Alaska journalist who had reported on PVSA didn't think it applied to her

[JDincalif]

 

https://www.adn.com/opinions/2023/08/18/opinion-i-decided-to-give-an-alaska-cruise-a-try-then-i-got-fined/

[CruiserBruce]

Love it..."I didn't violate the law, the ship did". Nobody takes responsibility any more. 

 

The "self inflicted wounds" comment is dead on.

 

Hope many people read this, and understand the PVSA is seriously enforced. People don't understand it, so they can be very dismissive and try to ignore it.

 

And before anyone says something,  MANY countries have very similar laws.

[Northern Aurora]

I just read the article on the Anchorage Daily News.  To describe the author as incredibly entitled is an under-statement.  WOW!  Just WOW!

[GTJ]

7 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

"I didn't violate the law, the ship did". Nobody takes responsibility any more.

Her statement is factually correct, and the headline of her story is wrong ("I decided to give an Alaska cruise a try. Then I got fined.") The law applies to the vessel, not the passengers. That said, she was responsible for the vessel incurring the fine, and by contract the vessel operator was entitled to seek reimbursement from her of the fine it had incurred. And given that she did, apparently, reimburse the vessel operator, I would not say that she evaded responsibility. Rather, my criticism is that she should have known better. How can one report on an issue, and then not understand the issue reported on? Finally, I will note that, ordinarily, the correct response to her plight would have been to sail from Whittier on an American flag vessel. Usually, the Alaska Marine Highway sends the MV Kennicott every two weeks between Juneau and Whittier, and she would have been able to do the right thing by sailing on that vessel. Except this year there are not enough crew, and the Alaska Marine Highway sidelined the MV Kennicott this summer . . . at present there is no transportation between Whittier and Juneau except on foreign flag vessels. Accordingly, perhaps some of the responsibility also rests on the Alaska Marine Highway . . . it is the beneficiary of the PVSA, and yet it is not providing the service expected of it.

[CruiserBruce]

@GTJ, she only paid the fine because the ship used her credit card on file. She didn't think she was responsible. 

[Gia2cats]

Sorry I wasn’t on that sailing to experience her kid running up and down the hallways. A seriously entitled woman in so many ways. 

[AKJonesy]

As an Alaskan, I'm going to take a jab.  She works at ADN, so there's that, and I don't mind saying that IMHO ADN is the exact type of media outlet that defends this exact type of situation, making victims of people that refuse to take personal accountability for their own foolish actions/mistakes.  Just sayin.

[GTJ]

5 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

@GTJ, she only paid the fine because the ship used her credit card on file. She didn't think she was responsible. 

Fair point to raise enforceability of the ticket contract. (More generally: how do cruise lines respond to passengers who either have a cash deposit in lieu of credit card, or a virtual credit card, and there's enough for the cruise line to grab?) Nonetheless, I did not see anything in her article stating that she perceived herself as not responsible for reimbursing the cruise line. Maybe I missed it? What I thought I read is her surprise of having incurred the liability, and of making inquiry as to the avoidance of the fine, but I don't think I read of any intransigence on her part to paying the reimbursement. In that sense, I see it as port charges, something that no one wants to pay, many would like to avoid having to pay, but in the end with pay the charges.

 

Congress should reconsider the PVSA. The law acts to protect the interests of the American maritime industries by requiring vessels to be built in the United States, and to be crewed with Americans. All fair points, and applied to some degree on other modes of international transportation (e.g., air travel, rail travel, bus travel). But for the most part there is no longer any meaningful domestic passenger maritime industry (the Alaska Marine Highway and NCL Pride of America being the primary exceptions), so there is no one left to protect. There are exceptions to the PVSA for vessels serving Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (also American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands) in recognition of that lack of American vessels, but the PVSA applies in full force for little industry purpose. The effect of the PVSA is to drive commerce out of the United States. One-way Alaska cruises serve Vancouver, not Seattle, primarily because of the PVSA. Round-trip cruises stop at Victoria (or Prince Rupert) because of the PVSA. Absent the cabotage restraints of the PVSA, the vessels on these routes could have all-American itineraries, leading to more commerce within the United States. We, as Americans, should want, where there is practicable choice, for cruise vessels to stop in the United States, instead of Canada, and for the passengers to spend their money while ashore here and not there. In other words, the PVSA straddles the competing interests of the American maritime industry specifically and American commercial interests generally, and makes the maritime industry the winner. Should not American commercial interests prevail instead? Not just for the benefit of Ms. Pemberton--who really needs to do a better job in absorbing what it is she reports upon--but for all Americans.

[donaldsc]

She messed up  but it isn't her fault that she messed up.  Do I have it right?  I think that crocodile tears would be appropriate.

 

DON

[no1racefan1]

Sounds like she booked a southbound cruise to Vancouver and 'decided' to get off in Juneau instead, without actually making any plans with the ship or talking to anybody ahead of time about whether this would be allowed. Kind of dumb....

[DaveOKC]

8 minutes ago, no1racefan1 said:

Sounds like she booked a southbound cruise to Vancouver and 'decided' to get off in Juneau instead, without actually making any plans with the ship or talking to anybody ahead of time about whether this would be allowed. Kind of dumb....

I agree - sounds alot like a "this does not apply to me" issue.  Having written the article, she should have known to at least research this option before just doing it.

 

[GTJ]

4 hours ago, no1racefan1 said:

Sounds like she booked a southbound cruise to Vancouver and 'decided' to get off in Juneau instead, without actually making any plans with the ship or talking to anybody ahead of time about whether this would be allowed. Kind of dumb....

