Princess Fine to be 40 Million

[chengkp75]

Chengp75, we have enjoyed your posts and insider knowledge for several years. And we did read your words about not condoning what happened. And we also agree that the industry should not be "convicted" for the sins of a few. But we must admit to being somewhat puzzled about how this internal "culture" could continue to exist in an era where cruise lines have adopted stringent anti-pollution policies and created "Environmental Officers" as a check and balance.

 

The more I read and think about what happened at Princess, the more I question the sincerity of the cruise industry...when it comes to pollution control. What keeps bothering me is that while I can understand 1 or 2 rotten apples in a crew (or organization) this dumping practice had to be known by more then a few of the crew. One would have to believe that most of the engineering department had some knowledge (or certainly heard rumors) and certainly the Captain should have been aware of what was happening on his ship. And crew members (including senior officers) do tend to move around to different vessels and take their knowledge to other vessels. I cannot help but believe that Princess is "dodging a bullet" by merely paying a fine (which does not come out of the pockets of anyone involved in this crime).

 

Hank

 

The problem is that each ship or a couple of ships are managed on the technical side by a technical superintendent in the office. This person is responsible for the operation of the vessel within budget and without failures. While there will be a corporate culture and a regulatory framework (the ISM Code) to ensure correct business practices, there is also a financial incentive to these superintendents (bonuses) for meeting performance indicators. Unfortunately, this can lead some to cut corners once, and then when it is seen that nothing bad happened, it becomes the norm. The corporate office is required to follow the company's ISM (International Safety Management) system as much as the ships, and are audited on an annual basis just like the ships. I am not aware if any corporate officers received fines, but the entire ship operations group underwent a realignment with several lost jobs.

 

One reason that I feel sympathy for the Chief, and why it gets condoned on the ships is that everyone feels the same pressure as I mentioned in my earlier post, if I rock the boat, I will be looking for a new job, and the corporate officers have more "linkd in" connections than the officers onboard do, so word can get out to blackball someone. It becomes a real hard decision to place a potential pollution incident that may or may not affect anyone against a direct threat to your family's livelihood. This applies to the subordinates onboard who knew or suspected this was happening, having to decide if it was worth it to risk their job and career to report this.

 

Yes, the engineers would have known what was going on, or at least heard rumors, but again, when the Chief has the hire/fire authority, it takes guts to stand up. While Captains may know "what is going on" on their ship, they are like middle managers everywhere, they have to delegate, and can't know everything. Most Captains are not very technically savvy, and while they understand the general idea of marine engineering, they don't understand the nuts and bolts, and leave that to "the experts", his Chief and senior engineers.

 

I've worked for companies that have received DOJ fines for instances like this (including NCL), and I can tell you that it comes as a shock to most of the shipboard officers when it happens, even if we know that the possibility of the pressure from the office exists. And most corporate officers, again, don't know the nuts and bolts of their colleagues or subordinates' operations. And this is nothing limited to cruise lines or maritime, I find that this fault is common in business today, where there are so many middle managers that no one has any real decision making ability and no oversight over each other.

 

The ISM code requires that a company set up an "open reporting" system where employees can report anonymously anything they feel is being done wrong, and the Designated Person Ashore who receives these reports is reportable directly to the CEO, and there should be a system to ensure no retaliation. This is all well and good in theory, but most crew, and officers from developing countries still feel that it is a very risky thing to do. One of the problems that I see with the system is that if a report is made, a violation found, and someone punished for it, they can't really publish the account of the reporting, because that, given the small community of officers and crew onboard the ship, let alone worldwide it's a small community, would lead to the reporter's identity coming out. So it becomes difficult to show folks that the system works, when it relies on anonymity.

[chengkp75]

I will also say that Princess is not just paying a fine, and going on with their business. The DOJ has a required Environmental Compliance program, which was designed by OSG (a tanker company that had the largest fine for pollution until Princess ($37 million), for self-reporting their violations) and that the DOJ has accepted as the "gold standard" for the probationary period. Princess will be under probation for 5 years, during which their entire ISM code will be reviewed by court auditors for revision, additional environmental safeguard equipment will be required to be added to all ships, and all the ships will be required to be audited by third party ISM auditors as well as a court appointed auditor, and any violation, no matter how minor during this probation will result in the CEO and corporate officers in the direct reporting line for ISM compliance to serve felony jail terms.

[SantaFeFan]

Who mentioned gratuities?

