An open letter - Why we've decided to stop cruising

[zqvol]

Of course if the ship had been where it was supposed to be, OR moving at an appropriate speed for its location all this would have been moot. The issue is not about ships and safety it is about a captain who made a number of bad judgements.

[KatetheWanderer]

My daughter is currently performing her third contract aboard a cruise ship and she has no concerns about her safety. Her collegues seem quite dismissive about the Concordia tragedy too.

 

I personally think the open letter is over the top but respect the writer's decision.

 

There is new Utube footage showing the boarding of life boats in a very calm manner (not chaotic at all). The crew filmed are even making jokes about the list of the ship. Clearly not footage the Media would want to show as they still want us to believe the whole evacuation was a total nightmare.

 

Scary horror sells. Throw sex into the mix and you've got an entire cruise board sitting at home on our computers breathlessly riveted for any new detail to chew on because, afterall, that could have been us. Although,we probably have a better chance of getting hit by a thunder bolt on our way into the cruise terminals in Florida. How did 4000 people get off that ship safely while it was tipped over? They must have sprouted wings.

[Blondie008]

Scary horror sells. Throw sex into the mix and you've got an entire cruise board sitting at home on our computers breathlessly riveted for any new detail to chew on because, afterall, that could have been us. Although,we probably have a better chance of getting hit by a thunder bolt on our way into the cruise terminals in Florida. How did 4000 people get off that ship safely while it was tipped over? They must have sprouted wings.

 

And THAT is the most common sense post I have seen on this forum in quite a while! Thank you!:)

[colkeena]

Well written letter.You are correct in assuming many feel like you but will just quietly stop cruising.I understand what you are saying and had some sleepless nights wondering what would have happened to us had we been on board that cruise. It is truly frightening to think about it.

Thank you for speaking for many.

[wolfganghowell]

OP, as you admit your decision is based on emotion. Absolutely you shouldn't cruise if it fills you with anxiety or fear. Your decision may change in the future if and when logic overtakes emotion. This was a fluke - a perfect storm of human error and bad decisions. It doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention and learn from it. You are making the right decision for you at this time - vacations are supposed to be relaxing not stressful. Best wishes for great vacation choices and should you return to cruising in the future, welcome back.

 

We certainly have had discussions on what we do in situations like this.

[SJ Cruisers]

Safety on a cruise ship is sort of like the TSA at the airports. Its designed to give the passengers a "warm and fuzzy" but as we know from reading the papers the TSA is nothing more than window dressing as evident from the audits that screeners continue to fail on possesing guns and explosives. The cruise companies can "dress up" safety or muster drills but in the end they are only as good as the crew members who will help them to safety. .

[pantalon]

Have you also given up driving a car? How about flying in a plane? Riding a bus? Many more people get killed by these activities.

 

You can drive safely or you can take risks. The same applies to almost everything we do: we can avoid risks and still make things which are known to be more or less risky. I always buckle up the safety belt when driving the car and wear helmet when riding bicycle. Some people don't and they risk more.

 

My point here is that Costa has deliberately and unnecessarily risked their ships and the lives of the crew and passengers by allowing (or allegedly demanding) the sail-by's by its captains. This time the unnecessary risk realized as accident and it seems that the negligence of the captain even worsened the situation.

 

I admit that I have believed that the cruise lines do not take risks like this kind of sail-bys because they cannot afford a disaster. If something like this happens, it is too expensive to any cruise line and has tremendous effect on the whole industry. So I expected they try to do everything to avoid this kind of things to happen.

 

Some people avoid airlines that are statistically more risky. Statistically, Costa Cruises has now become the riskiest cruise line. Cruisers like me who hate unnecessary risk may begin to choose other cruise lines not only because we feel more safe with them but because we do not accept Costa's way of risking us.

[Mr XFT]

People keep complimenting what a great open letter this is. What is wrong with you people? It's not a well written letter, unless you're trying to channel Chicken Little. What, did you just realize the captain actually has command of the ship? Did you just realize that he could do something stupid? You need proof that the captains are trustworthy? How about the thousands of cruises that HAVEN'T hit anything?

 

What makes you think this isolated incident is indicative enough of all the captains in the cruise industry, that you are unwilling to cruise on any line with anybody? You realize that even on the Concordia, more than 99% of the people aboard were fine? If the Star Princess fire was an incident that was well handled, why would you not extrapolate THAT out to assume the general state of readiness and concern for passengers is actually pretty good?

