gatour

From the link above...

"Electrical Extension Cords"

It is a matter of interpretation if it includes power strips with short cords or not.

To me an extension cord is something that has a plug a long cord with a receptacle unit that has several places to plug in various electrical devices. There is no surge protection.

A power strip has shorter cord, surge protection, and a receptacle unit.

Due to the number of electrical devices we have, I always bring a power strip with a short cord and have never had a problem. We normally are not charging all of our devices at the same time, but helps in not having to juggle all of the plugs. We can leave the recharging wall warts plugged in all of the time and just plug in the particular device into into is appropriate wall wart as needed.

Having said that if they ever confiscate my power strip so be it. They are very cheap, thus easily replaced.

Whenever we are on a cruise that goes to Grand Cayman we always book the stingray city tour (usually the catamaran). This is one of the few excursion that we do this for. It is great.

I just a similar email about booking dining reservations and my cruise is about 11 months out. :)

Royal viking lounge. On certain ships the Schooner bar. This is even we have a balcony cabin, but sometimes I do like to hang out on our balcony. Sometimes I want to be people other times, I want some solitude with my wife.

Wonderful review and beautiful pictures. We just decided to take a cruise next year after taking a break from cruising this year.

I am forwarding a link to this thread to my wife, since she doesn't visit cruise critic as I do most of the planning for our vacations.

Since we have been on the Eastern and Western runs more times than I can count we decided to make it about the ship. Settling on a Oasis class ship was no brainer since we haven't been on either. Your pictures bring the ship life.

Caribbean news now

Caribbean new snow?

This sounds perfect for one day of our upcoming trip to St Lucia. Is the $140 a flat rate or is it a per person charge? There will only be the two of us.

Sounds interesting. Will have to keep it in mind.

When we are on a cruise that stops in Nassau, we go to a "fish fry" outside of the cargo docks. Different concept though. A bunch of little restaurants that originally sprung up to feed the dock works

In May we be spending a week at Sandals. While I know that food is included, we do like to try local restaurants.

Any recommendations on one or two restaurants to try, when we need a break from Sandals?

Awesome. Funny how they do a GREAT thing and no one has anything to say... but all the negative posts have pagesssss

It was announced while many people that post here are at work.

The pre-paid gratuities and transfers will be refunded.

However, the refunds may not appear on your credit card statements for 4 to 6 weeks.

Without me calling carnival direct and getting frustrated I was wondering if someone can answer a few questions for me.

 

My husband and I will be sailing on carnival sensation in 13 days.

 

My brother and his GF decided to book also on 10/4/13. Everything was great until my brothers GF's grandmother assed away last week. on a whim they decided not to go on the cruise because of her distress. They didn't have insurance nd knew they would be penalized.

 

The cancelation letter stated $175 per person cancellation fee.

 

And it said that a refund of $357 will be credited back to my visa card.

 

My question is when you cancel and don't have insurance will the prepaid gratuties and port transfers be refunded too?

 

I can't understand how they can keep the $ for them but I can't find anywhere on the Internet saying that I will get that $ back too.

 

 

 

Today They decided to try to rebook the cruise. (I know they screwed themself out of $350 and they houdnt have jumped the gun but it's over and done with)

 

I told them that I can't rebook until I see that credit of $357 hit my visa card because I don't have enough to cover the cruise cost now.

 

So my 2nd question (even tho the letter said 10-14 days) for reimbursement, has anyone got their refund back in a week. I need to rebook ASAP and 14 das waiting on this refund just won't work! So right now I'm hoping or the best.

 

Since they still have their flights which are non refundable they are better to just rebook the cruise then not go at all and be out over $1,000 on this trip.

 

If anyone can give me any insite on these questions it old be appreciated!

"Domnica Cemortan admitted the relationship after the judge at the trial of the ship's captain threatened her with charges"

 

So the Judge threatens her because he does not like what she says and has her Co erced into changing her story .... :eek:

Judiciary system works a little differently in Italy. The judges are more active. From what I read this would not be a surprising turn of events during a trial in Italy.

I have been following this thread for a while. If I haven't said it before WOW.

Definitely feel free to pop in to take pictures. My wife did the cupcake decorating and I popped in a few times to take pictures.