 

You referred to comments only made in the endless stream of gratuities threads. It's not much of a stretch to guess that you were hinting at the one topic you complain about the most. ;p

[beg3yrs]

...

Again, what Princess did was wrong, what the Chief Engineer did was wrong, but the "root cause" is corporate mind set, as mentioned in the last paragraph of the article at the top of this thread, and those people have been fired from Princess, and the corporate officers who remain and were in the reporting hierarchy of ship operations, are all now felons.

- Emphasis added

 

While I'm not an attorney, I did a little reading about corporate officers becoming felons due to actions such as the one against Princess. From what I've read, the court must try and convict the corporate officers either separately or as part of the proceedings against the corporation. It is not automatic that the "corporate officers who remain and were in the reporting hierarchy of ship operations" become felons.

[PescadoAmarillo]

- Emphasis added

 

While I'm not an attorney, I did a little reading about corporate officers becoming felons due to actions such as the one against Princess. From what I've read, the court must try and convict the corporate officers either separately or as part of the proceedings against the corporation. It is not automatic that the "corporate officers who remain and were in the reporting hierarchy of ship operations" become felons.

The first company I worked for out of college (large, a Fortune 100 company) had several senior and executive VPs who were felons, convicted for price fixing in the paper industry. Aside from being unable to vote, I didn't see how their convictions affected their lives one bit. Two of the equally large companies I've worked for since then had senior executives convicted of felonies (insider trading in both cases). Of those, most of the executives pled guilty and avoided jail time, and no longer work for the company (one because it's since gone bankrupt). In all those cases of executive felons, only one (Joe Nacchio) did jail time. In my personal experience, the felon label, when accompanied by the term corporate, lacks much teeth.

[beg3yrs]

The first company I worked for out of college (large, a Fortune 100 company) had several senior and executive VPs who were felons, convicted for price fixing in the paper industry. Aside from being unable to vote, I didn't see how their convictions affected their lives one bit. Two of the equally large companies I've worked for since then had senior executives convicted of felonies (insider trading in both cases). Of those, most of the executives pled guilty and avoided jail time, and no longer work for the company (one because it's since gone bankrupt). In all those cases of executive felons, only one (Joe Nacchio) did jail time. In my personal experience, the felon label, when accompanied by the term corporate, lacks much teeth.

 

I believe you're saying that even if the corporate officers are convicted and become felons, it isn't typically a big deal so, no worries. My point is that a felony conviction for a corporation doesn't automatically make certain corporate officers felons.

 

Here's a link to an excellent paper on the topic: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4a3c/3871ca99124d672733fc3dbaec22d160aa89.pdf

[PescadoAmarillo]

I believe you're saying that even if the corporate officers are convicted and become felons, it isn't typically a big deal so, no worries. My point is that a felony conviction for a corporation doesn't automatically make certain corporate officers felons.

Yes, your point is certainly valid (and I have sat in the courtroom during the felony trial of one of the people I mentioned). And further to your point that corporate felony does not equal personal felony is that even in the case of a corporate executive being tried (rare) and found guilty by a jury (rarer, as they usually plead out), it isn't like they are walking around with a scarlet F on their chest.

 

I'm not saying I think that's right; in fact, I feel quite the opposite. How many people are sitting in jail for possessing minor quantities of pot while the chief engineer on the Caribbean Princess was punished only with the loss of his job after a much more egregious crime?

 

It has to bother us Princess guests that the culture on their ships is that of such fear for one's livelihood and family that crew members and junior officers feel incapable of reporting blatant violations. That the industry is so incestuous that being a rightful whistleblower at Company A means they'll never be hired at Companies B-Z in the future. I have no idea which cargo company delivered most of my household goods from China, or which trucking company delivered my TP from P&G. Short of living off the land and off grid, I can't change their practices. But I can vote with my vacation dollar, and left up to me, I would. And stating that this is the reality on all cruise ships doesn't make me feel any better.

[beg3yrs]

...

That the industry is so incestuous that being a rightful whistleblower at Company A means they'll never be hired at Companies B-Z in the future....

 

That reminds me. I read the complete plea agreement today on the DOJ web-site. There's a section in there which reserves up to one million dollars (half the fine for counts 2 through 5) for the whistleblower. I hope it's delivered.

