Princess Cruises to Plead Guilty to Pollution Charges, Pay $40 Million Fine

[LauraS]

Check out the latest Princess Cruises news from Cruise Critic:

 

Princess Cruises to Plead Guilty to Pollution Charges, Pay $40 Million Fine

[yma01blue]

That is a lot of money.:eek:

[SF2AA]

Why would Princess pollute the medium that provides their livelihood? Oh, because of money. It costs not to pollute. Well then, maybe the fine should be larger. 😱😱😱

 

sent from Fire 5th

[Bourbon Believer]

I feel betrayed by Princess Cruises. I don't for one minute believe this fine is for the sins of only one ship. I also don't believe Princess is the only culprit.

As long as we allow cruise ship companies to register their ships off shore with the immunity from U.S. laws and regulations their will never be successful oversight.

You can't let an industry like this police itself. Dumping waste into the ocean is completely unnecessary, Just ask the U.S. Navy. We the consumer will be the only ones who can stop this practice by holding back business from the cruise companies. There should be an across the board impartially led study to see what ships are and are not practicing the dumping of waste. That way the ships doing this that have not been caught will get on the ball cleaning up their act. That small consolation for the pollution this industry has already inflicted on the world's oceans.

[triptolemus]

Ongoing Discussion:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2428028

[chengkp75]

I feel betrayed by Princess Cruises. I don't for one minute believe this fine is for the sins of only one ship. I also don't believe Princess is the only culprit.

As long as we allow cruise ship companies to register their ships off shore with the immunity from U.S. laws and regulations their will never be successful oversight.

You can't let an industry like this police itself. Dumping waste into the ocean is completely unnecessary, Just ask the U.S. Navy. We the consumer will be the only ones who can stop this practice by holding back business from the cruise companies. There should be an across the board impartially led study to see what ships are and are not practicing the dumping of waste. That way the ships doing this that have not been caught will get on the ball cleaning up their act. That small consolation for the pollution this industry has already inflicted on the world's oceans.

 

Sorry, but using the US Navy as an example of good maritime environmental stewardship is just wrong. While the rest of the world has had to meet MARPOL regulations dating from 1973, including all US flag merchant ships, the Navy exempted itself from meeting any of these requirements until they started a program in 1995 (22 years later) to address pollution control equipment on their ships, and they were not scheduled to complete installation of all equipment on all ships until 2013 (40 years after the fact). I remember when the carrier USS Kennedy came to Portland back in the '90's, and they needed to have a sewage barge alongside because they had no waste water treatment plant, and Casco Bay was a designated no discharge area for untreated sewage. Every other ship, regardless of what flag it flew, had to have a sewage plant onboard, but not a carrier with thousands onboard.

[cruisin42]

I've tried holding back on this since the news but I've just got to get this out.

Wondering how many of the eight princess cruises I've been on have they purposefully been pollution our oceans.

That is disgusting.

And to think that I stopped cruising because of the "no smoking policy" on the balconies.

Money hungry hypocrites.

Edited December 2, 2016 by cruisin42

[Redwing55]

I've tried holding back on this since the news but I've just got to get this out.

Wondering how many of the eight princess cruises I've been on have they purposefully been pollution our oceans.

That is disgusting.

And to think that I stopped cruising because of the "no smoking policy" on the balconies.

Money hungry hypocrites.

 

I don't at all support what they have done. But the potential damage to the environment is fairly small. The practices were pathetic, but I suspect the fines and penalties were driven more by what they didn't do and how they circumvented things, than damage to the environment.

 

Although personally I don't think it significant, just think about all the emissions from the engines that are created on each cruise.

 

So feel as one may, in the grand scheme of things, it was more process than impact that is the issue.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Redwing55

[Lucky TGO]

That a lot of Cruises to make up $40 million. Now my question is who's going to get fired and rightfully so.

Tony

[RDC1]

That a lot of Cruises to make up $40 million. Now my question is who's going to get fired and rightfully so.

Tony

 

Using the last CCL annual report

40 million is 0.2% of CCL's annual revenue, 2.2% of its annual profit, and would impact is profit per share by 5.1 cents. From $2.26 to $2.21

 

Basically the 40 million fine is a rounding error on CCL total business. Not much at all.

[sfaaa]

. Well then, maybe the fine should be larger.

 

sent from Fire 5th

 

Now you sound like a greedy fellow. :eek:

[chengkp75]

That a lot of Cruises to make up $40 million. Now my question is who's going to get fired and rightfully so.

Tony

 

The engineering officers who did this were surely terminated. Princess' statement says that the "fleet operations management" team has been reorganized with "new leadership". So, In my mind, the ones who caved to the pressure and the ones who provided the pressure have at least lost their jobs.

