Tranquil Waters
-
Posts
4,760 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Store
Blogs
Downloads
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Tranquil Waters
-
-
I agree with your underlying premises and porposed punishment but respectfully disagree with you conclusion that millions in liability awards and fines will affect a change of corporate mind set.
In my experience, the larger the corporation, the smaller the long term affect of judgements, fines & penalties on changing their way of doing business. Prison sentences for coporate officers seem to be the only way to achieve long lasting corporate change.
John
I agree about large corporations. I guess I want the hit big enough to get even their attention. But you might be right about it still not being enough.
-
Tranq I would bet that we may see a repeat of this http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,14993772,00.html I also think that Costa's CEO made the wrong move in to use your parlance "throwing Schettino under the Bus". To me I would want him on full pay and provide his legal team.
IMO after March 3 there will be enough to charge the CEO of Costa, he appointed a criminal defense team in Jan.The Costa CEO is a main board member of the parent company and I think pretty soon he should look out for buses.
Wow! Doesn't give circumstances of fire but those are stiff punishments. I want the corporation to take a big financial hit because that is where I think it will hurt the most. People tend to be too easily expendable (that throw them under the bus thing...).
I could be happy with those most responsible losing jobs and getting maybe 5 years in jail (except for perhaps the captain who bears the most responsibility and he could get more time fairly to my way of thinking).
But I would love to see millions awarded in settlements plus big, big legal fines imposed.
-
Joanie
Your time elapse chart covers 13 minutes at a speed of 15 knots, begining at 20:32 with the collision occured at 20:45.
I think the latest reports and commentaries indicating Schittino had the ship moving at a slower rate of speed, while he was in the dining room for a liersurely dinner with Dominca, was before 20:32 and asserts he increased speed upon returning to the bridge.
John
So now I should take back my correction? :p
-
As per NUMEROUS Media reporting that Schettino slowed down and sped up, that is FALSE INFORMATION!!!
AIS recordings from various sources have PROVEN those False Media Claims/Reports to be false!!
Please watch this in its entirety and note both the speeds and the time line: http://news.qps.nl.s3.amazonaws.com/Grounding+Costa+Concordia.wmv
Here is a more detailed and more recent one to watch: http://news.qps.nl.s3.amazonaws.com/Grouding+Costa+Concordia+January+13+2012+AIS+Reconstruction+by+QPS.wmv
You can see more here on their web site: http://www.qps.nl/display/qastor/2012/01/17/20120117_stranding
If you do a Google Search under AIS Costa Concordia Timeline you will find even more that disprove the media reports.
Joanie
I stand corrected. But the parent company still knew about salutes close to shore and about captains having female guests on board who, along with others, provided a distraction to the captain on the bridge at the time of the tragedy.......
-
Tranq I think I was a bit vague, the fire wall is between Costa and Carnival.
Ahhh. I did misunderstand. I am not sure how I feel about that firewall. If CCL was aware of salutes and captains having female guests, then I guess I still hope the firewall doesn't hold. If they had no knowledge (hard to believe) then i guess I would feel it was OK for the buck to stop with Costa.
-
.....and if this happens will the parent company have a strong enough fire wall.
I certainly hope not! The parent company certainly knew about close to land "salutes" and apparently it was common knowledge that captains "entertain" females on board when their wives are safely home. And seeing as how the captain slowing down to enjoy his time with said female and then speeding up for salute was one of the things found on investigation. Plus the distraction of female on bridge at time of disaster. All can and should come back on Costa for these policies.
I can only relate it to my work. What about a hospital that allowed surgeons to have female companions in the OR and then the distraction of the female led -in part - to a tragedy? Would the hospital be responsible for the policy as well as the surgeon? I am thinking that would be a resounding yes... The same should apply to Costa/CCL.
-
It certainly does summarize where we seem to be with the investigation. I have to admit that every time I read one of these articles I get very upset and angry all over again that such a needless and preventable tragedy was allowed to happen. It is probably why I harp too much (for some people :o) on wanting Costa/CCL to be held responsible both legally and financially.
But in deference to multiple opinions I will try to keep those posts to a reasonable number......:)
-
From a business stand point they are doing exactly what they should do and that is try to limit the financial damage. If they had come out and lets say they offered $100,000 per none insured passenger. There would be plenty of those passengers saying "no" and wanting a "fair" offer, so in the end they are still going to be sued and end up with people calling them out for being cheap or insensitive. This entire process is about money for all sides, the cruise line, the passengers and the lawyers are all trying to keep or get as much money as they can. It's not personal, it's just business (I so hate that statement) but that is how it is.
