Jump to content

Princesss fined $40 million for pollution


Charles4515
 Share

Recommended Posts

As probably the only person here on CC that deals with oily water separators, oil record books, and marine pollution prevention on a daily basis, I'll jump in here with a few comments..

 

Thank you for your, as usual, logical and well-thought out perspective. The hyperbole on this thread is somewhat ridiculous, mostly because people don't know the industry as well as they think they do.

 

Pretty bad pollution in San Francisco Bay when I crewed on a sailboat. Boat owners, to include houseboat owners pumped raw sewage and their bilges overboard. No holding tanks. It was perfectly legal. I'm betting some of the older boats do it today. They just get away from their slips or outside of the Golden Gate to do it. The only way to get corporations to stop is to make an example of one of them. Princess was the goat this time. It should not be condoned. But, faux outrage serves no one well.

Edited by CZEE
Misspelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also speaks to a failure of corporate governance and oversight. These ships (like any large complex operation) should have complied a list of risks, ranked each risk, and have a documented control mechanism to keep each risk controlled.

 

But the really big failure is an independent corporate group or audit team should have assessing (double checking) compliance.

 

Makes you wonder who is double checking that the survival craft are in proper condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me sad. I want Princess to want to be good stewards of our environment-- though, I know much of this has to do with the bottom line.

 

I did notice a very significant increase in prices for two cruises that I have booked:

1- 10 day Diamond- balcony (BB)- Yesterday- $1190 pp. Today- $2119 pp

2- 11 day Regal/ Baltic- Mini Suite (M1)- Yesterday- $ 2899 pp. Today- $3420 pp. Also, the current promotion is no longer attached to the sailing (free grats, OBC, and upgrade).

 

I worked in research long enough to know that correlation does not imply or equal causation- but this does make me go "hmmmmmm".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me sad. I want Princess to want to be good stewards of our environment-- though, I know much of this has to do with the bottom line.

 

I did notice a very significant increase in prices for two cruises that I have booked:

1- 10 day Diamond- balcony (BB)- Yesterday- $1190 pp. Today- $2119 pp

2- 11 day Regal/ Baltic- Mini Suite (M1)- Yesterday- $ 2899 pp. Today- $3420 pp. Also, the current promotion is no longer attached to the sailing (free grats, OBC, and upgrade).

 

I worked in research long enough to know that correlation does not imply or equal causation- but this does make me go "hmmmmmm".

 

I'm pretty sure the sale just ended. It was extended through the end of the month from when it was suppose to end - November 14th I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

HAL is in charge of Princess....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me sad. I want Princess to want to be good stewards of our environment-- though, I know much of this has to do with the bottom line.

 

I did notice a very significant increase in prices for two cruises that I have booked:

1- 10 day Diamond- balcony (BB)- Yesterday- $1190 pp. Today- $2119 pp

2- 11 day Regal/ Baltic- Mini Suite (M1)- Yesterday- $ 2899 pp. Today- $3420 pp. Also, the current promotion is no longer attached to the sailing (free grats, OBC, and upgrade).

 

I worked in research long enough to know that correlation does not imply or equal causation- but this does make me go "hmmmmmm".

 

Really? You believe there was a price increase today based on a fine Princess knew was coming likely for months? $40M fines don't just come out of the blue, you know.

 

Such vivid imaginations...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this falls under is P&I insurance (Property & Indemnity). Shipowners join together into P&I "clubs" that form essentially a mutual insurance coverage. The shipping companies compare the historic cost of maintenance and repair to the ship, damages to persons, property, and the environment, for all the ships in the "club". They then divide this total by the number of ships, and that's the premium each ship pays. So, if one company has a real bad year, and gets a fine like Princess, the P&I insurance pays it, but the next year the premiums will go up for everyone in the club. If one member consistently performs poorly, so that everyone else is paying for that one member's mistakes, they will kick that member out of the club, and that member will have to find a new club that will take them with their current record, with appropriately higher premiums.

In all likelihood this would not be insurable. A typical P&I contract will contain some form of the following provisions and exclusions:

What is insured:

 

Section 9 FINES AND PENALTIES

Liability for fines and penalties imposed by any court, tribunal or authority for:

....

3 the accidental escape or discharge of oil or any other substance from an

insured vessel, provided that the Member is insured for pollution liability

by the Association, and subject to the applicable limit of liability under

the Rules of the Association and/or the terms of entry;

 

Exclusions:

 

Willful Misconduct

10 Claims arising in circumstances where there has been willful misconduct

on the part of the Member, defined as an act intentionally done, or a

deliberate omission, by the Member with knowledge that the performance

or omission will probably result in injury, or an act done or omitted in

such a way as to allow an inference of a reckless disregard of the prob-

able consequences.

 

Waste Disposal and Sub-Sea Activities

12 Liabilities, costs and expenses incurred by a Member in connection with

any claim brought against such Member arising out of waste incineration

or disposal operations carried out by the insured vessel (other than any

such operations carried out as an incidental part of other commercial

activities) or the operation by the Member of submarines, mini-submarines

or diving bells or the activities of professional or commercial divers

where the Member is responsible for such activities.

 

Of course, each policy can differ, but it would be odd indeed to be able, in this day and age, to be able to obtain insurance for intentional pollution even as part of an industry specific risk pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the sale just ended. It was extended through the end of the month from when it was suppose to end - November 14th I think.

 

That would be a totally logical explanation, but I have OCD (obsessive cruise disorder) and I check the prices every.single.day. I have posted last night's prices against this evening's prices.

 

Of course, it is December 1- and that may signal the end of a sale- but even so, that was quite a price increase. Especially, the Diamond cruise- which sails in 47 days and is not even close to capacity.

Edited by TracieABD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

these quotes from the assistant united states attorney who prosecuted the case indicate that the upper management knew what was going on and princess did this to avoid having to pay disposal fees in port which further proves that upper management knew what was going on and they did it to make more money.

 

“the pollution in this case was the result of more than just bad actors on one ship,” said assistant attorney general cruden. “it reflects very poorly on princess’s culture and management. this is a company that knew better and should have done better. Hopefully the outcome of this case has the potential not just to chart a new course for this company, but for other companies as well.”

 

"a perceived motive for the crimes was financial – the chief engineer that ordered the dumping off the coast of england told subordinate engineers that it cost too much to properly offload the waste in port and that the shore-side superintendent who he reported to would not want to pay the expense."

 

the corporate executives and supervisors involved in this scheme should also have been charged since corporations do not commit crimes people do.

 

amen !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that any of the officers involved really think this is okay, but they are being subjected to a form of harassment as vile as any other out there. They are being pressured to break the law in order to keep their job. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and do what is right when your loved ones will suffer the consequences as well.

 

Rewards always increase toward the top as the bottom line is reduced. The low level officers would not have been rewarded for the savings, but upper level officers and shore side personnel would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • 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...