Federal judge threatens to temporarily block Carnival ships from docking at U.S. port

[pms4104]

I'm betting that Micky's legal team cost more than the amount of the proposed fine and that of the measures needed to evidence compliance.

[azbirdmom]

27 minutes ago, JimmyVWine said:

1.  That is the jointly filed proposed settlement . The judge hasn’t approved it yet. 

 

According to these articles, the judge did approve it.   https://www.ft.com/content/0eac4946-8644-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453 

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article230953753.html

Edited June 4, 2019 by azbirdmom
added miami herald link

[Cruiserkenn]

Great, thanks.  Over the past weeks, the Miami Herald has been a solid source of information, so my guess is that this Miami Herald info is again solid.

[JimmyVWine]

1 hour ago, azbirdmom said:

According to these articles, the judge did approve it.  

That is now official as of 7:00 p.m. eastern. 

[Expat Cruise]

The judge has accepts the Carnival-U.S. Government deal. It is a 100% win for Carnival big business again proves it is above the law.  I hope when the break the terms of probation again and they will action is taken next time.  20 million is like a parking ticket for Carnival.

 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Expat Cruise said:

The judge has accepts the Carnival-U.S. Government deal. It is a 100% win for Carnival big business again proves it is above the law.  I hope when the break the terms of probation again and they will action is taken next time.  20 million is like a parking ticket for Carnival.

 

What the news articles don't mention is the potential daily fines of $1 million/day escalating to $10 million/day if Carnival fails to meet benchmarks, as approved by the DOJ, the judge, the court appointed monitor, the third part auditors, and "interested parties" like the USCG.  These fines are open ended, and I think that the judge and DOJ feel that this will incentivize Carnival more than a one time fine, to make the core changes needed to Carnival's corporate culture.  Given the attempt at back channel changes to the terms of the probation that Carnival tried with their retired USCG admiral, I believe that in particular the "interested parties" will ensure that the implementation plan (which must be in place in 10 weeks or the fines start) and the benchmarks reflect meaningful changes to Carnival.

[Expat Cruise]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

What the news articles don't mention is the potential daily fines of $1 million/day escalating to $10 million/day if Carnival fails to meet benchmarks, as approved by the DOJ, the judge, the court appointed monitor, the third part auditors, and "interested parties" like the USCG.  These fines are open ended, and I think that the judge and DOJ feel that this will incentivize Carnival more than a one time fine, to make the core changes needed to Carnival's corporate culture.  Given the attempt at back channel changes to the terms of the probation that Carnival tried with their retired USCG admiral, I believe that in particular the "interested parties" will ensure that the implementation plan (which must be in place in 10 weeks or the fines start) and the benchmarks reflect meaningful changes to Carnival.

I hope you are correct and it does have a impact on the company that will cause meaningful change.  But I still believe a better outcome would have been if the Judge did the probation changes without the fine and then banned Carnival Corporation ships for a future time. If she banned the ships from Alaska for the 2020 or 2021 season, it would not have hurt guests or tourism. It would have given other cruise lines the opportunity to add ships for the season and accommodate the guests.  Then with the threat of operate clean on probation or you will be banned from all US ports mfor Carnival if they do not follow the terms of probation.

 

[Cruiserkenn]

53 minutes ago, Expat Cruise said:

I hope you are correct and it does have a impact on the company that will cause meaningful change.  But I still believe a better outcome would have been if the Judge did the probation changes without the fine and then banned Carnival Corporation ships for a future time. If she banned the ships from Alaska for the 2020 or 2021 season, it would not have hurt guests or tourism. It would have given other cruise lines the opportunity to add ships for the season and accommodate the guests.  Then with the threat of operate clean on probation or you will be banned from all US ports mfor Carnival if they do not follow the terms of probation.

 

 

I don't think the Judge ever mentioned banning ships from Alaska only.  

 

 

[Ep010835]

5 hours ago, Expat Cruise said:

 If she banned the ships from Alaska for the 2020 or 2021 season, it would not have hurt guests or tourism. 

 

Your statement is not simply wrong but just plain uninformed and careless. 

