Costa Ship grounded or sinking

[Pam in CA]

Well really, unless there was inadequate maintenance of the navigational system or the like (or the captain was a known drunkard and they hired him anyway), it's hard to imagine how this could have been the line's fault.

Just as the Captain is responsible for everything that happens on the ship, whether he was on the bridge or asleep in his cabin, the cruise line is responsible for the Captain. To me, Costa is admitting he made a mistake and opening themselves up to lawsuits. There's no way the passengers and/or families will only sue the Captain. They'll sue the cruise line as the responsible party.

[kywildcatfanone]

Do not underestimate the imagination capabilities of lawyers.

 

I don't think it will take much imagination at all. If the reports prove to be true, this was gross negligence on the part of the captain and the other senior officers. I'm sure lots of lawsuits to follow against the captain and the cruise line.

 

Mike

[WhenIsOurNextCruise]

I don't think it will take much imagination at all. If the reports prove to be true, this was gross negligence on the part of the captain and the other senior officers. I'm sure lots of lawsuits to follow against the captain and the cruise line.

 

Mike

 

Which is ultimately Carnival - right?

[Pam in CA]

Which is ultimately Carnival - right?

Carnival Corporation & Plc, yes, but I'd be surprised if the lawsuits named them in a suit as the different cruise lines owned by the holding company are operated separately with their own corporate structure. Those of us holding stock will probably see a hit on Tuesday when the markets open; if you've been putting off buying stock, you might want to watch the price this week.

[Woobstr112G]

Do not underestimate the imagination capabilities of lawyers.

 

And how.....:rolleyes::mad::rolleyes:

Bob

[lovevacadays]

In other words, "Do not sue us. Not our fault. Do not blame us."

 

While it might not be the cruiseline's fault they will definitely get sued because of the actions of the Captain because he is their employee.

 

I don't see Costa's statement any different than an airline stating something was mechanical error or human error.

 

I think it will be interesting to see what else comes to light in the days ahead.

 

When I look at these pictures and read the story it is still hard to believe this happened.

[RickEk]

Yes but we are not as naive as we use to be.

 

If they wanted to write simulators to cover major collisions and taking on water, power outages, weather, etc. etc. they could.

 

I think more and better training is needed. If you wish to disagree and think less and poorer training is OK you are entitled to your opinion. But from my personal experience with NASA and the Air Force I can tell you more and better is preferred.

 

The documentary that I saw with cruise ship simulators (it was concerning the building of Freedom of the Seas) seemed to be mainly concerned with docking maneuvers and such.

 

But really, to become a Captain for a major cruise line entails years and years of training. I don't think that lack of training of the bridge crew of the Concordia was a major factor in the disaster. It appears (from what has been reported) that poor judgement was the determining factor.

[shepp]

Just as the Captain is responsible for everything that happens on the ship, whether he was on the bridge or asleep in his cabin, the cruise line is responsible for the Captain.

 

Legally, yes. Morally, prolly not.

[Katelab]

The documentary that I saw with cruise ship simulators (it was concerning the building of Freedom of the Seas) seemed to be mainly concerned with docking maneuvers and such.

 

But really, to become a Captain for a major cruise line entails years and years of training. I don't think that lack of training of the bridge crew of the Concordia was a major factor in the disaster. It appears (from what has been reported) that poor judgement was the determining factor.

 

I think you do not get it. read my first post. poor judgement by pilots the first time gets CORRECTED and they do not make the same mistake.

 

Years of training in NORMAL easy seas does not give them the additional experience that could be gained by putting them through the ringer on a better designed simulator. I have spoken with numerous Fighter pilots who would attest to the benefits of simulator training.

[chasetf]

.....I don't see Costa's statement any different than an airline stating something was mechanical error or human error.....

I do. The airlines like to be able to drag the manufactures in for a share of the responsibility. By admitting human effort Costa lets off the manufactures of nav equipment.

[hulamoon]

costa may be wanting to get the bad news out immediately. The drip,drip,drip of bad news is very damaging to stock. they probably only admitted the undeniable. Someone should have been monitoring the Captain if drive by's were going on.

[CZEE]

The ship would have been under the direction of the pilot, but the captain would still have been in "charge."

 

 

 

I believe you may be in error--the pilot is in charge--that's the way it works in the major ports--SF, NY, etc, and the Panama Canal. The pilots know the local waters that the captains do not--they've been in training for years for those particular waters.

[Aussie Gal]

Hi

I'm Most of us have attended the drills as our first necessary event before the cruise actually begins, and haven't overly listened. The idea of that zip lock bag sounds pretty good, too.

 

Lynne

 

Would you take that ziplock bag everywhere you went on the ship just in case of having some sort of catastrophe, I doubt it! Who on that ship in their wildest dreams would have thought that the ship would hit a rock whilst they were having dinner.

