BigTimeCruiser Posted December 1, 2016 #26 Share Posted December 1, 2016 So much for the Safety Briefing prior to cruises when they say, "Here at Princess we are concerned with the environment"! Here is the video from the Princess President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo222 Posted December 1, 2016 #27 Share Posted December 1, 2016 So much for the Safety Briefing prior to cruises So much for the touted 'Environmental Officer" on board. Welcome to Planet Princess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Musky Ike Posted December 1, 2016 #28 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) This might explain the CCL stock price drop yesterday. I spent my career and still volunteer working for our environment, this really hurts. Edited December 1, 2016 by Musky Ike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo222 Posted December 1, 2016 #29 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Not surprised.....We all knew save the waves program was BS. save the waves is royal carribbean planet princess is princess, but they hardly ever mention it Has the name of the chief engineer been published anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500adverbs Posted December 1, 2016 #30 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Hold your horses on your supposed superior judgement there. We've dine the Hawaii cruise out of LA 4 times and only been able to tender into Lahaina once out of all 4. Just because you're not feeling the wind currently doesn't mean it isn't rougher in shore where the tenders land, or that it isn't forecast to be higher winds later on - which could prevent tenders from returning to the ship, thus stranding passengers. I highly, highly doubt it has anything to do with this news - as the violations were three plus years ago, and the investigation and court cases have just wrapped up...and Princess has made major changes since the initial incident... Much, much more likely that it actually is high winds/seas as the Captain noted to you all last night. The wind hasn't been mentioned today - it's all been about security. Turns out we are going ashore and we even get time tacked on the end. I'm sorry to have jumped the gun but it was the first thing I saw on Cruise Critic today and I couldn't help but think that, especially given, again, that wind was NOT mentioned today at all. You may have read more into what I wrote than what was there. If I had felt superior, you can bet I would have written more. Just posting breaking news, that's all. Read it with a matter of fact tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjwa Posted December 1, 2016 #31 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Surely the Captain is complicit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reader0108598 Posted December 1, 2016 #32 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) save the waves is royal carribbean planet princess is princess, but they hardly ever mention it Has the name of the chief engineer been published anywhere? Oops meant the one where they wanted us to reuse ourt towels. We all know that was just a cost savings ploy. I sail both lines so my error. They both did it. Just saw your question,I did not get the name of the chief engineer but will check later. Thanks Reader Edited December 1, 2016 by Reader0108598 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colo Cruiser Posted December 1, 2016 #33 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Can't help but wonder if there's a connection. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAPPY RETIREES Posted December 1, 2016 #34 Share Posted December 1, 2016 This news is devastating. It will certainly harm the cruise industry and so it should. We hear all about the environment safety concerns, on and on....... We have cruised 30 times on Princess and feel as guilty as hell. I think of all the wonderful pristine waters we sailed on the 2016 World cruise, I pray we were not polluting the waters with oil then. Our 2018 world cruise is with HAL hopefully they will have better standards. Totally unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CruiserBruce Posted December 1, 2016 #35 Share Posted December 1, 2016 The wind hasn't been mentioned today - it's all been about security. Turns out we are going ashore and we even get time tacked on the end. I'm sorry to have jumped the gun but it was the first thing I saw on Cruise Critic today and I couldn't help but think that, especially given, again, that wind was NOT mentioned today at all. You may have read more into what I wrote than what was there. If I had felt superior, you can bet I would have written more. Just posting breaking news, that's all. Read it with a matter of fact tone. Somebody said recently an apology with a "but" in it really isn't an apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfaaa Posted December 1, 2016 #36 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Pleading guilty and getting hit in the pocket for $40M is an apology. Trial is over. Time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare azbirdmom Posted December 1, 2016 #37 Share Posted December 1, 2016 The official statement from the DOJ doesn't really support the idea that the corruption came "from the top": From https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/princess-cruise-lines-pay-largest-ever-criminal-penalty-deliberate-vessel-pollution Thank you for sharing that link. As a loyal Princess cruiser, I think that this is sickening. The original news stories mentioned the Caribbean Princess, our least favorite ship in the fleet. But the shenanigans apparently extended to other ships as well. I hope they truly make the necessary changes both to the ships and the mindset of the employees who committed these crimes against the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txjim09 Posted December 1, 2016 #38 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Pleading guilty and getting hit in the pocket for $40M is an apology. Trial is over. Time to move on. $40M is a fine, not an apology. Pleading guilty is an admission and a decision for expediency, not an apology. And it's not time to move on, it's time to share opinions with Princess regarding the lack of oversight over crew performing known illegal acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corfe Mixture Posted December 1, 2016 #39 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) What I can't understand is that the original offence took place off the coast of the U.K. which means it fell under the jurisdiction of the MCA who normally prosecute pollution offences. Also, the ship is registered in Bermuda and, as we see from all the discussions about the Jones Act, the US authorities clearly regard it as an overseas vessel. Despite all this, the offence was prosecuted in the USA. :confused: Edited December 1, 2016 by Corfe Mixture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare JimmyVWine Posted December 1, 2016 #40 Share Posted December 1, 2016 $40M is a fine, not an apology. Pleading guilty is an admission and a decision for expediency, not an apology. But the video statement by Jan Swartz is an apology, (beginning at the 0:38 mark). No if, ands or buts. Not sure what difference it makes, but for people clamoring for an