Senator calls for investagation into RC Anthem

Politics on a message board....NEVER goes well. :eek:

+1.

Lots of opinions and organizational spin being advanced. I guess it is to be expected.

I am looking for the answer to one simple question:

Why was the decision made to sail a cruise ship into an expected storm that ultimately put over 6400 people in harm's way?

cbr663: Why was the decision made to sail a cruise ship into an expected storm that ultimately put over 6400 people in harm's way?

That is not a valid question. What must first be answered is, what was the true storm forecast at the time of sailing. Only if it is true that 100 knots winds were forecasted would your question be valid. However, everything I am seeing so far indicates there were no such reports prior to sailing.

Obviously weather forecasting is not an exact science, but I would believe a professional meteorologist's forecast and opinion over that of the ship captain.

 

I agree that we don't know what forecast the captain was relying upon, but perhaps that's the problem. Perhaps Royal Caribbean relies too much on the captain's judgement or if they employ a meteorological consultant perhaps that service blew the forecast.

This is precisely my point: while I agree that a professional meteorologist's prediction is likely to be a better estimate of upcoming conditions than a captain's gut feeling, there are usually fairly wide variances among the predictions (even fairly near-term ones) made by professional meteorologists.

The bottom line is: while after the fact review shows that a wiser decision would have been to remain in port, what real damage was done? I do not believe that there were any significant injuries, and whatever material damage was experienced was to RC's property and thus their business.

Sure, there should be evaluation of the decision process -- but not by a bunch of amateur Monday-morningers; better to wait for initial disclosure by the line and its personnel and consultants, rather than rush for another Congressional boondoggle.

This is precisely my point: while I agree that a professional meteorologist's prediction is likely to be a better estimate of upcoming conditions than a captain's gut feeling, there are usually fairly wide variances among the predictions (even fairly near-term ones) made by professional meteorologists.

 

The bottom line is: while after the fact review shows that a wiser decision would have been to remain in port, what real damage was done? I do not believe that there were any significant injuries, and whatever material damage was experienced was to RC's property and thus their business.

 

Sure, there should be evaluation of the decision process -- but not by a bunch of amateur Monday-morningers; better to wait for initial disclosure by the line and its personnel and consultants, rather than rush for another Congressional boondoggle.

Do you really expect ANY company to perform an internal review (of a situation that put them in the center of a media "storm" and created bad PR) then come out and say something along the lines of "Man, did we really $crew the pooch on this one!"?

Whatever statement that follows, regardless of their findings, will be heavily laced with spin.

That is not a valid question. What must first be answered is, what was the true storm forecast at the time of sailing. Only if it is true that 100 knots winds were forecasted would your question be valid. However, everything I am seeing so far indicates there were no such reports prior to sailing.

On this point we shall have to agree to disagree. For instance, the NOAA issued warnings on Friday at 1:00 pm of hurricane force winds for Sunday.

On this point we shall have to agree to disagree. For instance, the NOAA issued warnings on Friday at 1:00 pm of hurricane force winds for Sunday.

The force of the winds is not the only consideration; the location of the storm, its size and it's projected path are significant elements. If there was reasonable expectation that the storm would be centered far enough from the ship's projected course for passage to be safe, sailing would have been a reasonable decision.

On just what point do you propose we agree to disagree? That whenever there is a storm anywhere no ship should ever sail? Or just to delay sailing when the ship's projected path would place it in danger?

That is not a valid question. What must first be answered is, what was the true storm forecast at the time of sailing. Only if it is true that 100 knots winds were forecasted would your question be valid. However, everything I am seeing so far indicates there were no such reports prior to sailing.

If ships only considered the known weather situation at time of departure, there would be many more weather related incidents.

I think the question is a little more involved than the known weather situation at departure. Some examination of how closely the ship monitored the conditions and predictions would be useful. As well as a determination if there was a time after departure that a decision to turn around or otherwise seek shelter would have proved more prudent than the course followed.

I do believe that the decision to leave port was made by the captain and the head office in Miami. I believe that both knew of the weather forecast. I believe both agreed to leave port and head into the storm. As it turned out, it was worse than they anticipated. It cost more than cancelling or delaying the cruise. The compensation to the passengers was more than reasonable.

I see no problem with government investigation of the dynamics and how it happened. I doubt that the captain or the cruise line would be found to be derelict.

+1.

 

Lots of opinions and organizational spin being advanced. I guess it is to be expected.

