Jump to content

BA news in NY


bones774
 Share

Recommended Posts

Was onboard...it was not as bad as some say. One partially sleepless night, no seasickness, and a slow return to port. I wouldn't hesitate to return to NCL and Breakaway. I know some folks had a more harrowing experience, but for most, it wasn't that bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was onboard...it was not as bad as some say. One partially sleepless night, no seasickness, and a slow return to port. I wouldn't hesitate to return to NCL and Breakaway. I know some folks had a more harrowing experience, but for most, it wasn't that bad.

Thanks for the positive post. I'm sure it was not enjoyable. I saw on the news the pool was almost full spilling water all over the deck. Iv'e been on cruises where they drained the pool down to half. I think that might be why so much water leaked down the stairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these naysayers who weren't on the ship but feel qualified to comment on what these passengers went through are incredibly ridiculous. Meanwhile they'd be soiling themselves if they lived it. I believe these people and if other ships stayed out of harms way the BA could have too.

 

I concur. Now I do think the calls for a refund are ridiculous, but I have been on a ship in a big storm and it is not fun. And I did not go in the dead of winter either - it was late March returning to Baltimore (not NCL).

 

Waves and winds so bad it ripped part of the ships railings off and sent them flying

 

So unless you have cruised in really bad weather, save your criticisms about people being concerned or thinking it was scary. I have been on 20 some cruises and the one I referenced above gave me a little concern.

 

 

Criticize someone about wanting unrealistic refunds - sure. But not for how they felt living the experience

Edited by Maverick61
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on Breakaway in equal wind and waves. It can happen any time off the coast not just during a storm like this one. The ship did not sail into the path of the storm, it followed as close as it could within sailing ability of the ship to minimize how late it would be. That does, yes, minimize the cost of the delay as compared to another day or two (which could cancel the following cruise) or the idea of disembarking in Florida (terrible expensive PLUS the cancellation of the next cruise.) The ship did what made sense and some people were upset by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full disclosure ... I am not a sitting member of the judiciary. My practice is limited to multi-national/cross border complex mergers and acquisitions. Further, none of my insights here are the provision of legal advice within the meaning of the jurisdictions I which I am admitted to practice.

 

I am only trying to add to the diverse opinions presented on this forum. My point was courts act based on facts ... not opinions or hyperbole.

Wow, it looks like someone opened up a law book and found a few "fancy" words to make a statement with. Nice try, you almost made it sound good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s SEA travel people! It can get very bumpy flying in an airliner as well, if an airliner hits turbulence do we ask for a refund? No! Norwegian always will look out for the safety of the passengers and the multi hundreds of millions dollars! If you don’t like the ocean , don’t cruise!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full disclosure ... I am not a sitting member of the judiciary. My practice is limited to multi-national/cross border complex mergers and acquisitions. Further, none of my insights here are the provision of legal advice within the meaning of the jurisdictions I which I am admitted to practice.

 

 

 

I am only trying to add to the diverse opinions presented on this forum. My point was courts act based on facts ... not opinions or hyperbole.

 

 

 

Wow, it looks like someone opened up a law book and found a few "fancy" words to make a statement with. Nice try, you almost made it sound good.

 

 

 

You want by BBO#? Copy of my Harvard Law diploma? Copy of my admission certificate? Something else? Actually, I couldn't care less what you think. I didn't work my butt off putting myself through school to prove anything to anyone other than myself.

 

And to respond to your dim-witted comment, yes actually, I opened 100s of law books and read and studied them 12+ hours a day for 3 years in law school and then studied 15+ hours a day for 3 months studying for the bar. And I have spent every working hour of every day since "opening a law book" or two to make myself a better complex multi-national/cross border M&A partner for my fortune 50 clients. The moment one stops learning is the moment they allow latent arrogance to fill the void.

 

I'll have nothing further to say on this topic. The gall of some people.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want by BBO#? Copy of my Harvard Law diploma? Copy of my admission certificate? Something else? Actually, I couldn't care less what you think. I didn't work my butt off putting myself through school to prove anything to anyone other than myself.

