
Carnival Executives Knew They Had a Virus Problem, but Kept the Party Going - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-carnival-cruise-coronavirus/
======
mark_l_watson
My wife and I have gone on 20+ cruises since selling our own small cruising
sailboat 25 years ago. We have decided “never again.”

The thing that has put us off the last few cruises is realizing how workers on
the ships are treated. Twenty years ago, it seemed to us that we would see off
duty room stewards and other crew going ashore with their friends, and getting
some down time. I know this is subjective, but over time, it seems like giving
workers much needed down time stopped happening.

Then fast forward to the present time, my wife and I just don’t want to take a
chance getting on a ship because the current new corona virus is so much worse
than the Nora virus, which used to be what you worried about on ships.

The very real bummer though is this: there are many hundreds of small ports
around the world where people rely on extra income from ships disgorging
passengers who spend money. A young engineer in Yalta Ukraine told me that he
augmented his income as a scientist from tourist related activities, and it
was important income for him.

Yes, the cruise industry should go away, but there will be collateral damage.

~~~
BurningCycles
>The thing that has put us off the last few cruises is realizing how workers
on the ships are treated.

I read somewhere that the main reason these cruise ships, including those
owned by well known US companies like Disney, won't register their ships under
the American flag is so that they can avoid US labor laws, I don't know if
this is true but it sadly wouldn't surprise me.

~~~
nabla9
It's true. You could still use cheap foreign labor and provide decent working
conditions under flag of convenience, but it's the fierce competition that
really forbids it. These massive cruise ships have become part of mass
tourism. People look at the price first. If the price is 5-10% above
competition without better service, it does not work as a business.

It's the non-caring consumers that enable consistent bad treatment of workers
in the large scale. People like OP who stop are the only force besides
enforcing tighter labor laws in the blue waters that can fix this.

Then there are billionaires in their yachts treating cheap labour as animals
just because. That's just cruelty for fun.

~~~
gizmo686
The problem is, people who stop are not an effective force for fixing this, as
they effect good actors equally as much as bad ones. To fix this with consumer
pressure, you need consumers who still buy cruises, but discriminate based on
how well the workers are treated (and are willing to pay the premium for good
treatment).

~~~
ethbro
It seems similar to the coffee market.

The industry _should_ create a mark that represents and enforces a minimum of
worker treatment, but doesn't appear to be as imaginative as Starbucks.

------
spodek
As someone who used to love flying and relied on it for income, family, etc,
but stopped as I learned how much it polluted, pleasantly surprised to find
how much my life _improved_ without it, I read articles on the cruise industry
as applying to flying. Ticket costs don't cover the costs of cleaning their
environmental damage. Few people could afford it if they had to pay for that
damage.

In the case of contributing to pandemics, flying spreads viruses incredibly
effectively. Boats trap a few thousand people at a time. Flights bring the
virus to population centers of tens of millions in hours.

For the time being, people associate flying with seeing loved ones and making
money, so they associate not flying with never seeing their moms or losing
their jobs. Experience shows the opposite. The more people fly, the more
dispersed their families, so the less they see loved ones. Flying forces
companies to fly people everywhere.

I predict the vitriol people are starting to show for cruises will eventually
make it to flying, however hard to conceive today.

~~~
ses1984
>The more people fly, the more dispersed their families, so the less they see
loved ones.

Are you suggesting there is a causative relationship between flying and having
a dispersed family?

~~~
leetcrew
is this controversial? the existence of cheap cross-country flights makes it
much easier for people to move to the best location for their profession and
fly back home to see everyone for easter and christmas (or whatever your big
two holidays are).

~~~
mandevil
And yet Europeans roared across the Atlantic in the millions when it took >1
month to sail. Europeans colonized Australia and New Zealand, even further
away (~250 days), and only about half the total number of people on board the
First Fleet were convicts, the rest went along because it was their job or
their choice.

~~~
ineedasername
This doesn't refute the concept that now people may choose to live somewhere
in part due to its transportation options.

~~~
JAlexoid
I mean.... Sure.

I hate NYC and yet I recognise that it's the best location for fast travel to
Europe... I travel back home about 2 times per year, though.

But implying that travel accessibility is the primary reason is absurd. If I
had a good job offer from a company in LA - I would still take it. Even though
my travel time to my mother would double(11 to 22 hours)

------
hetspookjee
Ofcourse they did, Carnival Cruise Lines is littered with controversies. Just
like the almost yearly fine they need to pay for all their dumping on the sea.
This is a horrible company in a lot of ways.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Cruise_Line#Controver...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Cruise_Line#Controversies)

~~~
JoBrad
My wife and I took a cruise for our honeymoon back in 2006. Carnival was very
attractive since we were recently out of college and their prices were so
cheap compared to everyone else. But just a little digging showed me they
don’t take care of their ships, staff, or guests the way they should. Glad we
didn’t choose them, and never will.