 

I am looking for the answer to one simple question:

 

Why was the decision made to sail a cruise ship into an expected storm that ultimately put over 6400 people in harm's way?

While a storm was most likely expected, its magnitude was most likely NOT expected by those who made the decision to sail.

"In harm's way" is a rather dramatic term for an event where 6400 people spent several days with perhaps five or six experiencing MINOR injuries. I would be surprised if that number of patrons at Disneyland would suffer any fewer MINOR injuries of a comparable time period.

The reports, and the public response, demonstrate an appalling level of hysteria.

While a storm was most likely expected, its magnitude was most likely NOT expected by those who made the decision to sail.

 

"In harm's way" is a rather dramatic term for an event where 6400 people spent several days with perhaps five or six experiencing MINOR injuries. I would be surprised if that number of patrons at Disneyland would suffer any fewer MINOR injuries of a comparable time period.

 

The reports, and the public response, demonstrate an appalling level of hysteria.

Royal Caribbean has now admitted there are gaps in their planning system that they are addressing. In other words they are starting to own up to the fact that they screwed up. Here's the excerpt from an NBC 4 report:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Storm-Ravaged-Cruise-Ship-to-Arrive-at-NJ-Port-368330211.html

Royal Caribbean apologized "for exposing our guests and crew to the weather they faced, and for what they went through."

"The event, exceptional as it was, identified gaps in our planning system that we are addressing," the company said in a statement. "Though that system has performed well through many instances of severe weather around the world, what happened this week showed that we need to do better."

I do believe that the decision to leave port was made by the captain and the head office in Miami. I believe that both knew of the weather forecast. I believe both agreed to leave port and head into the storm. As it turned out, it was worse than they anticipated. It cost more than cancelling or delaying the cruise. The compensation to the passengers was more than reasonable.

 

I see no problem with government investigation of the dynamics and how it happened. I doubt that the captain or the cruise line would be found to be derelict.

The only compensation I have heard about is a refund of the cruise fare and a certificate for 50% of that amount that can be applied to another cruise.

No mention of compensation for travel and travel change expenses.

The 50% off another cruise is not compensation. It actually requires passengers to give Royal Caribbean more money. There is no mention of any limits placed on using this certificate. What if a passenger cannot afford another cruise within whatever time limit is placed on the 50% reduction? How about those that never wish to cruise RCI as a result of this experience, (while that might not be my choice it is a perfectly reasonable reaction)? Neither groups receive any benefit. In fact they are out of pocket significant amounts as a result of what may turn out to be less than stellar decision making by RCI.

Senator Nelson is from Florida. There are 5 cruise ship ports in Florida. Maybe this is why he wants it investigated.

I had no idea there would be so many responses to my question when I posted my question.

Senator Nelson is from Florida. There are 5 cruise ship ports in Florida. Maybe this is why he wants it investigated.

No, he doesn't. He wants RCI to look bad because he is backed by Carnival.

I think that Sen. Nelson has been chosen by the group that is behind asking the NTSB to investigate why the ship was sent forth into a serious storm that was well forecast to happen because he is from Florida.

Now I know the Royal supporters here will not be happy with the prospect that Fain and his cohorts are found to have screwed up "royally", but the fact remains that the ship sailed from a U. S. port and the majority of the passengers were U. S. citizens.

Facts are needed, not speculation and the only way we will determine the reasons for the ship being put in harms way is by having expert investigators conduct an investigation.

Doc

I think that Sen. Nelson has been chosen by the group that is behind asking the NTSB to investigate why the ship was sent forth into a serious storm that was well forecast to happen because he is from Florida.

 

Now I know the Royal supporters here will not be happy with the prospect that Fain and his cohorts are found to have screwed up "royally", but the fact remains that the ship sailed from a U. S. port and the majority of the passengers were U. S. citizens.

 

Facts are needed, not speculation and the only way we will determine the reasons for the ship being put in harms way is by having expert investigators conduct an investigation.

 

Doc

By this I gather that you don't feel the Bahamian Maritime Authority are expert enough to conduct an investigation? They have already announced that they will be doing one, and have asked for USCG "assistance".

Here is a quote from a news article another poster put on the other thread on this topic:

"The NTSB, meanwhile, released a statement saying the incident involved a Bahamian-flagged ship in international waters, and "we are actively engaged with our U.S. and international partners to determine what would be the best course of action, in accordance with established international protocols."

The agency acknowledged that it had received Nelson's request that it review the "incident as part of its investigation into the El Faro accident," in which a Florida-based cargo ship traveled into a hurricane and sunk near the Bahamas in October."

