|
Apple Craft posted:Carnival CEO (Can we get some armchair psychological analysis on this please?): There are cruise line fanboys that will defend their favorite cruise line like console fanboys defend whatever console their parents bought them. http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5194 quote:LynnA (February 12, 1:09 p.m.) – [Feces] and [urine] rolling across floor with every wave. People sick and throwing up every where. I wonder if jenny's last name is gomila.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 19:21 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:12 |
|
|
quote:LynnA (February 12, 1:09 p.m.) – [Feces] and [urine] rolling across floor with every wave. People sick and throwing up every where. Jesus it's like being stuck in this Jackass fart mask sketch with no escape.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 19:26 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:A gargantuan list of things you can do for the day can still feel constricting, if your favored vacation style is at odds with having to "do stuff". For me, the best way to see another place is to not be bound by a schedule and just wander around and look at poo poo, finding nice little restaurants hidden away and so on. Usually with a map that tells me where there's stuff to see, but mostly just wandering in the general direction of the cool stuff. Such "wasteful" use of ones time does not seem to be a good fit for a cruise, so I don't really think cruises are for me. And before anyone says it, no, I don't think I'm Hemingway or anything like that. Nah that's cool. To be honest, when I was in Venice, I found since the cruise was docked for 2 days, I definitely got to wander around and do whatever the hell I wanted. I felt safe because Venice isn't exactly poverty-stricken or known for kidnappings, and this was even with me booking a tour of museums. I told the tour guide I saw one too many pastry shops and not to look for me at the end of the tour; I was going off on my own. That's pretty cool you have the self-confidence to do something like that because I sure as hell don't. I'd spend way more time trying to figure out where exactly to go, and especially how to get there (finding a cab? renting a car and driving somewhere with completely different roads and laws than what I am used to?). I guess that's what a travel agent can help with but it really does sound like some of you dudes book a plane ticket and "wing it" the rest of the trip which is pretty admirable but sounds like the opening to a horror film for me. Apple Craft posted:
There's truthers for every major news story these days.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 19:27 |
|
|
Annakie posted:Even so, later this year we're probably going to London for a week, because 3 of our last 4 mother-daughter vacations have been cruises and it's time for something different. Take the Queen Mary 2 to Southampton! Combine going to England and being on a boat into one!
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 19:28 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Take the Queen Mary 2 to Southampton! Combine going to England and being on a boat into one! I took the QEII, I have to say it was an awesome experience just for the history of traveling between NY and England by ship, I don't think that is quite the same as a going from Texas to the Bahamas.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 19:44 |
|
|
Just gonna add that the only cruise I've ever been on involved a crew member attempting suicide in front of myself and several passengers. It was a Princess liner, and the crewman jumped from the eleventh deck. He survived. So not as bad a a poop cruise then.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 19:55 |
|
|
Carnival blows hard but everyone ragging on cruising in general and going on about how unsafe it is are being really unrealistic. People disappear, get food poisoning, and get raped on beach trips too, it's not like cruises are this insanely high rate for any of these things. Bad things happen sometimes and it sucks but cruises aren't immune to this and I'm not sure why anyone seems to think they should be. Cruise fatalities are lower than airline fatalities ("Between 1999 and 2007, the Broward County Medical Examiner's Office in Florida reported 97 cruise ship deaths; the Miami Dade County Medical Examiner's Office recorded 33 cruise ship deaths since 2004. Partial data from the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office noted 22 cruise ship deaths between 1991 and 2003." versus over 800 airline deaths in 2011 alone) most cruise fatalities are from natural causes like heart attack anyway. Cruises are like anything else: you get what you pay for. Carnival is the cheapest cruise line, they have a higher rate for thefts and food poisoning accordingly. But by and large they're safe. It's ridiculously reactionary to take the cruise disaster in Italy and this event and paint the whole industry as awful. A few lines suck. Some are mediocre (the cheapest I'll go is Royal Caribbean and it's rather ho-hum). Most are decent and a select few are excellent.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 19:56 |
|
|
Milky_Sauce posted:Nah that's cool. To be honest, when I was in Venice, I found since the cruise was docked for 2 days, I definitely got to wander around and do whatever the hell I wanted. I felt safe because Venice isn't exactly poverty-stricken or known for kidnappings, and this was even with me booking a tour of museums. I told the tour guide I saw one too many pastry shops and not to look for me at the end of the tour; I was going off on my own. 13Pandora13 posted:Cruise fatalities are lower than airline fatalities
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:01 |
|
|
Three Olives posted:I took the QEII, I have to say it was an awesome experience just for the history of traveling between NY and England by ship, I don't think that is quite the same as a going from Texas to the Bahamas. I think that's the only cruise/ship based vacation I'd be interested in taking (aside from maybe one that goes around Newfoundland). From what I hear it's awesome, only downside is that it's a bit more expensive but I'd wager it's totally worth it.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:06 |