------
McKayDavis
Carnival isn't solely to blame for the situation.

Check this story from CNN on Feb 13th titled "Why it's still OK to take a
cruise amid the coronavirus outbreak"

[https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/cruise-safety-
coronavirus...](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/cruise-safety-
coronavirus/index.html)

~~~
jimworm
In a video now removed by the WHO, they were still advocating for travel in
the middle of February.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KBvReECRrI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KBvReECRrI)

~~~
lonelappde
Linking to a non-existent video is meaningless. Is there an actual archive
copy?

Per contemporaneous linkers, it was a video titled "How to protect yourself
while travelling(22:44)"

[https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/pages/medical-
covid19.php](https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/pages/medical-covid19.php)

------
caseysoftware
> _the following morning, John joined about 200 other passengers in the ship’s
> Broadway-style theater for a lecture on Clint Eastwood movies. “I’m
> surprised they’re even letting this event happen,” he whispered to a nearby
> friend. “This is a big crowd.”_

Says the guy attending the event!

This is what gets me about so much of the coverage. Most of it revolves around
"look at all the foolish people around me!" and is completely oblivious of the
fact that they're _also_ participating in the same thing.

------
runnr_az
Looking forward to the inevitable legislation limiting lawsuits / damages
related to Covid. Irony factor: it'll come from the same congress members who
are now pushing the "allow people to sue China" agenda.

~~~
throwaway_USD
>Irony factor: it'll come from the same congress members who are now pushing
the "allow people to sue China" agenda.

I think it will work something like this, the cruise ships are insured, the
insurers will settle these cases and then the insurers will recover against
China/Chinese owned assets.

>the "allow people to sue China" agenda.

Maybe that is a very legitimate agenda.

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
We did Carnival few years ago. It was a first for me. My wife and her family
went on multiple vacations like that. Do not get me wrong. Our time was
pleasant. That said, I talked with some of the workers there and it is no
wonder the cruises are as cheap as they are. Cheap labor will do that. I am
genuinely curious if the more expensive variations rely less on tax
avoidance/evasion ( whichever was the legal one ) and cheap labor.

------
foob4r
Nothing at these corporations changes until both executives and low level
minions get charged with felonies, and taken to trial. They must be deposed,
brought to stand. Simply settling by paying the equivalent of x days of
profits is not justifiable anymore.

~~~
beervirus
What felony do you think they've committed?

~~~
petre
Manslaughter for one. Passengers have died.

------
pgt
For those confused by the headline Carnival is a cruise ship operator, not a
festival.

~~~
ginko
I initially thought this was about the carnival celebration in Gangelt,
Germany.

[https://www.news18.com/news/world/in-german-town-of-
gangelt-...](https://www.news18.com/news/world/in-german-town-of-gangelt-
blood-samples-of-residents-show-14-now-immune-to-covid-19-report-2572279.html)

~~~
ginko
I'm usually not one to complain about this, but may I ask why me admitting
that I thought of a carnival event rather than a cruise line I haven't heard
of before makes people want to downvote my comment?

~~~
maximuscoolimus
The 'misreads' are usually dead ends to discussion unless qualified back to
original topic. I would not consider downvotes here personal, they simply
steer the conversation to remain on track.

------
satokema_work
Lines like "kept the party going" make me think of David Foster Wallace's "A
Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again" and sound right on brand for a
cruise line.

Having read that titular essay, I have no desire to ever go on a cruise.

~~~
oska
Online copy of the original version of that essay:

[https://harpers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazi...](https://harpers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2008/09/HarpersMagazine-1996-01-0007859.pdf)

------
nerdponx
How is this not reckless endangerment in most states, or even manslaughter in
the cases where someone died?

Criminal charges are a necessary stopgap against market failures.

~~~
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
Cruise companies were facing extinction either way, so they were simply
waiting for international guidance from WHO so they could pass the buck.

~~~
nerdponx
Valid or otherwise, that doesn't make their behavior any less criminal in my
opinion.

------
acqq
The good side: the ships allowed us to have the data about COVID-19 that could
not be otherwise easily obtained. One could hardly invent better "experiment
setup" with the real people.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_D...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess)

But some "experts" however decided to ignore the existence of that data, and
even as it was already available in Wikipedia, continued to spread the claims
(which are even now repeated!) that "we know too little about this disease to
do anything, so better not doing anything before we do some 'random testing'."

------
lonelappde
Cruise ships are like diamond jewelry. Terrible products from terrible
industries where the purveyors and customers are equally selfish and culpable.

