Who was the hotel director and head chef on the Shadow?

[Narita]

Are any names known and how have they responded?

[harbormaster]

I was on the Shadow the week before the inspection. Unless they disembarked when I did on the 13th, the Hotel Director was Helmut and the Executive Chef was Janine. I do not know what their response is. I doubt Silversea would allow them to comment publicly if still onboard.

[Merriem]

Helmut was the hotel manager on our cruise in April 2012. When I met with him, he acted like he couldn't give a you know what. This is seeming more of a repeat performance than I imagined.

[duct tape]

I have been hoping for years that Helmut would disappear!

[Merriem]

I have been hoping for years that Helmut would disappear!

 

He just went through the motions. Do you think he is gone now?

[harbormaster]

I should also mention that the Captain diembarked and went home the day we did, the 13th. So there was a new (different) Master aboard for the cruise that was inspected.

[drron29]

What about the F&B Manager.Surely that is who should take the primary blame?

[whogo]

Were any laws broken? Can anyone face criminal charges?

[Host Dan]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think if someone became ill, and possibly died due the situation, charges could be brought.

 

Host Dan

[whogo]

I was wondering if hiding food in crew quarters or failing to log crew illnesses would merit fraud or conspiracy charges. I would like to see Silversea management doing the perp walk into court.

[chengkp75]

I wouldn't want to go towards litigation. This is a company incorporated in Monaco, with ships flagged in the Bahamas. US law generally does not apply, except in some criminal areas, for passengers embarked in the US, so unless you know Bahamian or Monegasque law, I wouldn't hold my breath. There are reasons that companies do not incorporate or flag their ships in the US.

[Mr Luxury]

What about V ships the company that hires and monitors some of the crew on behalf of Silversea.This is really the company that people should be asking questions of.

Other luxury lines have used them and had various problems with them.

Seabourn got rid of them and Regent sued them.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I wouldn't want to go towards litigation. This is a company incorporated in Monaco, with ships flagged in the Bahamas. US law generally does not apply, except in some criminal areas, for passengers embarked in the US, so unless you know Bahamian or Monegasque law, I wouldn't hold my breath. There are reasons that companies do not incorporate or flag their ships in the US.

 

I'm not sure that's right ....

 

I would have thought that any individual or company breaking a US law whilst on US territory is subject US law. In this cae I'd have thought the Master could be arrested if a law had been broken. They always arresting captains for fishing territory violations.

 

I'd be surprised for example if they let someone accused of murder to fly back to Monaco just because he had a Monaco passport......

[chengkp75]

I'm not sure that's right ....

 

I would have thought that any individual or company breaking a US law whilst on US territory is subject US law. In this cae I'd have thought the Master could be arrested if a law had been broken.

 

I'd be surprised for example if they let someone accused of murder to fly back to Monaco just because he had a Monaco passport......

 

The ship is not US territory. And as I've said, there are some criminal areas where the FBI does have jurisdiction.

[UKCruiseJeff]

The ship is not US territory. And as I've said, there are some criminal areas where the FBI does have jurisdiction.

 

Are you suggesting that a ship docked in the US has immunity from US laws? They arrest smugglers don't they?

[Travelcat2]

I wouldn't want to go towards litigation. This is a company incorporated in Monaco, with ships flagged in the Bahamas. US law generally does not apply, except in some criminal areas, for passengers embarked in the US, so unless you know Bahamian or Monegasque law, I wouldn't hold my breath. There are reasons that companies do not incorporate or flag their ships in the US.

 

I thought the main reason cruise companies flag they ships outside of the U.S. is to avoid taxes? What you posted makes sense. The U.S. would not allow the crew to be paid such low wages (thinking of non-luxury cruise lines).

[UKCruiseJeff]

I thought the main reason cruise companies flag they ships outside of the U.S. is to avoid taxes? What you posted makes sense. The U.S. would not allow the crew to be paid such low wages (thinking of non-luxury cruise lines).

 

I don't think one should confuse US jurisdiction over foreign employers whilst their employees are working temporarily within US waters - with breaking criminal law. If they have the power to stop an unsafe ship from sailing, or arrest people for other offences whilst on the ship, I cannot see how we can say that they can break US laws whilst tied up. I'm clearly not getting something.

[chengkp75]

I thought the main reason cruise companies flag they ships outside of the U.S. is to avoid taxes? What you posted makes sense. The U.S. would not allow the crew to be paid such low wages (thinking of non-luxury cruise lines).

