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

[Donna_In_India]

In this case, isn't he one of the owners of the Heat? Typically owners attend the games.

 

Still pretty tacky of him.

[Loonbeam]

Asked and answered several times.

 

Tendering from a boat without lights belowdecks and any form of thruster control or stabilization is EXTREMELY risky and is done only when there is no other option. If you have ever tendered to a port in even moderate wind conditions, you have some idea of what's involved. Now imagine doing this with 3000 people over about 60-70 trips. Probably more, because people will insist on taking some basic clothing, etc. Imagine the risk to the crew that has to perform these operations as well.

 

A gangway is not an option because you cannot stabilize the disabled ship.

 

The people on board are not in life threatening conditions. Miserable yes, but you don't risk lives because of miserable conditions.

 

The right thing to do (and what they are doing) is Shelter in Place. See to immediate needs of safety and minimal sustenance. An analogy would be the blizzard in New England. If the power goes out in your house, you don't go out in the blizzard to go to another house unless your life is at risk. The hazards of moving, outweigh the risks of staying.

 

 

If they transferred one passenger, they should have been able to transfer all passengers. Carnival is just being cheap.

 

They should have cancelled another cruise, sent the empty ship and transferred everyone. Or cram everyone into the same ship and get everyone back to port ASAP. Anything is better than the reports coming from the ship.

[Feelin' Nauti']

Carnival said. Medical staff will be waiting in port for the ship's arrival, in case passengers need treatment.

:cool: In case???? :rolleyes:

 

 

One of the biggest concerns crew members will have until the ship docks is the potential for disease outbreak, particularly norovirus, which causes vomiting and diarrhea, Jay Herring, a former senior officer for Carnival Cruise Lines, told The Associated Press

.

:cool: No doubt it has already broken out :rolleyes:

[Rasvar]

I've skimmed through very few pages of this post and of course, the Carnival flag wavers are out in full force. "Let's wait and see what the conditions were REALLY like". Come on - are you serious? I'm sure the conditions are horrific. What is the matter with you people? Nobody cares if this could happen on any other cruise line, other cruise lines have had fires, blah, blah, blah. Refunding the cost of the cruise and giving a free future cruise as compensation? I'd never set foot on Carnival again after that ordeal (not that I'm likely to anyway). Does anybody really believe that all the stories are exaggeration??

 

Truthfully, I will wait and see what it was really like. I know it will be bad. Yeah, sewage backing up into the showers and flowing into the rooms seems real. Heck, I've seen it happen on a ship without generator problems. So I'm not surprised. I'd also bet that the lower the deck is, the more problems that occur. For some people, not having AC is a disaster. For others it is no big deal. You will have a bunch of people say it wasn't fun but wasn't horrible and the crew did a good job. Others will describe the apocalypse and say they feared for their lives. That is going to be the normal response of 3000+ people. I'm interested in how well the crew managed the situation. I'm sure the food is horrible by now. I'm actually wonder about enough water for everyone. I feel bad for people who have conditions that require specific nutritional requirements. If Carnival is shown to have been neglect in the events, they will end up paying a lot more. I don't think anyone is saying it is a picnic and happy. Just that some people would deal with it. I have no urge to ever want to be in this situation. If it happened, I would deal with it. Just get everyone back home to a bed, shower and a good hot meal.

[Aquahound]

BUT, it's safe to say that if the Coast Guard thought it best for the Triumph to sit down in Progreso for safety reasons, it would have happened.

 

You are correct. In fact, knowing the location of Triumph on Monday, I questioned the initial decision to go there. Triumph was located in the area of the Gulf where the Loop Current runs north. The ship was already drifting north at something like 3 knots. It would have been very difficult to tow against that current.

[LHP]

If nothing else it's just bad form.

 

Similar to Condeleeza Rice shopping for $600 dollar shoes while New Orleans was flooding during Katrina. It wasn't her "job" to run FEMA, but the appearance of indifference by the fourth in line for the Presidency to the horrific plight of her fellow citizens during a wide-spread natural disaster was a very negative public image to portray.

 

 

Not bad form at all....

 

except for the fact that we have such a jealous society these days that would make an issue out of something so ridiculous...

[Loonbeam]

Passports were possibly a factor, but even without them based on the tide tables and distance, once the tugs reached them Mobile was a much more realistic option for a lot of reasons. The time difference was maybe 3-4 hours longer for Mobile from that point (based on current weather conditions at that time) and the port at Mobile is much better equipped from a logisitical standpoint. In addition, that time will be made up getting back to Galveston port and you have avoided the need to deal with both Mexican immigration and the TSA, which will also gain a lot of time.

 

Mobile port has enough US customs and immigration capacity avail that if they call all-hands on deck they can clear the entire ship in less than an hour.

