B2B and the PVSA

[TRLD]

43 minutes ago, DallasGuy75219 said:

Still not a PVSA violation.  PVSA applies to voyages on a single ship, not the whole cruise line.  Not mention they would have debarked in one port and embarked in another.

 

Changing ports and/or changing ships "breaks" any potential PVSA-violating (single) voyage, because it creates two distinct voyages.

 

Whoever told @Cruise Raider this was a PVSA violation was wrong to begin with.

Have seen cases where a cruise line have rejected 2 b2b cruises on two different ships with the first having a starting point at a US port ending at a foreign port, then on the same day boarding another ship from the same line going to a different US port. While one would not think it is a violation  both times it did not clear review. Both times it involved Vancouver, primarily because there are not many ports where this situation would be possible.

 

The intent of the law is to prevent passage between US cities on foreign vessels. It would be very easy for a cruise line to work around the law running routes from LA to Vancouver, the use a different ship to go from Vancouver to Hawaii or Alaska with one cruise ending or starting on the same day. Basically working around the intent of the law.

 

With such a connection with an over night stay, no problem, with 2 different  lines same day no problem, then with same day 2 ships same cruise line have encountered a problem twice. In both cases talked with the department responsible (this was back before covid) when one could actually get call escalated to the responsible department.

 

Very few cases where timing could even come up for this to even be tested.

 

Have tried to get a definitive answer from CBP and all I can get for an answer is that it depends. Might be that the cruise lines themselves might want to avoid getting to close to the line of violating intent of the law even if it does nor violate the specific general interpretation.

Edited May 15 by TRLD

[TRLD]

1 hour ago, eclue said:

They need to abolish the PVSA  - it is outdated and serves no purpose today. I have had two trips ruined because of it.

 

actually it still does serve a purpose since it also applies to a number of ships besides large ocean going cruise ships, including ferries, river cruise boats, tour boats, charter boats, etc.

[cr8tiv1]

1 hour ago, NavyVeteran said:

It isn't going to happen, since it protects US companies. Similar laws apply to freight and to air travel. For example, if British Air has a flight from London to New York continuing to Los Angeles, you could travel from London to New York or from London to Los Angeles, but you could not travel from New York to Los Angeles. Without that law, would we have any US airlines?

Without the PVSA, American Cruise Lines would immediately go out of business - they could not pay US wages and compete with foreign lines. Note that Viking had to build US flag ships and hire US crews to sail on the Mississippi.

 

I remember doing a one night cruise...overnighting in Vancouver...and catching a cruise the next day.  You meet the most interesting passengers who are as crazy as you.

 

But, I digress.  The only states that are really hurt by the PVSA (and the Jones Act) are Alaska and Hawaii.  Both are remotely disconnected to the rest of the continental states.  Thus, everything/person that comes over, must be on a ship that is US flagged, built, and crewed.  That just adds an enormous price to goods, services, etc.  

 

Many have tried to amend or get rid of this Act.  During the pandemic, Alaska was given a waiver (not Hawaii).  It takes an "Act of Congress" literally and you know how that goes.  They can't even get their act together to allow the states that have voted to keep Daylight Saving Time year around.

[DallasGuy75219]

22 minutes ago, cr8tiv1 said:

During the pandemic, Alaska was given a waiver (not Hawaii).  It takes an "Act of Congress" literally and you know how that goes.

Because Alaska's economy is much more dependent on tourism dollars from cruisers vs. Hawaii.

 

How many nonstop flights from the continental US (or from anywhere for that matter) are there to Alaska as compared to Hawaii?  And how many cruises with Hawaii itineraries vs. Alaska?

Edited May 15 by DallasGuy75219

[cr8tiv1]

38 minutes ago, DallasGuy75219 said:

Because Alaska's economy is much more dependent on tourism dollars from cruisers vs. Hawaii.

 

How many nonstop flights from the continental US (or from anywhere for that matter) are there to Alaska as compared to Hawaii?  And how many cruises with Hawaii itineraries vs. Alaska?

 

I understand all of what you said.  Just added that Hawaii AND Alaska are hurt by the PVSA/Jones Act, more than the impact on Continental States. 

 

For instance, you can truck something from Florida to California via UPS.  You can't truck stuff to Hawaii.  I know I am stating Jones Act/Cargo examples.  It has to be flown by air or put on a US flagged ship. Our milk has to be flown in, making it cost almost twice as much per gallon.  Big stores will send stuff to "you" for free shipping.  Everything to Alaska and Hawaii has a special shipping charge added on.  

 

NCL is the only US approved flagged ship (Pride of America).  Have you looked at the cost of their 7 day around the island cruise?

