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

[ren0312]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Overseas Shipholding Group paid $37 million back in 2006.  Largest ever at that time.

OOCL?

[ontheweb]

11 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

Also, while $60 million may not be a huge hit against Carnival Corp, it's notable that it was the largest environment fine ever imposed on a cruise corporation by the US courts.  I've been in the biz a long time and I've never seen anything close to that.  Most environmental cases, like the bypassing of oily water separators, result in a fine of around $1 million. Actually the Exxon Valdez fine was much higher, but most of it was forgiven so they only paid a small percentage. 

I wonder how many are now thinking, if they forgive most of the fine maybe they will have more money to make all the necessary refunds.  LOL

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, ren0312 said:

OOCL?

Nope.  That is Oriental Overseas Container Line.  OSG was a US/foreign flag tanker operator at the time of the violation, and is now solely a US flag operator.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I wonder how many are now thinking, if they forgive most of the fine maybe they will have more money to make all the necessary refunds.  LOL

Highly unlikely.  I believe the Carnival fine has been paid already.  One reason the Exxon fine was forgiven is that it was such a small part of the settlement.  Exxon paid $900 million in payments, $100 million in restitution, and the fine was for $25 million.  So, the fine would have been only 2.5% of the total outlay.  There are no payments or restitution in the Carnival case.

[EscapeFromConnecticut]

And another. The beat goes on:

1:20-cv-21997-JAL    KANTROW et al v. CELEBRITY CRUISES INC.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/passengers-sue-celebrity-heightened-risk-covid-19-exposure/story?id=70701505

      Well, at least the Fain and his team managed to keep one set of employees safe from furloughs and layoffs.  😇     There's just way to much fresh business in Legal Affairs to even consider downsizing ... more likely they'll be onboarding a small fleet of associates.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Highly unlikely.  I believe the Carnival fine has been paid already.  One reason the Exxon fine was forgiven is that it was such a small part of the settlement.  Exxon paid $900 million in payments, $100 million in restitution, and the fine was for $25 million.  So, the fine would have been only 2.5% of the total outlay.  There are no payments or restitution in the Carnival case.

Carnival being excused the fine in order to pay refunds was not a serious post by me. That's why it ended in LOL.

[rattanchair]

"Cruise line operators must further guarantee non-commercial transportation to their respective homes or new duty stations consistent with all applicable laws and guidance." CDC

It is being reported that a cruise line has already broken their agreement by flying repatriated crew out of US jurisdiction on non-commercial airlines, but once away from the US the crew are being flown the rest of the way on commercial flights. "Good lawyers and deep pockets", no consequences...all adds up. I am sure the people flying are unaware that there are repatriated cruise ship crew flying with them on their flights. A truly believable scenario of the  unsuspecting being duped by unscrupulous  corporate tycoons. Now had these 'big-wigs' been headquartered in Singapore with a PM Lee at the helm, they might be fined a million $ or so , but the second offense... Let us just say  "off with their wig".

 

[Aquahound]

9 minutes ago, rattanchair said:

"Cruise line operators must further guarantee non-commercial transportation to their respective homes or new duty stations consistent with all applicable laws and guidance." CDC

It is being reported that a cruise line has already broken their agreement by flying repatriated crew out of US jurisdiction on non-commercial airlines, but once away from the US the crew are being flown the rest of the way on commercial flights. "Good lawyers and deep pockets", no consequences...all adds up. I am sure the people flying are unaware that there are repatriated cruise ship crew flying with them on their flights. A truly believable scenario of the  unsuspecting being duped by unscrupulous  corporate tycoons. Now had these 'big-wigs' been headquartered in Singapore with a PM Lee at the helm, they might be fined a million $ or so , but the second offense... Let us just say  "off with their wig".

 

 

There are 2 important points to be made here.  One, the federal courts are almost completely closed.  There are no grand juries and they are not accepting new arrests unless under grievous circumstances.  So even if the cruise lines ignored federal mandates, you are not going to see immediate retribution.  Even under normal conditions, it would be months before something like this is presented to a grand jury.  That's just reality right now.  It's best to remain patient and see what is done, if anything, down the road. 

 

Two, regarding this post in particular, if a cruise line flew crew out of the US on a non commercial flight as mandated, and then put them on a commercial flight abroad, what did they do wrong?  What law was broken?  Like it or not, if they followed the law in each location, they technically did nothing wrong.  So I don't really understand what "lawyers and deep pockets" has to do with that.

 

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Aquahound said:

 

There are 2 important points to be made here.  One, the federal courts are almost completely closed.  There are no grand juries and they are not accepting new arrests unless under grievous circumstances.  So even if the cruise lines ignored federal mandates, you are not going to see immediate retribution.  Even under normal conditions, it would be months before something like this is presented to a grand jury.  That's just reality right now.  It's best to remain patient and see what is done, if anything, down the road. 