[Shari2]

jtmalt...thank you for sharing your letter with us. I, too, watched the National Geographic showing on the "Concordia" disaster. After having been on 10 cruises, I also imagined myself being on the ship, and being terrified. I know that I wouldn't have made it if I had to crawl down the side of the ship in the dark, or jump in the cold water...I know we would have our lifejackets on, but I don't swim and it would be even more terrifying.

 

I do think that I will cruise again, though. Something like this happening is very rare, and I do think that the cruise lines will be much stricter with the safety rules and trainings now. I do realize that we will never know how someone will react when their life is at risk.

 

I do hope that you will cruise again, but I sure understand if you don't. I am planning on cruising again, but I know when the time comes to book, I will be thinking of this tragedy that should have never happened. My heart goes out to all who lost their lives, and their loved ones, and all who suffered on this cruise.

[jtmalt]

People keep complimenting what a great open letter this is. What is wrong with you people? It's not a well written letter, unless you're trying to channel Chicken Little. What, did you just realize the captain actually has command of the ship? Did you just realize that he could do something stupid? You need proof that the captains are trustworthy? How about the thousands of cruises that HAVEN'T hit anything?

 

What makes you think this isolated incident is indicative enough of all the captains in the cruise industry, that you are unwilling to cruise on any line with anybody? You realize that even on the Concordia, more than 99% of the people aboard were fine? If the Star Princess fire was an incident that was well handled, why would you not extrapolate THAT out to assume the general state of readiness and concern for passengers is actually pretty good?

 

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I thought I made my reasons for my decision to stop spending my vacation dollars on cruising pretty clear, but perhaps if I restate in a different way, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

 

It's true that cruising is very safe, but when something does go wrong, it has the potential to affect between 2,400 and (with some of the enormous new ships) upwards of 5,000 people at one time.

 

In recent years there have been only three incidents that I would call major. The first was the fire on the Star Princess. The fire was brought quickly under control, and it was not necessary to launch lifeboats, but a fire aboard a cruise ship is certainly not a joking matter.

 

The second was the fire on board the Carnival Splendour, that left the ship adrift in the Pacific for 4 days with no power. Again, no passengers were harmed (even though they were quite uncomfortable), and lifeboats were not needed. On the other hand, the fact that the ship was so completely crippled by the chain of events was worthy of serious concern.

 

Of course, the latest incident was the Concordia. This was exponentially worse than the two previous incidents. First, a (perhaps) unauthorized course deviation ripped a 50 meter hole in the hull. Next, a long delay in mustering the passengers to the lifeboats on a ship that was obviously sinking. Finally, the inability to launch lifeboats due to the severe listing of the ship. It was only the fact that the ship came to rest on a shallow reef that allows us to talk about this in terms of 30 passengers lost instead of hundreds or thousands. If that ship had reached the tipping point in water just slightly deeper, there would have been nothing to keep it from sinking below the surface, and taking many trapped passengers with it.

 

So, in the one incident that DID require passengers to abandon ship, the procedures for doing so failed miserably. There is no reason a SINGLE life should have been lost on the Concordia.

 

With all of our technology, the methods for handling a ship wide evacuation have hardly changed since the sinking of the Titanic. They still rely on an all-too-human Captain to make a decision to abandon ship in a timely fashion, using 21st century lifeboats that are still using 19th century launching technology.

 

The appeal of cruising to the mainstream cruiser is a wonderful vacation in good hands. We stand on our balcony at night, looking at the dark ocean, and it gives us a thrill, but deep down, we've always thought we were safe. If the unimaginable happened, muster would be called and we would all proceed in a polite and orderly manner to safety. That illusion has been shattered, perhaps irrevocably, by this incident.

 

I'm an experienced cruiser. I've introduced many friends and family members to the benefits of cruising. I've skirted hurricanes, seen the inside of the infirmary, even suffered from norovirus. But, realizing that there is something inherently flawed with the muster and lifeboat procedures has made me take a step back from cruising, perhaps permanently.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm representative of a significant number of people. The current industry figures of a loss of 35% of bookings is clearly indicative of the fact. I wrote this letter to explain my viewpoint to Carnival Corporation in general and Princess Cruises in particular. Many other who feel this way probably would, as another poster put it, just silently stop spending their money on cruises.

 

Before the cruise lines can win back all those lost bookings, they need to understand the mindset of those who have stopped cruising, and figure out how to address those concerns.

 

Again, while I disagree with your "chicken little" characterization, I respect your opinion, and the opinions of everyone who has posted to this thread. While cruising is certainly statistically safe, that's small comfort to the families of those that perished in this particular instance.