Thanks, I had forgotten about that. On the parbuckling project's website until recently they were showing they had anchor blocks to install.

Check this out.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=35230687&postcount=147

According to the website, they will attaching anchoring cables to the exposed side of the ship, run them over the keel and then under the side of the ship resting on the floor of the ocean. Then these cables are to be attached to anchor blocks.

My question is how are they going to run the cables under the ship? Mind you the process may be opposite, i.e. start on the anchor block side and go the reverse direction. Or perhaps some other process will happen.

Anyone have any thoughts on how the cables will get between the exposed side of the ship and to the anchor blocks, or vice verse.

Months ago,I thought that I read that they weren't going to completely seal the gash.

My take at the time, it made some sense, as the water will need to be sloshed around and emptied.

A cruise ship is mostly used to carrying empty air. Water is heavy, so once the water level inside exceeds the normal water line, the ship would be at stress in ways that it weren't designed for.

My take is that in some way they would want to evacuate the water during the process of making her vertical and raising her. Thus let it empty out through the existing gash, or pumping it out.

This is just a non-expert take.

Looking at beam (width) of other Costa Cruise ships, they are around 100 feet. Looking at the pictures of Costa Concordia, it is almost laying on its side, so the bottom of the ship would be around 50 feet. I would imagine the platforms would need to be installed below that point. So I think we are good there in regards to the salvage barge as it only draws 20 feet.

However, looking at the pictures there seems to be some support structures one the platforms that the ship may be rested on while the saisons are welded on.

We know from the weekly progress reports that platform 1 is three main pillars wide, the last progress report said that drilling for platform 2 still has to be done (not 'is under way').

 

I think the recent pictures show two platforms, not two parts of one platform. Did they bring two platforms to site and then took one back? Doesn't sound very plausible.

 

One other thought has crossed my mind: If they install the platforms first, before the caissons, how will they lift the caissons over the entire width of the platform onto the Concordia? Can Micoperi-30 go/float over the installed platforms? Its max draft is 5.15 m, is there that much clearance over the installed platforms?

Its revolving (mainly yellow) crane can lift 204 t @ 18 m outreach. That doesn't seem to be enough to reach over the width of the installed platforms?

How did you see her resume?

I know what you mean re using phrases only to have the other person look at you as though you have lost your mind. It happens to me a often, not only do I use phrases that are particular to R.A.F. but also those that are essentially English.

 

Certainly in the case of Cunard, Mr Shanks does seem to have something wrong in his thought process, and it also seems to affect other sections of the company.

 

I had a " heated discussion" with a Hotel Director on board one of my Cunard cruises, her thought process was distinctly strange (for a Hotel Director), then I saw her resume, before working for Cunard, she had been a First Grade teacher!

 

I have never been able to understand how she was employed by Cunard in the capacity of Hotel Director, the only position she was suited to fill would have been in the Child Care Department.

 

Will be boarding QE a week from now, for a cruise from LA to NY.

CostaSmurfette. You do realize that fire it what ultimately caused the WTC buildings to collapse?

Interesting how you are concentrating on the glass elevators, but are disregarding the other elevators on-board the ships. If any passengers were in those elevators they would have also been trapped with the exact same escape route, I.E. use the trapdoor exits.

Question, how many people were found dead in the glass elevators or as a result of a fall from the glass elevators after exiting from the hatches?

Like I said before and you actually re-inforced in you posting, there was ample opportunity for improvement in crises managements and incremental changes in some of the safety features.

1. Capt should not have been sailing so close to shoreline. At this point Costa claims he did it on his volition and Costa had no knowledge. If the investigation shows otherwise in regards to Costa knowledge then they should also accept responsibility.

2. Capt panicked.

a. I could see waiting for about 15 minutes or so before ordering everyone to muster stations. The time interval would be used do damage assessment. But he waited until much longer before ordering to muster stations

b. Water containment doors. I can see why they would normally be open. Were they ever closed, if not, why not.

4. Deployment of lifeboats was problematic. I read reports that they had trouble lowering the lifeboats. From what I have read,they were supposed to be deployable even with a 20% ship list. In this case, I read they may been trying to deploy before the 20% point. If so why were there issues.

As you note, there have already have been changes. Instead of tar and feathering, I like how the NTSB handle investigation. Determine where the gaps are, and suggest/mandate changes.

