Judge threatens to stop Carnival ships from docking In US

[LauraS]

1 hour ago, Outhaul said:

Appreciate your vigilance.  As a newbee to Cruise Critic (and cruising), did you also sticky link this to Holland America Lines.  I am not sure where sticky links show up; but if it's there, I am not smart eough to find the link.  Thanks.  

 

Hello:  We do not feel the need to sticky this particular information.

[nukesubsailor]

Have these allegations been proven in court yet?  I thought the judge was not going to rule until June so I thought the trial was yet to take place.

[Host CJSKIDS]

11 minutes ago, nukesubsailor said:

Have these allegations been proven in court yet?  I thought the judge was not going to rule until June so I thought the trial was yet to take place.

 

Judge Seitz isn't going to rule until June.  I'm hoping it's an open hearing since the courthouse is right here in downtown Miami.  I'm going to keep an eye on her calendar and head down to watch if it is.

[Host CJSKIDS]

1 hour ago, Iamcruzin said:

My wife heard it on NBC morning news this morning but it was a quick mention and it only mentioned Carnival so I didn't know if it was Carnival Corp or Carnival cruise line. I came here for clarification.

 

Carnival Corp.

[Redwing55]

23 hours ago, Dani24 said:

 

I could see a judge doing this, unfortunately. The impact on the overall economy likely wouldn't be that large. But my HOPE is that the executives at Carnival would recognize the impact to THEIR bottom line if they don't address this properly, leading a judge to take this action. It is not heartening to see how they haven't yet taken this seriously enough.

Wouldn't be that large?  I just read how large an impact Cocoa Beach is facing as a result of RCI's crane accident. Closing ports could impact non-cruise entities even more than CCL if judge made them pull out of ports.  If the judge did that, I would imagine CCL would just relocate the ports the ships are visiting, departing, etc from.  Sure CCL would lose some money, but it wouldn't be like the ships would be sitting idle. Then people would have to pay more for transportation etc.  If CCL messed up, there are better ways for them to be punished... fines, etc.

[Redwing55]

23 hours ago, pms4104 said:

I would guess that the Federal judge could ban CCL ships from selective ports ... and that likely would override the NPS permit process

Maybe, but there is no port in the bay that they dock at.  The bigger issue would be the Alaskan ports themselves.

[Redwing55]

2 hours ago, Musky Ike said:

And yet CCL is up yesterday and so far today. 

 

That's what is making me scratch my head on this issue.  If things are as presented in the article, it would have a pretty good impact on the bottom line.  And it might even impact many to not cruise at all due to their own criteria.  Something isn't adding up here.  

It's not like a class action suit where judgement take years and they get challenged and typically reduced.  

 

For me, the market says a lot about a lot of noise out there.

[bmc alabama]

One thing to think about.  Where did these reports come from?  

 

As to the preparations for audit, I fully concur that this is not only NOT a bad practice, but is commonplace throughout all corporations.  I worked for a contractor that did government business and we prepared for audits all of the time.  So did our competitors.  Also, it was mentioned that these were internal audits, so ship's staff should have known it was coming sooner or later.

 

Second, there is a BIG difference between some engineers falsifying records and them being DIRECTED to falsify records.  The first indicates that they were probably trying to cover themselves, the latter, if true, would definitely point right at the corporation.

 

However, getting back to my question of where these reports came from, I highly suspect that they were self-reported by CCL as part of their agreement from their internal audits.  I don't have proof of that, but it's how things generally worked in our industry.  I guess what struck me was the line about how one engineer "offered to falsify records, but was instructed not to" on one of the Carnival ships.  To me, that points at the individual, not the corporation.  I highly suspect that if the corporation is under a tight probation, any potential violations could (and probably would) cost the employee their job.  

 

There was also the line in there about how CCL had asked for variance on violations due to mechanical failure but that was not allowed by the government.  So, we don't know if these "dumps" were directed or if they were perhaps mechanical malfunctions.

 

Lastly, as to the plastics, most of that was "improper sorting of plastics", I'm not 100% sure what that means.  However, I do find it funny that all of the plastic straw hysteria was based off of a research paper...  written by a 9-year old...

 

https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/26/a-list-of-the-500-million-news-orgs-that

[sfaaa]

3 hours ago, Musky Ike said:

And yet CCL is up yesterday and so far today. 

 

Let's do a reality check, shall we?  Wall Street says this is a non event. No mass booking cancellation or boycott on any Carnival ship that I can see. It's business as usual and the world is not outrage. 

[chengkp75]

45 minutes ago, bmc alabama said:

One thing to think about.  Where did these reports come from?  

 

As to the preparations for audit, I fully concur that this is not only NOT a bad practice, but is commonplace throughout all corporations.  I worked for a contractor that did government business and we prepared for audits all of the time.  So did our competitors.  Also, it was mentioned that these were internal audits, so ship's staff should have known it was coming sooner or later.

