# Cunard May Re-register Abroad



## Gollywobbler (Dec 4, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15059461

Apparently, if Cunard re-register the Queens in somewhere like Bermuda, they will be able to conduct wedding ceremonies on board.

That wouldn't do much for the British Flag but I should think it would be lucrative for Cunard. I wonder whether Cunard are pressing the Shipping Minister to try to get the law changed about where weddings can be conducted?


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Carnivals other "brand" P&O Cruises have already gone to Bermuda over just this matter, that and the more beneficial financial and regulatory system - not that they publish those reasons of course.
Seeing as you can have a wedding just about anywhere these days, from a static ship to a town hall to a hotel to ruined castles, it doesn't seem like a huge leap to reinstate the ability for British merchant ships to hold wedding ceremonies at sea.
One things for sure, if Carnival (not Cunard, as that organisation disappeared many years ago) decided to flag out, I bet they'd still try and sell the ships as quintessentially British.


----------



## Dickyboy (May 18, 2009)

It doesn't bother me at all, there hasn't been a British Merchant fleet for many years now anyway, and if the last few over sized Gin Palaces want to go abroad and fly another flag, it won't make any difference to the GB economy, and the few Brits that still work on them will still have their jobs, I expect. I Expect the Old man will still be an old British salty sea-dog, just to keep up the facade of Britishness. If you want a cruise on a Brit ship, have one on the Waverley.


----------



## Ray Mac (Sep 22, 2007)

Dickyboy said:


> It doesn't bother me at all, there hasn't been a British Merchant fleet for many years now anyway, and if the last few over sized Gin Palaces want to go abroad and fly another flag, it won't make any difference to the GB economy, and the few Brits that still work on them will still have their jobs, I expect. I Expect the Old man will still be an old British salty sea-dog, just to keep up the facade of Britishness. If you want a cruise on a Brit ship, have one on the Waerley.


Or Saga all British Officers so I have been told, mind maltese Flag.


----------



## Jeff Taylor (Oct 13, 2006)

Frankly, given the age profile of most of Cunard's passengers, I would be surprised if weddings were that much of an issue. Now Carnival, Norwegian, or RCCI would be another story--those are the mass brands that get the younger crowd. As an aside, I was a mayor for 10 years and married over 150 couples. My mother, rest her soul, was convinced they were all living in sin! It was always my policy to refuse gratuities and suggest they send them to our volunteer ambulance squad. One day, after a particularly annoying ceremony, I said to hell with it and took the envalope. Inside was a $10 bill! Cured me.


----------



## Dickyboy (May 18, 2009)

I wonder why they don't put the port of regestry on the bows of ships, under the names there? People might not be so keen to sail on FOC ships if they saw where their true home was.

Queen Mary ll
Hamilton

Might not look quite so British. Especially if they knew why it was Hamilton.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Dickyboy,
The problem is they probably think it's Hamilton in Scotland!


----------



## Dickyboy (May 18, 2009)

Oh.....Is there a Hamilton in Scotland then? (Jester)
Okay, say Nassau then


----------



## Stephen J. Card (Nov 5, 2006)

Dickyboy said:


> I wonder why they don't put the port of regestry on the bows of ships, under the names there? People might not be so keen to sail on FOC ships if they saw where their true home was.
> 
> Queen Mary ll
> Hamilton
> ...



It will because Bermuda is still a colony and the ships will continue to fly the undefaced Red Ensign.


----------



## Richie2012 (Apr 15, 2007)

Let them flag out, let all the forgein ships flag out, very little british crew if any on any UK flag ship, 
Should be law UK Flag UK Crew but thats to simple


----------



## Brian Dobbie (Nov 18, 2005)

Word on the street is that some North Sea Ferries may flag out, nothing to do with weddings but the employment laws coming into force soon. Not sure if this is EU or UK employment laws, not that it makes much difference.
Brian


----------



## Richie2012 (Apr 15, 2007)

Hansom the Arco dredgers are flagging out as well


----------



## Gollywobbler (Dec 4, 2010)

*Cunard to Flag Out*

Hi All

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15366562

Apparently Carnival have confirmed that all 3 ships in the Cunard "brand" will flag out and will re-register in Bermuda. 

All for the sake of conducting weddings amongst their (elderly, mostly) passengers? Why? How much dosh do these weddings generate? 

Also, who conducts a wedding on a ship, please? I understand that the Captain is authorised to conduct both baptisms and funerals at sea but as far as I know, both ideas are throwbacks to ages long gone? Does the Captain of a foreign-flagged ship have the legal power to conduct weddings as well? 

