the PVSA. That is the shipowner's responsibility.

Now, CBP frequently grants exemptions to the PVSA, on established reasons: mechanical failure of the ship, weather preventing the required foreign port call, death or illness of a passenger. I am not sure whether CBP considers a weather delay of an airline to be a valid exemption or not, but generally, when this happens, the cruise line eats the fine (I don't believe the airline would repay this unless the airline bookings were made through the cruise line). I also don't know whether there is a difference between an "act of god" (weather delay) or a mechanical delay caused by the airline.

And yes, there is a passenger manifest provided at disembarkation, just like there is at every port along the way (one for arrival and one for departure). CBP cross references the embarkation and disembarkation manifests to find out whether a violation has occurred, so the cruise line cannot "willingly violate" the PVSA.

There are laws that apply to "common carriers" like passenger ships, airlines, trains and buses that don't apply to private transportation, so this may be part of the reason that airline delays are treated differently.

Since you seem to be so close to CBP, why don't you present your findings and ask why there is no PVSA violation when a common carrier is involved, yet there is one for private transportation, or personal reasons.

Don't ask questions? He just knows!

Like any law enforcement agency, the CBP has discretion to enforce a given law or not. District attorneys have similar discretion to prosecute. "Why did I get a ticket and my best friend didn't and we were both going the same speed over the limit?".

With regards to CBP for example, you might declare something for which duty should be paid, but the officer might waive it for whatever reason (too much paperwork?). Or they might decide to collect it. "But you didn't collect the duty from my best friend" will avail you naught if they decide to collect from you. Same for "But you let these 14 folks get on board"

"I simply don't understand how a cruise line can treat a customer so perversely."

I don't believe the cruise lines are responsible for when the CBP might or might not grant a waiver. As chengkp75 suggests, you need to ask the CBP.

Okay, I've got a few questions. First off, how is it that you saw a Passenger Manifest to see that the names were "redacted"? Who at CBP told you that there were no PVSA violations? Do you work for CBP?

 

Now, putting that aside, there is no "permanent record" for the Captain, like our parents used to threaten us with about school. The Captain is not responsible for booking the passengers, and is not responsible for whether or not they violate the PVSA. That is the shipowner's responsibility.

 

Now, CBP frequently grants exemptions to the PVSA, on established reasons: mechanical failure of the ship, weather preventing the required foreign port call, death or illness of a passenger. I am not sure whether CBP considers a weather delay of an airline to be a valid exemption or not, but generally, when this happens, the cruise line eats the fine (I don't believe the airline would repay this unless the airline bookings were made through the cruise line). I also don't know whether there is a difference between an "act of god" (weather delay) or a mechanical delay caused by the airline.

 

And yes, there is a passenger manifest provided at disembarkation, just like there is at every port along the way (one for arrival and one for departure). CBP cross references the embarkation and disembarkation manifests to find out whether a violation has occurred, so the cruise line cannot "willingly violate" the PVSA.

 

There are laws that apply to "common carriers" like passenger ships, airlines, trains and buses that don't apply to private transportation, so this may be part of the reason that airline delays are treated differently.

 

Since you seem to be so close to CBP, why don't you present your findings and ask why there is no PVSA violation when a common carrier is involved, yet there is one for private transportation, or personal reasons.

thank you for this as we cc vets know that you know the facts.

Ok, let me first say this. I made a FIOIA request to CBP. I received the passenger manifest in response. As FIOIAs are very specific, I may have to request others. I have been working with a CBP agent on this issue. He went on vacation and forwarded a response to his supervisors for approval. I have not received that yet. So this part is not completed.