[Host Mick]

 

...

 

So, in the one incident that DID require passengers to abandon ship, the procedures for doing so failed miserably. There is no reason a SINGLE life should have been lost on the Concordia.

 

With all of our technology, the methods for handling a ship wide evacuation have hardly changed since the sinking of the Titanic. They still rely on an all-too-human Captain to make a decision to abandon ship in a timely fashion, using 21st century lifeboats that are still using 19th century launching technology.

 

The appeal of cruising to the mainstream cruiser is a wonderful vacation in good hands. We stand on our balcony at night, looking at the dark ocean, and it gives us a thrill, but deep down, we've always thought we were safe. If the unimaginable happened, muster would be called and we would all proceed in a polite and orderly manner to safety. That illusion has been shattered, perhaps irrevocably, by this incident.

 

Whenever people put to sea in ships, they are going into harm's way. If you want a risk-free vacation, it can be found in hiding in the bottom of your closet as nothing is without risk. On your vacation ashore you face myriad risks from airplane crashes to automobile crashes, drowning in the pool or at the beach, being thrown by a horse, crashing your bicycle or being hit by a golf ball. It is a tribute to the hundreds of years of refinement of nautical technology and lessons learned that millions of people are able to put to sea every year and come back with little but wonderful memories and a few sunburns.

I take issue with your assertion that the abandon ship failed miserably. It worked spectacularly. Nearly all of the passengers and many of the crew were able to be evacuated in the first wave of boats. The boats returned to pick up most of the rest. Evacuating the ship is a horrifically risky operation and it's a tribute to the designers of the technology and to the training of the crew that the passengers were able to be evacuated mostly successfully. Was it perfect, oh heck no. It was messy and scary and tragic but that's the way that it's going to be unless the passengers are submitted to extensive training before the ship departs. As with every other shipboard catastrophy, there will be lessons learned and from that procedures will be improved and equipment will be updated and overall, sailing on cruise ships will become more safe.

[Keel Haul]

I have run out of my "No S*it Sherlock" awards for this thread.

The problem for the industry is not JTMalt, it is what the potential new passengers who are its life blood, what they make of this disaster, and the performance of both Costa and its parent company in damage limitation.

IMO the Costa brand may now be to toxic to retrieve.

[PizzaJohn 7]

Costa Cruises has now become the riskiest cruise line. Cruisers like me who hate unnecessary risk may begin to choose other cruise lines not only because we feel more safe with them but because we do not accept Costa's way of risking us.

 

So you honestly think that if, all that you say is true about Costa, they will continue to take those alleged risks?

 

Whatever happened and, if other cruise lines and companies did partake in these manoeuvres, they will certainly not be carried out in future.

 

All industries learn from accidents, near misses and experience. That is one of the reasons your car has seat belts and why there exists, cycling helmets.

[PizzaJohn 7]

IMO the Costa brand may now be to toxic to retrieve.

 

I have thought this all along but, when I aired my thoughts on CC in those early days after Concordia's accident, I was shouted down. Yes Costa will disappear but only with a re-branding exercise. Those ships will still exist and will still be owned by Carnival but, as the public have short memories, the association with Costa and the 'new' line will dim over time.

 

The only sad part is that they will eventually become Carnival clones and the variety that Costa added, will be lost

[Keel Haul]

JR I am new here, what interests me is the Xenophobic brand loyalty that seems to be fostered here.I lurked here before this accident looking at Costa to take my Croatian in laws on a surprise trip.

Nothing I have read would put me off Costa, I am still waiting for a response by a Croatian poster who was on the Concordia about the food, this is a make or break for us.

The pontification here that seems to be a badge of honor to some does amuse me...........what about you?

[Jolimont]

I agree with everything you wrote but I didn't come to the same conclusion about not cruising in the future. We'll do a land vacation this year and see what happens. But I'm sure we'll get back to cruising sooner or later because we really enjoy it.

 

Look at what happened with the MS Monarch of the Seas in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Monarch_of_the_Seas), similar events, much different outcome. The captain evacuated the ship right away and nobody died. Maybe it's the Norwegian captains, maybe it's just that one person, but he handled the situation wonderfully. Better training possibly? Better choice of who's got the right stuff to be a captain? No nonsense "I do my job" kind of person rather than flamboyant? I don't know. RCI seems like a better bet at this point.

 

I say this as someone who's very much enjoyed Carnival in the past, I think they put on a great cruise for a great price. But I smell a rat in their corporate culture--a personal perception-- and I am not sure they're going to change. Hush-hush paternalistic attitudes are not easily cured.

