Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[Lee]

Do you sue the pirates?Yes, if I could find them.
Do you sue the government because of mother nature? Nah...that's silly.
Do you sue the criminal who inconvenienced you? Well, yeah...
Know what.. sometimes just bad things happen.

Yes, sometimes things happen.
(And for the record, I've never sued anybody.)
But when you intrust your vacation, paid for with your hard-earned money, to a cruise line or theme park or a resort, you should be able to retain the right to seek damages if you suffer some sort of loss due to the fault of the line/park/resort or their representatives.

Ships captain wrecks the ship...yes, you should be able to sue.
Power failure due to some sort of preventable incident...you should be able to sue.
Kraken sinks the ship because the captain owes Davy Jones....sue the pants off them.
That sort of thing.

 

[docnabox]

Have people been in harms way? Are they at risk? Have there been any radical calls from the authorities that the boat needs to be evacuated? No

The reality is it's not enjoyable.. it stinks.. areas of the boat are soiled and disgusting.. but don't extrapolate that to mean people are being held on the edge of survival, they are all swimming in sewage 24/7, and that the passengers are being mistreated by the corporate execs just laugh and eat caviar.

It's a miserable existence because you are stuck there for days - but are they living on the edge? No. Stupid 24/7 news pounding this info everyone's face as if the world has ended.

Having to live around sewage is unpleasant - but when you stick to hygiene and watch your food supply - it's not gonna kill you. These people are not being tortured - they are being taken care of the best they can given the situation and conditions.

No it's not what you want to do on a cruise - but I hate to think anyone crying bloody murder over this ever travel to a third world country.. or have to do service in the military.



Yes, but does that mean the entire boat was flooded with sewage? No.. as you said the boat listed and sewage backflows became a problem on the down side of the ship. Where there widespread problems? Yes - was the entire boat like that? No. Have people been walking through sewage for days? No.



Maybe everyone in the 40s should have sued the government because they had to suffer through rationing because that's what the situation called for. Boo @%@$%# hoo. They are in a disaster situation - people should own up to that reality. It's like having your car break down while out in the wilderness.. having to eat dry food because that's all you have.. and then crying to the state police that you didn't get three meals a day. Uhh.. reality check people? You're on a floating island with over 3000 other people in reduced conditions.



One should be careful not to jump to conclusions. Three incidents in a short period - but is there a common thread or reason for it? I did not find any reports on the reason for the Allegra's fire except that the systems performed as expected in containing and extinquishing the fire. When you take out the generators.. and you're a floating island.. you can't just plug the boat in.



I have been 'reading up' - and I can say I've seen similar conditions before, even had to live through them under FAR more stressful terms.. and I didn't feel the need for anyone to pay for my hardships. The saying 'we're all in the same boat' aptly applies here. If any of these people feel they've been through hell.. I suggest they sit down with someone in their family that served in a war zone or has been stranded with their life in danger and get educated on what real hell is.


But what does any of this have to do with the terms that people signed up for on the cruise...

Yes, I would venture to say that passengers on board the Triumph were at imminent risk. There is that little matter of an engine fire and the resultant loss of power along with that minor inconvenience of listing in the water and having parts of the ship backed up with sewage. To you that might have been just a little thing that they should have passed over but the fact is having unprocessed sewage standing in parts of a ship with over 4000 passengers and crew aboard does constitute an imminent risk. The ship was a petri dish for all sorts of germs and given the rapidity with which germs like Norovirus spread on ships even under normal conditions, it is fortunate that there was not a widespread outbreak of disease on board. I applaud your pioneer spirit but I somehow doubt that anyone on that ship would agree with you.

I never said anything about the execs "laughing and eating caviar" and I am sure the crew did all they could to make a miserable experience better. In fact, they do seem to recognize the seriousness of this to some degree which is more than you apparently do.