If one were to ask permission in advance to disembark in Juneau, then the cruise line could say "no." By not asking, and just walking off the vessel in Juneau, there would be no opportunity for the cruise line to say "no."

 

A Jewish man pulls up to the curb and asks the policeman, “Can I park here?” “No” says the cop. “What about all these other cars?” “They didn’t ask!”
– Henry Youngman

[Coral]

3 hours ago, GTJ said:

If one were to ask permission in advance to disembark in Juneau, then the cruise line could say "no." By not asking, and just walking off the vessel in Juneau, there would be no opportunity for the cruise line to say "no."

 

A Jewish man pulls up to the curb and asks the policeman, “Can I park here?” “No” says the cop. “What about all these other cars?” “They didn’t ask!”
– Henry Youngman

Regardless - they could still charge the credit card.

[GTJ]

8 minutes ago, Coral said:

Regardless - they could still charge the credit card.

While that might be true, consider again whether it actually mattered if she were to have "talk[ed] to anybody ahead of time about whether this would be allowed"? What difference would it make one way or another? The fine would still be levied against the vessel, and the cruise line would have still sought reimbursement from her.

[auntmeg]

48 minutes ago, GTJ said:

While that might be true, consider again whether it actually mattered if she were to have "talk[ed] to anybody ahead of time about whether this would be allowed"? What difference would it make one way or another? The fine would still be levied against the vessel, and the cruise line would have still sought reimbursement from her.

Perhaps if she had talked to someone about what she was planning to do, she would have definitively found out that she could not do that without incurring a severe penalty.

 

[disneyochem]

My favorite was when she stated of course she knew about the PVSA—she had done research on it for another article!  Makes me wonder about her skills as a journalist that she was surprised and shocked by the cruise line enforcing the law.

[GTJ]

10 minutes ago, auntmeg said:

Perhaps if she had talked to someone about what she was planning to do, she would have definitively found out that she could not do that without incurring a severe penalty.

 

Or more precisely: she could not do that without the vessel incurring a severe penalty, which in turn would demand reimbursement. Yet, she already knew that from her prior research. Again, making inquiry would not have made any difference. She doesn't seem to be that good at understanding what she reports.

[taznremmy]

I loved her comment:    "I just didn’t know it applied to me. And technically, it doesn’t apply to me."

Umm, why?  Because you are a reporter?  Because you live in Juneau?  Why do you think you are so special?  Geezzz......

[Coral]

It just goes to show she doesn't understand what she reports on - well, at least on this case.

[Anita Latte]

I read the article when this thread first started and I can’t refresh my memory because my free limit has been reached… ah well. I think this is an excellent example of how people don’t understand the application of a law or rule or regulation. Literally…it’s like she thought that the rule applied to the ship and the ships itinerary alone and didn’t understand that the planning of the ship’s itinerary wasn’t the whole of the application of the regulation…that not only could a ships itinerary not fail to include a foreign port but also, an individual’s itinerary couldn’t fail to include a foreign port. It’s a great example of the difference between education and experience.

[taznremmy]

I copied and saved it as a word.doc because I was concerned I wouldn't be able to access it again,  Here is the article:

 

Stupid reporter fined for PVSA violation.doc

[JRG]

15 hours ago, GTJ said:

What difference would it make one way or another? The fine would still be levied against the vessel, and the cruise line would have still sought reimbursement from her.

 

I concur with the logic here until I am convinced otherwise,  the cruiseline is not indemnified, they are liable for the fine, so they pass it on.

 

In the contract of the cruise, is the cruiser advised that they are responsible for compliance for PVSA, or just the fine associated with it (buried with the fine print of the contract, no pun intended)?

 

If so, is the cruiseline potentially in breach of contract for not advising or disclosing or some other tort of deciept, without making any specific allegations.  It requires a legal analysis.

 

It may give rise to the past questions as to how many Alaskans have done this accidentally in the past and been fined or not fined.

 

Is the cruise line responsible for identifying this at point of booking, like a travel agent would, could or should.  If so, then we should have the same type of warnings that exist for other CPB and inspection warnings related to hazardous items, health issues, alcohol, etc,etc,etc.  

 

It seems to me that PVSA Perps,  whether knowingly or unknowlingly,  should at least be given an Amnesty Bin at the embarkation process so are not subject to arrest.

[JRG]

8 minutes ago, JRG said:

so they pass it on.

 

Just to make my point clearer,  do the cruise lines really have it right in passing this fine on to the cruiser if the cruiser has not been properly advised at point of booking?, 

 

I don't know, just asking.

 

ps.  If they (cruiselines) do not have things contractually right,  will the cruise lines reimburse passengers in the past years of cruises who have had this fine passed on to them if it were to be deemed actionable at a class basis.

 

Oh MY!

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by JRG

[DaveOKC]

The reporter should have just accepted the fact that she messed up and kept it to herself.  By posting her experience she showed everyone how weak of a reporter she is.  As my old boss used to say "better to keep your mouth shut and have people THINK you are stupid, rather than open it and prove that you are".

[no1racefan1]

1 hour ago, JRG said:

 

Just to make my point clearer,  do the cruise lines really have it right in passing this fine on to the cruiser if the cruiser has not been properly advised at point of booking?, 

 

I don't know, just asking.

 

ps.  If they (cruiselines) do not have things contractually right,  will the cruise lines reimburse passengers in the past years of cruises who have had this fine passed on to them if it were to be deemed actionable at a class basis.

 

Oh MY!

 

 

 

 

At the point of booking, she booked a trip to Vancouver.