# Red Ensign (re Bermuda Registry)



## Stephen J. Card

Re comments on correct flags to fly on Bermuda registry. 

Quote: 


I have asked here about your question of BDA registered vessels flying a courtesy flag when they are in the UK. The answer is NONE. Apparently BDA is the only registry that does allow the flying of either a defaced red ensign or the BDA flag on the stern but when in the UK they fly nothing (apparently).


Unquote.


Blue ensign on board vessels also allowed if wished.


Stephen


----------



## Mad Landsman

1. Taken on the P & O Ship: Oceana on 19th December 2013 while alongside at Southampton. (From the balcony of one of the aft suites).

2. Taken on the Princess Ship: Star Princess on 27th January 2013 while alongside at Puerto Madryn, Argentina. (From top deck).


----------



## waiwera

*Flying of an un defaced Red Ensign whilst in Bermuda Registry*

No dispute Stephen that the (so called British Ships) of the P&O & Cunard Branded Carnival ( American Owned) Vessels are still legally permitted to fly an undefaced red ensign - as clearly stated on numerous sites. However it does seem wrong that Ship Owners can use this ruse to avoid British Regulations but still be entitled to fly a British Flag. Seems to be no encouragement by the British Registry to keep ships.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Mad Landsman said:


> 1. Taken on the P & O Ship: Oceana on 19th December 2013 while alongside at Southampton. (From the balcony of one of the aft suites).
> 
> 2. Taken on the Princess Ship: Star Princess on 27th January 2013 while alongside at Puerto Madryn, Argentina. (From top deck).




Well, as the the rule says... either red ensign or defaced can be used. The Register say that the red ensign (courtesy ensign) in UK is not required. Probably that someone in Head Office has made decision!


----------



## Stephen J. Card

waiwera said:


> However it does seem wrong that Ship Owners can use this ruse to avoid British Regulations but still be entitled to fly a British Flag. Seems to be no encouragement by the British Registry to keep ships.



I can see your point, but is it 'wrong'? What are the requirement for a ship registered in Guernsey or Douglas? 

In the end is the ships are still on British Register.. and within 'Red Ensign Group 1'..... Hamilton is no difference than Southampton... other than some of the requirement regarding labour rules. If there was no Bermuda registry they would change the lot to Bahamas or Antigua or ... Vanauatu! Oops!

Stephen


----------



## trotterdotpom

Just part of the general decline. Probably ensigns will disappear altogether one day.

John T


----------



## Erimus

Surely, and I could be wrong,way back in the 60's/70's many of the Shell fleet were Hamilton registered as well?

geoff


----------



## waiwera

*Bermuda Registration*



Stephen J. Card said:


> I can see your point, but is it 'wrong'? What are the requirement for a ship registered in Guernsey or Douglas?
> 
> In the end is the ships are still on British Register.. and within 'Red Ensign Group 1'..... Hamilton is no difference than Southampton... other than some of the requirement regarding labour rules. If there was no Bermuda registry they would change the lot to Bahamas or Antigua or ... Vanauatu! Oops!
> 
> Stephen


Yes Stephen - but that is just the point, I was trying to make. ( By the way I have nothing against Bermuda - Lovely place and you are lucky to live there) - But, if there was no FOC - White Register ( Red Ensign Group) - Carnival may well have taken the ships to a proper FOC registry to avoid British Labour laws and other regulations.
However then the change would be transparent to all ( a courtesy flag to be flown in a British Port and now a foreign ship) and they could no longer plaster the bow with a union flag and pretend to be running a British Shipping Company. with British Ships and British Crews - sailing under a British Flag. Like the proper P & O of old. 
Or (unlikely I agree) they could have decided just to keep the ships registered in Southampton - and therefore properly earned the right and privilege to fly the Red Duster - rather than take this back door ruse. I now find it hard to understand why any shipowner would register a ship in a UK port? Thanks for the discussion Stephen.


----------



## NoR

waiwera said:


> ".............. I now find it hard to understand why any shipowner would register a ship in a UK port? Thanks for the discussion Stephen.


There is no point. Particularly as they can get Red Ensign 'branding' without the inconvenience of genuine UK registration.

Personally I would put a stop to this and allow only British Vessels registered in a UK port to fly the red ensign.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

NoR said:


> There is no point. Particularly as they can get Red Ensign 'branding' without the inconvenience of genuine UK registration.
> 
> Personally I would put a stop to this and allow only British Vessels registered in a UK port to fly the red ensign.






To be honest, looking at all the huge cruise ships about the place, Bahamas, Liberia, Panama.... no one every looks at the flag any more. I'd rather see the Bermuda Red Ensign than nothing.



Stephen


----------



## Chris Isaac

Whether defaced or not I do not consider any of these ships as part of a British Merchant Navy.


----------



## R58484956

On speaking to a master on a Hamilton registered vessel flying the red ensign, I aked him why, not being registerd in uk. His reply was " we have special permission from UK authorities."


----------



## Mad Landsman

Of the other 'European' parts of Carnival:

Costa (Italy) - Italian Flag. 
AIDA (Germany) - Italian flag. 
Holland America (Netherlands) - Netherlands flag.
Ibero (Spain) - Portuguese flag, registered in Madeira. 
Princess (previously with P&O, Now US) - Bermuda Flag.


----------



## philabos

My understanding is that Carnival went to Bermuda flag not to avoid UK registry but to avoid entanglements with EU regulation.
Makes sense until you realize HAL still under the Dutch flag.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Chris Isaac said:


> Whether defaced or not I do not consider any of these ships as part of a British Merchant Navy.