 

Two, regarding this post in particular, if a cruise line flew crew out of the US on a non commercial flight as mandated, and then put them on a commercial flight abroad, what did they do wrong?  What law was broken?  Like it or not, if they followed the law in each location, they technically did nothing wrong.  So I don't really understand what "lawyers and deep pockets" has to do with that.

 

You must realize by now that breaking the law is not a necessity for the ambulance chasers who post on these boards,

[Heidi13]

5 hours ago, rattanchair said:

"Cruise line operators must further guarantee non-commercial transportation to their respective homes or new duty stations consistent with all applicable laws and guidance." CDC

It is being reported that a cruise line has already broken their agreement by flying repatriated crew out of US jurisdiction on non-commercial airlines, but once away from the US the crew are being flown the rest of the way on commercial flights. "Good lawyers and deep pockets", no consequences...all adds up. I am sure the people flying are unaware that there are repatriated cruise ship crew flying with them on their flights. A truly believable scenario of the  unsuspecting being duped by unscrupulous  corporate tycoons. Now had these 'big-wigs' been headquartered in Singapore with a PM Lee at the helm, they might be fined a million $ or so , but the second offense... Let us just say  "off with their wig".

 

 

The cruise lines utilised non-commercial transportation to clear US jurisdiction.

 

Why should the US CDC have any jurisdiction once the crew have departed the United States. Once they land in another country they fall under that country's laws. 

[clo]

12 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

The cruise lines utilised non-commercial transportation to clear US jurisdiction.

 

Why should the US CDC have any jurisdiction once the crew have departed the United States. Once they land in another country they fall under that country's laws. 

Perhaps just plain old ethical behavior whether it's illegal or not. Silly me?

[Cruzaholic41]

So repatriated crew was flown commercial. So the heck what?  A couple of you are getting really ridiculous with this sensational grandstanding. 

[Cruzaholic41]

5 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

There are 2 important points to be made here.  One, the federal courts are almost completely closed.  There are no grand juries and they are not accepting new arrests unless under grievous circumstances.  So even if the cruise lines ignored federal mandates, you are not going to see immediate retribution.  Even under normal conditions, it would be months before something like this is presented to a grand jury.  That's just reality right now.  It's best to remain patient and see what is done, if anything, down the road. 

 

Two, regarding this post in particular, if a cruise line flew crew out of the US on a non commercial flight as mandated, and then put them on a commercial flight abroad, what did they do wrong?  What law was broken?  Like it or not, if they followed the law in each location, they technically did nothing wrong.  So I don't really understand what "lawyers and deep pockets" has to do with that.

 

 

4 hours ago, ontheweb said:

You must realize by now that breaking the law is not a necessity for the ambulance chasers who post on these boards,

Paul, you’ve always been one of these boards’ most knowledgeable posters but I agree with ontheweb. Maybe you should open a case on a few of these most prolific posters of late. 😜

[ontheweb]

6 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

 

Paul, you’ve always been one of these boards’ most knowledgeable posters but I agree with ontheweb. Maybe you should open a case on a few of these most prolific posters of late. 😜

Recently the Supreme Court decided in a 9-0 decision that you have to actually break the law to be guilty. The decision was in regards to the so called "Bridgegate" in NJ in which 2 public officials were convicted of doing things to cause traffic havoc to punish a local mayor for not endorsing Governor Christie. They were convicted by a jury, but as I said in the first sentence, the Supreme Court unanimously threw out the decision because no laws were broken, or at least the bribery laws that they were on trial for.

 

Our send all the cruise executives to jail crowd does not seem to think that it is a necessity to break the law to be sent to jail for conduct they do not like. The funniest post about this had them all going to Rikers  which is a NY City prison, although why NY City would be plaintiff against them is hard to fathom.

[richstowe]

44 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

The funniest post about this had them all going to Rikers  which is a NY City prison, although why NY City would be plaintiff against them is hard to fathom.

Perhaps they'd get a psych evaluation at Bellevue first . 😁

[Aquahound]

15 hours ago, ontheweb said:

You must realize by now that breaking the law is not a necessity for the ambulance chasers who post on these boards,

 

11 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

 

Paul, you’ve always been one of these boards’ most knowledgeable posters but I agree with ontheweb. Maybe you should open a case on a few of these most prolific posters of late. 😜

 

You two are both right.  Hey, on a lighter note, have you seen this thread over on the RCI board?  If you need a break from the exasperation over here, check it out.  It's hilarious!

 

 

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, richstowe said:

Perhaps they'd get a psych evaluation at Bellevue first . 😁

Or maybe the posters who mentioned Rikers think Jack McCoy will be doing the prosecuting. He has in past episodes decided to make up law and go after gun companies, the former ruler of Chile, and defense attorneys a couple of times.

