Early Disembarkment?

[Globaliser]

5 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

Here's the September 2019 updated version of that document:

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Sep/PVSA-ICP.pdf

 

Thanks for the update! It's pages 9-11 and 15-16 in this one.

[ontheweb]

14 hours ago, SeaShark said:

The PVSA requires a DISTANT foreign port.

That is not true for a closed loop cruise.

[bookbabe]

2 hours ago, phillygwm said:

The issue I'd see is clearing Canadian customs, just as you'd need to clear US customs in Seattle had you stayed on board.  I don't know whether that is surmountable (i.e. would there be an agent waiting to clear you when you disembarked.)  I sort of doubt is since it isn't the terminus but, again, one of those things where it's better to ask NCL.

There are agents in Victoria, I know that because we talked to them when my mom disembarked from the Encore early in Victoria a month ago, in May 2022.

 

@sasand01 The onshore NCL staff can likely only give you a “maybe” and it’s the onboard Disembarkation Officer that will make the final decision based on their conversations with CBSA in Victoria.  Your best bet is to have flexible plans, and ask onboard when the time comes.  We’d booked a refundable fare for my mom’s post cruise flight home, and then cancelled it when we got the final OK onboard.

[Globaliser]

 

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

16 hours ago, SeaShark said:

The PVSA requires a DISTANT foreign port.

That is not true for a closed loop cruise.

 

More to the point for the OP's question, the PVSA is irrelevant. It simply has no application if the passenger is starting in Seattle and ending in Victoria.

 

There may be other problems that mean that the ship won't allow the passenger to disembark in Victoria. But the PVSA is not one of them.

[GeezerCouple]

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Lots of misinformation here.  While it is true that embarking in Seattle, and disembarking in Victoria makes the OP's cruise an "open jaw" cruise, the fact that it ends in a foreign port takes it out of the jurisdiction of the PVSA.  So, as far as the Jones Act/PVSA is concerned, this would be perfectly legal.  Now, due to covid regulations, nearly every cruise line has stopped allowing "downlining" (late embarkation and early disembarkation), so refusals may be due to this.

Actually, it isn't.  The reason that CBP allows US citizens to cruise on a closed loop cruise with only a DL and birth certificate, and why they only have a cursory entrance exam when disembarking, is the fact that they have had the passenger manifest for several days during the cruise, and can screen the passengers over time.  When someone leaves a cruise early, the ship must submit a new passenger manifest to CBP, who then consider it to be a "new voyage" starting in this case in Victoria and going to Seattle.  This is now a foreign cruise, not a closed loop out of the US, and they can, and have, (the case mentioned was an attempt by NCL to "interport" a Tampa to Belize cruise (some pax cruised Tampa to Tampa, and some Belize to Belize)) require a more stringent interview with all passengers when the ship would return to homeport.  Even though the manifest may only be different by one or two names, and the vast majority of passengers have already been screened earlier in the cruise, they must now redo it for the new manifest.

 

I am not questioning the accuracy of your post, Chengkp75, but I am wondering about the logic behind your post and "the rules" that apply.

 

The comment I made was absolutely not including someone new boarding the ship.  It was *only* about someone leaving the ship at a foreign port.

 

[I wrote:  "Having new passengers get ON the ship mid-way is quite different than having someone get OFF early, with respect to US Immigrations and Customs."]

 

In such a case, when someone *leaves* the ship, ALL of the passengers remaining on board would "have already been screened earlier", so why would new complete screening be needed?

 

The example you cited - "(some pax cruised Tampa to Tampa, and some Belize to Belize)" - is obviously not a situation where *all* of the passengers remaining on board after someone left the ship were screened at the original port when the ship sailed for a closed loop itinerary.  The "Tampa to Tampa, and some Belize to Belize" isn't a situation where ALL passengers were screened at the very start of the cruise.

 

What is the logic behind the need to screen all pax again (if someone leaves the ship mid-way) but no one new boards the ship?  Wouldn't this be the situation of some unfortunate pier-runners who missed the ship and then flew home (hoping to be reunited with their belongings eventually, etc.)?