 

I can see both sides.  Protecting US interests is important.  But a slight amendment to this archaic act would benefit so many.  As mentioned, this also applies to foreign air carriers.  Even Japan has a similar law.  

[startedwithamouse]

16 hours ago, SomewhereGirl said:

It's OK if they are on different ships.

Only if you spent one night off the ship. 

[cr8tiv1]

3 minutes ago, startedwithamouse said:

Only if you spent one night off the ship. 

 

I could be wrong, but I thought a side by side (on the same day/different ship) was allowed.  

[startedwithamouse]

15 minutes ago, cr8tiv1 said:

 

I could be wrong, but I thought a side by side (on the same day/different ship) was allowed.  

No, we were told that couldn't be done. We did have one of the most memorable days and night exploring Stanley Park and Vancouver, which we wouldn't have had enough time if we went with our original plan. 

[startedwithamouse]

1 hour ago, cr8tiv1 said:

 

I remember doing a one night cruise...overnighting in Vancouver...and catching a cruise the next day.  You meet the most interesting passengers who are as crazy as you.

 

But, I digress.  The only states that are really hurt by the PVSA (and the Jones Act) are Alaska and Hawaii.  Both are remotely disconnected to the rest of the continental states.  Thus, everything/person that comes over, must be on a ship that is US flagged, built, and crewed.  That just adds an enormous price to goods, services, etc.  

 

Many have tried to amend or get rid of this Act.  During the pandemic, Alaska was given a waiver (not Hawaii).  It takes an "Act of Congress" literally and you know how that goes.  They can't even get their act together to allow the states that have voted to keep Daylight Saving Time year around.

Yep, how many years ago did CA vote for that, it passed...then nothing!  Typical!

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, startedwithamouse said:

No, we were told that couldn't be done. We did have one of the most memorable days and night exploring Stanley Park and Vancouver, which we wouldn't have had enough time if we went with our original plan. 

Very, very often cruise line customer service agents will tell you either that your b2b is legal when it's not, or not legal when it is, without knowing the actual facts, and if you escalate (not to a call center supervisor) to the compliance department, that is when you will get the correct answer.  This department is where the lawyers are, not customer service agents.  A "side to side", even leaving the same day, but on two different ships is perfectly legal.

[Coral]

6 hours ago, cr8tiv1 said:

 

I could be wrong, but I thought a side by side (on the same day/different ship) was allowed.  

It is allowed.

[wcook]

11 hours ago, Mark_K said:

The Passenger Vessel Services Act not The Passenger Cruise Line Services Act. 

Or just call it the Jones Act for simplicity 🙂

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, wcook said:

Or just call it the Jones Act for simplicity 🙂

Though it is not technically the Jones Act, though they are in adjoining sections of the USC.

[skynight]

10 hours ago, eclue said:

They need to abolish the PVSA  - it is outdated and serves no purpose today. I have had two trips ruined because of it.

 

I don't see this happening anytime soon, and there is still a purpose. There are a number of American Flag cruise lines that advertise both U.S. coastal and river sailings. Believe Congress would continue to protect these lines as well as the crews. 

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, skynight said:

I don't see this happening anytime soon, and there is still a purpose. There are a number of American Flag cruise lines that advertise both U.S. coastal and river sailings. Believe Congress would continue to protect these lines as well as the crews. 

And, again, I will state that the PVSA goes far beyond just cruise ships.  It covers any vessel that carries more than 12 passengers.  So, this would allow ferries, water taxis, commuter boats, dinner cruises, sightseeing boats, whale watching boats, casino boats, and large charter fishing boats to all hire foreign crew, and not pay any US taxes.

[beg3yrs]

1 hour ago, wcook said:

Or just call it the Jones Act for simplicity 🙂

Sometimes simple is incorrect. They are two different acts.

[suzyed]

On 5/14/2024 at 5:37 AM, Munday said:

Hello All,

 

Before I call Princess, can someone familiar with the PVSA confirm if this B2B is legal to book;

 

Cruise 1: LA, San Diego, SF, Victoria, Vancouver

Cruise 2: Vancouver, Ketchican, Seattle

 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Nope.  Vancouver is not a DISTANT foreign port.  We tried to do this....actually booked it online and then was told we could not.

[SomewhereGirl]

10 hours ago, startedwithamouse said:

Only if you spent one night off the ship. 

 

I had no problem taking a 1 nighter on HAL from Seattle to Vancouver, spending the day in Vancouver and embarking the same day on a different ship for a sailing Vancouver to LA.  And I wasn't the only one as I had gotten that idea from CC.