 

RCI works out to be about 20% more expensive, but they have lots of wonderful ships near where I live. So I am more likely to choose RCI again.

 

But good letter, I'm sure if wasn't easy to do.

[Sage]

Each person must assess the pros and cons of cruising in general and cruising events in particular in the light of their personal experiences and expectations. Those who wish to focus on positive qualities have much to point to and have done so very well. Those who feel concerned enough to alter their plans also have much to point to and have also done it well. After enjoying many cruises over the last 30 years, my spouse and I have reached a tipping point with the Concordia event and find that our scales have tipped against any cruising for the foreseeable future. We have always been concerned with stories about fires on ships, of which there are too many for our taste. A news story a few years ago of a Carnival ship leaving Miami with a fire out of control and the ship doing its best to get into international waters to avoid accountability clearly demonstrated where the cruise industry priorities lay and it was not with cruiser safety or convenience. The too-frequent stories about sexual batteries on board ships against passengers by crew members always seem to end with all of the maritime legal processes being used to protect the cruise lines and not the cruisers. Information coming out now about how the computation of life boat capacity has not kept up to date with the current size and typical weights of the cruising population indicates that any idea that everyone will have space aboard a life boat if needed is delusional at best and possibly deliberately misleading. Speaking only for ourselves, we find any suggestions that anything about the Concordia were well handled or reflect well on the industry to be very lacking in creditability. The loss of life was minimized by the ship being blown aground by the winds, not any actions by the captain or crew. The use of rope ladders on the high side of the ship with the requirement to jump at the bottom is not appealing and does not provide validation to those who can see themselves in that situation and have trouble seeing an outcome worth paying a fare to experience. Those passengers are the victims of crimes and those who committed those crimes will be protected by maritime law. So, my spouse and I are done with cruising after 30 years. May God watch over and protect those continue to cruise because they will surely need it.

[Mr XFT]

May God watch over and protect those continue to cruise because they will surely need it.

 

Yes, if you choose to continue cruising, may God have mercy on your soul! Oh brother. I think I know what you're doing though, it's for the kids, right? You're providing a textbook example of melodrama, so they can visualize it better.

 

I hope no one ever makes a documentary about the heart wrenching stories of people killed in car accidents through no fault of their own. You would certainly refuse to travel by car...or...maybe, just maybe you would take a reasonable approach to the MUCH more real, proven danger of automobiles than you have to your speculative "concern," that all ships are probably crewed by dirtbags, like the Concordia was.

[Dmetrius]

I say this as someone who's very much enjoyed Carnival in the past, I think they put on a great cruise for a great price. But I smell a rat in their corporate culture--a personal perception-- and I am not sure they're going to change.

I make a big distinction and a huge separation between Carnival Corp. of Miami, FL and Costa in Italy. Despite being owned one by the other

Costa is left alone to run its own affairs in Europe. I smell a rat alright, but it isn't in Miami Florida. I smell a rat in the corporate culture of Italy's Costa.

[pantalon]

So you honestly think that if, all that you say is true about Costa, they will continue to take those alleged risks?

 

Whatever happened and, if other cruise lines and companies did partake in these manoeuvres, they will certainly not be carried out in future.

 

All industries learn from accidents, near misses and experience. That is one of the reasons your car has seat belts and why there exists, cycling helmets.

 

If you read the first word in my original sentence you in your quote, it says 'Statistically'. Statistical safety is based on historical data.

 

I agree with you that Costa has probably been much safer cruise line since January 14 than it was until January 13.

 

I also appreciate your comment that cruise safety will benefit from this incident. I think this is nearly 'ideal' incident for the industry to learn from: there were relatively small number of casualties thanks to the wind beaching the ship. But on the other hand the financial losses are big enough (I think Carnival Corporation's latest estimate was up to $275 million this year) to make this a hard lesson.

[Jolimont]

I make a big distinction and a huge separation between Carnival Corp. of Miami, FL and Costa in Italy. Despite being owned one by the other

Costa is left alone to run its own affairs in Europe. I smell a rat alright, but it isn't in Miami Florida. I smell a rat in the corporate culture of Italy's Costa.

 

Well, yes, but it could be that both have issues. Carnival wasn't too forthcoming with information with the Splendor fire, told passengers everything's fine for several hours. Heald was having fits on his blog and facebook asking people to stop speculating about the Concordia's captain and his misdeeds. My impression was he wanted people to shush about it which doesn't strike me as a transparent attitude.

