Federal Judge considers sanctions affecting Carnival that could affect cruises

[bowlinmoe]

6 minutes ago, msears101 said:

The US can, has, and could prevent ships from docking. Following US maritime law is serious.  Cruises back for hawaii, have to stop in Mexico, to redock in the USA.  Even aid to Puerto Rico,  had to follow rules after the Hurricane.

 

It can happen.  The judge can wield a lot of power.  They were found to have lied.  I have been following this before now. It is pretty serious.  The judge is livid.  The next appeals court might be more harsh.   They are very strict on lying an polluting.  They are in the Southern District of NY.  

"ships" or "cruise ships"?

 

Any links backing this up?  When did this happen?  What ship(s)?

 

[msears101]

2 minutes ago, Steve551 said:

My guess is that they would allow the ships at sea back in port to disembark passengers but may not allow embarkation. Imagine if you will, boarding your flight to Havana to get on a Carnival ship  LOL

 

So it will happen in the future. I am guessing it will not be immediate.  It is typical to give time for an emergency appeal. It will also be temporary.  They will likely drop passengers off in the Bahamas, or Mexico or Canada and provide transportation to their final destination.

 

 

[FSHLOT]

52 minutes ago, elcuchio24 said:

 

In their defense, about two tons of suntan oil is dumped along each of a dozen cruise stop beaches every day. In Grand Turk last year there was a slick out to the horizon halfway to Nassau! 

 

I'm sure thats true, but i would suspect CCL got busted for a little more then sun tan oil.

[msears101]

1 minute ago, FSHLOT said:

 

I'm sure thats true, but i would suspect CCL got busted for a little more then sun tan oil.

 

 

Gray water, Fuel, plastic, and garbage is on the list.  They were put on probation.  They kept doing it and then lied about it in court.  The judge is livid. As someone who follows litigation (not just for cruises).  Their appeals court for the Southern District is not likely to be "nicer" about it.  They might impose "more"  

[Shaded Lady]

Host Carolyn- is there any chance you could include the link to this thread in your pinned thread about this issue? That way anyone seeing it plus those of us looking for updates could go directly to this thread...

 

Thanks!

[SandiLynn]

If Carnival can not provide the cruises, wouldn't they have to cancel and refund its customers? Why would this be an issue about having to have travel insurance? 

[Cutiecruisin]

Read this last night and had a mild panic. I am cruising Alaska on the Legend May 28 thru June 4th. Man I hope they don't leave us in Victoria. I might just end up liking Canada enough to stay. 

[Shaded Lady]

1 minute ago, SandiLynn said:

If Carnival can not provide the cruises, wouldn't they have to cancel and refund its customers? Why would this be an issue about having to have travel insurance? 

 

Great question! I have travel insurance for our June cruise, but this is a good point... why wouldn't Carnival need to refund? 

[haply]

So, if we are cruising on Carnival next week, should not be an issue?

 

[jimbo5544]

1 hour ago, Host Carolyn said:

Please see the pinned post on this topic and thank you in advance for keeping this thread respectful.

 

Host Carolyn

Carolyn, I would email you, but can'y (not sure why).  I reread the entire thread and truly questioning the reason for your post.  Can you assist?

[jimbo5544]

1 minute ago, haply said:

So, if we are cruising on Carnival next week, should not be an issue?

 

They have no plans to do anything now based upon the article....rest easy.

[Shaded Lady]

Just now, haply said:

So, if we are cruising on Carnival next week, should not be an issue?

 

From what I read, not an issue for next week... it may not even be an issue for those cruising in June (wishful thinking on my part, I'm sure!) but before then the article didn't indicate there could be a problem...

[gtouch]

Remember before a Judge would do that they would also have to take into account the financial impact on the ports they visit. The people who work in the tourist trade, port fees etc. It would take a lot before a Judge would use the Nuclear Option and I think we are pretty far from that at this point.

[jimbo5544]

2 minutes ago, jimbo5544 said:

Carolyn, I would email you, but can'y (not sure why).  I reread the entire thread and truly questioning the reason for your post.  Can you assist?

Never mind,I got it...sometimes slow on the uptake.

[keywest1]

5 minutes ago, Shaded Lady said:

 

Great question! I have travel insurance for our June cruise, but this is a good point... why wouldn't Carnival need to refund? 

My thought is that travel insurance could be used to cover nonrefundable flight, hotel, non-Carnival excursion expenses.

[jimbo5544]

4 minutes ago, keywest1 said:

My thought is that travel insurance could be used to cover nonrefundable flight, hotel, non-Carnival excursion expenses.

