Jump to content

Carnival needs Judge approval to Sail


Recommended Posts

I just read an article in the Miami Herald that Carnival has to submit environmental protocols to a judge 60 days prior to sailing and can’t cruise unless/until the judge grants approval. I don’t think the CDC has treated the cruise lines fairly, but in this situation Carnival and their poor environmental history has no one to blame but themselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I just read an article in the Miami Herald that Carnival has to submit environmental protocols to a judge 60 days prior to sailing and can’t cruise unless/until the judge grants approval. I don’t think the CDC has treated the cruise lines fairly, but in this situation Carnival and their poor environmental history has no one to blame but themselves. 

No big deal.Just another bump in the road. CCL can handle it

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NIATPAC29 said:

No big deal.Just another bump in the road. CCL can handle it

 
I don’t know about that. This judge seems to have a grudge against Carnival and Carnival continues to get caught violating several environmental laws. It’s not like Carnival can afford to continue paying hefty fines like it did in the past. It might be time for Carnival to stop ignoring environmental related laws. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, PhillyFan33579 said:

I just read an article in the Miami Herald that Carnival has to submit environmental protocols to a judge 60 days prior to sailing and can’t cruise unless/until the judge grants approval. I don’t think the CDC has treated the cruise lines fairly, but in this situation Carnival and their poor environmental history has no one to blame but themselves. 

What has transpired since the last get together?  By my recollection....... nothing. I have not seen this mentioned before?  Maybe the chief can opine.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jimbo5544 said:

What has transpired since the last get together?  By my recollection....... nothing. I have not seen this mentioned before?  Maybe the chief can opine.  

Carnival apparently submitted a secret plan over the summer which may not have been sufficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forget the word used, but there is also something in the cdc protocols where the cruiseline has to take financial over of anyone getting sick so it's not on the ports. That also sounds like a hurdle to me.

 

MSC sold mandatory insurance. I'm not sure people here know they may have to purchase required insurance unless carnival agrees to any costs.

 

Here is a ss of the 60 day judge order. If I had a cruise in dec or jan I'd be worried.

20201016_192436913.jpeg

Edited by firefly333
Link to post
Share on other sites

From ap news:

 

  • Seitz is retiring later this year and is turning over the case to U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro, who jointly presided over Monday’s hearing. Three people who claimed they were victims of Carnival’s environmental violations attended the hearing. Their attorney, Knoll Lowney, expressed skepticism that Carnival will keep its word this time.
Edited by jimbo5544
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a fullll month and a half before Carnival desires to resume sailing. That should be enough time for the Courts' concerns to be reviewed and an order to resume sailing signed. 

 

I am environmentally sensitive to caring for where we live. Sometimes it a burden to comply

 with the paperwork, I would not consider taking a shortcut dispose of my used oil. 

 

Some of the judges demands are reasonable and while requiring increased effort by Carnival, not impossible. 

 

I would consider a 700 item maintenance list for a structure as large as a cruise ship to be rather small. I am sure there are items like a light is out in the ladies room, there is a wobbly wheel on a kitchen table, and the air handler filter in the engine control room is dirty. Many items will be preventative maintenance tasks for cabins that are performed on a routine basis. 

 

Carnival needs to comply fully with the Courts' order, but at the same time the Court should not set capricious and arbitrary timelines that interfere with the conduct of the companies business. That is contrary to the American notions of fair play.

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

What has transpired since the last get together?  By my recollection....... nothing. I have not seen this mentioned before?  Maybe the chief can opine.  

 

4 hours ago, momof3cruisers said:

What gets me is that she couldn’t have brought this up sometime in the last SIX MONTHS??? Her timing sucks and is rather suspect IMO.

 

I hadn't heard about this until now, and haven't seen the court ruling yet, but here's my take on it.  The judge is saying, "given Carnival's past record, and the fact that the ships have been sitting for 6 months with no port state control oversight (and I don't know the status of whether the 3rd party auditors or court appointed auditors were allowed on the ships during the shutdown), I need to have verification by the CEO, that the ships have not been violating their probation".  While the 60 day time frame may be excessive, I think this is a reasonable assumption given Carnival's track record, and leads me to my suspicion that the auditors were not allowed on the ships either due to travel restrictions to the countries where the ships are currently located, or because of Carnival simply not allowing them.  If I remember correctly, Donald was told he was both civilly and criminally liable for any future violations of the probation, and so by requiring him to certify that the ships have been compliant, and then, of course, getting an auditor actually on the ship to verify, places a very large burden on him, and means he should be totally honest and transparent about corporate activities during the shutdown.

