Think the CEOs are toast for Carnival/HAL and others?

[cruisemom42]

36 minutes ago, rattanchair said:

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/tourism-cruises/article242380421.html

 

Article is dated April 30. Old news.

[Honolulu Blue]

Not titled as CEOs but the Holland America and Seabourn Presidents are both leaving at the end of May: https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/holland-americas-orlando-ashford-seabourns-rick-meadows-are-leaving .  Both are under the Carnival Corp. umbrella.

[Jasawyer]

On 5/4/2020 at 2:05 PM, gerryuk said:

It would not surprise me that once this is all over some cruise lines corporate headquarters will be raided by the police and relevant authorities, some of these CEOs may find themselves facing criminal proceedings.

I also think that class action law suits will be the order of the day, interesting times.

Will absolutely NOT happen. Those corps have very clearly laid out contracts that include any contingency. Though they may be wrong, they are not criminally nor civilly culpable because of that contract WE as patrons sign before we get onboard. 

[Jasawyer]

On 5/6/2020 at 3:46 PM, rattanchair said:

Just to 'stir the pot' a bit in this intermediate time. I have read that the CDC wants the top 3 officials of every cruise line to sign some document assuring the safe repatriation of their crew through US territories. Only Royal Caribbean did so, but only for one crew member, a cruise director. All cruise lines are balking at the personal liability of their top officials.  When there are no consequences, where does 'the buck stop' ? As an extreme example of the power of consequences I recall the story of one of the most polluted rivers in the world, the Singapore river. The PM Lee decided to clean it up. The official version is they took a "holistic" approach over many years ( most palatable for sensitive readers), but the 'urban legend' contends that the PM decreed that any business/industry caught polluting the river would be fined $100,000 for the first offense, a second offense the government would hang the CEO/owner. For many years since the Singapore river is supposedly one of the cleanest. A testament to consequences.

Corporations, by their very nature,  are structured to limit risk.... That is the WHOLE point of Corps, LLCs, LLPs, ect.  There may never be anyone, anywhere at any cruise line where the "buck stops"....  These guys are merely trying to stay in business and feed the monkey, the board members and share holders. NOTHING ELSE!

Edited May 16, 2020 by Jasawyer

[K32682]

10 hours ago, Jasawyer said:

Will absolutely NOT happen. Those corps have very clearly laid out contracts that include any contingency. Though they may be wrong, they are not criminally nor civilly culpable because of that contract WE as patrons sign before we get onboard. 

 

No passenger or employment contract absolves a corporation of criminal culpability. The abysmal conduct of certain cruise CEO executives as it relates to the treatment of crew stranded in various parts of the world some of whom have committed suicide may cross the line into criminal behavior.  

[navybankerteacher]

11 hours ago, Jasawyer said:

Will absolutely NOT happen. Those corps have very clearly laid out contracts that include any contingency. Though they may be wrong, they are not criminally nor civilly culpable because of that contract WE as patrons sign before we get onboard. 

A ridiculous notion.  Are you unaware of ANY cases where individual corporate managers have been held criminally responsible for actions taken by them in their capacity as managers?  

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, K32682 said:

 

No passenger or employment contract absolves a corporation of criminal culpability. The abysmal conduct of certain cruise CEO executives as it relates to the treatment of crew stranded in various parts of the world some of whom have committed suicide may cross the line into criminal behavior.  

I suggest, if you have proof of criminal conduct, you report it to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Otherwise, you are just slinging mud, without any proof. Sort of like someone else we know.

[K32682]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

I suggest, if you have proof of criminal conduct, you report it to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Otherwise, you are just slinging mud, without any proof. Sort of like someone else we know.

 

The Australian authorities found sufficient proof and Princess is the subject of a homicide investigation. 