[chengkp75]

- Emphasis added

 

While I'm not an attorney, I did a little reading about corporate officers becoming felons due to actions such as the one against Princess. From what I've read, the court must try and convict the corporate officers either separately or as part of the proceedings against the corporation. It is not automatic that the "corporate officers who remain and were in the reporting hierarchy of ship operations" become felons.

 

In the two cases I am personally familiar with, it was part of the settlement agreement that certain named officers pled guilty to felony charges, and were place on probation with the company, so that any violation of the probation would result in jail time for those officers.

[beg3yrs]

In the two cases I am personally familiar with, it was part of the settlement agreement that certain named officers pled guilty to felony charges, and were place on probation with the company, so that any violation of the probation would result in jail time for those officers.

 

I understand. I read the Princess settlement/plea agreement today and there is no part where corporate officers (or any other person for that matter) are being held guilty of felonies. There is a discussion of the consequences of future violations during the probationary period but no specifics on jail time for corporate officers.

 

 

The other article I previously mentioned does in fact lay out the past precedents where corporate officers can be charged for the crimes of the company. It just didn't happen in the Princess case.

[chengkp75]

I understand. I read the Princess settlement/plea agreement today and there is no part where corporate officers (or any other person for that matter) are being held guilty of felonies. There is a discussion of the consequences of future violations during the probationary period but no specifics on jail time for corporate officers.

 

 

The other article I previously mentioned does in fact lay out the past precedents where corporate officers can be charged for the crimes of the company. It just didn't happen in the Princess case.

 

I think I remember that at the same time the settlement was announced last year, Princess announced a new CEO, and also in their statement regarding the settlement at that time, they stated that the management team had already undergone a reorganization, and I think this was done so that the guilty parties were no longer Princess officers and therefore were excluded from the final settlement.

[Redwing55]

Some of us are more interested in damage to wildlife, the sea and the environment by Princess Cruises action rather than what happens to stocks and shares.

Please limit your holier than thou attitude. No one supports what PC did and leadership is taking and has taken appropriate actions. One can have high interest in the environment along with economic pictures. FYIW, the most environmental friendly nations and businesses are those that have economic successes.

[Cruiser411]

I think that one takeaway from all of this will be that Princess will be the cleanest cruise line for at least the next five years...

[PescadoAmarillo]

I think that one takeaway from all of this will be that Princess will be the cleanest cruise line for at least the next five years...

That is actually quite reassuring.

[Skai]

Count us in as ones who won't be booking any Princess cruises in the foreseeable future. Some of that has to do with this betrayal. And yes, it is a betrayal considering the Princess' claims of care for the environment.

 

We hear it in depth every muster drill -- the lip speak. Corporate touts it in their promotional materials.

 

We are the generation that Princess is looking to attract to fill the ever existing gap as Princess' older clientele will be moving on(in one way or another).

 

Princess is undergoing a major identity crisis at the moment. The value is no longer there to justify higher prices, all the while, lowering quality standards.

 

I would prefer to pay 'more for more' or 'less for less', not 'more for less'. Oceania, Azamara come to mind, as do Celebrity and HAL.

 

Princess is moving closer to the Carnival/RCCL/NCL model and further away from those listed above. If a low price is the desire, we'll sail those latter lines. If quality is the desire, we'll look to the former lines.

 

Princess cabins are among the worst in comparison to other mainstream lines. Having to book at least a mini-suite for a sofa is a joke IYAM. Showers the size of micro-broom closets /w sticky/clingy curtains to boot, is insulting.

 

We can go on a HAL ship, get an obstructed oceanview w/ floor to ceiling windows, a sofa/love seat, a 42" flat screen wall mounted HDTV w/ on demand programming for just a little more than a claustrophobic interior on a Princess ship.

 

Hmmm. Tough choice. Not.

[richstowe]

That reminds me. I read the complete plea agreement today on the DOJ web-site. There's a section in there which reserves up to one million dollars (half the fine for counts 2 through 5) for the whistleblower. I hope it's delivered.

Me too .

 

Count us in as ones who won't be booking any Princess cruises in the foreseeable future. Some of that has to do with this betrayal. And yes, it is a betrayal considering the Princess' claims of care for the environment.

 

We hear it in depth every muster drill -- the lip speak. Corporate touts it in their promotional materials.

 

We are the generation that Princess is looking to attract to fill the ever existing gap as Princess' older clientele will be moving on(in one way or another).

 

Princess is undergoing a major identity crisis at the moment. The value is no longer there to justify higher prices, all the while, lowering quality standards.