 

If you read the post by one of the Aussie survivors who was at dinner that night, there was no time to do anything other than try and save themselves. Here is the link: http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1548951

 

Jennie

[Aussie Gal]

I believe you may be in error--the pilot is in charge--that's the way it works in the major ports--SF, NY, etc, and the Panama Canal. The pilots know the local waters that the captains do not--they've been in training for years for those particular waters.

 

I don't think a pilot was on board. The ship had left Civitavecchia hours beforehand and was in heading for Savona. I don't believe a pilot was necessary once leaving port.

 

Jennie

[Pam in CA]

I believe you may be in error--the pilot is in charge--that's the way it works in the major ports--SF, NY, etc, and the Panama Canal. The pilots know the local waters that the captains do not--they've been in training for years for those particular waters.

The ship was two hours out of port and "at sea." The pilot wouldn't have been onboard for quite a while. Pilots guide ships in and out of harbors, not several miles off the coast. In this case, the Captain apparently deliberately went close to the shoreline, against Costa's own regulations and his training, and well off the scheduled sailing path. He should have been well offshore; instead, he was perhaps just a few hundred feed from shore (according to locals on the island.)

[RickEk]

I think you do not get it. read my first post. poor judgement by pilots the first time gets CORRECTED and they do not make the same mistake.

 

Years of training in NORMAL easy seas does not give them the additional experience that could be gained by putting them through the ringer on a better designed simulator. I have spoken with numerous Fighter pilots who would attest to the benefits of simulator training.

 

Whoa... easy there... I don't disagree with you. I would certainly agree that extensive simulator training would be a benefit. But neither of us know exactly how much simulator experience is available to cruise ship captains and bridge staff.

[karatemom2]

Interesting article contrasting the behavior of the Captain and the purser who was rescued off the sunken ship yesterday. Sounds like he was the real hero.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/americans-15-passengers-missing-costa-concordia-cruise-ship-disaster-article-1.1006437

 

Apparently, according to this article, Italian Coast Guard officials repeatedly urged the Captain to return to his post after he fled leaving his crew and passengers behind but he refused.

 

It also talks about the Minnesota couple that is still missing. So sad!

[tacrum43]

Those of us holding stock will probably see a hit on Tuesday when the markets open; if you've been putting off buying stock, you might want to watch the price this week.

 

 

I've been considering buying CCL stock for a while now as I plan to continue cruising regularly with the various lines of CCL. But...it makes me feel a bit guilty to take "advantage" of a disaster like this, even if I was planning to buy it anyway.

 

In the past, I've noticed the same pattern with airline stocks after a crash, but I always felt it was unethical to buy the stock in that circumstance to make a profit. However, in this case it would be because I would like the stock holder discount.

 

What are other people's thoughts?

[Starlaker]

I don't see the least thing unethical about it. It is not like you are insider trading. Everyone knows about the crash and no one is forcing sale of the stock. Looks to me like you are showing support for the company by buying their stock. Especially since you had planned to buy it anyway.

[Shogun]

Hi All

 

Carnival have released a statement to UK stock market saying earnings will be down by almost $100 million

 

Sad that a sixth body has been found

 

Media saying here one of the missing is a young child.

 

yours Shogun

[Aus Traveller]

I believe you may be in error--the pilot is in charge--that's the way it works in the major ports--SF, NY, etc, and the Panama Canal. The pilots know the local waters that the captains do not--they've been in training for years for those particular waters.

I have heard from more than one captain that they are in charge and also responsible even when there is a pilot on board. The pilot only advises the captain.:) It might be different in (for instance) the Panama Canal.

 

In the case of the Costa Concordia, I doubt there was a pilot on board.

[Aus Traveller]

I've been considering buying CCL stock for a while now as I plan to continue cruising regularly with the various lines of CCL. But...it makes me feel a bit guilty to take "advantage" of a disaster like this, even if I was planning to buy it anyway.

 

In the past, I've noticed the same pattern with airline stocks after a crash, but I always felt it was unethical to buy the stock in that circumstance to make a profit. However, in this case it would be because I would like the stock holder discount.

 

What are other people's thoughts?

A key objective of a Board of Directors of any company is to keep the share price as high as possible. Obviously it will take a nose dive now, but anyone who buys will be helping the company by bolstering the share price - even if by a little. If no-one buys, it will fall further and take longer to recover.

 

Buy your shares. :):)

[JanaJohn]

There's no way the passengers and/or families will only sue the Captain. They'll sue the cruise line as the responsible party.

 

The passengers/families will sue both the captain and the cruise line. They know they won't be able to get really big bucks from the captain. That's why they also sue the cruise line - that's where the big bucks are! You might even see them sue the ship yard that built the ship since they too have a lot of money.

[Shogun]

Hi All

 

Search has been stopped ship has slipped 4.5m into deeper water,

 

media reporting that the pursar who stayed onboard to help passengers

 

and broke his leg after being hit by a falling fridge as a hero.

 

Costa putting a lot of distance between them and the captain,

 

saying captain took ship off course with out approval onto a route not approved by the company etc.

 

 

 

yours Shogun

[chrysalis]