Judge threatens to stop Carnival ships from docking In US

[maggie777]

On 4/17/2019 at 5:43 AM, bemis12 said:

 

Nope.  The barrel chair people are persistent.

I am one of the persistent ones hoping that Princess will realize that they have gained only ill will. As customers realize that there is no seating in a balcony cabin they will look at other cruise lines. Some ships ( Sun etc ) only have  a bench seat ( no back ) at the desk. Princess removed the chair but did not adjust the price to reflect the removal of the chair. Cruises were booked in advance on the expectation that a barrel chair was in the cabin. Princess never advised the customers that a change was taking place. DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING???

[Cruiserkenn]

16 minutes ago, maggie777 said:

I am one of the persistent ones hoping that Princess will realize that they have gained only ill will. As customers realize that there is no seating in a balcony cabin they will look at other cruise lines. Some ships ( Sun etc ) only have  a bench seat ( no back ) at the desk. Princess removed the chair but did not adjust the price to reflect the removal of the chair. Cruises were booked in advance on the expectation that a barrel chair was in the cabin. Princess never advised the customers that a change was taking place. DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING???

 

Well said!

[Cruiserkenn]

17 minutes ago, maggie777 said:

I am one of the persistent ones hoping that Princess will realize that they have gained only ill will. As customers realize that there is no seating in a balcony cabin they will look at other cruise lines. Some ships ( Sun etc ) only have  a bench seat ( no back ) at the desk. Princess removed the chair but did not adjust the price to reflect the removal of the chair. Cruises were booked in advance on the expectation that a barrel chair was in the cabin. Princess never advised the customers that a change was taking place. DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING???

 

Well said!

 

 Sorry for the double post.  The computer did it!  Not me, at least not intentionally.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Cruiserkenn

[nukesubsailor]

1 hour ago, Ep010835 said:

This appears to be a really great opportunity for those who are "hardliners" to leave the world of cruising altogether. 

I have to wonder in which states some of those "experts" are members of the bar. 

Good question.  My guess is Massachusetts.  I always thought MBA stood for Masters of Business Administration, not Member Bar Association.😉

[Dani24]

It's incredibly disheartening to see all the people being flippant about environmental damages because "we all pollute". This is not a binary, black vs. white matter. Just because there are many things we do that are not ideal doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for improvements when and where we can. It's like saying "well, we're all going to die anyway, so why have health and safety standards for anything?" Just because we can't eliminate the impacts entirely doesn't mean we should throw up our hands in defeat and opt to trash the place. 

 

If the cruise lines are being negligent in their care for the environment, they need to be held accountable. And if they thumb their noses at it, people should be demanding better. Many of the violations listed are things that CAN be corrected for. And there's no reason not to.

[drjpreston]

36 minutes ago, Dani24 said:

It's incredibly disheartening to see all the people being flippant about environmental damages because "we all pollute".

It is not about being “flippant about environmental damages.”  I think most if not all want to be able to enjoy our environment for years to come and do not want to see it carelessly abused.  The issue is how over the top issues like this become by some such as the judge threatening to cripple the cruise industry and others who are so shocked, they could no longer take a cruise on one of the big bad ships. 

They forget the good the cruise industry does.  They forget impact on real lives here and abroad such moves would mean both on those directly and indirectly connected to the cruise industry.  They forget how small the issue is in comparison to the real problem of pollution created by countries that the courts have no control over. 

Like so often it is the law abiding that would suffer most because of the sins of the few. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by drjpreston

[Ep010835]

All too pervasive is the "The Sky is Falling" mindset. 

[broberts]

1 hour ago, drjpreston said:

... The issue is how over the top issues like this become by some such as the judge threatening to cripple the cruise industry and others who are so shocked, they could no longer take a cruise on one of the big bad ships. 

...

 

The judge never indicated how long a ban she might consider. I seriously doubt that a couple of days, even a week or two ban on the ships of a single cruise line wou "cripple the cruise industry". The industry can't build ships fast enough to meet demand as it is. And I sure haven't seen any serious price competition indicating an over supply of product.

[mcrcruiser]

We have a lot of cash exposed with Carnival cruise lines ships .We certainly don't want to see this judge carry out her threat to the extent of chasing all of the 11 Carnival cruise lines from ALL american ports .consider the billions of dollars of lost revenue to the land based business that the cruise lines bring to each & every port .Think of all the people that would be impacted . Thus ,in my opinion another fine & the Chairman of Carnival corp in the court  would be sufficient 

 

 The above being said ,no it is not alright for Princess or any other ships to dump fuel ,grey water ,or plastic into the seas & Glacier bay  .We all live on this planet & we want to preserve it for  our future generations to enjoy .