 

Are all remaining closed loop passengers really completely re-screened when someone misses the ship at one of the intermediate ports and never re-boards?

 

As always, your input is greatly valued.  Thanks very much!

 

[This issue, PVSA, has been of interest to us ever since senior management at NCL insisted, repeatedly and in writing, that it was impossible for someone on a Pride of America Hawaiian cruise to get off at one port and reboard at another specifically because of the PVSA.  (And at first, they tried to claim it was because of the Jones Act until we pointed out that we didn't think we'd be considered cargo, etc.)  We replied that they obviously had the right to impose their own rules for their own cruises, but that the PVSA would not apply to that Hawaii cruise.  They vehemently insisted that their *only* reason to deny our request was that it would be a PVSA violation.]

GC

[JRG]

On 6/11/2022 at 2:58 AM, chengkp75 said:

Lots of misinformation here.  While it is true that embarking in Seattle, and disembarking in Victoria makes the OP's cruise an "open jaw" cruise, the fact that it ends in a foreign port takes it out of the jurisdiction of the PVSA.  So, as far as the Jones Act/PVSA is concerned, this would be perfectly legal. 

 

Not trying to be argumentative here  but we need to parse out the Jones Act from this conversation.  I went on record last month to make a point of segregating the PVSA and Jones ACT in conversations on CC because of the confusion that has been created.   Lets keep it that way.

 

If the Jones Act is being mentioned in a cruising context that it is probably an error. 

Theoretically,  there should be no discussion of the Jones Act on a cruising board unless it is just in passing.

 

The Jones Act is strictly for cargo

 

The PVSA is strictly for cruisers..................the two cannot be co-mingled as they are two separate laws.

 

 

[JRG]

On 6/11/2022 at 11:12 AM, GeezerCouple said:

[This issue, PVSA, has been of interest to us ever since senior management at NCL insisted, repeatedly and in writing, that it was impossible for someone on a Pride of America Hawaiian cruise to get off at one port and reboard at another specifically because of the PVSA.  (And at first, they tried to claim it was because of the Jones Act until we pointed out that we didn't think we'd be considered cargo, etc.)  We replied that they obviously had the right to impose their own rules for their own cruises, but that the PVSA would not apply to that Hawaii cruise.  They vehemently insisted that their *only* reason to deny our request was that it would be a PVSA violation.]

 

 

Thank You for your post @geezercouple,   I find it interesting that senior management at NCL at first tried to claim it was because of the Jones Act and your point that PASSENGERS are not CARGO made it clear to NCL senior management that they should have been referring to the PVSA.  (if they put it in writing then it becomes even more verifiable as a cruise-industry problem)

 

It illustrates that there is confusion on this subject and it exists at the very highest levels,  and that can be rectified.   Same thing with the travel agents and PCC's who will eventually recognize that it is a 'hot button' because cruisers have been getting the "wrong information",    and that has been problematic for back to backs and US coastline cruising.

 

I have been looking for the logic in the PVSA from our CC members,    as you have asked for it to be explained and the logic is still nowhere to be found.   Its like trying to pull out the Sword in the Stone,  everybody steps up but nobody has been able to explain the logic.  

 

Passengers are not Cargo.   

 

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by JRG

[Globaliser]

11 minutes ago, JRG said:

I find it interesting that senior management at NCL at first tried to claim it was because of the Jones Act and your point that PASSENGERS are not CARGO made it clear to NCL senior management that they should have been referring to the PVSA.  (if they put it in writing then it becomes even more verifiable as a cruise-industry problem)

 

It illustrates that there is confusion on this subject and it exists at the very highest levels,  and that can be rectified.   Same thing with the travel agents and PCC's who will eventually recognize that it is a 'hot button' because cruisers have been getting the "wrong information",    and that has been problematic for back to backs and US coastline cruising.

 

I have been looking for the logic in the PVSA from our CC members,    as you have asked for it to be explained and the logic is still nowhere to be found.   Its like trying to pull out the Sword in the Stone,  everybody steps up but nobody has been able to explain the logic.