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:But I expect in 20 years, Eco-touring or live-in cooking tours of northern italy, or whatever will be old person fun My parents have been avid ElderHostel people since they got old enough to go. It has the same old-people advantages as a cruise (a comfortable home base from which to explore) without the obligatory FUN FUN FUN of a cruise. My parents are ardent devotees of the cooking schools and of the music programs. They're 83 and 82 and headed off to Scotland for a pub tour of Celtic music next.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:07 |
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:I think that's the only cruise/ship based vacation I'd be interested in taking (aside from maybe one that goes around Newfoundland). From what I hear it's awesome, only downside is that it's a bit more expensive but I'd wager it's totally worth it. I think the cheapest rooms for two people run at around $1,200 or so for a trans atlantic crossing, definitely a bit more up there compared to some good cruise deals I've seen people post about. Of course though, if you want to pretend like you're John Jacob Astor on the Titanic or something, they also have rooms going for like $18,000.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:14 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm not sure you can really compare the two, at least not by raw deaths like you do here. Pretty sure there are far more air passengers than cruise passengers in a year. Fair enough, but I imagine it's not as far apart as you think. Day cruises and the such are extremely common, especially in Europe. Cruises are still very safe though. If what a cruise entails doesn't appeal to you, fine, but saying "I won't cruise because it's unsafe" is silly. Flying has inherent possible risk. Driving has inherent possible risk. Not leaving your house has inherent possible risk.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:14 |
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:Cruise fatalities are lower than airline fatalities ("Between 1999 and 2007, the Broward County Medical Examiner's Office in Florida reported 97 cruise ship deaths; the Miami Dade County Medical Examiner's Office recorded 33 cruise ship deaths since 2004. Partial data from the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office noted 22 cruise ship deaths between 1991 and 2003." versus over 800 airline deaths in 2011 alone) most cruise fatalities are from natural causes like heart attack anyway. Does anyone else see the funny comparison numbers?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:18 |
|
|
Things can only get better when 3000+ people all run to one side of the boat (a boat with no functioning stabilizers) to puke at the same time. But isn't there some maritime law that would limit how long a company can leave people stranded at sea, when the option of rescuing them is available?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:29 |
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:Fair enough, but I imagine it's not as far apart as you think. Day cruises and the such are extremely common, especially in Europe. 13Pandora13 posted:Cruises are still very safe though. If what a cruise entails doesn't appeal to you, fine, but saying "I won't cruise because it's unsafe" is silly. Flying has inherent possible risk. Driving has inherent possible risk. Not leaving your house has inherent possible risk. I wonder though where this discussion of safety comes from, did I miss someone claiming cruises are dangerous? (Not just likely to be disappointing and poo-filled.)
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:30 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:It already is. Check out ElderHostel, now known as Road Scholar. http://www.roadscholar.org/ I just sent that link to my mom. Is it all seniors who go on these, so I'd be horribly out of place if I'm in my mid-30's? She's getting super excited about taking one of these trips now. (She's looking at the QM2 cruise right now I think.  )
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:39 |
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:Fair enough, but I imagine it's not as far apart as you think. Day cruises and the such are extremely common, especially in Europe. Not that the argument that a boat that travels 10 miles an hour is safer than an airplane that travels 550 miles an hour isn't completely retarded, According to this cruise ships carry around 20 million passengers a year, and according to this, the airline industry carries around 2.75 billion people per year. If 800 die per year, that's 1 passenger per 3437500 passengers, apply that same metric to cruise ships, and that would equal 5.8 passengers per year, or over a 9 year period like your numbers, 52.2 passengers. So statistically, cruise ships are more dangerous than airlines, despite the fact that cruise ships don't travel at 550 miles an hour at 35,000 feet.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:43 |
|
|
Cruises are loving awesome. Prepackaged, manufactured fun is great when you don't want to deal with any bullshit (though, human poo poo may be an issue if you sail Carnival) on your vacation.Oli posted:David Foster Wallace wrote a long and great story about his experience on a cruise ship..very entertaining read. Sure, yeah. Gonna let a guy that killed himself tell me what is fun and what is not. Eggs fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 20:55 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:48 |
|
|
Peenigrippe posted:Things can only get better when 3000+ people all run to one side of the boat (a boat with no functioning stabilizers) to puke at the same time. What other options do they have available? Getting 4000 people off a cruise ship in the middle of the sea is not an easy thing to do. Tugging the ship to port is the safest option.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 20:49 |
|
|
Peenigrippe posted:But isn't there some maritime law that would limit how long a company can leave people stranded at sea, when the option of rescuing them is available?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:03 |