I would say that the British Merchant Navy is about personnel not of ships.

Master of the QUEEN VICTORIA or QUEEN ELIZABETH is Danish!


----------



## Stephen J. Card

R58484956 said:


> On speaking to a master on a Hamilton registered vessel flying the red ensign, I aked him why, not being registerd in uk. His reply was " we have special permission from UK authorities."



This reply to the master was telling you complete 'waffle'. They will not reply because they will not the truth... it is above crew costs! Any shipowner who can save with costs will do whatever they can.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Mad Landsman said:


> Of the other 'European' parts of Carnival:
> 
> Costa (Italy) - Italian Flag.
> AIDA (Germany) - Italian flag.
> Holland America (Netherlands) - Netherlands flag.
> Ibero (Spain) - Portuguese flag, registered in Madeira.
> Princess (previously with P&O, Now US) - Bermuda Flag.




Princess is now under HOLLAND AMERICA LINE!!!!!!!! Cunard remains with P&O. The CEO of HAL, Stein Kruse, is now of the HAL/Seabourn/Princess Group.


----------



## john shaw

In the mid 70s that most British (!!) tanker company Essberger operated ships under the red ensign with registration in Hamilton, Bermuda. The chemical parcel tankers Essberger Pilot and Essberger Pioneer (later Solvent Explorer and Solvent Venturer,both subsequently re-reg in Newcastle-upon-Tyne) were so registered when first they came under Souter management. 

We never flew a courtesy flag in UK ports, we were a "British" ship. Red ensign at the stern, British crewing throughout. There's nowt new under the sun................


----------



## Mad Landsman

Stephen J. Card said:


> Princess is now under HOLLAND AMERICA LINE!!!!!!!! Cunard remains with P&O. The CEO of HAL, Stein Kruse, is now of the HAL/Seabourn/Princess Group.


Thanks for the update - I completely missed that particular round of Carnival pass-the-parcel. 

HAL still sail under their home flag though - I wonder whether there are any plans to change that. Are there any Dutch, or former Dutch, territories suitable for registering ships?

Malcolm.


----------



## Erimus

When we were last in Las Palmas there was a coaster registered in Aruba.......

geoff


----------



## Mad Landsman

Erimus said:


> When we were last in Las Palmas there was a coaster registered in Aruba.......
> 
> geoff


That'll do!


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Mad Landsman said:


> Thanks for the update - I completely missed that particular round of Carnival pass-the-parcel.
> 
> HAL still sail under their home flag though - I wonder whether there are any plans to change that. Are there any Dutch, or former Dutch, territories suitable for registering ships?
> 
> Malcolm.



New Holland America Line's since 1993 STATENDAM have all been registered... every one of them.... NASSAU. In 1996 HAL made the move of all ships in the fleet over to Netherlands flag and port of register Rotterdam... except of VEENDAM, she is Nassau.

Now here is something... every new ship since 1996... including every single one... have been registered in Nassau. The ships are built and the ship are 'built' as Nassau but as they are building there is a raised steel name on the stern as 'Rotterdam'.... and the name is overpainted as 'Nassau'. On the day the ship is officially and taken over by HAL, the paperwork is done... Nassau. In ten minutes there is a Netherlands inspector there to take the ship over from Nassau to Rotterdam. It takes the moments and as soon as this is happen there is a paint crew to remove painted letters Nassau with a slap of dark blue and then a roller and some white paint and taked a few moment... ROTTERDAM.

This was so the regulations for a new build and an old ship are ddifferent. The ships are for Nassau regulations and as the ship are no longer 'new' the ship can be re-register in Rotterdam.

To my knowledge the same was done for QUEEN VICTORIA and QUEEN ELIZABETH... Nassau to Southampton... but now Hamilton.

When was before 1996 ROTTERDAM was changed from port Rotterdam from Willemstad... no longer full Netherlands. There were changed the regulations so all of the fleet could registed full Netherlands.

Now, if the UK had changed the EU as like the Netherlands have then all of the P&O and the Cunard ships would be back to Soutahmpton. You can't blame for taking full advantage of this. Anyone with an ounce... probably the accountants... they would take advantage of the money.

Former Netherlands? You mind like Indonesia or Australia (Nieuw Holland). ;-)

Other territory like the ABC islands could be registed for Antilles. No different goes for Bermuda register same as UK.

HAL have no plan to changes. They had the change they wanted register Rotterdam. 

The VEENDAM is the only one remained in Nassau. When the ship was built as was with full UK officers, no Dutch. Now things have changed... even the ships the fleet in Rotterdam or Nassau you will find a complete with Dutch, UK nationials, Irish, New Zealanders, Australian etc.

Stephen


----------



## Mad Landsman

Very enlightening, thanks - I am glad I asked. 

Have you any idea why the 'German' AIDA ships have gone over to Genoa registry? 
Is it perhaps because they are managed by Costa? Although such a thing does not seem to be of any significance to Carnival.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Mad Landsman said:


> Very enlightening, thanks - I am glad I asked.
> 
> Have you any idea why the 'German' AIDA ships have gone over to Genoa registry?
> Is it perhaps because they are managed by Costa? Although such a thing does not seem to be of any significance to Carnival.