 

 My money is on another fine by this judge ;because it would harm many thousands or even millions of peoples incomes  to shut down the ships .JMVHO

[Ep010835]

I see land vacations in the future for many. Should alleviate some crowding. 

[bemis12]

7 hours ago, Ep010835 said:

I see land vacations in the future for many. Should alleviate some crowding. 

 

Land vacations on foot.  Nobody is going to fire up a vehicle propelled by fossil fuels if they love the Earth.

[Expat Cruise]

9 hours ago, mcrcruiser said:

We have a lot of cash exposed with Carnival cruise lines ships .We certainly don't want to see this judge carry out her threat to the extent of chasing all of the 11 Carnival cruise lines from ALL american ports .consider the billions of dollars of lost revenue to the land based business that the cruise lines bring to each & every port .Think of all the people that would be impacted . Thus ,in my opinion another fine & the Chairman of Carnival corp in the court  would be sufficient 

 

 The above being said ,no it is not alright for Princess or any other ships to dump fuel ,grey water ,or plastic into the seas & Glacier bay  .We all live on this planet & we want to preserve it for  our future generations to enjoy .

 

 My money is on another fine by this judge ;because it would harm many thousands or even millions of peoples incomes  to shut down the ships .JMVHO

It is not just about dumping. Cruise lines are required to burn cleaner diesel fuel went close to the US Coast and always in Alaska. But diesel fuel is very costly. Ships can also burn bunker fuel  which is much thicker cheaper and produces a lot more pollution. Princess was caught burning Bunker Fuel when they should have been burning diesel. This saves them thousands of dollars but hurts the environment.  It is strictly not allowed and they did it many times and then tried to cover it up.

 

[chengkp75]

43 minutes ago, Expat Cruise said:

It is not just about dumping. Cruise lines are required to burn cleaner diesel fuel went close to the US Coast and always in Alaska. But diesel fuel is very costly. Ships can also burn bunker fuel  which is much thicker cheaper and produces a lot more pollution. Princess was caught burning Bunker Fuel when they should have been burning diesel. This saves them thousands of dollars but hurts the environment.  It is strictly not allowed and they did it many times and then tried to cover it up.

 

Not quite correct.  The ships can continue to burn residual fuel if they use an exhaust gas scrubber.  The ships cited, I believe, had not cut in their scrubbers in time to meet the boundary of the ECA.

[Expat Cruise]

23 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Not quite correct.  The ships can continue to burn residual fuel if they use an exhaust gas scrubber.  The ships cited, I believe, had not cut in their scrubbers in time to meet the boundary of the ECA.

 From the report given to the court by the court appointed officer to monitor and check on Carvinal

 

Burned unfiltered heavy fuel oil 19 times in protected areas for a total of 44 hours, in violation of international law, including 24 hours in a protected area off the coast of the North America. Carnival Corp. gives itself a six hour window to switch to a cleaner fuel while in protected areas. In only three incidents did ships burn heavy fuel oil for more than six hours: in Alaska, Iceland and an unspecified part of North America’s waters.

[chengkp75]

8 minutes ago, Expat Cruise said:

 From the report given to the court by the court appointed officer to monitor and check on Carvinal

 

Burned unfiltered heavy fuel oil 19 times in protected areas for a total of 44 hours, in violation of international law, including 24 hours in a protected area off the coast of the North America. Carnival Corp. gives itself a six hour window to switch to a cleaner fuel while in protected areas. In only three incidents did ships burn heavy fuel oil for more than six hours: in Alaska, Iceland and an unspecified part of North America’s waters.

Yes, the switch needs to be either to diesel fuel or to engage the scrubber.  I deal with the North American ECA and its fuel and emissions requirements every working day of my life.  Due to limitations of the design of ship's fuel systems, it takes some time to accomplish the switch, so it needs to be done prior to entering the ECA, and the time and location at which the switch is started and completed must be logged.  The 6 hour window that is mentioned is this time delay, and must start before the ship enters the ECA.

[Musky Ike]

Interesting, I saw somewhere that the new Princess ships are being designed to use LNG fuel. Cleaner burning?

[Cruiserkenn]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, the switch needs to be either to diesel fuel or to engage the scrubber.  I deal with the North American ECA and its fuel and emissions requirements every working day of my life.  Due to limitations of the design of ship's fuel systems, it takes some time to accomplish the switch, so it needs to be done prior to entering the ECA, and the time and location at which the switch is started and completed must be logged.  The 6 hour window that is mentioned is this time delay, and must start before the ship enters the ECA.

