Notice in Daily Newspaper Wouldn't Let Us Back on Ship in Future Ports ???

On our recent Alaska cruise out of San Francisco, they had a notice in the daily paper that if we missed the ship, they wouldn't let us back on the ship in future ports due to the passenger vessel services act. So, if the ship leaves w/o us our entire cruise is gone and we're stranded? Doesn't seem right.

Not all laws are sensible. But they were implemented by people who thought they were at the time. This one maybe up for debate.

An exception was made in Hawaii.

Dont miss the ship, dont have any problem.:)

dont miss the ship, dont have any problem.:)

:d:d

Dont miss the ship, dont have any problem.:)

Obviously! Looks like it's another money grab to get us to purchase shore excursions through them.

Obviously! Looks like it's another money grab to get us to purchase shore excursions through them.

Hummm, thats one way of looking at it.

Obviously! Looks like it's another money grab to get us to purchase shore excursions through them.

Yes, Celebrity lobbied in 1886 to get the act passed in order to increase revenues through shore excursions...;)

Yes, Celebrity lobbied in 1886 to get the act passed in order to increase revenues through shore excursions...;)

And that is the factual way of looking at it.

Obviously! Looks like it's another money grab to get us to purchase shore excursions through them.

That's just ridiculous. It's the law...would you rather they didn't tell you about it and if you miss the ship you could just be surprised? The chances of you missing the ship are slim unless you are not paying attention to time.

Wow!!!!!:eek:

I believe that part that part of the issue with Alaska Cruises is that this route is paralleled by another boatline / ferry service

Something to do with marine competition, and the fact that they don't want anyone using the cruise ship as an upscale way of getting from point to point along the route

Add in the fact that the cruise stops are also primarily in Alaska / US Ports... With just one foreign port, often at the front or back end, this could too easily become an "alternative form of transit" vs a closed loop cruise vacation

Hope this helps,

Cheers!

I believe that part that part of the issue with Alaska Cruises is that this route is paralleled by another boatline / ferry service

 

Something to do with marine competition, and the fact that they don't want anyone using the cruise ship as an upscale way of getting from point to point along the route

 

Add in the fact that the cruise stops are also primarily in Alaska / US Ports... With just one foreign port, often at the front or back end, this could too easily become an "alternative form of transit" vs a closed loop cruise vacation

 

Hope this helps,

 

Cheers!

Never seen this posting in over 20 cruises. Guest relations told me that since Victoria was our next to last stop, they weren't allowing us to board if we missed the ship. But we would be all right for the stop, Astoria, after Victoria, but the notice remained for Astoria. I don't know if that was because they forgot to remove it for that particular bulletin.

I just wonder what happens when the ship is forced to leave port and strand their passengers which I've read happens, though rarely.

Does this also apply to ferries? I know there's a daily ferry from New England to Halifax.

Thus has nothing to do with shore excursions or ferries. This is the PVSA law that you cannot transport passengers between two DIFFERENT US ports without hitting a foreign Distant port. As the cruise left from San Francisco it would have been illegal to reboard the ship in another US port

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus has nothing to do with shore excursions or ferries. This is the PVSA law that you cannot transport passengers between two DIFFERENT US ports without hitting a foreign Distant port. As the cruise left from San Francisco it would have been illegal to reboard the ship in another US port

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Greetings

That is correct. And none of Canada is a foreign distant port according to the definition in the law. If there are recurring violations the cruise line may no longer be allowed to operate in US waters. So if anyone insists on missing the ship please take a Caribbean cruise instead.

Good Sailing

Tom

Thus has nothing to do with shore excursions or ferries. This is the PVSA law that you cannot transport passengers between two DIFFERENT US ports without hitting a foreign Distant port. As the cruise left from San Francisco it would have been illegal to reboard the ship in another US port

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also wouldn't the passenger(s) be fined if they missed the ship in an Alaskan port since they violated the PVSA? I believe the fine is around $300 per person. So not only would they lose their cruise they'd be out money too.

Dont miss the ship, dont have any problem.:)

Wow...Personal responsibility! What a concept!

Obviously! Looks like it's another money grab to get us to purchase shore excursions through them.

I see that the conspiracy theorists have again infiltrated these boards. :rolleyes:

Also wouldn't the passenger(s) be fined if they missed the ship in an Alaskan port since they violated the PVSA? I believe the fine is around $300 per person. So not only would they lose their cruise they'd be out money too.

More than likely. The ship would be the one getting fined but they're likely to pass that on to the passenger

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Missing the ship is a risk in Victoria...esp if one wanders to the wineries or Butchart gardens....traffic at certain times is really heavy.., our tour bus got back late but lucky for us we were on a Celeb tour...the guide and driver knew the best routes and of course, the ship would not leave without us.,,it was a great tour...stress free,

if we were staying in the city area we would chance going on our own, but it is still a distance from the pier from what we recall and we would make sure we did not miss the ship!

I see the warning as appropriate and informative rather than coercive!

On our recent Alaska cruise out of San Francisco, they had a notice in the daily paper that if we missed the ship, they wouldn't let us back on the ship in future ports due to the passenger vessel services act. So, if the ship leaves w/o us our entire cruise is gone and we're stranded? Doesn't seem right.

No it doesn't seem right. I encourage you to write your Congressmen and tell them you think the law, as it applies to such cruises, isn't right and should be changed. But as it stands now the cruise line really doesn't have much choice in the matter.

To put things in a better perspective: Someone in another thread indicated that this is the same law that prevents a foreign airline from competing with domestic airlines for flights between US Cities. That makes sense to me while the cruise line limitations do not.

Thanks for this thread! It's good information to be aware of.

LuLu

Greetings

 

That is correct. And none of Canada is a foreign distant port according to the definition in the law. If there are recurring violations the cruise line may no longer be allowed to operate in US waters. So if anyone insists on missing the ship please take a Caribbean cruise instead.

 

Good Sailing

Tom

BTW the Caribbean is wonderful for cruising

Not all laws are sensible. But they were implemented by people who thought they were at the time. This one maybe up for debate.

 

An exception was made in Hawaii.

Also wouldn't the passenger(s) be fined if they missed the ship in an Alaskan port since they violated the PVSA? I believe the fine is around $300 per person. So not only would they lose their cruise they'd be out money too.

In another post, someone had to leave the ship early due to a family emergency, and they had $600 fine. They were out other funds in addition to this, but I don't remember the details. For them, it was a complete hassle piled on top of the family emergency.

In another post, someone had to leave the ship early due to a family emergency, and they had $600 fine. They were out other funds in addition to this, but I don't remember the details. For them, it was a complete hassle piled on top of the family emergency.

I doubt that really happened. I would think that in an emergency the fine would be waived. After all, it wasn't their fault they had to get off because of an emergency. The fines are in place as a deterrent so people won't get off in whatever port they prefer, in essence using the cruise ship as a ferry service. But an emergency is different.