 

 

 

 

I agree that if safety were an issue, of course - any port in a storm. But if lack of passports played a role in the planning, as a passport holder, I'd be angry. I'd rather be off the ship in Progreso. At that point, I wouldn't need the cruise line to help me - being independent is always my objective.

[PrincessKate]

I agree to an extent--I believe there were other options, Carnival didn't want to spend the money on them. I will however defer to the USCG official who said it was too dangerous.

 

That would have been a gross violation of maritime law. There wouldn't have been enough life boats and would have created an even more unsafe situation for even more people.

 

There is no amount of money that would make transferring over 3,000 passengers safer or more sensible than having them stay on the Triumph. This probably isn't even Carnival's call any more, if it ever was. This is open, rough ocean we're talking about - not a calm little bay.

[ducklite]

Not bad form at all....

 

except for the fact that we have such a jealous society these days that would make an issue out of something so ridiculous...

 

Jealous of what? A CEO with a public relations disaster on his hands? Um, no thanks.

[bitemyfly]

Asked and answered several times.

 

Tendering from a boat without lights belowdecks and any form of thruster control or stabilization is EXTREMELY risky and is done only when there is no other option. If you have ever tendered to a port in even moderate wind conditions, you have some idea of what's involved. Now imagine doing this with 3000 people over about 60-70 trips. Probably more, because people will insist on taking some basic clothing, etc. Imagine the risk to the crew that has to perform these operations as well.

 

A gangway is not an option because you cannot stabilize the disabled ship.

 

The people on board are not in life threatening conditions. Miserable yes, but you don't risk lives because of miserable conditions.

 

The right thing to do (and what they are doing) is Shelter in Place. See to immediate needs of safety and minimal sustenance. An analogy would be the blizzard in New England. If the power goes out in your house, you don't go out in the blizzard to go to another house unless your life is at risk. The hazards of moving, outweigh the risks of staying.

So accurate and true

Bottom line is while it must suck to on that ship , as is stands now towing is the safest option

Pretty funny some are asking to lower life boat

[Boatdrill]

As for what clean ship was available, ANY SHIP in the area that was changing passengers on Sunday, they could have delayed the start of a sailing and got the passengers off the troubled ship.

 

 

To those who believe that transferring passengers at sea would be a good idea, please think back to the time you have used a tender to go ashore.

 

That's a difficult process even when it's a non-emergency situation, and the ship is anchored and relatively stable. People still slip and fall and get injured.

 

Please, no more imagining transferring 3000 pax at sea.

[carefreebee]

Asked and answered several times.

 

Tendering from a boat without lights belowdecks and any form of thruster control or stabilization is EXTREMELY risky and is done only when there is no other option. If you have ever tendered to a port in even moderate wind conditions, you have some idea of what's involved. Now imagine doing this with 3000 people over about 60-70 trips. Probably more, because people will insist on taking some basic clothing, etc. Imagine the risk to the crew that has to perform these operations as well.

 

A gangway is not an option because you cannot stabilize the disabled ship.

 

The people on board are not in life threatening conditions. Miserable yes, but you don't risk lives because of miserable conditions.

 

The right thing to do (and what they are doing) is Shelter in Place. See to immediate needs of safety and minimal sustenance. An analogy would be the blizzard in New England. If the power goes out in your house, you don't go out in the blizzard to go to another house unless your life is at risk. The hazards of moving, outweigh the risks of staying.

 

well said

[carefreebee]

Truthfully, I will wait and see what it was really like. I know it will be bad. Yeah, sewage backing up into the showers and flowing into the rooms seems real. Heck, I've seen it happen on a ship without generator problems. So I'm not surprised. I'd also bet that the lower the deck is, the more problems that occur. For some people, not having AC is a disaster. For others it is no big deal. You will have a bunch of people say it wasn't fun but wasn't horrible and the crew did a good job. Others will describe the apocalypse and say they feared for their lives. That is going to be the normal response of 3000+ people. I'm interested in how well the crew managed the situation. I'm sure the food is horrible by now. I'm actually wonder about enough water for everyone. I feel bad for people who have conditions that require specific nutritional requirements. If Carnival is shown to have been neglect in the events, they will end up paying a lot more. I don't think anyone is saying it is a picnic and happy. Just that some people would deal with it. I have no urge to ever want to be in this situation. If it happened, I would deal with it. Just get everyone back home to a bed, shower and a good hot meal.

 

well said

[truecruiser]

Regarding Conditions:

 

Video of the conditions will most certainly surface. Anyone who has any battery charge left in any cell, cam corder or still camera with video options is surely documenting this. So, we will know soon if the accounts we have been hearing are true. I believe they probably are.

