PVSA Ruling

[bwanabobby]

As information, I had booked the Wonder from Vancouver to Honolulu, then back to Vancouver, then to San Diego thinking this met all the provisions of the PVSA act of 1886. Disney booked the cruise, also thinking it met all the requirements. But they contacted Customs which ruled it was an illegal cruise in violation of PVSA. I read the act and it does not violate it. But I guess better to find out now then to be denied boarding. I had to cancel the Vancouver to San Diego portion of the trip!

 

[KalamityJane]

How does it not violate it? From what I have read, it does. I'm sorry you had to cancel

 

[mmouse37]

As information, I had booked the Wonder from Vancouver to Honolulu, then back to Vancouver, then to San Diego thinking this met all the provisions of the PVSA act of 1886. Disney booked the cruise, also thinking it met all the requirements. But they contacted Customs which ruled it was an illegal cruise in violation of PVSA. I read the act and it does not violate it. But I guess better to find out now then to be denied boarding. I had to cancel the Vancouver to San Diego portion of the trip!

It must violate the PVSA act or Disney would have let you kept the booking. When Hawaii first opened DCL did allow the back to back with Vancouver to SD. They quickly realized it was not allowed and let people know they could not book the B2B with SD. You can do both Hawaii cruises B2B with no problem, just not the 2nd Hawaii and Vancouver to SD.

MJ

 

[DizMagic]

Sorry to hijack, but would the SD to Vancouver repo with Alaskan as B2B violate?

 

[PrincessShmoo]

As information, I had booked the Wonder from Vancouver to Honolulu, then back to Vancouver, then to San Diego thinking this met all the provisions of the PVSA act of 1886. Disney booked the cruise, also thinking it met all the requirements. But they contacted Customs which ruled it was an illegal cruise in violation of PVSA. I read the act and it does not violate it. But I guess better to find out now then to be denied boarding. I had to cancel the Vancouver to San Diego portion of the trip!

The PVSA states that a non-US fagged ship (Disney is flagged in the Bahamas) may NOT transport a passenger from one US port to a different US port without a stop in a distant foreign port. There are no distant foreign ports on any of those cruises. And doing a B2B is viewed as one cruise, regardless if you have different reservation numbers.

DCL (well, many of her guests) got burned on this with the 2012 cruises from Los Angeles/Vancouver; Vancouver/Seattle.

I agree with you that the 3 way B2B2B should be permissible. I'm wondering if they erring on the side of caution now?

I would call and speak to a supervisor and point out that they need a better clarification on this. Perhaps they are concerned with the Hawaii-Vancouver-San Diego portion and didn't realize that you are actually starting your trip in Vancouver. So that your trip is (overall) Vancouver to San Diego.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Sorry to hijack, but would the SD to Vancouver repo with Alaskan as B2B violate?

No, as the overall cruise would be San Diego to Vancouver, there is no violation there.

 

[bwanabobby]

According to the Disney Supervisor who called me, the U.S. Official indicated Vancouver was too close to be considered too close to be considered OK. That actually sounds ridiculous to me. But the San Diego leg would've been nice, but I've been there before. The Hawaii legs were the important portion of the cruise. Maybe this will give me an excuse for a Panama Canal cruise from the East to San Diego in the future.

 

[jlemieu1]

Can't this be cleared if the booking is broken up into seperate booking and clearing Customs at the ports in question. Namely exit ship in VAN then clear Customs than reboarding for VAN to SD leg. If the Gov't get's the information in different booking request(PNR's) which should clear DHS?

 

[Malefigrunt]

Can't this be cleared if the booking is broken up into seperate booking and clearing Customs at the ports in question. Namely exit ship in VAN then clear Customs than reboarding for VAN to SD leg. If the Gov't get's the information in different booking request(PNR's) which should clear DHS?

They tried something similar with the Alaska cruises and that's when the passengers were told no-can-do, after many of them had already booked non-refundable air fare.

 

[lbgraves]

Sorry, but DCL absolutely planned these cruises knowing full well that people wouldn't be able to do a B2B because it would violate PVSA. They knew this because they were stopped from allowing anyone to do this the LAST time they had the same itineraries scheduled. That time they got through with the first one, but got in trouble. The second time they had to notify people a couple months before the cruise date to let them know that it wouldn't be allowed. People questioned DCL citing this exact thing when those cruises opened for booking. You don't learn an expensive lesson that requires notifying hundreds of guests that they have to cancel a cruise and NOT remember it.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Can't this be cleared if the booking is broken up into seperate booking and clearing Customs at the ports in question. Namely exit ship in VAN then clear Customs than reboarding for VAN to SD leg. If the Gov't get's the information in different booking request(PNR's) which should clear DHS?

No. Believe me, many cruiselines have tried this to circumvent the PVSA, but it doesn't work.

