Concordia News: Please Post Here

[watertheodds]

Let it go Rugrat. This is the kind of crud that got the roundtable closed over and over. Don't come over here and get this thread closed. Take the info you want and agree with and discard the rest....even if you "know better". I for one want to continue to get information and links to information about the Concordia from CC. Please, no attacks on me either.

[greg-nc]

An article with the story of two German survivors:

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stern.de%2Ftv%2Fsterntv%2Fwas-passagiere-auf-der-costa-concordia-erlebten-rettungsboote-nur-fuer-die-crew-1774517.html

 

Some quotes:

 

 

"A life raft is lowered into the water, but are denied them a place. Not for Passengers, for Crew only", The boat is reserved for the employees of the ship: "Not for Passengers, crew for only", they say. The two men then try to get to the other side of the ship, where there are reportedly more lifeboats."

 

"Along the way, they meet two elderly German women who do not speak English and communicate with the crew may not. In desperation, the two men try with the older ladies on the hand, to escape the rising waters when the ship makes a sentence again. A strong eddy trail is created, Hanke and Zuhn lose the hands of two women. Suddenly the doors to go to the elevator shaft and pull the two women into the depths. "I heard a very short, sharp cry, then they were gone." The two women from Offenbach are still considered missing, just like 27 other passengers and crew members."

[jhale]

I just read that they found 8 more bodies, there are still 7 missing. Sad news.

[jhale]

Sorry, I forgot to post the link to the news story...

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-italy-shipwreck-bodies-20120223,0,7149194.story

[SomeBeach]

Can we atop arguing and get back to the NEWS!

 

I tried that earlier, the news part but the infighting continued. I had hoped for some help but well, some had better things to discuss. :rolleyes:

Still, I thought I'd share what some of us have come up with after studying the plans.

From my earlier post, which showed the hand drawn sketches the teams were working off of, the bodies of 8 passengers were discovered. Using those sketches and comparing them to the deck plans, we've determined that they were located in or near the Milan Restaurant.

From an article I found a short time ago, one picture looks to show a recovery worker in the aft area. I will include the link tho I will warn you there is one distrubing picture. It brings home the tragedy of Concordia.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/eight-bodies-found-at-wrecked-italian-cruise-ship/story-e6frfq80-1226279266697

Edited February 23, 2012 by SomeBeach

[ScarboroughCruiser]

IMO, that confidence, skill and arrogance is exactly what destroyed Schettino. Maybe they need to reevaluate the "Capt is King rule, and dare not question me." If I'm about to crash my car, and my passenger sees it coming, I hope they say something. I'm amazed that all that brass was up there and not one had the balls to say, " slow down an/or turn the freakin boat". But if they said something, and Schettino turned unknowingly in time to miss the collision by centimeters I guess Lord Schettino would have finished their cruise industry career for 2nd guessing the capts judgement. Sad, but probably true.

 

If the eventual conclusion of this sorry mess is that the ship was lost because of the Captain's incompetence and the loss of life was due to the Captain's lack of judgement in delaying abandoning the ship, then all the cruise companies should be re-evaluating any competency tests and measures to prevent future disasters related to how Captains are selected. Certainly one can imagine the insurance companies insisting on higher standards than those apparently existing for current Costa Captains. One can only hope for this.

[Davyjonesrugrat]

Let it go Rugrat. This is the kind of crud that got the roundtable closed over and over. Don't come over here and get this thread closed. Take the info you want and agree with and discard the rest....even if you "know better". I for one want to continue to get information and links to information about the Concordia from CC. Please, no attacks on me either.

If mis-information is not 'highlighted' then false reports start appearing in papers and then people become distress over that information, would you have this happen. A fine example is reports in the beginning that the ship sailed between the rock and the island of Giglio.

 

 

rgds

:)

[degarr]

I only went back a few pages to see if this was reported on and didn't see it so here is a link

http://www.todayonline.com/World/Worldinbrief/EDC120220-0000035/Cocaine-found-in-Costa-Concordia-captains-hair-sample

 

No comment on this? Is this not news?