I think what is happening is that Carnival Corp has decided to two groups.... one USA group including for HAL, SEABOURN, PRINCESS and CARNIVAL, and a second to be in Europe.... CUNARD, P&O, AIDA, and COSTA... and the one... Spanish company. The idea is that each company will have to a head that will then be under Carnival Corp. Mr Stein Cruise is the the Chairman of the new USA group. Don't know the head European. 

It seems very mud to clear!

Stephen


----------



## John Briggs

I sailed under the Hong Kong flag for a few years and we were considered to be British ships and flew the red ensign.


----------



## retfordmackem

John Briggs said:


> I sailed under the Hong Kong flag for a few years and we were considered to be British ships and flew the red ensign.


What will the our British flag look like when we take the Scottish connection out of it when they go solo.
And when Wales and Northern Ireland leave will we just have a red duster.
In fact we could probably just be added to the flag of the USA as another one of there star attributes,as most of the mess we are in is due to our allegiance with them through Thatcher and Blair, two right wing activists.
Calm down man calm down .


----------



## trotterdotpom

Scotland solo .... Never happen..

John T


----------



## retfordmackem

trotterdotpom said:


> Scotland solo .... Never happen..
> 
> John T


Never said it would . The thought was ""what would happen to our flag.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Can Bermuda join a Colony of Scotland? We already Hamilton.... and Hamilton twinned us with Scotland.

Better of all.... Caledonian Society and members may a dram of whisky or a pint of rum. The dram make the lads chase the women or those who drink the pint of rum under the palm trees then sleep on the beach all day!


----------



## trotterdotpom

retfordmackem said:


> Never said it would . The thought was ""what would happen to our flag.


Well, it would lose the blue bit, I suppose.

John T


----------



## Ambak

The reason for P & O and Cunard ships taking up Bermuda registration is nothing to do with EU rules or manning (remember P & O traditionally used Goanese stewards and Lascar engine room hands). The reason is marketing, in particular offering weddings on board. It is illegal to marry on a British flag ship!


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Ambak said:


> The reason for P & O and Cunard ships taking up Bermuda registration is nothing to do with EU rules or manning (remember P & O traditionally used Goanese stewards and Lascar engine room hands). The reason is marketing, in particular offering weddings on board. It is illegal to marry on a British flag ship!




Ah....... that is the 'nice' reason for the company to switch Bermuda registry for the press. the real reason is EU employment rules.... MONEY!!!!!


Stephen


----------



## Ambak

Stephen J. Card said:


> Ah....... that is the 'nice' reason for the company to switch Bermuda registry for the press. the real reason is EU employment rules.... MONEY!!!!!
> 
> 
> Stephen


Plenty of cheap labour in the EU! Whatever, it IS illegal to marry on a British ship and cruise companies want that business.


----------



## Mad Landsman

Ambak said:


> Plenty of cheap labour in the EU! Whatever, it IS illegal to marry on a British ship and cruise companies want that business.


If one wishes to be pedantic then it is not illegal for a marriage ceremony to take place on a British ship. 

If the 'ceremony' is carried out on the high seas and is not officiated by a UK appointed registrar or other authorised person on a British registered ship, then the supposed marriage will not have legal standing, but the process will not be 'illegal' - just pointless.


----------



## Ambak

Let's put the EU question to bed shall we. Fellow Carnival brands Holland America and Costa fly the flag of EU members. P & O Cruises and Cunard crews are employed by Carnival UK, a British based company and therefore subject to British and EU employment laws, they are not employed by the individual ships. The flag of the vessel they sail in has no bearing on their contract of employment (they are not employed by, e.g. "SS Arcadia (Bermuda) Ltd.).


----------



## retfordmackem

Mad Landsman said:


> If one wishes to be pedantic then it is not illegal for a marriage ceremony to take place on a British ship.
> 
> If the 'ceremony' is carried out on the high seas and is not officiated by a UK appointed registrar or other authorised person on a British registered ship, then the supposed marriage will not have legal standing, but the process will not be 'illegal' - just pointless.


British Swift 1972. Captain officiated in the marriage of Chief cook to catering boy. Probably first gay marriage -obviouslly illegal?. My wife and Captains wife were witnesses and made the wedding attire. How quaint-brilliant time on that ship .


----------



## Mad Landsman

Ambak said:


> Let's put the EU question to bed shall we. Fellow Carnival brands Holland America and Costa fly the flag of EU members. P & O Cruises and Cunard crews are employed by Carnival UK, a British based company and therefore subject to British and EU employment laws, they are not employed by the individual ships. The flag of the vessel they sail in has no bearing on their contract of employment (they are not employed by, e.g. "SS Arcadia (Bermuda) Ltd.).


You left out 
AIDA - Ships registered in Genoa. 
Ibero, - Ships registered in Madeira. 

See page 1- Stephen and I got that part covered, or so I thought. 


Employment is not as simple as you suggest. Princess for example do not recruit any of their lower grade general hotel staff in the UK, or even use any UK agencies. Accommodation, Restaurant and Bar staff is the vast majority of the crew.
Many higher grade staff may be recruited in the UK but they would most certainly not have the protection of 'minimum wage' or 'permitted working hours' or anything similar. 
The flag state of the ship defines the jurisdiction of any laws which the ship, its crew and its passengers will be subject to. 
The location of the Company registered office does not define the laws applicable to the ship. 

Take as an example a shore based job - A man works for a Company registered with Companies House and with Head office in London - But he lives and works in New York and was hired by a local manager in NY. For him the US Labor Laws would obviously override any British employment legislation, would they not? 

Like it or not there is a significant fiscal advantage to going on an open register. It is ALL about money.