But had Costa/CCL offered what the rest of the cruising community considered a fair offer then they would have come off much better from a PR standpoint and perhaps limited future cruisers from writing them off as incredibly cheap and insensitive to the tragedy. A company they no longer wanted to ever do business with.
A fair offer would have no impact on settlements as more people with sue with the lowball offer. And the greedy would sue no matter what (as you correctly pointed out) but the courts will settle if the demands are unreasonable.
So I still maintain that - from a purely business standpoint - that Costa/CCL is heading down the wrong path by trying to go cheap.....
-
Their stockholders will appreciate that. The courts will ascertain what is OBJECTIVELY "incredibly cheap" as well.
Then the stockholders are as incredibly shortsighted as Coata/CCL. And they will be less appreciative when the company get hits with much larger payouts via the courts than had they just been fair to the passengers and crew from the outset.
To say nothing of seeing their stock prices go down as people stop cruising or switch to other cruiselines because this tragedy stays in the news for months on end because of protracted lawsuits rather than fading to the back of peoples' consciousness as would have happened with quick fair settlement offers...
-
The management of any corporation has a FIDUCIARY responsibility to their SHAREHOLDERS to make as much money as is LEGALLY possible. They often have to walk a thin line between appearing incredibly CHEAP and UNFAIR (thereby risking alienating present and future customers) or OVERLY GENEROUS (thereby alienating them from the people they work for, the stockholders). THat's where the court system comes into play. When the two sides can't reach agreement presumably the courts will decide what is fair and equitable.
I don't think Costa/CCL is in ANY danger of appearing overly generous! :rolleyes:
If they had come anywhere close to walking a line between the two I don't think they would be getting near the flack they are currently taking. Instead they went all the way to incredibly cheap.....
-
It would be nice to think that Costa/CCL felt each of these losses as much as we fellow cruisers do. Instead of worrying more about low little of a settlement they can come away with!
-
I also watched the special on Discovery. Having kept up on these threads (especially the SINKING one) about the disaster, I found that the technical aspects were easier to understand. Without being kept informed here, I would not have gotten as much from that show. Thanks to all of you who have been on top of things from the beginning. Looks like the captain is trying to take credit for what Mother Nature did to push the ship closer to land.:eek:
JoyceG
Yes, I hope people keeping posting info and news here as this is about the only place left to do so.
-
Cold does not work well with hot coffee :) and since they serve it with ice most of the time to begin with it's just not quite the same.
Not getting into the pro or con debate here. Have smuggled in the past. Ultimately found it not worth the effort especially after becoming D+ and having plenty of free alcohol when cruising anyway. ;) But I have no problem with smugglers.
But to your point.... they only serve it with ice if you ask for it on the rocks. If you ask for a Bailey's shot or double shot you will get Bailey's shot or double shot - sans ice. As for cooling, we never put our Bailey's in the frig at home. It will go months at room temp without prob. You will be fine to leave it at room temp overnight. Just being helpful here mind you. :p
-
We cruised with a Pinnacle couple on Radiance in Nov. In fact, it was their 100th cruise credit on that cruise (they were doing B2B at least - 4/5 nighters). So they certainly had some shorter cruises. And it looks like they took them just in time as the 100 credits would have automatically given them the 700 they would need for Pinnacle with the way RCI did the conversion. A really, really nice couple......... :)
-
A blanket and a pile of sand. LOL :D
Actually, I remember there not being enough blankets/towels, etc. to go around. And it was cool that night. There were stories of people taking care of the older and younger passengers, etc. And there were stories of people selfishly just looking out for number one...... :rolleyes:
-
I was one of the many passengers that was stranded on Coco Cay back in November 2002 when due to a change in the weather conditions passengers could not return to the ship and had to spend the night on the island.
My husband and I are due to return to Coco Cay for the first time since (now with 2 children in tow) and it has started me thinking about that night again.
Were you there? Have you been back?
I keep saying that if there's the slightest bit of a breeze I'm stay on the ship!
I remember reading all about it here on CC - back when I was a lurker and not yet a member..... That must have been some night.
-
Case closed??? The hole point of this thread is that Royal Caribbean is not enforcing its own rules. So how does known the rule close the case?