What about the legality of the weddings? I vaguely remember that Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall were "married" on a beach somewhere but when it came to divvying up the spoils, apparently their "marriage" was not legal in the UK?

Is the idea that the Captain will advise the (hopefully) Happy Couple about the Institution of Marriage? Do ships' Captains know about such things?

Cheers

Gill


----------



## Bridie (Oct 9, 2006)

*More in Guardian today*

Union's response


----------



## NoR (Mar 24, 2008)

Dickyboy said:


> It doesn't bother me at all, there hasn't been a British Merchant fleet for many ................................ If you want a cruise on a Brit ship, have one on the Waverley.


Well fairly British, she has a Polish crew _(excellent they are too)_ and British Officers.


----------



## Gollywobbler (Dec 4, 2010)

In one of the newspapers the other day, I read that there is a thriving maket in conducting wedding ceremonies for the over 55s. (A triumph of hope over experience, perhaps!)

If the paper was right, though, perhaps Cunard see an opportunity to cah in on these second & third marriages. A cruise is an ideal honeymoon, after all, and if you avoid getting married on a beach you can avoid sand in the sarnies and all! I think that the traditional Cunard style and attention to detail with their passengers' comfort would make the idea a commercial winner where older couples are concerned.


----------



## Cap'n Pete (Feb 27, 2006)

Captains never had the authority to conduct weddings at sea. However, by law they were required to enter all births, deaths and marriages taking place on their ship at sea into the ship's official log book. The act of recording the marriage in the official logbook made it legal under British law.
In 1965, both the USA and the UK specifically prohited captains on their ships from conducting weddings on their ships.
In 2006 the Bermuda government introduced legislation to allow cruise companies to perform weddings at sea. These weddings are fully recognised under UK law, although if a British captain was to do this on a British-flag vessel, he would go to jail. I am not sure if the USA considers such a marriage as lawful.
For those getting married, wedding packages on P&O Cruises start at £5,000.00 which, when you consider the average cost of a wedding ashore in the UK is £21,000.00 (2010 figures), is very good value.
Nautilus is very angry that the British government would not change the law to allow weddings to take place on British-flag vessels at sea. In consequence, we have lost 6 of the largest passenger ships at sea today to another flag. These ships can no longer be STUFTed (ships taken up from trade) in time of war to move large numbers of troops as they were as recently as the Falklands conflict in 1982. 
This is not just about jobs for British seafarers - the stupid government has compromised the very security of our nation!


----------



## Iain B (Apr 28, 2007)

Capn Pete 

This has nothing to do with Weddings, it's all about the end of the Equality Act Exemption. 

David Dingle (CEO of Carnival's UK operation) wrote an open letter to the Governement about this last year when this was making it's way through Parliament. 

Everyone in the London Shipping fraternity was talking openly about the decision based on the Equality Act. I hear P&O have announced they will re-flag two of the N Sea Ferries as well. 


British shipping industry in peril

At a time when ordinary people are bearing the brunt of the national deficit, the Government should be keeping its promise to keep Britain "open for business". We write in dismay therefore that it appears on the verge of encouraging shipping companies to take their business elsewhere.

British shipping is the UK's third-largest services earner, contributing £10bn to GDP and supporting 150,000 British jobs across the country. Yet as a result of a seemingly obscure regulation arising from the Equality Act, many major companies will have little choice but to re-register their ships away from the UK.

In common with operators of ships on other major registries, these companies are currently able to pay seafarers resident abroad at levels that are determined internationally and are related to those of highly skilled professionals in their home countries. What is being proposed would compel UK-flag operators to pay UK rates to these seafarers – even though they do not incur their living costs here and may never even set foot on British soil. The resulting increase
in costs will put our UK operations under intolerable pressure not felt by our competitors in other countries.

Long-term British jobs are at risk. We, the undersigned, urge the Prime Minister to help the UK trade its way back into prosperity and avoid the collapse of a national success story that is vital to our economy and strategic capability.








Cap'n Pete said:


> Captains never had the authority to conduct weddings at sea. However, by law they were required to enter all births, deaths and marriages taking place on their ship at sea into the ship's official log book. The act of recording the marriage in the official logbook made it legal under British law.
> In 1965, both the USA and the UK specifically prohited captains on their ships from conducting weddings on their ships.
> In 2006 the Bermuda government introduced legislation to allow cruise companies to perform weddings at sea. These weddings are fully recognised under UK law, although if a British captain was to do this on a British-flag vessel, he would go to jail. I am not sure if the USA considers such a marriage as lawful.
> For those getting married, wedding packages on P&O Cruises start at £5,000.00 which, when you consider the average cost of a wedding ashore in the UK is £21,000.00 (2010 figures), is very good value.
> ...


