If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Senator Rockefeller to Carnival Cruise Lines: The Coast Guard spent $4.2 million responding and rescuing you 90 times over five years. When will you pay up? Carnival: Never. It's a "maritime honor" to rescue distressed ships   (skift.com) divider line 234
    More: Stupid, Carnival Cruise Lines, Carnival Corp., Senator Jay Rockefeller, Senator Rockefeller, U.S. Coast Guard, cruise line, Carnival Triumph, Micky Arison  
•       •       •

11261 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 9:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-04 06:21:50 AM  
In before someone points out that $4.2 million is only 0.^A% of the entire budget so it doesn't matter.
 
2013-04-04 06:39:55 AM  
Stop harassing job creators!
 
2013-04-04 06:44:41 AM  
They didn't say it was an honor, they said it was a tradition, which they honor. And they think Congress should honor its traditions as well.
 
2013-04-04 07:23:38 AM  
I wonder if a Fire Department would do something like this to someone who just cant stop setting his things ablaze.
 
2013-04-04 07:25:34 AM  
The Coast Guard often asks Merchant Vessels to respond to emergencies and do not pay them. I see no reason why the reverse is should be expected.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-04 07:44:10 AM  
I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.
 
2013-04-04 07:47:32 AM  

cman: I wonder if a Fire Department would do something like this to someone who just cant stop setting his things ablaze.


I saw a story on the news where a fire department let a house burn in front of them because the homeowner hadn't paid their annual fee.
 
2013-04-04 07:52:47 AM  

vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.


It was taxes and increased regulation that drove the cruise industry to register their ships overseas in the first place.
 
2013-04-04 08:00:25 AM  
The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.
 
2013-04-04 08:14:13 AM  

monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.


So it's like sex?
 
2013-04-04 08:16:24 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.

It was taxes and increased regulation that drove the cruise industry to register their ships overseas in the first place.



Yeah, screw those safety, labor, and environmental standards. We're a Liberian ship! Hell, even oil rigs requiring a flag can use that workaround. The Deepwater Horizon was registered in the Marshall Islands on the other side of the frikkin' planet.
 
2013-04-04 08:21:38 AM  

dittybopper: It was taxes and increased regulation that drove the cruise industry to register their ships overseas in the first place.


There are always going to be lower taxes somewhere.  If we didn't allow them to operate in the US without paying taxes, they wouldn't have registered elsewhere.

It's a pretty simple rule change - your ship cannot be registered with any country where less than X% of your cargo or passengers are loaded or unloaded.
 
2013-04-04 08:27:06 AM  
Take them to court or STFU.
 
2013-04-04 08:30:59 AM  

dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?


Oh yeah. The dirtier the better.
 
2013-04-04 08:31:41 AM  

dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?


but usually with less poop in the hallways.  usually.
 
2013-04-04 08:33:51 AM  
Not to white knight too much, but Carnival also rescues others in distress. Just one article:  http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/25/3306167/carnival-ships-rescues- t wo-ill.html
 
2013-04-04 08:35:59 AM  
Hunn dodged the issue of how much Carnival pays in federal taxes, but replied that cruise industry ships that call at U.S. ports "pay hundreds of millions of dollars in annual fees and taxes to federal, state and local government agencies in the form of port head taxes, dock fees, wharfage and other fees."

Haha, they are using the same excuse people who download music off the internet use to justify not paying for music.
 
2013-04-04 08:48:17 AM  

vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.


You think that the cruise industry doesn't pay taxes?

interesting.
 
2013-04-04 08:50:58 AM  

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Hunn dodged the issue of how much Carnival pays in federal taxes, but replied that cruise industry ships that call at U.S. ports "pay hundreds of millions of dollars in annual fees and taxes to federal, state and local government agencies in the form of port head taxes, dock fees, wharfage and other fees."

Haha, they are using the same excuse people who download music off the internet use to justify not paying for music.


So does the entire Merchant Marine fleet, but those guys aren't causing 90 mayday calls for the same fleet in 5 years. Carnival needs to get its fricken act together. They're a luxury cruise company, not a coast guard training exercise provider (well they are really, but thats not their stated purpose of dragging 4000 people out to sea in a POS floating hotel)
 
2013-04-04 08:51:22 AM  
Cruise ship companies pay taxes. Also, the employees and the guests pay taxes.
 
2013-04-04 08:52:19 AM  

Babwa Wawa: dittybopper: It was taxes and increased regulation that drove the cruise industry to register their ships overseas in the first place.

There are always going to be lower taxes somewhere.  If we didn't allow them to operate in the US without paying taxes, they wouldn't have registered elsewhere.

It's a pretty simple rule change - your ship cannot be registered with any country where less than X% of your cargo or passengers are loaded or unloaded.


You know what happens then?

The cruise lines stop using US ports, and they fly the people who want to cruise to a foreign port for the start and end-points of their cruises.  So you lose any revenue you get from port fees, taxes, local sales of supplies and fuel, and the employment of dock-side cruise workers.
 
2013-04-04 08:55:48 AM  

Generation_D: So does the entire Merchant Marine fleet, but those guys aren't causing 90 mayday calls for the same fleet in 5 years.


I'm assuming you can support that assertion with a link?
 
2013-04-04 08:59:15 AM  
"Your ship is registered where? If you're on fire and sinking, we'll be right there. Otherwise, call the Liberian Coast Guard."
 
2013-04-04 09:03:13 AM  
Next time, the Navy should just take off the passengers, declare Carnival's $500,000,000 ship a hazard to navigation and torpedo it.
 
2013-04-04 09:03:54 AM  

dittybopper: You know what happens then?

The cruise lines stop using US ports, and they fly the people who want to cruise to a foreign port for the start and end-points of their cruises.  So you lose any revenue you get from port fees, taxes, local sales of supplies and fuel, and the employment of dock-side cruise workers.


I don't think so.  70% of Americans don't even have f*cking passports.  Not to mention that it would take 800,000 airline seats to embark and debark a single cruise ship for a year.
 
2013-04-04 09:16:35 AM  
Gee, we could almost just not allow Carnival to use US ports anymore....

dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?


Yep.  Diseases and all.
 
2013-04-04 09:18:24 AM  

dittybopper: Generation_D: So does the entire Merchant Marine fleet, but those guys aren't causing 90 mayday calls for the same fleet in 5 years.

I'm assuming you can support that assertion with a link?


Nope. Standard grade internet unsupported claim.

I'll start pointing yours out going forward, if we're changing the rules of engagement.
 
2013-04-04 09:25:45 AM  

xanadian: Gee, we could almost just not allow Carnival to use US ports anymore....


Carnival doesnt operate American flagged vessels. Which ever flag the ship has determines how these ships are treated. We probably have international agreements that makes it difficult to close American ports from a specific fleet.
 
2013-04-04 09:39:26 AM  

cman: xanadian: Gee, we could almost just not allow Carnival to use US ports anymore....

Carnival doesnt operate American flagged vessels. Which ever flag the ship has determines how these ships are treated. We probably have international agreements that makes it difficult to close American ports from a specific fleet.


One of the reasons no cruise company operates a US Flag vessel is the regulation that any vessel flying a US Flag has to be built here or get a special exemption from congress.  Norwegian managed to get that exemption on a couple of ships, by buying the SS United States and promising to restore her, the then sold her after they got the  exemption.
 
2013-04-04 09:47:52 AM  
Back when I was in the Coast Guard we caught this guy who would repeatedly make false distress calls over the radio. He would sit outside out station and watch us scramble the boats and head out in the search.
 
2013-04-04 09:48:15 AM  
I'm sure Admiralty Law has some right of salvage stuff in it, but would Carnival buy back their ship?

Plus, with the right political stockholders, they could always claim a terrorist ate their homework, crippled their engines, stopped up their toilet, forgot to clean enough for the norovirus to hit, etc.
 
2013-04-04 09:48:29 AM  
Let 'em drown, they knew what they were getting into when they bought the tickets.
 
2013-04-04 09:51:32 AM  

monty666: cman: I wonder if a Fire Department would do something like this to someone who just cant stop setting his things ablaze.

I saw a story on the news where a fire department let a house burn in front of them because the homeowner hadn't paid their annual fee.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let- ho me-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Honestly I think its a reasonable policy, you can agree to pay 2200 is you didn't pay the fee, I'm wondering if this family said no or what.
 
2013-04-04 09:53:37 AM  
Coast Guard to respond by sending floaties and a headless chicken to save the next Carnival cruise ship
 
2013-04-04 09:53:56 AM  
I am ok with Carnival's answer. Carnival needs a Sea Tow account. In fact, just use the tow service all the time and save on fuel and maintenance.

/never taking a Carnival clown cruise.
 
2013-04-04 09:54:25 AM  
Simple solution, rescue the people, leave the ship.  Won't be long before all of Carnival's fleet is sitting on the bottom acting as artificial reefs.  Then they won't cost the Coast Guard anything.
 
2013-04-04 09:55:08 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Next time, the Navy should just take off the passengers, declare Carnival's $500,000,000 ship a hazard to navigation and torpedo it.


That's a bingo.
 
2013-04-04 09:56:20 AM  

vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.


I think the concept you're thinking of is called "insurance".
 
2013-04-04 09:56:53 AM  
Carnival is the most evil company and has dodged paying the most money to the US government recent company that people remember from the news so it's time to pretend to care about them so people think you actually do things in congress
 
2013-04-04 09:58:22 AM  

Tom_Slick: cman: xanadian: Gee, we could almost just not allow Carnival to use US ports anymore....

Carnival doesnt operate American flagged vessels. Which ever flag the ship has determines how these ships are treated. We probably have international agreements that makes it difficult to close American ports from a specific fleet.

One of the reasons no cruise company operates a US Flag vessel is the regulation that any vessel flying a US Flag has to be built here or get a special exemption from congress.  Norwegian managed to get that exemption on a couple of ships, by buying the SS United States and promising to restore her, the then sold her after they got the  exemption.


the SS United States and promising to restore her, the then sold her after they got the  exemption.  Farking bastards, this made me so angry after looking at her rot for so many years
 
2013-04-04 09:58:26 AM  
I would suggest they call the Mexican or Jamaican Coast Guard next time.
 
2013-04-04 09:58:43 AM  
I understand the point the Senator is trying to make, rescue operations do cost money.  But there does exist a culture of helping other vessels in distress, because you never know when your ship will break down, and you don't want to be the one stranded out there in that big blue wasteland.
 
2013-04-04 09:59:37 AM  
I thought that's what taxes paid for?
 
2013-04-04 09:59:45 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: rescue the people, leave the ship.


Having a derelict ship is not a good thing.

DoBeDoBeDo: Then they won't cost the Coast Guard anything.


It doesn't cost money to send up helicopters, redirect cutters, and provide food/medical services to survivors?
 
2013-04-04 10:00:05 AM  
When will idiots stop taking cruises?

Seriously, worst form of vacation ever. Crass, gross and peasanty. Give it break!
 
2013-04-04 10:00:37 AM  
Doesn't the Coast Guard have the authority to prevent a ship from sailing or from entering/leaving US waters?  Maybe a blockade or grounding of some sort is in order until a full safety inspection is done on the entire fleet (perhaps to the tune of $42 million).
 
2013-04-04 10:01:23 AM  

Molavian: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Next time, the Navy should just take off the passengers, declare Carnival's $500,000,000 ship a hazard to navigation and torpedo it.

That's a bingo.


One ping only..

fc06.deviantart.net
 
2013-04-04 10:01:42 AM  
I think the Coast Guard should pay us for keeping the cost of drugs and labor artificially high by preventing traffickers and illegal aliens from getting into the country.
 
2013-04-04 10:02:48 AM  

dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?


twimg0-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-04-04 10:02:53 AM  
in Houston we pay them to come to the cruise ship pier we built with tax money.
http://www.chron.com/business/article/Port-will-pay-6-7-million-to-l ur e-two-cruise-4051674.php
 
2013-04-04 10:03:36 AM  

Frank N Stein: DoBeDoBeDo: rescue the people, leave the ship.

Having a derelict ship is not a good thing.

DoBeDoBeDo: Then they won't cost the Coast Guard anything.

It doesn't cost money to send up helicopters, redirect cutters, and provide food/medical services to survivors?


Better sink that hazard once everyone and the Captain are off. That could be dangerous, just bobbing around out there, aimlessly.
 
2013-04-04 10:04:48 AM  
If your garbage scows need rescue more than once every three weeks (on average) then I think your problem is a bit larger than even your passengers.
 
2013-04-04 10:05:00 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.

You think that the cruise industry doesn't pay taxes?

interesting.


So, instead of pointing out *where* the cruise industry pays it's taxes, and informing the thread, you prefer to play the jackass.

Interesting.
 
2013-04-04 10:05:19 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Simple solution, rescue the people, leave the ship.  Won't be long before all of Carnival's fleet is sitting on the bottom acting as artificial reefs.  Then they won't cost the Coast Guard anything.


Yeah, 'rescuing' 2800 people from a drifting ship should be a cake walk, and cost way less then just towing the ship to a nearby port.

<sarcasm off>
 
2013-04-04 10:06:36 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: DoBeDoBeDo: Simple solution, rescue the people, leave the ship.  Won't be long before all of Carnival's fleet is sitting on the bottom acting as artificial reefs.  Then they won't cost the Coast Guard anything.

Yeah, 'rescuing' 2800 people from a drifting ship should be a cake walk, and cost way less then just towing the ship to a nearby port.

<sarcasm off>


It wouldn't happen twice, versus 90 times in 5 years.

guaranteed
 
2013-04-04 10:06:59 AM  
Maybe we should create a new tradition of barring Carnival ships from US Ports because the pose a safety hazard.

/ that would probably change their response pretty quick
 
2013-04-04 10:07:17 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.

You think that the cruise industry doesn't pay taxes?

interesting.