 

https://10daily.com.au/news/a200417rsekt/police-to-investigate-two-ruby-princess-cruises-as-part-of-homicide-investigation-20200417

 

And there's no shortage of "proof" of employee mistreatment. Here's a small sampling:

 

https://crew-center.com/royal-caribbean-crew-stage-protest-aboard-majesty-seas

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruise-ships-workers-die-unclear-circumstances-stranded-crews/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/30/no-end-in-sight-100000-crew-on-cruise-ships-stranded-at-sea-coronavirus

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/05/12/regal-princess-cruise-ship-worker-jumped-overboard-didnt-survive/3116091001/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/14/deaths-and-hunger-strikes-point-to-mental-health-crisis-on-stranded-cruise-ships

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/05/09/cruise-ships-amid-coronavirus-crews-stuck-board-beg-go-home/3102135001/

 

https://fortune.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-cruise-workers-stuck-at-sea/

 

And the U.S. Congress is investigating cruise line CEOs.  

 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/1/21244432/carnival-princess-cruises-congress-investigation-covid-19-coronavirus-outbreak

 

The investigation, led by the US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is specifically looking into how much Carnival executives were aware of the severity of the coronavirus outbreaks on its cruise ships and the lack of action it took during active cruises after being informed of the risks.

 

 

 

 

[ilikeanswers]

11 minutes ago, K32682 said:

 

The Australian authorities found sufficient proof and Princess is the subject of a homicide investigation. 

 

https://10daily.com.au/news/a200417rsekt/police-to-investigate-two-ruby-princess-cruises-as-part-of-homicide-investigation-20200417

 

Your information is a little out of date. Here is a better summary of investigations thus far:

Anatomy of a cruise: how the Ruby Princess came to dock and disembark with coronavirus

 

If anything it is looking like it is less Princess fault and more a stuff up by government departments. I don't think Ruby is the best example of wrong doing of cruise lines.

[Aquahound]

It's a bit of a stretch to say cruise line CEOs committed a crime, and I say that as a subject matter expert in the field.  What I have seen through this ordeal were a few cases where individual ships violated Captain of the Port (COTP) orders by failing to disclose the proper attestations before mooring.  That actually is a federal felony but even in those cases, it's not the top brass who wears the silver bracelets and who receive the privilege of visiting our lovely federal hotel.  It's the ship's master.  But even in normal times, COTP violations are not typically pursued unless especially egregious.  These aren't normal times.  Courthouses aren't open and grand juries are not convening.  The likelihood of anyone being arrested on a COTP order anytime soon is slim to none.  

 

Here's what could apply to the top brass but again, it's a stretch.  Let's look at the deaths that occurred on board, such as on Zaandam.  18USC1115 (Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers) could apply because the statute includes corporate executives.  However, US jurisdiction needs to be established.  These are foreign flagged ships on the high seas.   The only way it could be applied is if the deceased are US citizens and if prosecutors see a path to prosecution through the US's Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, which includes US citizens on the high seas.  I could easily argue that case but where it becomes a stretch is the fact Zaandam tried to port in numerous places but was denied.  

[ducklite]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

A ridiculous notion.  Are you unaware of ANY cases where individual corporate managers have been held criminally responsible for actions taken by them in their capacity as managers?  

Enron off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are numerous others.

[ducklite]

36 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

It's a bit of a stretch to say cruise line CEOs committed a crime, and I say that as a subject matter expert in the field.  What I have seen through this ordeal were a few cases where individual ships violated Captain of the Port (COTP) orders by failing to disclose the proper attestations before mooring.  That actually is a federal felony but even in those cases, it's not the top brass who wears the silver bracelets and who receive the privilege of visiting our lovely federal hotel.  It's the ship's master.  But even in normal times, COTP violations are not typically pursued unless especially egregious.  These aren't normal times.  Courthouses aren't open and grand juries are not convening.  The likelihood of anyone being arrested on a COTP order anytime soon is slim to none.  

 

Here's what could apply to the top brass but again, it's a stretch.  Let's look at the deaths that occurred on board, such as on Zaandam.  18USC1115 (Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers) could apply because the statute includes corporate executives.  However, US jurisdiction needs to be established.  These are foreign flagged ships on the high seas.   The only way it could be applied is if the deceased are US citizens and if prosecutors see a path to prosecution through the US's Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, which includes US citizens on the high seas.  I could easily argue that case but where it becomes a stretch is the fact Zaandam tried to port in numerous places but was denied.  