 

The confusion probably comes from the fact that the PVSA and the Jones Act both concern the same thing: a prohibition on non-US vessels carrying "coastwise" (domestic) US traffic. But although cruisers sometimes get wrong information, it's usually because someone doesn't understand what the PVSA rules are, not because they correctly understand both the PVSA rules and the Jones Act rules but wrongly apply the Jones Act rules to passenger traffic.

 

If by "the logic in the PVSA", you mean its intended purpose, then that's clear: it's to ensure that the country has a viable shipping industry of its own, including the means to build and crew ships, and has a fleet of ships to call on in times of national need. This applies both to passenger and cargo ships. If a country depends on foreign ships, it could for example find that these are all suddenly withdrawn in time of war. (IIRC, the US suffered this problem in the First World War.) So although this approach is often criticised for being "protectionist", it's very common. You also see this in airlines - non-US airlines cannot carry US domestic traffic.

 

Is the PVSA effective for securing that purpose? For passenger vessels, that's more debatable, as anyone who remembers Pride of Aloha and Pride of Hawaii knows. But the Jones Act probably does the job more effectively for cargo traffic, so it's not like the purpose behind both laws is incomprehensible or illogical.

 

What about the logic behind the detailed rules themselves? The starting point is that the prohibition is aimed at "coastwise" traffic, ie carrying passengers from one US port to a different US port. That is the kind of domestic traffic that many countries reserve exclusively for their own ships.

 

If you start at a US port, and you return to the same US port without getting off the ship, then you have not travelled "coastwise", and the "cruise to nowhere" is not prohibited by the PVSA.

 

If you start at a US port, you end up at the same US port, and you only get off at foreign ports in between, then there can be no question of there being any carriage between two US ports. So the PVSA doesn't prohibit this either.

 

If you start at a US port and you end at a different US port, then that is exactly what the PVSA is aimed at preventing. But it's easy to see how someone could try to circumvent that prohibition by getting off briefly at (say) Victoria. So the PVSA prohibits a journey starting at a US port and ending at a different US port "either directly or by way of a foreign port".

 

But what if you start in New York, call at Shanghai and then end up in Los Angeles? Circumnavigating the globe wasn't really the kind of traffic that the PVSA sought to prohibit. IIRC, there was originally a legal ruling that this wasn't "coastwise" traffic because it called at a distant foreign port; and the "distant foreign port" rule has now been explicitly written in to the legislation to distinguish unproblematic itineraries from potentially-abusive nearby foreign port calls.

 

The bit that I've never understood as clearly is the reason for the rule that if you start at a US port and end at the same US port, and only temporarily get off the ship at other US ports, that is prohibited by the PVSA; yet if the ship calls at a nearby foreign port then that is fine. This is the rule that Seattle round-trip cruises to Alaska and Los Angeles/San Diego round-trip cruises to Hawaii take advantage of, usually by calls at Victoria or Ensenada. It's not hard to see how a cruise with no foreign ports is purely domestic traffic, but the "coastwise" element is pretty much identical to the "coastwise" element of a cruise with a brief nearby foreign port call. But whatever the rationale here, this is now a clearly-written rule. 

[JRG]

18 minutes ago, Globaliser said:

If by "the logic in the PVSA", you mean its intended purpose

thanks for the interest level,  you take a different tangent after this sentence,  so I did not review what you wrote in detail.

 

We know the rule very very well.   My point that there is confusion at the higher level is confirmed by the fact that NCL SENIOR mgt were the ones who were confused,  so if there is confusion at the higher level then what is a cruiser to do. 

 

The OP has alerted this to us in this post but we see it in many places in the posts on CC.   The problem is that until we get it parsed correctly,  it will continue impede cruising and the travel industry and ancillary services by remaining a barrier to market.

 

So,  we cannot cruise Round Trip from San Diego to Hawaii and back,   without stopping in Ensenada or doing a longer, cruise,   this is the ludicrus part of the 'logic'.   Not the Rule.

 

The Rule is Ripe for Changing.....would be a good way to look at it,   and it might be the beginning of early dis-embarkations if they can 'parse' out the language for 'coastwise transportation'

 

It is an interesting topic to discuss,  but rest assured,  frequent posters on CC know the rule, sadly.