 

Thanks for your expertise.  Good to know.  As with many things in real life, issues are not always simple or easy or clear cut.  Thanks again.

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, Musky Ike said:

Interesting, I saw somewhere that the new Princess ships are being designed to use LNG fuel. Cleaner burning?

Yes, LNG is a cleaner fuel.  But these engines are what are known as "dual fuel" engines, and can burn both gaseous fuel and liquid fuel, in nearly any combination.  When operating on "LNG only", there will be about 2% diesel fuel injected at the same time, since LNG will not combust at the temperatures inside a diesel engine, so some diesel fuel needs to start the combustion each time a cylinder fires.  My suspicion, since the LNG fuel supply logistics have not been worked out for the great number of cruise ships coming out in the next few years, and given that Carnival has shown that they will bypass the scrubbers (perfectly legal, but not environmentally friendly) when outside the ECA, is that the ships will transit from LNG in the North American ECA, to a liquid fuel like the older residual fuel when outside the ECA.  Again, perfectly legal, and fiscally sound, but not a fine example of environmental stewardship.  The reason the ships will go away from LNG when possible is that the LNG requires much more storage space in the ship than liquid fuel, and a lot more sophisticated handling equipment.

[brisalta]

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5913281/Carnival-Corp-Annual-Report.pdf is the First Annual Report of the Court Appointed Monitor.  Some may find it of interest.  Reading it some of the violations were caused by passengers, other by failure of crew to log switch positions and others ignoring training or failure to get training. I suspect that what the judge will want is the corporation to emphasize a business culture of environmental awareness by all officers and crew both on ship and land and the importance to follow procedures and not to take short cuts in training or practice.

Edited April 20, 2019 by brisalta

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, brisalta said:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5913281/Carnival-Corp-Annual-Report.pdf is the First Annual Report of the Court Appointed Monitor.  Some may find it of interest.  Reading it some of the violations were caused by passengers, other by failure of crew to log switch positions and others ignoring training or failure to get training. I suspect that what the judge will want is the corporation to emphasize a business culture of environmental awareness by all officers and crew both on ship and land and the importance to follow procedures and not to take short cuts in training or practice.

However, that "emphasis on business culture of environmental awareness" and training in proper procedures and record keeping was what was agreed to be implemented in the original settlement during the probationary period.  Carnival did not do the job they agreed to do in the first place, it will take a large stick to make them do it now.

 

These violations run the gamut across the entire range of pollution, from garbage, to plastic, to oil, to sewage, to air pollution, to potential introduction of invasive marine species, and release of ozone depleting refrigerants, as well as failing to document things.  And you know what?  All of these measures that Carnival is shown to have been violating have been in effect for decades, some since the '70's.  It's not like this is something new.  The laws have been in place for decades, worldwide (in many cases in effect in other countries before the US), and the fines have been in place for decades, but it is only within the last 20 years or so that countries like the US have gotten extremely strict about enforcing and fining companies for violations.

Edited April 20, 2019 by chengkp75

[Cruzaholic41]

On 4/18/2019 at 2:28 PM, Dani24 said:

It's incredibly disheartening to see all the people being flippant about environmental damages because "we all pollute". 

 

Yep. It’s like shopping at Wal Mart or Nike.  People choose to ignore their terrible labor practices because they enjoy the product. Yes, we all pollute but I for one will not ignore these intentional acts. 

[MissP22]

16 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

 

Yep. It’s like shopping at Wal Mart or Nike.  People choose to ignore their terrible labor practices because they enjoy the product. Yes, we all pollute but I for one will not ignore these intentional acts. 

It looks like you'll be one of those people who will stop sailing altogether?

[Cruzaholic41]

12 minutes ago, MissP22 said:

It looks like you'll be one of those people who will stop sailing altogether?

 

I will not book another Carnival Corp cruise until they get their act together. I am not a blind fan boy who gives a pass to corporations for intentional acts like this. 

[MissP22]

3 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

 

I will not book another Carnival Corp cruise until they get their act together. I am not a blind fan boy who gives a pass to corporations for intentional acts like this. 

We wouldn't be booking a Carnival cruise either but probably not for the same reasons I suspect.

[Ep010835]

3 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

 

I will not book another Carnival Corp cruise until they get their act together. I am not a blind fan boy who gives a pass to corporations for intentional acts like this. 

 

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 I applaud the choice. 

 

 

Less competition for choice cabins.