What Went Wrong on Those Carnival Cruise Ships

[clo]

https://slate.com/business/2020/04/coronavirus-cruise-ships-carnival-diamond-princess.html?fbclid=IwAR2cgFm_9t5YgPtwsuGy3K-PcmFikJHg03AOe2CL_eLc-oU8wctw4jo3JsM

 

I shared this on the Carnival site but here also. We're about a half inch from never cruising again. The ethics of these companies IMO is disgusting.

[chengkp75]

5 hours ago, clo said:

https://slate.com/business/2020/04/coronavirus-cruise-ships-carnival-diamond-princess.html?fbclid=IwAR2cgFm_9t5YgPtwsuGy3K-PcmFikJHg03AOe2CL_eLc-oU8wctw4jo3JsM

 

I shared this on the Carnival site but here also. We're about a half inch from never cruising again. The ethics of these companies IMO is disgusting.

While I have no dog in this fight, and have condemned Carnival over it's environmental culture, but defended them when unwarranted accusations were being made, I would say that Carnival's ethics are not much different than the vast majority of corporations.

[CruiserBruce]

Hindsight, particularly in an "investigation" is always 20-20. Its always easy to say they "could have, should have".

 

And, as a point of reference, on Feb 29, we were in Lahaina, Hawaii, with Grand Princess, and mingled with the pax for the better part of a day, in town. (We were 3 days into a 12 day land vacation.) Yes, word was starting to spread about the COVID 19. But it was still several days before the case from the previous Grand Princess cruise was known. And I think Hawai (Oahu) didn't have a case until about March 5.

[ontheweb]

10 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Hindsight, particularly in an "investigation" is always 20-20. Its always easy to say they "could have, should have".

Absolutely. Why did the CDC originally let passengers from those ships go to airports and fly commercial airliners? Why did the CDC originally say only medical personnel and those with compromised immunity wear masks as it really did nothing for the general population? And did cruise ships really have the highest rate of infection, what about the Navy ship in which the Captain was relieved of his command because he went around the chain of command to try to get help for the hundreds of sailors on his ship who were infected?

[Nic6318]

Hi Clo

 

I hope you would not be too disappointed in the realization that once a company is formed especially if it is a public traded it becomes a wholly separate entity (separate from  the individuals running it) whose primary mandate is to make money for it's owner's/shareholders. In fact even further than that concept is the necessity to actually make more money this year than last. This is the "standard" of how a companies' success is judged. That point is because if the company isn't making "more" money then it would be perceived that it is no longer growing. If that were case then, why invest your money in a company that isn't growing. This isn't optional, this is the "main" requirement for all companies.

 

Now, with that in mind, you put in place executives who understand the rule. In fact, most times their income is tied directly to them, either individually or collectively fulfilling that "main requirement". With this rule No.1 in place, other concepts like, how you deal with your employees, your customers, the world in general are only important in how it affects the bottom line. There is very little incentive to do the "right thing".

 

This is how corporations are structured to protect the investors. It becomes a necessary evil of capitalism, otherwise executives might start doing things that aren't necessarily for the express benefit of those shareholders. There are laws in place (we all understand how politics are involved in this), so that companies don't do "bad" things. People do things that they think/feel/hope they can get away with, especially if it benefits them personally. This isn't exclusive to Carnival or cruise lines. It is what I would expect to find if you dig into many industries. 

 

 

[chengkp75]

9 minutes ago, Nic6318 said:

This is the "standard" of how a companies' success is judged.

Unfortunately, this is the model that business schools teach, but it is not a "necessary evil of capitalism", as companies did the right thing by their employees and customers long before the need for business school degrees was a prerequisite for becoming senior management in corporations.  Corporations no longer care about the "widget" they produce, just the money to be made.

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

The Grand was a fiasco - but you could argue the cruise lines didn't know enough about what they were up against. The Zaandam, Ruby, Coral and others were another matter.

Coral has a criminal investigation under way in Australia ... the others cases deserve no less.

[PrincessLuver]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While I have no dog in this fight, and have condemned Carnival over it's environmental culture, but defended them when unwarranted accusations were being made, I would say that Carnival's ethics are not much different than the vast majority of corporations.

 

Every company we have had to deal with getting refunds regarding Covid-19 cancellations have come through in a very timely manner and we were issued cash refunds.  

 

Princess has not,  so I would say that CCL's ethics are not the same as the majority of companies we have dealt with during COVID-19.  

 

Even companies such as Amazon are able to issue refunds almost instantly but Princess has basically issued none to the thousands of passengers it owes money when Princess canceled their cruises and did not delivery the product promised.

Edited April 27, 2020 by PrincessLuver

[jwattle]

1) You're beating a dead horse...actually you're bringing it out of its grave to beat it

2) CCL doesn't bear all of the blame for Diamond; they were at the whim and will of the country (Japan) and the WHO 

3)Coral was brought onboard by passengers that came BACK whilst trying to debark and head home; then spread whilst getting to the US, the only port that would actually take them and 

4) If you're so close to never cruising again, why do you keep obsessively posting on a cruising site?

 

Sorry for the rant, but jeez...

Edited April 27, 2020 by jwattle
one last comment

[c-boy]

"We're about a half inch from never cruising again"

 

I'll be right back, this deserves a second cup of coffee ☕ 

[CruiserBruce]

44 minutes ago, PrincessLuver said:

 

Every company we have had to deal with getting refunds regarding Covid-19 cancellations have come through in a very timely manner and we were issued cash refunds.  