|
|
Not that I want to see it or anything but someone must have uploaded video of the poop waves somewhere, right?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:10 |
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:Not that I want to see it or anything but someone must have uploaded video of the poop waves somewhere, right? The passengers only have communication with the outside world when another cruise ship is near them, and i can't imagine the internet is too quick if it exists at that point. I would imagine once the damned get back to civilization WE will be the ones flooded by poop waves, in video form at least.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:13 |
|
|
Powershift posted:The passengers only have communication with the outside world when another cruise ship is near them, and i can't imagine the internet is too quick if it exists at that point. The most anticipated movie release of this year is going to be that video mentioned earlier being taken by a goon on the ship. Also, here comes The Onion poo poo-Caked, Urine-Soaked Man Determined To Enjoy Carnival Cruise quote:GULF OF MEXICO—Following an onboard fire that has left more than 4,000 Carnival cruise ship passengers and crew without electricity, water, and operational bathroom facilities, feces-covered, urine-stained traveler Jason Spaulding told reporters Wednesday that he is determined to enjoy the remainder of his high seas vacation. “Look, I’ve been looking forward to this cruise for months, and I’m not about to let a little utilities hiccup ruin my good time,” said a waste-drenched Spaulding, who in the past three days has been forced to urinate and defecate off the side of an immobile Carnival cruise liner whose backed-up restrooms sources confirmed are leaking raw sewage throughout the vessel’s living quarters and main deck. “The fact is, the sun is shining, the breeze is blowing, and I’m out here in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico on a boat. Uncontrollable torrents of human excrement or no, I’m going to make the best of it.” At press time, the optimistic Carnival passenger had decided to “cool off” by taking a dip in the cruise ship’s lukewarm, feces-clouded pool.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:22 |
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:What other options do they have available? Getting 4000 people off a cruise ship in the middle of the sea is not an easy thing to do. Tugging the ship to port is the safest option. That's why, if I ever take a cruise, I'll ask what backup plan they have in case their boat becomes a dangerous, derelict hulk out on the open sea. They'd better have a spare boat on hand or have no problems with chartering one of the competitions' boats. The situation isn't much safer than their having sprung a leak. Abandon ship before Lord of the Flies breaks out!
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:34 |
|
|
Peenigrippe posted:That's why, if I ever take a cruise, I'll ask what backup plan they have in case their boat becomes a dangerous, derelict hulk out on the open sea. They'd better have a spare boat on hand or have no problems with chartering one of the competitions' boats. The situation isn't much safer than their having sprung a leak. Abandon ship before Lord of the Flies breaks out! Did you miss the part where it's extremely dangerous to transfer people between ships in open seas, even if both ships are under power? There is no way they could do this without risking the lives of the passengers.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:39 |
|
|
Paco de Suave posted:Did you miss the part where it's extremely dangerous to transfer people between ships in open seas, even if both ships are under power? There is no way they could do this without risking the lives of the passengers. Couldn't they set up ziplines, and pretend it's a mandatory fun activity? edit: the fact that we haven't heard any updates lately suggests no other cruise ships have dropped more food off for them, i wonder how the people at the back of the buffet line are doing.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:41 |
|
|
Milky_Sauce posted:There's truthers for every major news story these days. It's like she's totally ignoring the fact that a fire broke out on the cruise and they lost power, and instead thinks people are just badmouthing Carnival Cruises in general. "Huh? That doesn't make sense. I was on a Carnival Cruise a few years ago and the rooms were air conditioned and we had plenty of food and there certainly wasn't any urine or feces all over the floors and walls. These people must be making this up!" How can people be this dense? Powershift posted:Couldn't they set up ziplines, and pretend it's a mandatory fun activity? Someone called in CNN who's parents are on the cruise. Apparently the food isn't being rationed out, it's first come first serve, and the lines are so long the wait is nearly 2-hours on average, and because of this people are hoarding food. And if you weren't lucky enough to get a hamburger, you're eating condiment and onion sandwiches. Captain Pancakes fucked around with this message at Feb 13, 2013 around 21:51 |
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 21:46 |
|
|
Peenigrippe posted:The situation isn't much safer than their having sprung a leak. It's a very different situation, and it is much safer. "Springing a leak", by which I assume you mean the ship would be sinking, would put the passengers lives in immediate danger. They have life boats and life rafts for that purpose; you get the pax and crews off the boat before it sinks (And even that is an absolute last resort). Then other ships or the Coast Guard comes along and picks people off the survival craft. A cruise ship sinking is a major loving disaster. The people on the Triumph are inconvenienced, sure. Could there be health issues arrising from their living conditions? Absolutely. Are they in immediate danger? Not at all. They're afloat, they've got food and water. Sucks to be them, but they're not dying. The other thing to keep in mind - Beyond how difficult it is to transfer personnel from one ship to another on the open sea - is that you'd need a ship with enough room