 

And to respond to your dim-witted comment, yes actually, I opened 100s of law books and read and studied them 12+ hours a day for 3 years in law school and then studied 15+ hours a day for 3 months studying for the bar. And I have spent every working hour of every day since "opening a law book" or two to make myself a better complex multi-national/cross border M&A partner for my fortune 50 clients. The moment one stops learning is the moment they allow latent arrogance to fill the void.

 

I'll have nothing further to say on this topic. The gall of some people.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Don't let it get to you. I've had my credentials questioned over and over again here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full disclosure ... I am not a sitting member of the judiciary. My practice is limited to multi-national/cross border complex mergers and acquisitions. Further, none of my insights here are the provision of legal advice within the meaning of the jurisdictions I which I am admitted to practice.

 

I am only trying to add to the diverse opinions presented on this forum. My point was courts act based on facts ... not opinions or hyperbole.

 

Wow, it looks like someone opened up a law book and found a few "fancy" words to make a statement with. Nice try, you almost made it sound good.

 

Good job. I entertain myself posting stupid stuff too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my neighbor that gambles wins, he boasts.

When he loses....

 

The ends do not justify the means in this instance. Simply put, the fact no one suffered an injury that we know of isn't material in the face of logic that clearly dictates prudence over chance would have been the safer course.

 

Do you really think there was a zero percent risk this could have gone the other way? That percentage, however low, do you want it applied to your life? Spare me the "accepted risks when you board the ship" defense, those apply to the unavoidable, not the ignored.

So what is your solution? Jail? Execution? Replace the Board?

Everytime you walk out your front door, things could “ go the other way”. Get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my neighbor that gambles wins, he boasts.

When he loses....

 

The ends do not justify the means in this instance. Simply put, the fact no one suffered an injury that we know of isn't material in the face of logic that clearly dictates prudence over chance would have been the safer course.

 

Do you really think there was a zero percent risk this could have gone the other way? That percentage, however low, do you want it applied to your life? Spare me the "accepted risks when you board the ship" defense, those apply to the unavoidable, not the ignored.

 

There is never zero percent risk. Ride in a bus,car,plane,boat or even walking. There is risk that something can happen. The professionals had to navigate around the situation and did the best they could to get people back safe while considering all the other factors. I don’t believe for a second they decided to “chance it “. Get real.

 

Let it go people!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on Breakaway in equal wind and waves. It can happen any time off the coast not just during a storm like this one. The ship did not sail into the path of the storm, it followed as close as it could within sailing ability of the ship to minimize how late it would be. That does, yes, minimize the cost of the delay as compared to another day or two (which could cancel the following cruise) or the idea of disembarking in Florida (terrible expensive PLUS the cancellation of the next cruise.) The ship did what made sense and some people were upset by it.

 

I was on the cruise as well.. The Low off the coast of Florida on Tuesday caused Breakaway to cancel tendering operations to GSC That low became the powerful N'oreaster.. Even as early as that Tuesday low was predicted to move North. and become a major and powerful storm..The only way to avoid the storm would have been to divert to a port in Florida Tuesday and Wed, then head home Thursday.morning Arriving in NYC Saturday.. Same day Breakaway left for next cruise anyway. By 2nd sea day (Friday) Breakaway would have been off coast of NC and the storm would be near Canada. Additionally the next cruise was 14 days. Arriving a day or two later wouldn't of canceled the next cruise, just shortened it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading these post are upsetting. People who were not on this cruise should not be commenting negatively. As captain of the ship most important job is the safety of the passengers. We have been on many cruises in the winter . Yes, the seas can be rough. The captain is aware of the weather, and should take what ever precautions are necessary. We missed a port once because of a storm. I think NCL was partly irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading these post are upsetting. People who were not on this cruise should not be commenting negatively. As captain of the ship most important job is the safety of the passengers. We have been on many cruises in the winter . Yes, the seas can be rough. The captain is aware of the weather, and should take what ever precautions are necessary. We missed a port once because of a storm. I think NCL was partly irresponsible.

Yes your right. These posts are upsetting. Everyone thinks they are an expert. From both sides too. The real experts made their choice and everyone got back safe. There is no going back , it’s over. So again I say let it go. I’m done. Peace out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone watches the weather they will see that this storm really came out of nowhere. I live in SC and last weekend there was no snow forecasted for the coast.