Regardless of what anyone signed before embarking on this cruise, I doubt any of them ever felt that they would have the misfortune of having a vaction that could be compared to the examples you cited - living in a third world country, service in the military in a war zone or living through the Great Depression. I bet everyone probably had their hopes and standards set just a wee bit higher than that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, sometimes things happen.
(And for the record, I've never sued anybody.)
But when you intrust your vacation, paid for with your hard-earned money, to a cruise line or theme park or a resort, you should be able to retain the right to seek damages if you suffer some sort of loss due to the fault of the line/park/resort or their representatives.

Ships captain wrecks the ship...yes, you should be able to sue.
Power failure due to some sort of preventable incident...you should be able to sue.
Kraken sinks the ship because the captain owes Davy Jones....sue the pants off them.
That sort of thing.

One can sue for just about anything. It may get tossed out, but there is nothing stopping it from being attempted.

 

[WDW1974]

Wow. Some folks will go to seemingly any lengths to defend corporate greed ... doesn't seem to matter whether it's Alamo, Carnival or Disney. It's all about personal responsibility. Damn any corporate responsibility and certainly use that as an excuse for unemployment (look at Disney's financials and then recall Iger talking about a 10% reduction in labor across the board).

That's the common thread between renting a car, MM+ and a one helluva mess to be cleaned in Mobile. I truly HATE the 'thread' running through many of the 'good folks' in this nation whereby individuals are expected to be responsible for everything in their lives, while corps have no responsibility beyond Wall Street. It's BS ... oh, and it is destroying this country bit by bit.

Elite now equals bad.

WalMart equals good.

Remember that when this nation goes the way of the British Empire. We'll be the place with a great legacy, nukes and delusions of grandeur that trots out phrases like freedom, justice and equality like Disney trots out Dreams, Wishes and MAGIC.

At some point, companies need to be held accountable for their actions. People shouldn't be forced to read and agree to a 33-page contract at a rental kiosk or be forced to walk or take a cab. People shouldn't have to allow Disney to datamine their children or track them in order to ride PoC. And people should have the right to take a cruise without signing away 99.99999% liability before they ever set sail.

Isn't fairness supposed to be a cornerstone American value? Or is that just another worthless platitude these days?

Why aren't ships registered in the USA? Why are they registered in nations with much lesser safety oversight? Why would it be necessary to sign away all rights when you board a ship?

These are just basic things. Now, since only 20% of all American have even taken a cruise, I doubt this is an issue for many. But as a frequent cruiser, it is an issue for me.

Fires at sea are incredibly dangerous. There should be redundancy upon redundancy. Same for control over water and necessary functions. And there should be oversight by the USA for ANY/ALL cruise ships that leave or enter a US port. If we all have to go through security to show we aren't 'evildoers', then we should all be assured that our safety is of the utmost importance to those same officials once we're out to sea.

And cruise lines should have contingency plans in case of the worst possible situations that are set by independent maritime experts that don't have ties to the industry.

My pal Flynnibus is very good at talking and taking the focus off the core issue: in this case that issue is CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.

What happened on the Triumph wasn't an act of war, it wasn't an act of God, it wasn't a mythical sea monster that actually exists, and it wasn't something entirely unforeseeable based on their two Costa disasters in a few month period in 2012. It didn't really bother Micky Arison, the Carnival Corp owner who also owns the NBA's Miami Heat, as he sat courtside this week as LeBron, D-Wade and Chris Bosh manhandled the Blazers. Just like last year, he was nowhere to be seen. And knowing Micky (guess what? another billionaire that the Spirit knows ... shocking!!!), I doubt you'll ever hear a peep from him as he'll avoid all talk about it except during the next earnings call when he won't have a choice. If he can have one of the priciest rosters in NBA history, then you'd think he could do better than $500 a person.

We all know the cruise offers are likely worthless to over half the guests who likely won't ever get on another sea cruise, which is sad. No, everyone's worth isn't equal and their damages weren't either. But I think I can safely say that everyone on that ship deserves one helluva multiplier of $500, though. Carnival will be taken care of. It has insurance. It may profit in the long term. Asking for a little compassion and FAIRNESS from a corp shouldn't be too much.

