Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Stupid, Carnival Cruise Lines, Carnival Corp., Senator Jay Rockefeller, Senator Rockefeller, U.S. Coast Guard, cruise line, Carnival Triumph, Micky Arison  
•       •       •

11507 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 9:43 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report