----------



## Mad Landsman

Ambak 

Why not introduce yourself with a 'Say Hello' thread? 

Or is the clue in the name, and you need no introduction....?


----------



## Ambak

There are some daft arguments being put forward here, so can somebody take a sensible pill and explain why Carnival are supposedly avoiding EU employment law by outflagging P & O Cruises and Cunard ships, but are not interested in avoiding EU employment law by outflagging the (much larger) Holland America and Costa fleets. The EU argument is nonsense, the crew costs are not determined by the flag of the ship. 

The reason for putting the P & O Cruises and Cunard ships under the Bermuda flag is because under Bermudan law the Captain can marry people whereas under UK law (The Marriage Act 1949) he or she cannot. This is why all the ships now have wedding venue rooms. At the time that the change was made at least one UK Member of Parliament lobbied for the law to be changed to allow the ships to remain on the British register. This was not "the nice reason for the press" as there was no press release about it anyway (for obvious reasons, Carnival are not going to shout about their "British" brands leaving the British register). Yes, it was about money, but not in the way some people choose to think.


----------



## waiwera

*Red Ensign Registry*

Happy to take a sensible pill Ambak. Just find it very hard to believe that both the P&O and Cunard branded ships have been de registered from Southampton simply to attract a few extra punters who want to get married onboard. It could prove a high risk strategy especially given the new P&O livery and marketing promoting the Union Flag!
Agree it would be good if someone who currently works for the company ( or the UK Registry) can confirm/deny or explain the reasons. Agree it is better to have real facts rather than conjecture.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Ambak.... here we go... AGAIN!

It is all about the EU/Uk regulations. The 'nice' part of it for the press is that the company will get some wedding chapel work as a small bonus.


Equal pay rule 'threat to British shipping firms' 
P&O said the regulations could hit its North Sea business Continue reading the main story 
Related Stories
Container shortage hits shipping
P&O axes Spanish ferry service 
Major shipping companies have warned that some firms may be forced to quit the UK because of new rules governing how much they pay foreign workers.

Firms including P&O, Stena Line and Maersk have objected to regulations requiring crews based overseas to be paid the same as those in the UK.

They say the government "appears on the verge of encouraging shipping companies to take their business elsewhere".

Transport minister Mike Penning said the issue was being examined. 

In an open letter to the Daily Telegraph, senior executives of major cruise, ferry and freight operators said: "As a result of an obscure regulation arising from the Equality Act, many major companies will have little choice but to re-register their ships away from Britain.

Continue reading the main story “
Start Quote
Any move to increase the burden of costs on our business will be a risk to jobs”
End Quote 
P&O statement
"These companies currently pay seafarers resident abroad at levels... 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 letter said the resulting increase in costs would put their UK operations "under intolerable pressure" not felt by foreign competitors.

Commenting on the possible effects on its ferry services from the Humber, P&O said: "Crew on our North Sea ships are paid the going rate for highly-skilled professionals in their home countries. 

"Any move to increase the burden of costs on our business will be a risk to jobs."

'Very negative'

Mark Brownrigg, director general of the Chamber of Shipping, said: "I don't know of any other business sector which will be required to pay British wages to employees who are based and live abroad.

"It is absolutely standard practice throughout the international shipping industry for seafarers from different countries to be paid at different rates.

"What we are going to see is cost increases imposed on UK flag operators which are not imposed on anyone else.

"A number will be persuaded they cannot do business under the British flag.

"We could see up to 25% of our trading fleet move abroad - a huge and very negative development."

In a statement, Mr Penning said: "I am considering the issue of differential pay for seafarers in the light of the current position in EU law.

"I'm examining the evidence submitted by all sides of the industry and have invited further comments from all parties.

"Once I have considered carefully all the evidence and views I will report to Parliament on our proposed way forward."


----------



## waiwera

*Red Ensign Registry Bermuda*

Excellent Post Stephen - you beat me to it!
Only found this link so far

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2011/1...drops-union-jack-to-avoid-british-labor-laws/

Did not think that it could have been just to marry a few punters. Thanks for the clarification - appreciated.


----------



## Mad Landsman

Ambak said:


> ..... as there was no press release about it anyway (for obvious reasons, Carnival are not going to shout about their "British" brands leaving the British register).


It might not be an actual 'Press release' but I think that a quote from The Company President is just as good, as in this piece from The Southern Echo, 26th Sept 2011:

_THE captains of Southampton’s fleet of Cunard liners could soon marry couples at sea if the firm switches the ships’ registrations outside the UK for the first time in its 171-year history.

Cunard is considering the money-spinning move to allow people to marry across the Atlantic on board vessels such as Queen Mary 2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth.

The ships would remain based in Southampton but the UK would lose revenue from registration and related business.

Registering in Bermuda, a British overseas territory, would allow the Cunard fleet to continue to fly the British red ensign.

*Cunard president Peter Shanks said:* “Weddings at sea are very big business. However, this business is currently denied to us, as our fleet is registered in the UK, and we have for some time been examining our options.

“One is to stay as we are and forgo our share of this lucrative business; a second is to designate a ‘wedding ship’ and change that ship’s registry alone; the third is to maximise the opportunity and re-register all our ships.” _

See:
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9270815.Cunard_considers_ship_switch_to_allow_marriages_at_sea/


----------



## Stephen J. Card

There is lots more if you want the full text.... The first section is why Shanks says about wedding on board...


*

Shanks made no mention of the disastrous effect the Equality Act 2010 might have on UK shipping.