Bolding mine. Nelson is trying to umbrella this under the El Faro investigation, which of course is within the purview of the USCG, with assistance from the NTSB, as the El Faro was US flag. This is apples and oranges.

Note that the NTSB is only looking at the best way to enter the investigation, being fully aware of international laws.

No disputing your facts of where the cruise originated, or where the passengers came from. What is in dispute is how far US government can involve itself in the sovereign matters of another country. Again, this is what cruisers don't realize when they go on a foreign flag ship, it is not part of the US, and doesn't have to follow all US laws.

I think that Sen. Nelson has been chosen by the group that is behind asking the NTSB to investigate why the ship was sent forth into a serious storm that was well forecast to happen because he is from Florida.

 

Now I know the Royal supporters here will not be happy with the prospect that Fain and his cohorts are found to have screwed up "royally", but the fact remains that the ship sailed from a U. S. port and the majority of the passengers were U. S. citizens.

 

Facts are needed, not speculation and the only way we will determine the reasons for the ship being put in harms way is by having expert investigators conduct an investigation.

 

Doc

While I understand the premise of your post, I can't say that I agree with it.

First, the Senator Nelson bit with NTSB. NTSB is a safety board. They are non-regulatory so "why" isn't the purpose of their existence. It's more "how," to pave the way for future best practice.

Second, the bit about Royal supporters. I see a bit of a divide there because it seems the supporters of any other line than Royal can't or refuse to acknowledge the fact that Senator Nelson is in Carnival Corp's back pocket, suggesting his involvement is based on corporate competition. I'm an equal opportunity cruiser...not loyal to any one line, but I would much rather see a Senator involved who does not receive a significant portion of his contributions from a major cruise corporation. 2, actually. Disney is another major contributor to him.

Third, on your last point, I will agree with you. Facts certainly are needed and one way or another, I'm sure the facts will eventually come out. However, I do respect sovereignty, bilateral agreements and MOUs that spell out who/how/what the process is.

I keep seeing posters comment on Sen. Nelson receiving contributions from Disney and Carnival. Big flipping deal!!!

Imagine that, a corporation with a HUGE operation in both their land based revenue channel and a very large cruise operation gives money to an incumbent US Senator from that State. They are joined by a cruise line that is heavily vested in operations in Florida. Duh! I am SHOCKED that RCI doesn't contribute as well...they fact that they don't is their short-sightedness and not my concern.

Are these people saying that any elected official in Washington who takes a contribution from a corporation can NEVER comment on a major event in a related industry? If so, they are (in my opinion) completely and utterly foolish. They really should put down the RCI Kool-Aid and pom-poms.

As for having more important issues to address...Well, I hope that the fine people of Florida were smart enough to elect someone capable of thinking about more than one subject at a time.

Geez...

And that, right there, is why they continue to get away with it.

Sad. :(

The only compensation I have heard about is a refund of the cruise fare and a certificate for 50% of that amount that can be applied to another cruise.

 

No mention of compensation for travel and travel change expenses.

 

The 50% off another cruise is not compensation. It actually requires passengers to give Royal Caribbean more money. There is no mention of any limits placed on using this certificate. What if a passenger cannot afford another cruise within whatever time limit is placed on the 50% reduction? How about those that never wish to cruise RCI as a result of this experience, (while that might not be my choice it is a perfectly reasonable reaction)? Neither groups receive any benefit. In fact they are out of pocket significant amounts as a result of what may turn out to be less than stellar decision making by RCI.

Are you serious? Full refund of fare paid - without deduction for meals and entertainment already received - is a substantial piece of compensation.

Someone might not want to sail RCI again, but that does not mean that value is not being offered -- it is absurd to say it "...is not compensation...". It might not be what you would want -- which, by the way, would be interesting to hear: what would YOU say was fair compensation?

And that, right there, is why they continue to get away with it.

 

Sad. :(

Paul, this political / transportation / $$$$ nonsense has been going on for a long time, and not just with ships.

Perhaps the best story is about PAN AM and TWA which played out in the late 1940s and, yes, a US senator was involved, who was in Pan Am's "pocket".

Scroll down the page, and you can read it here under the heading.

"Opposition to Howard Hughes".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Brewster

Hughes owned TWA, but senator Brewster was in the pocket of Juan Trippe and Pan Am, the latter wanting exclusive rights all all US international air routes.

There is a good scene about the senate hearings against Hughes in the movie "The Aviator", starring Leonardo Dicaprio.

