Proposal to Strengthen Cruise Passenger Safety Laws

[Milwaukee Eight]

bUU,

 

I take it you have Esquire behind your name.

 

 

 

Haven't you heard the old wise tale... first you fix things, if you can no longer fix, you teach, when you can no longer teach, you manage. I think bUU is working on managing but not there yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[nealstuber]

:confused: what does a company's profit level have to do with a mutual fund return?

 

 

 

If you had 100 billion dollars to invest.... And you knew you could get a 7% return in a mutual fund with a phone call, would you bother with the headaches that come with running a cruise ship company for a 5% return???

 

An assumed rate of return is often referred to as the cost of capital, its one of the first steps in any profitability analysis. It's not enough to just deliver a decent rate of return. You have to deliver a return that is better than what would have been delivered if you had just invested in a mutual fund (or other equity on the market) with comparable risk characteristics.

 

And that brings up another good reason to be against adding these regulations. The imposed liabilities that come with these proposed regulations change the risk profile of the industry, necessitating it deliver an even higher rate of return. In fact, even proposing there regulations changes the risk profile of the industry, so I wish these guys would just shut up and figure out how to tend to the business they were elected to do.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited August 1, 2017 by nealstuber

[Biker19]

If you had 100 billion dollars to invest.... And you knew you could get a 7% return in a mutual fund with a phone call, would you bother with the headaches that come with running a cruise ship company for a 5% return???

Of course, but what you said was for RCCL to exist long term they have to deliver better than mutual fund results - there were several years when they didn't and yet they survived. Other companies survive without providing 7% net return. Sure, they may not survive in the eyes of investors (who would dump the stock at the first sign of trouble), but the company itself does.

[Ocean Boy]

so I wish these guys would just shut up and figure out how to tend to the business they were elected to do.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

It will never happen as long as they are spending other people's money and the rules and regulations don't apply to them.

[John&LaLa]

Haven't you heard the old wise tale... first you fix things, if you can no longer fix, you teach, when you can no longer teach, you manage. I think bUU is working on managing but not there yet.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Brings to mine the sports quote. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, coach."

 

This is not an assessment of any poster on the boards, just a comment on your old wise tale. :halo:

[Milwaukee Eight]

Brings to mine the sports quote. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, coach."

 

 

 

This is not an assessment of any poster on the boards, just a comment on your old wise tale. :halo:

 

 

 

Similar. Another good wise tale.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[TubbyMrT]

Yikes! Anything with a bunch of (D) endorsements can't be good. It usually ends up costing me money.

 

I am guessing that this is nothing more than a government shake down of the obviously upward trending cruise industry for MONEY. They see success and they want a cut.

 

All of he RCCL ships on which I have cruised have been well behaved, well patrolled, and very safe. Oh sure there is an occasional crazy passenger that jumps or tosses someone overboard but all the money in the world wont stop that. The root cause of the problem is the person, not the hotel room.

 

Oh sure, it would be nice to have video of the event so that YouTube can stay in business. But crimes happen every day without any video and somehow our legal system and we seem to survive.

[nealstuber]

If there is anyone on these boards who actually voted for one of the sponsors of this bill because they campaigned on the issue of cruise passenger safety, I'd love to hear from you...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[SailBreakaway]

This thread has gone WAY off the track. As the traveling public, why do you hold lawmakers accountable to ensure Commercial Aviation in the US operates at the highest level of safety through rule making and regulatory oversight; however the traveling public is satisfied and silent on a complete lack of an equivalent level of safety, regulation, standards, and oversight of the commercial maritime passenger industry in the US (cruise ship operators)? I ask you to ask yourself this question. If you feel strongly about it, please let your congressmen or women know. It's a very significant difference and shortfall, and you (we) the maritime traveling public deserve better.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xpcdoojk]

bUU,

 

I take it you have Esquire behind your name.

Duh.....

 

JC

[xpcdoojk]

This thread has gone WAY off the track. As the traveling public, why do you hold lawmakers accountable to ensure Commercial Aviation in the US operates at the highest level of safety through rule making and regulatory oversight; however the traveling public is satisfied and silent on a complete lack of an equivalent level of safety, regulation, standards, and oversight of the commercial maritime passenger industry in the US (cruise ship operators)? I ask you to ask yourself this question. If you feel strongly about it, please let your congressmen or women know. It's a very significant difference and shortfall, and you (we) the maritime traveling public deserve better.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

What lawmaker has ever been held to account? I would love to hold some of these losers to account, but the laws we live under do not apply to them. Unless you are a republican then the democrat party will tear you apart like jackals. The D lawmakers can bleach bit their computers smash their cellphones and hard drives and nothing, and I mean nothing happens.

 

Lawmakers are a pestilence on society, and the only thing worse is the lawyers union they respond to.... Hi Bicker...