Cunard Line was the last UK-based cruise line to fly the UK flag as first Princess and then P&O had abandoned the UK for Bermuda some time before. P&O perfomed 371 weddings in 2008, the last year they seem to have statistics for. But this could hardly be the real reason behind leaving UK registry. 

That’s about one wedding a day – at £1,100 each, the P&O Cruises starting price, that’s insignificant over a fleet of four or five ships. Even at £10,000 each, it’s not a great deal in the scale of things. 

And do Cunard passengers strike one as being the ideal candidates for weddings at sea? So although first Princess and then P&O had been making money on them, weddings would seem not really to be the main issue here. 

But had Cunard come out in a negative way against the new Equality Act it would have been on a hiding to nothing.*

Cunard’s Queen Elizabeth Leaves UK Registry Today – Other Cruise News: Celebrity Adds A Second UK Ship – Bermuda Seeks Smaller Ship for 2013
October 24th, 2011 by Kevin Griffin

Today sees the first Cunard Queen ever to be registered outside the UK while still under Cunard ownership. Last week, after a month of public speculation, Cunard Line announced that it would transfer all three of its Queens to Bermudian flag. That the first ship would be transferred as early as today, however, was unexpected. Behind it all, many suspect that the official reason for this, being able to offer weddings at sea, is just a cover to help Cunard avoid the mess that is the UK’s new Equality Act, that came into effect this summer and will adversely affect the competitiveness of UK shipping. Elsewhere in the UK, Celebrity Cruises will bring a second ship to Southampton when it bases the Celebrity Constellation there next autumn for a series of eight cruises ranging from a 2-night Channel cruise to Amsterdam to a 15-night Transatlantic voyage to Miami. And with word that Holland America’s Veendam may not be back in 2013, Bermuda is seeking another ship to call at Hamilton.
THIS WEEK’S STORY

Cunard’s Queen Elizabeth Leaves UK Registry Today 
Last week, after a month of public speculation, Cunard Line announced that it would transfer all three of its Queens to the Bermudian register. That the first ship is being transferred as early as today, however, was unexpected. Behind the move, many suspect that the official reason for this, being able to offer weddings at sea, is just a cover to help Cunard to remove its ships from under the mess that is the UK’s Equality Act 2010, legislation from the last Labour government that came into effect this summer. 

The new Equality Act will adversely affect UK shipping by doing away with differential pay, whereby foreign nationals hired from abroad have been paid less than UK nationals. The fact that two ships are changing registry immediately – the Queen Elizabeth today and the Queen Victoria on Thursday, with the Queen Mary 2 to follow in five weeks – leads to this suspicion, especially as no weddings will be on offer before April 2012, and details of these packages will not even be announced until November.

Here is the sequence of events.
On July 3, 2010, after last year’s election, UK home secretary Theresa May announced that the UK would implement the previous Labour Government’s Equality Act in October. On the same day, the BBC made the first warning, reporting that “some shipping companies have complained that the laws will force them to quit the UK because they would have to pay UK rates to foreign-based seafarers who do not have the burden of British living costs.”

Prior to the Equality Act, shipping companies operating UK-flag ships have been able to engage seafarers from outside the UK at wages that are below UK scale. This differential pay had been sanctioned under section 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976, and made no exceptions for EU or other nationals. 

Workers recruited outside the UK could lawfully be paid lower rates than UK nationals on the same ship. But to the dismay of UK shipowners this exemption was not retained by Labour in the new omnibus Equality Act it passed in 2010. 

On June 9, 2010, Coalition shipping minister Mike Penning released a Labour-commissioned review of the options of either (1) outlawing differential pay or (2) allowing it but without application to EU or European Economic Area nationals. The review, by an outside consultant called Susan Carter, with no experience of shipping, concluded that differential pay should no longer be allowed. 

Her conclusion met with strong reaction from the shipping community. The UK Chamber of Shipping, in its response, entitled “Ill-informed and ill-considered report threatens UK-flag deep-sea fleet” described it as displaying “a breathtaking ignorance of the nature of the shipping industry.”

It has since been estimated that the combined potential increase in annual labour costs to UK shipowners is in the region of $412 million. 

Lloyd’s List added on June 17 that “The industry’s common sense view is that making the UK the only flag of any significance to require all seafarers to be on the same salary irrespective of nationality would deal a severe blow to the Red Ensign.”

Penning, sympathetic to UK shipowners, was quoted as saying that the act, as drafted, “would decimate the fleet.”

This echoed the Chamber of Shipping’s view, which predicted that implementation would spell the demise of the Red Ensign, and that UK-registered ships would immediately switch to a cheaper option. The Chamber then proposed differential rates of pay related to the cost of living in seafarers’ home countries, but despite a legal opinion that this would be acceptable to the EU, the idea was not accepted by the government.

On January 27, 2011, following a complaint from the UK’s National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), the European Commission requested the UK government to amend its legislation allowing for differential pay of non-UK seafarers. The government had two months to comply, failing which the commission could decide to refer the UK to the EU Court of Justice. 

Penning, in response, pledged to do the “absolute bare minimum” to comply with the EU requirements and to legislate in a way that minimised the potential threat to the UK flag, which he was responsible to protect.

On May 13, 2011, Penning issued a statement saying that: “As the law currently stands, section 9 of the Race Relations Act, 1976, provides that it is not unlawful for seafarers to be paid different rates of pay on the basis of their nationality if they were recruited outside Great Britain.”