 

 

The storm didn't come out of nowhere. They were talking about it 5 days in advance. The only question was the track of the storm in relation to the east coast and how close it would get to the coast.

 

Sent from my SM-G935P using Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there might be ONE thing on which everyone posting here would agree (how likely is that, I hear you ask) it is this: The biggest single complaint that I have heard expressed over and over was the same. There was NO effective communication from the top..

 

That is inexcusable. It is decent, common sense, caring reflexive behavior, or it certainly ought to be. Have candor and basic honesty become so fragile that the worry about possible litigation has destroyed them?

 

I would not be surprised if some substantive changes in procedure concerning accurate and timely messages for passengers flow from this incident. I would hope that they do. Basic, honest, timely information provided to people who are upset to varying degrees can have NO downside. (Or at least one would HOPE that worry over possible litigation has not again tipped the scales on this behavior as well.

 

It is this same lack of decency and common sense in being honest with patrons which was also a large part of the disgusting disgraceful weekend at the flagship airport of America. It is, to repeat myself, INESXCUSABLE that passengers can get more and better information from twitter than they can for those responsible for taking care of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are always going to cheerlead and defend the cruiseline at all costs, and this is not a post about whether the people onboard deserve full refunds, I'm not sure they do. But that said:

 

These cruise lines keep taking unnecessary risks regarding forecasted extremely bad weather. Royal did it with Anthem last year, and now Norwegian did it here. If these cruise lines keep taking these risks in order to maximize profits and minimize delays, instead of erring on the side of delaying the next cruise by a few days, then eventually something very bad is going to happen.

 

Anthem of the Seas was much closer to disaster than many people realize. If that last azipod had failed in those seas, it very well could have gone down. And there is no realistic way to abandon ship in the lifeboats safely in weather like that, loss of life would be extreme. These mega ships are floating skyscrapers, they are not designed to operate in extremely rough/hurricane level waters with no functioning engines. Also these ships are not terribly well maintained and have engines that fail under the best of conditions. Again, this is a numbers game, there are so many mega ship cruises launching now on a daily basis. If the cruise lines don't change their behavior and start acting more responsibly with respect to forecasted storms, eventually, something really bad is going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are always going to cheerlead and defend the cruiseline at all costs, and this is not a post about whether the people onboard deserve full refunds, I'm not sure they do.

 

Not true. People also don't like it when it appears that someone is exaggerating a situation for their personal gain, turning to public sympathy instead of being factual. Eventually the same public winds up paying the costs, whether in higher future prices or reduced service.

 

People understand fairness. Passengers whose rooms were damaged or their property was damaged certainly deserve compensation. But it's not a "satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want by BBO#? Copy of my Harvard Law diploma? Copy of my admission certificate? Something else? Actually, I couldn't care less what you think. I didn't work my butt off putting myself through school to prove anything to anyone other than myself.

 

And to respond to your dim-witted comment, yes actually, I opened 100s of law books and read and studied them 12+ hours a day for 3 years in law school and then studied 15+ hours a day for 3 months studying for the bar. And I have spent every working hour of every day since "opening a law book" or two to make myself a better complex multi-national/cross border M&A partner for my fortune 50 clients. The moment one stops learning is the moment they allow latent arrogance to fill the void.

 

I'll have nothing further to say on this topic. The gall of some people.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Wow. I am IMPRESSED. my mouth salivates just reading your credentials (esp if you went to harvard and aren't lying, which I am 95% sure you aren't, but it's the internet so you know...).

 

ppl have dinged me for saying something that is essentially factually correct about my profession/credentials. This is why i won't explicitly state what it is even though it is quite apparent if you piece together my posts (no body would go through my post history as i haven't posted in a while). i know it's true, even though i cannot prove it. but ppl were lobbing insults, which don't phase me b/c i know it's true. in fact, it is so true that all countries around the world write laws about it. yes....vague and confusing paragraph :D

 

I was a lil surprised how that disclaimer statement didn't come up earlier d/t malpractice concerns, which albeit are admittedly minuscule for lawyers. that statement really should reaffirm to skeptics that you are a lawyer.