for 4000 people. That rules out, well, everything but another cruise ship. Does anyone in the area have a cruise ship that's just sitting around empty? Heck no. So you have to find either a ship big enough, or multiple ships whose capacity add up to the Triumph's, then dump the passengers somewhere (Ideally a turn-around port, so in that area that's Galveston, Miami, New Orlean or Fort Lauderdale, pretty much), turn the boat around and head back out to wherever the Triumph is by now. So three or four days to get a ship on location isn't that much of a stretch. (A day, day and a half, to get back to turnaround port, half a day to dump the passengers, probably at least a day to get to the Triumph). Plus however long it'd take to transfer the passengers, without their luggages, to the other ship. Getting to a port after that isn't much of an issue, a day at most. Four days, best case scenario, plus whatever time you need to transfer the passengers. Assuming you find a cruise ship you can just flip around at a moment's notice; I'd guess it'd take at least 12 hours of handwringing and negotiating before that could happen. The fire happened Sunday; they're supposed to be in port tomorrow, so four and a half - five days later. Carnival did screw up (How do you build a ship with a single point of failure for power distribution, come on!), but towing the ship to port with the passengers on board was the safest thing to do.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:00 |
|
|
Is there a reason why they are not rationing out the food other than they don't want a bunch of greedy hoarders getting pissed off and making things worse for everyone?
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:12 |
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Is there a reason why they are not rationing out the food other than they don't want a bunch of greedy hoarders getting pissed off and making things worse for everyone? I'm guessing they didn't realize people would hoard food, so they didn't have a mechanism in place to portion it out during the first distribution. I'm sure they've implemented a system by now.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:14 |
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Is there a reason why they are not rationing out the food other than they don't want a bunch of greedy hoarders getting pissed off and making things worse for everyone? I assume they're trying to appease people with food to make up for the whole sewage everywhere problem.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:15 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I assume they're trying to appease people with food to make up for the whole sewage everywhere problem. Yeah, nothing diminishes problems with sewage everywhere and toilets not working like allowing fat greedy people all the food they can carry.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:17 |
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Is there a reason why they are not rationing out the food other than they don't want a bunch of greedy hoarders getting pissed off and making things worse for everyone? These people are trained in buffets, not disaster management. It's the complete opposite approach to food and they got caught with their pants down.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:19 |
|
|
Annakie posted:I just sent that link to my mom. Is it all seniors who go on these, so I'd be horribly out of place if I'm in my mid-30's? She's getting super excited about taking one of these trips now. (She's looking at the QM2 cruise right now I think.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:19 |
|
|
How smart is it to let passengers hoard and eat unlimited low quality buffet food in an already stinking closed environment without operational bathroom facilities and a lack of toilet paper? 4000 passengers? There is going to be a lot of horror stories and negative travel experiences spreading like wildfire online to manage.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:22 |
|
|
Powershift posted:Yeah, nothing diminishes problems with sewage everywhere and toilets not working like allowing fat greedy people all the food they can carry.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:23 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I assume they're trying to appease people with food to make up for the whole sewage everywhere problem. Some people are appeased. Some people are stuck with a PB&J with the same sewage problem around them
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:23 |
|
|
Copley Depot posted:And nothing helps a problem with non-functioning toilets like giving said greedy people all the hamburger they can eat. It could be worse such as feeding people Thai food or beans without rice.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:25 |
|
|
It is a shame we'll never hear what it is like to be crew on the ship at this point. Both from the disaster management perspective, and that it isn't likely that the toilets and showers in steerage dormitories work any better than the ones on the paying customer decks. Also not a lot of chance that there is anything like hazard pay for these poor bastards.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:29 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:12 |
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:It is a shame we'll never hear what it is like to be crew on the ship at this point. Both from the disaster management perspective, and that it isn't likely that the toilets and showers in steerage dormitories work any better than the ones on the paying customer decks. I'm sure some activity staff crewmember from a first world country will publish a tell-all book about  how hard they had it.Keep in mind that a lot of the crew quarters are at or below the waterline. They sure as gently caress don't have windows. Slo-Tek posted:Also not a lot of chance that there is anything like hazard pay for these poor bastards.  Hazard pay!A lot of them might end up unemployed, if the ship is going to take a while to repair. Hopefully they'll find a berth on another ship, because it's not like any of them are eligible for unemployement insurance.
|
| # ? Feb 13, 2013 22:35 |
|