[Vampire Parrot]

There seems to be some confusion regarding Costa Concordia's propulsion system. I obtained the following information from Fincantieri, the builders of Costa Concordia.

 

Costa Concordia's propulsion was Diesel Elettrica Tradizionale, i.e. Traditional Diesel Electric. This means that she had inboard motors driving propeller shafts. She did not have azipods. She is not a Vista class ship. She is not a Spirit class ship.

 

She had six diesel generators in the engine rooms, total power 75.6MW.

Her two main engines (electric motors) were rated at 21MW each.

 

VP

Edited February 23, 2012 by Vampire Parrot

[kingcruiser1]

No comment on this? Is this not news?

 

I only went back a few pages to see if this was reported on and didn't see it so here is a link

http://www.todayonline.com/World/Worldinbrief/EDC120220-0000035/Cocaine-found-in-Costa-Concordia-captains-hair-sample

 

degarr, your sharing of factual information is much appreciated. However, this news was actually reported in this thread on Feb. 18th and 19th.

Since this thread's objective is to share news, your most recent post probably has received no comment due to the fact it was shared earlier. Additionally, comments overall have remained minimal because the thread's design is to share news without being bogged down by personal conjecture or opinion, which has most likely been the cause of several other threads being closed by the CC admisinstrators. Respectfully, it is my hope that CC members will continue to share news and links so that those of us who wish to keep abreast of the news will have a quick point of reference regarding the latest infomation about Concordia.

[kingcruiser1]

There seems to be some confusion regarding Costa Concordia's propulsion system.

VP

 

The discussion regarding Concordia's propulsion system has most likely run its course, as has been implied in posts by several CC members. The lengthy discussion, while informative, negates the objective of the thread, which is to share current news without opinon, conjecture, or off topic banter. As you may know, several threads of discussion have been deleted in the past few days, and I suspect that CC posters have requested that this discussion regarding the propulsion system be dropped because there is fear that this thread will also disappear if the argument continues. Consequently, as the person who originally started this thread, I respectfully request that the propulsion system discussion cease.

It is my hope that CC members will continue to share news and links so that those of us who wish to keep abreast of the news will have a quick point of reference regarding the latest infomation about Concordia.

Edited February 23, 2012 by kingcruiser1

[kingcruiser1]

From Repubblica:

New accusations regarding the captain; other Costa employees brought under investigation; Bosio's role examined.

http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/02/23/news/nuova_accusa_a_schettino_non_comunic_l_incidente-30369424/

 

Translation of the Article (via Microsoft Translator):

 

Non-disclosure to the maritime authorities of the crash against the rocks of the lily: this new allegation is investigated the Commander of the ship Costa Concordia, Francisco Schettino. He was notified at the same time with the notices of warranty to seven new suspects yesterday.

 

Grosseto Attorney objected to the new hypothesis of crime against Schettino under the right of navigation. For investigators Schettino must respond specifically also for not having notified the Capitaneria di porto di Livorno the actual gravity of the situation, delaying the emergency and rescue procedures. Schettino was already investigated by the 14 January for multiple murder manslaughter, shipwreck, abandonment of incapable and abandonment of the ship.

 

Indeed, the investigation has widened involving

 

even the leaders of Costa Crociere and second-in-command Roberto Bosio and other officers on the navigating bridge.

Although the Commander Francesco Schettino denied the correct information to the harbour and took the decision to give the general alarm and activate the relief effort, the second-in-command Roberto Bosio could intervene in his place and, according to specific protocols, work to limit the damage of the shipwreck and alert before the authorities.

Already after about 15 minutes from bumping against the rocks of lily, investigating sources explain, Schettino and his officers in plank had all the information to assess the severity of the damage and knew already that the ship could no longer float. The second-in-command Bosio reached the bridge a few minutes after the impact. According to investigators, Bosio not fired on maritime authorities to warn of the real situation and not adequately challenged decisions of Schettino but failed, considered an emergency. Bosio is accused of sinking because during the maneuver approaching the Lily was on a break from work and stood in his cabin, where he warned the impact. Then came the command Bridge, where while learning that the ship was no longer governable, according to investigators not managed to speed up the rescue and emergency procedures.