This includes seafarers from EEA States and designated States … with particular bilateral agreements with the European Union. The European Commission has been investigating a complaint that UK law does not comply with European Law and in January this year it issued a reasoned opinion on that basis. In order to meet its Treaty obligations, the Government is obliged to bring UK law into line with European law.”

He added that “The international nature of the shipping industry requires further clarity in specifying to which seafarers, working on which vessels, operating in which waters … the Act applies… the Act is also wide enough to legislate in respect of differential pay. The Regulations will, if approved, provide that it is not unlawful to offer to pay or pay different rates of pay to seafarers … if a person applies for work as a seafarer or is recruited as a seafarer outside Great Britain.”

On August 1, 2011, the Equality Act was implemented as it applies to shipping . A satisfactory solution for all had not been found, however, as it was no longer lawful to have differential rates of pay for EU nationals, no matter where they were recruited. The regulations treated ships like landbound factories, prohibiting discrimination against EU nationals on UK-flag ships trading wholly or partly in UK. 

But it also meant that market rates that had been negotiated previously were no longer permissable. The new Equality Act, an encyclopaedia of all British equality legislation, totally misunderstands the nature of shipping and how it has to compete internationally in the space between nations. And while, the unions, particularly the RMT that had intervened in Brussels, lauded the day, they may yet come to rue it.

On September 23, after a polite few weeks’ interval, Peter Shanks, president and managing director of Cunard Line, came out talking of weddings, telling The Financial Times that “It’s no secret that weddings at sea are now very big business… However this business is currently denied to us, as our fleet is registered in the UK, and we have for some time been examining our options. 

One is to stay as we are and forgo our share of this lucrative business; a second is to designate a ‘wedding ship’ and change that ship’s registry alone; and the third is to maximise the opportunity and re-register all our ships. I must stress that at present no decision has been made.”

Shanks made no mention of the disastrous effect the Equality Act 2010 might have on UK shipping.

Cunard Line was the last UK-based cruise line to fly the UK flag as first Princess and then P&O had abandoned the UK for Bermuda some time before. P&O perfomed 371 weddings in 2008, the last year they seem to have statistics for. But this could hardly be the real reason behind leaving UK registry. 

That’s about one wedding a day – at £1,100 each, the P&O Cruises starting price, that’s insignificant over a fleet of four or five ships. Even at £10,000 each, it’s not a great deal in the scale of things. 

And do Cunard passengers strike one as being the ideal candidates for weddings at sea? So although first Princess and then P&O had been making money on them, weddings would seem not really to be the main issue here. 

But had Cunard come out in a negative way against the new Equality Act it would have been on a hiding to nothing. As well as appearing to be against equality, it might have appeared to be anti-European, or worse yet been portrayed in the vulgar press with the typical hoary tale about employing slave labour. 

Even though it might have looked suspicious, much better to come out in favour of doing something positive, hence weddings at sea, with which its sister lines already had some experience. However, the announcement has done no good for Cunard’s relationship with its most loyal clientele, many of whom are up in arms over the deflagging and threatening to boycott.

The Equality Act 2010 will now force owners of UK-flag ships to pay UK wages to Portuguese, Poles, Romanians and other Europeans. It will not apply to non-Europeans such as Indians and Filipinos, but it may yet apply to Russians and Algerians.If the annual wage bill on a container ship could be £400,000 higher if foreign sailors’ pay is raised to UK levels, what might it be on a cruise ship? 

The Chamber of Shipping in its 2010/11 Report stated that around 260 UK-registered ships engaged in international trades were operated by members and that 230 would be reflagged if differential pay were outlawed. Even if differential rates of pay were still to be allowed for non-EU seafarers, the Chamber projected that 200 ships would de-flag.

On October 19, the other shoe finally dropped – Cunard let it be known that all three Queens would be transferred to Bermudian registry. The Queen Elizabeth is switching registry today in Amsterdam, the Queen Victoria on Thursday in Piraeus and the Queen Mary 2 on Thursday, December 1st, in Hamburg.

The transfers will all occur in foreign ports. On the ships’ sterns will now be painted Hamilton instead of Southampton (and if they need new letters there is a sufficient overlap between the two that they will only have to buy an “I” and an “L” for each ship). More seriously, this will mark the first time in 171 years that Cunard will not have a single ship registered in Great Britain.

One odd thing about this exercise is that this is not really a reflagging exercise at all, as the three Queens will continue to fly exactly the same Red Ensigns that they have flown all along. The Bermuda merchant flag was changed some time ago to remove the Bermuda shield from the fly and the British version was recognised officially in 2002. 

The reason for this is quite obvious as the shield depicts a sinking ship, the Sea Venture, which foundered on the reefs of Bermuda with its first settlers in 1609. (There was a time in the 1960s however, when, for tax reasons, part of the Canadian fleet actually flew the “sinking ship” version. Before Canada adopted its own flag in 1965, it was difficult to distinguish the Bermudian flag from the Canadian one, both being Red Ensigns with shields in the fly).

What the Queen might make of this change of registry would be interesting to know, but of course she is also the Queen of Bermuda, a British overseas territory with the UK responsible for defence and foreign affairs. The Queen has christened two of the three Queens, the Queen Mary 2 on January 8, 2004, and the Queen Elizabeth just over a year ago, on October 11, 2010, not to mention the Queen Elizabeth 2 before them.

