New Canal locks

[Fuzzyape]

I know the Caribbean is doing partial transits through the new locks, I looked at the other thread about the new locks, and I see the partial transits are scheduled out through 2018.

 

Is there any word on when a full transit may be available?

 

Thanks in advance.

[paul929207]

Nothing so far that I have heard. We are doing the partial on the Caribbean in January

[Essiesmom]

Not on Princess, but I'm on a full transit in Jan. on Carnival Splendor. EM

[Shmoo here]

Not on Princess, but I'm on a full transit in Jan. on Carnival Splendor. EM

DCL also does only full transits.

[Lucky TGO]

No idea sorry. :o

Tony

[Wacruzr]

Emerald Princess is scheduled for a full transit in April 2019, Vancouver-LA-FLL.

 

Loren

[Thrak]

Emerald Princess is scheduled for a full transit in April 2019, Vancouver-LA-FLL.

 

Loren

 

What? No stop in SF this time?? We did that on Coral but it went from Vancouver to SF to LA to FLL. We boarded in SF for a 17 day transit. What a crock.

 

 

I just looked and the darn cruise from Vancouver makes a port stop in SF but there is no cruise listed as beginning there. Hopefully they will change things and offer the 17 day from SF.

[polmcs]

What? No stop in SF this time?? We did that on Coral but it went from Vancouver to SF to LA to FLL. We boarded in SF for a 17 day transit. What a crock.

 

 

I just looked and the darn cruise from Vancouver makes a port stop in SF but there is no cruise listed as beginning there. Hopefully they will change things and offer the 17 day from SF.

 

Unless the itinerary includes a stop at one of the ABC islands, or Cartagena, then getting on at SFO and leaving the ship at FLLwould be a violation of the PVSA. Starting the cruise in a Canadian port would meet the requirements as the start and end points would not be two separate US ports.

[Times Prince]

Unless the itinerary includes a stop at one of the ABC islands, or Cartagena, then getting on at SFO and leaving the ship at FLLwould be a violation of the PVSA. Starting the cruise in a Canadian port would meet the requirements as the start and end points would not be two separate US ports.

Why wouldn't Panama itself be a far off country, as the US no longer has any ownership? The full transits I've seen now stop at either Panama City or San Cristobal. Besides, all the itineraries I've seen in adds include Cartagena and Aruba.

[caribill]

Why wouldn't Panama itself be a far off country, as the US no longer has any ownership? The full transits I've seen now stop at either Panama City or San Cristobal. Besides, all the itineraries I've seen in adds include Cartagena and Aruba.

 

To you or me it is a far off country.

 

But the law involved says that no North American or Central American country is considered to be a far off country even though Panama is in both Central America and South America.

 

Columbia and Aruba are considered t6o be far off countries.

[Thrak]

Unless the itinerary includes a stop at one of the ABC islands, or Cartagena, then getting on at SFO and leaving the ship at FLLwould be a violation of the PVSA. Starting the cruise in a Canadian port would meet the requirements as the start and end points would not be two separate US ports.

 

The cruise we took originated in Vancouver (22 day cruise), stopped in SF for more passengers (17 day cruise), took on more passengers in LA (15 day cruise) and continued on. We ported in Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Columbia, and Aruba before hitting FLL. Definitely not in violation of the PVSA.

 

The cruise in question is already taking on passengers in LA. Since it ports in SF first it's nuts not to include an option to sail from there.

[paul929207]

Since LA to FLL is legal, they must be stopping in Cartagena or one of the ABC Islands. In that case, SF to FLL would also be legal.

[Fuzzyape]

Thanks for the info! May have to check out the Vancouver cruise.