Cruise Ships for Hurricane Relief

Back at the end of August, I commented that using cruise ships for hurricane relief might not be as good an idea in practice as it would seem on paper, primarily due to cost per bed space.  It would probably be cheaper, I wrote, to put people up in hotels.

This article suggests that I was right.  I won't comment at length, because I do legal work for the cruise line in question.  But I will point out a couple of things that this article raises.

First, this goes to show just how quickly things come full-circle in politics and in the media.  Recall that three weeks ago the media was clamoring for FEMA to do something, anything, about the situation in the upper Gulf Coast.  Well, this is one of many things that FEMA did.  But when you rush resources in to try to solve a problem of such a magnitude as Katrina, it is almost inevitable that some resources will not be as well spent as others.

But that latter point raises another, which is whether the cruise line will find itself in the position of no-good-deed-goes-unpunished.  I have no doubt that this decision was made with the best of intentions in mind, and I find it plausible that it will lose money on this deal, even though the contract price may seem high to those who lack familiarity with the unique economic and legal issues facing a ship owner.

It was widely reported that FEMA asked the cruise line to provide vessels for hurricane relief.  Imagine the public relations pressure that the cruise line was under to acquiesce; i.e., with all the hysteria over government failures, and the outpouring of charity that followed in Katrina's wake, how could the cruise line say no?  Perhaps they could have tried to explain that, based on a cost-benefit analysis, it didn't make sense.  But people who live on Planet Earth know and understand that the media cannot be counted on to relate such nuances to the public. 

The headlines would have simply read: "Cruise Line Refuses Government Request for Katrina Relief Assistance."  [Speculation alert] From a P.R. standpoint, that would have been unbearable.  The wiser course, it would have seemed, was to take up FEMA's offer and try to negotiate a deal that wouldn't result in an unbearable financial hit.

As thanks for this, the cruise line is getting attacked in the press by the likes of such reknowned experts on maritime contracts as Rep. Henry Waxman (D. - Calif.), and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of that great maritime State of Colorado, who are threatening a congressional investigation.

Perhaps FEMA made an error in negotiating this deal.  But don't blame the cruise line for making the decision.

UPDATE:  The WaPo piles on.  There are a lot of unfair and misinformed assertions in this piece.  But what do you expect from politicians?

Comments

[Merovign]

The calling cards of our time:

No good deed goes unpunished

Bite the hand that feeds you

It's easier to get forgiveness than permission

It's only illegal if you get caught