Actually they pay next to nothing in taxes since they are based in Panama.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/02/16/ship-isnt-th e- only-thing-that-stinks-at-carnival-low-tax-rate-stirs-ire/

Carnival (the Cruise Lines, not the Corporation) is headquartered in Doral, Florida. It is, however, legally incorporated elsewhere, in Panama. That allows the company, under the current Tax Code, to legally avoid paying most U.S. taxes.
 
2013-04-04 10:08:21 AM  

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: in Houston we pay them to come to the cruise ship pier we built with tax money.
http://www.chron.com/business/article/Port-will-pay-6-7-million-to-l ur e-two-cruise-4051674.php


Small government, ladies and gentlemen.
 
2013-04-04 10:08:29 AM  

Famous Thamas: I understand the point the Senator is trying to make, rescue operations do cost money.  But there does exist a culture of helping other vessels in distress, because you never know when your ship will break down, and you don't want to be the one stranded out there in that big blue wasteland.


Right, if Carnival Ships are an outlier then some form of repayment is to be expected. Or if the overall numbers are increasing for the entire industry a new tax/fee structure should be instituted. But if it's well within historical norms then calm the f*ck down.

For example if your car breaks down on the highway and a cop stops by to help, you don't get a bill from the state, but if you are breaking down every day you know they are going to do something about your cheap ass.
 
2013-04-04 10:09:40 AM  
www.sarrelldental.org
 
2013-04-04 10:11:11 AM  
Declaring a few of their ships "eminent domain" the next time they dock in Miami should persuade them. Those farktards pump mile-long slicks into the ocean on a regular basis. They are the maritime equivalent of the "People of WalMart".
 
2013-04-04 10:11:38 AM  

CarnySaur: I think the Coast Guard should pay us for keeping the cost of drugs and labor artificially high by preventing traffickers and illegal aliens from getting into the country.


Drugs and labor are already cheap. How poor are you?
 
2013-04-04 10:12:40 AM  
i find it funny that a "rockefeller" is biatching about someone else getting gov't money.  i'm sure the rockefeller's never profited from the gov't teat, right?

/farking hypocrite
 
2013-04-04 10:12:56 AM  
So hold the ships at port as unseaworthy until Carnival makes any necessary repairs that gives them a better than 50/50 shot of making it to the next port.
 
2013-04-04 10:12:57 AM  
Yea gotta side with the Senator here. If your going to register all your ships on panama to get out of paying some taxes and avoiding US labor laws, then don't expect the US coast guard to bail your ass out for free.
 
2013-04-04 10:14:07 AM  

dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?


I'll be on the Lido Deck.
 
2013-04-04 10:16:18 AM  

Babwa Wawa: dittybopper: You know what happens then?

The cruise lines stop using US ports, and they fly the people who want to cruise to a foreign port for the start and end-points of their cruises.  So you lose any revenue you get from port fees, taxes, local sales of supplies and fuel, and the employment of dock-side cruise workers.

I don't think so.  70% of Americans don't even have f*cking passports.  Not to mention that it would take 800,000 airline seats to embark and debark a single cruise ship for a year.


for Bahamas cruises you don't need a passport. Long form Birth cert will do just fine. (Just got off of a cruise w/ Carnival, Well run operation and had a flippin ball.
 
2013-04-04 10:16:48 AM  
I thought the USCG policy for yachts was to rescue sailors in distress but to leave the boats to the elements; you pay a private salvage company or you lose your boat. Maybe they should apply that to cruise ships as well, or at the very least claim salvage. What's 1/3 the value of a cruise ship these days?
 
2013-04-04 10:17:15 AM  

Babwa Wawa: dittybopper: You know what happens then?

The cruise lines stop using US ports, and they fly the people who want to cruise to a foreign port for the start and end-points of their cruises.  So you lose any revenue you get from port fees, taxes, local sales of supplies and fuel, and the employment of dock-side cruise workers.

I don't think so.  70% of Americans don't even have f*cking passports.  Not to mention that it would take 800,000 airline seats to embark and debark a single cruise ship for a year.


You have to have a passport to take a cruise that docks at a foreign port, so that's not cutting their client base at all. Also, they will typically handle your air travel as part of your package if you want them to. So instead of flying you from LA to Seattle for an Alaskan cruise, they fly you to Vancouver. No big deal. Caribbean cruises leave out of Cancun instead of Florida. They absolutely could stop using US ports for most cruises.
 
2013-04-04 10:18:13 AM  
When I first saw this thread, I was tempted to jump on the "give Carnival the shaft" boat (no pun intended), but others have raised the valid point that they do generate some taxable revenue in the US ports they sail out of. That being said, they should still pony up something for these rescue operations, especially if it's their own business practices that are causing them.

One possible solution would be to either let the company surrender one of their ships in lieu of payment. While a cruise ship is a very specialized vessel, the next time there's a Sandy or Katrina event, having something that could house and feed 4,000 people could be useful. Sure, it's not a "real" blue-water vessel with so much freeboard and those big flat surfaces, but the Navy might have use of a vessel as a hospital/floating barracks option?

It would let the company get rid of one of its older ships, give us some level of compensation for all the costs involved. I know I should be writing something clever and snarky, but this is the best I got.
 
2013-04-04 10:18:59 AM  

Famous Thamas: I understand the point the Senator is trying to make, rescue operations do cost money.  But there does exist a culture of helping other vessels in distress, because you never know when your ship will break down, and you don't want to be the one stranded out there in that big blue wasteland.


Except you corporate white knights are missing the point here. Are these rescue operations preventable? Aren't most of Carnival's rescues because of taking 3000 people out to sea in badly disinfected badly maintained ships? At what point does their regular need of rescue strain credibility and/or need to be held accountable?
 
2013-04-04 10:19:03 AM  

mizchief: Yea gotta side with the Senator here. If your going to register all your ships on panama to get out of paying some taxes and avoiding US labor laws, then don't expect the US coast guard to bail your ass out for free.


Well, to be fair, there are normally somewhere in the area of 3000 tax paying US citizens aboard the ships so I would expect the CC to respond.  But, billing the cruise line for services seems reasonable to me.
 
2013-04-04 10:19:09 AM  

falcon176: Carnival is the most evil company and has dodged paying the most money to the US government recent company that people remember from the news so it's time to pretend to care about them so people think you actually do things in congress


Or you could call it dealing with problems as they arise.
 
2013-04-04 10:19:53 AM  

Frank N Stein: CarnySaur: I think the Coast Guard should pay us for keeping the cost of drugs and labor artificially high by preventing traffickers and illegal aliens from getting into the country.

Drugs and labor are already cheap. How poor are you?


Hey, I'm not poor, just miserly.
 
2013-04-04 10:21:19 AM  
Navy should tow it out to see where a reef needs to be made, and then use it for target practice
 
2013-04-04 10:22:31 AM  
TAG has to be for the senator. Dont save people if all you want is to be paid for saving them.
 
2013-04-04 10:22:35 AM  
Sounds like Senator McGrumpy didn't get his cash-stuffed envelope this month, poor thing.
 
2013-04-04 10:22:46 AM  

StRalphTheLiar: You have to have a passport to take a cruise that docks at a foreign port, so that's not cutting their client base at all. Also, they will typically handle your air travel as part of your package if you want them to. So instead of flying you from LA to Seattle for an Alaskan cruise, they fly you to Vancouver. No big deal. Caribbean cruises leave out of Cancun instead of Florida. They absolutely could stop using US ports for most cruises.


You are 100% wrong. You do not need a passport for a cruise that docks at a foreign port. But, to fly to, say Vancouver, you do need a passport.
 
2013-04-04 10:22:57 AM  

Babwa Wawa: dittybopper: You know what happens then?

The cruise lines stop using US ports, and they fly the people who want to cruise to a foreign port for the start and end-points of their cruises.  So you lose any revenue you get from port fees, taxes, local sales of supplies and fuel, and the employment of dock-side cruise workers.

I don't think so.  70% of Americans don't even have f*cking passports.  Not to mention that it would take 800,000 airline seats to embark and debark a single cruise ship for a year.


You can get a passport for that?  Or is it just like a Thai tourist visa?

Seriously, though, Carnival "highly recommends" that all cruise guests have  a valid passport in case of issues, and it is required for many of their cruises anyway.

As far as the airline seats go, that's not that big a deal, really, and most people fly to/from the port of embarkation/debarkation already.  Person I work with just took a cruise:  She had to fly from New York down to Florida.  Flying from New York to, say, the Bahamas instead wouldn't have made any difference.
 
2013-04-04 10:23:19 AM  

Generation_D: Famous Thamas: I understand the point the Senator is trying to make, rescue operations do cost money.  But there does exist a culture of helping other vessels in distress, because you never know when your ship will break down, and you don't want to be the one stranded out there in that big blue wasteland.

Except you corporate white knights are missing the point here. Are these rescue operations preventable? Aren't most of Carnival's rescues because of taking 3000 people out to sea in badly disinfected badly maintained ships? At what point does their regular need of rescue strain credibility and/or need to be held accountable?


I can't believe people actually go on Carnival Cruises anyway.  They ought to know by now, you get what you pay for!  Just pony up an extra couple hundred bucks and go Princess or Royal Caribbean.
 
2013-04-04 10:23:33 AM  

Nightsweat: dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?

I'll be on the Lido Libido Deck.


FTFY.
 
2013-04-04 10:24:33 AM  
Carnival has been spamming me with print and email garbage since my last cruise. They seem to have no interest in honoring my requests that they stop doing so. At this point, they'd have to pay me to 'sail' with them.
 
2013-04-04 10:24:54 AM  

NightOwl2255: StRalphTheLiar: You have to have a passport to take a cruise that docks at a foreign port, so that's not cutting their client base at all. Also, they will typically handle your air travel as part of your package if you want them to. So instead of flying you from LA to Seattle for an Alaskan cruise, they fly you to Vancouver. No big deal. Caribbean cruises leave out of Cancun instead of Florida. They absolutely could stop using US ports for most cruises.

You are 100% wrong. You do not need a passport for a cruise that docks at a foreign port. But, to fly to, say Vancouver, you do need a passport.


Cruise lines "highly recommend" that you have one anyway.  It may not be *REQUIRED*, but if something happens it will be a major pain in the ass for you if you don't have one.
 
2013-04-04 10:24:58 AM  

NightOwl2255: StRalphTheLiar: You have to have a passport to take a cruise that docks at a foreign port, so that's not cutting their client base at all. Also, they will typically handle your air travel as part of your package if you want them to. So instead of flying you from LA to Seattle for an Alaskan cruise, they fly you to Vancouver. No big deal. Caribbean cruises leave out of Cancun instead of Florida. They absolutely could stop using US ports for most cruises.

You are 100% wrong. You do not need a passport for a cruise that docks at a foreign port. But, to fly to, say Vancouver, you do need a passport.


That surprised me, so I went to Carnival's site and checked. You are correct. I have been on 2 other cruise lines previously and both required adults to bring a passport, so I guess that was just their rule.
 
2013-04-04 10:27:13 AM  
mizchief

Yea gotta side with the Senator here. If your going to register all your ships on panama to get out of paying some taxes and avoiding US labor laws, then don't expect the US coast guard to bail your ass out for free.

Agreed, gotta recover the money somewhere, port fees or something. I never wanted to take a cruise... recent media has reaffirmed me of this.
 
2013-04-04 10:27:45 AM  

StRalphTheLiar: That surprised me, so I went to Carnival's site and checked. You are correct. I have been on 2 other cruise lines previously and both required adults to bring a passport, so I guess that was just their rule.


It's not their rule. It's US law. The only, only, international travel that does not require a passport is a cruise that leaves out of, and returns to, the same port.
 
2013-04-04 10:28:17 AM  

moefuggenbrew: I thought that's what taxes paid for?


You know  Carnival is not a US company and I doubt we have ever seen a tax dollar from them. Port fees maybe, payroll taxes, yes and corp taxes nope.
 
2013-04-04 10:28:56 AM  

Joe Blowme: TAG has to be for the senator. Dont save people if all you want is to be paid for saving them.


That's what I told the hospital for the ambulance ride. So far, it's gotten me nowhere...
 
2013-04-04 10:29:27 AM  
This seems like one of those rare threads where you can properly use the word 'scuttle' in a sentence and mean it.
 
2013-04-04 10:30:16 AM  
Carnival Cruise Lines: Already taken care of by way of paying taxes.
 
2013-04-04 10:30:55 AM  

Generation_D: dittybopper: Generation_D: So does the entire Merchant Marine fleet, but those guys aren't causing 90 mayday calls for the same fleet in 5 years.

I'm assuming you can support that assertion with a link?

Nope. Standard grade internet unsupported claim.

I'll start pointing yours out going forward, if we're changing the rules of engagement.


How would that be a change in the ROE?
 
2013-04-04 10:32:18 AM  
For profit organizations should have to pay for assistance if they are not paying federal taxes.
 
2013-04-04 10:32:51 AM  

monty666: cman: I wonder if a Fire Department would do something like this to someone who just cant stop setting his things ablaze.

I saw a story on the news where a fire department let a house burn in front of them because the homeowner hadn't paid their annual fee.


yeah i think it was Tennessee.
 
2013-04-04 10:35:32 AM  

dittybopper: Cruise lines "highly recommend" that you have one anyway. It may not be *REQUIRED*, but if something happens it will be a major pain in the ass for you if you don't have one.


It's only a major pain in the ass if you get stranded. If you show up with a stamped copy of your birth certificate and make it back on the ship before it leaves port, you're fine. I've done this twice in two years with no passport, including 2012.

I'd happily go Carnival again, too. I might try a different line next time I go for something different. But if it's Carnival again, I'd be perfectly happy.
 
2013-04-04 10:35:54 AM  

NightOwl2255: StRalphTheLiar: That surprised me, so I went to Carnival's site and checked. You are correct. I have been on 2 other cruise lines previously and both required adults to bring a passport, so I guess that was just their rule.