The case was referencing the debate about whether RCI had a written stated policy of no children. :)
As to RCI not enforcing their own rutes - that is what my last comment referred to "RCI should NOT have admitted the children in the first place!".
-
Sounds like case closed. RCI says guests must be 21 for Chef's Table. Children should not have been allowed. It would be more than appropriate for anyone to ask for their money back. But, even, more to the point - RCI should NOT have admitted the children in the first place! :mad:
-
We were on a ship with 6500 passengers. The chances of being rebooked for the Chef's Table would have been non existent. I made these reservations back in October. Had we not attended, we would have missed out on a wonderful dinner and a very interesting experience. Sort of like biting one's nose to spite one's face.
If Chef's Table was that important to you then you certainly should have stayed. I certainly don't think one could eat - and then ask for a refund.
And I would not have been willing to take the chance that the kids would be well behaved. For that matter, I would not want to spend that much money for a dinner with children - period. And I would have left when they arrived. So it would not be cutting off my nose. It is all a matter of what something is worth to each individual.
-
True, but the discussion has been more interesting than being on time for my eye appt. Later
And since you can obviously read this thread, yours eyes can't be that bad anyway..... ;):D
-
Rules which many have now become suggestions seem to never be in-forced on RCI ships. What's new?
Having adults at the table doesn't guarantee a pleasant experience.
What I found on the RCI site under the class ship Radiance
Chef's Table
Experience our most intimate and decadent onboard dining at Chef's Table. In this exclusive space, 14 guests will enjoy a specially-prepared menu of gourmet selections, chosen by the evening’s featured chef, who will personally present each course. Before the wine-paired meal, guests have the opportunity to meet and mingle at a cocktail party.
Totally agree. But what does that have to do with RCI allowing children in a venue that is designated as adult?
How is it advertised as an adult dinner?! Do you see that anywhere in this description?Chef's Table
Experience our most intimate and decadent onboard dining at Chef's Table. In this exclusive space, 14 guests will enjoy a specially-prepared menu of gourmet selections, chosen by the evening’s featured chef, who will personally present each course. Before the wine-paired meal, guests have the opportunity to meet and mingle at a cocktail party.
As to advertised as adult venue, RCI web site states that Specialty Dining is for over 14 after a certain time. And OP stated that they read age restrictions. :)
Obviously, if RCI does not state in print anywhere on-line or onboard that there are age restrictions - then this whole thread/discussion is a moot point..... :D
-
Nothing wrong with this...however the cruise line would have every right to still charge you.
I totally disagree. If you leave when the children arrive then the cruise line would not have the right to charge you. You bought an advertised product - an adult dinner. RCI did not provide that product. Period. They are the ones not keeping their end of the deal.....
-
As long as children are well behaved, how can they ruin your experience?
OP, you responded just as I would, surprised and then pleasantly surprised. Thanks for posting your experience.
I feel sorry for those of you who can't understand the joy that children can bring to your life.Okay, first of all, being well behaved has nothing to do with having a child at an adult specified activity. A pet can be well behaved but I would not want a pet at Chef's Table either. ;)
Secondly, one does not have to hate children or not understand the joy of children to not want children at an adult activity. In fact, one can dearly love children and still not want them an an adult activity. :)
When RCI advertises and presents an activity as an adult venue then they have the obligation to provide just that to their guests. Period. If RCI is concerned about being family friendly they can either advertise the activity as available to everyone. Or if they do not want to lose the income from those that want an adult dinner, then they could easily designate one night of a 7 night cruise as "family night".
In any case, having a policy and then not adhering to it is just going to make for dissatisfied guests....... :(
-
Well, since it has been well known that RCI has not enforced either no shorts (on adults mind you) or no kids under a certain age after 6:30 in Portofino and Chops, I guess it is just the next small step to allow young children at the Chef's Table.
I would be one unhappy camper though. And getting the money back is the least of it. Most people really look forward to Chef's Table as a very special night....... :(
Concordia News: Please Post Here
in Costa Cruises
Posted · Edited by Tranquil Waters
Nope. It is known as critical analysis of what you are reading. I was taught that lesson while still in school in relation to "research" articles.
You have to know who is doing the study/ story and what objective data they are using, how the data is being interpreted, and what biases the author comes with that may be affecting objectivity.
BTW, exactly what did I assume? It is fact that CCL is a major advertiser. And otherwise I only stated that one needs to look for any agendas in reported articles. Not an assumption anywhere!