Jump to content
  • We'd love for you to participate.

    Create an account

    Ask questions, share experiences and connect.

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Jason

What should Carnival have done differently?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1de6e550be2f36666365e2f4858620a0.jpg

We've all seen the news coverage by now. There's no doubt it's a horrible situation for the passengers aboard the Carnival Triumph, and the PR nightmare for Carnival Cruise Line is just beginning. With much discussion around how Carnival has handled the situation so far, we want your opinion based off what you have seen on the news....

  • How would you rate Carnival's response to the handling of the disaster?
  • What should Carnival have done differently?
  • Could they have done more?

Let's hear your thoughts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted my opinion on our site a few times about what Carnival did wrong here and I will reiterate my feelings. There is NO reason why Carnival couldn't have cancelled a cruise on another one of their vessels and used that ship to evacuate the passengers from the Triumph. They had no propulsion, limited power, no cooking or refrigeration as well as no comfort items (Air Conditioning) just to name a few losses. This insight was actually presented to Carnival in a news conference and they stated that there was an accident recently where 5 people were killed during a CREW lifeboat drill and felt an evacuation would be too dangerous. I beg to differ. Let's be honest folks, if YOU were on the Triumph, and take the affore mentioned life boat drill "accident" into consideration, wouldn't you still opt for taking the chance of being evacuated from a foundering vessel? And yes, it was foundering when you hear reports of it listing to one side in strong currents. A very, VERY weak excuse from Carnival. I have been on Carnival 5 times in my last 5 cruises and never had a major issue. But I do know one thing for sure, Carnival like any other cruise line are FOR PROFIT businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knowing the ship was having engine problems from prior cruises, the ship should have been put in dry dock and repaired. In my opinion they needlessly put their 'paying customers' through this ordeal.

Considering this incident and the Concordia, in just a one year period the Carnival Corp has done major damage to their image and the image of the cruise industry as a whole. We had some friends tell us "You must be nuts booking another Carnival cruise!" Maybe we are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like a car crash or a plane crash...there is a kneejerk reaction "I'll never cruise again" or "I'll never go on Carnival again"...but the truth is that thousands of ships sail with NO problems every year. I DO think there were other options of offloading the passengers...but because they were so close to the states, they probably figured it was easier to tow the ship in. Considering the legality, safety, and logistical problems...they probably did the right thing. I WOULD like to know how other cruise lines would have handled it...maybe they should share ideas amongst lines ....did ANYONE have an empty ship they could have sent??? Could Disney or Royal Carribbean have a ship they could have sent to bail out Carnival??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, they should have never sailed with the problems they have. The schedule that the Carnival cruise ships observe do not provide good maintenance procedures.

Second, they should have found a way to get the passengers off the boat. It's very poor PR to allow the passengers to stay on a ship like that as well as dangerous. There's bacteria building up, and allowing the ship to drift is not safe either.

Third, they've reimbursed all they can, but no one can replace the reputation that's been lost to the passengers and the public (via the media).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with what has been said regarding what Carnival should have done after the incident, what needs to be addressed is what they should have done before the incident. Considering Carnival had a similar incident (fire in the engine roon) just a year ago off San Diego, one would have thought they they oul have learned a lesson on redundancy or the lack thereof. On a vessel carrying over 4,000 crew and passengers, some form of redundant power sould be in place to provide emergency, in house power if not propulsion. Many of us have our own generators to protect our homes from power outages, and ships should be no exception. Emergency power for toilets, ventilation, and basic food production to support the population should be built into the ship's design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the site, Al. I see you are a very experienced cruiser. It's great to see you posting

I was also wondering why another ship wasn't sent until I heard someone on the news say that it would have been more dangerous to move all those passengers from one ship to another while at sea . The person said that there were too many variables - too risky , too many things could have gone wrong with that, too dangerous .

I think that Al, above, has hit the nail on the head regarding redundant power. You would think that there would be another way to power everything just in case of emergency. When they build these ships, don't they prepare for " what if" situations????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard the (what I call) excuses about evacuating the passengers to another ship as well. But, when the Titanic sank and the life boat survivors were rescued by the Carpathia, they were in the coldest part of the Atlantic Ocean with rough currents and yet no passengers that were rescued perished when boarding the Carpathia from their life boats. Their main reason to not abandon ship was because of an accident that killed 5 crew members during a life boat drill on another vessel a week prior to this occurance. My thought is if the life boats aboard cruise ships are so dangerous to use in an emergency, then they carry no purpose. Just my opinion!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that all of the cruise ships need to re-think emergency situations/scenarios and come up with protocols - just like the muster drill.

What if non-perishable items were stored in one room on the highest deck? For example, crackers, cookies, nut butters, bottled water, candy, chips, etc., etc. This room needs to be stocked from floor to ceiling.

Lifeboats are great if there is electricity. But, there needs to be a back-up mechanism to lower lifeboats.

I've read what everyone else has written and there are some very good ideas/thoughts generated. ALL of the cruise lines need to adopt similar action plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

    • 2 Posts
    • 53 Views
    • 4 Posts
    • 131 Views
    • 3 Posts
    • 238 Views
    • 5 Posts
    • 803 Views
    • 1 Posts
    • 211 Views

×
×
  • Create New...