B2B/Foreign Port/PVA question

[crackupforlaughs]

I (the OP) don't mind at all the discussion, and glad to see one of my posts has led to some thoughtful and informative dialogue:). I've known about the reason foreign ports of call are on the itineraries (why Victoria is on the Seattle RT trips to Alaska, for instance), and have known about the Hawaiian/NCL bit when it happened.

 

I just didn't realize (hence my post), that I couldn't disembark and then embark on a different itinerary from the same port on the same ship on the same day. I thought each cruise was treated as an individual entity. Oh well...

 

Keep the conversation going...

[RickEk]

I (the OP) don't mind at all the discussion, and glad to see one of my posts has led to some thoughtful and informative dialogue:). I've known about the reason foreign ports of call are on the itineraries (why Victoria is on the Seattle RT trips to Alaska, for instance), and have known about the Hawaiian/NCL bit when it happened.

 

I just didn't realize (hence my post), that I couldn't disembark and then embark on a different itinerary from the same port on the same ship on the same day. I thought each cruise was treated as an individual entity. Oh well...

 

Keep the conversation going...

 

Yes, you'd think that each cruise would be treated separately, but, in the eyes of the law, the cruise line is transporting you from one US port to different US port on one ship. The details of how that happens doesn't matter.

[Cruisin' Chick]

What the actual problem was, the foreign flag ships were calling at Ensenada on the return from Hawaii, at around midnite, not allowing guests to disembark at the port, staying in port only long enough to get the ship cleared at a foreign port and then sailing....

 

As Pam pointed out some ships, such as the Island Princess (for the 2005/06 sailing I was on) had a scheduled, but brief stop in Ensenada. In our case it was only going to be for an hour to meet the requirement as was in place, as far as I know at the time (why would the cruise lines risk fines if they weren't going by the law even if not in the spirit of the law). But when our Kona stop got cancelled due to heavy winds, the captain announced we would now go head for Ensenada and will have several hours there. I went up on an open deck to get a glimpse of Kona, which I've never been to (still haven't:() and the discussion centered around missing this port. During that entire day, I heard only one passenger who was happy about the extended time in the port and had booked one of the excursions that we immediately arranged.

 

We only went off the ship long enough so hubby can buy a trinket for his mother. We returned to the ship and headed for the pool where it looked just like a sea day. That's how many passengers stayed on board. The next two times we did this cruise, we stayed on board (unfortunately my MIL had passed since the Island Princess cruise). I don't think I'm exaggerating by saying at least 90 per cent of the passengers stayed on board too.

 

So if the City of Ensenada was gaining anything financially, it was from the port fees and a few passengers if they spent any money. Maybe the bars there got some business.

 

IMO, the NCL prez didn't care about increasing any city's economy. It was about seeing how much more popular the RTs to Hawaii were than the Pride ships and wanting to get rid of the competition.

 

I (the OP) don't mind at all the discussion, and glad to see one of my posts has led to some thoughtful and informative dialogue:). I've known about the reason foreign ports of call are on the itineraries (why Victoria is on the Seattle RT trips to Alaska, for instance), and have known about the Hawaiian/NCL bit when it happened.

 

I just didn't realize (hence my post), that I couldn't disembark and then embark on a different itinerary from the same port on the same ship on the same day. I thought each cruise was treated as an individual entity. Oh well...

 

Keep the conversation going...

 

No matter what the reasons for keeping the PVSA in effect, it does serve to confuse passengers, TAs and even some CSRs at the cruiselines. Even though I would rather spend a day or two in Vancouver than anytime in Ensenada.

[chengkp75]

As Pam pointed out some ships' date=' such as the Island Princess (for the 2005/06 sailing I was on) had a scheduled, but brief stop in Ensenada. In our case it was only going to be for an hour to meet the requirement as was in place, as far as I know at the time (why would the cruise lines risk fines if they weren't going by the law even if not in the spirit of the law). They were meeting the letter of the law, but were in fact violating the intent of the law. NCL's appeal to CBP resulted in CBP realizing that the intent of the law was being violated, and ruled accordingly. But when our Kona stop got cancelled due to heavy winds, the captain announced we would now go head for Ensenada and will have several hours there. I went up on an open deck to get a glimpse of Kona, which I've never been to (still haven't:() and the discussion centered around missing this port. During that entire day, I heard only one passenger who was happy about the extended time in the port and had booked one of the excursions that we immediately arranged.