Cunard and weddings aside, the UK register is no longer as competitive as it was. With big owners such as CMA CGM and Evergreen Line, among others, having taken advantage of its tonnage tax provisions, will Cunard be the start of an exodus? 

Ironically, this move leaves the P&O Cruises Australia fleet, hardly ever seen in the UK, as the only important cruise ships on the UK register. Meanwhile, Bermuda is a great place to park your ships and control your costs while the UK cleans up its registry problems with the EU and becomes competitive again.

Celebrity Adds Second UK Ship

Celebrity has been doing so well in the UK market that next autumn it will base a second ship in Southampton, when it brings the Celebrity Constellation to the UK for a 2-night Channel cruise to Amsterdam on September 5 and a series of half a dozen 12-night wine cruises to France, Spain and Portugal and overnights at some ports. This series closes with a 15-night Transatlantic cruise from Southampton to Miami on November 30.
These cruises will replace eight eastern Mediterranean cruises that had previously been planned and are a good reflection on how Celebrity regards the UK market. In addition to the Constellation, the Celebrity Eclipse is based in Southampton for the whole of the season from spring through autumn and will return for her third consecutive season in 2013.

The last time Celebrity’s predecessor line, Chandris Cruises, had two ships working out of Southampton was almost forty years ago, in the early 1970s, with the Regina Magna and Regina Prima.

Bermuda Seeks Smaller Ship for 2013

Coincidental with the news that Cunard is re-flagging to Bermuda comes news that Holland America Line has given notice that after the 2012 season it no longer wishes to continue its service between New York and Hamilton’s downtown Front Street. 
The Veendam went onto the route in 2009, a return for Holland America Line, once a regular on the New York-Bermuda route, after f twenty-five years. Previous to the Veendam’s return, there had been no regular service to Front Street in 2009, all the ships calling on Bermuda now being too big to navigate the narrow channel into Hamilton. 

Before that, the Azamara Journey completed a single season on the run in 2007, replacing the Zenith. All the previous Front Street regulars, the Horizon, Zenith, Empress of the Seas and Norwegian Crown now trade in Europe.

With Cunard moving to Bermudian flag, some have even suggested why not transfer the Ocean Princess from Princess Cruises to Cunard, install Grill Class restaurants where the alternative restaurants are and operate her between Manhattan, St George’s (which is lacking service since the Veendam had to stop tendering from outside that port last year) and Front Street.

The regular New York to Front Street run dated back to 1864, and had seen regular service every year with the exception of the two world wars, when there was still some sort of service. But 2008 was the first time the Manhattan to Front Street run had not had a regular ship. So the search is now on for a replacement for the Veendam.
The Veendam is 720 feet long and the R-ship class, to which the Azamara Journey and Ocean Princess belong, are just under 600 feet. But most cruise ships now assigned to Bermuda are too big to get into Hamilton and have to go to the newer cruise berths at Dockyard, but these are far from town. Oceania will next year send the Regatta, another R-ship, in to Front Street twice but the 777-foot Marina will have to go to Dockyard. Bermuda expects 385,200 cruise ship visitors this year, compared with 347,931 in 2010.

2010 Winners and Losers Among Cruise Ports

Last week we reported on which cruise ports were up and which were down in terms of traffic, as well as the growth in cruise business in New York and and the downturn at Vancouver. We would like to point out that the source for the statistics used in that item was Cruise Insight magazine, for which cruise expert Tony Peisley collected the data.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Sorry about that long winded column from the press.

This report is from Kevin Griffiths in London... and a shipping/passenger ship consultant and a professional reporter on the subject.

Also a good friend... and he and his wife come to Bermuda at least one vacation a year and we enjoy a good lunch and a few glasses of wine. ;-)

Stephen


----------



## Mad Landsman

Stephen J. Card said:


> Sorry about that long winded column from the press.
> 
> This report is from Kevin Griffiths in London... and a shipping/passenger ship consultant and a professional reporter on the subject.
> 
> Also a good friend... and he and his wife come to Bermuda at least one vacation a year and we enjoy a good lunch and a few glasses of wine. ;-)
> 
> Stephen


An excellent report - Most comprehensive. (Applause). 

Malcolm.


----------



## trotterdotpom

A couple of my workmates were married on an Alaskan cruise (not sure which ship, but it was Bermuda flag).

I was signed on some British flag ships longer than that marriage lasted. 

John T


----------



## Ambak

I am still waiting for the answer as to why Carnival are avoiding EU employment law by reflagging Cunard and P & O ships, but not it's other EU flagged fleets. If shipowners were exempted from the Equality Act do you believe that Carnival would restore the ships to British registry and forego the wedding business? I think not.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Ambak said:


> I am still waiting for the answer as to why Carnival are avoiding EU employment law by reflagging Cunard and P & O ships, but not it's other EU flagged fleets. If shipowners were exempted from the Equality Act do you believe that Carnival would restore the ships to British registry and forego the wedding business? I think not.



Mate, why are you wasting our time on this? The answer has been given a half dozen time.


----------



## TKoopman

Nice to be educated.. Thanks and how ARE you ?


----------



## SwanseaChief

Just to bring you up to date,.....!

Princess Cruises are in the process of Re-Flagging both Sapphire and Diamond Princess, to the UK. Port of Registry, will be London.

Looks like some of the theories, which have been expressed in previous messages, will need to be revisited.

Have a great debate !


----------



## Ambak

SwanseaChief said:


> Just to bring you up to date,.....!
> 
> Princess Cruises are in the process of Re-Flagging both Sapphire and Diamond Princess, to the UK. Port of Registry, will be London.


