voljeep #1 Posted April 11 A federal judge has threatened to temporarily block Carnival Corp. from docking cruise ships at ports in the United States as punishment for a possible probation violation. The Miami Herald reports U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz said Wednesday that she'll make a decision in June, and she wants company chairman Micky Arison to attend the hearing. Court filings say Miami-based Carnival has been on probation for two years as part of a $40 million settlement for illegally dumping oil into the ocean from its Princess Cruises ships and lying about the scheme. Despite this, prosecutors say ships have dumped grey water into Alaska's Glacier Bay National Park to avoid unfavorable findings in court-ordered audits. Carnival said in a statement that "environmental responsibility" is a top priority. Nothing will prolly happen, but .... will Glacier Bay ban Princess ?? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pms4104 #2 Posted April 11 I read the full article. The issue seems to be more than Pribcess and Glacier Bay. Think dumping plastics, ballast and grey water and falsifying records. Seems to be enough blame tp go around 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
richsea #3 Posted April 11 (edited) Just more corporate snakes trying to get away with anything they can to improve their bottom line. Screw the planet. Edited April 11 by richsea 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pms4104 #4 Posted April 11 I would be interested as to how the courts would deal with any other foreign corporation guilty of the same transgressions. Yes, as a shareholder, i recognize my dividends originate in Panama. So, while the offending subsidizries may be based in the U.S., I would guess profits and taxes are handled the same way as any other off-shore corporation. There should be a corporate and subsidiary price to pay for what is happening. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voljeep #5 Posted April 11 not that any dumping is good, but why choose Glacier Bay ? - Isn't that restricted to only a few lines ? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pms4104 #6 Posted April 11 5 minutes ago, voljeep said: not that any dumping is good, but why choose Glacier Bay ? - Isn't that restricted to only a few lines ? Yes, it is restricted to the extent that only a limited number of permits are issued annually for ships to visit there. I seriiously doubt Glacier Bay is the only area impacted by CCL dumping. But, because of the visit limits, it makes for a good threat. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msears101 #7 Posted April 11 It is bad that this not listed in each of the cruise lines affected. I am not sure why it is stripped away. Yes this cruise news, but you allow threads like the Viking sky to stay in its forum. People who are on Princess, Carnival, Cunard, Seabourn, (and more) should be able to discuss the impact to the cruise line. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msears101 #8 Posted April 11 I am very sad, that cruise critic is helping to sweep this under the rug. Everyone of their subsidiaries' forum should at the minimum have sticky thread to this thread. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kmkub #9 Posted April 11 I completely agree that this is a serious issue that should be allowed to exist on the individual cruise line threads. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LauraS #10 Posted April 11 We agree, which is why we left a permanent link on the Princess forum. I'm copying this over to the Princess forum as well. 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
milolii #11 Posted April 11 Wow would Princess refund if they can not deliver on a cruise to Glacier Bay? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Host CJSKIDS #12 Posted April 11 Here is the link to the full article in the Miami Herald today. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article229069589.html 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LessWorkMoreTravel #13 Posted April 11 We're booked on Royal Princess to Alaska in July. Guess we'll make sure to purchase travel insurance. 😱 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dani24 #14 Posted April 11 With an upcoming cruise to Alaska (though not Glacier Bay this time) in July, this is very concerning, and something I'll be watching closely. But even more concerning is that Carnival, and Princess, may be acting in an environmentally irresponsible manner. I had always been under the impression that ships that were granted permission to go into Glacier Bay held themselves to a higher environmental standard. If Princess is thumbing their nose at that, it is something that could sway me towards another line with a better track record (or away from cruising entirely). Destroying world treasures (e.g. by polluting them) is not something I can ever support. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msears101 #15 Posted April 11 10 minutes ago, LessWorkMoreTravel said: We're booked on Royal Princess to Alaska in July. Guess we'll make sure to purchase travel insurance. 😱 Read the fine print. Many do not cover ongoing litigation. Just read, and make sure. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pms4104 #16 Posted April 11 56 minutes ago, milolii said: Wow would Princess refund if they can not deliver on a cruise to Glacier Bay? I suggest you read your vontract ... the line has tbe right go alter itineraries without having to compensate pax, excelt for refund of taxes and govt fees. The article is not solely about not going to Glacier Bay ... it deals with no docking at any US port. I presume that would include embark and debark ports 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cyn874 #17 Posted April 11 Soo.. I'm out to sea on Ruby Princess right now. Is this something that's happening right away, or months from now? If right away, wonder what happens to those already out to sea? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pms4104 #19 Posted April 11 4 minutes ago, Cyn874 said: Soo.. I'm out to sea on Ruby Princess right now. Is this something that's happening right away, or months from now? If right away, wonder what happens to those already out to sea? The nect hearing is in June and the judge has requested a command appearance by some of the top dkgs who didnt thknk it relevant tl be there yesterday 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coral #20 Posted April 11 (edited) Glacier Bay (National Park Service) recently awarded new permits for the next 10 years and did grant them to Princess. So they knew of this situation (illegal dumping) when they were granted. https://www.nps.gov/glba/learn/news/glacier-bay-issues-new-contracts-for-cruise-ship-services.htm Edited April 11 by Coral 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dani24 #21 Posted April 11 9 minutes ago, pms4104 said: I suggest you read your vontract ... the line has tbe right go alter itineraries without having to compensate pax, excelt for refund of taxes and govt fees. The article is not solely about not going to Glacier Bay ... it deals with no docking at any US port. I presume that would include embark and debark ports Our ship is round trip out of San Francisco up to Alaska, with only one foreign port (Victoria). What could the cruise line even do, other than cancelling or having 9 sea days with one scheduled half day stop in VIctoria? Is there any precedent for something like this? We have cruise insurance (including cancel for any reason -- although that covers only up to 75%). But when I look through our policy for covered reasons for the 100% trip cancellation benefit it only lists cancellation due to bankruptcy or default of the common carrier/travel supplier/etc. It doesn't state anything, anywhere, about litigation related issues. So... I'm guessing that would leave us with only the 75% coverage. 😞 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MFR #22 Posted April 11 Rather than thinking about how this may affect our own cruise plans, we should be thinking about whether we want to continue to give our money to a corporation that has su total disregard for the health of the world's oceans. Who is willing to boycott CCL until they clean up their act? 9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coral #23 Posted April 11 11 minutes ago, Dani24 said: Our ship is round trip out of San Francisco up to Alaska, with only one foreign port (Victoria). What could the cruise line even do, other than cancelling or having 9 sea days with one scheduled half day stop in VIctoria? Is there any precedent for something like this? We have cruise insurance (including cancel for any reason -- although that covers only up to 75%). But when I look through our policy for covered reasons for the 100% trip cancellation benefit it only lists cancellation due to bankruptcy or default of the common carrier/travel supplier/etc. It doesn't state anything, anywhere, about litigation related issues. So... I'm guessing that would leave us with only the 75% coverage. 😞 Can you upgrade to the Platinum coverage? That does 100% in future cruise credit for cancelling for any reason. If you are past final payment, you can't. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul929207 #24 Posted April 11 I thought RCI was banned from Glacier Bay for dumping waste there. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coral #25 Posted April 11 (edited) 3 minutes ago, paul929207 said: I thought RCI was banned from Glacier Bay for dumping waste there. National Parks is letting them back in. Not sure when they will appear - maybe 2021. I also don't know when they say RCI does that mean they are going to put RCL ships in or Azamara ships in..... No one knows the plan yet. Edited April 11 by Coral 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
