Federal Judge considers sanctions affecting Carnival that could affect cruises

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

Funny thing is, most people probably don't realize Carnival took that step in accordance with the Environmental Compliance Plan that was levied on them as a term of their probation.  

Which makes it look like Carnival focused on the window dressing of the compliance plan, and not the heart of the matter.

[bury me at sea]

24 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Which makes it look like Carnival focused on the window dressing of the compliance plan, and not the heart of the matter.

 

I think you pinpointed the heart of the matter quite succinctly.

[coevan]

45 minutes ago, DirtyDawg said:

 

So, is it time to sell the stock as a protest against this management team?

 

 

That's up to you. It's huge corporation and not a large percentage of shareholders are on Cruise Critic. I'm going to hang on and see if it goes down. 

[DirtyDawg]

2 minutes ago, coevan said:

 

 

That's up to you. It's huge corporation and not a large percentage of shareholders are on Cruise Critic. I'm going to hang on and see if it goes down. 

 

I don't own this stock. I was asking the poster about their stock. 

 

Since you are an owner of this corporation, albeit a small one, do you feel comfortable with your management team?

 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, DirtyDawg said:

 

So, is it time to sell the stock as a protest against this management team?

Actually, what I wish is that I knew about all of this before I sent in my proxy vote and could have voted NO on all of the board of directors (not that it would have made a difference).

[coevan]

41 minutes ago, DirtyDawg said:

 

I don't own this stock. I was asking the poster about their stock. 

 

Since you are an owner of this corporation, albeit a small one, do you feel comfortable with your management team?

 

 

 

I'm comfortable with their bottom line and Carnival is only a piece of CCL. 

[jimbo5544]

48 minutes ago, coevan said:

 

 

That's up to you. It's huge corporation and not a large percentage of shareholders are on Cruise Critic. I'm going to hang on and see if it goes down. 

If you are selling on principal, then price should not be an arbiter.

[jimbo5544]

Just now, coevan said:

 

 

I'm comfortable with their bottom line and Carnival is only a piece of CCL. 

True, but the largest part.

[coevan]

even as bad as this is and I'm not diminishing their actions, however bad things to companies usually has an immediate down turn and then it will come back to life. I bought at $35, so I feel pretty comfortable.

[DGP1111]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Which makes it look like Carnival focused on the window dressing of the compliance plan, and not the heart of the matter.

.

I've not posted a peep on this thread from the onset . . . and I've thoroughly enjoyed/appreciated your internal expertise (as always) of this subject, and numerous others.

 

That (above), sir, is my personal favorite single sentence delivered.

 

I've insured every one of my cruise vacations, always wondering "what if" . . . and this situation helps to support that choice.

 

Thanks, again, for the insight you provide.

 

 

[Organized Chaos]

4 hours ago, Aquahound said:

Funny thing is, most people probably don't realize Carnival took that step in accordance with the Environmental Compliance Plan that was levied on them as a term of their probation.  

 

Well, I have to admit, they turned it around to become one heck of a marketing ploy.

 

Judge - "You are hereby ordered to restrict the use of plastic straws to comply with the terms of your probation based on previous environmental violations."

 

Carnival Marketing - "Ladies and gentlemen, we here as Carnival seek to be leaders in the worldwide effort to protect the environment and keep our oceans clean. So we're announcing a fleet-wide ban on plastic straws."

[DirtyDawg]

10 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Actually, what I wish is that I knew about all of this before I sent in my proxy vote and could have voted NO on all of the board of directors (not that it would have made a difference).

 

I agree, it wouldn't of made any difference, particularily because the famitly owns so much of the stock, but I always like to let the board know when I'm unhappy with management and voting your shares is about the only way for small investors to do that. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by DirtyDawg

[SwordBlazer Cruising]

The article says " alleges"

 

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, DirtyDawg said:

 

I agree, it wouldn't of made any difference, particularily because the famitly owns so much of the stock, but I always like to let the board know when I'm unhappy with management and voting your shares is about the only way for small investors to do that. 

I wonder if they notice if there are a lot of negative votes from small investors.

 

The Carnival Corporation policy of giving OBC to shareholders who own 100 shares surely has contributed to the stock having many small shareholders.  

[Thorncroft]

7 hours ago, SwordBlazer Cruising said:

The article says " alleges"

 

 

Why are you people in such denial?  Fact: they've already been found guilty and paid a massive fine.  Fact: they were already serving a 5 year probation.  Fact: they were caught violating the terms of their probation.  

[broberts]

10 hours ago, SwordBlazer Cruising said:

The article says " alleges"

 

 

It's a CYA word the media tends to use without thought. Carnival has not denied the reported incidents of probation violations. Presumably it would have if there was any doubt that the violations had occurred.

 

[jimbo5544]

10 hours ago, broberts said:

 

It's a CYA word the media tends to use without thought. Carnival has not denied the reported incidents of probation violations. Presumably it would have if there was any doubt that the violations had occurred.

 

In any event, there is no need or in fact a good idea to deliver responses publicly prior to the June meet.  

[bury me at sea]

1 hour ago, jimbo5544 said:

In any event, there is no need or in fact a good idea to deliver responses publicly prior to the June meet.  

 

I agree.  I would be surprised if the legal team would allow a comment at this stage.

[broberts]

5 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

In any event, there is no need or in fact a good idea to deliver responses publicly prior to the June meet.  

 

This article suggests otherwise, " Carnival claims none of these incidents was intentional, and either reported or recorded all of them.".

[jimbo5544]

4 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

This article suggests otherwise, " Carnival claims none of these incidents was intentional, and either reported or recorded all of them.".