 

The reason these companies are incorporated outside the US, even if their headquarters are in Miami, is to avoid taxes.

 

The reason the ships are flagged foreign is to avoid USCG regulations, which are far more stringent than the IMO regulations the flag of convenience nations follow. You need look only at the problems NCL had with their Hawaiian operations (and my posts regarding the POA) to see how much more expensive a US crew would be (not only in salary, but in insurance and training as well). The IMO's MLC 2006, which covers aspects of crew life and welfare, have raised the minimum seafarer's wage as of Jan 2013 to $565/month.

 

You need only look at the USCG report on the Carnival Splendor (and my posts about it) to see how much better trained US crew would be (with the attendant cost): international crew only require the deck and engine departments to have certified firefighting and lifesaving training. USCG regulations require everyone onboard the vessel to have a mariner's credential (with full FBI background check) and USCG approved basic safety training.

[UKCruiseJeff]

The reason these companies are incorporated outside the US, even if their headquarters are in Miami, is to avoid taxes.

 

The reason the ships are flagged foreign is to avoid USCG regulations, which are far more stringent than the IMO regulations the flag of convenience nations follow. You need look only at the problems NCL had with their Hawaiian operations (and my posts regarding the POA) to see how much more expensive a US crew would be (not only in salary, but in insurance and training as well). The IMO's MLC 2006, which covers aspects of crew life and welfare, have raised the minimum seafarer's wage as of Jan 2013 to $565/month.

 

You need only look at the USCG report on the Carnival Splendor (and my posts about it) to see how much better trained US crew would be (with the attendant cost): international crew only require the deck and engine departments to have certified firefighting and lifesaving training. USCG regulations require everyone onboard the vessel to have a mariner's credential (with full FBI background check) and USCG approved basic safety training.

 

I get that entirely. Their flagged country governs their general compliance except when visiting countries with higher compliance regs or laws in which case they must comply with those - or not visit. No?

[chengkp75]

I get that entirely. Their flagged country governs their general compliance except when visiting countries with higher compliance regs or laws in which case they must comply with those - or not visit. No?

 

No. The USCG cannot enforce their regulations on a foreign flag ship. They are "port state control", which any country can perform on any ship, but it is only allowed to ensure compliance with SOLAS.

 

To give you an example. Look at the recent hearings of the US Senate on cruise ship safety and crime. A couple of years back, the US passed the "cruise ship bill of rights", which CLIA voluntarily adopted. The ranking minority member of the Senate committee pointedly asked the cruise line officials what enforcement there was for the bill of rights. If US laws applied to these ships and companies, there would be no question of the enforcement mechanism. He pointedly, and repeatedly, asked if they "would be willing to not contest jurisdiction in the US", which means that the US has no actual power over these ships or companies.

[MARIANH]

19 posts, 850 hits and still no definitive answer to the OP's simple question. Saving #2 which possibly gives a steer. Is there anyone able and willing to confirm the names?

 

Perhaps looking through the other end of the telescope could also be pertinent. That is, what are the names of the current postholders? Anyone know?

[UKCruiseJeff]

No. The USCG cannot enforce their regulations on a foreign flag ship. They are "port state control", which any country can perform on any ship, but it is only allowed to ensure compliance with SOLAS.

 

To give you an example. Look at the recent hearings of the US Senate on cruise ship safety and crime. A couple of years back, the US passed the "cruise ship bill of rights", which CLIA voluntarily adopted. The ranking minority member of the Senate committee pointedly asked the cruise line officials what enforcement there was for the bill of rights. If US laws applied to these ships and companies, there would be no question of the enforcement mechanism. He pointedly, and repeatedly, asked if they "would be willing to not contest jurisdiction in the US", which means that the US has no actual power over these ships or companies.

 

Thanks.

 

Ships regulations apart and just discusing breaches of US crminal law rather compliance with civil regulations whilst moored.

 

Are you suggesting that if whilst tied up that if the passengers and crew of a cruise ship started to murder each other then the US couldn't board nd investgate nd arrest? This was what I understood you in effect to be suggesting.

 

If the answer to that is "yes" then it seems to follow that they can be boarded and investigated nd arrests made for any breach of US criminal aw.

[chengkp75]

Thanks.

 

Ships regulations apart and just discusing breaches of US crminal law rather compliance with civil regulations whilst moored.

 

Are you suggesting that if whilst tied up that if the passengers and crew of a cruise ship started to murder each other then the US couldn't board nd investgate nd arrest? This was what I understood you in effect to be suggesting.