Elevators on land are built within the strongest part of the building, often the core, where the structures around them are significantly stronger than the outside walls....a classic example of a core that failed was WTC...it took alot to force that core to fail but it showed that the core that encloses the elevators can and will collapse under certain conditions and in certain circumstances.....the designers and architects never imagined having to build into a core the ability to withstand two airliners cutting them in half, it just wasn't considered a possibility.

 

Likewise the use of glass elevators on a ship...the designers and architects had never anticipated a ship to flop over onto its side like Concordia did. The design of the glass elevator pods are identical to those that you can find on buildings but the difference being that a ship can and will drop over given the right set of circumstances. Just as the WTC collapse made architects have a sharp intake of breath when their tried and tested design failed, the same will no doubt have happened at Kone (who provide many of the glass elevators found on cruise ships across several cruise lines).

 

There is no way out of a glass pod elevator....yes, you have a hatch on the roof but once out there, where do you go when the top 5 decks are semi-enclosed in one huge shiny atrium and the lower 5 decks are wide open landings that are often almost the full width of the ship?

 

Eyewitness accounts from passengers escaping Concordia's atrium landings stated that at least three people were in the glass elevators when Concordia commenced her list and they could be heard screaming for help.

 

Those passengers in the elevator(s) would most likely have been in them before the power outtage...since there was no notice that the power was going to fail and the elevators are automatically dropped from the power grid in an emergency situation leading to emergency gensets kicking in.

 

Buildings are designed to stay upright, those built in earthquake zones are built with extra strength in the cores for emergency evacuation via stairs that run around the enclosed elevator shafts...it is basic construction 101. It is only when something like WTC's collapse comes along that all those well rehearsed and well thought out and previously safe design ideas get tossed off the drawingboard.

 

Ships move...they tip over...until Concordia's accident, none had tipped over to and beyond the point of no return...and that event showed that glass elevators have design flaws that could potentially cost lives. At this stage, no-one knows what happened to the three passengers seen and heard inside the glass elevator(s) that night...hopefully they were able to get out before the list became too acute.

You are worried about glass elevators in a listing situation? What about all of the the other elevators on-board ship? Where has it been said that listing was an issue. More than likely the power outage would have taken them out of commission. What about on-shore elevators in the event of earthquakes.

Not sure why you are stressing about stem to stern access. If I am at the stern on my cabin deck at the bottom of the ship, I have no interest in getting to the stem on my deck. Instead I am more interested in getting to the nearest stairway to head up to my muster station. Also on airliners they always say "the nearest exit may be behind you." Cruise ships have two escape routes from public areas, including once you leave the doorway of your cabin.

So far, from what I have read there was gross negligence by the captain. There is also an opportunity to revise/upgrade training/procedures and policies.

My feeling is that the major cruiselines were geared towards fires and not sinkings. Considering you have 3000+ people onboard ship which any one of them can haphazardly cast aside a cigarette or leave an iron on, that is a logical conclusion.

But the Costa Concordia disaster revealed places where policy/procedure/training can be improved that would be applicable to both scenarios.

I want to know when the depth sounder failed.....was it before or after leaving Barcelona on the ill fated cruise?

 

I want to know why glass elevators that were designed for use on buildings ever got certification for use on ships when they have no means of escape in a listing event, were they even tested for such events?

 

I want to know why cruise ship designers & builders insist of cutting stem to stern pax/crew access over several decks by placing galleys and other inaccessable areas within public areas of the ship...thus cutting escape routes and adding confusion in a panicked situation such as a listing event.

 

I want to know why watertight doors close horizontally when it is well known that they relax during power outtages and can let water egress occur under slight water pressure.

 

I want to know why so much money is spent on making the ship visually "pretty" to pax and such little attention is paid on basic evacuation routing and facilities. (I believe that as with Titanic, the cruise industry never believed that there would ever be a large ship loss and as such, no forward planning was built into ship design...it was a case of bigger is better, the more glitz and neon the better and don't worry about accidents cos they will never happen.)

 

I want to know why there was an apparent lack of bridge resource management...why did no-one question the actions or instructions being given during the run up to the course change and after the event....especially since it was known that the ship was not 100% fully functional.

