Quantum of the Seas Fall 2025 Repositioning

[SeattleAl]

Hi folks. Well it looks like Quantum of the Seas will head to Los Angeles after her Alaska sailings in 2025. I assume there will be a repositioning cruise from the Northwest (Seattle?) to Los Angeles. I see 2025 LA bookings are open, but have yet to find a repositioning listing. Am I missing something or do these types of cruises come available at a later date. Thanks!

[Ampurp85]

Hmmm I am sure someone will correct me, but repositioning cruises are usually for longer distances. I was on the last sailing for Allure out of Galveston last year and there was no repositioning cruise to Orlando. The crew sailed and then there was a special 3/4/5 night cruise I believe before Allure started her regular season. So Quantum might sail to LAX with just the crew. 

[twangster]

They can't sail with passengers between two US cities without having to deal with the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act - Federal Law).

Seattle to San Pedro would require sailing to an allowed "distant" foreign country such as South America or Asia along the itinerary to satisfy the PVSA.  For the purposes of the PVSA, Canada is not a "distant" foreign port so it can't be used to satisfy the PVSA for open jaw cruises between different US cities.

Consequently they have a choice.  End the last Alaska cruise in Vancouver and sail from Vancouver to San Pedro with passengers or sail without passengers from Seattle to San Pedro.  Ending the last Seattle based cruise to Alaska in Vancouver is massively disruptive to all the folks on board who would now have to deal with flying home from Vancouver in another country.   It appears they chose the second option, an empty "deadhead" repo cruise from Seattle to San Pedro.

[RCIfan1912]

2 hours ago, twangster said:

They can't sail with passengers between two US cities without having to deal with the PVSA (Passenger Vessel Services Act - Federal Law).

Seattle to San Pedro would require sailing to an allowed "distant" foreign country such as South America or Asia along the itinerary to satisfy the PVSA.  For the purposes of the PVSA, Canada is not a "distant" foreign port so it can't be used to satisfy the PVSA for open jaw cruises between different US cities.

Consequently they have a choice.  End the last Alaska cruise in Vancouver and sail from Vancouver to San Pedro with passengers or sail without passengers from Seattle to San Pedro.  Ending the last Seattle based cruise to Alaska in Vancouver is massively disruptive to all the folks on board who would now have to deal with flying home from Vancouver in another country.   It appears they chose the second option, an empty "deadhead" repo cruise from Seattle to San Pedro.

I'm not doubting your explanation but just not fully understanding. You say you can't use Canada as a foreign port to satisfy the requirement but we take cruises from NJ to New England/Canada every year. It's ok in that instance? Is there a difference that I'm not following? 

[ChessE4]

In the latter case you are talking round trip, I believe, not one-way.

[billdauterive]

2 hours ago, RCIfan1912 said:

I'm not doubting your explanation but just not fully understanding. You say you can't use Canada as a foreign port to satisfy the requirement but we take cruises from NJ to New England/Canada every year. It's ok in that instance? Is there a difference that I'm not following? 

Starting and ending in the same US city (closed loop) just requires a stop at any foreign port (like Canada).  Starting and ending in DIFFERENT US cities (open jaw) requires a stop at a DISTANT foreign port (basically not anywhere in North America).

[billdauterive]

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

[27th Lady]

We were also on the last allure sailing from Galveston before she went to Orlando. The crew were all saying they had 3 days of deep cleaning as their ‘repositioning’

[RCIfan1912]

3 hours ago, billdauterive said:

Starting and ending in the same US city (closed loop) just requires a stop at any foreign port (like Canada).  Starting and ending in DIFFERENT US cities (open jaw) requires a stop at a DISTANT foreign port (basically not anywhere in North America).

I knew I missed something, . That makes perfect sense. That's a strange law I have to say. So if you are going to a different port then the one you started from Canada doesn't count. That's a wild law.

[TYCruise]

Certain cruise lines like Holland America end their Seattle season with a one night cruise to Vancouver, and then a repositioning cruise from Vancouver down to Southern California. I'm guessing this isn't an option for the Quantum because it can't fit under the Lions Gate Bridge which is at the entrance to the Vancouver Harbor.

 

 

[Ryan79]

8 hours ago, RCIfan1912 said:

I'm not doubting your explanation but just not fully understanding. You say you can't use Canada as a foreign port to satisfy the requirement but we take cruises from NJ to New England/Canada every year. It's ok in that instance? Is there a difference that I'm not following? 

Also, Ensenada is used as a foreign port for cruises out of LA all the time. Ensenada is only 200 miles from San Pedro

[twangster]

1 hour ago, Ryan79 said:

Also, Ensenada is used as a foreign port for cruises out of LA all the time. Ensenada is only 200 miles from San Pedro

Ensenada is a foreign port but it is not a distant foreign port as defined in the PVSA.  

Ensenada obviously works fine as a foreign port for closed loop San Pedro cruises.  It doesn't meet the requirements for a open jaw or one way cruise between two different US cities. 

[BRY7]

3 hours ago, TYCruise said:

Certain cruise lines like Holland America end their Seattle season with a one night cruise to Vancouver, and then a repositioning cruise from Vancouver down to Southern California. I'm guessing this isn't an option for the Quantum because it can't fit under the Lions Gate Bridge which is at the entrance to the Vancouver Harbor.