 

If the answer to that is "yes" then it seems to follow that they can be boarded and investigated nd arrests made for any breach of US criminal aw.

 

There are areas that I am not entirely conversant with, not being a legal professional, but yes and no. FBI jurisdiction is primarily over US citizens that have boarded a ship in US waters, and extends to some criminal acts like murder, but not sure about things like petty theft. In US law, someone who died as a result of poor hygiene onboard ship, would not be considered murder, and I'm not real sure about manslaughter. So any suits arising out of sickness or death from a shipboard hygiene issue would most likely need to be civil, and there is virtually no civil jurisdiction over foreign flag ships. Many of the lines like Carnival, RCI, and NCL (I hope I'm correct in including all of these) state in their ticket contracts that civil jurisdiction is limited to Florida, but that is a voluntary concession. Look at Costa, whose ticket requires all civil action to be in Italy.

[UKCruiseJeff]

There are areas that I am not entirely conversant with, not being a legal professional, but yes and no. FBI jurisdiction is primarily over US citizens that have boarded a ship in US waters, and extends to some criminal acts like murder, but not sure about things like petty theft. In US law, someone who died as a result of poor hygiene onboard ship, would not be considered murder, and I'm not real sure about manslaughter. So any suits arising out of sickness or death from a shipboard hygiene issue would most likely need to be civil, and there is virtually no civil jurisdiction over foreign flag ships. Many of the lines like Carnival, RCI, and NCL (I hope I'm correct in including all of these) state in their ticket contracts that civil jurisdiction is limited to Florida, but that is a voluntary concession. Look at Costa, whose ticket requires all civil action to be in Italy.

 

That's fine but we are specifically discussing criminal activity not civil.

 

As an aside on the civil front certainly in the UK you can take civil action against SS or any foreign company here irrespective of what they say in their contracts because none of it is enforceable if unfair. This would very much be "unfair". We're pretty clear. If the contract was completed in the UK ie on-line to a co.uk or over the telephone to a UK number then the contract was made here and a claimant has the right to claim and have it heard at the nearest court to their home address. It really is that simple. It is only if the have dialed an overseas number or booked on an overseas web site that things may be a touch murkier but not necessarily so.

 

 

But, discussing criminal law. I think you will find that whilst they cannot interfere with foreign civil legislation they can board and arrest on any vessel within their waters where they have reason to believe that a criminal offence has taken place. They can then investigate and arrest. The only immunmity to this are bona-fide individuals that can prove diplomatic immunity.

 

If there were a criminal law triggered which could be as little perhaps as obstructing an official in the line of his lawful duty or investigations or perhaps falsely making a declaration on an official document etc then I would be most suprised if an arrest couldn't be made. A simple question and a dishonest reply might be a criminal act.

 

What may prevent this is diplomatic sensitivities ... but I sort of doubt that they are prevented from arresting per se. They'd just call up the line to see what their bosses want them to do.

[chengkp75]

That's fine but we are specifically discussing criminal activity not civil.

 

As an aside on the civil front certainly in the UK you can take civil action against SS or any foreign company here irrespective of what they say in their contracts because none of it is enforceable if unfair. This would very much be "unfair". We're pretty clear. If the contract was completed in the UK ie on-line to a co.uk or over the telephone to a UK number then the contract was made here and a claimant has the right to claim and have it heard at the nearest court to their home address. It really is that simple. It is only if the have dialed an overseas number or booked on an overseas web site that things may be a touch murkier but not necessarily so.

 

 

But, discussing criminal law. I think you will find that whilst they cannot interfere with foreign civil legislation they can board and arrest on any vessel within their waters where they have reason to believe that a criminal offence has taken place. They can then investigate and arrest. The only immunmity to this are bona-fide individuals that can prove diplomatic immunity.

 

If there were a criminal law triggered which could be as little perhaps as obstructing an official in the line of his lawful duty or investigations or perhaps falsely making a declaration on an official document etc then I would be most suprised if an arrest couldn't be made. A simple question and a dishonest reply might be a criminal act.

 

What may prevent this is diplomatic sensitivities ... but I sort of doubt that they are prevented from arresting per se. They'd just call up the line to see what their bosses want them to do.

 

Generally, what you see are Captains and officers being arrested for violations of SOLAS or MARPOL international regulations, and in some cases for damages caused by the ship (I believe this is covered by IMO). A ship is sovereign soil of its flag state, just as an embassy is. If a crime happens within an embassy's grounds, the local country cannot arrest, I believe, even if committed by non-diplomatic persons.