If outside insurance, Carnival insurance would be limited to the cruise portion which would be refunded.  Insurance is always a good option for every cruiser to strongly consider.

[keywest1]

1 minute ago, jimbo5544 said:

If outside insurance, Carnival insurance would be limited to the cruise portion which would be refunded.  Insurance is always a good option for every cruiser to strongly consider.

Thanks for clarifying!  We never buy cruiseline's insurance policy, so didn't even consider mentioning that.  

[Celtic Cop]

6 hours ago, ontheweb said:

As a Carnival stockholder, that does not seem to be something to look forward to!

Been watching the stock today, it doesn't seem to be suffering from this news. 

[msears101]

1 hour ago, bowlinmoe said:

"ships" or "cruise ships"?

 

Any links backing this up?  When did this happen?  What ship(s)?

 

 

There are multiple lists. We are part of multiple treaties, and fully follow maritime law (one of the few international laws we fully follow) This will start you off.  Two by the USCG, More than a Dozen under Paris MoU and more than 50 under CAATSA.  The USCG's NVMC fully controls and enforces the list.

 

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Commercial-Vessel-Compliance/Foreign-Offshore-Compliance-Division/Port-State-Control/BannedVessels/

 

Note this is not all inclusive.  There are constantly different rules, laws, and treaties that are in effect.  Any ship (cargo or passenger) is part of this.  There are boats that are not allowed in for repeated violating the Jones Act also.  Use google.  Also you can lookup what  goes on for a foreign flagged ship entry US water.  There is a detailed process that happens.  No one gets a free pass.

 

I am here to inform, not debate.   You want to disbelieve, that is your right.

 

 

[bowlinmoe]

1 minute ago, msears101 said:

 

There are multiple lists. We are part of multiple treaties, and fully follow maritime law (one of the few international laws we fully follow) This will start you off.  Two by the USCG, More than a Dozen under Paris MoU and more than 50 under CAATSA.  The USCG's NVMC fully controls and enforces the list.

 

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Commercial-Vessel-Compliance/Foreign-Offshore-Compliance-Division/Port-State-Control/BannedVessels/

 

Note this is not all inclusive.  There are constantly different rules, laws, and treaties that are in effect.  Any ship (cargo or passenger) is part of this.  There are boats that are not allowed in for repeated violating the Jones Act also.  Use google.  Also you can lookup what  goes on for a foreign flagged ship entry US water.  There is a detailed process that happens.  No one gets a free pass.

 

I am here to inform, not debate.   You want to disbelieve, that is your right.

 

 

 

Take a breath please and relax.  

 

And if you have a link that pertains to cruise ships specifically, I'd appreciate it.

 

[msears101]

Just now, bowlinmoe said:

 

Take a breath please and relax.  

 

And if you have a link that pertains to cruise ships specifically, I'd appreciate it.

 

There is no differentiation between a cargo and passenger ship, when it comes to these matters.

[chocolate melting cake]

Perhaps this link?

 

CARNIVAL GIVEN WARNING

[Micahs Grandad]

3 hours ago, Chervil said:

Could be that they are trying to get all the facts before they say anything to limit them spreading misinformation or making a false claim.
I am sure their legal team is all over this, though.

Not sure why the judge would insist on the heads of Carnival being present, when that is what the legal team is there for. (but I am not a lawyer either, so...)

It does seem in their response they said that some of the facts are being misrepresented.
I am curious to know what those are.
Off the top of my head, I would assume the part about making pre-audit rushes to make sure a ship doesn't have anything that would fail the audit.
But that doesn't seem suspicious to me, that seems prudent.
Anyone who knows an audit or test is coming is going to make sure things are ship-shape (pun intended).
Unless the audits are supposed to be surprise audits, which would mean someone in the third party is leaking the information to Carnival.

Also, doesn't seem as though Carnival as a brand is as guilty of these things as their subsidiaries (Princess, etc.) which makes me wonder if it is a corporate-wide failing or something specific to whoever is managing those brands.

Could be the judge wants the heads of Carnival in court so they can be hauled off to jail if they are in fact guilty.

[Host Carolyn]

1 hour ago, Shaded Lady said:

Host Carolyn- is there any chance you could include the link to this thread in your pinned thread about this issue? That way anyone seeing it plus those of us looking for updates could go directly to this thread...

 

Thanks!

I have posted a link to this thread in the pinned post... good idea!

[jimbo5544]

9 minutes ago, Micah's Grandad said:

Could be the judge wants the heads of Carnival in court so they can be hauled off to jail if they are in fact guilty.

It will be interesting to see who shows up, I am no lawyer, but unless required by a subpoena, is that not what lawyers are for?  At any rate, I would take bets Micky is otherwise occupied.