 

"The gall of some people." <----I agree with this statement 100%. psyche 101 - these ppl are obviously projecting onto you their insecurities about how uneducated/ignorant/flat out dumb they are. (i'm not a psychologist i swear :D i'm not) what scares me is when they become arrogant given what lil they know, and they go around doing things outside the scope of their practice. Can get very disastrous and dangerous. I see it all the time, and it becomes YUGE mess to clean up. it FRUSTRATES me to no end and causes such a huge headache b/c it just complicates things endlessly. UGH!

 

Back on topic - Thanks for your insight, as they actually are meaningful compared to the rampant speculation on how maritime law works (does it work? lol). it will be interesting to see what people do. i guess there could be monetary damages from the stress maybe. idk. not a lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. People also don't like it when it appears that someone is exaggerating a situation for their personal gain, turning to public sympathy instead of being factual. Eventually the same public winds up paying the costs, whether in higher future prices or reduced service.

 

People understand fairness. Passengers whose rooms were damaged or their property was damaged certainly deserve compensation. But it's not a "satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" contract.

 

The issue here isn't whether or not people *deserve* refunds. The issue is that, yet again, a major cruise line made a decision to sail into an extremely dangerous well forecasted storm. The cruise lines need to be called out on this and they should lose money, because otherwise they will keep making the same calculation, that is that its cheaper to take that risk, and then eventually something terrible is going to happen. If the financial penalty to the cruise company is that they are forced to pay out refunds so that they don't engage in this behavior again, so be it. It's better than the alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue here isn't whether or not people *deserve* refunds. The issue is that, yet again, a major cruise line made a decision to sail into an extremely dangerous well forecasted storm. The cruise lines need to be called out on this and they should lose money, because otherwise they will keep making the same calculation, that is that its cheaper to take that risk, and then eventually something terrible is going to happen. If the financial penalty to the cruise company is that they are forced to pay out refunds so that they don't engage in this behavior again, so be it. It's better than the alternative.

 

If you believe this, then find a way to legislate it. Retroactively applying penalties that disregard the existing contract is ridiculous. Or if you have evidence that the current contract is not legal, feel free to present it.

 

And why is your evaluation of the risk more valid than theirs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I am IMPRESSED. my mouth salivates just reading your credentials (esp if you went to harvard and aren't lying, which I am 95% sure you aren't, but it's the internet so you know...).

 

 

 

ppl have dinged me for saying something that is essentially factually correct about my profession/credentials. This is why i won't explicitly state what it is even though it is quite apparent if you piece together my posts (no body would go through my post history as i haven't posted in a while). i know it's true, even though i cannot prove it. but ppl were lobbing insults, which don't phase me b/c i know it's true. in fact, it is so true that all countries around the world write laws about it. yes....vague and confusing paragraph :D

 

 

 

I was a lil surprised how that disclaimer statement didn't come up earlier d/t malpractice concerns, which albeit are admittedly minuscule for lawyers. that statement really should reaffirm to skeptics that you are a lawyer.

 

 

 

"The gall of some people." <----I agree with this statement 100%. psyche 101 - these ppl are obviously projecting onto you their insecurities about how uneducated/ignorant/flat out dumb they are. (i'm not a psychologist i swear :D i'm not) what scares me is when they become arrogant given what lil they know, and they go around doing things outside the scope of their practice. Can get very disastrous and dangerous. I see it all the time, and it becomes YUGE mess to clean up. it FRUSTRATES me to no end and causes such a huge headache b/c it just complicates things endlessly. UGH!

 

 

 

Back on topic - Thanks for your insight, as they actually are meaningful compared to the rampant speculation on how maritime law works (does it work? lol). it will be interesting to see what people do. i guess there could be monetary damages from the stress maybe. idk. not a lawyer.

 

 

 

It is, in fact, true. I typically do not discuss my educational background because I find people make all sorts of incorrect assumptions about me when they do (call it some long unresolved cognitive dissonance [emoji6]).

 

As for the disclaimer, I honestly never gave it any thought until someone commented on one of my thoughts and I thought I should set the record straight. Just trying to provide another point of view.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...