[Globaliser]

38 minutes ago, JRG said:

thanks for the interest level,  you take a different tangent after this sentence,  so I did not review what you wrote in detail.

 

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would understand better why the basic rule is unlikely to change in a way that you would like, and why the detail of the PVSA's rules is what it is. This is not a case of parsing out language. There is a basic underlying policy reason why the US prohibits foreign ships  carrying "coastwise" / domestic traffic, and many countries around the world agree with that reason in respect of their own shipping industries - and for that matter, many countries' airline and road transport industries, including the US.

 

And the PVSA hasn't stopped the cruising industry from growing spectacularly over the last four decades, so you can't actually say that it's been any real barrier to the industry's development. The highest you can really put it is that it's sometimes a bit of an inconvenience to some individual passengers.

[JRG]

48 minutes ago, Globaliser said:

There is a basic underlying policy reason why the US prohibits foreign ships  carrying "coastwise" / domestic traffic, and many countries around the world agree with that reason in respect of their own shipping industries - and for that matter, many countries' airline and road transport industries, including the US.

 

Thanks for the discussion.  You are talking policy,   the thread was talking logic,  or illogic.

 

The post doesn't really gain any traction if it starts talking about policy.   We are examining the ludicrous nature of the symptoms of an outdated congressional act, not a policy.   Hopefully that makes it clear.        

 

Its more than just an inconvenience to a handful of passengers.   How can one make such a simplification when so many posters complain about the same or similar conundrum.

 

[JRG]

57 minutes ago, Globaliser said:

This is not a case of parsing out language.

 

Bet the farm on it.

[Globaliser]

4 hours ago, JRG said:

We are examining the ludicrous nature of the symptoms of an outdated congressional act, not a policy.   Hopefully that makes it clear.

 

I think that what is clear is that many cruisers simply do not (or perhaps refuse to) understand the reason that the PVSA exists. "Ludicrous" seems to be being used as a synonym for "I don't like it".

 

If the cruise industry begins to think that it's going to sink because a voyage between two different US ports must visit a distant foreign port, and gets some political traction for its point of view, we might see some change. But I doubt it'll be because some cruisers don't particularly want to call at Victoria or Ensenada on their closed loop cruises.

[The Traveling Man]

The rules, requirements, and details for trying to disembark early in Victoria may force you to jump through some hoops, but let me relate our recent experience with a similar situation in Europe.  We were on the Getaway for its TransAtlantic crossing from NYC to Southampton, ending on 8 May.  We also had booked a river cruise departing Amsterdam on 12 May.  We needed to get from Southampton to Amsterdam, and we had four days to do so.  The next cruise on the Getaway was a ten-day Baltic trip from Southampton to Copenhagen, with a port call at Amsterdam on 11 May.  Rather than arrange for flights, trains, or other transportation, as well as hotels for four nights, we asked NCL if we could stay on the Getaway for just the first three nights of the Southampton to Copenhagen cruise.  I wrote to Katty Byrd, NCL Senior Vice President for Guest Services.  She not only approved my request, she offered us a reduced fare (about half the cost of the full 10-day cruise) and made all the necessary arrangements with all the customs and immigration officials that would be impacted by our early exit.  Once on board we spoke to the folks at the Guest Services desk to confirm that they had our information, and they handled things smoothly and completely.  We only paid daily service charges for the days we actually were on board and we chose to forego the beverage and dining packages since we would be on board for just three days.  At Amsterdam we carried our own luggage off the ship.  The folks at the security checkpoint saw that we had our bags, so they checked their passenger list to confirm that we were cleared to disembark.  Easy peasey.  Canada may have some additional requirements for early disembarkation, but others posting on this thread have noted that customs and border patrol officers are on duty at the port of Victoria, so you should be able to do this.  Simply send an email to kbyrd@ncl.com, explain your circumstances, and ask her to make the arrangements for you.  You should be able to do this without penalties, fines, or hassle.  Bon voyage.

