PVSA Ruling

[PrincessShmoo]

Why doesn't someone in Congress push to amend the PVSA law? The law was enacted 124 years ago when the world's and America's economies were very different from what they are today.

I'm sure there would be support for this change from the cruise industry and from tourism groups in American ports that might derive more business if the law were changed. There would probably be minimal opposition from the American shipbuilding industry, which is a shadow of its former self.

There would be numerous benefits for passengers if this archaic law were changed. Not only could they do itineraries like Honolulu to San Diego, cruise lines like Disney could plan more cruises to American ports (like Savannah and Charleston) and fewer to squalid foreign ports like Nassau.

Write your congressperson. It's absurd that our cruise choices are restricted by a complicated 1886 law that was designed to protect an industry that for the most part no longer exists.

There was an attempt to change it some time ago. Only problem was, they didn't want to eliminate the law entirely, and the proposed changes made the new law just as unpalatable as the current one.

They wanted to change the obligatory port call (currently a ship just has to tie up - no time limit) to a 48 hour stop. And foreign port stops must equal more than 50% of the total port time (not just one stop).

The proposed changes were made by the CBP office, with input by Norwegian Cruise Lines (trying to protect their dominant position in Hawaii). You can read about it here:
http://www.cruise-addicts.com/forums/f4/more-protests-pvsa-proposed-changes-126860-print/

I don't see any changes anytime soon.

 

[DahliaRW]

There was an attempt to change it some time ago. Only problem was, they didn't want to eliminate the law entirely, and the proposed changes made the new law just as unpalatable as the current one.

They wanted to change the obligatory port call (currently a ship just has to tie up - no time limit) to a 48 hour stop. And foreign port stops must equal more than 50% of the total port time (not just one stop).

The proposed changes were made by the CBP office, with input by Norwegian Cruise Lines (trying to protect their dominant position in Hawaii). You can read about it here:
http://www.cruise-addicts.com/forums/f4/more-protests-pvsa-proposed-changes-126860-print/

I don't see any changes anytime soon.

I agree. It won't get changed. That being said, I think getting rid of the law would help the cruise industry here in Seattle, we could compete with the longer one way cruises that sail out of Vancouver - and if no foreign stop was required, better itineraries. I bet there could even be some Seattle-Hawaii one ways. The cruise ships would still be foreign flagged, but it would help local tourism and cruise revenue. But not going to happen, unfortunately.

 

[twindaddy]

I wonder if DCL would let you leave the vessel in Vancouver on debark day, clear customs, you are gone.

...and then pick you up later that night in Victoria....you could take the ferry over there. They wouldnt have to dock, just send a tender out for you.

Just tossing out ideas, that might be too much effort for just a few passengers.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

I wonder if DCL would let you leave the vessel in Vancouver on debark day, clear customs, you are gone.

...and then pick you up later that night in Victoria....you could take the ferry over there. They wouldnt have to dock, just send a tender out for you.

Just tossing out ideas, that might be too much effort for just a few passengers.

I'm going to guess, no.

Since the PVSA only looks at where the passenger embarked and disembarked (regardless of breaks during the cruise), as long as it's the same ship on a continuous voyage, it would be a violation.

Since the cruise from Vancouver to San Diego is how that particular cruise is sold, that's how the PVSA would view it. Not as a Victoria to San Diego cruise.

If the cruise from Hawaii is sold as a Hawaii/Vancouver cruise. And then there is a one night cruise Vancouver/Victoria, followed by a Victoria/San Diego cruise, then a passenger could get off the ship in Vancouver, travel to Victoria, and board for the Victoria/San Diego cruise. Since there would be a break in the continuous aspect of the voyage from Hawaii to San Diego (the Vancouver/Victoria separate cruise), it would be allowed.

 

[twindaddy]

I'm going to guess, no.

Since the PVSA only looks at where the passenger embarked and disembarked (regardless of breaks during the cruise), as long as it's the same ship on a continuous voyage, it would be a violation.

Since the cruise from Vancouver to San Diego is how that particular cruise is sold, that's how the PVSA would view it. Not as a Victoria to San Diego cruise.

If the cruise from Hawaii is sold as a Hawaii/Vancouver cruise. And then there is a one night cruise Vancouver/Victoria, followed by a Victoria/San Diego cruise, then a passenger could get off the ship in Vancouver, travel to Victoria, and board for the Victoria/San Diego cruise. Since there would be a break in the continuous aspect of the voyage from Hawaii to San Diego (the Vancouver/Victoria separate cruise), it would be allowed.

Yeah, I am betting you are right.

With all the serious laws in this country that are not enforced (sorry, not trying to get political), it is just stupid that a 150 year old law can mess up someones vacation.

 

[twindaddy]

If I am reading correctly, a PVSA violation is a $300 fee.

Just add it to my cruise fare and call it a day! I would save that much on airfare if I was sailing the denied itinerary.

 

[DahliaRW]

If I am reading correctly, a PVSA violation is a $300 fee.

Just add it to my cruise fare and call it a day! I would save that much on airfare if I was sailing the denied itinerary.

Except the cruise line can face consequences for knowingly violating the law, like not being allowed at US ports.

 

[Malefigrunt]

If I am reading correctly, a PVSA violation is a $300 fee.

Just add it to my cruise fare and call it a day! I would save that much on airfare if I was sailing the denied itinerary.

The fine is $300 per person. For a large family, that would add up in a hurry.

 

[bwanabobby]

That's exactly what I told the supervisor when he called me. I said I'd pay the $300 fine. He replied that the fine is for unknowingly letting this happen. He alluded that the cruise line could lose the right to use US ports if they ignore the law.

 

[bwanabobby]

I sent an email to my Congressman. If he replies with anything worthwhile, I'll post.

 

[richw2]

I sent an email to my Congressman. If he replies with anything worthwhile, I'll post.

he will reply "yes its a law since 1886"...

 

[jlemieu1]

Yeah, I am betting you are right.

With all the serious laws in this country that are not enforced (sorry, not trying to get political), it is just stupid that a 150 year old law can mess up someones vacation.

It's a source of revenue for the government. Good luck trying to take a dime from them. Also there is no automatic charge to the cruise line. In the case of illness and you need to break the rule and the cruise line fees you. You have the right FOIA CBP to see if the cruise line was actually fined with your incident. Which implies they may not always fine.

 

[bwanabobby]

Another unusual thing happened today. When the Supervisor called, he indicated they were going to drop the 3rd leg of our cruise ( Vancouver to San Diego) to make the cruise legal. Today I received an email welcoming us to the Vancouver to San Diego cruise, with no mention of the other 2 legs. I checked on-line and all 3 legs are still showing. So I don't know if something has changed or if the paper trail hasn't caught up yet.

 

[NancyIL]

Another unusual thing happened today. When the Supervisor called, he indicated they were going to drop the 3rd leg of our cruise ( Vancouver to San Diego) to make the cruise legal. Today I received an email welcoming us to the Vancouver to San Diego cruise, with no mention of the other 2 legs. I checked on-line and all 3 legs are still showing. So I don't know if something has changed or if the paper trail hasn't caught up yet.

Or maybe DCL got their facts straight - that the b2b2b doesn't violate the PVSA.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Or maybe DCL got their facts straight - that the b2b2b doesn't violate the PVSA.

I agree!

However, since it's DCL, I'd adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Give it a couple of weeks and see if the 3 cruises are still there. At that point I'd be more likely to think it's set.

 

[jlemieu1]

I hope they saw my poorly worked PAXLST message about CBP/TSA/DHS