But in today's world ... today's America where we let the corps and their lobbyists write the laws, one thing is assured: the average person gets screwed and told to sit back, relax and enjoy. It's in our collectibe best interests doncha know? The Dow is over 14000 so we all must be prospering.

Individuals have to follow all sorts of laws and regulations to live in our society, but companies are a different breed. Despite being told they are people, they are a distinctly different beast and that beast has no desire to end its ravenous ways.

Again, this isn't just Carnival or Alamo or Disney ... this is what happens when you let corporations run your society ... and, I'm sorry, with all due hate for politcians/elected officials, but I'll take my chances with them before I would with almost any large corporation.

 

[GoofGoof]

The ticket (not the magicband) still has RFID tho. Disney hasn't said if there will be any option to use a inert ticket card or if there are ways to opt out of the data retention from the RFID ticket.

That was the part I was missing. I didn't realize the cards will have RFID too.

 

[lazyboy97o]

At some point, companies need to be held accountable for their actions. People shouldn't be forced to read and agree to a 33-page contract at a rental kiosk or walk or take a cab.

Contracts become long due to the need for specificity. It works the exact same way with regulations. Vagueness only enables people to get around situations.

 

[flynnibus]

At some point, companies need to be held accountable for their actions

And if you find the accident caused due to their actions - I agree with you. But that's not what happens - people see 'something bad happened.. you were in charge.. so I sue you'. Regardless if the party had any responsibility in the incident happening. 'Liability' has morphed into an ugly beast that really has little to do with cause anymore.

Isn't fairness supposed to be a cornerstone American value? Or is that just another worthless platitude these days?

Funny - I was gonna say the same thing about Personal Responsibility and helping your neighbor. But can't do that now either.. unless you want to risk being sued because your help wasn't good enough.

You want to make this out to be about evil corporations.. but if this was a private boat.. and the same thing happened.. people would be going after the private boat owner too.

You just want the perfect world where nothing can happen - it doesn't exist. Sure we can build boats to be redundant as we possible can.. and they still can have accidents. Ask the US Navy who have lost countless ships to weather and accidents - and they are built to survive people shooting at them.

But hey, it's great to have a dream I suppose...

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, sometimes things happen.
(And for the record, I've never sued anybody.)
But when you intrust your vacation, paid for with your hard-earned money, to a cruise line or theme park or a resort, you should be able to retain the right to seek damages if you suffer some sort of loss due to the fault of the line/park/resort or their representatives.

So now you've attached a price to your happiness? Do you sue your wife if she turns around and makes you unhappy due to a choice of hers? Why should a business owe you that over anyone else? If you've paid for something, does it now magically expand to things well beyond what you actually paid for?

That's like suing Ford because your garage fell down.

Damages for things you've lost - if directly caused by the party.. I'd listen. Damages for your emotional hardship because the @#%@ hit the fan? Sorry.. you weren't singled out.. you should suck it up.

Ships captain wrecks the ship...yes, you should be able to sue.
Power failure due to some sort of preventable incident...you should be able to sue.

See.. that's the distinction you gloss over.. one is a direct outcome due to a failure to perform. The other you attach some label of 'preventable'. The third.. no control over.

And what is 'preventable'?

Should you be able to sue Disney because they KNOWINGLY put a curb on the street.... KNOWING that you might fall.. hence it should have been preventable. Nevermind it was your own stupid self who didn't look where they were walking? Or how about the idiot who climbs over the railings and falls.. that was PREVENTABLE if Disney just used full walls instead of a railing..

See how stupid this gets? And that's the world we live in now... no expectation of personal responsibility.. because we can just sue someone else.

 

[flynnibus]

That was the part I was missing. I didn't realize the cards will have RFID too.

Disney has said they are RFID enabled - but it's unclear how much they differ from the band in capabilities. We know the band has an active radio that the cards do not... but that's about the limit of hard information available.

 

[Lee]

So now you've attached a price to your happiness? Do you sue your wife if she turns around and makes you unhappy due to a choice of hers? Why should a business owe you that over anyone else? If you've paid for something, does it now magically expand to things well beyond what you actually paid for?

That's like suing Ford because your garage fell down.

Damages for things you've lost - if directly caused by the party.. I'd listen. Damages for your emotional hardship because the @#%@ hit the fan? Sorry.. you weren't singled out.. you should suck it up.



See.. that's the distinction you gloss over.. one is a direct outcome due to a failure to perform. The other you attach some label of 'preventable'. The third.. no control over.

And what is 'preventable'?

Should you be able to sue Disney because they KNOWINGLY put a curb on the street.... KNOWING that you might fall.. hence it should have been preventable. Nevermind it was your own stupid self who didn't look where they were walking? Or how about the idiot who climbs over the railings and falls.. that was PREVENTABLE if Disney just used full walls instead of a railing..

See how stupid this gets? And that's the world we live in now... no expectation of personal responsibility.. because we can just sue someone else.

The bolded part is all I'm talking about.

I believe that your zealousness to argue against suing anyone for damages in almost any circumstance has caused you to veer into near hyperbole, and attach unintended meaning to my statements.

 

[WDW1974]

Yes, sometimes things happen.
(And for the record, I've never sued anybody.)
But when you intrust your vacation, paid for with your hard-earned money, to a cruise line or theme park or a resort, you should be able to retain the right to seek damages if you suffer some sort of loss due to the fault of the line/park/resort or their representatives.

Ships captain wrecks the ship...yes, you should be able to sue.
Power failure due to some sort of preventable incident...you should be able to sue.
Kraken sinks the ship because the captain owes Davy Jones....sue the pants off them.
That sort of thing.

Yes, things happen. And sometimes that HAS to hurt a company. This isn't something out of their control either. And the Triumph has had issues before as well (I believe it entered service in 1999, so it isn't a 'new' ship by any means).

The problem is we have no regulation to speak of when it comes to the cruise industry and, naturally, they love that. Why should anyone from the EVIL government have any say in safety vs. the profit motive, right?

Imagine if that were the case with flying, which is amazingly safe. As soon as issues propped up on the new Boeing 787 Dreamliners, the FAA immediately ordered them grounded. Do you think the airlines like that? On a plane that has been delayed by three years to begin with? But someone is looking out for us, so a 787 doesn't fall out of the sky and kill a lot of folks over battery issues.

Of course, you can sue a cruise line. And folks do. You can even win. Litigation is a joke. Because there's no one forcing the issue. ... many companies don't even fight these type of lawsuits and allow $27 million or $31 million or $46 million judgments against them because they have no intention of paying. That crap needs to stop ... yeah, whiners, even if that harms business (always the excuse. always!) Suing means little if you get a judgment that is not enforceable. This isn't you when you have to stop paying that ten grand you owe to a credit card company because you lost your job and your spouse got sick and you needed to feed the family somehow and they can do almost anything in the sleaziest ways (even though that debt is called unsecured).

 

[flynnibus]

The bolded part is all I'm talking about.

Yet you think it's a problem the cruise company isn't responsible for a boat being attacked by pirates... or sea monsters.

I think you may believe that's what you're talking about.. but your responses don't align with your beliefs.

That is unless.. you think the cruise companies are in cahoots with the pirates.. or you think they should be armed to fight off pirates and any loss is automatically their fault.

 

[WDW1974]

Contracts become long due to the need for specificity. It works the exact same way with regulations. Vagueness only enables people to get around situations.

Now, there is no such 'wiggle ' room for individuals, but plenty for corps.

There is no need for 33-page contracts to rent a car. It's absurd. ... So is the point (not yours, talking in general) of 'take it or leave it' ... these onerous policies become legal and take over the industry.

