Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
Atocha Shipwreck Gal

Federal Judge considers sanctions affecting Carnival that could affect cruises

Recommended Posts

You can check out the thread from Host Carolyn pinned at the top of the page for announcement of the Judge accepting the settlement.

Edited by jimbo5544

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fines are not based on P&L's but the violation, so what carnival makes is irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Ballast water is what is a major finding of the auditor team, though it does appear they dumped treated sewage into Bahamian waters as well.  However, even in areas where treated sewage is allowed to be pumped overboard, there are still restrictions, such as within 3 miles of coast (US NPDES regulations).  And, while you are correct that US municipal treatment plants do discharge into the rivers and oceans, you will also note that those treatment plants have huge holding tanks to allow the sewage to be processed over time.  Shipboard systems treat large volumes (1000-2000 tons per day) and discharge this waste at that same rate.  There is no holding, so there is no slow introduction of either undertreated or chlorinated treated sewage the way that a municipal plant does, and there is no monitoring as to whether the sewage is being adequately treated or not.  That is why there are restrictions on ships' ability to pump treated sewage overboard in certain areas, and the Bahamas in particular are trying to preserve their coral, which is the foundation of their islands, and there are far more areas of the US that don't have coral than do, and most of those places with coral will run sewage lines far out to sea.

You have no idea what you are speaking about, per usual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coevan said:

fines are not based on P&L's but the violation, so what carnival makes is irrelevant. 

And legal precedents, not raw or biased emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sfaaa said:

Please fact check before you do your tax return. I'd assume the court judgement when released will explain the reason for $20M fine amount free of any lynching emotion exhibiting by some here.

The settlement document states that since the $20 million is a criminal fine, the company cannot make any adjustment to their income based on this fine.  It is not tax deductible, nor is it a valid business expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole settlement agreement includes some significant penalties should Carnival not meet certain benchmarks in their implementation of their ECP, starting with $1 million/day and going to $10 million/day, open ended until compliance is met.  I believe that the DOJ and the judge feel that this will more actively incentivize Carnival to make the necessary core changes to their culture that are required by the settlement, rather than a one time fine.  The benchmarks are to be reviewed by the DOJ, the judge, the court appointed monitor, the third party auditors, and "interested parties" such as the USCG and some groups who have filed as victims of the pollution violations, to determine whether compliance is met.  This is going to put a lot of outside, visible, pressure on Carnival to actually do something, or get slapped with daily fines.  And since the "back channel" attempt by Carnival with their retired USCG admiral was part of the probation violation, lots of these "interested parties" will be having a whole lot of input, and the judge won't be too lenient in "changing definitions" as Carnival wanted before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The settlement document states that since the $20 million is a criminal fine, the company cannot make any adjustment to their income based on this fine.  It is not tax deductible, nor is it a valid business expense.

Correct and with a contigency reserve likely set up and money already set aside to pay the fine. It's a new day and new page going forward for Carnival and Wall Street investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jimbo5544 said:

D511BFAC-6C7A-4758-8A99-8EE56025C9DF.thumb.jpeg.de21d8c3dd86be0081fa5d13c30ccd24.jpeg

And how many of these ‘changes’ really help the environment versus increase the company’s bottom line with the excuse of helping the environment. These fixes seem disingenuous to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CynCyn said:

And how many of these ‘changes’ really help the environment versus increase the company’s bottom line with the excuse of helping the environment. These fixes seem disingenuous to me.

 

Agree. Mixed feelings here.  Suites not getting upgraded toiletries.  I need a straw for certain acidic drinks.  I don't care if it's plastic or whatever is a "green" material. Cereal not coming in individual boxes.  I keep some in the cabin for snacks.  How stale will the big dispenser cereals taste?  No olive picks or drink umbrellas?  How do we have our olives and fruit delivered for our drinks?  Will they just not be offered?  If they do away with bottled water I have a big problem.  The water onboard while tasty and potable has a lot of sodium in it.  I use bottled water to keep from swelling up like a balloon. I'll wait to see what is truly offered onboard.  I am flexible, but don't scale back even more in the name of the environment.  We are intelligent people and can see through the "stuff" .       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CynCyn said:

And how many of these ‘changes’ really help the environment versus increase the company’s bottom line with the excuse of helping the environment. These fixes seem disingenuous to me.