 

You should spend some quality time with the amicus briefs filed by Alaska officials. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Ep010835

[Cindy]

7 hours ago, Expat Cruise said:

If she banned the ships from Alaska for the 2020 or 2021 season, it would not have hurt guests or tourism. It would have given other cruise lines the opportunity to add ships for the season and accommodate the guests.  

 

 

I think you are mistaken...the impact on visitors and those who rely on tourism for their livelihood would be staggering. No cruise line has extra ships standing by to take over all the Carnival Corp. Alaskan itineraries without a huge disruption to their own business. That doesn’t even take into consideration the enormous Princess/HAL infrastructure in the interior with pre- and post-cruise tours.

 

What needs to change, in my opinion, is the corporate culture that allowed/encouraged the violations in the first place. There’s a very fine line between cutting costs/being fiscally conservative and implementing or encouraging practices that are harmful to the environment, people, hardware, etc. If you can force change without harming innocent people financially then that’s always preferable.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Cindy

[happy cruzer]

The terms of probation are not a cake walk.

[Ep010835]

19 hours ago, JimmyVWine said:

If PCL follows suit, we are sure to hear from those who will bemoan the installation of pumps in their suite tubs and showers.

 

No hand wringing here. Wife and I both use bar soap to bathe. 

[Globehoppers]

20 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Here are some quotes from my posts on the Carnival thread where Heald's "notice" was shown as well:

 

This is like they are saying, "if you'll put up without these items, and the other things we will be discontinuing" we will be in full compliance, when in fact their violations run from Oil Record Book falsifications to venting ozone depleting refrigerants to the atmosphere and just a host of violations that cover every single Annex of MARPOL (each annex of MARPOL (Marine Pollution Convention) covers a different type of pollution:  oil, air emissions, refrigerants, garbage, sewage, etc).

 

 

This is like Oz saying "pay no attention to the pollution we are doing behind the curtain".  This just goes to show, to me, that they still don't get it.  They should come completely clean and admit to things that passengers would never see, and get ahead of what could be a defining moment for the corporation.

 

I find this statement to be insulting.

 

Agree.  Extremely insulting.  However, the cruising public in general doesn't understand any of this - or maybe doesn't care as long as the drink package isn't increased in price.  This is corporate's alternative reality, or maybe "fake news," aimed at its customers.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Globehoppers

[USCcruisecrazy]

4 hours ago, Globehoppers said:

 

Agree.  Extremely insulting.  However, the cruising public in general doesn't understand any of this - or maybe doesn't care as long as the drink package isn't increased in price.  This is corporate's alternative reality, or maybe "fake news," aimed at its customers.

Actually, what's insulting is you presuming the General Cruising Public is unable to understand the real issues of this case.  I personally think the judge did the right thing...made a point to Carnival, helped the tens of thousands of people potentially effected by such a ban, and appeased the climate change supporters by tightening the noose a little. 

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

Actually, what's insulting is you presuming the General Cruising Public is unable to understand the real issues of this case.  I personally think the judge did the right thing...made a point to Carnival, helped the tens of thousands of people potentially effected by such a ban, and appeased the climate change supporters by tightening the noose a little. 

Wow, I guess you equate ocean pollution with "climate change" as a fringe concern?  What I take to heart are the words that the judge who will take over this case in September said to the person proposed as Carnival's compliance officer:

 

"District Judge Ursula Ungaro, who will preside over the case after Seitz retires in September, had tough words for Peter Anderson, a consultant whom Carnival Corp. is considering for the new role of chief compliance officer.

“I feel like we’re starting at square one, and this has been going on since 1993,” Ungaro said, citing Princess Cruises’ 1993 conviction for illegally dumping plastic bags filled with garbage overboard. (Carnival Corp. acquired Princess Cruises in 2003.) “This has been going on since 1993 and we’re sitting here talking about food waste mixed with plastic, it’s incredible. I hope you all appreciate that.” "

 

This is the travesty of Carnival's violations.  This has been going on for 26 years, and Carnival is still doing the same thing.  These regulations are not new, they were implemented back in the 70's, yet Carnival still thinks it's okay to violate them.