 

Regarding Transfer:

 

This thread moves so fast and is now so long... did they transfer some pax off??? I only read of 2 medi-evacs...that's it.

 

Have I missed something? Please provide link to post or quick recap if you don't mind.

 

Thank you much! :)

[James in SA]

There is no amount of money that would make transferring over 3,000 passengers safer or more sensible than having them stay on the Triumph. This probably isn't even Carnival's call any more, if it ever was. This is open, rough ocean we're talking about - not a calm little bay.

 

By the way, I was on that very same 4 day cruise on Triumph this time about a year ago. I would not at all call it a Booze Cruise, even though that is what one would expect. There was not the heavy drinking party atmosphere the stereotypes would suggest... quite a few older people and some families with children just having a nice time. It was more of a nice relaxing weekend getaway than you would expect.

 

And... the ship was very nice and clean and appeared well maintained. The food and service were also excellent, actually better IMO than on the very popular Ecstasy that Triumph replaced on this route. People should not jump to conclusions that this ship is an old rustbucket, it is not.

[aberthelot]

Based on that map I would have wanted to go to Cuba it was a lot closer, and would have been more entertaining, while waiting to fly home,

 

When else could you say you were there.

I have been to Cuba! haha

[IcePrincessKCL]

Carnival just release a press release stating that they are cancelling cruises from now until April 13.

[Turbo6ta]

The thing that seems silly to me in all this ... is what Carnival is giving these unfortunate passengers in return for this miserable cruise:

 

"After being towed to port, those aboard the Carnival Triumph will be flown home at no cost to them, the cruise line said. They will also get a full refund, credit that can be used toward a future trip and reimbursement for all expenses, except casino and gift shop purchases, for their current trip".

 

_______________________________________

 

There joking, aren't they? ... "Credit that can be used toward a future trip!" ..... :eek:

 

How many of these passengers are going to want to go on a future cruise on Carnival? ... My guess is > not many

[larrywizzit]

Carnival just release a press release stating that they are cancelling cruises from now until April 13.

All of them?

[broberts]

If they transferred one passenger, they should have been able to transfer all passengers. Carnival is just being cheap.

 

They should have cancelled another cruise, sent the empty ship and transferred everyone. Or cram everyone into the same ship and get everyone back to port ASAP. Anything is better than the reports coming from the ship.

 

Transferring passengers at sea using lifeboats from a dead in the water vessel has some degree of risk. Any passengers that were transfered were moved because the risk to them of not receiving better medical treatment outweighed the risk of transferring them. Also, these passengers would likely have been moved strapped in a carrier designed for such transfers. Likely less risky than individuals walking across a constantly in motion gangplank.

 

Transferring 3,000 people in batches of 125 would be a slow and ultimately an accident prone process. Undoubtedly any number of passengers would suffer twisted knees and ankles, probably some scrapes and minor cuts, maybe even a concussion or two. I've seen this happen tendering in the relatively calm waters off of Grand Cayman so I can imagine that attempting the process in six foot swells would only make these types of injuries more likely.

 

I really doubt Carnival is being "cheap". The sensationalized media coverage alone has cost the company a great deal. If they had a way to reduce this, they would have taken it. And this presumes that Carnival does not have the safety and comfort of their passengers uppermost in their thinking. There is no evidence that the company is so callous. In fact there are several examples in the last few years that would indicate otherwise.

 

I'm not aware of any passenger reports off Triumph since Monday. Unfortunately the dearth of first hand accounts has only encouraged a competition to see who can come up with the most imaginative scenario.

[beachh2o]

NO ONE wanted this to happen to the passengers of the TRIUMPH. There are approximately 3200 people STUCK and you can bet that every possible solution has been considered. I think all the critics should just give them a chance to get the ship back to land and just listen to why CARNIVAL did what they did.

Heaven forbid any of you ever take another CARNIVAL CRUISE!

[broberts]

There joking, aren't they? ... "Credit that can be used toward a future trip!" ..... :eek:

 

How many of these passengers are going to want to go on a future cruise on Carnival? ... My guess is > not many

 

I'll gladly take any unwanted credits.

[juiceman]

What's Carnival's reasoning behind not refunding gift shop purchases??

[repo-cruiser]

NO ONE wanted this to happen to the passengers of the TRIUMPH. There are approximately 3200 people STUCK and you can bet that every possible solution has been considered. I think all the critics should just give them a chance to get the ship back to land and just listen to why CARNIVAL did what they did.

Heaven forbid any of you ever take another CARNIVAL CRUISE!

Well since the Triumph was having problems weeks before this cruise yet they kept cruising it, I think they had there chance to fix it before it got to this. Keep your pom pomms cheering.

[Cushing985]

All of them?

 

Taken in the context of this epic thread I believe the poster means Triumph only.