As far as how the cruise line involvement goes, I presented my comments based on what various representatives told me. And yes, they don't know everything as I have learned. In reference to discussions concerning their En Route emergency number operations. They say to use it if you are going to be delayed and that they have means of being available if needed. I talked to 5 different representatives and only one knew that it didn't operate 24/7. The other 4 told me that it works 24/7. Three of them told me that I could've boarded in Ketchikan, the other two said only if my missed embarkation was due to an airline problem. One told me that PVSA violations are placed against both the cruiseline and passengers and the fines are in excess of $10,000. Another told me that the captain is charged with the violations as he has absolute control over who and what he transports. Another said that the airlines will reimburse the cruiseline for any PVSA penalties if they were the root cause. These are trained customer service representatives of the same company.

I have made a formal complaint to the cruiseline and have not received any response to date. My comments were based off what I have been told and learned through researching this Act and talking with cruiseline representatives.

After what I have learned and been told, I feel that I should have been advised by a cruiseline representative of the facts; if I chose to get myself to Ketchikan and tried boarding, it would be in violation of this Act that has financial consequences associated with it.

If "next port" and "missed embarkation" insurance fees are used to cover PVSA penalties and airlines MAY reimburse for their faults, then this is just a financial issue. Maybe the cruiseline has experienced problems with trying to collect reimbursement for penalties caused by a passenger for "personal reason", convenience or who didn't buy their protection insurance. So, they verbally deny boarding with the hope that they won't have to deal with trying to collect from the passenger. This is what I am attempting to learn from the cruiseline. But, they are not going to publicly say this.

I don't have all the answers and obviously all the facts. My intentions were to let others know what can happen to them as it did to me. I didn't intend to rial anyone's feathers with my original post and I apologize.The snide comment regarding state abbreviations was very immature. This has been a very agonizing ordeal to try and deal with.

Ok, let me first say this. I made a FIOIA request to CBP. I received the passenger manifest in response. As FIOIAs are very specific, I may have to request others. I have been working with a CBP agent on this issue. He went on vacation and forwarded a response to his supervisors for approval. I have not received that yet. So this part is not completed.

 

As far as how the cruise line involvement goes, I presented my comments based on what various representatives told me. And yes, they don't know everything as I have learned. In reference to discussions concerning their En Route emergency number operations. They say to use it if you are going to be delayed and that they have means of being available if needed. I talked to 5 different representatives and only one knew that it didn't operate 24/7. The other 4 told me that it works 24/7. Three of them told me that I could've boarded in Ketchikan, the other two said only if my missed embarkation was due to an airline problem. One told me that PVSA violations are placed against both the cruiseline and passengers and the fines are in excess of $10,000. Another told me that the captain is charged with the violations as he has absolute control over who and what he transports. Another said that the airlines will reimburse the cruiseline for any PVSA penalties if they were the root cause. These are trained customer service representatives of the same company.

 

I have made a formal complaint to the cruiseline and have not received any response to date. My comments were based off what I have been told and learned through researching this Act and talking with cruiseline representatives.

 

After what I have learned and been told, I feel that I should have been advised by a cruiseline representative of the facts; if I chose to get myself to Ketchikan and tried boarding, it would be in violation of this Act that has financial consequences associated with it.

 

If "next port" and "missed embarkation" insurance fees are used to cover PVSA penalties and airlines MAY reimburse for their faults, then this is just a financial issue. Maybe the cruiseline has experienced problems with trying to collect reimbursement for penalties caused by a passenger for "personal reason", convenience or who didn't buy their protection insurance. So, they verbally deny boarding with the hope that they won't have to deal with trying to collect from the passenger. This is what I am attempting to learn from the cruiseline. But, they are not going to publicly say this.

 

I don't have all the answers and obviously all the facts. My intentions were to let others know what can happen to them as it did to me. I didn't intend to rial anyone's feathers with my original post and I apologize.The snide comment regarding state abbreviations was very immature. This has been a very agonizing ordeal to try and deal with.

Any fines levied for violations of the PVSA (and it's only $300 per person, so a lot of people would have to make violations to reach $10k) are levied against the cruise line. CBP has no interest in the passenger, so I am surprised that CBP is dealing with you on this. It is only the ticket contract that you signed that includes a clause where you give the cruise line permission to pass the fine on to you.

And if you believe that the customer service representatives of the cruise lines' call centers are "trained", or that they know very much about the laws governing cruising, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Most of them refer to this as the "Jones Act" to show how little they know about it. The simple fact that you got two different answers on whether you could board down line should show you how little these CSR's know about the law.

It is only when a cruise line shows an egregious habit of violating the PVSA that CBP would start to look at taking them to court for larger fines or revocation of boarding rights.

I've spent 40 years working on ships almost completely within the Jones Act and PVSA trades, so I have a pretty good working knowledge of the laws.

I'm sorry you missed your cruise, but that is what insurance is for, and when a large investment is involved, a "plan B" is always a good idea.

I would also hope that CBP redacted all personal data like passport #, DL #, etc. from the passenger manifest that you received, or I will be contacting them regarding a breach of security.

Any fines levied for violations of the PVSA (and it's only $300 per person, so a lot of people would have to make violations to reach $10k) are levied against the cruise line. CBP has no interest in the passenger, so I am surprised that CBP is dealing with you on this. It is only the ticket contract that you signed that includes a clause where you give the cruise line permission to pass the fine on to you.

 

And if you believe that the customer service representatives of the cruise lines' call centers are "trained", or that they know very much about the laws governing cruising, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Most of them refer to this as the "Jones Act" to show how little they know about it. The simple fact that you got two different answers on whether you could board down line should show you how little these CSR's know about the law.

 

It is only when a cruise line shows an egregious habit of violating the PVSA that CBP would start to look at taking them to court for larger fines or revocation of boarding rights.

 

I've spent 40 years working on ships almost completely within the Jones Act and PVSA trades, so I have a pretty good working knowledge of the laws.

 

I'm sorry you missed your cruise, but that is what insurance is for, and when a large investment is involved, a "plan B" is always a good idea.

 

I would also hope that CBP redacted all personal data like passport #, DL #, etc. from the passenger manifest that you received, or I will be contacting them regarding a breach of security.

It sounds like OP filed a FOIA request so CBP has to deal with him within the parameters of that law. I'm not sure it will actually help the OP though because as you pointed out both the CBP and the cruise line have the discretion to determine which violations will be accepted/waived and which ones will not be. I suspect the cruise lines will allow passengers to board at a different port if CBP will waive the fine (instances where documentation can be readily obtained showing the passenger was not at fault, such as a delay in a flight), but that is just an uneducated guess (I really can't see the cruise lines eating the fines out of good will, unless of course they were the ones that made the flight arrangements).

OP, at the end of all of this you will likely find out that you have little recourse, although if you make enough noise the cruise line might provide you a limited credit but it would need to be used on another cruise. This is something people need to be aware of and as mentioned this is a good reason to have travel insurance.

It sounds like OP filed a FOIA request so CBP has to deal with him within the parameters of that law. I'm not sure it will actually help the OP though because as you pointed out both the CBP and the cruise line have the discretion to determine which violations will be accepted/waived and which ones will not be. I suspect the cruise lines will allow passengers to board at a different port if CBP will waive the fine (instances where documentation can be readily obtained showing the passenger was not at fault, such as a delay in a flight), but that is just an uneducated guess (I really can't see the cruise lines eating the fines out of good will, unless of course they were the ones that made the flight arrangements).

 

OP, at the end of all of this you will likely find out that you have little recourse, although if you make enough noise the cruise line might provide you a limited credit but it would need to be used on another cruise. This is something people need to be aware of and as mentioned this is a good reason to have travel insurance.

While I'm no expert on FOIA, as I've stated, the document involved contains confidential information, so hopefully it is redacted, and I still don't know what the FOIA has to do with an investigation as to why a particular person was not allowed to board a cruise. Just the fact that the OP does not have a disembarkation manifest, or even knew if they existed, shows me that there is a lot unknown here. Without knowing the ship's itinerary for the next cruise, or whether the people who embarked late were booked back to back, on identical itineraries, and therefore their cruise would have been legal under the PVSA, tells me that the CBP agent the OP is dealing with really doesn't have all the facts, or is not telling the OP all the facts.

While I'm no expert on FOIA, as I've stated, the document involved contains confidential information, so hopefully it is redacted, and I still don't know what the FOIA has to do with an investigation as to why a particular person was not allowed to board a cruise. Just the fact that the OP does not have a disembarkation manifest, or even knew if they existed, shows me that there is a lot unknown here. Without knowing the ship's itinerary for the next cruise, or whether the people who embarked late were booked back to back, on identical itineraries, and therefore their cruise would have been legal under the PVSA, tells me that the CBP agent the OP is dealing with really doesn't have all the facts, or is not telling the OP all the facts.

Sounds like it was redacted from the first post and of course he won't get the whole story because there are exclusions to what may be released under FOIA. Nothing he gets from CBP will help him though because he didn't meet the criteria for meeting up with the ship at a later port and that's really all that matters.

Nothing personal was released in the manifest except surnames.

As I understand, even typical travel insurance would not have covered my personal error. Only the specific, "next port" or what ever its called seems to cover any potential PVSA fine which appear that they may not be all that common even though the cruiselines hang it over your head.

Because I didn't personal benefit or gain convenience by leaving my travel documents at home, I feel the cruiseline should have given me the opportunity of assuring reimbursement upon any PVSA violation that I might cause and enjoy the cruise that I paid for. Instead, they pocketed my money while knowing that they could be fined for each of the 14 PVSA violations that would occur. The have four paths of income regarding missed embarkation: 1) keep a passenger's payment and not permit boarding, 2) dupe passengers into buying "next port" protection "in case" they get fined, 3) dupe passengers into buying traveler insurance that probably won't cover "personal reasons" and 4) a possible mutual understanding with airline companies who will reimburse the cruiselines any PVSA fines incurred due to their problems. Its all about the mighty dollar and damn the absent-minded traveler, eager-to-board a once in a lifetime, bucket-list at 4:00 AM.

Nothing personal was released in the manifest except surnames.

 

As I understand, even typical travel insurance would not have covered my personal error. Only the specific, "next port" or what ever its called seems to cover any potential PVSA fine which appear that they may not be all that common even though the cruiselines hang it over your head.

 

Because I didn't personal benefit or gain convenience by leaving my travel documents at home, I feel the cruiseline should have given me the opportunity of assuring reimbursement upon any PVSA violation that I might cause and enjoy the cruise that I paid for. Instead, they pocketed my money while knowing that they could be fined for each of the 14 PVSA violations that would occur. The have four paths of income regarding missed embarkation: 1) keep a passenger's payment and not permit boarding, 2) dupe passengers into buying "next port" protection "in case" they get fined, 3) dupe passengers into buying traveler insurance that probably won't cover "personal reasons" and 4) a possible mutual understanding with airline companies who will reimburse the cruiselines any PVSA fines incurred due to their problems. Its all about the mighty dollar and damn the absent-minded traveler, eager-to-board a once in a lifetime, bucket-list at 4:00 AM.

I hear what you are saying but I've never heard of anyone in a similar situation receiving any satisfaction from the cruise line. And as I understand it this is pretty standard among cruise lines. Yes it does suck, but it's unlikely to change.

Thank you sparks1092, I appreciate your "ear".

I have to correct myself before njhorseman gets all wadded up. They weren't "surnames" that were provided on the passenger manifest, they were honorifics (e.g., Mr, Mrs and Miss).

Nothing personal was released in the manifest except surnames.

 

As I understand, even typical travel insurance would not have covered my personal error. Only the specific, "next port" or what ever its called seems to cover any potential PVSA fine which appear that they may not be all that common even though the cruiselines hang it over your head.

 

Because I didn't personal benefit or gain convenience by leaving my travel documents at home, I feel the cruiseline should have given me the opportunity of assuring reimbursement upon any PVSA violation that I might cause and enjoy the cruise that I paid for. Instead, they pocketed my money while knowing that they could be fined for each of the 14 PVSA violations that would occur. The have four paths of income regarding missed embarkation: 1) keep a passenger's payment and not permit boarding, 2) dupe passengers into buying "next port" protection "in case" they get fined, 3) dupe passengers into buying traveler insurance that probably won't cover "personal reasons" and 4) a possible mutual understanding with airline companies who will reimburse the cruiselines any PVSA fines incurred due to their problems. Its all about the mighty dollar and damn the absent-minded traveler, eager-to-board a once in a lifetime, bucket-list at 4:00 AM.

Passport, boarding documents, credit card - forget anything else it's inconvenient but forget one of those three it's game over. We often see stories where people missed boarding for this reason - one where a family didn't sail because their documentation was left in the airplane seat pocket. I guess that was the cruise line damning the absent minded mother, eager-to-board who was distracted by getting her children ready?

This is entirely your fault and yours alone. You didn't make your flight to Vancouver not because of an airline or weather problem but because of your inattention to something so vital. You are searching for documents to build a case for a refund - "They were let on so why not me?" If you had a real case one of the lifeboat-chasing lawyers who specialize in suing evil cruise lines would have taken you on. It stinks but you made a mistake with a very high tuition payment in the University of Experience in Life.

As for travel insurance, there is an entire forum here devoted to travel insurance. You can cover "cancel for any reason". Insurance can also cover problems that arise because of some accident in route to the embarkation port. Some choose not to insure but then you are out your money if the one in a million situation does prevent you from sailing. From the way you used the word "dupe" regarding travel insurance it appears that you chose not to buy it. Although to be truthful it probably would not had helped since none cover failure to have proper travel documentation - that 's considered within the passenger's control.

BlueRiband,

You are 98% correct on all points except seeking a refund.

I am seeking an understanding of how a cruise line can knowingly violate a federal law when it is a convenience to them and not allow one of their own passengers the same opportunity when missed embarkation provided no personal gain, convenience or benefit. And secondly, why is this isn't explained in detail, openly and up front to passengers planning to sail this particular cruise.

The biggest problem is the PVSA is over 100 years old and really does not reflect today's travel industry. It is a shame there is law that penalizes so many for honest mistakes. What you are trying/needing to do is effect change in the PVSA to allow cruise passengers to catch a missed ship even if it violates the current PVSA. A good lawyer might be able to a case that the current PVSA is outdated. That is how laws get changed in this country. You could also write your Congressman to sponsor a bill to change it.

In this day & age if a person wants to travel from Point A in US to Point B in the US a cruise is certainly not the cheapest/fastest way to get there. Its not like allowing cruise passengers to catch up with a missed ship would create a hardship for US Coastal Vessels that earn their living by transporting people from US port to US port.

The way it is now it seems discriminatory that the cruise line can allow some passengers to board in violation of the PVSA based on the cruiselines criteria and not others - in all fairness you should have been given the option to pay the $300 fine and board in Ketchican.

Don't ask questions? He just knows!

Also note that he is almost a 1st time poster. Total of 5 posts.

DON

BlueRiband,

 

You are 98% correct on all points except seeking a refund.

 

I am seeking an understanding of how a cruise line can knowingly violate a federal law when it is a convenience to them and not allow one of their own passengers the same opportunity when missed embarkation provided no personal gain, convenience or benefit. And secondly, why is this isn't explained in detail, openly and up front to passengers planning to sail this particular cruise.

How do you know that the cruise line "knowingly violate" the PVSA? If surnames were not provided, how are you going to determine who was who when comparing the embarkation to disembarkation manifests. This is the only thing that will prove whether or not a PVSA violation was made. I'm not sure you realize that regardless of how the cruise line markets the cruise, if a passenger were to board your cruise in Ketchikan, not visit a foreign port, and when the cruise ends in Whittier, if those passengers remain onboard for the next cruise (Whittier to Vancouver, this would be a completely legal cruise (Ketchikan to Vancouver). CBP does not look at individual cruises, but the original embarkation port and the final disembarkation port of each individual passenger.

Given that CBP has already determined that there was no violation (as you say in your original post), I would bet the farm that this is what happened with these 14 passengers.

The biggest problem is the PVSA is over 100 years old and really does not reflect today's travel industry. It is a shame there is law that penalizes so many for honest mistakes. What you are trying/needing to do is effect change in the PVSA to allow cruise passengers to catch a missed ship even if it violates the current PVSA. A good lawyer might be able to a case that the current PVSA is outdated. That is how laws get changed in this country. You could also write your Congressman to sponsor a bill to change it.

 

In this day & age if a person wants to travel from Point A in US to Point B in the US a cruise is certainly not the cheapest/fastest way to get there. Its not like allowing cruise passengers to catch up with a missed ship would create a hardship for US Coastal Vessels that earn their living by transporting people from US port to US port.

 

The way it is now it seems discriminatory that the cruise line can allow some passengers to board in violation of the PVSA based on the cruiselines criteria and not others - in all fairness you should have been given the option to pay the $300 fine and board in Ketchican.

As I've posted many times in the past, when the PVSA comes up for discussion of repeal, you cannot look at the PVSA from the narrow viewpoint of the cruise industry. The PVSA covers every vessel carrying passengers in US waters, including river boats, ferries, commuter and water taxis, sightseeing and casino boats, and even charter fishing boats. Removal of the PVSA would allow these thousands of vessels to flag foreign, costing US jobs, US revenue, adversely impact the US economy, and allow less safe vessels to freely sail our harbors and inland waterways.

As for changing the PVSA, it tends to be almost as much political kryptonite as the Jones Act. Further, the last amendment to the PVSA, the exemption of Puerto Rico from the act (which allows Carnival to run its one way cruises to/from San Juan), took 10 years to be enacted. CLIA has stated that their member companies (all the major cruise lines) are not interested in changes to the PVSA, since they feel it would only have a marginal impact on their bottom line, and would cost too much to fight.

As I've stated above, the OP doesn't have all the facts (no disembarkation manifest), and the OP has even stated that CBP, not the cruise line, has told him that there were no violations. If the OP has a beef, he has it with CBP, not the cruise line. CBP compares embarkation manifests (and any subsequent intermediary manifest, which must change whenever passengers embark or disembark) to disembarkation manifest to determine whether the cruise line has violated the act, it isn't the cruise line that determines this. I would bet that the passengers allowed to embark were on a B2B, which would be a legal cruise.

As I've posted many times in the past, when the PVSA comes up for discussion of repeal, you cannot look at the PVSA from the narrow viewpoint of the cruise industry. The PVSA covers every vessel carrying passengers in US waters, including river boats, ferries, commuter and water taxis, sightseeing and casino boats, and even charter fishing boats. Removal of the PVSA would allow these thousands of vessels to flag foreign, costing US jobs, US revenue, adversely impact the US economy, and allow less safe vessels to freely sail our harbors and inland waterways.

 

As for changing the PVSA, it tends to be almost as much political kryptonite as the Jones Act. Further, the last amendment to the PVSA, the exemption of Puerto Rico from the act (which allows Carnival to run its one way cruises to/from San Juan), took 10 years to be enacted. CLIA has stated that their member companies (all the major cruise lines) are not interested in changes to the PVSA, since they feel it would only have a marginal impact on their bottom line, and would cost too much to fight.

 

As I've stated above, the OP doesn't have all the facts (no disembarkation manifest), and the OP has even stated that CBP, not the cruise line, has told him that there were no violations. If the OP has a beef, he has it with CBP, not the cruise line. CBP compares embarkation manifests (and any subsequent intermediary manifest, which must change whenever passengers embark or disembark) to disembarkation manifest to determine whether the cruise line has violated the act, it isn't the cruise line that determines this. I would bet that the passengers allowed to embark were on a B2B, which would be a legal cruise.

The purpose of the PVSA was to protect the US coastal maritime industry by not allowing foreign flagged ships to transport passengers from one US port to another US port and taking the business away from US flagged ships. My point is that allowing cruise passengers to join a cruise even if it means violating the PVSA would not have an adverse effect on the US ships providing passenger service - after all how many people are going to pay for a cruise when they can get from point A to point B much cheaper by using the US flagged passenger ferries.

I also did not suggest the OP ask any cruise line to seek changes to the PVSA - I suggested he retain a lawyer or write his Congressman.

I do not have enough factual information on this specific situation to comment - my comments were about the PVSA in general and options for the OP if he felt that strongly about it. Never once did I suggest it would be an easy task.

The purpose of the PVSA was to protect the US coastal maritime industry by not allowing foreign flagged ships to transport passengers from one US port to another US port and taking the business away from US flagged ships. My point is that allowing cruise passengers to join a cruise even if it means violating the PVSA would not have an adverse effect on the US ships providing passenger service - after all how many people are going to pay for a cruise when they can get from point A to point B much cheaper by using the US flagged passenger ferries.

 

I also did not suggest the OP ask any cruise line to seek changes to the PVSA - I suggested he retain a lawyer or write his Congressman.

 

I do not have enough factual information on this specific situation to comment - my comments were about the PVSA in general and options for the OP if he felt that strongly about it. Never once did I suggest it would be an easy task.

You misunderstood my meaning. If you allow a foreign flag cruise ship to carry a passenger from one US port to another, how does the government deny that right to the Alaska Marine Highway? They would instantly re-flag to foreign, saving in operating costs, labor costs, etc. The AMH would have the same questions that the OP has: why can they do it, and not us. Followed closely by the commuter ferries from Conn. to NYC and Long Island. Followed closely by the Cape May ferries (DelMarVa to Virginia). Followed closely by the Cape Cod Steamship Authority.

You misunderstood my meaning. If you allow a foreign flag cruise ship to carry a passenger from one US port to another, how does the government deny that right to the Alaska Marine Highway? They would instantly re-flag to foreign, saving in operating costs, labor costs, etc. The AMH would have the same questions that the OP has: why can they do it, and not us. Followed closely by the commuter ferries from Conn. to NYC and Long Island. Followed closely by the Cape May ferries (DelMarVa to Virginia). Followed closely by the Cape Cod Steamship Authority.

Add one more very specific exception pertaining ONLY to missed embarkation on a cruise to the existing ones:

(a)Between Rochester and Alexandria Bay.—

Until passenger service is established by vessels of the United States between the port of Rochester, New York, and the port of Alexandria Bay, New York, the Secretary of Homeland Security may issue annually permits to Canadian passenger vessels to transport passengers between those ports. Canadian vessels holding such a permit are not subject to section 55103 of this title.

(b)Within Alaska or Between Alaska and Other Points in the United States.—Until the Secretary of Transportation determines that service by vessels of the United States is available to provide the transportation described in paragraph (1) or (2), sections 55102 and 55103 of this title do not apply to the transportation on Canadian vessels of—

(1) passengers between ports in southeastern Alaska; or

(2) passengers or merchandise between Hyder, Alaska, and other points in southeastern Alaska or in the United States outside Alaska.

Again - not a blanket permission - ONLY if the passenger missed their embarkation.

I do have a very good understanding of the purpose of this act and have no problem with it - I lived on Cape Cod for many years and am very familiar with the challenges faced by ferry lines.

An interesting thread, I too have wondered why a one cruise may fall under the PVSA and yet if you do a B2B it shouldn't apply but in some cases it does and in others it doesn't.

i.e I could cruise from Ensenada (really San Diego) to Honolulu and onto Sydney Australia as a B2B but wasn't allowed to sail from Vancouver to san Diego and then onto Honolulu and Sydney as a B2B. Yet people were allowed to sail from Vancouver to Honolulu as a B2B. Very puzzling.