THE DISABLED Carnival Triumph, carrying about 3,200 passengers and another 1,000 crew, was a visual slight to the carefully cultivated image of cruise vacations. There were no happy faces, only nautical imprisonment for five days without power. The stories of clogged toilets, scarce food, and potential viral outbreaks were captivating exactly because the doomed boat was close enough to shore to be photographed from helicopters but too far out to be rescued.
But this was not a disaster, however much it reached the “yuck” threshold. The questions about Carnival’s conduct and why passengers were not rescued by passing boats are the wrong ones. The lesson of the Triumph episode isn’t about the inconvenienced passengers. It is about the size of the boats, which are so large that evacuation becomes only a last resort. They are, literally, too big to bail.
Comments
Congressional regulation? Please! Better the cruising public book away from the super sized ships! Nothing brings change as quickly as falling profits!
Hey how about a government run cruise line - we won't have to worry about getting stuck in the ocean as it would never leave the dock - and they would be immune from lawsuits - just like the feds and state.
So what recourse did clients of the MA unemployment office get when their personal information was revealed because of faulty IT - none - because the state is exempt from these regulations.
I told an investor relations guy at a convention years ago that I generally avoided boat events because if it turned out to be a frost I couldn't just go to the mens room and forget to come back, and he told me that one reason companies like boat events is that once they've got you, they've got you. Never forgot that. Never took a cruise either.
Perhaps it is time to look at the reasons all these ships fly foreign flags and are, therefore, subject to the laws of the country whose flag they fly. Antiquated maritime laws such as the Jones act prevent cruise lines from flagging their vessels in the U.S. (absent NCL's Hawaii product). Changing these laws would allow more regulation as in the airline business, not to mention additional revenue in the form of taxes on employees, licensing fees, etc.
There is an economy of scale in play by having larger ships. The cost of a seven day cruise in an outside cabin is around 30% less than it was 30 years ago. The cruise product is much better, costs less and is safer than it has ever been.
The cruise product is NOT much better than it was. You are boarding a lawless foriegn ship, with its own rules. The crew could throw you overboard with impunity. Crews from scores of different countries are poorly trained. In an emergency everything falls apart, Look what happened with the Costa, captain first off the ship. Ticket price is low, but once on board everything cost. You can't even bring a bottle on anymore. Low prices also bring aboard ignorant drunken oafs. Ships so big you need a bicycle to get around. Everythjing on board is a sell. Someday one of these behemoths is going to have a bona fide marine disaster, with loss of life in the thousands because no one has the capacity to rescue thousands of people from a disaster on the open ocean.
The Costa was manned by a captain from that third world country - Italy.
I know that there are new regulations that dictate redundant systems in ships built in 2010 and later. I understand that it is cost prohibitive and in many cases not structurally possible to retrofit older ships. Is there a way to provide enough redundancy on older vessels to keep basic sanitation and life functions operational even in the case of a total power failure?
I have taken a cruise on an oceangoing ship last summer. I was quite impressed with the technology of the ship. In a chat I had with an engine room officer, I learned that the ship was equipped with two diesel electric Main propulsion engines, and an auxiliary gas-turbine engine; evidently plenty of redundancy.
We could use an agency that rates ships for their capacity to deal with an emergency. If the public had access to such a rating, there would be a strong commercial incentive to improve the safety of ships, and to retire cruise ships that cannot be upgraded.
There is also no impediment for the United States to prohibit the docking in our ports, of ships that do not meet safety standards. However, Congress would have to adequately finance the enforcement agency.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.