Treehugger seems like an objective source based on the name, I will pass on the reading and take your word for it.

[SwordBlazer Cruising]

That’s true, but the issue is the judge will rule on if in fact they did violate, as they are allegations. It is up to the cruise line to show they did not, or without malice or intent. If this is proved to be factual and true shame on them, otherwise the court of public opinion must wait.

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, broberts said:

 

This article suggests otherwise, " Carnival claims none of these incidents was intentional, and either reported or recorded all of them.".

Which is absolute gobbledygook, as an incident is a violation regardless of whether it was intentional or not.  What is more important than whether an incident happened is whether the PROCESS works, meaning that the company had a process to mitigate the effects, and to prevent the problem from happening again.  Merely reporting or recording an incident is not good enough when you are on probation.

[Top_of_the_Cube]

http://www.seatrade-*****/news/news-headlines/carnival-environmental-incidents-continued-under-probation.html

 

Per linked story from Seatrade Crusie News, Carnival offered responses in this matter.  If the article is true and accurate, there are some interesting points noted by the court-ordered monitor:

 

> Carnival did not repeat any of the offenses that led to its original 2016 conviction and probation (involving Princess ships).

> It "substantially implemented the court-ordered ECP".

> The post-probation violations were self-reported to authorities, and/or identified in internal records.  [I assume "internal records" means properly cited in their own logs and communications, although part of the current infractions include falsification of records (it is reported at least in one case that the offending officer was fired)].

 

Carnival seems to accept and acknowledge their dirty deeds, which we all know is the first step towards recovery.  But, do the recent criminal incidents suggest they are just finding new ways of being environmentally offensive?

 

Article mentions other cruise lines not under the Carnival Corp & plc umbrella that have been cited and fined for environmental breaches. 

 

Not a ship operations "insider", but my read is that environmental violations are just common in the shipping business.  Carnival focused on and fixed (loosely) the specific issues that got it on probation, but has yet to resolve the underlying problem that appears to permeate the commercial and cruise industry.

 

If it is found the actions thus far are just "window dressing", I don't think Carnival is deserving of any mercy.  If, instead, it can be demonstrated that, in spite of the post-probation citations, real and substantial progress is being made, I hope the punishment is tempered accordingly.

 

[chengkp75]

29 minutes ago, Top_of_the_Cube said:

http://www.seatrade-*****/news/news-headlines/carnival-environmental-incidents-continued-under-probation.html

 

Per linked story from Seatrade Crusie News, Carnival offered responses in this matter.  If the article is true and accurate, there are some interesting points noted by the court-ordered monitor:

 

> Carnival did not repeat any of the offenses that led to its original 2016 conviction and probation (involving Princess ships).

> It "substantially implemented the court-ordered ECP".

> The post-probation violations were self-reported to authorities, and/or identified in internal records.  [I assume "internal records" means properly cited in their own logs and communications, although part of the current infractions include falsification of records (it is reported at least in one case that the offending officer was fired)].

 

Carnival seems to accept and acknowledge their dirty deeds, which we all know is the first step towards recovery.  But, do the recent criminal incidents suggest they are just finding new ways of being environmentally offensive?

 

Article mentions other cruise lines not under the Carnival Corp & plc umbrella that have been cited and fined for environmental breaches. 

 

Not a ship operations "insider", but my read is that environmental violations are just common in the shipping business.  Carnival focused on and fixed (loosely) the specific issues that got it on probation, but has yet to resolve the underlying problem that appears to permeate the commercial and cruise industry.

 

If it is found the actions thus far are just "window dressing", I don't think Carnival is deserving of any mercy.  If, instead, it can be demonstrated that, in spite of the post-probation citations, real and substantial progress is being made, I hope the punishment is tempered accordingly.

 

While they possibly did not repeat (I haven't read the entire 800 line items) the offenses that triggered the original conviction and probation, the fact that the auditor found 800 separate items in a two year period is very disturbing.

 

It has taken them two years to "substantially" implement the Environmental Compliance Plan?  The companies I worked for, who didn't have a game plan, came up with a plan, and had it implemented completely within 12 months, including the building of custom monitoring equipment, that has now become standard equipment in a DOJ ECP.  If Carnival could not allocate the assets necessary to fully implement the plan outlined by the court, and agreed to by Carnival, then they should suffer the consequences.

 

The incidents were "self-reported" or "internally documented", great first step.  What procedures are in place in the ECP to ensure the same things don't happen again (I know I saw repeated discharges of ozone depleting refrigerants in the 800 line items), and were those procedures implemented, and did they work?  What steps beyond reporting an incident did the company make to mitigate an incident when it was reported?  This is the problem I see with Carnival's actions over the last two years, they don't seem to have a process in place to move the company towards better environmental behavior, so they just seem to say "hey, we had an accident, but we didn't mean to" and think that is good enough.

 

Environmental violations are not common in the maritime world, but they are also unfortunately not unknown.  But, over the last decade or so, some nations like the US are taking tougher stances on the violators and enforcing far stiffer penalties than before.  They are also looking at ways to encourage better behavior by changing corporate thinking, through use of ECP's and mandating this be included in the company's ISM (International Safety Management) document, which puts more onus on the flag state and class society to ensure compliance.

 

The mere fact that Carnival has had as many violations as they have while under audit, shows that their ECP is not working, and needs a total commitment from the CEO on down.  The fact that Carnival's CEO did not attend the hearing shows how little corporate thinks about this.

[MicCanberra]

800 items in 2 years is more than 2 a day, very shoddy work.