[hallux]

1 hour ago, The Traveling Man said:

in Europe

Europe is VERY different from the US/Canada.  Pre-pandemic there were lots of cruises that did "interporting" where passengers embarked and disembarked at several ports on the route.  Everyone may have been on for the same amount of time but their cruises started on different days.  The only time you would see similar cruises is on Panama Canal repositioning cruises where some might sail Miami to LA or Miami to San Francisco or go all the way from Miami to Seattle or Vancouver.  The port stops in Colombia or Panama allowed for this as they are considered "distant foreign ports" for the purpose of the PVSA.

[ontheweb]

6 minutes ago, hallux said:

Europe is VERY different from the US/Canada.  Pre-pandemic there were lots of cruises that did "interporting" where passengers embarked and disembarked at several ports on the route.  Everyone may have been on for the same amount of time but their cruises started on different days.  The only time you would see similar cruises is on Panama Canal repositioning cruises where some might sail Miami to LA or Miami to San Francisco or go all the way from Miami to Seattle or Vancouver.  The port stops in Colombia or Panama allowed for this as they are considered "distant foreign ports" for the purpose of the PVSA.

Yes, we were on the Epic in 2012. Our cruise was Barcelona to Barcelona, but there were others whose cruise was round trip from Rome and I think Marseilles. On our second night we attended the Cirq d' soleil dinner theater and the couple we sat with were on their last night.

[Globaliser]

12 hours ago, hallux said:

Europe is VERY different from the US/Canada.  Pre-pandemic there were lots of cruises that did "interporting" where passengers embarked and disembarked at several ports on the route.  Everyone may have been on for the same amount of time but their cruises started on different days.

 

12 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, we were on the Epic in 2012. Our cruise was Barcelona to Barcelona, but there were others whose cruise was round trip from Rome and I think Marseilles.

 

In general, passengers on these cruises still do round-trips from/to the same port. So even if PVSA rules were applicable (which they aren't), the only requirement for PVSA compliance would be one call at a nearby foreign port.

 

NCL is still scheduling these now. The Sun's northern winter 2022/23 season has 10 / 11 day cycles between mainland Europe and the Canary Islands, on which Lisbon-Lisbon, Malaga-Malaga and Tenerife-Tenerife itineraries are interleaved in this way.

 

12 hours ago, hallux said:

The only time you would see similar cruises is on Panama Canal repositioning cruises where some might sail Miami to LA or Miami to San Francisco or go all the way from Miami to Seattle or Vancouver.  The port stops in Colombia or Panama allowed for this as they are considered "distant foreign ports" for the purpose of the PVSA.

 

Except that for those doing Miami-Vancouver, the PVSA is irrelevant (just as it's irrelevant for anyone who wants to do Seattle-Victoria, like the OP).

 

I'm not sure that Panama counts as a distant foreign port, because it's in Central America and that would seem to fall within the definition of nearby foreign port. Colombia would be fine, as you say. Importantly for many Canal transits, any of the ABC islands will also do, as they are expressly excluded from the definition of nearby foreign port, and anything that's not nearby is distant.

[njhorseman]

4 hours ago, Globaliser said:

 

I'm not sure that Panama counts as a distant foreign port, because it's in Central America and that would seem to fall within the definition of nearby foreign port. Colombia would be fine, as you say. Importantly for many Canal transits, any of the ABC islands will also do, as they are expressly excluded from the definition of nearby foreign port, and anything that's not nearby is distant.

Panama does not count as a distant foreign port because it is in Central America. Cartagena and or one or more of the ABC islands are usually part of Panama Canal cruises that start and end in different US ports and those ports are distant foreign ports .

[JRG]

On 6/14/2022 at 3:13 PM, Globaliser said:

I think that what is clear is that many cruisers simply do not (or perhaps refuse to) understand the reason that the PVSA exists. "Ludicrous" seems to be being used as a synonym for "I don't like it".

 

Never mind that.   The Queen has her horse getting to run at Ascot.

If it wins the crowd will go crazy and nothing else will matter today.

Bet the farm?    not at odds on.

 

I hope she wins.

 

I can tell you how Thomas Shelby would deal with the PVSA fiasco,  he'd say there's work to be done.

Aunt Polly (RIP Helen McCrory)  would say it's not family,  its business.