 

We only went off the ship long enough so hubby can buy a trinket for his mother. We returned to the ship and headed for the pool where it looked just like a sea day. That's how many passengers stayed on board. The next two times we did this cruise, we stayed on board (unfortunately my MIL had passed since the Island Princess cruise). I don't think I'm exaggerating by saying at least 90 per cent of the passengers stayed on board too.

 

So if the City of Ensenada was gaining anything financially, it was from the port fees and a few passengers if they spent any money. Maybe the bars there got some business.

 

IMO, the NCL prez didn't care about increasing any city's economy. It was about seeing how much more popular the RTs to Hawaii were than the Pride ships and wanting to get rid of the competition.

 

 

 

No matter what the reasons for keeping the PVSA in effect, it does serve to confuse passengers, TAs and even some CSRs at the cruiselines. Even though I would rather spend a day or two in Vancouver than anytime in Ensenada.

 

I never said that NCL was interested in increasing Hawaii's income, I said that Sen. Inouye was responsible for the Hawaiian American Line initiative in the first place (getting Title XI money for that), and then continuing his support when Hawaiian American went bankrupt and NCL stepped in to provide a ship based in Hawaii. He was interested in supporting his constituents.

 

And the reason the RT WC-HI were so much more popular is that the foreign flag ships could offer a 14 day itinerary for less than NCL was charging for a 7 day itinerary. This was due to NCL's poor management of the US personnel problem, the increased cost of US flag operations, and the increased cost as I've mentioned of basing a ship in Hawaii, where everything has to be shipped to the islands first. The 500% increase in capacity to the islands by foreign flag ships was driven by the price NCL was charging, and was basically designed to milk as much revenue out of the high ticket costs while NCL was in operation in Hawaii, and then remove NCL from their "protected" position (only because they decided to go US flag) in the islands. It worked to some extent, by removing two NCL ships from US flag.

 

It always amazes me when someone (no one on this thread, no fingers pointed) says how poorly trained or equipped for emergencies the ships and crews are, and that the USCG should do something about it, when they then turn around and castigate the PVSA for trying to protect US shipping, which is the only shipping where USCG and for the most part, US law prevails.

 

I do admit that the PVSA confuses many cruisers, and the cruise lines' booking agents are probably the worst informed as to the requirements of the law.

 

I'm sorry, I'm a 40 year US mariner, who will firmly support US flag shipping (just think of how many accidents there are with ships every year, and how many more there would be in US ports if coastwise shipping were opened to foreign ships; think Korean ferry). I also don't see anything wrong with NCL's saving the US taxpayers a headache and trying an experiment to create thousands of US jobs. And I support the PVSA, warts and all.

[HappyCruiserettu]

On 5/6/2014 at 4:11 PM, Pam in CA said:

In a nutshell, the PVSA applies only to passengers originally embarking and with their final destination in the US.

 

If you embark in one US port and disembark at the same US port, no matter how many B2Bs, it's called a "closed loop" and the ship (and you) must go to a "near" foreign port. "Near" is Canada, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. You only need your birth certificate and ID.

 

If you embark in one US port and your final disembarkation is at a different US port, the ship (and you) must go to a "far" foreign port. That would include South America. You must have a passport.

 

The OP wants to initially embark in Seattle and disembark in LA so unless the ship's itinerary stops in South America, it's an illegal combination of cruises.

 

The PVSA is why Hawaiian, Mexican Riviera and CA Coastal cruises out of LA stop in Ensenada. They have to go to a "near" foreign port.

Mexican Riviera cruises do NOT have to stop in Ensenada, because they are already visiting a foreign port (i.e., Cabo, PV, etc.)

[HappyCruiserettu]

A few years back, at least one cruise line had Hawaii cruises that would disembark passengers in Ensenada and bus them to SD or LA. They were marketed that way.

[nocl]

59 minutes ago, HappyCruiserettu said:

A few years back, at least one cruise line had Hawaii cruises that would disembark passengers in Ensenada and bus them to SD or LA. They were marketed that way.

That was Celebrity.  It did not last long.