 

Finally....if nothing was wrong with the ship and it was all down to human error...why was there a full repair crew waiting for the ship in Savona who were to board and complete an array of critical equipment repairs during that day and during the next cruise?

 

To me, looking at the technical aspects, the throwing under the bus less than 24 hours after the event appears to have come from Miami and not Genova. It was a cynical way of diverting attention from several issues surrounding the ship that would have inevitable knock-on effects to the rest of the ships of that design/build and potentially every large cruise ship across the industry. It is always easier to blame the human.....Schettino and others DID make errors, they DID react badly and they certainly could/should have done better...BUT...the ship's own participation needs closer scrutiny and so far, it is not getting that scrutiny...and they only reason for that is money...if the ship is bad, it will cost billions to put right the issues on the rest of the ships like her.

Just my point Sidari' date='......We can put men on the moon but can't design a system to get a elevator/lift to the next deck with the doors open????

 

AKK[/quote']

 

I imagine it is possible, but at the risk of sounding callous, it gets down to cost/benefit analysis and where you draw the line on what you are protecting against. I imagine you can put UPS near the elevator motors. But what do you do about the conputers that control the elevators? The computers that decide to send which elevator to which deck are probably centrally located. So either you would have to harden that room and all of the cabling between it and the elevators, or make each elevator "smart". I.E. I lost power and lost contact to my "boss" so I use local resources to get me to the next floor. Then the next thing you have to think about, the power disruption was only temporary, you will have to deconflict which system is now in charge.

 

In summary, you are correct that this can be engineered around, but it would take regulation or voluntary compliance. For the latter it would take someone to bite the bullet to put up funding to have the elevator companies to engineer a solution. And even then, you have to take in account that there are thousands of elevators currently in service (if you include buildings on land), what do you do about them?

 

One thing that I am confused about, is that I would think the initial collision would not have caused the power to go out. The one exception I would think would be if the "rip" occurred near the engine room. I seemed to recall that some of the passenger videos after the initial collision, showed normal lights on which indicates to me that the power did not immediately go out. I may be mistaken about this recollection though

What I find amazing is besides the attention to detail, you also make it operational in a real body of water.

Since cabin modules are prefabricated and then added onto the ship after construction, the cabins on the undamaged side of the hull could be used again after being cleaned up and repaired.

 

Like the tenders/lifeboats that are sat on wasteground nearby, they may well end up on another ship and no-one would be any the wiser once they get repainted etc.

 

There is another ship on the construction blocks now, a Dream class for Costa...if the cabin modules and tender/lifeboats are in good order, no reason not to reuse them on the newbuild so long as they are structually satisfactory (and the boats get recertified for use).

 

Older ships that are broken don't generally have prefab cabins, so they get broken up with the rest of the ship whereas Concordia is a young ship with plenty of reusable parts.

 

The airline industry used to recycle parts...until the ghost stories from Eastern 401 surfaced and then the practice of using parts from crashed planes ended.

Provided that the cabin dimensions are the same between the Dream class and the Costa Concordia this in theory could work.

The other gotcha is the costs to remove them and then ship them to the shipyard building the new ship and then refurbish them. I imagine by next February the only thing salvageable will be the shell of the cabin

I dont' see how it would be cost effective to reuse any of the cabins from the Costa Concordia vs building brand new cabins for any ships currently under construction or planned to be constructed.

AKK, thanks for the info. I definitely understand about it being impossible to set a definite navigation plan in the real world because of the conditions are always varying. It sounds like they may be required to submit a general navigation plan to the home office and the article that mentioned changing the "procedures" was referencing this process. It definitely seemed to come from one of the cruise line societies.

The reason why I was asking, I wonder if perhaps, the Capt submitted the plan from last year when they had official approval from the home office to sail closer to the island than normal. Since this seems to be a process that could fall into a rubber-stamp routine, if he didn't mention that is a different plan than normal, the home office didn't catch it. If the disaster hadn't happened, but later they realized he had sailed closer than usual, he could always say, "But you approved the plan".

Then again, the directive/recommendation was just because the home office had problem finding the plan after the disaster.

Btw: thanks for not ridiculing my use of "float plan". I know that term is used in recreational boating and is closest analogy that I could come up for the commercial/cruise world at the time of my question.