 

p.s.  Check Roget's Thesaurus for synonyms for ludicrous after the race.

p.s.s.  I'm not going to give away how season 6  of Peaky Blinders is starting out either.

[The Traveling Man]

On 6/10/2022 at 3:37 PM, sasand01 said:

Hello Friends!  Has anyone every done an early disembarkment at one of the ports?  My husband and I are looking to disembark on an Alaskan cruise in 2023 and get off the ship on the last day in Victoria, BC instead of getting off the ship the next day in Seattle.  My cruise consultant is saying that if we did that we could possibly be fined under the "Jones Act"?  Anyone know anything about this?  Thanks so much for any guidance here! 

Best, 

Sarah 

Sarah,

There have been many "expert" opinions offered here.  Some may actually have some merit, but my recommendation is that you contact NCL directly and plead your case.  A few months ago I posted a similar thread on CC, and lots of "experts" declared that it absolutely, positively was not possible to disembark early without incurring severe penalties.  Well, the rules for travel in Europe may be somewhat different than those in the US and Canada, but it doesn't hurt to ask, you may find that NCL can work out the details in your favor.  Email Ms. Katty Byrd, NCL Senior Vice President for Guest Services at kbyrd@ncl.com.  She did a great job of making arrangements for us to disembark early from the Getaway in Amsterdam.  She may be able to help you.  Please post here again and let us know if you are successful with your request.

[chengkp75]

On 6/11/2022 at 2:12 PM, GeezerCouple said:

What is the logic behind the need to screen all pax again (if someone leaves the ship mid-way) but no one new boards the ship?  Wouldn't this be the situation of some unfortunate pier-runners who missed the ship and then flew home (hoping to be reunited with their belongings eventually, etc.)?

Sorry, haven't followed this thread lately.  The logic is that once the manifest changes, the old manifest "doesn't exist" anymore for CBP, and they only deal with the actual manifest that deals with the actual passengers who are returning to the US.  The old closed loop cruise no longer exists (it was only "closed" because of no changes in manifest), and now there is a foreign voyage from the last foreign port to the US port of disembarkation.  And, yes, this is the same that happens with someone missing the ship.  A pier runner missing, may or may not be the last port, there may or may not be a sea day involved, etc, so there may or may not be differences in time frame as far as CBP is concerned, and also CBP rules and regulations are "flexible" in how they are implemented by the officers at the ports, as to whether or not in depth interviews are needed or just the "wave through".

[GeezerCouple]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Sorry, haven't followed this thread lately.  The logic is that once the manifest changes, the old manifest "doesn't exist" anymore for CBP, and they only deal with the actual manifest that deals with the actual passengers who are returning to the US.  The old closed loop cruise no longer exists (it was only "closed" because of no changes in manifest), and now there is a foreign voyage from the last foreign port to the US port of disembarkation.  And, yes, this is the same that happens with someone missing the ship.  A pier runner missing, may or may not be the last port, there may or may not be a sea day involved, etc, so there may or may not be differences in time frame as far as CBP is concerned, and also CBP rules and regulations are "flexible" in how they are implemented by the officers at the ports, as to whether or not in depth interviews are needed or just the "wave through".

 

Thanks so much.

 

Heh.  I hadn't thought about the use of "closed" to refer to the passenger manifest.  I was thinking it was the path of the ship, a "closed loop", and... that never quite made sense to me anyway.  Whether the ship's itinerary from, say, Miami to Miami included, say, Curacao or Cartegena or not, the itinerary still sure looked like a "closed loop" to me! 😁  

And then there were also those cruises from, say, Miami to LA, etc., or LA to Hawaii, and those never looked like any sort of "loop" in the first place, but they still needed that distant foreign port, too!

 

So that answers that silly question lingering in the back of my mind.

 

So if it's the manifest that must be kept "closed", then at least there's some logic to the rule.

(...not that there needs to be actual logic to rules, but I digress... 🙂 )

 

And given the current world "situation", your comment about not relying upon foreign vessels... well, that's certainly more salient now, unfortunately.

 

Thanks, as always.

GC