Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Fire on Carnival Triumph. No engines, running on emergency generators.

nixonzm

By nixonzm,
in Carnival Cruise Lines

Recommended Posts

CanWeGoYet?

CanWeGoYet?

Posted
Posted
New CC news article

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5209

 

Vance Gulliksen, a Carnival Cruise Lines spokesman, told Cruise Critic he did not know how many buses or passengers went to each destination. Gulliksen said he also didn't know whether the company's president and CEO had traveled to New Orleans with the passengers.

 

Crew members, meanwhile, are resting in Mobile hotels. All ship's crew will receive their "full and normal compensation" for this sailing, Gulliksen said.

 

More terrible PR... CCL spokesman not knowing how many pax went where, meh, but not knowing if the CEO went with them...:confused:

 

At least they're not shorting the crew but they should be paying out bonuses and playing up the amazing job they did. The crew really saved the day for Carnival.

 

I hope all the crew and everyone working on the ship get bonuses. They should all get letters of commendation in their files too. This was done for all the staff working in the hospital unit when we had a fire and had to evacuate all our patients. We didn't get any $ bonus. But the letter of commendation is something tangible and you have it for the rest of your career - if you want to apply for different employment, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CanWeGoYet?

CanWeGoYet?

Posted
Posted
I just logged on today, so I haven't been following this thread. Why wasn't a ship sent to rescue the pax and bring them back to land?

 

Please refer to #2 on list of questions that have been answered.

 

Originally Posted by airmj2123 viewpost.gif I'm gonna get this out of the way and hopefully all who post will read and then not write something speculating about these things:

 

1) Triumph had an engine room fire that disabled it. We do not know if the fire was related to previous engine issues (an investigation will be done and several US agencies will have some involvement).

2) Removing passengers from the ship while in open waters is physically possible but is dangerous. Since the vessel was in no danger of sinking, there was no reason to remove passengers. (CG said it shouldn't be done)

3) Mobile was selected over the following closest ports: NOLA, Tampa, Galveston, and Progreso... Currents moved the ship about 90 miles after it was disabled. The current made Progreso difficult to reach. Triumph can't get under the bridge in Tampa. NOLA is too far up the river for a disabled ship. Galveston was against some of the currents and further than Mobile... (The dry dock in Mobile was likely a factor, but not the deciding one)

4) The crew was amazing.

5) The passengers on board did their best to help each other in a difficult situation.

6) It is impossible to know what compensation is fair. We weren't there and, therefore, have no ability to tell what is fair.

7) CCL will be fine after this disaster.

8) The ship was late arriving yesterday because both tugboats had problems (1 with prop and 1 with toe rope).

 

Hopefully that ends some of the speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrPete

MrPete

Posted
Posted
Someone posted on another thread about getting one less day of credit when their cruise was shortened by a day due to Sandy.

 

According to the rules of the program, should a cruise be shortened by any length, the credit should still be based on the full cruise.s

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrPete

MrPete

Posted
Posted
I wonder if the difference was that John Heald was on the Splendor? I read some of his blogs from the time of the Splendor fire, and I know he mentioned how often passengers had communication from him...it was frequent!

 

Which is why I'm still waiting for the name JEN BAXTER to surface.

 

Why couldn't she be feeding <someone> to post regular updates on FB and blogs like what was done for the Splendor? Was that channel squashed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrPete

MrPete

Posted
Posted
Carnival management and staff did an outstanding job of dealing with this situation. The staff stepped up to the task.

 

Our friends who were on the ship said they were embarrassed to be Americans.

 

Can you clarify this? Were they forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or something? Tested on questions found on a immigration test?

 

How is one embarrassed to be an American?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrPete

MrPete

Posted
Posted
As others have stated on this thread, Carnival is not worried about this incident whatsoever. They will change absolutely nothing. Their ships will still sail 98% full, they will not lose any bookings and their stock price has only dropped 5% which will recover very quickly when news reports die down. When you're the cheapest cruise line in the world, people will continue to book with you. So take your chances and don't complain if you're eating onion sandwiches for a week. You get what you pay for.

 

Did they share this with you? Whatsoever? Really?

 

And filling a ship is never a problem. Just like drawing customers into a store. Cut the pricing in a supermarket by 50%, you will be the busiest supermarket in town. "Our checkouts are always full!"

 

The secret is making money on the "98% full".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrPete

MrPete

Posted
Posted
CNN embarrassing themselves again tonight with this special on the Triumph. No matter what the passengers say, the keep asking leading negative questions hoping to find something up latch onto. Like last night, this did not go well for CNN.