 

Princess has not,  so I would say that CCL's ethics are not the same as the majority of companies we have dealt with during COVID-19.  

 

Even companies such as Amazon are able to issue refunds almost instantly but Princess has basically issued none to the thousands of passengers it owes money when Princess canceled their cruises and did not delivery the product promised.

The first question you have to ask is....did the company lose 100% of revenue, and have to refund far, far more money than revenue on hand. That absolutely doesn't apply to Amazon, but it definitely applies to Carnival Corp, the airlines, etc. If you think a company has 100% of the money on hand to refund months worth of bookings...you aren't understanding how companies work.

[MudderBear]

Do these cruise lines have insurance?  (like from a Re-Insurance company)?

[AF-1]

Raise your hand if you own stock in a cruise line that you're now bashing.  

CruiserBruce; agree with you; plus how much refund is coming from Amazon; not as much as Airfare or cruise fare

MuddleBear;  they probably do have re-insurance for the ships

C-boy;  I am on my third cup already

jwattle:  Amen to your post

[c-boy]

clo, hmmm 🤔  thread must have been removed on the Carnival site.  If your lookin' to slap a monkey up side the head, and place blame why not start with Chinese government,   they started this whole thing. 

[chengkp75]

While the cruise lines have P&I insurance that will cover expenses due to quarantine, they do not have "interruption of business" insurance.

[clo]

3 hours ago, Nic6318 said:

It is what I would expect to find if you dig into many industries. 

Some not all industries and some not all companies within those industries. As a consumer I sometimes, not always, make buying decisions based upon my personal code of ethics. For instance it's been some years since I've shopped at WalMart because of how they treat their suppliers and employees. I'm not for a second suggesting that no one should, just I. Cruise lines, at least the ones making the new these days, seem to have a corporate ethos that is a turn-off to me.

[clo]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Unfortunately, this is the model that business schools teach, but it is not a "necessary evil of capitalism", as companies did the right thing by their employees and customers long before the need for business school degrees was a prerequisite for becoming senior management in corporations.  Corporations no longer care about the "widget" they produce, just the money to be made.

We were very 'lucky' that Bob spent most of his career and I spent a few years at Levi Strauss. They've been a public company and a private one but the family - the descendants of Levi Strauss - have always had controlling interest. For over 30 years they've had "terms of engagement" that dictated how their suppliers had to do business with them. They were on the forefront on many social issues. Were they perfect? Heavens no. But they set a standard that still makes us proud to have been involved. And it's shadowed our decisions for a whole lots of years. I will now return you to your regularly scheduled programming 🙂

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, MudderBear said:

Do these cruise lines have insurance?  (like from a Re-Insurance company)?

No. Been discussed that while common in some businesses, the cruise lines have not seen a need for it.

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, AF-1 said:

Raise your hand if you own stock in a cruise line that you're now bashing.  

CruiserBruce; agree with you; plus how much refund is coming from Amazon; not as much as Airfare or cruise fare

MuddleBear;  they probably do have re-insurance for the ships

C-boy;  I am on my third cup already

jwattle:  Amen to your post

We have stock in Carnival...virtually raising my hand. I also am aware of the things Carnival has done to raise money to refund the owed fares (including to us) and have the money to ride out the situation. I also know those actions aren't completed in 5 minutes, and the money is suddenly there.

[pms4104]

55 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While the cruise lines have P&I insurance that will cover expenses due to quarantine, they do not have "interruption of business" insurance.

Could that P&I insurance be used to reimburse the U.S. gov't (taxpayers) for evacuation/repatriatkln and quarantune costs?

[npcl]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Absolutely. Why did the CDC originally let passengers from those ships go to airports and fly commercial airliners? Why did the CDC originally say only medical personnel and those with compromised immunity wear masks as it really did nothing for the general population? And did cruise ships really have the highest rate of infection, what about the Navy ship in which the Captain was relieved of his command because he went around the chain of command to try to get help for the hundreds of sailors on his ship who were infected?

The Diamond had a higher rate of infection 700 out of 3500 compared to 800 out of 5000

[npcl]

6 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

We have stock in Carnival...virtually raising my hand. I also am aware of the things Carnival has done to raise money to refund the owed fares (including to us) and have the money to ride out the situation. I also know those actions aren't completed in 5 minutes, and the money is suddenly there.

Actually they were completed 20 days ago and yes CCL would have had access to the funds on that date.

[npcl]

2 hours ago, CruiserBruce said:

The first question you have to ask is....did the company lose 100% of revenue, and have to refund far, far more money than revenue on hand. That absolutely doesn't apply to Amazon, but it definitely applies to Carnival Corp, the airlines, etc. If you think a company has 100% of the money on hand to refund months worth of bookings...you aren't understanding how companies work.

When this stated CCL had about $500 million in cash and over 4.5 Billion is customer deposits.  with current liabilities running 5X current assets.

 

On the other hand United airlines for example had more in cash or equivalent than they did in customer deposits.

[CruiserBruce]

8 minutes ago, npcl said:

When this stated CCL had about $500 million in cash and over 4.5 Billion is customer deposits.  with current liabilities running 5X current assets.

 

On the other hand United airlines for example had more in cash or equivalent than they did in customer deposits.

Are you considering the $4.5 billion in deposits as cash on hand, or just liabilities?

[fishin' musician]

Finished last cup of coffee, time to pop some corn!