 

I don't know for a fact, but it could be both sides of that corporation are not healthy. Of course I could be wrong too, this is just based on my perception, not that I have any inside information or anything. We must all decide what's best for us based on whatever little bits of information and gut feelings we have. But for me I hate being told "Trust me, I've got it under control little lady", raises my hackles in a millisecond.

[tntornadox]

Well, yes, but it could be that both have issues. Carnival wasn't too forthcoming with information with the Splendor fire, told passengers everything's fine for several hours. Heald was having fits on his blog and facebook asking people to stop speculating about the Concordia's captain and his misdeeds. My impression was he wanted people to shush about it which doesn't strike me as a transparent attitude.

 

I don't know for a fact, but it could be both sides of that corporation are not healthy. Of course I could be wrong too, this is just based on my perception, not that I have any inside information or anything. We must all decide what's best for us based on whatever little bits of information and gut feelings we have. But for me I hate being told "Trust me, I've got it under control little lady", raises my hackles in a millisecond.

 

What was John Heald gonna say on the Splendor? "Ladies and gentlemen, the ship is on bloody fire! FIRE I SAY! But don't panic! Everything is alright, even though you still see smoke and it's very thick... FIRE!" If it was under control (which it was) why would you worry passengers with thoughts of a raging fire out of control? As I have said before, I won't argue if it's right or not, but they will do whatever they can to not start a panic onboard... even if it means not being totally forthcoming.

 

Also, John Heald does not speak for Carnival Corporation, he is Carnival Cruise Lines' brand ambassador and is known to say things he shouldn't say, even if they are his own personal opinions.

[KatetheWanderer]

I agree with everything you wrote but I didn't come to the same conclusion about not cruising in the future. We'll do a land vacation this year and see what happens. But I'm sure we'll get back to cruising sooner or later because we really enjoy it.

 

Look at what happened with the MS Monarch of the Seas in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Monarch_of_the_Seas), similar events, much different outcome. The captain evacuated the ship right away and nobody died. Maybe it's the Norwegian captains, maybe it's just that one person, but he handled the situation wonderfully. Better training possibly? Better choice of who's got the right stuff to be a captain? No nonsense "I do my job" kind of person rather than flamboyant? I don't know. RCI seems like a better bet at this point.

 

I say this as someone who's very much enjoyed Carnival in the past, I think they put on a great cruise for a great price. But I smell a rat in their corporate culture--a personal perception-- and I am not sure they're going to change. Hush-hush paternalistic attitudes are not easily cured.

 

RCI works out to be about 20% more expensive, but they have lots of wonderful ships near where I live. So I am more likely to choose RCI again.

 

But good letter, I'm sure if wasn't easy to do.

 

Check out this thread for the rest of the story on RCI/RCCL's safety record and how the captain got the Monarch in a jam. Fortunately he had a sandbar nearby and the good sense to stay with his ship. Not sure what happened with the later gas leak and the other captain with the alleged alcohol issue.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1561798

[Jolimont]

but they will do whatever they can to not start a panic onboard... even if it means not being totally forthcoming.

 

Isn't there a reasonable position between causing a panic and "not being totally forthcoming"?

 

Panic is a difficult thing to understand, those who make announcements on the PA system should be cautious. But let's remember that a surprising number of people react with steely calm in the face of terrible emergencies and those are the ones who save the day.

 

Can we agree that in the case of the Concordia, earlier evacuation would have saved lives?

People in command know quickly what degree of emergency they are facing. Adverse events happen all the time on a cruise ship, 99% of it is totally minor, routine, they don't get a major engine fire or hull breach every day.

 

Concordia captain knew it was major, he got off the ship in a hurry, didn't he? He also thought he could hide his lack of leadership behind the "I didn't want to cause panic" excuse. The other people in the command chain also knew they could say they took forever to call the evacuation order because they didn't want to cause a panic. There's your bad corporate culture. It's more than the desire to avoid panic, it's hiding behind that excuse even in the face of the ship actually sinking.

 

There must be a degree of emergency beyond which they MUST inform and present a rescue plan. That will do more to avoid panic than what they did on the Concordia.

[Jolimont]

Check out this thread for the rest of the story on RCI/RCCL's safety record and how the captain got the Monarch in a jam. Fortunately he had a sandbar nearby and the good sense to stay with his ship. Not sure what happened with the later gas leak and the other captain with the alleged alcohol issue.

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1561798

 

Thank you Kate, yes I have been reading this thread. Scary things happen at sea, but not to me, YET.