In the eyes of the PVSA it's a continuous voyage if the passenger is on the same ship from embarkation to debarkation. Regardless if it's in reality separate cruises (with separate reservation numbers). Even if a passenger debarks the ship, clears customs. As long the passenger reboards the same (foreign-flagged) ship and continues on, it's deemed one passage.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Sorry, but DCL absolutely planned these cruises knowing full well that people wouldn't be able to do a B2B because it would violate PVSA. They knew this because they were stopped from allowing anyone to do this the LAST time they had the same itineraries scheduled. That time they got through with the first one, but got in trouble. The second time they had to notify people a couple months before the cruise date to let them know that it wouldn't be allowed. People questioned DCL citing this exact thing when those cruises opened for booking. You don't learn an expensive lesson that requires notifying hundreds of guests that they have to cancel a cruise and NOT remember it.

Yes, a Hawaii/Vancouver; Vancouver/San Diego cruise will violate the PVSA. And DCL is (or should be) aware of this with the problems on the 2012 cruises.

However, this issue here is that the guest booked 3 cruises Vancouver/Hawaii; Hawaii/Vancouver; Vancouver/San Diego. And, it should be allowable, as the overall trip would then be Vancouver/San Diego (just like the repo). DCL is saying that they've been told it's not. Apparently because Vancouver is "too close" (to the US?) and seems to fall in the same category. But that's not how the law reads.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

According to the Disney Supervisor who called me, the U.S. Official indicated Vancouver was too close to be considered too close to be considered OK. That actually sounds ridiculous to me. But the San Diego leg would've been nice, but I've been there before. The Hawaii legs were the important portion of the cruise. Maybe this will give me an excuse for a Panama Canal cruise from the East to San Diego in the future.

Maybe DCL wasn't clear with the official that you were booking 3 cruises. Or the official didn't catch that a distant foreign port isn't necessary on this particular sequence.

I'm not sure what they mean by "too close"? Too close to the US (and therefore qualifies as a US port)? I wouldn't think so.

Possibly the official was thinking that Vancouver is too close for a "distant" foreign port? Maybe. But a distant foreign port isn't necessary.

I think DCL really needs a better clarification as to why these 3 cruises are not in compliance with the PVSA.

EDIT: In thinking about it, I'm going to guess that DCL wasn't clear with the US Official as to what cruises they were asking about. The "too close" comment leads me to think the official was thinking that Vancouver wouldn't qualify for a distant foreign port (which cruise between different US ports requires). If the "too close" comment was saying that Vancouver would still qualify as a different US port (due to it's proximity to the US), then the Vancouver/San Diego repo alone would not be allowable.

 

[Alyleth]

I believe "too close" means both ports are in North America. That is one of the qualifying factors in the PVSA.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

I think you're right. Your voyage begins in Vancouver, so it does not begin and end in a US port. The PSVA applies to voyages beginning and ending in a US port. Makes no difference how close the port is to the US...it's still not a US port.

The issue is with those who booked Honolulu-Vancouver b2b with Vancouver-San Diego. That voyage begins and ends in a US port.

I believe "too close" means both ports are in North America. That is one of the qualifying factors in the PVSA.

Only when the voyage begins and ends in two different US ports. Then a stop at a DISTANT foreign port is required.

If it begins and ends in the same US port, then a stop at a foreign port is required - not necessarily a distant one.

If it begins in a foreign port and ends in a US port (or vice versa), or is between two foreign ports, the act does not apply.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

I believe "too close" means both ports are in North America. That is one of the qualifying factors in the PVSA.

The PVSA concerns transport of passengers between "US ports," not "North American ports".

to control and oversee vessels arriving in, and departing from, U.S. ports and the coastwise transportation of passengers between U.S. ports.

and

Coastwise Laws
Generally, the coastwise laws prohibit the transportation of passengers or merchandise between points in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws in any vessel other than a coastwise-qualified vessel.

http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pvsa_icp_3.pdf

 

[lilpooh108]

Sorry, but DCL absolutely planned these cruises knowing full well that people wouldn't be able to do a B2B because it would violate PVSA. They knew this because they were stopped from allowing anyone to do this the LAST time they had the same itineraries scheduled. That time they got through with the first one, but got in trouble. The second time they had to notify people a couple months before the cruise date to let them know that it wouldn't be allowed. People questioned DCL citing this exact thing when those cruises opened for booking. You don't learn an expensive lesson that requires notifying hundreds of guests that they have to cancel a cruise and NOT remember it.

I remember this happened last time, and I'm shocked that DCL did this again. Bad planning. But at least they found out early enough so that hopefully no one has made nonrefundable plans yet. Airfare doesn't get released until 330 days out anyway.

 

[glindamood]

Legal docs drive me nuts. It would be so nice if DCL would not allow passengers to book cruises where this was a problem. We are on the Wonder from Miami to Vancouver next year and I certainly hope that is not a problem.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Legal docs drive me nuts. It would be so nice if DCL would not allow passengers to book cruises where this was a problem. We are on the Wonder from Miami to Vancouver next year and I certainly hope that is not a problem.

Miami to Vancouver will not be a problem. It does not begin and end in different US ports. Plus, a Panama Canal cruise typically stops at a distant foreign port (usually Aruba, or Cartagena).

 

[SuperRob]

There's a reason why those Hawaiian cruises were making stops in Ensenada ... it was to get around some of the laws.

It's ridiculous that Vancouver isn't considered a foreign port. It's still a different country. I think Disney just doesn't want to fight it, which is a shame.