apology, it is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfaaa Posted December 1, 2016 #41 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) $40M is a fine, not an apology. Pleading guilty is an admission and a decision for expediency, not an apology. And it's not time to move on, it's time to share opinions with Princess regarding the lack of oversight over crew performing known illegal acts. Directly from President of Princess: We are very sorry that this happened and have taken additional steps to ensure we meet or exceed all environmental requirements. Sounds like an apology to me. Edited December 1, 2016 by sfaaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colo Cruiser Posted December 1, 2016 #42 Share Posted December 1, 2016 IMO its rouge officers onboard these ships that attempt to cut corners. I agree with the post that says its not directed from the corporate office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare JimmyVWine Posted December 1, 2016 #43 Share Posted December 1, 2016 What I can't understand is that the original offence took place off the coast of the U.K. which means it fell under the jurisdiction of the MCA who normally prosecute pollution offences. Also, the ship is registered in Bermuda and, as we see from all the discussions about the Jones Act, the US authorities clearly regard it as an overseas vessel. Despite all this, the offence was prosecuted in the USA. :confused: The DOJ Press Release (linked in Post #23 above) lays out a systemic problem that spanned almost a decade and impacted the waterways of many different countries. The joint task force probably chose the U.S. for the prosecution due to heavier potential penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare JimmyVWine Posted December 1, 2016 #44 Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) IMO its rouge officers onboard these ships that attempt to cut corners.I agree with the post that says its not directed from the corporate office. Though it is hard to imagine that Captains who know the when, how and where of the installation of center stairways on a ship are in the dark about waste water discharges. Whether it climbs beyond the bridge is unknown. But I doubt that a few rogue officers could implement a plan of environmental compliance avoidance for a decade without anyone above the waterline knowing about it. According to papers filed in court, the Caribbean Princess had been making illegal discharges through bypass equipment since 2005, one year after the ship began operations. The discharge on Aug. 26, 2013, involved approximately 4,227 gallons, 23 miles off the coast of England within the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone. At the same time as the discharge, engineers simultaneously ran clean seawater through the ship’s overboard equipment in order to create a false digital record for a legitimate discharge. Caribbean Princess used multiple methods over the course of time to pollute the seas. Prior to the installation of the bypass pipe used to make the discharge off the coast of England, a different unauthorized valve was used. When the Department of Justice investigative team conducted a consensual boarding of the ship in Houston, Texas, on March 8, 2014, they found the valve that crew members had described. When it was removed by Princess at the department’s request, it was found to contain black oil. In addition to the use of a magic pipe to circumvent the oily water separator and oil content monitor required pollution prevention equipment, the U.S. investigation uncovered two other illegal practices which were found to have taken place on the Caribbean Princess as well as four other Princess ships – Star Princess, Grand Princess, Coral Princess and Golden Princess. One practice was to open a salt water valve when bilge waste was being processed by the oily water separator and oil content monitor. The purpose was to prevent the oil content monitor from otherwise alarming and stopping the overboard discharge. This was done routinely on the Caribbean Princess in 2012 and 2013. The second practice involved discharges of oily bilge water originating from the overflow of graywater tanks into the machinery space bilges. This waste was pumped back into the graywater system rather than being processed as oily bilge waste. Neither of these practices were truthfully recorded in the oil record book as required. All of the bypassing took place through the graywater system which was discharged when the ship was more than four nautical miles from land. As a result, discharges within U.S. waters were likely. Edited December 1, 2016 by JimmyVWine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colo Cruiser Posted December 1, 2016 #45 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Though it is hard to imagine that Captains who know the when, how and where of the installation of center stairways on a ship are in the dark about waste water discharges. Whether it climbs beyond the bridge is unknown. But I doubt that a few rogue officers could implement a plan of environmental compliance avoidance for a decade without anyone above the waterline knowing about it. No plan just opportunity....... I would chalk it up to old tricks of the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare azbirdmom Posted December 1, 2016 #46 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Princess has more info on their site about the corrective actions that they have been taking: http://www.princess.com/news/notices_and_advisories/cbresponse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinfool Posted December 1, 2016 #47 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Jan Swartz has not been in place all that long....the offending practice predates her taking up her position as president. With that in mind, I am reminded of the details involved with the recent scandal at Wells Fargo. The trail of wrongdoing found its way up the chain of command to a mid-level executive who is no longer employed. The widespread practice as reported with Princess is likely the tip of the iceberg. I am going to bet that all cruise lines have 'gotten right' in the months that have passed while this investigation was happening. The judgment involving supervision by a judge over 78 ships across all Carnival lines is telling indeed. This issue may well be rooted in the corporate family at Carnival headquarters. Stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in NJ Posted December 1, 2016 #48 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I am appalled, despicable actions. And they've been doing this since 2005 on more than 1 ship and all they get fined is a puny $40 million? Sounds to me like they got a bargain!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfaaa Posted December 1, 2016 #49 Share Posted December 1, 2016 The judge thinks $40M is an appropriate penalty and US government agreed or it would have appealed the judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill B Posted December 1, 2016 #50 Share Posted December 1, 2016 I think all the lines do it... just in this case, Princess got caught. Everyone says they're 'environmentally progressive'. It's a crock...just like "Safety is No.1". It's not, profit is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now