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

 

I hadn't heard about this until now, and haven't seen the court ruling yet, but here's my take on it.  The judge is saying, "given Carnival's past record, and the fact that the ships have been sitting for 6 months with no port state control oversight (and I don't know the status of whether the 3rd party auditors or court appointed auditors were allowed on the ships during the shutdown), I need to have verification by the CEO, that the ships have not been violating their probation".  While the 60 day time frame may be excessive, I think this is a reasonable assumption given Carnival's track record, and leads me to my suspicion that the auditors were not allowed on the ships either due to travel restrictions to the countries where the ships are currently located, or because of Carnival simply not allowing them.  If I remember correctly, Donald was told he was both civilly and criminally liable for any future violations of the probation, and so by requiring him to certify that the ships have been compliant, and then, of course, getting an auditor actually on the ship to verify, places a very large burden on him, and means he should be totally honest and transparent about corporate activities during the shutdown.

thank you 

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

 

I hadn't heard about this until now, and haven't seen the court ruling yet, but here's my take on it.  The judge is saying, "given Carnival's past record, and the fact that the ships have been sitting for 6 months with no port state control oversight (and I don't know the status of whether the 3rd party auditors or court appointed auditors were allowed on the ships during the shutdown), I need to have verification by the CEO, that the ships have not been violating their probation".  While the 60 day time frame may be excessive, I think this is a reasonable assumption given Carnival's track record, and leads me to my suspicion that the auditors were not allowed on the ships either due to travel restrictions to the countries where the ships are currently located, or because of Carnival simply not allowing them.  If I remember correctly, Donald was told he was both civilly and criminally liable for any future violations of the probation, and so by requiring him to certify that the ships have been compliant, and then, of course, getting an auditor actually on the ship to verify, places a very large burden on him, and means he should be totally honest and transparent about corporate activities during the shutdown.

That appears to be a very large gun barrel that he's staring down.

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

From ap news:

 

  • Seitz is retiring later this year and is turning over the case to U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro, who jointly presided over Monday’s hearing. Three people who claimed they were victims of Carnival’s environmental violations attended the hearing. Their attorney, Knoll Lowney, expressed skepticism that Carnival will keep its word this time.

wonder how they were possibly victims of environmental issues that happened at Sea? any clues?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kdr69 said:

wonder how they were possibly victims of environmental issues that happened at Sea? any clues?

People in Alaska like fishermen who's livelihood would have been affected by the pollution.  Also, coastal areas of Florida and the Bahamas.  Not all violations happened in international waters, which is why the USCG got involved in the first place.

Edited by chengkp75
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chengkp75 said:

People in Alaska like fishermen who's livelihood would have been affected by the pollution.

Well i get that, but I would assume that a matter of a Class Action suit as it affects a group of people not an individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know these are unprecedented times for the cruise industry, I am highly disappointed in Carnival CEO Arnold Donald.

 

Mr. Donald's leadership, or should I say, lack thereof, on the environmental compliance will ultimately cost Carnival it's life. The ships have not carried passengers for 7 months, and some of them have 700 maintenance items that need to be addressed. Even if only a fraction of those are addressed before sailing resumes, we're looking at maintenance running into the millions per ship, and in spite of the capacity cuts, Carnival will still have around 85 ships.

 

Ultimately, even if the decision to leave US waters to avoid CDC reporting requirements was the right one, the company still has had time to tackle the ongoing environmental issues. The company could have even spun the negative publicity from the CDC reporting to say that it chose to remain in US waters so that it could perform environmental-related maintenance. All of this would be moot had it been addressed in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

 

Is it time to change CEOs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kdr69 said:

Well i get that, but I would assume that a matter of a Class Action suit as it affects a group of people not an individual.

Nope. If Carnival violated federal law, these victims are witnesses, too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kdr69 said:

Well i get that, but I would assume that a matter of a Class Action suit as it affects a group of people not an individual.

I believe their role is more of "interested party" than "class of victims".  They are not seeking damages from Carnival, just wishing to see that justice is done for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not good news for Carnival. The order states that she must be notified 60-days in advance before the ships are inside FL water lines. That is 3-miles off shore. 60-days puts them at the middle of December at best and that assumes they find no violations and ships are compliant to the order. The CEO in the article is quoted as saying it is ridiculous to think they could cover all of them. So, this leads me to believe he already provided the Judge the ammo to ban cruise ships in FL and possibly the US until compliant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bigrednole said:

This is not good news for Carnival. The order states that she must be notified 60-days in advance before the ships are inside FL water lines. That is 3-miles off shore. 60-days puts them at the middle of December at best and that assumes they find no violations and ships are compliant to the order. The CEO in the article is quoted as saying it is ridiculous to think they could cover all of them. So, this leads me to believe he already provided the Judge the ammo to ban cruise ships in FL and possibly the US until compliant. 

Actually inside US waters - not just Florida

Link to post
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
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A with Chris Prelog, President of Windstar Cruises!
      • Register Now for Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Royal Caribbean
      • 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
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...