 

Would it matter to you what they said/did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, declansdad said:

 

Would it matter to you what they said/did?

Of course it would.  It matters to me that instead of fixing the problems when ordered, they violated probation.  It bothers me that they are putting out PR that they hope people will believe fixes the problem.  It bothers me that they use the opportunity to further cut service and it bothers me that you make an assumption that I would not care what they said or did.  If they cared about the environment they would have followed the rules.

 

i would applaud them for making real and lasting change by committing to new processes, training, and internal audits/inspections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CynCyn said:

Of course it would.  It matters to me that instead of fixing the problems when ordered, they violated probation.  It bothers me that they are putting out PR that they hope people will believe fixes the problem.  It bothers me that they use the opportunity to further cut service and it bothers me that you make an assumption that I would not care what they said or did.  If they cared about the environment they would have followed the rules.

 

i would applaud them for making real and lasting change by committing to new processes, training, and internal audits/inspections. 

 

 

Cuts to service?

 

There is nothing wrong with what they announced and there is nothing saying that they aren't doing or going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, declansdad said:

 

 

Cuts to service?

 

There is nothing wrong with what they announced and there is nothing saying that they aren't doing or going to do.

I am glad you feel that way.  I feel differently.  I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours.  Since we obviously disagree, let’s agree to disagree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m just glad they got off relatively unscathed and that the snarky judge is out by the end of the year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, twodaywonder said:

You are incorrect. This happen today.

 

We've known they made a deal with federal prosecutors for about a week now, but the details of that deal were not released until today. And the news that the judge actually accepted the deal didn't break until late this evening.

 

4 hours ago, coevan said:

fines are not based on P&L's but the violation, so what carnival makes is irrelevant. 

 

No one here is saying the fine that's been levied is in correlation with Carnival's revenue. They're saying compared to what the company profited last year, the levied fine isn't as substantial as some believe it should be.

 

4 hours ago, sfaaa said:

And legal precedents, not raw or biased emotions.

 

We are not the judge, the lawyers, or representatives from the DOJ. We are allowed to insert emotions into our opinions of this matter. And opinions are what people are here to give. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time accepting that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

The whole settlement agreement includes some significant penalties should Carnival not meet certain benchmarks in their implementation of their ECP, starting with $1 million/day and going to $10 million/day, open ended until compliance is met.  I believe that the DOJ and the judge feel that this will more actively incentivize Carnival to make the necessary core changes to their culture that are required by the settlement, rather than a one time fine.  The benchmarks are to be reviewed by the DOJ, the judge, the court appointed monitor, the third party auditors, and "interested parties" such as the USCG and some groups who have filed as victims of the pollution violations, to determine whether compliance is met.  This is going to put a lot of outside, visible, pressure on Carnival to actually do something, or get slapped with daily fines.  And since the "back channel" attempt by Carnival with their retired USCG admiral was part of the probation violation, lots of these "interested parties" will be having a whole lot of input, and the judge won't be too lenient in "changing definitions" as Carnival wanted before.

And only time will tell if this really brings about a change in the corporate culture. Eliminating straws and cereal boxes is such a small step that really should not be counted.

 

Does anyone know if the corporate bigwigs were there as the judge requested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before it goes away, wanted to say this thread was one of the best and most interesting I have witnessed here on CC.  With much emotion and interest, kudo’s to all for keeping it civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jimbo5544 said:

Before it goes away, wanted to say this thread was one of the best and most interesting I have witnessed here on CC.  With much emotion and interest, kudo’s to all for keeping it civil.

 

Well said Jimbo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

And only time will tell if this really brings about a change in the corporate culture. Eliminating straws and cereal boxes is such a small step that really should not be counted.

 

Does anyone know if the corporate bigwigs were there as the judge requested?

Based on the article from the Miami Herald picture, both Mickey and Arnold were in attendance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cafedumonde said:

I’m just glad they got off relatively unscathed and that the snarky judge is out by the end of the year.  

You really don’t understand how the federal judiciary works, do you? She has a lifetime appointment, she leaves when SHE wants to.

 

You’re okay with dumping oil, gray water, and plastic in the ocean?

Edited by Swampbabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per my earlier post I am closing this thread.  Will leave new one pinned for today so people can find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...