[USCcruisecrazy]

Congrats...you managed to miss the main point of contention with my response:  the idea of punishing the customer because the organization erred (regardless of the severity) is not a good precedent to set.  You punish the offender.  That is exactly what the judge has done.  Now, whether or not you feel the punishment is severe enough is up for debate.  But the tens of thousands that would have been adversely effected by keeping Carnival ships out of US ports would beg to differ.

[Pierlesscruisers]

23 hours ago, paradiselivin1 said:

I know they haven't learned a damn thing. Saw a wee bit of pump-out as we left Juneau last week...

 

And if you were sure that it was an illegal pump-out, have you reported it yet?

 

Tom

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, USCcruisecrazy said:

Congrats...you managed to miss the main point of contention with my response:  the idea of punishing the customer because the organization erred (regardless of the severity) is not a good precedent to set.  You punish the offender.  That is exactly what the judge has done.  Now, whether or not you feel the punishment is severe enough is up for debate.  But the tens of thousands that would have been adversely effected by keeping Carnival ships out of US ports would beg to differ.

A total ban of Carnival ships would not have happened at any stretch of the imagination.  However, temporary bans of the worst offenders (and the much loved QM2 leads the list with 22 infractions over the first year of probation) would have been a potential punishment.  Now, whether on set of "customers", those whose livelihoods depend on Carnival docking in their cities is not effected, but another set of "customers", the cruise passengers are (through higher fares that this will inevitably create), the "customer" is always punished when a corporation is fined or punished.

[USCcruisecrazy]

2 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

A total ban of Carnival ships would not have happened at any stretch of the imagination.  However, temporary bans of the worst offenders (and the much loved QM2 leads the list with 22 infractions over the first year of probation) would have been a potential punishment.  Now, whether on set of "customers", those whose livelihoods depend on Carnival docking in their cities is not effected, but another set of "customers", the cruise passengers are (through higher fares that this will inevitably create), the "customer" is always punished when a corporation is fined or punished.

That's very true...but when it is the customer using the organization (i.e. taking a cruise on a Carnival ship), that is of our free will and whether we want to incur the higher costs because of Carnival's indiscretions.  For the customer that is the small business person, or port worker, or the employee of the line, they are punished when the action was not something they had control over.  I am glad their well-being was part of the judge's consideration! 

[Aquahound]

16 hours ago, Expat Cruise said:

 If she banned the ships from Alaska for the 2020 or 2021 season, it would not have hurt guests or tourism. It would have given other cruise lines the opportunity to add ships for the season and accommodate the guests.  

 

Huh?  So if Carnival, Princess, Holland America, Seabourn, and all other lines owned by Carnival were all banned from Alaska, you think there would be no impact on tourism?  Sorry, but that is very bizarre thinking.  

Edited June 4, 2019 by Aquahound

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

Huh?  So if Carnival, Princess, Holland America, Seabourn, and all other lines owned by Carnival were all banned from Alaska, you think there would be no impact on tourism?  Sorry, but that is very bizarre thinking.  

C'mon Paul.  NCL and RCI would be able to just ramp up their infrastructure, service contracts, and other small, minor, business concerns within a year (after all the itineraries for 2020 are just about set already) to just swamp Alaska and fill the void.  Don't know why you can't see that.  

[kywildcatfanone]

18 hours ago, Expat Cruise said:

The judge has accepts the Carnival-U.S. Government deal. It is a 100% win for Carnival big business again proves it is above the law.  I hope when the break the terms of probation again and they will action is taken next time.  20 million is like a parking ticket for Carnival.

 

I agree. $20M is just a few soda packages  a week for Carnival. Pretty shameful ruling if you ask me. 

[voljeep]

2 minutes ago, kywildcatfanone said:

I agree. $20M is just a few soda packages  a week for Carnival. Pretty shameful ruling if you ask me. 

even less without having to supply straws now

[Aquahound]

16 minutes ago, voljeep said:

even less without having to supply straws now

 

...which is a product of their original probation.  

[kywildcatfanone]

24 minutes ago, voljeep said:

even less without having to supply straws now

I guess we know now how they are going to pay for it, with drink package price increases, lol.