[Heidi13]

12 hours ago, clo said:

Perhaps just plain old ethical behavior whether it's illegal or not. Silly me?

 

Similar to the Chief, I am scratching my head trying to figure how it could be unethical.

 

We disembarked in Gibraltar on April 11th and flew home on 2 commercial flights via LHR, with BA and Air Canada. On both flights we felt perfectly safe and cleared our 14-day quarantine with no virus issues.

 

Three weeks prior to our disembarkation, the ship was in Dubai, when the cruise was cancelled. About 2/3 the passengers got Emirates flights home before they ceased operations. This left about 85 US and 8 Canadian pax. As both US & Canada were recommending citizens return home, the cruise line arranged a charter (non-commercial) flight from Dubai to Newark, then connecting commercial flights home.

 

Although all 8 Canadians had connecting flights back to Canada within a few hours of arrival Newark, we were not permitted to land in the US. Therefore, our US friends departed Dubai on a non-commercial flight, while the Canadians remained on board the ship.

 

Talking to many of our friends who were subjected to the non-commercial flight, they all reported it was the worst flight ever and they wish they could have remained aboard with us.

 

Would be very interested in knowing how our commercial flight was unethical compared to the other pax non-commercial flight. 

[rattanchair]

14 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

The cruise lines utilised non-commercial transportation to clear US jurisdiction.

 

Why should the US CDC have any jurisdiction once the crew have departed the United States. Once they land in another country they fall under that country's laws. 

Because it is common decency to try to protect the rest of the world, not just the citizens in US jurisdiction.

[richstowe]

9 minutes ago, rattanchair said:

Because it is common decency to try to protect the rest of the world, not just the citizens in US jurisdiction.

Are you joking ? The CDC doesn't give a damn about the rest of the world . If they did they would eagerly work with other countries to work out arrangements for repatriation . They seem to be uncaring . 

[Heidi13]

3 minutes ago, rattanchair said:

Because it is common decency to try to protect the rest of the world, not just the citizens in US jurisdiction.

 

Well based on the world-wide virus numbers, I'll suggest many are doing a vastly superior job of controlling the virus than the CDC. Many other counties have adequate regulations and guidelines that have minimised and/or flattened the curve. While I have great respect for the CDC in how they have set standards in shipping, when reviewing the world-wide virus table, I'll suggest they may have more pressing issues at home, rather than trying to protect the rest of the world.

 

When dealing with International Regulations, a Nation's Laws and guidelines supersede other jurisdictions, therefore any CDC requirements could be rendered null and void by a country where crew landed.

[chengkp75]

49 minutes ago, rattanchair said:

Because it is common decency to try to protect the rest of the world, not just the citizens in US jurisdiction.

So why does the CDC allow crew from other vessels to fly commercial, even when they have not been in near total quarantine like the cruise ship crews, and may have been in foreign ports within the past 14 days?

[rattanchair]

9 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

When dealing with International Regulations, a Nation's Laws and guidelines supersede other jurisdictions, therefore any CDC requirements could be rendered null and void by a country where crew landed.

That could be true. But were these "other jurisdictions" notified that repatriated crew from the cruise line are headed their way?  Am I mistaken that when they got home they are to self quarantine for 14 more days as a precaution? The honor system just does not work, even when cruise line executives sign a proclamation that they will see to it that crew will abide. Heck, half the posters here are defying, demeaning,  and second guessing, with their "operatic stripes" and their more self-proclaimed expertise than the CDC with its protocols.They are just armchair observers coaxed on by cruise line shills.

[rattanchair]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

So why does the CDC allow crew from other vessels to fly commercial, even when they have not been in near total quarantine like the cruise ship crews, and may have been in foreign ports within the past 14 days?

This is exactly what I am asking as well. Why? If you have protocols, who bought off who? To whose attention should I direct the blatant disregard of established protocol? Again, deep pockets and corrupt officials.

[chengkp75]

11 minutes ago, rattanchair said:

This is exactly what I am asking as well. Why? If you have protocols, who bought off who? To whose attention should I direct the blatant disregard of established protocol? Again, deep pockets and corrupt officials.

And who are these "deep pockets"?  The major "interested party" in crew repatriation is the IMO, not exactly an agency known to have unlimited funds to bribe the CDC and USCG.  Their interest, as well as most shipping lines, is that if the crew cannot change out, ships will stop, and the world economy will dry up.  In fact, the CDC is doing the opposite with the "deep pockets" of the cruise lines, and making their crew travel under discriminatory measures.  The protocols involved, in the US, have listed ships' crew as "essential workers" and therefore exempt from travel restrictions, so there was never any "buying off" of anyone.  Find the US and all states' definitions of essential workers from day one.  And, what makes a crew member from a cruise ship that has not had any personnel changes or passenger exchanges for weeks any more dangerous than a person making a connection between one foreign city and another foreign city that connects in the US?