[Tranquil Waters]

Their stockholders will appreciate that. The courts will ascertain what is OBJECTIVELY "incredibly cheap" as well.

 

 

Then the stockholders are as incredibly shortsighted as Coata/CCL. And they will be less appreciative when the company get hits with much larger payouts via the courts than had they just been fair to the passengers and crew from the outset.

 

To say nothing of seeing their stock prices go down as people stop cruising or switch to other cruiselines because this tragedy stays in the news for months on end because of protracted lawsuits rather than fading to the back of peoples' consciousness as would have happened with quick fair settlement offers...

[Vampire Parrot]

When might we expect an official report? Well, Italian representatives at the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) have promised to come up with a preliminary accident report in time for the IMO May meeting.

 

VP

[Ratt]

Then the stockholders are as incredibly shortsighted as Coata/CCL. And they will be less appreciative when the company get hits with much larger payouts via the courts than had they just been fair to the passengers and crew from the outset.

 

To say nothing of seeing their stock prices go down as people stop cruising or switch to other cruiselines because this tragedy stays in the news for months on end because of protracted lawsuits rather than fading to the back of peoples' consciousness as would have happened with quick fair settlement offers...

 

From a business stand point they are doing exactly what they should do and that is try to limit the financial damage. If they had come out and lets say they offered $100,000 per none insured passenger. There would be plenty of those passengers saying "no" and wanting a "fair" offer, so in the end they are still going to be sued and end up with people calling them out for being cheap or insensitive. This entire process is about money for all sides, the cruise line, the passengers and the lawyers are all trying to keep or get as much money as they can. It's not personal, it's just business (I so hate that statement) but that is how it is.

[Longin2cruise]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Costa+Concordia+captain+Francesco+Schettino+facing+charge/6196877/story.html

 

Captain Schettino is facing additional charges for failing to describe to maratime authorities the scope of the disaster.

 

I am encouraged that Italian authorities are apparently serious about their investigation.

[Tranquil Waters]

From a business stand point they are doing exactly what they should do and that is try to limit the financial damage. If they had come out and lets say they offered $100,000 per none insured passenger. There would be plenty of those passengers saying "no" and wanting a "fair" offer, so in the end they are still going to be sued and end up with people calling them out for being cheap or insensitive. This entire process is about money for all sides, the cruise line, the passengers and the lawyers are all trying to keep or get as much money as they can. It's not personal, it's just business (I so hate that statement) but that is how it is.

 

But had Costa/CCL offered what the rest of the cruising community considered a fair offer then they would have come off much better from a PR standpoint and perhaps limited future cruisers from writing them off as incredibly cheap and insensitive to the tragedy. A company they no longer wanted to ever do business with.

 

A fair offer would have no impact on settlements as more people with sue with the lowball offer. And the greedy would sue no matter what (as you correctly pointed out) but the courts will settle if the demands are unreasonable.

 

So I still maintain that - from a purely business standpoint - that Costa/CCL is heading down the wrong path by trying to go cheap.....

[IRL_Joanie]

No comment on this? Is this not news?

Misleading headline in that it made the statement the coke was found in his hair, making it sound like he was/is on coke.

 

This was something we'd discussed in the Oz thread and were able to debunk because the Cocaine was NOT inside the hair, merely on top of it, as if someone who had used cocaine had rubbed her/his hands through the hair on Schettino's head.

 

Joanie

[greg-nc]

But had Costa/CCL offered what the rest of the cruising community considered a fair offer then they would have come off much better from a PR standpoint and perhaps limited future cruisers from writing them off as incredibly cheap and insensitive to the tragedy. A company they no longer wanted to ever do business with.