 

 

Ovation and Quantum does sails out of Vancouver occasionally

[TYCruise]

2 hours ago, BRY7 said:

Ovation and Quantum does sails out of Vancouver occasionally

Interesting.  Then it seems like they are leaving money on the table sailing the ship empty.  Maybe the logistics are too much?  In the video above it said that the Norwegian Bliss could only sail under when it was low tide.

[twangster]

10 hours ago, TYCruise said:

Interesting.  Then it seems like they are leaving money on the table sailing the ship empty.  Maybe the logistics are too much?  In the video above it said that the Norwegian Bliss could only sail under when it was low tide.

In order to sail from Vancouver to LA the ship has to get to Vancouver.  That means the last Seattle departure would have to return to Vancouver.  For those guests it becomes a PITA to get home from Vancouver when compared to returning to Seattle and flying home domestically from Seattle.  That scares off a lot of US guests who desire a Seattle round trip cruise for simplicity and lower airfare costs.

For Hawaii they have no choice but to use Vancouver to satisfy the PVSA so they do.  Ending a Seattle based cruise in Vancouver is another matter.

In the past they sometimes offered a one or two night repo cruise between Seattle and Vancouver but those were lightly booked and often very cheap, to the point it's not worth it.    

A short Vancouver to LA cruise might appeal to a few, but not masses.  Vancouver, like all Canadian cities has high airport fees so flying to Vancouver costs more money.  For a short cruise like a proposed Vancouver to LA repo you can easily spend more money on airfare compared to cruise fare.  It appeals to some, but not many.  When many aren't going to book it, it's more cost effective to run without any guests.

[Tjones]

On 2/29/2024 at 6:59 AM, billdauterive said:

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

Woah it's from 1886?!? I knew about the act, but I never realized it was that old!

Hard to believe there haven't been any discussions about amending it. I can imagine there might be quite a few American cities that would LOVE to have more cruise ships visit/sail from them but have been prevented under the current law.

Can anyone speak to this?

[twangster]

7 hours ago, Tjones said:

Woah it's from 1886?!? I knew about the act, but I never realized it was that old!

Hard to believe there haven't been any discussions about amending it. I can imagine there might be quite a few American cities that would LOVE to have more cruise ships visit/sail from them but have been prevented under the current law.

Can anyone speak to this?

It gets complicated quick.  

A few senators have tried to introduce bills but they never go anywhere because it's not as simple as just allowing select ships i.e. cruise ships to do something as the act addresses all or nearly all commercial vessels that carry passengers.  On the surface it seems simple but it quickly becomes a pandora's box involving international law and maritime treaties. 

While the US can enact legislation that applies to US flagged ships, creating law that applies to foreign flagged ships isn't as straightforward.  In some cases within international law or maritime treaties there is only a concept of a vessel without distinguishing a modern cruise ship (which didn't exist in 1886) and a small boat that carries 10 people.  The US by itself can't rewrite international law or maritime treaties.    If the US was to chose to allow a foreign flagged cruise ship to carry passengers between two US ports (coastwise trade) then a foreign government could interpret that as being any vessel of any size can carry passengers between US ports because from an international legal perspective there is only the concept of a vessel.  That's overly simplifying it, but it's just one aspect of one complication.  Allow a cruise ship and you allow foreign ferries, water taxis, duck boats, etc. by the same modification.

Technically the aspect that impacts cruise passengers the most is a matter of cabotage and that is also evident with the airlines.  An Air Canada plane can fly from a city in Canada and land in a US city to drop off passengers or pick up passengers to fly back to Canada.   What Air Canada can't do is land in one US city and sell seats to reach another US city.  That is protected so that US domestic airlines compete on those routes.  That is an example of a cabotage regulation.   Just as Delta can't fly to Montreal and sell seats to carry passengers to Toronto.   There are international agreements involved.  Similar cabotage regulations are baked into the PVSA for passenger vessels but cabotage is just one small component of the PVSA.  

Once you decide to revamp such an old set of laws its difficult to just focus on only aspect of the law, i.e. cabotage.  If you are going to modernize law you need to look at the whole thing.  Cruise ship passengers probably don't care about the act and everything involved, they just focus on the cruise they want to take.  So in their minds it's just as simple as saying cruise ships should be allowed to do the cruise I want to take.  It's not that simple.

Keep in mind we are talking about a cruise industry that is comprised of foreign corporations operating foreign flagged ship.  The cruise industry has taken this approach to avoid paying US taxes.   Royal Caribbean is not an American company.  They don't own any US flagged ships.   They avoid paying substantial amounts of US taxes by registering the company in Liberia and their ships in the Bahamas.  Why should the US rewrite laws to benefit foreign corporations that don't pay US tax?  Just so less than 0.0001% of the US population can go on a cruise vacation they desire?  The number of people that want to take such a voyage is a small subset of the overall cruise industry.  It's a lot to ask when you consider that it impacts such a small group of cruisers such as "I want to cruise from Hawaii and stay on the ship for a B2B ending in Seattle".  That's maybe a couple hundred people per year.