 

JC

[nealstuber]

... I ask you to ask yourself this question. If you feel strongly about it, please let your congressmen or women know. It's a very significant difference and shortfall, and you (we) the maritime traveling public deserve better.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

I already emailed both my senators and my congressman.. I told them all, that strengthening the economy, securing our borders and protecting us from terrorism, and most importantly getting government cost under control so that my children and futures grand children can have as good a shot in life as we did are what are important to me. Making foreign flagged cruise ships subject to rules and liability do not fall under that umbrella.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

I already emailed both my senators and my congressman.. I told them all, that strengthening the economy, securing our borders and protecting us from terrorism, and most importantly getting government cost under control so that my children and futures grand children can have as good a shot in life as we did are what are important to me. Making foreign flagged cruise ships subject to rules and liability do not fall under that umbrella.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

+1^

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Biker19]

As the traveling public, why do you hold lawmakers accountable to ensure Commercial Aviation in the US operates at the highest level of safety through rule making and regulatory oversight; however the traveling public is satisfied and silent on a complete lack of an equivalent level of safety, regulation, standards, and oversight of the commercial maritime passenger industry in the US (cruise ship operators)?

Perhaps because that's an apples to oranges comparison and the Concordia tragedy didn't happen in US waters.

[alfaeric]

It's interesting that people have a problem that these are international ships, and as such, they are venerable to how the ship runs itself. Which may be very outside of the US norms in terms of laws, and protections.

 

So they ask for some simple help, trying to start making ships safer for them, and then out of the woodwork come the libertarians who think all laws and regulations are evil.

 

Most rules and regulations are in place to protect someone from very specific things. These are laws to protect cruisers from harm in a similar manner as in the US. How is that so bad? Is it really going to change that much?

 

And I don't get why regulations that deal with air quality are hammered just as much. We were just in the port of Tampa, and the smell of diesel and exhaust was so overwhelming, we could not be outside. And we are tourists- people actually live there. The tightening of the air quality rules is to protect their lives. Again, how is that bad?

 

Do we not accept that there are consequences for all of our actions? Waste and pollution, or more open rules and laws for assaults and threats on ships- there are big losers when those turn bad. What's so wrong about limiting the number of losers from corporate decisions?

 

Seems silly to just dump on people who are on the bad end of corporate stuff like that.

 

I'm fine with a small increase in my cabin prices. For sure, it will be WAY smaller than if I had one or two rums on board. Big deal. If it gives me a layer of protection if something bad happens, great.

[Biker19]

The tightening of the air quality rules is to protect their lives. Again, how is that bad?

Because it leads to the current situation where basically diesel cars will be legislated out of existance for no good reason.

[alfaeric]

Because it leads to the current situation where basically diesel cars will be legislated out of existance for no good reason.

 

But it is a good reason. Unless you like the corporate fist hitting your face. Air quality is a big deal for our immediate health.

 

Diesel isn't being banned- it's being judged equally to all other technologies. So if someone smart and clever comes up with a solution, we are all set. So, in reality, it gives an opportunity for someone to be smart and make a solution.

 

The idea that it's not a good reason is what bugs me. Why are people so willing to discount the side effects of what we do so quickly? From the increased costs of healthcare to premature death- there is a direct impact of pollution.

[Biker19]

Diesel isn't being banned- it's being judged equally to all other technologies.

But they are - the pollution limits being imposed are so drastic that it will make them not viable financially. And it's not needed, the current pollution limits are already plenty clean - like the old Volvo commercial used to say: the tail pipe emissions are cleaner than the air going into the air cleaner.

 

When a Ford F150 Raptor pollutes much less than the lawn guy's leaf blower, you know the tree huggers are simply trying to outlaw the internal combustion engine not save your lungs.

 

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html

[Beachammo]

What lawmaker has ever been held to account? The D lawmakers can bleach bit their computers smash their cellphones and hard drives and nothing, and I mean nothing happens.

 

Or Tom Brady

 

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[alfaeric]

But they are - the pollution limits being imposed are so drastic that it will make them not viable financially. And it's not needed, the current pollution limits are already plenty clean - like the old Volvo commercial used to say: the tail pipe emissions are cleaner than the air going into the air cleaner.

 

When a Ford F150 Raptor pollutes much less than the lawn guy's leaf blower, you know the tree huggers are simply trying to outlaw the internal combustion engine not save your lungs.

 

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-car-vs-truck-vs-leaf-blower.html

 

I don't agree that the air is "clean enough"- especially with regards to ships. People still get sick, we still have "ozone action" days. The fact (which is true in many areas of the country) that cars are cleaner than the ambient just tells you the ambient is pretty disgusting. Even the cleanest of cars are not perfect.

 

Again, there is technology that allows diesel. It's up to clever people to make it more effective and cheaper. It's happened before. edit- why should diesel get a break? The EU did that, and now they are paying the price with terrible air quality problem all over Europe. That bias toward diesel is causing them to make a rather knee jerk reaction to tighten the laws very quickly.

 

BTW- your example between a 2 stroke uncontrolled leaf blower and any new vehicle is not exactly equal. My eyes burn when I ran my weed trimmer, which should remind us what the world was like 50 years ago. Whereas the truck has had 45 years of emissions development behind it, and OEM's have figure out a way to make very clean cars for not a lot of money- relative to cars back in the early 90's- car prices have not gone up much, even with the addition of a LOT of hardware.