 

Second, there is a BIG difference between some engineers falsifying records and them being DIRECTED to falsify records.  The first indicates that they were probably trying to cover themselves, the latter, if true, would definitely point right at the corporation.

 

However, getting back to my question of where these reports came from, I highly suspect that they were self-reported by CCL as part of their agreement from their internal audits.  I don't have proof of that, but it's how things generally worked in our industry.  I guess what struck me was the line about how one engineer "offered to falsify records, but was instructed not to" on one of the Carnival ships.  To me, that points at the individual, not the corporation.  I highly suspect that if the corporation is under a tight probation, any potential violations could (and probably would) cost the employee their job.  

 

There was also the line in there about how CCL had asked for variance on violations due to mechanical failure but that was not allowed by the government.  So, we don't know if these "dumps" were directed or if they were perhaps mechanical malfunctions.

 

Lastly, as to the plastics, most of that was "improper sorting of plastics", I'm not 100% sure what that means.  However, I do find it funny that all of the plastic straw hysteria was based off of a research paper...  written by a 9-year old...

 

https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/26/a-list-of-the-500-million-news-orgs-that

As I've said, I worked for companies under DOJ probation, and when we had a mechanical failure, so long as the notification process was followed (ship to shore management, who then decide on a remediation option (like pumping oily waste ashore to a certified waste management company), and then to the auditors, we had no problems when we had mechanical failures.  And, by law, if the equipment fails, such as the "oily water separator" which removes oil from water before it goes over the side, then there can be no discharge or "dumping", and wastes must be held onboard and disposed of by other means.  And these requirements about non-operable equipment are nothing new, they were introduced with the MARPOL convention in 1973, almost half a century ago.

 

As for the plastics, the same MARPOL convention that regulates oil pollution, also regulates air pollution, sewage discharges, and garbage discharges, as well as regulating ballast water management procedures.  All of the garbage that is generated on the cruise ship is hand sorted into various recyclable or disposable categories.  Food waste is still one of the very few things allowed to go overboard, but it must be solely food waste, and not contain anything else, especially plastic.  If the galley crew are not fastidious in their garbage sorting, plastic can get mixed with food waste (jelly packets, food wrapping, etc) and go overboard.  This is illegal, and has been highly regulated and highly fined since the 70's as well.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Redwing55 said:

That's what is making me scratch my head on this issue.  If things are as presented in the article, it would have a pretty good impact on the bottom line.  And it might even impact many to not cruise at all due to their own criteria.  Something isn't adding up here.  

It's not like a class action suit where judgement take years and they get challenged and typically reduced.  

 

For me, the market says a lot about a lot of noise out there.

Yes, it likely will have a hundreds of millions of dollar impact on the bottom line, but as with all management practices these days, the company isn't going to worry about it until it happens.  As for long term impacts, like influencing people not to cruise, that isn't today's world.  Once the news cycle has hit another story, this is history for the general public, just look at the previous Princess fine.

[Nightrythm]

20 hours ago, Diver2014 said:

 

Not me......won't make any difference at all. Boycotts don't work.

 

Boycotts do work. I direct your attention to the fall of Apartheid in South Africa and to the unionization of the farm workers in California. These are merely two examples where the power of the purse was brought to bear on corporations/government and it made a difference.

[sfaaa]

6 minutes ago, Nightrythm said:

 

Boycotts do work. I direct your attention to the fall of Apartheid in South Africa and to the unionization of the farm workers in California. These are merely two examples where the power of the purse was brought to bear on corporations/government and it made a difference.

Does it? How many here will jump on a dirt cheap Carnival cruise deal tomorrow if one is offered? Let's be honest. It may be fashionable to yell boycott and such on CC until a personal financial gain can be had. It will then be a case of forgive and forget. 

[gremlinbangles]

5 hours ago, Host CJSKIDS said:

 

Judge Seitz isn't going to rule until June.  I'm hoping it's an open hearing since the courthouse is right here in downtown Miami.  I'm going to keep an eye on her calendar and head down to watch if it is.

That would be awesome!  I would love your feedback.  I've always appreciate your insight.

[Ep010835]

Boycotts do not work. Never have. Never will. 

[elliair]

4 hours ago, sfaaa said:

Does it? How many here will jump on a dirt cheap Carnival cruise deal tomorrow if one is offered? Let's be honest. It may be fashionable to yell boycott and such on CC until a personal financial gain can be had. It will then be a case of forgive and forget. 

Well I would jump on the deal - any deal where I come out ahead.  For me it's not a matter of forgive and forget, nope, it's where's my S&S card, my OBC, and where's the bar.  Stewards get nights off in our cabin.  Give us fresh towels in the morning and straighten the sheets out, and clean wine glasses.  We're low maintenance.