It's not their rule. It's US law. The only, only, international travel that does not require a passport is a cruise that leaves out of, and returns to, the same port.


Sorry, I meant that requiring passports was a rule of the other cruise lines.
 
2013-04-04 10:38:57 AM  

dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?


yes but with people you see on 'peopleofwalmart.com'
 
2013-04-04 10:39:38 AM  

Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: TAG has to be for the senator. Dont save people if all you want is to be paid for saving them.

That's what I told the hospital for the ambulance ride. So far, it's gotten me nowhere...


And how about all those bills from the police when they help you out? Man i cant stand thoses either.
I wonder when the check from the people we saved from pirates off the Somali coast will get here.
 
2013-04-04 10:40:53 AM  
The system is rigged, and not in your favor citizen.
 
2013-04-04 10:40:57 AM  
Carnival Cruise Lines' continued profitability has got to be Exhibit A in the case against any suggestion that the average consumer is informed or that consumer groups could ferret out corporate misdeeds and undesirable externalities in the absence of regulation.
 
2013-04-04 10:43:02 AM  
Well, you do pay for emergency response vehicles in your daily life, so why not these guys? Ever have an ambulance transport you to the hospital? Yeah, you are charged for that, whether it is a municipal (fire dept) vehicle or hospital transport.
 
2013-04-04 10:43:24 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Simple solution, rescue the people, leave the ship.  Won't be long before all of Carnival's fleet is sitting on the bottom acting as artificial reefs.  Then they won't cost the Coast Guard anything.


yes.. because it's much easier, safer and cheaper to offload 5,000 people in the high seas to another GIANT ship that the USCG do not possess than it is to just towed the darn thing back to port. Makes perfect financial sense. I hope you don't don't make any financial decisions in your family.
 
2013-04-04 10:43:54 AM  
Too big to jail, right? But they'll charge the 14 year old trying to set a record.
 
2013-04-04 10:44:56 AM  

sodomizer: When will idiots stop taking cruises?

Seriously, worst form of vacation ever. Crass, gross and peasanty. Give it break!


Some people like crass, gross, and peasanty.
 
2013-04-04 10:45:05 AM  

Brick-House: Carnival Cruise Lines: Already taken care of by way of paying taxes.


Why would you think Carnival is different from any other big corporation?

From:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html?_ r =3&
"Over the last five years, the company (Carnival) has paid total corporate taxes - federal, state, local and foreign - equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits. Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes. "
 
2013-04-04 10:45:23 AM  

vernonFL: Cruise ship companies pay taxes. Also, the employees and the guests pay taxes.


Yes.

But perhaps they should pay more taxes.
 
2013-04-04 10:47:24 AM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: mizchief

Yea gotta side with the Senator here. If your going to register all your ships on panama to get out of paying some taxes and avoiding US labor laws, then don't expect the US coast guard to bail your ass out for free.

Agreed, gotta recover the money somewhere, port fees or something. I never wanted to take a cruise... recent media has reaffirmed me of this.


According to the NY Times, Carnival has paid over $110 million in US corporate income taxes in the past 5 years (on $11.3B in worldwide revenue).  Plus millions more in port fees, payroll taxes, etc.  I have no problem with a Coast Guard rescue.

Did you stop flying after the media hoopla over a plane crash?  Stop driving after media coverage of a grisly accident?  Hundreds of thousands of people cruise every year with no problems but that isn't newsworthy.
 
2013-04-04 10:48:13 AM  

Joe Blowme: Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: TAG has to be for the senator. Dont save people if all you want is to be paid for saving them.

That's what I told the hospital for the ambulance ride. So far, it's gotten me nowhere...

And how about all those bills from the police when they help you out? Man i cant stand thoses either.
I wonder when the check from the people we saved from pirates off the Somali coast will get here.


I pay American tax dollars for police protection. What has the Panamanian for profit billionaire paid for first class service? Once or twice...yeah, I guess you need some serious help. 90 times in 5 years? You need to start paying the fark up. You are on some seriously hazard prone shiat, and obviously relying on us. Why fix it if someone will come and rescue you for free?

The pirates in Somalia are threatening American investments. Do you think we are just over there to be good boy scouts? Just hanging out being good smaritans in some wasteland of an ocean off of Africa, cause why not? Nothing better to do.


Are you seriously defending Carnival blatantly/disgustingly freeloading on the American taxpayer?
 
2013-04-04 10:50:36 AM  
The Arison's didn't get rich paying people...they got rich by getting stuff for free and having us pay them...

carnival cruises

miami heat

they probably have a sweet deal with miami-dade at the arena.
 
2013-04-04 10:51:35 AM  
Senator Rockefeller, when will you pay for all the damage which Congress causes?
 
2013-04-04 10:51:58 AM  

Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: TAG has to be for the senator. Dont save people if all you want is to be paid for saving them.

That's what I told the hospital for the ambulance ride. So far, it's gotten me nowhere...

And how about all those bills from the police when they help you out? Man i cant stand thoses either.
I wonder when the check from the people we saved from pirates off the Somali coast will get here.

I pay American tax dollars for police protection. What has the Panamanian for profit billionaire paid for first class service? Once or twice...yeah, I guess you need some serious help. 90 times in 5 years? You need to start paying the fark up. You are on some seriously hazard prone shiat, and obviously relying on us. Why fix it if someone will come and rescue you for free?

The pirates in Somalia are threatening American investments. Do you think we are just over there to be good boy scouts? Just hanging out being good smaritans in some wasteland of an ocean off of Africa, cause why not? Nothing better to do.


Are you seriously defending Carnival blatantly/disgustingly freeloading on the American taxpayer?


No, im saying is if you want them to pay then tell them they have to pay or they can sit and drift. Dont run around helping people then put your hand out and then get mad when they just give you a high 5
 
2013-04-04 10:53:21 AM  

WelldeadLink: Senator Rockefeller, when will you pay for all the damage which Congress causes?


Those clowns in Congress have done it again.  What a bunch of clowns.
 
2013-04-04 10:54:14 AM  
One thing I noticed was many of you assume they pay no taxes in the US. Their corporate home office and base of operations is in Florida so yeah they pay taxes. The avoid taxes on the boats by registering them off shore but every ticket sale is taxed so let the coast guard do their thing. Also being a branch of the military the CG holds as part of its duty to assist the 4000 American citizens on each cruise. His honor can blow it outta his ass.
 
2013-04-04 10:55:27 AM  

Joe Blowme: And how about all those bills from the police when they help you out? Man i cant stand thoses either.


If you're stranded on the highway and a cop stops and calls a tow for you, you do indeed get billed by the PD, and by the tow company. (so I've heard, NC, your State may vary).

Joe Blowme: I wonder when the check from the people we saved from pirates off the Somali coast will get here.


I think we should leave that to the Liberian Navy, like we should let the Panamanian Coast Guard rescue the Carnival ships. (Or possibly bill Liberia and Panama, or repatriate the ships thereto).
 
2013-04-04 10:57:45 AM  

Joe Blowme: Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: TAG has to be for the senator. Dont save people if all you want is to be paid for saving them.

That's what I told the hospital for the ambulance ride. So far, it's gotten me nowhere...

And how about all those bills from the police when they help you out? Man i cant stand thoses either.
I wonder when the check from the people we saved from pirates off the Somali coast will get here.

I pay American tax dollars for police protection. What has the Panamanian for profit billionaire paid for first class service? Once or twice...yeah, I guess you need some serious help. 90 times in 5 years? You need to start paying the fark up. You are on some seriously hazard prone shiat, and obviously relying on us. Why fix it if someone will come and rescue you for free?

The pirates in Somalia are threatening American investments. Do you think we are just over there to be good boy scouts? Just hanging out being good smaritans in some wasteland of an ocean off of Africa, cause why not? Nothing better to do.


Are you seriously defending Carnival blatantly/disgustingly freeloading on the American taxpayer?

No, im saying is if you want them to pay then tell them they have to pay or they can sit and drift. Dont run around helping people then put your hand out and then get mad when they just give you a high 5


On a note of speculation, I think that is where the Senator is going with this. Seeing the response and then most likely making a precedent for the future, since they are obvious abusers of the system.

"okay, now that I understand you completely. Here's how I will try and shape future law for your sorry asses"
 
2013-04-04 11:00:14 AM  
Looks like the Coast Guard runs over 20,000 sorties a year. There probably are a number of other companies who also are involved in 90 over 10 years.
USCG stats
 
2013-04-04 11:00:56 AM  

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Hunn dodged the issue of how much Carnival pays in federal taxes, but replied that cruise industry ships that call at U.S. ports "pay hundreds of millions of dollars in annual fees and taxes to federal, state and local government agencies in the form of port head taxes, dock fees, wharfage and other fees."

Haha, they are using the same excuse people who download music off the internet use to justify not paying for music.


I'm not following the logic.  Care to expound?
 
2013-04-04 11:01:49 AM  
Hey, Senator Rockefeller, how many millions were spent in the unsuccessful search and rescue of your cousin Michael?
www.news.harvard.edu
 
2013-04-04 11:04:32 AM  

CheapEngineer: dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?

[twimg0-a.akamaihd.net image 300x300]


Aaaaaaaaaand that's enough internet for today, thanks!
 
2013-04-04 11:04:33 AM  
My brother is supposed to go on a cruise soon, and it was originally going to be Carnival on one of the ships that had a problem.

/ I've never gone on a cruise.
 
2013-04-04 11:04:52 AM  
Well what do you know, just like the healthcare industry, ANOTHER company that prefers oligarch-style anti-competitiveness and schemes to good will and open market competition.

Health insurance+providers systematically hold customer's health and wellbeing hostage against a runaway feedback loop that raises prices more and more. Likewise, Carnival here is holding U.S. citizens safety and possibly lives hostage against saving money via easy ways to dodge taxes. The CG would never refuse to save lives, let alone U.S. citizen's lives, just to stuff it to Carnival. So Carnival cackles gleefully as it saves piddly change that will probably go to the CEO as a bonus.

So pathetically disgusting.
 
2013-04-04 11:04:54 AM  

MBooda: Hey, Senator Rockefeller, how many millions were spent in the unsuccessful search and rescue of your cousin Michael?
[www.news.harvard.edu image 450x321]


Nice penis gourds.
 
2013-04-04 11:05:03 AM  

Therion: "Your ship is registered where? If you're on fire and sinking, we'll be right there. Otherwise, call the Liberian Coast Guard."


So you would let several thousand people -- and probably some Americans -- drown to be vindictive?

Digital Communist: Brick-House: Carnival Cruise Lines: Already taken care of by way of paying taxes.

Why would you think Carnival is different from any other big corporation?

From:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html?_ r =3&
"Over the last five years, the company (Carnival) has paid total corporate taxes - federal, state, local and foreign - equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits. Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes. "


So then we're complaining about $4.2 million in costs from a Panamanian company that contributes $113 million in tax revenue?
 
2013-04-04 11:07:12 AM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Joe Blowme: And how about all those bills from the police when they help you out? Man i cant stand thoses either.

If you're stranded on the highway and a cop stops and calls a tow for you, you do indeed get billed by the PD, and by the tow company. (so I've heard, NC, your State may vary).

Joe Blowme: I wonder when the check from the people we saved from pirates off the Somali coast will get here.

I think we should leave that to the Liberian Navy, like we should let the Panamanian Coast Guard rescue the Carnival ships. (Or possibly bill Liberia and Panama, or repatriate the ships thereto).


Here the PD does not bill you (unless its impounded) but of course the tow company will... but you know that up front is my only point.  If you are saved by a lifegaurd, do you get a bill? Not on the coast so i dont know how it works on the coastal beaches maybe they do. Maybe going forward they should be upfront and say for x dollars we will help you if not, call a water cab.
 
2013-04-04 11:08:12 AM  

msupf: Well, you do pay for emergency response vehicles in your daily life, so why not these guys? Ever have an ambulance transport you to the hospital? Yeah, you are charged for that, whether it is a municipal (fire dept) vehicle or hospital transport.


EMS services usually aren't municipal entities. It may say such and such county EMS but look at the bill you get. They are usually their own corporations.
 
2013-04-04 11:09:25 AM  

Netrngr: Also being a branch of the military the CG holds as part of its duty to assist the 4000 American citizens on each cruise. His honor can blow it outta his ass.


That's all well and good, but do you REALLY want the Nanny State to get bigger and bigger and make policies that raise taxes just to cover the vague future possibilities of disaster rescues? Once you let that cat out of the bag, there's no saying how much vague reasoning could go into a laundry list of future disasters. The sky would be the limit. It seems to me that it's just common sense to issue bills for saving people from a specific shiatty situation that couldn't possibly have been well defined or predicted by any prior law or policy.
 
2013-04-04 11:14:22 AM  

Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: TAG has to be for the senator. Dont save people if all you want is to be paid for saving them.

That's what I told the hospital for the ambulance ride. So far, it's gotten me nowhere...

And how about all those bills from the police when they help you out? Man i cant stand thoses either.
I wonder when the check from the people we saved from pirates off the Somali coast will get here.

I pay American tax dollars for police protection. What has the Panamanian for profit billionaire paid for first class service? Once or twice...yeah, I guess you need some serious help. 90 times in 5 years? You need to start paying the fark up. You are on some seriously hazard prone shiat, and obviously relying on us. Why fix it if someone will come and rescue you for free?

The pirates in Somalia are threatening American investments. Do you think we are just over there to be good boy scouts? Just hanging out being good smaritans in some wasteland of an ocean off of Africa, cause why not? Nothing better to do.


Are you seriously defending Carnival blatantly/disgustingly freeloading on the American taxpayer?


Lemme guess..You are one of the Occupy assholes. God forbid a company actually provide a service and make money doing it because everyone should have everything here in utopia unicorn happy fun world. Grow the fark up.
 
2013-04-04 11:16:10 AM  
In most states if you start a fire (campfire, burning leaves, etc) and it gets out of hand you can be financially liable for the cost of the fire department.....I see no difference in this.
 
