Shadow --- i'll wait for the facts

[chengkp75]

I am curious as to what kind of lawsuits some of you are anticipating. Customers suing the cruiseline? Or.....??

 

My thoughts, too. Since the ships are registered in the Bahamas, and the company is incorporated in Monaco, does anyone know what the liability laws in Monaco are? Unless you became sick on the Shadow on this particular cruise, or possibly the one before, what is the basis of the suit?

[UKCruiseJeff]

My thoughts, too. Since the ships are registered in the Bahamas, and the company is incorporated in Monaco, does anyone know what the liability laws in Monaco are? Unless you became sick on the Shadow on this particular cruise, or possibly the one before, what is the basis of the suit?

 

Not speaking for anywhere else other than the UK.

 

There isn't as far as I can see a current issue that can be litigated in the UK. However if someone had been ill in the past ..... and SS had said that they always complied with sanitation laws then that issue could be revisited.

 

However there is a potential future issue for people in the UK with cruises booked who may wish to cancel and/or who do or not if they receive exactly waht was on the tin when they booked. I'm suprised more people haven;t taken the claimed quality v the delivered quality up more in British courts. This things are normall in favour of the claimant in the UK.

 

In the UK it doesn't matter where the owning company or ship is based it is where the contract is made ie in the UK.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Well exactly, this had to come from at least mid level, if not higher, in the company.

 

I think the problem is where did the instructions start from. Also what flavours how SS will react is where in the business was the root of these issues.

 

As a VP of Operations you can hardly fire people who were carrying out your explicit or implicit instructions.. However if they weren't then you need to establish who was merely "following instructions" down the line and where the instructions germinated and whether mid-managers registered an objection if they were required to do what they knew to be wrong - and at what executive level did the rot start.

 

In my humble opinion the lower you are the more you are expected to carry out what you are told to do without question, the higher you are the more you are obligated to object and should document your objections. Low people who did what they were simply told what to do should NOT be fired. More senior people that complied without documented objection should be. And the root of this however senior most certaintly.

 

Just my 'umble opinion sir.

 

Apologies for any ipad induced mistypes on any of my posts.

[Mr Luxury]

Ofcourse the instruction could have come from as low a position as the F& B manager.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Ofcourse the instruction could have come from as low a position as the F& B manager.

 

I agree. The only human-level concern I have is if he was bullied from above. It would have been an F&B manager that insisted on the bar people not being properly paid for over-time if that happened. If so, then to me it would imp,y that he was told that he must comply with unsquarable budgets from above, and then it just needs a touch of real probing. It is my instinct that they were all "at it" from VP of Ops down and therefore the ethos cascaded down throughout the fleet, and if that proves to be correct an F&B manager would be pretty powerless to resist.

[Mr Luxury]

I agree. The only human-level concern I have is if he was bullied from above. It would have been an F&B manager that insisted on the bar people not being properly paid for over-time if that happened. If so, then to me it would imp,y that he was told that he must comply with unsquarable budgets from above, and then it just needs a touch of real probing. It is my instinct that they were all "at it" from VP of Ops down and therefore the ethos cascaded down throughout the fleet, and if that proves to be correct an F&B manager would be pretty powerless to resist.

 

Yes,that's right.

I would have thought that a fleet wide inspection from the CDC might have taken place by now and also a fleet wide instruction from whoever at SS was cooking the books,albeit at not the right temperature.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Yes,that's right.

I would have thought that a fleet wide inspection from the CDC might have taken place by now and also a fleet wide instruction from whoever at SS was cooking the books,albeit at not the right temperature.

 

The night is young. I hope that the CDC quickly introduce cross-fleet inspections to establish how endemic the deceptions/dishonesty is. And then bayonet the wounded with no prisoners taken.

 

In the unlikely eent ( ;) ) that my instinct is correct, then what also mitigates in favour of a bit of latitude for F&B level is you wonder how much day to day cross-fleet peer communications were possible. On a land-based operation these guys would be talking and chewing the cud with each other and complaining about management and conspiring to resist. It may not be possible on these operations and these guys amy actually be very isolated, lonely and vulnerable.

 

There are more layers above the F&B manager than below - he is quite junior in this org - and I think he might be the squeezed ham in the sandwich. Mercilessly oppressed potentially.

[Merriem]

Yesterday my TA finally got a phone call from Frank, who is supposed to be the head of guest relations. As I had said before this info came out TWO days after final payment. Apparently Frank was a very rude person. He would do nothing for us, and was insulting. I cannot understand how anyone could be like that under the circumstances. He said I would have to pay a 15% penalty , and he would give us a cruise credit for ANOTHER cruise for that amount. How this man thinks that a person who has been burnt twice by this company would ever go again on one of their filthy ships has to be living in a dream world. The right thing to do would to apologize all over the place and just give us a refund, but he is some words that I cannot post here.

 

It would be wise if other luxury lines would be reading this, and say..."come over here and we will just give you a credit for the amount that Silversea is charging you for their failings"

 

Think about it...every time I think about that Shadow cruise , and knowing now what was going on, it makes me sick.