----------



## Cap'n Pete (Feb 27, 2006)

Iain B

P&O Cruises flagged out their ships to Bermuda in 2006 for the purpose of weddings before the Equality Act was first discussed in Parliment. As Cunard are in direct competition with them in this market, it would be sensible to assume their motive was the same.

The Equality Act (which has yet to be finalised) may be the reason for P&O Ferries to flag out their North Sea operations, but I have the distinct impression that the EU will not allow them to get away with this. The good people of Europe are not going to allow greedy shipowners to continue sailing coffin ships between EU ports much longer, such as the British-owned SWANLAND which sank of Wales last week. 

Like most British seafarers, I want to see an end to racism, exploitation and slavery on British-flag vessels. If the City of London fat-cats think they can get away with it just because we have the conservatives in power, they should think again.


----------



## Brian Dobbie (Nov 18, 2005)

Pride of York has already gone to Bahamas
Brian


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Richie2012 said:


> Should be law UK Flag UK Crew but thats to simple



Actually quite difficult - firstly you would have to find them and secondly paying them would make flagging out nearly inevitable


----------



## needadditionalinformation (Jan 30, 2006)

I'm curious, in the U.S. we have cabatoge laws such that ships sailing between 2 US ports consecutively have to be US flag & crew. This provides a high standard of safety for ships in the domestic trades atleast.

I also thought I read a while back that Malta or somebody was going to have trouble getting into the EU if they didn't improve standards of ships in their registry. 

I realize not everybody in Europe enjoys the same standards of pay & living, but that should be no excuse to allow irresponsible death-traps to service wealthy markets that could so easily afford to be maintained to higher standards. Aren't there at least EU membership dependent minimum standards for ship safety for ships in the EU zone domestic trades?

There is no way I can imagine this could be done unless "domestic" (EU) zone ships were required to be flagged in an EU country. If I remember right, the Pride of York is a European ferry ship, trading more or less exclusively between European ports.


----------



## needadditionalinformation (Jan 30, 2006)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Actually quite difficult - firstly you would have to find them and secondly paying them would make flagging out nearly inevitable


I certainly have heard plenty of anecdotage over the years of how hard it is to find 1st world people to sail in ships, not sure how typical it actually is. Somebody I volunteered with years ago since went to a US 4 year maritime academy, and not infrequently sails on FOC rust buckets for a lack of enough American ships to sail on.

As for (being able to afford) paying them making flagging out inevitable, if 1st world consumer markets can't bear the costs of 1st world goods & services production, how are 1st world economies supposed to go on?

First world consumers need incomes, afterall. If they don't have jobs, because they're too expensive to pay, how is their ability to consume sustained? Surely not by endless credit creation, we're choking on the effects of that now.

Is it perhaps more proper to state that it is more profitable to let 2nd & 3rd world costs earn 1st world returns in consumer markets? And if we let ship owners do that, who are we to stop any & every other buisness owner from doing the same?

If such greed is the way to go, maybe we should just stop being bashful and just go back to the time honored solution of the ancients: slavery! 

Or, if we should all be the same, so it's fair to put the first world middle class in direct competition with the third world, why don't we tax the rich out of existence and the rest of us go to communism! 

If things go much worse for capitalism, it won't look like such a bad idea anyway.


----------



## Brian Dobbie (Nov 18, 2005)

needadditionalinformation said:


> I'm curious, in the U.S. we have cabatoge laws such that ships sailing between 2 US ports consecutively have to be US flag & crew. This provides a high standard of safety for ships in the domestic trades atleast.
> 
> I also thought I read a while back that Malta or somebody was going to have trouble getting into the EU if they didn't improve standards of ships in their registry.
> 
> ...


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Indeed Brian, I sailed and work on vessels of many different flags and this idea of 'Flags of Convenience'(a term that is sorely out of date) vessels being rust buckets is a thing of the past. Some flags are indeed more lax but essentially it is a market and the owners are looking for the best value. I have sailed on some amazing Liberian vessels and some British vessels I would happily have scrapped. In recent years the emergence of Port State as a 'police force' espescially in Europe has made a huge difference.
Another one is this idea that foreign crews are a form of slavery - not the case, well paid, very professional foreign crews are the normal not the exception.


