PVSA again

[Mark_K]

1 hour ago, WestLakeGirl said:

Vancouver was not an ending port and starting port. It was in between the two US cities, your embarkation and disembarkation points. That’s the PVSA denial.

 

These kinds of cabotage laws are enforced in many countries. It’s the reason that United Airlines cannot carry you between London and Birmingham. And why British air cannot take you from New York to Los Angeles.

Italy has/had a law similar to the PVSA.  We were on a cruise cruise that stopped in Civitavecchia then Livorno.  Without asking a group of 12 or so friends decided to spend the night in Rome and rejoin the ship in Livorno.  They were fined, forfeited the rest of the cruise, and all their bags were left on the pier in Civitavecchia.

[RichYak]

On 7/31/2023 at 4:49 PM, Mark_K said:

Italy has/had a law similar to the PVSA.  We were on a cruise cruise that stopped in Civitavecchia then Livorno.  Without asking a group of 12 or so friends decided to spend the night in Rome and rejoin the ship in Livorno.  They were fined, forfeited the rest of the cruise, and all their bags were left on the pier in Civitavecchia.

That’s not necessarily an Italian law. That’s more likely just a rightfully pi$$ed off cruise ship captain. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by RichYak
Spelling error

[Cruising Is Bliss]

On 7/31/2023 at 8:18 AM, DaKahuna said:

 

You should be okay and PSVA should not apply because you are not going from a USA port to a USA port on either cruise.  Even if you did a B2B you should  be okay as you start in the USA on one and end in Canada and start in Canada on the other and end is USA.  

 

 

No. The only thing that counts for the PSVA is if you are on the same ship when it sails from any down line or turn around port, you did not disembark according to the PSVA definition and are continuing one unbroken voyage.  And that one unbroken voyage can NOT begin and end in different US ports unless the ship stops in the appropriate foreign port for the cruise.  PSVA doesn't care how the cruise line chops up your voyage into separate cruises for marketing and booking purposes.  Even if you leave early via emergency medical transport at a down line or turn around port, if that port creates a PSVA violation, the cruise line still has to pay the fine.

[mahasamatman]

Different ships doesn't fix anything if the ships are operated by the same company. The PVSA applies to the carrier, not the individual ship. The overnight is the key to getting around the PVSA.

[D C]

On 7/31/2023 at 10:52 AM, kayehall said:

I do not understand why or what PVSA is?  Seems stupid to me

It very much is. 

Go into it with that attitude and while it makes no logical sense, it shouldn't be surprising as the product of our government. 

[BettyCruiser]

29 minutes ago, mahasamatman said:

Different ships doesn't fix anything if the ships are operated by the same company. The PVSA applies to the carrier, not the individual ship. The overnight is the key to getting around the PVSA.

This is not true. Any change in ships will satisfy PVSA.

[cruisestitch]

33 minutes ago, mahasamatman said:

Different ships doesn't fix anything if the ships are operated by the same company. The PVSA applies to the carrier, not the individual ship. The overnight is the key to getting around the PVSA.

That is not correct 

[cruisestitch]

16 minutes ago, D C said:

It very much is. 

Go into it with that attitude and while it makes no logical sense, it shouldn't be surprising as the product of our government. 

Since many governments also have cabotage laws I’m not seeing anything unique to the PVSA

[PTC DAWG]

31 minutes ago, D C said:

It very much is. 

Go into it with that attitude and while it makes no logical sense, it shouldn't be surprising as the product of our government. 

It keeps foreign entities from running ferry boats in our countries. 

[abbydancer2003]

You'll be fine.  I've actually done this a few times on Princess on the west coast.  We'd get on Ship A and sail a one night to Vancouver, spend the night, and then get on a different ship back to California the next day.  This was possible as they moved ships out of Alaska in September to get around the PSVA and take passengers.

 

Best was during a muster drill on the one day - the staff member running it asked if anyone was staying on for the next cruise and in unison almost the entire theater said "We can't".

 

[Mark_K]

7 hours ago, RichYak said:

That’s not necessarily an Italian law. That’s more likely just a rightfully pi$$ed off cruise ship captain. 

Italy has cabotage laws that apply to ships not flagged in an EU country.  It’s possible that the real problem was transporting their bags from one Italian port to another without them being on board.

[chengkp75]

On 7/31/2023 at 2:42 PM, CruisinBanka said:

What a ridiculous outdated law. 

