10 ms·
Who picks up the tab for all this (both for the work done to free the ship and the losses by Suez authorities and other ships)? The company operating the ship?
by msravi 6y ago
Who picks up the tab for all this (both for the work done to free the ship and the losses by Suez authorities and other ships)? The company operating the ship? The ship owner? The insurance company? Suez authorities?
- wyldfire 6y agoBy default it will likely be the canal authority who was very motivated to recover the functionality of their waterway. They probably spent significant time and money getting the ship unstuck. And they'll likely try to recover it from the shipping company who owned the Evergreen^H^H^H^H^HGiven. But if the canal authority's pilot was at the helm when it ran aground, there's likely to be some difficulty getting the shippers to pay without a court involved. EDIT: ship name was incorrect
- artificial 6y agoEvergreen is the shipping company, Ever Given is the ship. I’ve been enjoying all the memes about this situation and seeing all the ships queued up is wild.
- ornornor 6y agoWhy wouldn’t it be the canals pilot? Doesn’t the canal make it mandatory that one of their pilot control the ship to navigate the canal? If so, and unless this is due to poor maintenance or another cause that’s the result of evergreens actions, I have a hard time imagining the canal authority not being on the hook for the problem they created.
- Gwypaas 6y agoThe master is still responsible for the pilots actions. This can create contention sometimes.
- PhantomGremlin 6y agoWhy wouldn’t it be the canals pilot? Because, if I understand correctly, he had an "impossible" job. The ship was heading north, with a 30 mph wind from the west. Rudder needed to be applied to counter the wind. The wind stopped, the ship got close to the left bank, then hydrodynamic forces caused it to pivot into the right bank. Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable. I also read somewhere that ship was going 13 knots in an area which is supposed to be 8 knots. But maybe that was also necessary because ships need to be moving in order for the rudder to work properly. No motion -> no rudder.
- ornornor 6y ago> Basically, the ship was far too large for that narrow canal. Everything worked OK under good circumstances, but failed in gusty wind. This accident was inevitable. In any case, that sounds more like the canal authority's fault that Evergreen's. If the ship was too large and wasn't rated for using the canal then that would be different, but as it stands the canal said "ships up to that size can use the canal", and Evergreen built a ship up to that size and used the canal.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y agoAre 30mph winds rare there? That seems quite mild. Why hasn’t this happened before?
- simonh 6y agoWe may never know, but it's possible the wind shifted unusually rapidly or chaotically, reversed, or with a ship like that the wind force at the bow and stern were unusually different or even opposite.
- guiriduro 6y agoI imagine the earlier incident with the same ship being underpowered to counteract wind will be sufficient for the canal-supplied pilot not to change overall culpability. But that will probably end in court, as insurers are loathe to pay what they should until they are obligated and their get-outs are legally squashed.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- TheChaplain 6y agoFrom what I've read, normally it is a local pilot/agent that commands the ships through Suez and not the captain, so I guess the shipping company is off the hook.
- drsim 6y agoWhat about if mechanical failure of the ship was a factor.
- colechristensen 6y agobig engineering failures rarely have a one dimensional cause. There are usually many failures and many opportunities to have prevented the failure. Armchair blaming just isn’t a useful exercise, very few people have the context to understand what might have happened and rallying up a chorus of people who know little blaming entities they had never heard of is less than useless.
- lostlogin 6y agoMaybe they burnt something out while drawing big penis pictures while waiting their turn. https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/pkdjzb/cargo-ship-suez-canal-dick-pic-ever-given https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/pkdjzb/cargo-ship-suez-c...
- joking 6y agoThis ships have to be accompanied by tugs, to prevent this kind of errors, if the sandstorm was so big that even the tugs were unable to maintain control of the ships, maybe the error was from the canal authority to give the permission to transit the canal without looking the weather forecast.
- dlp211 6y agoI don't think this is correct based on some of the maritime law I read. My understanding is that the Panama canal is the only place in the world to where the Pilot assumes charge of the ship. Everywhere else, the Captain remains the authority. Also, the helmsmen would have been from the crew. The pilot would simply be giving adjustments. As to whom is responsible monetarily ::shrugs::, it seemed like an act of God caused this so I have no clue.
- intsunny 6y agoLikely the ships' insurers. According to this video, while there is a Canal pilot on board, the ship's captain has a "Master's Overriding Authority": https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=204 https://youtu.be/ltdHRdtEHE4?t=204
- antman 6y agoThat was very informative
- paxys 6y agoI imagine right now the Suez Canal Authority because it's in their best interest to get traffic flowing again as soon as possible. Then once things are stable everyone involved will start suing each other.
- jopsen 6y ago> Then once things are stable everyone involved will start suing each other. Well, their insurance companies maybe... Or maybe they'll just work it out.