 

I would prefer to pay 'more for more' or 'less for less', not 'more for less'. Oceania, Azamara come to mind, as do Celebrity and HAL.

 

Princess is moving closer to the Carnival/RCCL/NCL model and further away from those listed above. If a low price is the desire, we'll sail those latter lines. If quality is the desire, we'll look to the former lines.

Princess cabins are among the worst in comparison to other mainstream lines. Having to book at least a mini-suite for a sofa is a joke IYAM. Showers the size of micro-broom closets /w sticky/clingy curtains to boot, is insulting.

 

We can go on a HAL ship, get an obstructed oceanview w/ floor to ceiling windows, a sofa/love seat, a 42" flat screen wall mounted HDTV w/ on demand programming for just a little more than a claustrophobic interior on a Princess ship.

 

Hmmm. Tough choice. Not.

So which is it ? Are you not cruising with Princess because of your deep commitment to the environment or because you can get a better deal on HAL ? I'm guessing 100% the latter .

[Skai]

Me too .

 

So which is it ? Are you not cruising with Princess because of your deep commitment to the environment or because you can get a better deal on HAL ? I'm guessing 100% the latter .

 

Both.

 

It would be foolish to think that anything about cruising is environmentally friendly. My main qualm is with Princess' dishonesty. If they are dishonest about illegal discharging SEE: BREAKING THE LAW -- (and it goes all the way to the top, despite the Princess loyalists wishing to believe otherwise)...What other important issues(like passenger safety) are they less than honest about, in favor of the bottom line?

 

To me, integrity is of utmost importance when deciding who gets my patronage for a service or product.

 

For others, scruples may not matter as much.

 

HAL(along with most other mainstream cruise lines) offer a much better value(what one actually gets for their buck) than Princess of late. That's my personal opinion. Princess isn't worth it, unless heavily discounted.

[hawkeyetlse]

OK, but I still wonder what happened to the whistleblower.

According to the article, as part of the judgment he got a $1 million reward. If you search around you can probably find his name and maybe find out if/where he is working now.

[KruzeKrazy!]

Me too .

 

So which is it ? Are you not cruising with Princess because of your deep commitment to the environment or because you can get a better deal on HAL ? I'm guessing 100% the latter .

And, of course, by booking HAL the profits still go to CCL...

[kangforpres]

Princess on probation for 5 years, so if they are caught again polluting will they loose permits and rights to sail and port in the USA?

 

We have our first Princess cruise coming up in Feb. 2018, we usually sail HAL which use to get high environmental marks from a 3rd party rating source, I believe they get a B-, which tied with Disney to lead the industry. I think these ratings come out bi-annually.

 

-Paul

[kangforpres]

Here's the report card from "Friends of The Earth" in 2016

 

HAL has fallen to a C, Princess a C, Disney scored an A-, 4 lines failed and 1 got a D-. I'd say it's a pretty sad statement on the entire industry.

 

http://www.foe.org/cruise-report-card

[KruzeKrazy!]

Probably difficult for any environmental watchdog unit to give high marks to any "unnecessary," carbon fuel driven, consumption-based, "luxury" product/service industry.

[hawkeyetlse]

Most of the rankings are dragged down by the "Transparency" score, which is "A" if the cruise line responded to the organization's requests for information, and "F" otherwise. If you look at NCL's individual scores, for example, they are actually slightly better than Disney's, but since they get an "F" for not talking to Friends of the Earth, their overall score is "C", while DCL gets an "A-".

 

I applaud the efforts of this organization, but if you only cite the overall score for each cruise line, you get a "C-" for transparency :D

[KruzeKrazy!]

Most of the rankings are dragged down by the "Transparency" score, which is "A" if the cruise line responded to the organization's requests for information, and "F" otherwise. If you look at NCL's individual scores, for example, they are actually slightly better than Disney's, but since they get an "F" for not talking to Friends of the Earth, their overall score is "C", while DCL gets an "A-".

 

I applaud the efforts of this organization, but if you only cite the overall score for each cruise line, you get a "C-" for transparency :D

Wow - didn't know that. Seems pretty self-serving. After all, talking to them or not has no real bearing - good or bad - on the environment.

[Thrak]

Wow - didn't know that. Seems pretty self-serving. After all, talking to them or not has no real bearing - good or bad - on the environment.

 

I am soooooooooooooo not shocked.

 

 

Sheesh... Didn't we go through all of this hoopla last year?