I love rugged individualism BS as much as any red-blooded, flag waving, gun owning (nah, that's not me!) American, but we really need to start protecting those rugged individuals instead of rugged cutthroat corporations and the top one percenters who run them.

 

[Lee]

Yet you think it's a problem the cruise company isn't responsible for a boat being attacked by pirates... or sea monsters.

I think you may believe that's what you're talking about.. but your responses don't align with your beliefs.

That is unless.. you think the cruise companies are in cahoots with the pirates.. or you think they should be armed to fight off pirates and any loss is automatically their fault.

That pirate example is just used to show the sort of lengths the lines go to in attempting to eliminate any possibility of lability for anything. Of course that wouldn't be their fault.

The sea monster, though...if a cruise line employee is the cause of its attack....sue them silly.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Now, there is no such 'wiggle ' room for individuals, but plenty for corps.

There is no need for 33-page contracts to rent a car. It's absurd. ... So is the point (not yours, talking in general) of 'take it or leave it' ... these onerous policies become legal and take over the industry.

I love rugged individualism BS as much as any red-blooded, flag waving, gun owning (nah, that's not me!) American, but we really need to start protecting those rugged individuals instead of rugged cutthroat corporations and the top one percenters who run them.

It's the same sleaze balls who convince their companies to do something slimy that cause these contracts to grow in length. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want the benefits of specificity without having to handle it yourself.

 

[WDW1974]

The bolded part is all I'm talking about.

I believe that your zealousness to argue against suing anyone for damages in almost any circumstance has caused you to veer into near hyperbole, and attach unintended meaning to my statements.

Amazing, ain't he? I've never seen a multi-tasker like Flynn. He has a family too (I think they're looking for him now too!) ... anyone want to send him on a two-week MAGICal WDW vacation (sans 'net access, which he'd have to sign legal documents for first)?

 

[WDW1974]

It's the same sleaze balls who convince their companies to do something slimy that cause these contracts to grow in length. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want the benefits of specificity without having to handle it yourself.

Bull.

I want a semi-level playing field. I don't want a society run by corporations. That isn't democracy (many of the non-elites out there confuse this point!), it's all-out capitalism and they often are at polar opposites.

Rest assured, if I ever had the type of experience that these folks had, I'd be at Micky's house and Carnival's CEO's and I wouldn't stop until they made changes and paid me for my time/suffering. You can't play by their rules because they ARE THEIR RULES.

But I don't know anything. I wasn't part of a small group that got a CEO removed from his job recently, right @Lee?

EDIT: I am sure the folks in Miami loved the shot Letterman just delivered to them ... and they're the Top 10 list subject too! Right ... no such thing as bad pub!

 

[lazyboy97o]

That pirate example is just used to show the sort of lengths the lines go to in attempting to eliminate any possibility of lability for anything. Of course that wouldn't be their fault.

There is always some vagueness because it's not a yes-no issue, but more of a spectrum. Even in the piracy case it may not always be reasonable to say the cruise line was not at any fault. These contracts get lengthy trying to handle as many possible scenarios as possible, but there are an infinite number of scenarios.

 

[HenryMystic]

I think the passengers' best bet would be a class action lawsuit (difficult for individuals to litigate big corporations...especially in a far away jurisdiction.) I believe Carnival forces litigation to take place in Miami-Dade per the forum selection clause cases I've read.

This isn't some silly slip and fall. This is a big deal and hopefully the impetus for new maritime laws and regulations. Spirit et al are right to say this is serious business.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I want a semi-level playing field. I don't want a society run by corporations. That isn't democracy (many of the non-elites out there confuse this point!), it's all-out capitalism and they often are at polar opposites.

And a level playing field means specifics for them and for you. Larger organizations will always have an advantage because they will have the resources to more efficiently process the specifics. You can't be more specific with larger organizations because that undermines the whole point of regulation. Or would you travel on the less regulated, smaller cruise line over a more regulated, larger line? Or stay at the less regulated mom and pop hotel over the more regulated corporate-owned hotel?