11
   

WANT TO TAKE A CRUISE??

 
 
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 09:03 am
Sewage on the deck, 5 days with no power, engines mostly gone, no thruster s to keep it level , Warm beer and spoiled food. Sounds like a concentration camp that you have to pay for.


Why didnt they offload the passengers from this boat to another??

 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 09:21 am
@farmerman,
Good question there.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 10:00 am
@ossobuco,
Ill bet a lot of puke was emited in spectacular fashion.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 10:30 am
@farmerman,
And a lot of slipsliding.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 11:48 am
@farmerman,
I read that, due to the bobbing in the water, it would be far too dangerous to unload the passengers to smaller boats.

A scientist commented that the ship in this circumstance is a perfect petri dish relative to dangerous germs.
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 11:57 am
@farmerman,
I thought it was a matter of safety. Expanding on advocate's post Transferring around 4000 people in small boats just increases the risk of accidents.

From Time

Quote:
It turns out that it’s not that simple. Just moving a single passenger is a delicate dance, according to Lieutenant Lily Zepeda, public-affairs officer for the U.S. Coast Guard District 8, which is coordinating the response to the cruise-ship crisis from its New Orleans–based office. The Coast Guard cutter Vigorous, a 210-ft. (64 m) vessel that was called on to escort the cruise ship just hours after it was disabled, launched a small boat to courier Alderete from the Triumph to the Legend. “Our small boat would come alongside one of the cruise ships, take the passenger and then go alongside the other cruise ship and drop the passenger off,” Zepeda explains to TIME.

The whole process can take 15 minutes to an hour for just one person, making it an understandably arduous task to move all 4,200 people on board. (One passenger wasn’t even able to make the trip: according to the New York Times, Alderete’s sister was supposed to accompany her, but choppy waters prevented her departure.) And that’s assuming everyone is capable of the move. Among the passengers are likely many “that are really young, really old. We don’t know the physical fitness of everyone,” says Zepeda. All told, offloading the passengers with the help of the Vigorous could have taken longer than towing the ship back to shore.

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/02/14/why-didnt-carnival-evacuate-the-passengers-from-its-stricken-cruise-ship/#ixzz2KzYDUEse
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:09 pm
@aspvenom,
Thanks, now I get it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 12:31 pm
@aspvenom,
I'm not sure why the transfer of healthy passengers would be found so difficult.

I recall, decades ago, being on a "butter cruise" to Helgoland (Germans going to a small offshore island to buy Danish butter on the cheap). We travelled on a larger boat (giant ferry?) til we got close to Helgoland - then we were transferred to what seemed like giant rowboats for the landing portion as the larger boat couldn't get close to the island. We jumped from boat to boat - with the assistance of crew. Our group at that time included my grandmother who was certainly in in her 70's at that time, if not early 80's.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:05 pm
@ehBeth,
The very large ship had lost its ability to stay balanced, apparently at all. Very dangerous situation for unloading.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:08 pm
@ehBeth,
Im with you. MAybe insurances had something to do with it.
The ship didnt have any of its side thrusters so couldnt be kept stable. Well, there were "heavy lift" flying bananas . Where was the ship hen it was on fire?
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:09 pm
@ehBeth,
I don't know? Maybe they didn't want anyone to feel unequal. Or realistically, maybe the carnival company was too cheap to spend extra measures and money transferring the healthy passengers out of there. Or maybe maybe they didn't have "Time"? Wink
What I do know is that Carnival is going to suffer a huge loss after this incident. People talk...
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:12 pm
@aspvenom,
I dont thik itll make even a dent in its revenue stream and profitability. Cruises are cheap, an most everyone (Cept me and my lady) likes em. Carnival owns 70% of the cruise navy in the world
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:18 pm
@farmerman,
I'll retract my last line then. See, I don't know anything. Laughing
Like you and your lady, I don't like cruises. I'm already claustrophobic, and it's a certain phobia of mine to be trapped in a big boat in the middle of nowhere with a lot of people. Is there such a thing called cruise-o-phobia by any chance?
I'll stick to swimming for now.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 01:28 pm
@aspvenom,
with me its more fundamental. If Im not drivin the boat, Im puking from being dizzy . Ive got body thats been fucked up by explosives so my middle ear is not able to maintain "horizons" when Im not involved in the tasks of piloting.
Ya have to be there.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 02:02 pm
They will clean up the ship, repair the engines and then rename the ship.

By then, folks will have lost track of it and will again be paying thousands to float and eat their way around on the ocean for weeks.
Nooneleft
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 02:22 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Sewage on the deck, 5 days with no power, engines mostly gone, no thruster s to keep it level , Warm beer and spoiled food. Sounds like a concentration camp that you have to pay for.


Why didnt they offload the passengers from this boat to another??


I asked this question myself! But then again, it's a carnival cruise right? That alone should explain everything!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 02:24 pm
What little I know about this came from watching the news last night and it seemed, to me, that Carnival is doind a fantastic job of damage control, and treating the affected customers quite well.

The anchor interview six different people. Fiver were passengers and one was a family member of a passenger. All the passengers had nothing but good things to say about the ship's crew and none complained about how Carnival was treating them. Only the family member had bad things to say about the cruise line.

Not surprisingly, the anchor and reporters were all trying to find someone who would blast Carnival and the crew.

What I saw may not have been reflective of the whole picture, but it impressed me. I'll still never go on a cruise, but even under the best of circumstances, I'm pretty sure I would get sea-sea.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 02:25 pm
You'd have to pay me to take a cruise and pay for the cruise, and even then, nah.
But I understand other people liking them.
Years ago I was walking through Puerto Vallarta and some guy in a uniform came over to me and said hurry up, hurry up, you're late boarding.
I disabused him.
0 Replies
 
Lola
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 02:27 pm
@Butrflynet,
I agree with Butrflynet. It will cost them, but not as much as it should.
0 Replies
 
Nooneleft
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 02:34 pm
@ossobuco,
With all the mayhem and crap ( pun intended) that supposedly happened on that ship, I would think that people would have been overjoyed to shoot over to another ship on a freaking zip line ... oh wait, they didn't think of that right?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » WANT TO TAKE A CRUISE??
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 06:06:48