[DDG 41]

4 hours ago, Ep010835 said:

Boycotts do not work. Never have. Never will. 

Boycotts do work. Always have. Always will. It's  the people not committing to the boycotts that make some of them fail, clearly down in Texas you don't have restraint.

[Ep010835]

Never have. Never will. I’m done. 

[Despegue]

22 hours ago, Ep010835 said:

Never have. Never will. I’m done. 

Absolute tosh.

Maybe not in Texas, but in the rest of the World, Boycots often do prove to be efficient.

of course, one needs to have a spine to make it work...

[Steelers36]

On 4/12/2019 at 9:59 AM, Expat Cruise said:

If you follow the money you need to leave the United States. The CLIA reports  North America accounted for 49 percent of the 26.75 million global cruise passengers with 13.12 million passengers.  (2017 last year reported).

 

The statement about far more cruises leaving USA port is not really correct. If the United States is 49% then the rest of the World is 51% so yes follow the money more cruise business outside the Untied States. Full report can be found here:  https://cruising.org/-/media/CLIA/Research/Global 2018 EIS

Let's read this carefully.  The CLIA figures you quote are cruise passenger counts - not counts of ship voyages.  North Americans by and large get on ships leaving from N.A. ports and also travel to distant ports to cruise.  Just as foreigners from outside N.A. also travel to N.A. to take cruises. 

 

And even if we had numbers for ship/voyage departures across the industry, the N.A. market is much more concentrated geographically than the whole rest of the world. 

 

North America is only 16.3% of the Earth's total land area and less than 5% of the total surface area of Earth.  And a significant part of that is far north and inland areas not suitable to operate cruises from. 

 

That said, your earlier points about a cruise line that might theoretically be banned from calling on US ports for a period of time, would likely redeploy to other ports around the world - perhaps including another Canadian port, or more cruises would originate in Caribbean ports (for example, Princess used to operate out of San Juan, Puerto Rico).  Anyway, it's all sort of nonsensical speculation and hypothetical at this point in time.

[Expat Cruise]

The cruise line has already been found guilty here. The judge is now looking at violations of the probation terms:

 

"The probation was one of the terms of a 2016 settlement related to Princess Cruises' practice of discharging untreated oily bilge water. Princess - a Carnival brand - also pled guilty to seven felony MARPOL charges"

 

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/judge-threatens-to-bar-carnival-cruise-ships-from-u-s-ports

 

When on Probation  you are subject to the original terms and or new terms imposed by the court if you break probation.  It seems very clear that the company has done so, really just what the Judge feels should be the correction for the violation of the agreement. We very well could see all the ships under the company control banned from US ports for a set period of time.

[MissP22]

We'll be sitting still waiting for all the discounted cruises that will be available in the near future. 😂

I suppose some of you will join the boycott and probably stop sailing altogether.

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, steelers36 said:

Let's read this carefully.  The CLIA figures you quote are cruise passenger counts - not counts of ship voyages.  North Americans by and large get on ships leaving from N.A. ports and also travel to distant ports to cruise.  Just as foreigners from outside N.A. also travel to N.A. to take cruises. 

 

And even if we had numbers for ship/voyage departures across the industry, the N.A. market is much more concentrated geographically than the whole rest of the world. 

 

North America is only 16.3% of the Earth's total land area and less than 5% of the total surface area of Earth.  And a significant part of that is far north and inland areas not suitable to operate cruises from. 

 

That said, your earlier points about a cruise line that might theoretically be banned from calling on US ports for a period of time, would likely redeploy to other ports around the world - perhaps including another Canadian port, or more cruises would originate in Caribbean ports (for example, Princess used to operate out of San Juan, Puerto Rico).  Anyway, it's all sort of nonsensical speculation and hypothetical at this point in time.

San Juan Puerto Rico is a US port. (And we have sailed out of there on Carnival.) So it would be included in a ban on US ports.

[Steelers36]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

San Juan Puerto Rico is a US port. (And we have sailed out of there on Carnival.) So it would be included in a ban on US ports.

DOH!!!!!  Whatever was I thinking?  Well, who knows?  They might run a ship or two out of Mexico and then no calls to St Thomas either.  Anyway, it's all conjecture at this point in time. 

[elliair]

7 hours ago, MissP22 said:

We'll be sitting still waiting for all the discounted cruises that will be available in the near future. 😂

I suppose some of you will join the boycott and probably stop sailing altogether.

There won't be any discounted cruises, with Princess building 2 new ships, someone has to pay for it and for the heavy fines that will be levied against CCL.  I only boycott businesses that go against my political point of view.  Don't includ me in the hypothetical boycott.  What people say then do are 2 different things.  Here's my speculation:  Heavy fine and CCL is banned from Alaska for a season or two.  That outta hurt!