----------



## needadditionalinformation (Jan 30, 2006)

Brian Dobbie said:


> The Pride of York runs between Hull and Zeebrugge.
> Just because your flag isn't USA or UK does not mean you are a death trap. I sailed on many different flags and all managed by British Ship Management companies. Never had problems.
> Exxon Valdez, which flag was she sailing under?
> Then again we have the Rena at Tauranga.
> Brian


The ex Exxon Valdez was, last I checked, still in service. She was built and maintained to a high standard. She was mishandled to the point that she ran aground. There was nothing wrong with the ship.


I take your other point, about conscientious foreign flag operators, but the point of laws and regulations is for those who don't act properly, not those who do.

I'm thinking that EU member states would/should/could have some kind of minimum standards, but those from elsewhere? There would be no way to ensure safe ships even in this domestic trade with non-European derived standards.

That little ship that sank off the British coast, a defacto European coastwise ship by trade, no, was registered where?


And what inspection standard would re-flagged Cunard ships now be held to? As strict as before?


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

needadditionalinformation said:


> And what inspection standard would re-flagged Cunard ships now be held to? As strict as before?


Which inspection?


----------



## needadditionalinformation (Jan 30, 2006)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Which inspection?


I was assuming the Board of Trade, if that's still what it's called, perhaps imposed some additional standards and performed hopefully more disinterested inspections, of British passenger vessels atleast, as compared to the classification society alone.

Still correct?

The USCG has typically been more involved with US registered ships than foreign. Then again, they've had a notoriously spotty record on that.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

needadditionalinformation said:


> I was assuming the Board of Trade, if that's still what it's called, perhaps imposed some additional standards and performed hopefully more disinterested inspections, of British passenger vessels atleast, as compared to the classification society alone.
> 
> Still correct?
> 
> The USCG has typically been more involved with US registered ships than foreign. Then again, they've had a notoriously spotty record on that.


Been out of the game a while?


----------



## needadditionalinformation (Jan 30, 2006)

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Been out of the game a while?


I've never been in the British game.

The Delta Queen, the last wooden superstructured steamer in operation, was being inspected I was told monthly by the USCG not all that long ago. I seem to remember her only being licensed half as long at a time by the USCG as any other passenger vessel anyway.

In Britain, do they leave even passenger ship inspection up to the class societies alone? 

A captain of one of our reserve fleet SL-7's was saying the Q.E. 2 had been detained by the USCG for something, this was a several(?) years ago, but that could explain something. We all know how conflicted class societies and their customers can get.


----------



## Brian Dobbie (Nov 18, 2005)

needadditionalinformation said:


> The ex Exxon Valdez was, last I checked, still in service. She was built and maintained to a high standard. She was mishandled to the point that she ran aground. There was nothing wrong with the ship.
> 
> 
> I take your other point, about conscientious foreign flag operators, but the point of laws and regulations is for those who don't act properly, not those who do.
> ...


The ship that sank off the UK coast was registered outside of the EU but it was owned and managed by a UK company and no doubt inspected by the British MCA. Crewed by Russians and carrying cargo between two UK ports. Initial findings seem to indicate engine failure and a large wave broke her back. However, in previous instances, we have had UK flag coastal shipping in trouble during gales round the UK.

I am sure the "Queens" will be inspected to their usual high standards.

The huge containerships that carry cargoes to the EU, and they can also carry cargoes between EU ports, are well run and managed ships crewed by totally professional seafarers.

The American idea, that US flag ships carry cargo between US ports is only a form of protectionism, it does not stop a foreign ship loading cargo providing it is for export and not discharged in the US.
Good business for Matson etc, maybe, not too good for competition. I think Maersk registered some ships in the US to get round this, is it the Jones Act?

Standards are maintained by Port State visits, these visits take place in most countries and the Surveyors have the power to detain ships.
Standard of Officers,Crew and Port State are standard throughout the world. However accidents will happen, we are all only human after all.
Brian


----------



## nautibuoy42 (Jul 30, 2008)

I was recently in conversation with the Chief Purser on one of P&O ships, who are all registered in Hamilton,Bermuda, this is purely for the fact that P&O were missing out on the weddings on board ship market, which has always been a lucrative earner for other flagged cruise ships as opposed to those under the Red Ensign. Carnival performed approx 2000 weddings in their fleet last year, at approx £1500 per wedding, which is a nice little earner! no wonder Cunard want a piece of the action.


----------

