Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: chessplayer

It seems to me that everyone is missing the ‘big question’ in this episode.

Why didn’t Carnival Cruise Lines foot the bill to have rescue vessels get people off of the ship instead of letting them languish on the vessel for more than three days?

Can anyone say, “Cheapskates”?


35 posted on 02/15/2013 10:34:43 AM PST by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (Learn three chords and you, too, can be a Rock Star!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
No guaranteed safe way to evacuate, especially when so many passengers are involved.

Likely some would be injured or even killed, and lawsuits would result.

36 posted on 02/15/2013 10:39:31 AM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
Why didn’t Carnival Cruise Lines foot the bill to have rescue vessels get people off of the ship instead of letting them languish on the vessel for more than three days?

I was talking about this with my wife last night at dinner. My theory is that the decision Carnival made--to have the ship towed back to the US, was based purely on financial reasons.

Rather than tow the ship to Progreso, Mexico, they chose to tow to Mobile. This is purely speculative, but had they gone to the Mexican port, the logistical nightmare of trying to ferry 3000 guests and 1000 crew members would've been impossible to bear. Bus transport would've been difficult; air travel would be the only realistic way to get people back to their point of origin. How many chartered flights would it take to get people back to the States? What do you do with people who would undoubtedly have to wait in Mexico for their flights?

Thinking about the associated costs--the hotels, the meals, incidentals, transfers...costs would've been astronomical. Not to mention you have this huge ship stuck in a port not suited for repairs.

So I believe Carnival took the lesser of two evils, thinking that refunding tickets, and offering some other small benefits would somehow be less expensive. There will undoubtedly be lawsuits, so we shall see whether they made the right decision.

38 posted on 02/15/2013 11:00:56 AM PST by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
Why didn’t Carnival Cruise Lines foot the bill to have rescue vessels get people off of the ship instead of letting them languish on the vessel for more than three days? Also, to answer that question, a transfer at sea can be a dangerous thing. Those large ships are not designed for such transfers, certainly not for large volumes of people. Considering the elderly, and small children/babies that are sometimes on cruises, I agree with the previous poster that said injuries and lawsuits would no doubt occur.
39 posted on 02/15/2013 11:03:55 AM PST by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson