Jump to content

Princess Fined More and Again


cruzsnooze
 Share

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Big difference.  Is putting stuff in your garbage illegal?  Because what Princess and all of Carnival's lines did was illegal.

People put stuff in the garbage that is illegal all the time = toxic stuff.  I'm not trying to defend Princess or any other corporation that pollutes.  I don't feel betrayed, nor do I want to "slap someone" as the OP I answered to stated.  Will I still cruise Princess?  Yes.  Will I still purchase chemicals like Round-up?  Yes.  There isn't a big difference, we're all guilty of polluting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is true that not one of us can claim to not having a carbon footprint, we can agree to make a reasonable effort to do our part to keep our carbon footprint as small as possible. Those of us who choose to recycle, to drive cars with good gas mileage, use environmentally friendly products, etc do not put illegal items in, at least not on purpose. My cabin last month had all sorts of signage about reusing towels, sheets, recycling papers, having less wasted paper advertisements at the door and more on the App. Their corporate literature proclaims to be highest industry environmentally friendly policies. When you intentionally BREAK the law and cheat to save a buck it shows a lack of professionalism, integrity, and damages relationships. As a shareholder, this sickens me. And dismissing shady dealings by saying "we all do it" is no answer. Your word is really all you have in this world. They broke their word. Do I care about the small increase in pricing on board? Not at all. I am not complaining about anything being increased. Please. Anyone who owns stock and or has elite status and can afford to sail yearly is ridiculously fortunate and I will never complain about it. I think their prices are very reasonable on most cruises. Dumping illegally and doctoring paperwork is sleazy. Shareholders and customers deserve an explanation and apology and some sort of assurance that changes are being made that put an end to this. You sign an agreement; you keep it! 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your  post title is not correct.  The original fine was 40 million.  This fine for violating the terms of the original fine was only 20 million.  The title of your post should be "Princess Fined Less", not more.

 

DON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Big difference.  Is putting stuff in your garbage illegal?  Because what Princess and all of Carnival's lines did was illegal.

What I would like to know is whether this dumping in the Bahamas of plastics etc was an accidental act by a badly trained low level employee, or part of systematic criminal acts ordered by a high level ships  officer?

 

We learned from the oily water dumping case several years ago ( disgruntled officer whistleblower brought that to light) that ships officers can earn bonuses for all sorts of cost saving measures , legal things like reducing fuel burn for example,  and  other  measures like  reducing land based disposal of oily waste via ocean dumping through  the Magic Pipe.

It seems that the company are only interested in the cost saving, will pay bonuses to senior officers who achieve it,  and don't ask hard questions about how it was achieved.

Is this a further example of greed taking precedence?

 

When this news hit the stock market yesterday stockholders lost much much more than the $20M fine as the share price sharply dropped.

 

Yes it will no doubt come back like it did even from Costa Concordia disaster, but the shares have been having a rough time recently. $1 up some days, $1.50 down the next, I am down about 3% this year and didn't buy anywhere near the top. And I am not talking 100 shares.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Griller said:

What I would like to know is whether this dumping in the Bahamas of plastics etc was an accidental act by a badly trained low level employee, or part of systematic criminal acts ordered by a high level ships  officer?

 

We learned from the oily water dumping case several years ago ( disgruntled officer whistleblower brought that to light) that ships officers can earn bonuses for all sorts of cost saving measures , legal things like reducing fuel burn for example,  and  other  measures like  reducing land based disposal of oily waste via ocean dumping through  the Magic Pipe.

It seems that the company are only interested in the cost saving, will pay bonuses to senior officers who achieve it,  and don't ask hard questions about how it was achieved.

Is this a further example of greed taking precedence?

 

When this news hit the stock market yesterday stockholders lost much much more than the $20M fine as the share price sharply dropped.

 

Yes it will no doubt come back like it did even from Costa Concordia disaster, but the shares have been having a rough time recently. $1 up some days, $1.50 down the next, I am down about 3% this year and didn't buy anywhere near the top. And I am not talking 100 shares.

 

 

I am familiar with the oily water incident back in 2016, but I do not know of any allegation, other than hearsay on CC, that officers can earn bonuses for reducing disposal fees.  That would definitely have been brought out in a court's findings as this would have had to have been documented somewhere.  While bonuses may be given for fuel savings, there is nothing illegal about that.

 

Very few shipboard officers get any bonuses, the corporate operations and technical managers are the ones who get bonuses for fiscal performance of their fleets.  Very few officers will knowingly risk their financial security (they are personally liable for fines), their livelihood (they can lose their license and never sail again), or their freedom (jail time), to save the company money they will never see, unless the company has told them to "make problems disappear".  You need to read the report of the Court Appointed Monitor (even just the first 50 pages of the 205 page report, to see that this third party feels that the shipboard personnel all have a commitment to the environment, but that it is the corporate culture that is the root cause of the violations.  Also see the remarks by the judge who will take over the case in September, to the assembled Carnival board members and senior management from parent and several lines, who scolded them for being in a court room 26 years after Princess' first environmental fine, and still talking about the same issues, and who is rightly to blame, as she looked right at them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, elliair said:

I don't feel as though I've been betrayed other than Princess raising the prices to pay for the fines.  That's the betrayal.  Face it, we all pollute every day.  We consume, we throw stuff in the garbage, it's taken to the dump, we are continuous nonstop polluters.  No different on a ship than being at home. /just saying

 

I think there’s a huge difference...what PCL/Carnival Corp. has been doing is illegal! To me, the blatant falsification of records and the systematic violation of the terms of probation points to a toxic corporate culture that has little regard for anything but profit and convenience. It doesn’t necessarily apply to just this environmental issue — it raises other questions for me. If they falsify legal documents and terms of probation, are they cutting corners in other places? I’m pretty sure they are — every cruise line does to an extent. What matters is whether the corner is a less expensive margarita mix or a safety/maintenance issue. Sadly, people would probably complain more about the margarita mix than the maintenance issue, because that’s what immediately impacts their enjoyment. People don’t think about maintenance issues until they become a major problem. 

 

I like both Princess and HAL, and I’m not going to stop cruising on either one. I’m just making the point that I don’t think what PCL/Carnival Corp. has been doing can be explained away or equated to an individual carrying out normal, legal everyday tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Griller said:

 

When this news hit the stock market yesterday stockholders lost much much more than the $20M fine as the share price sharply dropped.

 

Yes it will no doubt come back like it did even from Costa Concordia disaster, but the shares have been having a rough time recently. $1 up some days, $1.50 down the next, I am down about 3% this year and didn't buy anywhere near the top. And I am not talking 100 shares.

how refreshing and unique  -  a cruise critic poster actually posting about one of their stocks being in a currently down position - even if it's just for the year and not what the stock was originally purchased for

 

buy the dips !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Colo Cruiser said:

I agree. It is amazing how some will flat out lie to push their agenda on CC.

This thread has nothing to do with Auto Gratuities but somehow here it is once again by the same poster.

False claims that have nothing to do with Princess.  smh once again.

 

What lie? What agenda? Posting a link is fact. Having a different opinion apparently offends you, but it is not an agenda, it's a differing opinion. Some people refuse to believe their favorite cruise line can do anything wrong even when it's reported via reliable news sources.

Edited by cruzsnooze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On 6/5/2019 at 3:24 PM, elliair said:

I don't feel as though I've been betrayed other than Princess raising the prices to pay for the fines.  That's the betrayal.  Face it, we all pollute every day.  We consume, we throw stuff in the garbage, it's taken to the dump, we are continuous nonstop polluters.  No different on a ship than being at home. /just saying

Agree ! There's so much lip service about the environment but seriously, we are all cruisers . All this pious talk about the big bad uncaring cruise line is just so much self delusion . We all care about the environment but we don't really care enough to stop cruising . Spare me the the hypocrisy .  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give this some thought. The dumping was not a problem at all. It was where it was dumped. Dumping in the ocean is quite legal but It must be done where it is permitted. Why they did what they did, they are the only ones that know that answer. I will continue to cruise as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twodaywonder said:

Give this some thought. The dumping was not a problem at all. It was where it was dumped. Dumping in the ocean is quite legal but It must be done where it is permitted. Why they did what they did, they are the only ones that know that answer. I will continue to cruise as usual.

And, again, you are quite wrong.  While Princess could have discharged the gray water overboard, without treatment, in certain areas, and with certain restrictions, the violation was not only for discharging gray water in an area that it was not allowed in, but because the gray water was no longer gray water once it entered the engine bilges.  It became oily water (whether any oil was present or not), and had to be discharged as such, no longer as gray water.  So, in one incident, you had discharging of gray water in a prohibited area, you had discharge of oily water without treatment, which is illegal anywhere in the world, and you had falsification of records to hide the untreated discharge of oily water.

 

You have repeatedly made the comment that "dumping" (with no categorizing of substance) is legal "in the ocean".  Please provide your reference for this.  And you may wish to review MARPOL in its original wording, not from some source like Wiki. 

Edited by chengkp75
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twodaywonder said:

You may want to look a few days back on what you said about my post. You were wrong then and you are wrong NOW! Again, where did I ever say anything about untreated anything. You need to stop doing this YOU ARE WRONG on contradicting me. Stop it!!!! You constantly go after me with untruths about what I say. Why do you add your own interpenetration on what I say. What is you problem. Can you read?

Please explain your "definition" of "dumping".  I will repeat that "discharging" treated sewage or gray water is not "dumping" any more than your town's municipal waste treatment plant is "dumping" into the rivers or ocean.  Legal discharges are not "dumping".  What you are saying is that pumping fuel oil overboard, and pumping bilge water that has an oil content of less than 15ppm are both "dumping".  You stated that "dumping" oil in the ocean is legal, so I would need your definition of "dumping" to be proved incorrect.  Shall I quote you?  "Dumping bilge oil is not illegal in itself."  So, please tell me what I've missed having worked with the MARPOL regulations since they came out in 1983.  

 

I have yet to denigrate your reading comprehension, but perhaps you're not expressing yourself accurately, so for the sake of clarity for the greater cruising public who don't understand MARPOL, tell me your definition of "dumping", and why legal discharges are "dumping".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

I do not have to explain anything to you. A simple post. You can repeat all you want. Has NOTHING to do with my simple post. You do not like the word dumping. TO BAD!

Don’t let them in, don’t let them see
Be the good corpoation you always had to be
Conceal, don’t feel, don’t let them know
Well now they know

Let it go... let it go

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can all condemn Carnival, Princess and any cruise line you wish to do it to. Makes no difference to me. It is nothing but words and totally useless. Cannot say anything here without getting any backlash. You can believe and say whatever you wish and that is fine. We will continue to cruise on all the curies ships and cruise lines we wish without any problem at all. Happy sailing.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, cruzsnooze said:

What lie? What agenda? Posting a link is fact. Having a different opinion apparently offends you, but it is not an agenda, it's a differing opinion. Some people refuse to believe their favorite cruise line can do anything wrong even when it's reported via reliable news sources.

Posting a link is not a fact.  The internet is full of half-truths, lies and general garbage.  A link is only as good as the content behind it and the one you posted was light on substance, lacked any verifiable or independently derived information and was clearly pushing an agenda without the academic or journalistic rigor necessary to back it up.

 

 Just because your best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who wrote an article saying that they were at 31 Flavors and overheard a lawyer saying that auto-tipping decreases pay does not make it a fact.

 

 

Edited by cougaraz
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twodaywonder said:

You may want to look a few days back on what you said about my post. You were wrong then and you are wrong NOW! Again, where did I ever say anything about untreated anything. You need to stop doing this YOU ARE WRONG on contradicting me. Stop it!!!! You constantly go after me with untruths about what I say. Why do you add your own interpenetration on what I say. What is you problem. Can you read?

Sooo, chengkp75 is pretty much what we would call an expert in these matters.  In fact, I believe it is safe to infer that the "cheng" refers to Chief Engineer and the KP to the United States Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York.  My guess would be that he graduated in 1975 and thus has 40+ years of experience in these matters, but that might be a bridge too far in interpreting the CC handle. 

 

The reality is that on any internet board you cannot post something that contains factual errors and not expect to be challenged on that post.  Nor can you post an opinion and then feign horror when someone with a different opinion expresses theirs.

 

In summary, in all matters related to maritime matters such as engineering, polution controls, shiphandling, and regulatory regimes it is probably a safe assumption that what chengkp75 says is accurate, based on vast professional experience and solidly grounded in a deep understanding of the law.

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twodaywonder said:

A noun definition of dumping. An accumulation of discarded garbage, refuse, etc. 

So, please answer my questions, to educate this, poor uneducated person:

 

Does your town "dump" sewage in the ocean?  (I've asked that a few times, no answer)

Does a car that meets California emissions controls "dump" air pollution?  And is this the same "dumping" as a Volkswagen diesel engine did a couple years back?

 

Oh, I found your definition above, but unfortunately it was for the noun "dump", not the verb "dumping".  At the same site, I found the definition of "dumping" to be:

 

"to get rid of unceremoniously or irresponsibly"

 

And at another site:

 

"deposit or dispose of (garbage, waste, or unwanted material), typically in a careless or hurried way."

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cougaraz said:

Sooo, chengkp75 is pretty much what we would call an expert in these matters.  In fact, I believe it is safe to infer that the "cheng" refers to Chief Engineer and the KP to the United States Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York.  My guess would be that he graduated in 1975 and thus has 40+ years of experience in these matters, but that might be a bridge too far in interpreting the CC handle. 

 

The reality is that on any internet board you cannot post something that contains factual errors and not expect to be challenged on that post.  Nor can you post an opinion and then feign horror when someone with a different opinion expresses theirs.

 

In summary, in all matters related to maritime matters such as engineering, polution controls, shiphandling, and regulatory regimes it is probably a safe assumption that what chengkp75 says is accurate, based on vast professional experience and solidly grounded in a deep understanding of the law.

 

 

That may very well be. There is no need to interpret my post the way he sees fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

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