 

A fair offer would have no impact on settlements as more people with sue with the lowball offer. And the greedy would sue no matter what (as you correctly pointed out) but the courts will settle if the demands are unreasonable.

 

So I still maintain that - from a purely business standpoint - that Costa/CCL is heading down the wrong path by trying to go cheap.....

 

I can only agree with the above.

 

Considering the offer from Costa / Carnival Corp. is the lowest proposed initial settlement offer for a major transportation disaster in Europe or the U.S. in the past 30 years - the entire treatment of the passengers is a complete PR fiasco that will reduce future business for Costa considerably.

 

Contrast what Costa did with the actions of US Airways after Captain Sully landed a plane in the Hudson. US Airways quickly acted to treat the passengers well and compensated them. 100% of the passengers took the US Airways settlement offer (which was greater financially than Costa's) and most greatly praised the airline's handling of the entire event. It actually turned into a positive PR event for US Airways and bookings went up.

[Longin2cruise]

But had Costa/CCL offered what the rest of the cruising community considered a fair offer then they would have come off much better from a PR standpoint and perhaps limited future cruisers from writing them off as incredibly cheap and insensitive to the tragedy. A company they no longer wanted to ever do business with.

 

A fair offer would have no impact on settlements as more people with sue with the lowball offer. And the greedy would sue no matter what (as you correctly pointed out) but the courts will settle if the demands are unreasonable.

 

So I still maintain that - from a purely business standpoint - that Costa/CCL is heading down the wrong path by trying to go cheap.....

 

I totally agree! I have absolutely no respect for Costa anymore. They just want the situation to go away & are absolutely unwilling to accept any of the responsibility. They are trying to place all the blame on Captain Schettino, who no doubt, was reckless & irresponsible. However, someone at Costa hired him & after the crash he was apparently talking to someone at Costa on the phone. All humans make mistakes every day & the only decent/moral thing to do is to own up to them.

 

I also agree that the greedy would sue no matter what, but there are many of the passengers who only want to be reimbursed for travel & property lost. As for those who lost loved ones, there is no way to put a $ value on human life. I hope that Costa would at least arrange for transport of the bodies to their home.

[Ratt]

I can only agree with the above.

 

Considering the offer from Costa / Carnival Corp. is the lowest proposed initial settlement offer for a major transportation disaster in Europe or the U.S. in the past 30 years - the entire treatment of the passengers is a complete PR fiasco that will reduce future business for Costa considerably.

 

Contrast what Costa did with the actions of US Airways after Captain Sully landed a plane in the Hudson. US Airways quickly acted to treat the passengers well and compensated them. 100% of the passengers took the US Airways settlement offer (which was greater financially than Costa's) and most greatly praised the airline's handling of the entire event. It actually turned into a positive PR event for US Airways and bookings went up.

 

I would have to say that the US Airways incident was vastly different due to the fact that the plane was safely landed. If it hadn't and people had been seriously injured or killed, US Airways would have known that the offer would not be accepted by most of the passengers and thus they might have made a different offer knowing that in the long run they will ending up defending themselves against lawsuits.

 

I'm not saying that I think the offer was or wasn't acceptable but that the offer was made with the knowledge that there will be a lot of passengers seeking larger settlements and by starting at a lower amount they have more room to negotiate. It's no different than when you negotiate the purchase of any product. The seller starts high, the buyer starts low and in the end the two meet somewhere near the middle.

 

Just for the heck of it I asked a few of my friends if they would have taken the offer and some said yes, some said no and one of them said "hell no, I'd make them pay".

 

What do you think would have been a fair offer?

[Ratt]

I totally agree! I have absolutely no respect for Costa anymore. They just want the situation to go away & are absolutely unwilling to accept any of the responsibility. They are trying to place all the blame on Captain Schettino, who no doubt, was reckless & irresponsible. However, someone at Costa hired him & after the crash he was apparently talking to someone at Costa on the phone. All humans make mistakes every day & the only decent/moral thing to do is to own up to them.