So, Nelson, Brewster? Same Zebra, just different stripes!

Are you serious? Full refund of fare paid - without deduction for meals and entertainment already received - is a substantial piece of compensation.

 

Someone might not want to sail RCI again, but that does not mean that value is not being offered -- it is absurd to say it "...is not compensation...". It might not be what you would want -- which, by the way, would be interesting to hear: what would YOU say was fair compensation?

We'll see when the first lawsuit is filed. Guess those things you mentioned offset the cost to change travel arrangements, any lodging or other expenses resulting from those changes, the lost opportunity to have a leisurely vacation, etc.

And to some extent, the 50% off is not compensation. If I have to spend money to get something I am not really saving much. Not sure how you personally feel about RCI, but my guess is that anyone on their first cruise is not likely to be interested in giving the corporation any more of their hard earned money and (possibly) precious vacation time.

A real-life example...I was given a $50 gift card to a VERY nice restaurant about an hour drive from my home (my employer has their end-of-year party for all the managers there) but it is only good with a $100 purchase of food. Now, we were planning on going there for Valentine's Day anyway so that has real value to us. However, for the employees that came down from Colorado that also received those cards they are of absolutely no value as they are not likely to drive 14 hours (each way) and cough up at least one night in a hotel for half off a meal.

We'll see when the first lawsuit is filed. Guess those things you mentioned offset the cost to change travel arrangements, any lodging or other expenses resulting from those changes, the lost opportunity to have a leisurely vacation, etc.

 

And to some extent, the 50% off is not compensation. If I have to spend money to get something I am not really saving much. Not sure how you personally feel about RCI, but my guess is that anyone on their first cruise is not likely to be interested in giving the corporation any more of their hard earned money and (possibly) precious vacation time.

 

A real-life example...I was given a $50 gift card to a VERY nice restaurant about an hour drive from my home (my employer has their end-of-year party for all the managers there) but it is only good with a $100 purchase of food. Now, we were planning on going there for Valentine's Day anyway so that has real value to us. However, for the employees that came down from Colorado that also received those cards they are of absolutely no value as they are not likely to drive 14 hours (each way) and cough up at least one night in a hotel for half off a meal.

Of course there will be law suits - this is America (land of the lawyer), after all. It will be interesting to see their outcome. All passengers on cruises travel with the understanding (if they are able to read) that itineraries are subject to modification - including loss of ports, shortening of travel time, etc. due to weather or other causes.

If someone elects not to use an item of value (such as a 50% discount on a cruise, or a free lunch), that is his decision - it does not obliterate the value of that item.

Of course there will be law suits - this is America (land of the lawyer), after all. It will be interesting to see their outcome. All passengers on cruises travel with the understanding (if they are able to read) that itineraries are subject to modification - including loss of ports, shortening of travel time, etc. due to weather or other causes.

 

If someone elects not to use an item of value (such as a 50% discount on a cruise, or a free lunch), that is his decision - it does not obliterate the value of that item.

Kindly show where I said it did. Here's a hint...you can't. I said "...to some extent."

And, all those things you mentioned being in the cruise contract go out the window if a judge (or more probably a jury) rules that the majority of the evidence shows the corporation (by virtue of the actions/decisions of their officer in charge) were negligent.

Royal Caribbean has now admitted there are gaps in their planning system that they are addressing. In other words they are starting to own up to the fact that they screwed up. Here's the excerpt from an NBC 4 report:

 

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Storm-Ravaged-Cruise-Ship-to-Arrive-at-NJ-Port-368330211.html

Royal Caribbean apologized "for exposing our guests and crew to the weather they faced, and for what they went through."

"The event, exceptional as it was, identified gaps in our planning system that we are addressing," the company said in a statement. "Though that system has performed well through many instances of severe weather around the world, what happened this week showed that we need to do better."

This is a great step forward. I especially like that RC is stating the affect that the incident has had on the people on board.

Kindly show where I said it did. Here's a hint...you can't. I said "...to some extent."

 

And, all those things you mentioned being in the cruise contract go out the window if a judge (or more probably a jury) rules that the majority of the evidence shows the corporation (by virtue of the actions/decisions of their officer in charge) were negligent.

A bit over-sensitive, perhaps? I did not imply or suggest that you declared that reluctance to use something obliterated its value -- I simply stated that a person's decision NOT to use something did NOT obliterate its value.

So, since you can't show where I made any such suggestion, you might consider thinking a bit before rushing into argument.