It was utter crap that it was allowed into Florida without all of them going into a full two week quarantine on either their or HAL's dime.  Instead sick and exposed people were allowed to walk off without a quarantine and to the public airport and get on commercial passenger airplane and spread the virus further.  That was criminal behavior.

[Heidi13]

15 hours ago, Jasawyer said:

Corporations, by their very nature,  are structured to limit risk.... That is the WHOLE point of Corps, LLCs, LLPs, ect.  There may never be anyone, anywhere at any cruise line where the "buck stops"....  These guys are merely trying to stay in business and feed the monkey, the board members and share holders. NOTHING ELSE!

 

While I have no knowledge of US Laws, Marine Law is a specialised area where Shipping Acts now make reference to an Authorised Person ashore, which must be designated for each ship. It is no longer just the Master that is liable and responsible for regulatory compliance, shore based managers also have clearly defined responsibilities.

 

These requirements were introduced to the Canadian Shipping Act about 20 years ago, so I would be surprised if they weren't also included in the US equivalent.

 

These changes were initiated after the Herald of Free Enterprise capsize in 1987, to ensure shore management provide reasonable direction on how their ships should be operated and to make them responsible/liable for contraventions. 

[Aquahound]

8 minutes ago, ducklite said:

It was utter crap that it was allowed into Florida without all of them going into a full two week quarantine on either their or HAL's dime.  Instead sick and exposed people were allowed to walk off without a quarantine and to the public airport and get on commercial passenger airplane and spread the virus further.  That was criminal behavior.

 

Criminal how?  I didn't like that scenario either, but what's the crime? 

[chengkp75]

45 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

It's a bit of a stretch to say cruise line CEOs committed a crime, and I say that as a subject matter expert in the field.

I could see a civil suit under the DOHSA for improper care, but not a criminal case.

4 minutes ago, ducklite said:

It was utter crap that it was allowed into Florida without all of them going into a full two week quarantine on either their or HAL's dime.  Instead sick and exposed people were allowed to walk off without a quarantine and to the public airport and get on commercial passenger airplane and spread the virus further.  That was criminal behavior.

Criminal by whom?  Who was responsible for the Public Health regulations regarding a ship entry into port?  Who granted the ship clearance to enter port?  Who ensured that the Public Health regulations, at that time, were met or not met, as passengers disembarked?  I don't see HAL as the answer to any of those questions, but the answer to those questions could lead to who might be criminally responsible.

[ducklite]

1 minute ago, Aquahound said:

 

Criminal how?  I didn't like that scenario either, but what's the crime? 

Domestic terrorism.  Attempted assault.  It's no different than not disclosing HIV status to intimate partners.  The cruise line, Governor, and President were accessories.

[chengkp75]

5 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

While I have no knowledge of US Laws, Marine Law is a specialised area where Shipping Acts now make reference to an Authorised Person ashore, which must be designated for each ship. It is no longer just the Master that is liable and responsible for regulatory compliance, shore based managers also have clearly defined responsibilities.

 

These requirements were introduced to the Canadian Shipping Act about 20 years ago, so I would be surprised if they weren't also included in the US equivalent.

 

These changes were initiated after the Herald of Free Enterprise capsize in 1987, to ensure shore management provide reasonable direction on how their ships should be operated and to make them responsible/liable for contraventions. 

Yes, Andy, the ISM requires a "DPA" or Designated Person Ashore, who along with the Master is to be considered the link between vessel operations and the shoreside management.

[ducklite]

5 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I could see a civil suit under the DOHSA for improper care, but not a criminal case.

Criminal by whom?  Who was responsible for the Public Health regulations regarding a ship entry into port?  Who granted the ship clearance to enter port?  Who ensured that the Public Health regulations, at that time, were met or not met, as passengers disembarked?  I don't see HAL as the answer to any of those questions, but the answer to those questions could lead to who might be criminally responsible.

Accessories to the act.

[Aquahound]

4 minutes ago, ducklite said:

Domestic terrorism.  Attempted assault.  It's no different than not disclosing HIV status to intimate partners.  The cruise line, Governor, and President were accessories.

