Disneyfalcon
Well-Known Member
That was my thought exactly. If at all possible (which I don't know if it was) that's what they should have done.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Will Carnival Cruise Incident Affect Disney Cruise Line?
- Thread starter Hedwig's Keeper
- Start date
That was my thought exactly. If at all possible (which I don't know if it was) that's what they should have done.
sweetpee_1993
Well-Known Member
I've read in other forums where the thought of that was shot down by the fact that a powerless ship isn't ideal to be transferring passengers off of because of the danger in those few steps during the transfer. Without power there's no control for the disabled ship. Plus, there's elderly or disabled people who might not readily be able to make that transfer. I can vouch for the fact that there IS a level of danger involved in transfering off a ship onto another vessel....my dad crushed a foot between a tender and a US Navy vessel many, many years ago and is partially disabled by it to this day because he was only allowed to remain in a cast, off his assigned ship for 3 weeks. The foot never healed properly. Here's a man who had, at that time, been on ships doing that stuff for at least a dozen years when that happened. That was with a ship & a boat that neither were disabled in any way. There IS a level of danger to transfer passengers off the ship.
I also wonder if maybe they could've loaded the guests into the lifeboats and let them off. But then, just the week before the Triumph incident you saw an accident with a lifeboat drill on a normally operating ship that resulted in the deaths of the crew who were on the lifeboat. Again, there's an inherent danger to transfering passengers off a ship. Plus, once you place all those folks in lifeboats what happens with infants, diabetics, etc. who need supplies and care in an ongoing capacity? You can't pick & choose who you take off. You can't leave only the less-able on the ship.
Also, if you transfer guests off the ship where are you transfering them to? What ship will you bring to take 3k people? The other ships in the area that offered supplies already had passengers so they couldn't take all the guests on the Triumph. Not even if you split them up. And again, now you're creating a total cluster of who is where.
Plus, think about the time to transfer off all those passengers one by one. Then you take them to various ports and try to figure out how to get them all back where they need to be. It would've been incredibly time consuming and a lot of craziness that would lend a lot of risk of someone slipping thru the cracks.
And, there's also the fact that Carnival most likely underestimated how bad things would get on the ship. The people making the decisions likely never thought it'd get as bad as it did. So once you make a decision and move forward with that plan you're commited. To turn around or to change plans would take just as long as it would to stick with what you're already doing even if you discover mid-way thru that you might've messed up by going the route you're on.
I suppose, in the end, it had to have been easier logistically to keep the Triumph passengers together and go the distance. I do question the decision to tow to Mobile. They should've gone to the nearest port. Period. Doesn't matter had it been Mexico. I think keeping everyone onboard created some pretty significant health risks that can't be written off. Would it have been a major PITA for all those passengers without passports? Sure. If they knew there were 900 of them, they could easily search the passenger list and know who didn't have passports. Customs personnel were placed on the Triumph ahead of her docking in Mobile. That could've been done for a destination of Progreso. Why couldn't they have mobilized an emergency team and placed them at a contained location near the port in Progreso? They could have. It would've been a big ontaking but it COULD be done.
I think, bottom line, it came down to what would be easier and less expensive overall for Carnival. Bringing the ship back to a US port before offloading the passengers was the least problematic thing to do. It had to be much easier and far less expensive to coordinate the debarkation, customs process, transportation, etc. from a mainland US port than it would've been in a foreign country. Could you imagine what it would've cost to charter enough airliners to bring 3000 people back to the US???? It boggles the brain!
sweetpee_1993
Well-Known Member
What amazes me is you didn't have anyone jumping. Literally. Think about it. The Coast Guard vessel was right there. I know I would've looked at that boat nearby and thought, "My chances are lookin' good....let's swim for it!"
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Everything I have read has stated that by the time tug boats reached the ship Mobile was just as close as any other port. The decision to go to Mexico was scrapped because the ship had drifted so far away that it would have taken a similar amount of time, but now with the hassle of being in a different country.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Here is a perspective from one of the passengers... from a friend of an acquaintance of mine.
http://www.cruisetherapy.net/life-lesson-on-carnival-triumph/
http://www.cruisetherapy.net/life-lesson-on-carnival-triumph/
flynnibus
Premium Member
No worries - its just a discussion
It's not changing the subject - it's a topic at the core of why people, including yourself, would want off the ship. I encourage you to read the article I just posted from one of the passengers. It sounds like they are more steady cruisers, but I think its important to understand the photos and scenes we've heard about were not like that over the entire boat.
I look at it this way... heading to AL was a 'known' - you know you can get home from there. You know your contact methods are going to work.. you know if someone wants to meet you its not difficult.. there are far fewer variables hanging over your head without answers. Compare that to heading to Mexico, a place you had no intention of going.. and all the unknowns about that. How will you be cleared through immigration in Mexico? What about when you land in the US? What contact methods am I going to have? Who is going to be handling everything? How long will it take? etc.
Uncertainty is fear for many people - and you go into a situation that Carnival can't control on their own either. So now you are at the mercy of MULTIPLE independent groups having to coordinate.. vs simply having Carnival.. who is WAY in your debt.. working for you.
There is no 'return to port immediately' - so I don't know why you would make such a comparison. The difference was really about 1-2 days based on their first estimates. They were already going to be stuck on board for at least 3 days.. and it extended to 5 by the time things were all said and done.