2013-04-04 11:16:53 AM  

Bontesla: Stop harassing job creators!


The employ as many non-citizens as they do Americans.
 
2013-04-04 11:19:35 AM  

Netrngr: Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: Mixolydian Master: Joe Blowme: TAG has to be for the senator. Dont save people if all you want is to be paid for saving them.

That's what I told the hospital for the ambulance ride. So far, it's gotten me nowhere...

And how about all those bills from the police when they help you out? Man i cant stand thoses either.
I wonder when the check from the people we saved from pirates off the Somali coast will get here.

I pay American tax dollars for police protection. What has the Panamanian for profit billionaire paid for first class service? Once or twice...yeah, I guess you need some serious help. 90 times in 5 years? You need to start paying the fark up. You are on some seriously hazard prone shiat, and obviously relying on us. Why fix it if someone will come and rescue you for free?

The pirates in Somalia are threatening American investments. Do you think we are just over there to be good boy scouts? Just hanging out being good smaritans in some wasteland of an ocean off of Africa, cause why not? Nothing better to do.


Are you seriously defending Carnival blatantly/disgustingly freeloading on the American taxpayer?

Lemme guess..You are one of the Occupy assholes. God forbid a company actually provide a service and make money doing it because everyone should have everything here in utopia unicorn happy fun world. Grow the fark up.


Nope, not an "occupy asshole" Just an American military expatriate living in Germany that thinks a foreign for profit company should be paying for a rescue operation that costs American time and money. Hell, a towtruck cost me money when I got a flat tire. But I guess when you are billionaires, everything is free.
 
2013-04-04 11:20:19 AM  

Babwa Wawa: dittybopper: You know what happens then?

The cruise lines stop using US ports, and they fly the people who want to cruise to a foreign port for the start and end-points of their cruises.  So you lose any revenue you get from port fees, taxes, local sales of supplies and fuel, and the employment of dock-side cruise workers.

I don't think so.  70% of Americans don't even have f*cking passports.  Not to mention that it would take 800,000 airline seats to embark and debark a single cruise ship for a year.


Most of us don't have passports because we can drive for 70 hours in a straight line and not leave the country.  Can't do that in many other places.
 
2013-04-04 11:22:05 AM  
Daniels:
So then we're complaining about $4.2 million in costs from a Panamanian Florida based company that contributes $113 million in tax revenue?
FTFY
 
2013-04-04 11:22:32 AM  

MindStalker: monty666: cman: I wonder if a Fire Department would do something like this to someone who just cant stop setting his things ablaze.

I saw a story on the news where a fire department let a house burn in front of them because the homeowner hadn't paid their annual fee.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let- ho me-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Honestly I think its a reasonable policy, you can agree to pay 2200 is you didn't pay the fee, I'm wondering if this family said no or what.


This is why we have rural fire protection districts out here.  It's a property tax, meaning your mortgage will include it, and if you don't have a mortgage, you'll get a lien if you don't pay.  In other words, idiots who think it'll never happen to them never get the opportunity to be idiots.
 
2013-04-04 11:24:35 AM  

Therion: "Your ship is registered where? If you're on fire and sinking, we'll be right there. Otherwise, call the Liberian Coast Guard."


It doesn't work like that.  Under SOLAS, if you receive a distress call from a vessel and can render aid, you must do so.  It's required by international law, not just a code of honor.
 
2013-04-04 11:27:52 AM  

torusXL: Netrngr: Also being a branch of the military the CG holds as part of its duty to assist the 4000 American citizens on each cruise. His honor can blow it outta his ass.

That's all well and good, but do you REALLY want the Nanny State to get bigger and bigger and make policies that raise taxes just to cover the vague future possibilities of disaster rescues? Once you let that cat out of the bag, there's no saying how much vague reasoning could go into a laundry list of future disasters. The sky would be the limit. It seems to me that it's just common sense to issue bills for saving people from a specific shiatty situation that couldn't possibly have been well defined or predicted by any prior law or policy.


I agree to some extent but were talking the coast guard here. Rescuing ships is part of what they are there for. and lets face it 90 calls in 10 years out of 200,00o some odd calls in the same time frame isn't exactly burning up the line. Ive called Time Warner support more often than that during the same time frame. I'm seriously considering starting a sea tow type business catering to large ships like this. Then you farkers can biatch about me not paying enough taxes ;)
 
2013-04-04 11:28:58 AM  

Netrngr: Lemme guess..You are one of the Occupy assholes. God forbid a company actually provide a service and make money doing it because everyone should have everything here in utopia unicorn happy fun world. Grow the fark up.


Like I said before, it's people like you who are being played for a fool. Companies these days are becoming less and less what you think you're supporting, the happy-happy-joy-joy free market that regulates itself with the invisible hand and makes magical profits and more and more monopolistic oligarchy-resembling forts hoarding money.

But hey, you just keep sucking their cock while getting nothing in return. Just remember that years from now, you'll be weeping that you don't get any love or affection and he just won't care.
 
2013-04-04 11:30:50 AM  

Netrngr: Daniels:
So then we're complaining about $4.2 million in costs from a Panamanian Florida based company that contributes $113 million in tax revenue?
FTFY


SHIP:                                   Flag:

Carnival Fantasy                 Panama

Carnival Ecstasy                 Panama

Carnival Sensation             Bahamas

Carnival Fascination           Bahamas

Carnival Imagination           Bahamas

Carnival Inspiration             Bahamas

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on

For an American company, they don't fly any American flags on any of their ships.

I only wonder why...

There has to be a good reason. I've been assured they are an American company.

So what could it be?
 
2013-04-04 11:31:47 AM  

Netrngr: lets face it 90 calls in 10 years out of 200,00o some odd calls in the same time frame isn't exactly burning up the line


I think the millions of U.S. citizens, single moms for instance, who don't have any money out of no fault of their own, who see millions of dollars being put against saving entitled vacation-goers from an arrogant company would beg to differ.
 
2013-04-04 11:34:10 AM  

dittybopper: monty666: The whole cruise thing is kind of sleazy and gross.

So it's like sex?


Only if you do it right.
 
2013-04-04 11:34:56 AM  
Interesting that in this thread many of our resident conservatives are advocating on the side of Carnival.
Not really a surprise.
 
2013-04-04 11:35:28 AM  

Netrngr: Daniels:
So then we're complaining about $4.2 million in costs from a Panamanian Florida based company that contributes $113 million in tax revenue?
FTFY


Not quite.

Their HQ and admin may be in Florida, but the company is based in a different company. They don't pay any Federal income taxes. None. That $110 million in Federal taxes that they have paid is the employee-share of payroll taxes on their land-based employees in Florida. Their ship-board employees are almost all foreign nationals with the exception of entertainment-based people.
Oh, and they aren't the only business doing this. Google is based in Ireland, but other companies don't depend on free rescues since they are essentially holding the passengers hostage.
 
2013-04-04 11:39:10 AM  
You can't arbitrarily decide that Company X or person Y has required too much assistance lately, and then throw a bill for services rendered at them.

There are presumably laws- or lack thereof- covering how expenses related to USCGS rescues are handled. I wouldn't expect any of you to pay rescue expenses you're not obligated to pay, and the same goes for Carnival. I'm sure it's fun for Rockefeller to grandstand on the issue, but it's not really a new issue that has unknown aspects of it.

Now, Carnival may need some help pulling their heads out of their asses, but that's a separate matter that might require new laws and is open to debate.
 
2013-04-04 11:41:35 AM  

dfenstrate: You can't arbitrarily decide that Company X or person Y has required too much assistance lately, and then throw a bill for services rendered at them.

There are presumably laws- or lack thereof- covering how expenses related to USCGS rescues are handled. I wouldn't expect any of you to pay rescue expenses you're not obligated to pay, and the same goes for Carnival. I'm sure it's fun for Rockefeller to grandstand on the issue, but it's not really a new issue that has unknown aspects of it.

Now, Carnival may need some help pulling their heads out of their asses, but that's a separate matter that might require new laws and is open to debate.


Who better to grandstand about an issue that may require new laws than a lawmaker?
 
2013-04-04 11:44:44 AM  

Latinwolf: Interesting that in this thread many of our resident conservatives are advocating on the side of Carnival.
Not really a surprise.


Not really.  It's common sense:  You do not want to open the can of worms that is charging people for marine rescue/allowing your coast guard to be able to choose who they rescue.  That could get ugly reeeeaallly farking fast.

This issue is totally separate from Carnival being cheap bastards who need to have their ability to operate in the US pulled until they learn to spend the money to maintain their fleet.
 
2013-04-04 11:46:05 AM  
I stand corrected. After doing a little more research, while they do call Fla their corporate home they are indeed incorporated in Panama. I will now bow out and allow the hate to continue. Still gotta say I rather enjoyed my cruise and will probably use them again.
 
2013-04-04 11:47:20 AM  

NEDM: Latinwolf: Interesting that in this thread many of our resident conservatives are advocating on the side of Carnival.
Not really a surprise.

Not really.  It's common sense:  You do not want to open the can of worms that is charging people for marine rescue/allowing your coast guard to be able to choose who they rescue.  That could get ugly reeeeaallly farking fast.

This issue is totally separate from Carnival being cheap bastards who need to have their ability to operate in the US pulled until they learn to spend the money to maintain their fleet.


You could simply make a rule that the first 3-4 are free. When you go 90 times in 5 years... It's not really a courtesy anymore. It's a complete burden on the rescue outfit.

Imagine if you went drunk mountain climbing and required a helicopter rescue 90 times in 5 years...


yeah
 
2013-04-04 11:47:40 AM  

NightOwl2255: StRalphTheLiar: That surprised me, so I went to Carnival's site and checked. You are correct. I have been on 2 other cruise lines previously and both required adults to bring a passport, so I guess that was just their rule.

It's not their rule. It's US law. The only, only, international travel that does not require a passport is a cruise that leaves out of, and returns to, the same port.


BUT, if it makes any stops along the way, youre not allowed to get off the ship.
 
2013-04-04 11:54:03 AM  

Mixolydian Master: NEDM: Latinwolf: Interesting that in this thread many of our resident conservatives are advocating on the side of Carnival.
Not really a surprise.

Not really.  It's common sense:  You do not want to open the can of worms that is charging people for marine rescue/allowing your coast guard to be able to choose who they rescue.  That could get ugly reeeeaallly farking fast.

This issue is totally separate from Carnival being cheap bastards who need to have their ability to operate in the US pulled until they learn to spend the money to maintain their fleet.

You could simply make a rule that the first 3-4 are free. When you go 90 times in 5 years... It's not really a courtesy anymore. It's a complete burden on the rescue outfit.

Imagine if you went drunk mountain climbing and required a helicopter rescue 90 times in 5 years...


yeah


Well, let's be reasonable here.  It's exceedingly likely a large amount of those 90 calls were for something like airlifting a passenger who needed medical help off the ship.  I can only think of three major incidents involving Carnival ships over the past 3 years (including the Costa Concordia); it's not like every one of those 90 calls were for a incident on the scale of the Carnival Triumph.
 
2013-04-04 11:54:34 AM  

NEDM: Not really.  It's common sense:  You do not want to open the can of worms that is charging people for marine rescue/allowing your coast guard to be able to choose who they rescue.  That could get ugly reeeeaallly farking fast.


I sense that you are blowing smoke out your ass. Do you reallllly think the CG would risk political backlash for yawning while hundreds of U.S. citizens drowned? Not to mention what Carnival said, that "honor of the sea".

The only bag of worms here is that by not allowing the CG to bill for specific rescues (each of which have their own specific situations and problems), then they will find funding elsewhere. And that elsewhere would probably be to run to Congress to create blanket policies that guarantee enough funding to cover the average annual cost of rescues.

So, the choice is between a more bloated CG bureaucracy, or the imagined danger that the CG will cherry pick around their duty of saving people's lives around the coast.
 
2013-04-04 11:56:21 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.

It was taxes and increased regulation that drove the cruise industry to register their ships overseas in the first place.


No, it was greed.
 
2013-04-04 11:56:59 AM  

NEDM: Mixolydian Master: NEDM: Latinwolf: Interesting that in this thread many of our resident conservatives are advocating on the side of Carnival.
Not really a surprise.

Not really.  It's common sense:  You do not want to open the can of worms that is charging people for marine rescue/allowing your coast guard to be able to choose who they rescue.  That could get ugly reeeeaallly farking fast.

This issue is totally separate from Carnival being cheap bastards who need to have their ability to operate in the US pulled until they learn to spend the money to maintain their fleet.

You could simply make a rule that the first 3-4 are free. When you go 90 times in 5 years... It's not really a courtesy anymore. It's a complete burden on the rescue outfit.

Imagine if you went drunk mountain climbing and required a helicopter rescue 90 times in 5 years...


yeah

Well, let's be reasonable here.  It's exceedingly likely a large amount of those 90 calls were for something like airlifting a passenger who needed medical help off the ship.  I can only think of three major incidents involving Carnival ships over the past 3 years (including the Costa Concordia); it's not like every one of those 90 calls were for a incident on the scale of the Carnival Triumph.


Actually, that's an interesting angle. It's worded that "you" were scued 90 times in 5 years. So does a passenger constitute "you"? I don't know... Do you?
 
2013-04-04 11:57:45 AM  
***rescued
 
2013-04-04 11:59:36 AM  

dittybopper: The cruise lines stop using US ports, and they fly the people who want to cruise to a foreign port for the start and end-points of their cruises.


Hurr durrr.  Really?  You think that will happen?  That's not how it works.
 
2013-04-04 12:01:20 PM  

MindStalker: monty666: cman: I wonder if a Fire Department would do something like this to someone who just cant stop setting his things ablaze.

I saw a story on the news where a fire department let a house burn in front of them because the homeowner hadn't paid their annual fee.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let- ho me-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

Honestly I think its a reasonable policy, you can agree to pay 2200 is you didn't pay the fee, I'm wondering if this family said no or what.