And, again, I'll chime in here, and point out that it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Ship Services Act.  This is important because the international definition of a "passenger" vessel is "any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire".  So, the act restricts the operation of ferries, water taxis, commuter boats, casino boats, dinner cruises, sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, and large charter fishing boats to US flagged vessels, allowing the US to enforce the USCG's much stricter safety, training, and certification regulations, over the international requirements of SOLAS and other conventions that foreign flag ships operate under.  Cruise ships are merely the large end of the scale.

 

Contrary to popular misconception among the cruising public, the USCG has only limited jurisdiction over foreign flag cruise ships, and can only ensure that the ship meets the requirements of SOLAS and the other international conventions, but not the stricter regulations that these conventions allow a flag state to enact for ships of their own flag.  A single example is that the USCG tries to inspect foreign flag cruise ships twice a year, as port state control inspections, but these are not mandatory, and are not always completed due to budgetary or time constraints.  On the other hand, US flag cruise ships are required to have mandatory inspections by the USCG 4 times every year.

[Charles4515]

14 hours ago, RichYak said:

That’s not necessarily an Italian law. That’s more likely just a rightfully pi$$ed off cruise ship captain. 

A good possibility. The captain probably delayed departure thinking they would be late arrivals back. Certainly would be pissed off. Not telling the Captain would be enough reason for the Captain kicking them off. 

[chengkp75]

20 hours ago, RichYak said:

That’s not necessarily an Italian law. That’s more likely just a rightfully pi$$ed off cruise ship captain. 

It is not an Italian law, it is an EU one, cabotage very similar to the US's PVSA.  It prohibits non-EU flagged ships from transporting passengers from one port to another within a member state, without an intervening port call at another nation.

[chengkp75]

19 hours ago, mahasamatman said:

Different ships doesn't fix anything if the ships are operated by the same company. The PVSA applies to the carrier, not the individual ship. The overnight is the key to getting around the PVSA.

Wrong.  Switching from one ship to another, even in the same line, without a day's layover is perfectly legal under the PVSA.  The law looks at where the passenger initially boards the ship, and where the passenger finally disembarks the ship, as being one voyage.  Moving to another ship starts a second voyage.

[DaKahuna]

On 7/31/2023 at 2:06 PM, RichYak said:

The OP is fine because they are sailing on 2 different ships with a day in between. What is NOT ok is your statement below:

 

"Even if you did a B2B" implies the same ship with same day turnaround in Canada.

 

On 8/1/2023 at 9:40 PM, Cruising Is Bliss said:

 

No. The only thing that counts for the PSVA is if you are on the same ship when it sails from any down line or turn around port, you did not disembark according to the PSVA definition and are continuing one unbroken voyage.  And that one unbroken voyage can NOT begin and end in different US ports unless the ship stops in the appropriate foreign port for the cruise.  PSVA doesn't care how the cruise line chops up your voyage into separate cruises for marketing and booking purposes.  Even if you leave early via emergency medical transport at a down line or turn around port, if that port creates a PSVA violation, the cruise line still has to pay the fine.

 

Thanks.  I now understand.  It is not where the ship cruise starts/stop but where you embark and debark. 
 

 Makes me now question why B2B cruisers have to disembark and clear customs again if it’s not treated as separate embarkations and debarkations?  Cruise lines see it as two different trips.  
 

[markeb]

1 hour ago, DaKahuna said:

 

 

Thanks.  I now understand.  It is not where the ship cruise starts/stop but where you embark and debark. 
 

 Makes me now question why B2B cruisers have to disembark and clear customs again if it’s not treated as separate embarkations and debarkations?  Cruise lines see it as two different trips.  
 

 

Totally different laws. They are two trips for customs and immigration purposes. But the PVSA only considers where you as an individual begin and end. You'll clear customs and immigration every time you enter the US (in this case) (or the first time on that cruise). But if the combination of cruises takes you from one US port to a different US port without a qualifying "distant" stop, the cruise line has a violation.

[Cruising Is Bliss]

3 hours ago, DaKahuna said:

Thanks.  I now understand.  It is not where the ship cruise starts/stop but where you embark and debark.  Makes me now question why B2B cruisers have to disembark and clear customs again if it’s not treated as separate embarkations and debarkations?  Cruise lines see it as two different trips.  
 