To be accurate, all UK flag vessels are registered in Cardiff. Owners are allowed to put their desired UK port on the stern, but there are no individual port registries anymore.


----------



## James_C

Ambak said:


> To be accurate, all UK flag vessels are registered in Cardiff. Owners are allowed to put their desired UK port on the stern, but there are no individual port registries anymore.


To be even more accurate, there are no individual port registry _offices_ anymore, these having all been consolidated at the RSS in Cardiff. Shipowners then have a choice of their _port of preference_ which is what ends up on the stern.


----------



## funnelstays

Ambak said:


> To be accurate, all UK flag vessels are registered in Cardiff. Owners are allowed to put their desired UK port on the stern, but there are no individual port registries anymore.


I have seen Mærsk / SAF Marine ships registered in Bristol and Beau Maris when l was in Durban a couple of years ago.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

SAPPHIRE and DIAMOND are moving to UK for TEMPORARY purposes... something to do with a new a trade the ships are shifting over... Singapore area . Not quite sure what difference it makes, but it is a temporary.


----------



## Mad Landsman

Both ship's future schedules are based in South East Asia/ Australasia.

So NOT a British home port, just a port of registry "For business sense" - Whatever that might mean. 


See also pic from my gallery of Emerald Princess at Bermuda - Red ensign and Bermudian courtesy flag.
From the public point of view absolutely nothing changes there...


----------



## James_C

Mad Landsman said:


> Both ship's future schedules are based in South East Asia/ Australasia.
> 
> So NOT a British home port, just a port of registry "For business sense" - Whatever that might mean.
> 
> 
> See also pic from my gallery of Emerald Princess at Bermuda - Red ensign and Bermudian courtesy flag.
> From the public point of view absolutely nothing changes there...


Cruise ship companies like to give the impression they're the ultimate bastion of British seagoing tradition, but they're invariably anything but!


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Mad Landsman said:


> Both ship's future schedules are based in South East Asia/ Australasia.
> 
> So NOT a British home port, just a port of registry "For business sense" - Whatever that might mean.
> 
> 
> See also pic from my gallery of Emerald Princess at Bermuda - Red ensign and Bermudian courtesy flag.
> From the public point of view absolutely nothing changes there...




Do you mean the Third Officer thought.. "We are in port today. We must put up a courtesy flag. It is Bermuda I guess."

OR

Third Officer FORGOT to pull down after arrival the ensign off the gaff on the 'mast'!!!!


That is ensign... is disraceful. You see them on of the Cunard, P&O and the Princess ships. It is supposed to be a 1:2 proportion. It is wrong.... too square. The ensign is 'scarlet' red... wrong and it is just 'printed'.... a good flag can be seen sunlight shining through. Someone got a flag maker got a bulk purchase.


On the rest... I'm told that the change is 'temporary' switch. I cannot figure the reason. Any idea?


----------



## Mad Landsman

Stephen J. Card said:


> Do you mean the Third Officer thought.. "We are in port today. We must put up a courtesy flag. It is Bermuda I guess."
> OR
> Third Officer FORGOT to pull down after arrival the ensign off the gaff on the 'mast'!!!!
> 
> That is ensign... is disraceful. You see them on of the Cunard, P&O and the Princess ships. It is supposed to be a 1:2 proportion. It is wrong.... too square. The ensign is 'scarlet' red... wrong and it is just 'printed'.... a good flag can be seen sunlight shining through. Someone got a flag maker got a bulk purchase.
> 
> On the rest... I'm told that the change is 'temporary' switch. I cannot figure the reason. Any idea?


I thought that you might have something to say about that! 
(I wasn't on that ship). 

Regarding the change I am guessing that there must either be some fiscal advantage to a London registry based in Singapore, or there is another long term plan to change the flag again to something completely different. 
Just a thought, may be significant - The P and O ships based in Australia are all UK registered.


----------



## Stephen J. Card

Mad Landsman said:


> I thought that you might have something to say about that!
> (I wasn't on that ship).
> 
> .


If you are in Bermuda you could have nearest watering hole... right over from the photo of the EMERALD. Could have enjoyed a jar or two... and not a sight of sangria... in case the conversation might be snatched!

Stephen


----------



## Ambak

Mad Landsman said:


> I thought that you might have something to say about that!
> (I wasn't on that ship).
> 
> Regarding the change I am guessing that there must either be some fiscal advantage to a London registry based in Singapore, or there is another long term plan to change the flag again to something completely different.
> Just a thought, may be significant - The P and O ships based in Australia are all UK registered.


Is there some strange Singaporean law at work here? They do have some odd ones, like it being illegal to drive a left hand drive car on Singapore's roads


----------



## Mad Landsman

Stephen J. Card said:


> If you are in Bermuda you could have nearest watering hole... right over from the photo of the EMERALD. Could have enjoyed a jar or two... and not a sight of sangria... in case the conversation might be snatched!
> 
> Stephen


There are a couple of 'Rocks in the ocean' whose shores I aim to revisit sometime before I get much older. 
You are sitting on one of them. 

Sangria? None? - thank goodness for that!

Malcolm.


----------



## Mad Landsman

Ambak said:


> Is there some strange Singaporean law at work here? They do have some odd ones, like it being illegal to drive a left hand drive car on Singapore's roads


You might have a good point there - I wonder.... 

I just had a quick check and even the e-book on Singapore Maritime Law is £50 just for a download. 
(I don't think I will bother)


----------