People in my area build houses outside of fire districts, then keep voting against annexation by the fire district. Why?  So they don't have to pay fire taxes, or because there is some section of the fire code they don't want to comply with, like water supply or driveway access.   Then are shocked when no fire department will respond to a fire on their property, or their insurance agent finds out they have no fire protections and jacks up their insurance rates.
 
2013-04-04 12:02:30 PM  

torusXL: NEDM: Not really.  It's common sense:  You do not want to open the can of worms that is charging people for marine rescue/allowing your coast guard to be able to choose who they rescue.  That could get ugly reeeeaallly farking fast.

I sense that you are blowing smoke out your ass. Do you reallllly think the CG would risk political backlash for yawning while hundreds of U.S. citizens drowned? Not to mention what Carnival said, that "honor of the sea".

The only bag of worms here is that by not allowing the CG to bill for specific rescues (each of which have their own specific situations and problems), then they will find funding elsewhere. And that elsewhere would probably be to run to Congress to create blanket policies that guarantee enough funding to cover the average annual cost of rescues.

So, the choice is between a more bloated CG bureaucracy, or the imagined danger that the CG will cherry pick around their duty of saving people's lives around the coast.


I'm not talking about just the US here.  This sort of precedent opens such doors like the Chinese coast guard sitting back and watching a Japanese ship burn, or the Indian Coast Guard rescuing a Pakistani ship and then impounding the ship/interring the crew until the bill is paid.  Or any number of nations doing things like the latter example.  When I said it could get ugly real fast, I meant it.

/And a "more bloated CG bureaucracy" is laughable.  Of all the things that need trimming/streamlining at the USCG, their rescue operations are not one of them, considering rescue is one of their primary reasons for existing.
 
2013-04-04 12:04:25 PM  

Netrngr: msupf: Well, you do pay for emergency response vehicles in your daily life, so why not these guys? Ever have an ambulance transport you to the hospital? Yeah, you are charged for that, whether it is a municipal (fire dept) vehicle or hospital transport.

EMS services usually aren't municipal entities. It may say such and such county EMS but look at the bill you get. They are usually their own corporations.


There are counties that contract with Private companies.   Around here, they are tax supported County Agencies.  Not private companies.   But the taxes don't cover all their costs, so they bill.   About 50% of the people who are billed for ambulance service never pay.
 
2013-04-04 12:09:00 PM  

cman: I wonder if a Fire Department would do something like this to someone who just cant stop setting his things ablaze.


if it poses no risk to anyone else or their property, I doubt they'd do a thing.

however, if he's trying to burn several thousand people, you can bet they'll come to the rescue
 
2013-04-04 12:09:06 PM  
Mixolydian Master:
Actually, that's an interesting angle. It's worded that "you" were scued 90 times in 5 years. So does a passenger constitute "you"? I don't know... Do you?

The senator used the wording "In the past five years, the U.S. Coast Guard has had to make 90 safety interventions involving Carnival ships. Three such incidents occurred within the last week. " in his original letter (which is linked in the article).  That can easily mean that they're airlifting passengers off a ship.  I mean, keep in mind who constitutes some of their passenger base:  old people.  It's entirely likely that over the past 5 years that they've had nearly 90 incidents over the past 5 years where a passenger had a medical condition serious enough that the onboard infirmary couldn't handle it, and they thus called the Coast Guard to send a helicopter to take them to a hospital ashore.
 
2013-04-04 12:09:37 PM  

Frank N Stein: DoBeDoBeDo: rescue the people, leave the ship.

Having a derelict ship is not a good thing.


DoBeDoBeDo: Then they won't cost the Coast Guard anything.

It doesn't cost money to send up helicopters, redirect cutters, and provide food/medical services to survivors?


Okay then blow the dead in the water ship up for "safety"

You missed the part where the then is AFTER Carnival runs out of ships.  No ships = no need to rescue
 
2013-04-04 12:10:39 PM  

NEDM: Mixolydian Master:
Actually, that's an interesting angle. It's worded that "you" were scued 90 times in 5 years. So does a passenger constitute "you"? I don't know... Do you?

The senator used the wording "In the past five years, the U.S. Coast Guard has had to make 90 safety interventions involving Carnival ships. Three such incidents occurred within the last week. " in his original letter (which is linked in the article).  That can easily mean that they're airlifting passengers off a ship.  I mean, keep in mind who constitutes some of their passenger base:  old people.  It's entirely likely that over the past 5 years that they've had nearly 90 incidents over the past 5 years where a passenger had a medical condition serious enough that the onboard infirmary couldn't handle it, and they thus called the Coast Guard to send a helicopter to take them to a hospital ashore.


FTFM
 
2013-04-04 12:11:23 PM  
no no no, keep supporting the cruises.  It keeps the fat stupid americans away from the good vacation spots, I don't care that they loll about in the ocean and waste their money as long as they keep their trash, noise, and kids away from the nice areas.

If we could convince germans to wear deodorant that'd solve all my vacation woes.
 
2013-04-04 12:13:02 PM  

Cyno01: BUT, if it makes any stops along the way, youre not allowed to get off the ship.


100% wrong. In Oct of last year we went on a cruise out of New Orleans. We Stopped in Cancun, Honduras and Belize. No passport needed.  Have cruised to Aruba and several other Caribbean nations. No passport needed to debark in those countries.
 
2013-04-04 12:14:30 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: DoBeDoBeDo: Simple solution, rescue the people, leave the ship.  Won't be long before all of Carnival's fleet is sitting on the bottom acting as artificial reefs.  Then they won't cost the Coast Guard anything.

yes.. because it's much easier, safer and cheaper to offload 5,000 people in the high seas to another GIANT ship that the USCG do not possess than it is to just towed the darn thing back to port. Makes perfect financial sense. I hope you don't don't make any financial decisions in your family.


Actually it MAY make perfect sense.   We need to figure out how likely Carnival is to replace a ship.

Just towing it back means they can "repair" it and send it out again, meaning another tow job.  So that could, in the long run cost money until a better solution is figured out.  My solution may be a one time cost, as no ship means they can't cause the rescue to happen again.

You're thinking short term cost, I'm thinking long term gains.
 
2013-04-04 12:15:11 PM  

NEDM: /And a "more bloated CG bureaucracy" is laughable.  Of all the things that need trimming/streamlining at the USCG, their rescue operations are not one of them, considering rescue is one of their primary reasons for existing.


I'm talking about the opposite direction on that time dimension, there buddy. I'm suggesting that in the future, the CG could become more bloated if new policies enacted averaging out costs of rescuing people from vacation cruises. Notice how those bolded and underlined words indicate a hypothetical? I know, it's difficult. You'll get it someday, don't stop trying!

manimal2878: dittybopper: vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.

It was taxes and increased regulation that drove the cruise industry to register their ships overseas in the first place.

No, it was greed.


To both of you:
FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT
 
2013-04-04 12:16:09 PM  

NEDM: NEDM: Mixolydian Master:
Actually, that's an interesting angle. It's worded that "you" were scued 90 times in 5 years. So does a passenger constitute "you"? I don't know... Do you?

The senator used the wording "In the past five years, the U.S. Coast Guard has had to make 90 safety interventions involving Carnival ships. Three such incidents occurred within the last week. " in his original letter (which is linked in the article).  That can easily mean that they're airlifting passengers off a ship.  I mean, keep in mind who constitutes some of their passenger base:  old people.  It's entirely likely that over the past 5 years that they've had nearly 90 incidents over the past 5 years where a passenger had a medical condition serious enough that the onboard infirmary couldn't handle it, and they thus called the Coast Guard to send a helicopter to take them to a hospital ashore.

FTFM



It sounds like Carnival didn't do a physical for pre-existing conditions, if that's the case.

Free ambulance ride.

But in all seriousness, the number may or may not have been sensational. With that said, when it is Carnival and Carnival alone that is responsible for decrepit watercraft being in need of rescue, then Carnival needs to pay, just like anyone else would need to pay to catch a bus, taxi, airplane or towtruck for being somewhere stranded.
 
2013-04-04 12:18:01 PM  

NightOwl2255: StRalphTheLiar: You have to have a passport to take a cruise that docks at a foreign port, so that's not cutting their client base at all. Also, they will typically handle your air travel as part of your package if you want them to. So instead of flying you from LA to Seattle for an Alaskan cruise, they fly you to Vancouver. No big deal. Caribbean cruises leave out of Cancun instead of Florida. They absolutely could stop using US ports for most cruises.

You are 100% wrong. You do not need a passport for a cruise that docks at a foreign port. But, to fly to, say Vancouver, you do need a passport.


I don't think he's "100% wrong", because Canada requires US citizens to have a valid US passport to take cruises from Seattle to Alaska that stop in Canadian ports. I only heard this because my older brother was denied access to one of those cruises when the Canadians discovered he'd had two DUIs 20+ years ago. He can only fly to Alaska...not drive or take the ferry or a cruise.
 
2013-04-04 12:22:01 PM  

NightOwl2255: 100% wrong


FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT  

You know, this is fun. I might start having that be the only thing I ever post on Fark from now on. There are definitely plenty of dumbasses I can respond to with just those 3 words.
 
2013-04-04 12:24:14 PM  

Stone Meadow: I don't think he's "100% wrong", because Canada requires US citizens to have a valid US passport to take cruises from Seattle to Alaska that stop in Canadian ports. I only heard this because my older brother was denied access to one of those cruises when the Canadians discovered he'd had two DUIs 20+ years ago. He can only fly to Alaska...not drive or take the ferry or a cruise.


True. We had been discussing Caribbean cruises. They don't care if you even have ID. They just want your money.
 
2013-04-04 12:26:11 PM  
Mixolydian Master:
It sounds like Carnival didn't do a physical for pre-existing conditions, if that's the case.

Free ambulance ride.

But in all seriousness, the number may or may not have been sensational. With that said, when it is Carnival and Carnival alone that is responsible for decrepit watercraft being in need of rescue, then Carnival needs to pay, just like anyone else would need to pay to catch a bus, taxi, airplane or towtruck for being somewhere stranded.


Well, they don't need to do a physical.  The people are just passengers.  At least I don't think they need to take a physical to go on a cruise. They're not working, at least.

That said, the sensational bit isn't the 90 number, but that Carnival is being singled out.  I highly suspect that Royal Caribbean and Princess have roughly the same numbers for coast guard calls; they just don't have the fire problem that Carnival seems to have.

Don't get me wrong, Carnival is DEFINITELY a gigantic cheapskate company, and I'm not coming to the defense of their business practices when it comes to maritime safety.  Their ships are massively unsafe, and I would never sail on them under any circumstances.
 
2013-04-04 12:31:18 PM  

NEDM: Mixolydian Master:
It sounds like Carnival didn't do a physical for pre-existing conditions, if that's the case.

Free ambulance ride.

But in all seriousness, the number may or may not have been sensational. With that said, when it is Carnival and Carnival alone that is responsible for decrepit watercraft being in need of rescue, then Carnival needs to pay, just like anyone else would need to pay to catch a bus, taxi, airplane or towtruck for being somewhere stranded.

Well, they don't need to do a physical.  The people are just passengers.  At least I don't think they need to take a physical to go on a cruise. They're not working, at least.

That said, the sensational bit isn't the 90 number, but that Carnival is being singled out.  I highly suspect that Royal Caribbean and Princess have roughly the same numbers for coast guard calls; they just don't have the fire problem that Carnival seems to have.

Don't get me wrong, Carnival is DEFINITELY a gigantic cheapskate company, and I'm not coming to the defense of their business practices when it comes to maritime safety.  Their ships are massively unsafe, and I would never sail on them under any circumstances.


Well, you're most likely right that Royal and Princess are abusers as well. However, it's probably easiest to set a precedent with a terrible offender, then glance at them out of the corner of your eye when all is said and done. This will probably effect ticket prices, which would hurt the cruise industry, but if you can afford a cruise, then what's another $40 on the ticket price? If that is going to break your wallet, then you probably shouldn't be taking a cruise anyways...
 
2013-04-04 12:36:19 PM  
"more bloated CG"... There's something I never imagined hearing.

/ retired Coastie
// was aboard the first cutter on scene for the Carnival Ecstacy fire, which also broke free from moorings afterwards
/// Csb
 
2013-04-04 12:38:09 PM  

NightOwl2255: StRalphTheLiar: That surprised me, so I went to Carnival's site and checked. You are correct. I have been on 2 other cruise lines previously and both required adults to bring a passport, so I guess that was just their rule.

It's not their rule. It's US law. The only, only, international travel that does not require a passport is a cruise that leaves out of, and returns to, the same port.


You can drive over the border without a passport. My husband and I have "enhanced drivers licenses" for WA. It has an RFID chip that sends the border guards your digital picture and it takes 1/3 of the time to cross the border into Canada. The requirements to get the EDL is quite a lot like passport requirements.
 
2013-04-04 12:44:21 PM  
Mixolydian Master:
Well, you're most likely right that Royal and Princess are abusers as well. However, it's probably easiest to set a precedent with a terrible offender, then glance at them out of the corner of your eye when all is said and done. This will probably effect ticket prices, which would hurt the cruise industry, but if you can afford a cruise, then what's another $40 on the ticket price? If that is going to break your wallet, then you probably shouldn't be taking a cruise anyways...

Abusers?  Keep in mind how big those ships are, man.  They carry upwards of 5,000 people on each voyage, and they usually sail year round nonstop (minus shipyard time).  Only needing to have a passenger airlifted off 90 times in 5 years is a really low number, keeping all that in mind.  They aren't calling a chopper for every guy with the sniffles.  Based on how hard it is to coordinate a helicopter pickup on a ship with no helo deck, I can promise you that every single person who gets winched up off a cruise ship needs the medical assistance that badly.
 