[suzyed]

OK, this is from the horse's mouth AFTER I had already booked a B2B on Discovery LA>Vancouver>Alaska>Seattle online:
 

Good Afternoon,

 

These back-to-back voyages violate what is called the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). PVSA prohibits ships from embarking in one US port and disembarking in a different US port. The only exception to this rule would allow passengers to be transported between two U.S. ports if the cruise itinerary includes a port call at a "distant foreign port". Distant foreign ports do not include Canada, Mexico, Central America, Bermuda and most Caribbean islands. South America and the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao) do qualify as distant foreign ports. 

 

Unfortunately Princess.com only views reservations as their own individual voyages and does not take the guest’s back-to-back voyages as a whole into consideration. However our reservation system does run reports weekly to identify reservations that would violate the PVSA and advises us to notify the guest.

 

We understand you’ve already opted to cancel both bookings, but still wanted to provide this insight for future reference.

 

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused,

 

Guest Services

 

 

Princess Cruises

24305 Town Center Drive,

Santa Clarita, CA 91355

Edited May 15 by suzyed

[chengkp75]

32 minutes ago, suzyed said:

OK, this is from the horse's mouth AFTER I had already booked a B2B on Discovery LA>Vancouver>Alaska>Seattle online:

Exactly, this is the compliance department review of the itinerary.

[Bgwest]

4 hours ago, wcook said:

Or just call it the Jones Act for simplicity 🙂

I’m surprised it took 37 posts get to this fundamentally incorrect piece of information. 

[Cruise Junky]

1 hour ago, suzyed said:

OK, this is from the horse's mouth AFTER I had already booked a B2B on Discovery LA>Vancouver>Alaska>Seattle online:
 

Good Afternoon,

 

These back-to-back voyages violate what is called the Passenger Vessel Services Act (PVSA). PVSA prohibits ships from embarking in one US port and disembarking in a different US port. The only exception to this rule would allow passengers to be transported between two U.S. ports if the cruise itinerary includes a port call at a "distant foreign port". Distant foreign ports do not include Canada, Mexico, Central America, Bermuda and most Caribbean islands. South America and the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao) do qualify as distant foreign ports. 

 

Unfortunately Princess.com only views reservations as their own individual voyages and does not take the guest’s back-to-back voyages as a whole into consideration. However our reservation system does run reports weekly to identify reservations that would violate the PVSA and advises us to notify the guest.

 

We understand you’ve already opted to cancel both bookings, but still wanted to provide this insight for future reference.

 

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused,

 

Guest Services

 

 

Princess Cruises

24305 Town Center Drive,

Santa Clarita, CA 91355

Good lord, this is a first, they actually called it by it’s right name.  And got the details correct. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Cruise Junky said:

Good lord, this is a first, they actually called it by it’s right name.  And got the details correct. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Most likely since this was probably sent from the compliance department, not customer service.

[Mark_K]

14 hours ago, TRLD said:

Have seen cases where a cruise line have rejected 2 b2b cruises on two different ships with the first having a starting point at a US port ending at a foreign port, then on the same day boarding another ship from the same line going to a different US port. While one would not think it is a violation  both times it did not clear review. Both times it involved Vancouver, primarily because there are not many ports where this situation would be possible.

 

The intent of the law is to prevent passage between US cities on foreign vessels. It would be very easy for a cruise line to work around the law running routes from LA to Vancouver, the use a different ship to go from Vancouver to Hawaii or Alaska with one cruise ending or starting on the same day. Basically working around the intent of the law.

 

With such a connection with an over night stay, no problem, with 2 different  lines same day no problem, then with same day 2 ships same cruise line have encountered a problem twice. In both cases talked with the department responsible (this was back before covid) when one could actually get call escalated to the responsible department.

 

Very few cases where timing could even come up for this to even be tested.

 

Have tried to get a definitive answer from CBP and all I can get for an answer is that it depends. Might be that the cruise lines themselves might want to avoid getting to close to the line of violating intent of the law even if it does nor violate the specific general interpretation.

Maybe it has something to do with the US CBP being right on site at Canada Place and Canada allowing the US to have jurisdiction over cruise ships departing from there to US ports.

[TRLD]

26 minutes ago, Mark_K said:

Maybe it has something to do with the US CBP being right on site at Canada Place and Canada allowing the US to have jurisdiction over cruise ships departing from there to US ports.

More likely Vancouver is the only place where this situation is likely to occur. Cannot think of any other port with cruises coming from and going to US ports with enough traffic to have multiple ships from the same cruise line in port.

 

The two times we got notified by the compliance department that we had to cancel one or both was in 2017 and 2018.