And yes, I'd take a bit of inconvenience within a KNOWN - rather than trying to take a shortcut to avoid the inconvenience.. but then get thrown into a mess of unknowns and web of multiple governments and agencies trying to sort out how to handle you.
rufio
Well-Known Member
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't cruise on Carnival myself, but that's because of their product. Not because of the Triumph. That said, I've had great experiences on Princess, which they own, and I will continue to sail them.
I am also booked on two future DCL sailings (one is definite this spring, the other is a maybe in 2014).
But I am curious how many of you regular cruisers realize that you basically sign your life away when you get on ANY cruise ship ... and how many are OK with that?
Oh well, Oscar time ... anxious to hear (most) everyone's responses!
I am also booked on two future DCL sailings (one is definite this spring, the other is a maybe in 2014).
But I am curious how many of you regular cruisers realize that you basically sign your life away when you get on ANY cruise ship ... and how many are OK with that?
Oh well, Oscar time ... anxious to hear (most) everyone's responses!
sweetpee_1993
Well-Known Member
Yep. I don't even want to read the stupid cruise contract. I'd prob'ly get so mad that I'd be miserable on the cruise or cancel it. I definitely understand the wisdom in the statement "ignorance is bliss". I don't want to know. Seriously. For once I'm deliberately choosing ignorance in favor of preserving a happy bubble.
When's your "maybe in 2014"? Shoot me a message.
sweetpee_1993
Well-Known Member
We're cruising Allure for Thanksgiving with the hubby's family. Why? Because we are willing to cruise other lines. They aren't. Go figure. LOL! I'm actually a little concerned that the Allure will be too big....and Vegas-y nice vs. classy nice. Oh well. Not bucking the hubby on his family's stuff. At least myyyyyy brother is sailing on a Disney ship with us. I'm such a brat. LOL!
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I've never been on a cruise. This makes me less likely to EVER want to go on a cruise, Disney or otherwise.
sweetpee_1993
Well-Known Member
That's unfortunate. You do know accidents happen in theme parks, too, right? Yes, including Disney parks. Just sayin...
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Yeah. But I've read up on amusement parks to make myself less nervous about them. I've been through the entire page of Wikipedia on "Incidents at Walt Disney World" and I've read a book on Disney history, which covers basically every major WDW incident, as well as much of the planning. Cruises...I just don't trust. I can't even remember the last time I was on a boat other than the ones that are part of the rides or transportation from the parks. I don't even like those little sea racers that you can rent outside of the parks. It must be genetic; my father refuses to go on any rides outside of the parks either.That's unfortunate. You do know accidents happen in theme parks, too, right? Yes, including Disney parks. Just sayin...
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
Well, the point is you have no choice (and something I believe has to change). Carnival Corp killed 32 people on the Concordia, injured scores of others and traumatized hundreds (thousands?) of people last year and still made huge profits. That shouldn't happen. You can't put a company in jail and we would never put a billionaire CEO in jail. So you hurt a corporation in its balance sheet.
People need to have rights when they cruise. Right now, it's a situation where either you sign your life away or you don't cruise. Does that sound American? Fair? Right?
I love to cruise (as YOU know!), but I also like to have basic rights.
Right now, it's in the fall out of San Juan. But that may well change ...may not cruise in '14 at all. We'll see.
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
I did a preview cruise on Oasis of the Seas and while it is a modern marvel and quite beautiful, I can't advise taking cruises on that or the Allure. They are so big and have so much on them that they feel like you've taken the entire population of a medium-sized town to sea with you. I don't need a rock wall or carousel at sea, I don't need a Johnny Rocket's etc. And the Central Park area while nice also makes you forget you're on a cruise.
What is the point then? I go on cruises to feel like I'm at sea and actually see .... well ... ya know ... the sea.
And they must have 10 restaurants with add-on fees (every cruise line in that category does, but RCCL is the worst ... look at Disney where Palo is the only one on the older ships and it is a very reasonable amount).
Not trying to get you down on it, but just wasn't overly impressed.
(FAIR SPIRITED Disclosure: They run Celebrity. I had a VERY bad experience with them. I complained. It got ugly. When the dust settled, the CEO was removed (of Celebrity, not RCCL the parent) in large part because of what happened to my group. I sorta don't take $hitty treatment very well.)
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
Cruising is great. I've had one bad cruise (and it wasn't like the Triumph) out of countless on many different lines.
Fear of cruising is as bad as fear of flying which is sorta worse than fear of driving because you have a realistic chance of being killed every day on our roads.
the.dreamfinder
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of all those interactive queues, 1.5 billion dollar armbands and apps that tell you what to do next that makes you forget that you're on a VACATION...
BenSmith
Active Member
Ok, so my father is the VP of a travel agency and somehow got to speak with someone who was actually on the triumph. She told him that the media is exaggerating the whole thing a ton. She said they had plenty of food, no one got sick, and it was an inconvenience, but it wasn't horrible. As for the business side of things, Carnival bookings are WAY down. However, other cruise line bookings are actually up. Other cruise lines are experiencing a 20-25 percent increase in total bookings, while Carnival bookings are down 15 percent. Lastly, DCL bookings are up 22 percent as of yesterday, so its not hurting them, it's helping.
BenSmith
Active Member
The whole Onion Sandwich thing is complete BS, there was plenty of food.