[Travelcat2]

Merriem: Thank you for the update! Know I know what we would be faced with if we tried to cancel.

 

I was wondering if the Shadow would have had passing marks if they had not hidden the food and equipment and had just let the rotting food remain where it was originally (in the kitchen). While they definitely would have had points off for the food temperature/storage, they would not have lost so many points for hiding food in crew quarters. Just a thought.

[Merriem]

Merriem: Thank you for the update! Know I know what we would be faced with if we tried to cancel.

 

I was wondering if the Shadow would have had passing marks if they had not hidden the food and equipment and had just let the rotting food remain where it was originally (in the kitchen). While they definitely would have had points off for the food temperature/storage, they would not have lost so many points for hiding food in crew quarters. Just a thought.

 

They are going to lose a lot of customers. I am not going to cancel and let them keep my 15%. This November cruise is for both our birthdays....it is a real shame that this is the way they run their business.

 

As far as hiding the food, it makes no sense, but is total stupidity. They deserve those scores, and they get a ZERO for guest relations.

[UKCruiseJeff]

I was wondering if the Shadow would have had passing marks if they had not hidden the food and equipment and had just let the rotting food remain where it was originally (in the kitchen). While they definitely would have had points off for the food temperature/storage, they would not have lost so many points for hiding food in crew quarters. Just a thought.

 

 

Well, I for one have no idea. I am surprised at how such serious breaches still produce a 82% score.

 

In the UK we have a "scores on the doors" inspection of food premises and the scale is a simple 1 to 5 Serious breaches on any front take the whole total score down to 2 or 1 or "closed". It can be generally perfect but if their are infestations or filthy conditions or bad storage it takes the whole score South. 82 gives a totally false level of reassurance largely because it seems to be taken as a total accumulation of too many factors. In real life if you hear of a restaurant on land in the UK doing all this it would be closed. The problem is these score are for the whole ship - not just catering.

 

In the environment we are discussing here in the UK at best it would be given 7 days to remedy with a re inspection - and quite likely closed during the clean period.

[chengkp75]

Well, I for one have no idea. I am surprised at how such serious breaches still produce a 82% score.

 

In the UK we have a "scores on the doors" inspection of food premises and the scale is a simple 1 to 5 Serious breaches on any front take the whole total score down to 2 or 1 or "closed". It can be generally perfect but if their are infestations or filthy conditions or bad storage it takes the whole score South. 82 gives a totally false level of reassurance largely because it seems to be taken as a total accumulation of too many factors. In real life if you hear of a restaurant on land in the UK doing all this it would be closed. The problem is these score are for the whole ship - not just catering.

 

In the environment we are discussing here in the UK at best it would be given 7 days to remedy with a re inspection - and quite likely closed during the clean period.

 

Some things to remember about the USPH inspections, that are different from land based health inspections. The VSP takes into account much more than just food safety. Potable water, pools and hot tubs, personal hygiene of food staff, medical records, backflow prevention (keeping water from flowing back from toilets, sinks, dishwashers into the potable water system), shower head sanitizing (prevention of legionnaire's disease), laundry, pest control, medicines, condition of equipment, lighting and ventilation, child care facilities, and HVAC systems.

 

Unfortunately, no matter how many times that a particular violation is observed, it is only given one score. Critical items are scored at 3-5, non-critical at 1-2. Weight is given to those items that have a greater risk of causing an acute gastro-intestinal illness outbreak. So, all the dirty pans found in the passageways and crew cabins would most likely be a 2, while the food found in the crew cabins would most likely be a 5 because of the severity of the violation.

 

While people may get the impression that a score of 82 is not bad, if they are interested enough to look up scores, they should understand that 86 is required to "pass". Any ship scoring less than 86 must submit an immediate action plan to USPH for approval, with a timeline for completion. After the reasonable amount of time to complete the action plan, there will be a re-inspection.

 

There are a very few circumstances, essentially an "imminent health hazard" that would have the USPH issue a "do not sail" order, at which time the ship would have to disembark all passengers, and correct the problems before being allowed to either load passengers or sail from the port. USPH can also revoke the certificate to load passengers, if the ship embarks in the US, which would stop the ship from sailing from the US.

[UKCruiseJeff]

Thanks for further clarifying - it was helpful.

 

I think you may have gathered that I felt that whereas our focus here is largely in the food, that the scores were giving false reassurance, and your knowledgeable explanation rather confirms it.

 

Thanks.

[newlondon]

Sounds so much like the US IRS controversy. The top, ie White House; Monaco corporate headquarters and Mr. Lefebvre:mad:

[chengkp75]

Thanks for further clarifying - it was helpful.

 

I think you may have gathered that I felt that whereas our focus here is largely in the food, that the scores were giving false reassurance, and your knowledgeable explanation rather confirms it.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes, been on the receiving end of my fair share of USPH inspections. An extremely complex system to fully understand, which is why most cruise lines will send their senior staff that deal with USPH areas to the 5 day training course given by the USPH.