~~~
aaron695
No they are not.

Cruise ships are giant floating cities that travel the world. They are
engineering marvels. You constantly see them in science fiction except in
other settings, because they are amazing.

A diamond is an amazing rock, but just a rock at the end of the day, with an
industry selling something it's not.

You're X is probably made from the same "terrible industries" as either of
those example. That is a global issue around poverty which leads to the
environment, nothing particular to those industries.

~~~
rswail
They are not engineering marvels, they are polluting, their fuel is
inefficient and incredibly dirty.

They are ecologically damaging dumping their waste in the oceans and at
mooring points, their anchorages causing incredible seabed degradation.

The companies that own and run them register in tax havens and avoid
responsibility for the safety of staff, passengers or the communities they
use.

------
chvid
Before we blame the cruise lines, the fitness clubs, the airlines, the ski
resorts, the buffet restaurants ... lets remind ourselves that it is not a job
for random companies to access the seriousness of potential pandemic virus.
They have to, they should, rely on what the authorities say and the rules they
lay out.

The health authorities are the only ones who have the full picture and a
chance to assess this.

That the CDC according the article blames Carnival cruises really is not a
good look.

------
rayuela
This seems like the very exact case where you'd want to pierce the corporate
veil. If this doesn't qualify then what does?

------
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
In their defense, February was a very confusing time for the virus, and it’s
easy to look back in hindsight judgement.

For example, on Feb 24 Pelosi was in crowded Chinese New Year celebration in
China town urging people to “come down”. They were still calling the China
travel ban “racist” and “xenophobic” during this time. Trump was bragging
about 14 cases and saying we have it under control.

People just really weren’t grappling with the seriousness of the situation.
Now we all know, and we’re eager to blame different people and institutions.
Not only that, but politicians are trying to rewrite their own histories.
Don’t let them do that.

------
williesleg
So did china.

------
throwaway55554
I wonder if a lot of these issues would just go away if CEO compensation of a
straight salary that was a reasonable amount.

~~~
godzillabrennus
Who determines what is a reasonable amount?

~~~
criddell
I'm somewhat fond of the idea of a maximum ratio between the highest and
lowest earners in a company, maybe 10:1. So if new employees are started at
$50k, the max remuneration for any individual would be $500k. This provides an
incentive to raise salaries at the bottom.

I would apply this to all forms of payment. So if the CEO gets stock, they
would be eligible to receive 10x whatever they give to their lowest level
employee.

~~~
pmiller2
This idea comes up a lot, and, while I like the principle, there's a silly
loophole that would need to be closed up somehow. The way I've heard it
presented is like this: say you have a company, Burger Corp, where the lowest
level cashier is a minimum wage earner making ~$15k per year. That would mean
that Burger Corp's CEO could theoretically only be making ~$150k per year,
right?

The way to get around it is to have all the low level employees be employed by
Burger Corp Crew Members Inc, and all the executives be employed by Burger
Corp Executive Services Inc. If the lowest level employee of Burger Corp
Executive Services makes $500k, then that means the CEO could make $5M. BCES
then contracts with BCCM to actually staff the stores.

I'm not sure how much of a problem this would actually be, but it does cut
against the spirit of the idea of limiting CEO pay. I'm also not sure what the
best way to close this loophole would be that also preserves the spirit of the
rule, but the lesson here is that people will get around any arbitrary rule
like this quite easily. That's actually how we ended up with CEOs having
fairly low actual salaries (IIRC, Jeff Bezos takes a salary of around $80k,
and a number of CEOs take $1 salaries), and the rest of their comp in stock --
an IRS rule change at some point (I believe in the 80's) is what brought on
this trend, which still continues today.

~~~
wccrawford
I think having both the companies owned by the same people would come under
quick scrutiny, and the companies would quickly move to finding someone to pay
for a "service" for all their low-paid worker needs.

So you'd end up with Burger Corp being executives like you said, and then
hiring Service Company X to do all their cashiering and burger-flipping and
janitorial services. They'd be owned by completely different people, and
Service Company X might even service multiple companies much like many temp
staffing agencies today.

Attempting to stop this would also kill most existing janitorial services
among other things, and it'd be really hard to regulate.

In the end, things move around, but they don't really change.

~~~
pmiller2
Exactly. The only fundamental difference, even if the companies have different
ownership, is one of accounting. I don't think there's any way to prevent this
kind of structure from emerging, either.

