• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be clear, it wasn’t a “tourist sub”… so maybe the first regulation should be defining exactly what that is,

    • jkmooney@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      The CEO was very careful to skirt applicable regulatory laws. He even called his passengers “crew members”. In the aviation world, I have some experience harmonizing multiple regulatory authorities. Because of “international waters”, there will need to be some agreement and harmonizing of regulations. There’s already SOLAS so, I think it can be done.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        A “crew member” would be some kind of employee.

        Employees don’t pay a company a quarter of a million dollars to do “work” for eight hours. You don’t pay to work, you get payed to work.

        Just because you call someone a crew member doesn’t necessarily mean that would hold up in a court of law.

        • Skavargen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically I believe they were classified as employees that “donated” to the company. Nice workaround Stockton! Let’s see how that holds up in court with the obvious gross negligence.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely.

        The issue is that the regulations that do exist allow them to skirt it by not offering a hard, and broad, definitions of ‘tourist subs’.