2013-04-04 12:46:05 PM  
If you go hiking in most federal parks and get stuck and require rescue you are getting a bill for it (See Denali rules for example) if corporations are people as Mitt said they should be getting the bill
 
2013-04-04 12:49:40 PM  

NEDM: Mixolydian Master:
Well, you're most likely right that Royal and Princess are abusers as well. However, it's probably easiest to set a precedent with a terrible offender, then glance at them out of the corner of your eye when all is said and done. This will probably effect ticket prices, which would hurt the cruise industry, but if you can afford a cruise, then what's another $40 on the ticket price? If that is going to break your wallet, then you probably shouldn't be taking a cruise anyways...

Abusers?  Keep in mind how big those ships are, man.  They carry upwards of 5,000 people on each voyage, and they usually sail year round nonstop (minus shipyard time).  Only needing to have a passenger airlifted off 90 times in 5 years is a really low number, keeping all that in mind.  They aren't calling a chopper for every guy with the sniffles.  Based on how hard it is to coordinate a helicopter pickup on a ship with no helo deck, I can promise you that every single person who gets winched up off a cruise ship needs the medical assistance that badly.


I think the Senator wants cruise ships tI don't think they are secretly wanting to force grandpa into bankruptcy for hainvg to much at the all you can eat lobster bar, and then doing a congo line. The number was most likely given for shock--which served the purpose of how expensive it is to rescue a floating city, and then expected to do it for free.´´even as the floating city made money off of the "vacation"
 
2013-04-04 12:51:03 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: They didn't say it was an honor, they said it was a tradition, which they honor. And they think Congress should honor its traditions as well.


Like this suitcase full of cash my associate Mr. Lau Beist will be leaving in your office shortly after the whole matter is dropped.

/then again, $4.2m is probably the starting rate for senatorial bribes
 
2013-04-04 12:52:15 PM  

Happy Hours: In before someone points out that $4.2 million is only 0.^A% of the entire budget so it doesn't matter.


Of course those people who will point out that in this thread will probably also claim, "Of course Carnival doesn't have to pay up, they are one of our most holy job creators and they need the money, not the government that would of used that $4.2 million to take away our guns, our freedoms, and give money to poor people."

/enough derp there?
 
2013-04-04 01:10:57 PM  

orbister: What's 1/3 the value of a cruise ship these days?


What's 1/3 the value of a big, floating pile of disease-riddled scrap iron that can only 'sail' if it's attached to a tugboat? 'Bout tree-fiddy.
 
2013-04-04 01:23:38 PM  

Sybarite: dittybopper: vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.

It was taxes and increased regulation that drove the cruise industry to register their ships overseas in the first place.


Yeah, screw those safety, labor, and environmental standards. We're a Liberian ship! Hell, even oil rigs requiring a flag can use that workaround. The Deepwater Horizon was registered in the Marshall Islands on the other side of the frikkin' planet.


Part of it's also that US-flagged ships must have a crew that's 100% allowed to work on US soil (that means US citizens or people with the right farkton of paperwork). And of course, US minimum wage.

Fun fact: Non-US flagged cruise ships have to make at least one stop out of the US, which is why so many cruises go so far out of their way to stop in Vancouver, the Bahamas, Kiribati, or anyplace else out of the country.

/Worked on a cruise ship until like two months ago
 
2013-04-04 01:29:23 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Happy Hours: In before someone points out that $4.2 million is only 0.^A% of the entire budget so it doesn't matter.

Of course those people who will point out that in this thread will probably also claim, "Of course Carnival doesn't have to pay up, they are one of our most holy job creators and they need the money, not the government that would of used that $4.2 million to take away our guns, our freedoms, and give money to poor people."

/enough derp there?


Oh yeah, they create jobs all right. But mostly for Indonesians and Filipinos. Remember, no US minimum wage.

I worked on a cruise ship, one sailing mostly through US waters for an entire season, and maybe 2% of the crew is American.
 
2013-04-04 01:34:13 PM  

NEDM: It doesn't work like that.  Under SOLAS, if you receive a distress call from a vessel and can render aid, you must do so.  It's required by international law, not just a code of honor.


Yes, but they have to be in distress. On fire is distress. Holed and sinking is distress. Drifting harmlessly within reach of commercial tugs is not distress, and a tow in such circumstances is not a SOLAS V obligation but salvage, for which a financial claim can be made.
 
2013-04-04 01:36:59 PM  

Mixolydian Master: For an American company, they don't fly any American flags on any of their ships.

I only wonder why...

There has to be a good reason. I've been assured they are an American company.


A few years ago I went into Kelvin Hughes' shop on the Minories in London to buy some charts. The chart counter was in the same room as books of merchant shipping regulations. The UK regulations came in a series of books which, together, took up most of a 3' shelf. The Liberian regulations were one volume, about 1/2" thick.

Why do companies use these dodgy flags? So that they can cut manning and safety to the bone.
 
2013-04-04 01:39:55 PM  

NEDM: You do not want to open the can of worms that is charging people for marine rescue/allowing your coast guard to be able to choose who they rescue.


The coast guard can't choose who they rescue. They most certainly can choose what they rescue. It's Safety Of Life At Sea, not Salvage Of Ships At Sea,

The RNLI in the UK have a policy of not claiming salvage, but they have no obligation whatsoever to take vessels in tow. They do it only when it's safe and out of the goodness of their hearts.
 
2013-04-04 01:46:35 PM  
90 times over five years is a lot of freakin' time this has happened.

It sounds like Carnival may be taking advantage of the Coast Guard's mandate to help these ships.  Guessing they're placing them in position to be towed/taken care of.

There's a clear moral hazard here and I don't oppose Rockefeller raising the issue of addressing it.  Carnival is abusing the use of a public good.  It should pay for these uses, if it continues to be so delinquent.
 
2013-04-04 01:52:22 PM  
In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon, it came to light just how shoddy BP's practices had been. I remember seeing charts in articles comparing the safety and environmental violations of the various oil extraction companies and BP was a definite outlier.

Is Carnival an outlier? That is the big question. If so, then there is every reason for them to be in front of Congress explaining why they endanger American tourists far more than their peers.

I don't know the ansewer, I haven't seen any numbers. But Congress does have the authority to regulate ticket sales for international cruises if there is a big need for it. How many people died on 9/11? How big of a deal did we make of that? What if a ship with 5,000 sinks with most of the passangers on board? Do we simply chalk it up to "Oopsies happen" and let it go, or do we gnash our teeth that nothing was said about this despite a history of problems?

Rockefeller isn't one of the stupid or partisan members of Congress, you don't see his name attached to much idiocy. I'm going to give him a pass on this and say that the cruise industry had better be doing all it can to safeguard the lives of its passengers. It is a far cry from comments and questions in committee to a bill being introduced and it is well within the purview of Congress to put the fear of Neptune into the industry after a string of high profile accidents and near-catastrophes.
 
2013-04-04 01:55:02 PM  

NEDM: Only needing to have a passenger airlifted off 90 times in 5 years is a really low number, keeping all that in mind.


No. It's really NOT a low number. If they need a chopper dispached 90 times in 5 years to rescue one of their customers, then Royal Carribean needs to invest in a chopper of their own, and stop using taxpayer resources. It would probably facilitate quicker rescues any way.
 
2013-04-04 01:55:48 PM  

Fireproof: DarkSoulNoHope: Happy Hours: In before someone points out that $4.2 million is only 0.^A% of the entire budget so it doesn't matter.

Of course those people who will point out that in this thread will probably also claim, "Of course Carnival doesn't have to pay up, they are one of our most holy job creators and they need the money, not the government that would of used that $4.2 million to take away our guns, our freedoms, and give money to poor people."

/enough derp there?

Oh yeah, they create jobs all right. But mostly for Indonesians and Filipinos. Remember, no US minimum wage.

I worked on a cruise ship, one sailing mostly through US waters for an entire season, and maybe 2% of the crew is American.


I bet the 2% of crew is the ones who interact with the customers, to make it pretend to be an "American" cruise line while most of the wage slave labor taken from other countries is left hidden for no passenger to see (unless they're in shiny chefs or housekeeping outfits).
 
2013-04-04 02:02:59 PM  

Netrngr: One thing I noticed was many of you assume they pay no taxes in the US. Their corporate home office and base of operations is in Florida so yeah they pay taxes. The avoid taxes on the boats by registering them off shore but every ticket sale is taxed so let the coast guard do their thing. Also being a branch of the military the CG holds as part of its duty to assist the 4000 American citizens on each cruise. His honor can blow it outta his ass.


Of course if they start being billed, they may see value in making damn sure their ships are in good repair.
 
2013-04-04 02:03:54 PM  

Digital Communist: Brick-House: Carnival Cruise Lines: Already taken care of by way of paying taxes.

Why would you think Carnival is different from any other big corporation?

From:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html?_ r =3&
"Over the last five years, the company (Carnival) has paid total corporate taxes - federal, state, local and foreign - equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits. Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes. "


So they've paid over $124 million in taxes?

That's about $2.5 mill a year in taxes.
 
2013-04-04 02:05:05 PM  

Babwa Wawa: dittybopper: You know what happens then?

The cruise lines stop using US ports, and they fly the people who want to cruise to a foreign port for the start and end-points of their cruises.  So you lose any revenue you get from port fees, taxes, local sales of supplies and fuel, and the employment of dock-side cruise workers.

I don't think so.  70% of Americans don't even have f*cking passports.  Not to mention that it would take 800,000 airline seats to embark and debark a single cruise ship for a year.


Given that there are more than 600 million enplaned passengers per year in the US already, an additional 800K is an increase of  only a small fraction of one percent, so that's not really an issue.
 
2013-04-04 02:07:12 PM  

BolloxReader: Rockefeller isn't one of the stupid or partisan members of Congress, you don't see his name attached to much idiocy. I'm going to give him a pass on this and say that the cruise industry had better be doing all it can to safeguard the lives of its passengers. It is a far cry from comments and questions in committee to a bill being introduced and it is well within the purview of Congress to put the fear of Neptune into the industry after a string of high profile accidents and near-catastrophes.


Perhaps Rockefeller knew that of course they wouldn't say "OMG I didn't realize! Here's your suitcase of $4.2 million!". Maybe it's one of those hidden political messages, this one being "Pretty soon we're going to open up investigations of liability unless you convince us not to."
 
2013-04-04 02:14:22 PM  
If they are that concerned about this issue up in Ye Olde House& Senate, just issue Letters of Marque against the Carnival line. They do legally have that power, even if they may have forgotten it. I guarantee that Carnival Cruise Lines would clean up their act in a hurry if they were getting their ships confiscated by armed private groups in speedboats.
 
2013-04-04 02:20:09 PM  

xanadian: MBooda: Hey, Senator Rockefeller, how many millions were spent in the unsuccessful search and rescue of your cousin Michael?
[www.news.harvard.edu image 450x321]

Nice penis gourds.


PENIS GOURD THREAD!!1!
 
2013-04-04 02:26:38 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: NEDM: Only needing to have a passenger airlifted off 90 times in 5 years is a really low number, keeping all that in mind.

No. It's really NOT a low number. If they need a chopper dispached 90 times in 5 years to rescue one of their customers, then Royal Carribean needs to invest in a chopper of their own, and stop using taxpayer resources. It would probably facilitate quicker rescues any way.


Really.  Each company should buy multiple private medievac choppers, hire several rescue crews, and have them all on call 24/7?  You think this is an acceptable thing to be asking?

What do you think the Coast Guard should be used for, if you think flying people at sea to hospitals is a waste of their resources?
 
2013-04-04 02:30:37 PM  

orbister: NEDM: You do not want to open the can of worms that is charging people for marine rescue/allowing your coast guard to be able to choose who they rescue.

The coast guard can't choose who they rescue. They most certainly can choose what they rescue. It's Safety Of Life At Sea, not Salvage Of Ships At Sea,

The RNLI in the UK have a policy of not claiming salvage, but they have no obligation whatsoever to take vessels in tow. They do it only when it's safe and out of the goodness of their hearts.


I know, but some people in these threads think that the USCG should be able to go "You're not an American ship?  Not our problem,", and that's not acceptable.  And to be fair, Carnival did hire a private tug to take the Triumph to Mobile.  It wasn't like that cutter on-scene was doing the towing.
 
2013-04-04 02:35:05 PM  

NEDM: Really.  Each company should buy multiple private medievac choppers, hire several rescue crews, and have them all on call 24/7?  You think this is an acceptable thing to be asking?What do you think the Coast Guard should be used for, if you think flying people at sea to hospitals is a waste of their resources?


It's not very complicated, doofus. Carnival has two choices concerning rescue situations. 1, shrug and let passengers get hurt/die or 2. Provide a way to rescue them. Right now, Carnival is choosing #2 and implementing it by using the CG at no charge. The problem is that somehow they believe themselves to be entitled to a free way of accomplishing one of the most important operations of their own business (keeping passengers safe).

This is the same pattern among so many companies: they want an open market so that they can be free to monopolize it instead of what it's meant for, an open place to have fair competition. Anything that's ohhh waaa toooo harddddd about their business, they figure out how to have that shiat roll onto someone else.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Isn't that great for them? They get to own a business and profit from it, and people who have no stake in it whatsoever, citizens of the U.S. are footing the bill for part of it's operations.

As someone said, it might be cheaper for Carnival to have rescue systems in place themselves. Carnival responds with "noooo it's hard waaa waaa waaa sob sob", they don't set up such a system, and then the CG fills in the hole left there. Probably the CG's $4.2 million is way more expensive than a private method would be, but in the end, Carnival is really just punching themselves in the nuts for creating a situation that causes the CG to wave such a huge bill in their face.
 
2013-04-04 02:38:45 PM  

NEDM: Really.  Each company should buy multiple private medievac choppers, hire several rescue crews, and have them all on call 24/7?  You think this is an acceptable thing to be asking?