[tiessa]

They should have been fined much more! Doing it then covering it up! They should also be fined for the worst cruise I've ever taken!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Pierlesscruisers]

They should have been fined much more! Doing it then covering it up! They should also be fined for the worst cruise I've ever taken!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

I believe that if you read a it more you will find that Princess fully cooperated with the investigation from the start. From what I read, at least, there was no attempt to "cover up" by the company.

 

As to your comment about your cruise, I guess you feel that your sadness over your cruise is as important to the world as environmental pollution, huh? You must really have a sense of self-importance!

 

Tom

[chengkp75]

Let's just get this out front. While I blame the corporate fleet management team (not the top corporate officers who were almost certainly unaware) for the culture of doing these acts to save money, there was no cover up at the corporate level. The "cover up" comes at the ship level, where the Oil Record Book was falsified by the officers involved. Once you've done the dirty deed, you have to cover your tracks in the Oil Record Book. The Oil Record Book is an internationally recognized legal document, and even making an incorrect entry (for instance correctly recording transfer of bilge water from the bilges to the bilge holding tank, but coding the transfer incorrectly, as opposed to a false entry) can get you a $5000 fine.

[satxdiver]

According to the DOJ report and what Princess corporate has said, the investigation as to what happened was conducted by the DOJ, USCG and Princess corporate. Corporate made no attempt to cover up anything in this case. The fault lies with the chief engineer on the ship who decided on his own to pollute and cover it up. Whether he is still employed by Princess we do not know but I imagine it did have a consequence. Princess corporate has taken extreme measures to make sure this does not happen again according to their statement and since they are now under court orders, I would expect them to do this.

 

The downside to this is that they are most likely not the only company polluting our seas. The oil spills due to oil drilling ignoring environmental rules to save money, other ships in non-compliance again to save money and even our own US Navy ships. Vigilance is the key here to make sure all comply. Our own US Congress is hostile to environmental concerns if it costs large corporations money and are always trying to reduce the environmental rules. Witness the EPA air pollution rules and the hostility by many. Don't be simply unhappy with Princess but the rest of the polluters in our world.

[satxdiver]

They should have been fined much more! Doing it then covering it up! They should also be fined for the worst cruise I've ever taken!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Sounds like a lot of sour grapes. I think you will be happier on a CCL ship.

[chengkp75]

According to the DOJ report and what Princess corporate has said, the investigation as to what happened was conducted by the DOJ, USCG and Princess corporate. Corporate made no attempt to cover up anything in this case. The fault lies with the chief engineer on the ship who decided on his own to pollute and cover it up. Whether he is still employed by Princess we do not know but I imagine it did have a consequence. Princess corporate has taken extreme measures to make sure this does not happen again according to their statement and since they are now under court orders, I would expect them to do this.

 

The downside to this is that they are most likely not the only company polluting our seas. The oil spills due to oil drilling ignoring environmental rules to save money, other ships in non-compliance again to save money and even our own US Navy ships. Vigilance is the key here to make sure all comply. Our own US Congress is hostile to environmental concerns if it costs large corporations money and are always trying to reduce the environmental rules. Witness the EPA air pollution rules and the hostility by many. Don't be simply unhappy with Princess but the rest of the polluters in our world.

 

I will disagree with you regarding the Chief Engineer "who decided on his own" to do this. This is not what happens, because there is no benefit to a licensed officer to do this, but there is a very large downside, since he can be held financially responsible as well as the company. As I've posted on the other two threads on this subject, no Chief wakes up and says "I'm going to risk my livelihood and save the company money by pumping oil over the side". No, what happens is that the Chief calls his Technical Superintendent and says "the oil water separator isn't working right, I need to pump bilge water ashore at the next port", and the Superintendent says "no problem, I'll have the barge waiting, along with the new Chief Engineer, its been nice working with you". This is harassment pure and simple, and it goes on in shipping all the time, and it takes a lot of courage to stand up for what is right when your family may suffer the consequences.

[RDC1]

Sorry, but using the US Navy as an example of good maritime environmental stewardship is just wrong. While the rest of the world has had to meet MARPOL regulations dating from 1973, including all US flag merchant ships, the Navy exempted itself from meeting any of these requirements until they started a program in 1995 (22 years later) to address pollution control equipment on their ships, and they were not scheduled to complete installation of all equipment on all ships until 2013 (40 years after the fact). I remember when the carrier USS Kennedy came to Portland back in the '90's, and they needed to have a sewage barge alongside because they had no waste water treatment plant, and Casco Bay was a designated no discharge area for untreated sewage. Every other ship, regardless of what flag it flew, had to have a sewage plant onboard, but not a carrier with thousands onboard.

 

It is not unusual in the US for laws being written that exempt government agencies from having to follow them.

[RDC1]

I believe that if you read a it more you will find that Princess fully cooperated with the investigation from the start. From what I read, at least, there was no attempt to "cover up" by the company.