 

I also agree that the greedy would sue no matter what, but there are many of the passengers who only want to be reimbursed for travel & property lost. As for those who lost loved ones, there is no way to put a $ value on human life. I hope that Costa would at least arrange for transport of the bodies to their home.

 

I agree that doing the right thing would be better but in today's "sue" happy environment company's and individuals have to be very careful what they say and do. If you even show a tiny hint of accepting fault for something you are opening yourself up to enormous losses. But by denying or shifting blame you put the burden of proving fault on someone else, which in turn can lower the amount of loss. Again it would be nice to be able to admit fault and move on but in this case no matter how much fault Costa admits to they are going to take it in the shorts.

 

I'm not defending Costa's handling of this mess but looking at it from the stand point that this is being done to protect their interests. As for people not cruising with them because of the way they are handling this, I doubt it's going to have that much of an effect in the long run (I could be wrong). Sure there will be some past Costa customers that will not sail with them again and there will also be people that because of this will not cruise with them but in the long run it will be a wash. While I don't fly a lot, I do fly a couple of times each year and I have not once thought about flying US Airways because of the way they handled that incident.

 

If they aren't paying for and making arrangements for the transport of the bodies that would be beyond cruel. Has this been reported on? Has there been credible reports about the treatment of passengers once they were on shore? I've followed this since day one and other than comments posted here from some that were on the ship, I haven't seen any detailed information about it.

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

What do you think would have been a fair offer?

 

I don't know that I have a specific figure in mind. But, I do know that if I owned a half-billion dollar boat that was crashed into a rock by someone *I* employed (a rock that perhaps *I* even encouraged my employee to take a good look at) and if the person that *I* employed then failed to accurately describe the situation to me, the local authorities and the good people who pay for my home and my kids' college fund, and if *I* became aware that my employee's reckless behavior terrorized and killed people...well, *I* would be a lot more generous in my settlement offer. But, then, for me, business is always personal, no matter what my job is.

 

My answer to your question is, I guess....a lot more. An amount well above what would make people say "Damn, that's gotta hurt." The current settlement offer looks to me like it is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Maybe it's not...but it looks that way to me.

[Ratt]

I don't know that I have a specific figure in mind. But, I do know that if I owned a half-billion dollar boat that was crashed into a rock by someone *I* employed (a rock that perhaps *I* even encouraged my employee to take a good look at) and if the person that *I* employed then failed to accurately describe the situation to me, the local authorities and the good people who pay for my home and my kids' college fund, and if *I* became aware that my employee's reckless behavior terrorized and killed people...well, *I* would be a lot more generous in my settlement offer. But, then, for me, business is always personal, no matter what my job is.

 

My answer to your question is, I guess....a lot more. An amount well above what would make people say "Damn, that's gotta hurt." The current settlement offer looks to me like it is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Maybe it's not...but it looks that way to me.

 

Very well said and while I might not agree with all of it, I do appreciate your honesty.

[greg-nc]

I would have to say that the US Airways incident was vastly different due to the fact that the plane was safely landed. If it hadn't and people had been seriously injured or killed, US Airways would have known that the offer would not be accepted by most of the passengers and thus they might have made a different offer knowing that in the long run they will ending up defending themselves against lawsuits.

 

I'm not saying that I think the offer was or wasn't acceptable but that the offer was made with the knowledge that there will be a lot of passengers seeking larger settlements and by starting at a lower amount they have more room to negotiate. It's no different than when you negotiate the purchase of any product. The seller starts high, the buyer starts low and in the end the two meet somewhere near the middle.

 

Just for the heck of it I asked a few of my friends if they would have taken the offer and some said yes, some said no and one of them said "hell no, I'd make them pay".

 

What do you think would have been a fair offer?

 

Considering that the Concordia situation involves the gross negligence of their captain who is criminally charged in the case, you would think that they at least would start with a proposed settlement offer that was greater than the one provided by US Airways..... instead of the lowest initial proposed settlement offer in the past 30 years of major transportation disasters in Europe and the U.S.