 

Ok.  That's emotion talking.  I'm not flaming your opinion as a Floridian but speaking factually, a crime was not committed. 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Aquahound

[ducklite]

Just now, Aquahound said:

 

Ok.  That's emotion talking.  I'm not flaming your opinion as Floridian but speaking factually, a crime was not committed. 

If they can prove a causal link between anyone getting off that ship and someone being infected as a result, I believe it might be possible to charge someone.  It would definitely be enough to bring a cause of action for a tort.

[ontheweb]

11 minutes ago, ducklite said:

If they can prove a causal link between anyone getting off that ship and someone being infected as a result, I believe it might be possible to charge someone.  It would definitely be enough to bring a cause of action for a tort.

But who are you going to charge? As we have seen the CDC working with the Coast Guard can stop people from getting off the ship or make them quarantine. Obviously they did not. The cruise line would have had permission to disembark passengers.

[Heidi13]

19 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Yes, Andy, the ISM requires a "DPA" or Designated Person Ashore, who along with the Master is to be considered the link between vessel operations and the shoreside management.

Chief - in addition to the ISM requirement for a DPA, our Shipping Act 2001 introduced a requirement for a shore based "Authorised Representative",  on all Canadian flagged vessels. Under the Act it defaults to the "Owner" and where multiple owners, they must identify one of them. If owners are foreign, they must have a Canadian subsidiary or ship manager with business/residency links to Canada. I haven't worked on UK ships since 1987, but I believe the MCA Shipping Act includes a similar requirement, as this is where it was driven, post Herald of Free Enterprise.

 

The Shipping Act provides violations and penalties for both the Master and Authorised Representative, so shore based managers can have liability along with the Master. When this was introduced, the joke was as Masters, we would get adjoining cells to the CEO, in her Majesty's crowbar hotel.

 

In the case of Foreign Flagged ships in Canadian waters, it reverts back to just the Master.

 

Does the US not have similar requirements in their Act/Regulations?

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

The November election may say a lot about who gets away with crime & who doesn't.

Most of us have known that cruise line execs are particularly contemptible amongst the world's greed-first, me-me-me segment. But the "full speed ahead" decisions of February and March ... and the non-stop blundering since ... demonstrates they're also more incompetent than the average bear.

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2020/05/articles/disease/63-days-stuck-at-sea-protest-erupts-on-royal-caribbeans-majesty-of-the-seas/

[chengkp75]

39 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

Chief - in addition to the ISM requirement for a DPA, our Shipping Act 2001 introduced a requirement for a shore based "Authorised Representative",  on all Canadian flagged vessels. Under the Act it defaults to the "Owner" and where multiple owners, they must identify one of them. If owners are foreign, they must have a Canadian subsidiary or ship manager with business/residency links to Canada. I haven't worked on UK ships since 1987, but I believe the MCA Shipping Act includes a similar requirement, as this is where it was driven, post Herald of Free Enterprise.

 

The Shipping Act provides violations and penalties for both the Master and Authorised Representative, so shore based managers can have liability along with the Master. When this was introduced, the joke was as Masters, we would get adjoining cells to the CEO, in her Majesty's crowbar hotel.

 

In the case of Foreign Flagged ships in Canadian waters, it reverts back to just the Master.

 

Does the US not have similar requirements in their Act/Regulations?

Not that I am aware of.  I believe it just links Master to Owner for liability.

[Aquahound]

8 minutes ago, EscapeFromConnecticut said:

The November election may say a lot about who gets away with crime & who doesn't.

Most of us have known that cruise line execs are particularly contemptible amongst the world's greed-first, me-me-me segment. But the "full speed ahead" decisions of February and March ... and the non-stop blundering since ... demonstrates they're also more incompetent than the average bear.

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2020/05/articles/disease/63-days-stuck-at-sea-protest-erupts-on-royal-caribbeans-majesty-of-the-seas/

 

I don't understand what you're getting at.  What do you mean "who gets away with crime" regarding elections?  Again, what crime?  We can't just make up domestic crimes because we don't like the scenario of crew being stuck on foreign flagged ships, and because an ambulance-chaser attorney is up to his regular shenanigans. 

 

If you think a crime is being committed, please show me the statute and I'd be happy to opine on it.