 

As to your comment about your cruise, I guess you feel that your sadness over your cruise is as important to the world as environmental pollution, huh? You must really have a sense of self-importance!

 

Tom

 

If you have ever been in a senior position in a large company. There are a lot of unwritten rules. Ones that senior management will never tell someone to do something, but exist because they violate the written rules and people read between the lines and do things because it will help them get promoted, help them get along in the company etc. Their exist because of how the internal policies are written and the things that are left out.

 

For example if cost savings was heavily emphasized in the review process for engineers and those that provided such savings were promoted first or got treated better, while those that had cost overruns or less savings, even if they had good sound reasons why they occurred were treated worse, you have the environment for establishing a culture that says hide any problems, maintain cost savings, no matter what.

 

In such a case the internal policies of the company created an environment where such things would occur, senior management would have never provided direction to do it, they probably would not have known, but they procedures would have helped create the environment that led to it.

 

For a while I participated in audits of companies for a regulatory authority. The first thing I would look at is review process and resulting impact on compensation. The second thing I would look at was who the QA and Safety departments reported to. If QA and Safety reported to a line unit, with revenue responsibility, that would be a major red flag that there ere problems to be found. It it reported to the CEO directly or to a non-revenue unit such as General Counsel then that was a much better structure. Based upon those two items I could generally have a good idea where to look and if I would find anything major.

Edited December 3, 2016 by RDC1

[Pierlesscruisers]

If you have ever been in a senior position in a large company. There are a lot of unwritten rules. Ones that senior management will never tell someone to do something, but exist because they violate the written rules and people read between the lines and do things because it will help them get promoted, help them get along in the company etc. Their exist because of how the internal policies are written and the things that are left out.

 

For example if cost savings was heavily emphasized in the review process for engineers and those that provided such savings were promoted first or got treated better, while those that had cost overruns or less savings, even if they had good sound reasons why they occurred were treated worse, you have the environment for establishing a culture that says hide any problems, maintain cost savings, no matter what.

 

In such a case the internal policies of the company created an environment where such things would occur, senior management would have never provided direction to do it, they probably would not have known, but they procedures would have helped create the environment that led to it.

 

For a while I participated in audits of companies for a regulatory authority. The first thing I would look at is review process and resulting impact on compensation. The second thing I would look at was who the QA and Safety departments reported to. If QA and Safety reported to a line unit, with revenue responsibility, that would be a major red flag that there ere problems to be found. It it reported to the CEO directly or to a non-revenue unit such as General Counsel then that was a much better structure. Based upon those two items I could generally have a good idea where to look and if I would find anything major.

 

Looking at your last paragraph, while I'll be the first to admit that I have never thought of what you said, I do understand what you said and I can see the rationale behind it, and it makes good sense to me. That said, I'm not sure what the point of your message is unless you are not trying to place blame in any specific place but are saying that the corporate structure of the company involved, Princess, might have led to conditions which caused one or more persons in lower levels of authority to have made assumptions as to what was really wanted at the higher levels. I hope that this probably very poorly worded assumption on my part is close to what you were saying.

 

Tom

[RDC1]

Looking at your last paragraph, while I'll be the first to admit that I have never thought of what you said, I do understand what you said and I can see the rationale behind it, and it makes good sense to me. That said, I'm not sure what the point of your message is unless you are not trying to place blame in any specific place but are saying that the corporate structure of the company involved, Princess, might have led to conditions which caused one or more persons in lower levels of authority to have made assumptions as to what was really wanted at the higher levels. I hope that this probably very poorly worded assumption on my part is close to what you were saying.

 

Tom

 

Yes, people are successful by solving problems for their boss and making them look good. The people that really succeed do so without their boss having to tell them, especially if it violates rules.

 

There is a very good book that I used to require my subordinates to read. Dinosaur Brains by Albert Bernstein and Sydney Rozen. It is the best book I have found on why corporations and other large organizations operate the way that they do.

 

Another point is that you can have a situation where senior management may not have actively directed an illegal action, they also may not have known that an illegal action took place, but where they created the environment that was a good breeding ground for such illegal action to take place. The fact that it occurred on several ships certainly shows that the environment was perfect for it.

Edited December 4, 2016 by RDC1

[Pierlesscruisers]

The point I am making is that you can have a situation where senior management may not have actively directed an illegal action, they also may not have known that an illegal action took place, but where they created the environment that was a good breeding ground for such illegal action to take place. The fact that it occurred on several ships certainly shows that the environment was perfect for it.

 

Ah, okay, that's what I thought that you were saying. Thanks for your explanation. Good job. Lets hope that many people in the corporate structure learned from this unfortunate experience.

 

Tom

Edited December 4, 2016 by Pierlesscruisers