 

As crazy as it seems, I seen us lose 4 points for an inspector finding one yogurt container in a reach-in refrigerator above 41*F, while all of the potentially hazardous food found hidden in non-refrigerated crew cabins on the Shadow still only loses 5 points.

 

Food safety is a huge part of the USPH VSP, as it should be. Its adoption has virtually eliminated food-borne illness on cruise ships, which unfortunately has let noro take over as the king of pathogens.

 

If the USPH had found that there were inadequate facility for proper storage of food at proper temperatures, resulting in the storage of food in crew areas, that would have been a no sail situation.

 

Further, the USPH VSP deals with the construction of the food and water handling areas of ships, as you can see from the "green sheets" where they deducted points for having slotted screws on a food machine. Slotted screws cannot be cleaned adequately, so you have to use "low profile" screws (the sort that look like the "anti-tamper" screws with large gaps not slots). This is the detail that USPH goes to.

 

I have to admit that I don't believe even a Captain would condone something like this on his own, unless there were unreasonable or unmeetable budget pressures brought by corporate, as you've said.

[Rally]

I was struck by the fact that an inspector poured bleach on the discarded food to prevent it being served. Did he really think they would pull it out of the trash bags and serve it? Why? Just seems extraordinary to me.

[5waldos]

The more I think about this the more confused I am. If the inspections are truly a surprise, then what- people grabbed whatever they could find and hid the items? If given a bit of warning then why not do a better job of taking care of the dirty dishes, etc. And if the former, then is this what the galley is like all the time? Dirty with food left around at unsafe temperatures?

 

Seems to me that one thing Silversea could institute would be an inspector or several inspectors of their own who would do surprise inspections. If they are serious about cleaning up their act. Give the individual a bit of training, offer them a free cruise and a badge. Even just a digital camera and a badge. It would have to be someone of high moral character who would not be easy to bribe.

[UKCruiseJeff]

The disappointing thing about the process is the feeling that there isn't a really penalty for the deception element. It is what the deception ethos implies about the past as well as what it implies about corporate ethos. Apart from the score there seems no other suitable and appropriate penalty.

[Mr Luxury]

I was struck by the fact that an inspector poured bleach on the discarded food to prevent it being served. Did he really think they would pull it out of the trash bags and serve it? Why? Just seems extraordinary to me.

 

The funny thing is that some cheap fried chicken outlets have been known to use bleach to clean up chicken that has started to decompose.

[chengkp75]

I was struck by the fact that an inspector poured bleach on the discarded food to prevent it being served. Did he really think they would pull it out of the trash bags and serve it? Why? Just seems extraordinary to me.

 

Yes, he did, given the egregious nature of the violations, he felt that the culture onboard would be to do anything.

[Rally]

the funny thing is that some cheap fried chicken outlets have been known to use bleach to clean up chicken that has started to decompose.

 

what????!!!!

[chengkp75]

The more I think about this the more confused I am. If the inspections are truly a surprise, then what- people grabbed whatever they could find and hid the items? If given a bit of warning then why not do a better job of taking care of the dirty dishes, etc. And if the former, then is this what the galley is like all the time? Dirty with food left around at unsafe temperatures?

 

Seems to me that one thing Silversea could institute would be an inspector or several inspectors of their own who would do surprise inspections. If they are serious about cleaning up their act. Give the individual a bit of training, offer them a free cruise and a badge. Even just a digital camera and a badge. It would have to be someone of high moral character who would not be easy to bribe.

 

This is why I feel that there is a corporate culture of disdain for the USPH. Corporate would need to feel that they needed an impartial inspector, but they don't.

 

The system we used at NCL, while by no means perfect nor infallable, was that we had weekly USPH inspections by the senior officers and staff. About 20 people (likely more positions than a smaller Silversea ship has) would take part. You would rotate what area of the ship you were inspecting each week.

I, as Staff Chief Engineer, whose main responsibility under USPH was to maintain all the equipment in working order, was free to inspect and comment on operations, food storage, food worker hygiene, and other areas that I saw during the inspection, and the Executive Chef could comment on equipment that was not maintained properly. This brought constant "fresh eyes" to all areas of USPH compliance, and the weekly report was sent via the Captain to corporate Hotel Operations for review and comment.

[5waldos]

A very weak solution.

[chengkp75]

The disappointing thing about the process is the feeling that there isn't a really penalty for the deception element. It is what the deception ethos implies about the past as well as what it implies about corporate ethos. Apart from the score there seems no other suitable and appropriate penalty.

 

This is just another area where "flags of convenience" benefit the shipowner. While there are International Health Regulations, it is up to the various countries to inspect the ships while calling at one of their ports, and many do not have the interest or money to do so. Also, the only entity that could punish a shipowner for a corporate culture of deceit in food safety would be the "flag state" or the Bahamas for the Silversea fleet.

[Mr Luxury]

what????!!!!

 

Yes,i would not believe it if it was not for the fact that it was shown on an undercover health inspector programme.

The bleach makes the chicken look a bit healthier to the eye and after you coat it with the secret herbs and spices,you have no idea what you are eating.