It might be if there were enough flights. 18 per year doesn't sound is if it would justify it, but it's still a lot for a taxpayer-funded service in a country without an NHS. Are there no private medivac helicopter operators whom Carnival could contract for cover? In the North Sea, oil companies have private contracts with helicopter operators like Bristow for such things and would only turn to the state-funded RAF S&R operation (soon to be privatised) in really exceptional circumstances.

What do you think the Coast Guard should be used for, if you think flying people at sea to hospitals is a waste of their resources?

Sounds like a great use of the C for truly unforseeable events, but when there is a rescue every fortnight, commercial alternatives should probably be explored. Presumably the elderly passengers of other cruise lines have heart attacks at a similar rate, so the helicopters wouldn't have to be exclusive.
 
2013-04-04 02:40:04 PM  

NEDM: And to be fair, Carnival did hire a private tug to take the Triumph to Mobile.  It wasn't like that cutter on-scene was doing the towing.


That incident seems like just the thing the CG are therefore - though of course if subsequent inspection shows maintenance issues, the book should be flung, and vigorously.
 
2013-04-04 02:48:29 PM  

torusXL: This is the same pattern among so many companies: they want an open market so that they can be free to monopolize it instead of what it's meant for, an open place to have fair competition. Anything that's ohhh waaa toooo harddddd about their business, they figure out how to have that shiat roll onto someone else.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Isn't that great for them? They get to own a business and profit from it, and people who have no stake in it whatsoever, citizens of the U.S. are footing the bill for part of it's operations.


...what in God's name are you talking about?  Are you under some kind of impression that cruise companies see having the Coast Guard airlifting medical emergencies off their ships as them trying to cut corners?  That's literally one of job descriptions of the Coast Guard.  They do that for any ship that calls requesting that, and that's a standard worldwide.  (Whether you want a particular nation's helicopters trying to hover over your deck is something else entirely.)  And even then, nobody likes doing it.  It's dangerous to try and hover a helicopter over a moving ship.  They only call for one if the patient in question HAS to go ashore.  It's no different than an ambulance call, or a LifeFlight flight if you want to stick with helicopters.
 
2013-04-04 02:53:37 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Given that there are more than 600 million enplaned passengers per year in the US already, an additional 800K is an increase of  only a small fraction of one percent, so that's not really an issue.


That's one cruise ship.  There were 16 million cruise ship passengers in 2012. This would represent an increase of 5% of total passengers and a huge increase in the number of international air travelers.
 
2013-04-04 02:54:34 PM  
orbister:
It might be if there were enough flights. 18 per year doesn't sound is if it would justify it, but it's still a lot for a taxpayer-funded service in a country without an NHS. Are there no private medivac helicopter operators whom Carnival could contract for cover? In the North Sea, oil companies have private contracts with helicopter operators like Bristow for such things and would only turn to the state-funded RAF S&R operation (soon to be privatised) in really exceptional circumstances.

Sounds like a great use of the C for truly unforseeable events, but when there is a rescue every fortnight, commercial alternatives should probably be explored. Presumably the elderly passengers of other cruise lines have heart attacks at a similar rate, so the helicopters wouldn't have to be exclusive.


Well, keep in mind, those rigs don't move.  If someone needs to go to a hospital, they have to take a helicopter.  A cruise ship can treat someone in their infirmary if their condition isn't serious, and put them ashore at the next port.  They only need to call the chopper if it's a life-threatening condition.  Also keep in mind, rigs have helipads.  A medievac helicopter can land there as opposed to trying to hover over a moving ship.

orbister:

That incident seems like just the thing the CG are therefore - though of course if subsequent inspection shows maintenance issues, the book should be flung, and vigorously.

Oh yeah, definitely.
 
2013-04-04 02:56:15 PM  

NEDM: torusXL: This is the same pattern among so many companies: they want an open market so that they can be free to monopolize it instead of what it's meant for, an open place to have fair competition. Anything that's ohhh waaa toooo harddddd about their business, they figure out how to have that shiat roll onto someone else.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. Isn't that great for them? They get to own a business and profit from it, and people who have no stake in it whatsoever, citizens of the U.S. are footing the bill for part of it's operations.

...what in God's name are you talking about?  Are you under some kind of impression that cruise companies see having the Coast Guard airlifting medical emergencies off their ships as them trying to cut corners?  That's literally one of job descriptions of the Coast Guard.  They do that for any ship that calls requesting that, and that's a standard worldwide.  (Whether you want a particular nation's helicopters trying to hover over your deck is something else entirely.)  And even then, nobody likes doing it.  It's dangerous to try and hover a helicopter over a moving ship.  They only call for one if the patient in question HAS to go ashore.  It's no different than an ambulance call, or a LifeFlight flight if you want to stick with helicopters.


Somehow, your little mind might eventually understand this. Maybe an easy to read list will help:

A) Sometimes, bad shiat happens in the course of Carnival's business. They can conduct the operation themselves, or accept the help of a government agency like the CG.
B) The CG does not have infinite money.
C) Carnival does not have infinite money.

Therefore:
A) Carnival will shrug if the rescue operations happen for free.
B) If enough rescues happen, the CG will get worried that their finite money supply will be harmed.
C) The worried CG will wonder what the fark's up with Carnival. Are they negligent? If not, then are they an undue burden?

Get it yet?
 
2013-04-04 02:59:39 PM  
NEDM, in any case, bro I'm attacking Carnival, not the CG. Why so defensive about the CG? I'm defending them with you!

Chill, mang. I think your panties are in such a hard bunch that they're starting to come out your mouth.
 
2013-04-04 02:59:40 PM  

Mixolydian Master: There has to be a good reason. I've been assured they are an American company.

So what could it be?


A US Flagged ship must be built in the US since ship yards in Italy built most of the Carnival Fleet.  If they could just flag a foreign built ship as a US ship they would probably do so for Hawaiian, Alaskan, and some Gulf of Mexico cruises.  You see a foreign flagged ship MUST stop in a foreign country before returning to a US port.
 
2013-04-04 03:06:38 PM  

torusXL: Somehow, your little mind might eventually understand this. Maybe an easy to read list will help:

A) Sometimes, bad shiat happens in the course of Carnival's business. They can conduct the operation themselves, or accept the help of a government agency like the CG.
B) The CG does not have infinite money.
C) Carnival does not have infinite money.

Therefore:
A) Carnival will shrug if the rescue operations happen for free.
B) If enough rescues happen, the CG will get worried that their finite money supply will be harmed.
C) The worried CG will wonder what the fark's up with Carnival. Are they negligent? If not, then are they an undue burden?

Get it yet?


Yeah, I get it.  And I've been trying to tell you:  THIS ISN'T AN UNDUE BURDEN.  This is literally the Coast Guard's JOB to provide medical airlifting like this.  Doing things like this is why they have a budget in the first place.  And this isn't something Carnival can prevent; if someone needs to go to the hospital right now, they're gonna call the people who can get them to the hospital right now.

Again, 18 people needing to go to the hospital every year across their entire fleet of 24 ships, with the several hundred thousand people who sailed on those ships in that year, is not a major expense, nor is it out of the ordinary.
 
2013-04-04 03:13:05 PM  

NEDM: torusXL: Somehow, your little mind might eventually understand this. Maybe an easy to read list will help:

A) Sometimes, bad shiat happens in the course of Carnival's business. They can conduct the operation themselves, or accept the help of a government agency like the CG.
B) The CG does not have infinite money.
C) Carnival does not have infinite money.

Therefore:
A) Carnival will shrug if the rescue operations happen for free.
B) If enough rescues happen, the CG will get worried that their finite money supply will be harmed.
C) The worried CG will wonder what the fark's up with Carnival. Are they negligent? If not, then are they an undue burden?

Get it yet?

Yeah, I get it.  And I've been trying to tell you:  THIS ISN'T AN UNDUE BURDEN.  This is literally the Coast Guard's JOB to provide medical airlifting like this.  Doing things like this is why they have a budget in the first place.  And this isn't something Carnival can prevent; if someone needs to go to the hospital right now, they're gonna call the people who can get them to the hospital right now.

Again, 18 people needing to go to the hospital every year across their entire fleet of 24 ships, with the several hundred thousand people who sailed on those ships in that year, is not a major expense, nor is it out of the ordinary.


I think we found Carnival's Social Media spokesperson. Take a bow NEDM!
 
2013-04-04 03:19:37 PM  
DarkSoulNoHope:
I think we found Carnival's Social Media spokesperson. Take a bow NEDM!

I had a feeling I'd get called a Carnival shill.  No, all I'm saying is that of ALL the things to hammer Carnival over, including their atrocious maintenance record, airlifting their passengers isn't one of them.

I mean, for fark's sake, their ships are massively unsafe.  I can think of 4 major incidents in the past 20 years that they've been responsible for.  The Carnival Ecstasy fire, the Carnival Splendor fire, the Costa Concordia sinking, and now the Carnival Triumph fire.  That's four major incidents from them alone.  I can't think of any other company with such a horrible record, and that includes White Star Line.  They are running their ships ragged, and you couldn't pay me to sail on any one of them as either a passenger or a mate.
 
2013-04-04 03:20:00 PM  

NEDM: THIS ISN'T AN UNDUE BURDEN


DarkSoulNoHope: I think we found Carnival's Social Media spokesperson. Take a bow NEDM!


When he's near retirement as Carnival's Social Media spokesperson and since he knows better than the CG about their operations, he can be Senator!

NEDM, this thread is really profitable for you. You're figuring out what you want to be when you grow up, all in like, 1 hour.
 
2013-04-04 03:30:12 PM  
As someone who used to work as a Port State Control Officer for the CG, and having inspected cruise ships, including Carnival ships, I gotta say - they really need a regulatory smack-down.

Remember, cruise ships picking up passengers in the US are inspected and certificated by the CG. The problem, however, is the CGs lack ok backbone when it comes to detaining/delaying a ship due to safey issues. You'd think it would be a no-brainer - and to the inspectors, it is. But once you talk about delaying a ship with 5000 people on board and all the money and headaches that will cause, plus the fact that it will be national news and everything that goes with it, the issue gets very political, very quickly.

But, yeah, Carnival needs a serious smack-down.
 
2013-04-04 03:34:37 PM  

torusXL: DarkSoulNoHope: I think we found Carnival's Social Media spokesperson. Take a bow NEDM!

When he's near retirement as Carnival's Social Media spokesperson


As farking if.  I've read the casualty report on the Ecstasy fire; this is the company that had the brilliant idea "Hey!  Let's run our industrial dryer's exhaust line (with no filter!) into a space that isn't covered by our automatic fire suppression system, is full of delicious fuel, and has the emergency power routed through it!", and acted all surprised when one of the Filipino workers they hired for shiat wages started a massive fire while carelessly doing hot work under that same dryer exhaust line that left the ship drifting without power and on fire in view of the entire city of Miami.
 
2013-04-04 03:36:59 PM  

NEDM: As farking if.  I've read the casualty report on the Ecstasy fire; this is the company that had the brilliant idea "Hey!  Let's run our industrial dryer's exhaust line (with no filter!) into a space that isn't covered by our automatic fire suppression system, is full of delicious fuel, and has the emergency power routed through it!", and acted all surprised when one of the Filipino workers they hired for shiat wages started a massive fire while carelessly doing hot work under that same dryer exhaust line that left the ship drifting without power and on fire in view of the entire city of Miami.


So...like...that's why it's not an undue burden to the CG?

How about you just take a breather and a seat, NEDM. Maybe take a nap, eat a snack, watch some cartoons.
 
2013-04-04 03:41:59 PM  
torusXL:
So...like...that's why it's not an undue burden to the CG?

How about you just take a breather and a seat, NEDM. Maybe take a nap, eat a snack, watch some cartoons.


No, sweetcheeks.  shiat caused by their own stupidity should be rammed back up their ass.  Emergencies caused by things not under their control shouldn't be, because dealing with said emergencies is the CG's job (because it's so dangerous).  That's all I've ever said.
 
2013-04-04 03:43:34 PM  

NEDM: No, sweetcheeks.  shiat caused by their own stupidity should be rammed back up their ass.  Emergencies caused by things not under their control shouldn't be, because dealing with said emergencies is the CG's job (because it's so dangerous).  That's all I've ever said.


Poor little NEDM.
 
2013-04-04 03:50:52 PM  

Digital Communist: Brick-House: Carnival Cruise Lines: Already taken care of by way of paying taxes.

Why would you think Carnival is different from any other big corporation?

From:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html?_ r =3&
"Over the last five years, the company (Carnival) has paid total corporate taxes - federal, state, local and foreign - equal to only 1.1 percent of its cumulative $11.3 billion in profits. Thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, Carnival can legally avoid most taxes. "


That works out to be about $124,300,000 in taxes.
 
2013-04-04 04:29:32 PM  

NEDM: Yeah, I get it.  And I've been trying to tell you:  THIS ISN'T AN UNDUE BURDEN.  This is literally the Coast Guard's JOB to provide medical airlifting like this.  Doing things like this is why they have a budget in the first place.


I think you're mostly right, but it's all a matter of degree. If a particular cruise line called for a helicopter every week I think the CG would be quite justified in asking some pointed questions. If they asked for one every year nobody would care. Once a fortnight? In the grand scheme of things it doesn't sound like too many, and in any case the pilots of these things have to do a certain number of rescues to keep current.
 
2013-04-04 04:44:13 PM  

orbister: NEDM: Yeah, I get it.  And I've been trying to tell you:  THIS ISN'T AN UNDUE BURDEN.  This is literally the Coast Guard's JOB to provide medical airlifting like this.  Doing things like this is why they have a budget in the first place.

I think you're mostly right, but it's all a matter of degree. If a particular cruise line called for a helicopter every week I think the CG would be quite justified in asking some pointed questions. If they asked for one every year nobody would care. Once a fortnight? In the grand scheme of things it doesn't sound like too many, and in any case the pilots of these things have to do a certain number of rescues to keep current.