 

B2Bs disembarking is not the cruise lines. In US ports it's an Immigration & Customs (ICE) requirement for the ship to get to "zero count" with only working crew on board, before any new passengers can board. Outside the US B2Bs usually don't have to disembark.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Cruising Is Bliss

[D C]

On 8/2/2023 at 5:50 AM, chengkp75 said:

And, again, I'll chime in here, and point out that it is the Passenger Vessel Services Act, not the Cruise Ship Services Act.  This is important because the international definition of a "passenger" vessel is "any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers for hire".  So, the act restricts the operation of ferries, water taxis, commuter boats, casino boats, dinner cruises, sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, and large charter fishing boats to US flagged vessels, allowing the US to enforce the USCG's much stricter safety, training, and certification regulations, over the international requirements of SOLAS and other conventions that foreign flag ships operate under.  Cruise ships are merely the large end of the scale.

 

Contrary to popular misconception among the cruising public, the USCG has only limited jurisdiction over foreign flag cruise ships, and can only ensure that the ship meets the requirements of SOLAS and the other international conventions, but not the stricter regulations that these conventions allow a flag state to enact for ships of their own flag.  A single example is that the USCG tries to inspect foreign flag cruise ships twice a year, as port state control inspections, but these are not mandatory, and are not always completed due to budgetary or time constraints.  On the other hand, US flag cruise ships are required to have mandatory inspections by the USCG 4 times every year.

I think the "what a ridiculous outdated law" comment summed it up nicely. 

 

I suspect that cruise ships collectively carry more American passengers thanks any other service operating from US ports, yet the PVSA does exactly nothing to effect the safety of those passengers and protects a miniscule # of US flagged cruise lines.  

 

[WestLakeGirl]

Write your US elected officials……Congress is waiting to hear from you

[Guest ldtr]

On 8/1/2023 at 7:41 PM, D C said:

It very much is. 

Go into it with that attitude and while it makes no logical sense, it shouldn't be surprising as the product of our government. 

It actually does make sense.  It applies to any passenger carrying ship that carries 12 or more people.  As such it also applies to ferries, tour boats, excursion boats, river boats, etc.  

 

While people tend to think of it in terms of cruise lines, it applies to much more.

 

Keep in mind that in the past when there have been opportunities to change or weaken the restrictions the cruise lines have not participated.  Primarily because while it limits some of their potential routes, the risk of competition if it were to go away could negatively impact them far more.  

Edited August 4, 2023 by ldtr

[abbydancer2003]

16 minutes ago, ldtr said:

It actually does make sense.  It applies to any passenger carrying ship that carries 12 or more people.  As such it also applies to ferries, tour boats, excursion boats, river boats, etc.  

 

While people tend to think of it in terms of cruise lines, it applies to much more.

 

Keep in mind that in the past when there have been opportunities to change or weaken the restrictions the cruise lines have not participated.  Primarily because while it limits some of their potential routes, the risk of competition if it were to go away could negatively impact them far more.  

And the concept also applies to airlines as well.  You can't, for example, take a direct Air Canada flight from San Francisco to New York.  When Virgin wanted to fly domestic US, he created Virgin America.

 

Several years ago, a senior cruise critic member did a great post about all the kinds of ships.  One example was you don't want some of those international ferry companies (the ones that have accidents on a not infrequent basis) running ferries across Puget Sound.  

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, D C said:

I suspect that cruise ships collectively carry more American passengers thanks any other service operating from US ports, yet the PVSA does exactly nothing to effect the safety of those passengers and protects a miniscule # of US flagged cruise lines.  

 

In 2022, the cruise industry carried just under 12 million US passengers (source:  Statistica).  In 2019, the US flagged ferry industry (also included in the PVSA) carried 132 million passengers.  This volume was carried by 246 operators, on 839 vessels in 40 states, 3 US territories, and 2 Canadian provinces (source:  Bureau of Transportation Statistics)..  The US flagged water transportation industry as a whole employs 67,000 US citizens (PVSA and Jones Act), while the cruise industry employs 15,000 in the US (source:  BLS and CLIA).  Once again, you must look beyond the cruise industry for the impact of the PVSA.

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, ldtr said:

Primarily because while it limits some of their potential routes, the risk of competition if it were to go away could negatively impact them far more.  

Actually, the reason that cruise lines are not interested in changing the PVSA is that they fear that any lessening of the restrictions of the PVSA on routes would be accompanied by more restrictions on things like labor laws, safety regulations, and other operating expenses (remember what happened to cruises to nowhere?).  They see little to no benefit to their bottom lines from a change in the PVSA.

[chengkp75]

9 hours ago, abbydancer said:

One example was you don't want some of those international ferry companies (the ones that have accidents on a not infrequent basis) running ferries across Puget Sound.  

Or having the Red and White Fleet in SF using foreign crew, and not being subject to USCG regulations.