 

Again, decisions have consequences- you can't just run something for the sake of running it and not pretend that it doesn't harm someone. Would you be ok if you neighbor started dumping his garbage in your lawn? Don't I have a right to NOT get sick from your actions? Why do you label people trying to keep your health nominally well "tree huggers"? And should not the environment (where we get all of our food and water) be protected, too??

Edited August 3, 2017 by alfaeric

[Biker19]

BTW- your example between a 2 stroke uncontrolled leaf blower and any new vehicle is not exactly equal.

That's exactly my point - cars have for a long time been less of a problem as far as the major pollutant, yet the tree huggers want to keep going with higher and higher levels of restrictions. Everyone driving around in overpriced Teslas will make virtually no diff to your lungs vs the current state of new internal combustion engine cars.

 

Biker, who thinks tree huggers like Al Gore a long time ago cared much less about your health than their own pocket book and growing gov't.

[alfaeric]

That's exactly my point - cars have for a long time been less of a problem as far as the major pollutant, yet the tree huggers want to keep going with higher and higher levels of restrictions. Everyone driving around in overpriced Teslas will make virtually no diff to your lungs vs the current state of new internal combustion engine cars.

 

Biker, who thinks tree huggers like Al Gore a long time ago cared much less about your health than their own pocket book and growing gov't.

 

So you are assuming that home power engines are not restricted then?

 

Well, they are now. It took some time, but your home power systems are regulated to reduce their impact on the environment and your health. Just like ships are now regulated. Sure, cars got the brunt of the problem- but the car industry has so many players, it took just one of them to be super clean, and the rest had to follow. Home devices have less competitors, so they don't care as much, and have less ears to have to distract the "anti" lobby. Given how crappy 2 strokes are- I'd be fine if they got banned- they are disgusting.

 

BTW, how do you envision that gas regulations grow the pocket of people like Al Gore? Unless they are invested in specific parts of the economy, he does not profit on what car companies do to make the air clean. As for "larger government"- so what. Without that, you would have companies unregulated in their ability to punch you in the face. Do you really want companies to be allowed to harm you without your input to the system??? If companies just REALLY behaved and not put a burden on society for their actions, there would be no need for regulations. But that has never, ever, ever been proven that it would work- companies work for money, not for society.

[Biker19]

As for "larger government"- so what. Without that, you would have companies unregulated in their ability to punch you in the face. Do you really want companies to be allowed to harm you without your input to the system??? If companies just REALLY behaved and not put a burden on society for their actions, there would be no need for regulations. But that has never, ever, ever been proven that it would work- companies work for money, not for society.

The issue is not regulation, but too much of it. We have reached in many sectors the point of diminishing returns from further regulation - it's certainly that way in the car industry. It may be that way for the cruise industry and the proposed regulation listed in this thread is probably in the diminishing return category.

[xpcdoojk]

The issue is not regulation, but too much of it. We have reached in many sectors the point of diminishing returns from further regulation - it's certainly that way in the car industry. It may be that way for the cruise industry and the proposed regulation listed in this thread is probably in the diminishing return category.

 

Good luck trying to convince the true believers in mother Gaia from giving up their global warming, mankind and his tools is destroying the earth.

 

Remember these people love the expression if it save just one person isn't it worth it. To which the obvious answer is not if it means that we have to go back to a way of life that can feed about 1/10 of a billion people, who cares about the other 7.4 billion people that will have to die to go back to a sustainable world. They love that world sustainable.

 

It is like trying to convince someone that being a Baptist or a Methodist or a Catholic that they are not following the right religion (insert any religion here if those offend you... including the MMGW religion)

 

I agree with Biker 1000%

 

JC

[alfaeric]

The issue is not regulation, but too much of it. We have reached in many sectors the point of diminishing returns from further regulation - it's certainly that way in the car industry. It may be that way for the cruise industry and the proposed regulation listed in this thread is probably in the diminishing return category.

 

When can you tell? Really- how do you really know it's diminishing returns? Who decides that? How many premature deaths are ok? How many non-normal hospital visits are ok? I know neither can be zero, as that's unrealistic. But what non-zero number is ok? Would YOU be ok with your kids getting asthma due to air quality? Or your spouse? Or you?

 

I bet you don't even know that it's an EPA and CARB requirement to run those models. And that industry works with them to agree on where to go.

 

Especially when the cost to do whatever regulation comes down- it's likely to be cheaper now to meet much tighter rules than it was 20 years ago. Actually, I know that- catalysts have less precious metal on them now than 15 years ago. For gas cars, there's still money range to get back to what we had, which will result in a significant further reduction. Should we not at least invest what we used to?

 

This passenger safety laws- again, if the laws are followed, there's no expansion of government, as nobody will have to deal with it. But if that kid at the child's table continues to mis-behave- his parents will have to intervene.