Keep in mind for this discussion that all CG medevacs are reviewed and approved by a CG flight surgeon. The company/cruise ship can request them all day, every day, but it may never happen if the FS does not concur.
 
2013-04-04 04:47:51 PM  

orbister: NEDM: Yeah, I get it.  And I've been trying to tell you:  THIS ISN'T AN UNDUE BURDEN.  This is literally the Coast Guard's JOB to provide medical airlifting like this.  Doing things like this is why they have a budget in the first place.

I think you're mostly right, but it's all a matter of degree. If a particular cruise line called for a helicopter every week I think the CG would be quite justified in asking some pointed questions. If they asked for one every year nobody would care. Once a fortnight? In the grand scheme of things it doesn't sound like too many, and in any case the pilots of these things have to do a certain number of rescues to keep current.


The "fair" solution would probably be something like unemployment tax (companies with a history of layoffs pay higher rates than those without). Tax companies with a bad safety record more than those with a good record. (Or equivalently structure the tax so that companies with a good safety record get a break on it). Moral hazard begone!
 
2013-04-04 05:21:04 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: The "fair" solution would probably be something like unemployment tax (companies with a history of layoffs pay higher rates than those without). Tax companies with a bad safety record more than those with a good record. (Or equivalently structure the tax so that companies with a good safety record get a break on it). Moral hazard begone!


Higher taxes for a bad safety record, maybe a good idea.

Unemployment tax?!?!?!?!??? I can't think of a dumber idea. Layoffs don't always happen due to a gleefully evil boss. Punish a company for being punished by a receding market? Wow, horrible idea. Even worse, you'd have to get into a company's private data to distinguish unfair layoffs from unfortunately necessary layoffs.

Wait a second what am I doing...what does unemployment even have to do with this?
 
2013-04-04 05:30:16 PM  

Babwa Wawa: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Given that there are more than 600 million enplaned passengers per year in the US already, an additional 800K is an increase of  only a small fraction of one percent, so that's not really an issue.

That's one cruise ship.  There were 16 million cruise ship passengers in 2012. This would represent an increase of 5% of total passengers and a huge increase in the number of international air travelers.


Fair enough. I didn't think to check the initial 800K number to see if it was right. That's what I get for assuming
 
2013-04-04 05:37:01 PM  
I think the cruise lines should be treated like any other American who uses emergency services. You abuse it you pay.
 
2013-04-04 05:56:32 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I think the cruise lines should be treated like any other American who uses emergency services. You abuse it you pay.


Carnival is the bottom of the barrel.

CSB:
Sister in law is a nurse at Miami's public hospital.  Carnival employee gets injured on the job, they put him in a cab and send him to the hospital.
No, they don't pay the bill.

Carnival, BTW, owns Costa (Yow! Where'd that rock come from?) Cruises
 
2013-04-04 06:04:08 PM  

torusXL: Gaseous Anomaly: The "fair" solution would probably be something like unemployment tax (companies with a history of layoffs pay higher rates than those without). Tax companies with a bad safety record more than those with a good record. (Or equivalently structure the tax so that companies with a good safety record get a break on it). Moral hazard begone!

Higher taxes for a bad safety record, maybe a good idea.

Unemployment tax?!?!?!?!??? I can't think of a dumber idea. Layoffs don't always happen due to a gleefully evil boss. Punish a company for being punished by a receding market? Wow, horrible idea. Even worse, you'd have to get into a company's private data to distinguish unfair layoffs from unfortunately necessary layoffs.

Wait a second what am I doing...what does unemployment even have to do with this?


Not sure if serious.

/Unemployment tax rates take layoff history into account
 
2013-04-04 06:14:27 PM  

gutter_ca/fl: Not sure if serious./Unemployment tax rates take layoff history into account


I'm mostly just spouting off at the mouth.

I could see how a disincentive to layoff would make companies get creative and find more rational solutions, which would be great thing. It just sounds like one of those inflexible "eye-for-an-eye" types laws - the ones that are bound to unfairly screw people over even if it really helps at other times.

If a company is more Machiavellian about laying-off at the drop of the hat to save a few bucks now and then, would this "serial layoff" history mean higher taxes? How about a company that is in a volatile industry? How about government contractors who sometimes have contracts swept out from under them during a government budget crisis? Genuinely curious to hear about a new idea that I haven't come across before.

In any case, I'm still wondering how this relates to Carnival. Did a layoff mean they didn't have knowledgeable enough people around to run the ships correctly or do the right amount of maintenance?
 
2013-04-04 06:30:35 PM  

torusXL: gutter_ca/fl: Not sure if serious./Unemployment tax rates take layoff history into account

I'm mostly just spouting off at the mouth.

I could see how a disincentive to layoff would make companies get creative and find more rational solutions, which would be great thing. It just sounds like one of those inflexible "eye-for-an-eye" types laws - the ones that are bound to unfairly screw people over even if it really helps at other times.

If a company is more Machiavellian about laying-off at the drop of the hat to save a few bucks now and then, would this "serial layoff" history mean higher taxes? How about a company that is in a volatile industry? How about government contractors who sometimes have contracts swept out from under them during a government budget crisis? Genuinely curious to hear about a new idea that I haven't come across before.

In any case, I'm still wondering how this relates to Carnival. Did a layoff mean they didn't have knowledgeable enough people around to run the ships correctly or do the right amount of maintenance?


i2.kym-cdn.com

The OP suggested a fair way to levy fees based on number of rescues would be similar to the way a history of layoffs affects a company's UI rate. Perhaps, just as a higher UI rate may discourage serial layoffs, higher CG fees may encourage better maintenance.

Here's some help: "Unemployment insurance (UI) is a social insurance program jointly operated by the federal and state government. Employers pay federal and state UI taxes that fund benefits, with employers paying different tax rates based on their layoff history ("experience rating"). "
 
2013-04-04 06:45:34 PM  

gutter_ca/fl: [i2.kym-cdn.com image 303x332]The OP suggested a fair way to levy fees based on number of rescues would be similar to the way a history of layoffs affects a company's UI rate. Perhaps, just as a higher UI rate may discourage serial layoffs, higher CG fees may encourage better maintenance.Here's some help: "Unemployment insurance (UI) is a social insurance program jointly operated by the federal and state government. Employers pay federal and state UI taxes that fund benefits, with employers paying different tax rates based on their layoff history ("experience rating"). "


That's the way! Be vindictive to those who are willing to listen to new viewpoints. Let the anger flow and seep around the world yesssssssss.

Yes, I know the issue is about taxes. That's as obvious as your mom's gigantic labias. But here, since you helped me, I'll help you understand my posts a little. I was thinking out loud about how an unemployment tax is an inaccurate analogy to a safety record tax. Unemployment and layoffs are based on the complications of a dynamic economy. Safety records are much more simplistic - how many times employees got hurt relative to their own amount of liability in the accident - which would be much easier to base a static law around.
 
2013-04-04 06:48:12 PM  

torusXL: gutter_ca/fl: [i2.kym-cdn.com image 303x332]The OP suggested a fair way to levy fees based on number of rescues would be similar to the way a history of layoffs affects a company's UI rate. Perhaps, just as a higher UI rate may discourage serial layoffs, higher CG fees may encourage better maintenance.Here's some help: "Unemployment insurance (UI) is a social insurance program jointly operated by the federal and state government. Employers pay federal and state UI taxes that fund benefits, with employers paying different tax rates based on their layoff history ("experience rating"). "

That's the way! Be vindictive to those who are willing to listen to new viewpoints. Let the anger flow and seep around the world yesssssssss.

Yes, I know the issue is about taxes. That's as obvious as your mom's gigantic labias. But here, since you helped me, I'll help you understand my posts a little. I was thinking out loud about how an unemployment tax is an inaccurate analogy to a safety record tax. Unemployment and layoffs are based on the complications of a dynamic economy. Safety records are much more simplistic - how many times employees got hurt relative to their own amount of liability in the accident - which would be much easier to base a static law around.


C'mon, dude/ette, you said, "Unemployment tax?!?!?!?!??? I can't think of a dumber idea. Layoffs don't always happen due to a gleefully evil boss. Punish a company for being punished by a receding market? Wow, horrible idea. Even worse, you'd have to get into a company's private data to distinguish unfair layoffs from unfortunately necessary layoffs."

Now you're gonna tell me you were totally aware of said taxes the whole time?
 
2013-04-04 06:53:18 PM  

gutter_ca/fl: C'mon, dude/ette, you said, "Unemployment tax?!?!?!?!??? I can't think of a dumber idea. Layoffs don't always happen due to a gleefully evil boss. Punish a company for being punished by a receding market? Wow, horrible idea. Even worse, you'd have to get into a company's private data to distinguish unfair layoffs from unfortunately necessary layoffs."Now you're gonna tell me you were totally aware of said taxes the whole time?


Misguided Padawan, it's a thing called "give & take". Allow me to demonstrate.

I read the very Boobies about unemployment tax which helped me understand unemployment tax at a general level. Based on that generic understanding, I felt it had nothing to do with Carnival. Then I asked, how could it have something to do with Carnival? What am I missing? What do I not know? Hence the further questions about unemployment tax.
 
2013-04-04 06:55:29 PM  

torusXL: gutter_ca/fl: C'mon, dude/ette, you said, "Unemployment tax?!?!?!?!??? I can't think of a dumber idea. Layoffs don't always happen due to a gleefully evil boss. Punish a company for being punished by a receding market? Wow, horrible idea. Even worse, you'd have to get into a company's private data to distinguish unfair layoffs from unfortunately necessary layoffs."Now you're gonna tell me you were totally aware of said taxes the whole time?

Misguided Padawan, it's a thing called "give & take". Allow me to demonstrate.

I read the very Boobies about unemployment tax which helped me understand unemployment tax at a general level. Based on that generic understanding, I felt it had nothing to do with Carnival. Then I asked, how could it have something to do with Carnival? What am I missing? What do I not know? Hence the further questions about unemployment tax.


IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARNIVAL.

OP was suggesting a  similar system for paying for CG rescues, which would be based on your use of said services in the past.
 
2013-04-04 06:57:03 PM  

gutter_ca/fl: OP was suggesting a  similar system for paying for CG rescues, which would be based on your use of said services in the past.


Let me think about that for a sec.

Oh wait, it's not similar at all.
 
2013-04-04 06:59:02 PM  

torusXL: gutter_ca/fl: OP was suggesting a  similar system for paying for CG rescues, which would be based on your use of said services in the past.

Let me think about that for a sec.

Oh wait, it's not similar at all.


How the fark is basing one rate on historical conduct different than basing another rate on historical conduct?

/farking similar, what does it mean?
 
2013-04-04 07:05:11 PM  
Poor gutter_ca/fl, here I can quote myself if that helps you.

gutter_ca/fl: How the fark is basing one rate on historical conduct different than basing another rate on historical conduct?


torusXL: I was thinking out loud about how an unemployment tax is an inaccurate analogy to a safety record tax. Unemployment and layoffs are based on the complications of a dynamic economy. Safety records are much more simplistic - how many times employees got hurt relative to their own amount of liability in the accident - which would be much easier to base a static law around.


Alright, I'm out of here. I think I hooked enough fish to feed myself for a year.

^.^b
 
2013-04-04 07:10:10 PM  

torusXL: Poor gutter_ca/fl, here I can quote myself if that helps you.

gutter_ca/fl: How the fark is basing one rate on historical conduct different than basing another rate on historical conduct?

torusXL: I was thinking out loud about how an unemployment tax is an inaccurate analogy to a safety record tax. Unemployment and layoffs are based on the complications of a dynamic economy. Safety records are much more simplistic - how many times employees got hurt relative to their own amount of liability in the accident - which would be much easier to base a static law around.

Alright, I'm out of here. I think I hooked enough fish to feed myself for a year.

^.^b


I get that you're saying unemployment tax is "unfair." But wouldn't the fact that the safety record is less influenced by "complications of a dynamic economy" make it inherently more fair?

/similar, btw, does not mean "exactly the same"
 
2013-04-04 08:30:42 PM  

dittybopper: vpb: I don't think the Coast Guard should charge, but there should be enough of a tax on the cruise industry to cover the average cost of responding to their problems.  The money is going to come from somewhere.

It was taxes and increased regulation that drove the cruise industry to register their ships overseas in the first place.


So you registered under a flag of convienece because you didn't like those intrusive safety regulations.  No problem, I understand totally - those things are such a hassle.  But you called the United States Coast Guard, you must have dailed a wrong number.  Just call up the Liberian Coast Guard - I'm sure they'll be happy to help.
 
2013-04-04 11:46:53 PM  
The proper response should have been "Every year when I pay my taxes."
 
2013-04-05 08:27:28 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Fireproof: DarkSoulNoHope: Happy Hours: In before someone points out that $4.2 million is only 0.^A% of the entire budget so it doesn't matter.

Of course those people who will point out that in this thread will probably also claim, "Of course Carnival doesn't have to pay up, they are one of our most holy job creators and they need the money, not the government that would of used that $4.2 million to take away our guns, our freedoms, and give money to poor people."

/enough derp there?

Oh yeah, they create jobs all right. But mostly for Indonesians and Filipinos. Remember, no US minimum wage.

I worked on a cruise ship, one sailing mostly through US waters for an entire season, and maybe 2% of the crew is American.

I bet the 2% of crew is the ones who interact with the customers, to make it pretend to be an "American" cruise line while most of the wage slave labor taken from other countries is left hidden for no passenger to see (unless they're in shiny chefs or housekeeping outfits).


Eh, yes, but not nearly all of the people that interact with the customers. It was something like:

100% of the singers/dancers
66% of the cruise directors (one at a time)
50% of the party band
Maybe 20% of the photographers (me), front desk clerks, and art auction team
I don't ever recall seeing any Americans in the Casino or shops, though there's no reason they couldn't be.

That said, there were lots of people from other first-world countries as well.
 
Displayed 234 of 234 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report