 

I have FAR more respect for Carnival than I do for CNN.

 

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

LOL. They got you to watch. A win for CNN. Not to mention a "free" mention here.

 

I wonder how many others did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RRLLAL

RRLLAL

Posted
Posted
It really had nothing to do with sea state. That's something made up here. It has to do with a policy of the ship being the primary life boat. You do not evacuate a ship that is not in danger of being lost.

 

Made up here? Twice the Coast Guard said it would be too dangerous.

 

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RRLLAL

RRLLAL

Posted
Posted
LOL. They got you to watch. A win for CNN. Not to mention a "free" mention here.

 

I wonder how many others did?

 

Nice try at making a point, but you're wrong. Yea, they got me to watch but they lost in the end. CNN used to be my news source of choice, buy no more after this week of faux sensationalism.

 

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrPete

MrPete

Posted
Posted
Nice try at making a point, but you're wrong. Yea, they got me to watch but they lost in the end. CNN used to be my news source of choice, buy no more after this week of faux sensationalism.

 

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

They still got you back.

 

Make sure you catch Judge Jeanne tonight on FNC at 9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WetToes

WetToes

Posted
Posted
According to the rules of the program, should a cruise be shortened by any length, the credit should still be based on the full cruise.s

 

 

Be boarded the Pride in Oct., for a 7 day cruise. The ship never left the port. We were credited 5 days.

I was/am alright with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RRLLAL

RRLLAL

Posted
Posted
Yes, too dangerous. No, not due to sea state. It's dangerous due to the mere logistics of transferring 4200 people at sea.

 

Um, the Coast Guard spokesman I listened to on Monday never mentioned logistics (although I am sure that is problematic also). He did mention currents, wind, ship stability, etc. Not as cut and dry as you make it. Sea state as well as logistics were contributing factors.

 

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aquahound

Aquahound

Posted
Posted
Um, the Coast Guard spokesman I listened to on Monday never mentioned logistics (although I am sure that is problematic also). He did mention currents, wind, ship stability, etc. Not as cut and dry as you make it. Sea state as well as logistics were contributing factors.

 

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3

 

I make it cut and dry because I find it to be the easiest way to get my point across. Otherwise, people will argue every word. Expanding a little on how I know these things, I work for the CG, and have done so since 1993. I know people on Vigorous and know the decision making process. Truth is, a full ship evacuation was never really considered. That CG spokesman was probably just spewing reasons why a transfer would be dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seago2

Seago2

Posted
Posted
Excellent choice by you and the other RCCL pom pom wavers.

 

Cunard HAL Princess Seabourn...all CCL companies and all terrific IMHO

 

I wouldn't let HAL off the hook. I love cruising HAL but they have let maintenance slide on the O, the Z, the V and the M. Look at the threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cindy

Cindy

Posted
Posted
I wouldn't let HAL off the hook. I love cruising HAL but they have let maintenance slide on the O, the Z, the V and the M. Look at the threads.

 

Agreed...it's a frequent topic of conversation over there. We recently took our first HAL cruise and loved it, but it wasn't the cruise we originally booked. We changed ships and itineraries because of the persistent reports of plumbing and air conditioning problems on the first ship we chose. I was called some choice names at the time, and I was informed that it was unrealistic for me to expect that functioning air conditioning and plumbing would be included in my cruise fare!:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RRLLAL

RRLLAL

Posted
Posted
I make it cut and dry because I find it to be the easiest way to get my point across. Otherwise, people will argue every word. Expanding a little on how I know these things, I work for the CG, and have done so since 1993. I know people on Vigorous and know the decision making process. Truth is, a full ship evacuation was never really considered. That CG spokesman was probably just spewing reasons why a transfer would be dangerous.

 

I am sure it was never considered. People suggesting it were nuts. And yes, the CG guy did say it was dangerous and did give the reasons why.

 

Sent using my Commodore 64

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dockmaster

dockmaster

Posted
Posted
Yes, too dangerous. No, not due to sea state. It's dangerous due to the mere logistics of transferring 4200 people at sea.

 

Plus.......Not to mention what NO ONE has mentioned....Luggage.

It would be left behind. I'm sure the passengers would not have been happy with that.

 

billd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Set Sail on Sun Princess®
      • Hurricane Zone 2024
      • Cruise Insurance Q&A w/ Steve Dasseos of Tripinsurancestore.com June 2024
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...