An open letter - Why we've decided to stop cruising

[Princess Patches]

I think your letter was well written and discussed the salient points that are on all of our minds. I agree with you that my main concern is some assurance that the crew is professional and will act professionally in an emergency. The actions of the Concordia captain and some of his top officers was very disturbing to say the least. While I will continue to cruise, I will be much more aware of safety issues and hoping for more stringent safety measures coming from the cruise industry in the near future.

[bare_eyed_cockatoo]

The problem for the industry is not JTMalt, it is what the potential new passengers who are its life blood, what they make of this disaster, and the performance of both Costa and its parent company in damage limitation.

 

Hear! Hear!

 

Hubby & I are Royal Caribbean cruisers. We had been hoping to take his mother on a cruise. She was very hesitant, but had tentatively agreed to try a week on Oasis or Allure with us.

 

Then Concordia sank. She has now made it clear that she doesn't ever want to cruise. Not ever. Never.

 

We will cruise again. But not with my mother-in-law.

[QM1]

Be sure you are not safer on a land-based holiday unless you stay in your boring hotel. Every drive in your rental car, or in a tour bus or a taxi will be more dangerous than a cruise. No matter how much you read about the Concordia desaster, cruising was and is very safe.

 

While I must say that my trust in a ships management has also been slightly shaken by the events, its was not a "ground shaking" thing. The only consequence for me is only to look a bit closer on which cruise line to take, and what ship.

[glrounds]

Hear! Hear!

 

Hubby & I are Royal Caribbean cruisers. We had been hoping to take his mother on a cruise. She was very hesitant, but had tentatively agreed to try a week on Oasis or Allure with us.

 

Then Concordia sank. She has now made it clear that she doesn't ever want to cruise. Not ever. Never.

 

We will cruise again. But not with my mother-in-law.

 

Tell your Mother-in-law she might want to avoid trains also. This on the news today.

 

Argentine train crash kills 49 people, hurts 600

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Argentine+train+crash+kills+people+hurts/6190975/story.html#ixzz1n8XbHeiw

 

[SuiteTraveler]

Hear! Hear!

 

Hubby & I are Royal Caribbean cruisers. We had been hoping to take his mother on a cruise. She was very hesitant, but had tentatively agreed to try a week on Oasis or Allure with us.

 

Then Concordia sank. She has now made it clear that she doesn't ever want to cruise. Not ever. Never.

 

We will cruise again. But not with my mother-in-law.

 

No offense intended, but your MIL may have done you a HUGE favor with her decision. If you took her on Oasis or Allure, you might never again be able to cruise without her! ;)

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

Tell your Mother-in-law she might want to avoid trains also. This on the news today.

 

Argentine train crash kills 49 people, hurts 600

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Argentine+train+crash+kills+people+hurts/6190975/story.html#ixzz1n8XbHeiw

 

 

Was the train's engineer recklessly showboating? Did he completely decompensate emotionally? Did he lie to the passengers about the seriousness of the incident? Did he fail to request the proper assistance immediately? Did he leave his dying passengers and the rest of his crew without a commander? If so, then, yes, it might be a good idea for her MIL to do precisely as you suggest.

[glrounds]

No offense intended, but your MIL may have done you a HUGE favor with her decision. If you took her on Oasis or Allure, you might never again be able to cruise without her! ;)

 

Well said . . . be careful what you wish for. :D

 

[donaldsc]

Tell your Mother-in-law she might want to avoid trains also. This on the news today.

 

Argentine train crash kills 49 people, hurts 600

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Argentine+train+crash+kills+people+hurts/6190975/story.html#ixzz1n8XbHeiw

 

 

Or cars. Or buses. Or airplane. Or taxis. Etc., etc., etc.

 

DON

[glrounds]

Was the train's engineer recklessly showboating? Did he completely decompensate emotionally? Did he lie to the passengers about the seriousness of the incident? Did he fail to request the proper assistance immediately? Did he leave his dying passengers and the rest of his crew without a commander? If so, then, yes, it might be a good idea for her MIL to do precisely as you suggest.

 

If the engineer WASN'T doing any of the above, that would be all THE MORE reason for the MIL to skip trains. Adding a reckless engineer to the normal dangers of train travel with no concern for his passengers only RAISES the chances of death or injury.

 

[Karen@Steve]

To the OP, I totally respect your decision, after all it's your vacation and you should decide what will give you the greatest pleasure. Certainly worrying about what might happen isn't the way to do that.

 

The issue here isn't that accidents don't happen everywhere, everyday, everyway. I've been on cruise ships through bad storms and hurricanes, in Hawaii for 2 tsunamis and the middle east during a bombing. Certainly, no one was responsible for causing the incident (well, other than the bombing of course) but in each case the officers, staff and people responsible for my safety (besides me) acted with good leadership and sense and made the situation a non issue.

 

That's what is so disturbing about the Concordia is that the leadership that should have happened after the accident never materialized. Captain Poultry finished his dinner and fled. Where were the rest of the officers? Why didn't someone else take the leadership role once the great chicken left the ship?

 

The crew was ill trained but many probably would have been more effective with proper leadership. When the tsunamis were headed to Hawaii the hotel staff in both cases, provided instructions and information and provided assistance to ensure everyone was evacuated to a safe area. Thankfully, these threats came to almost nothing but had they been life threatening we would have been safe. On the cruise ships in both cases the captains made unpopular decisions to leave ports early or miss ports altogether to avoid the storm and all were safe. They were leaders and their crews defended their decisions because they knew the quality of the captains involved. In the case of the bombing, the hotel triaged all of the guests and made sure they were safe and taken care of, something the Costa line didn't for their guests.

 

IMHO, the biggest disaster was the lack of leadership on the part of the Captain, the crew and the cruiseline. Accidents happen, it's what you do afterward that really counts.

[cruiselover57]

My wife and I have been avid cruisers since 2005, but while planning our next cruise we started to realize that we were having second thoughts. Ultimately, we've decided to take a land-based vacation instead. This is a copy of a letter I've sent to both Micky Arison, CEO of Carnival Corporation, and Alan Buckelew CEO of Princess. I thought you might want to see it, and add your comments, pro or con, to this thread.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Mr. Arison and Mr. Buckelew,

 

After 6 cruises, 3 of them on Princess, we've made the decision to stop cruising altogether, and we think you need to know why.

 

The fiasco surrounding the Costa Concordia disaster has shaken us to the core. We've always felt comfortable sailing, because we've always felt safe. Up until now, we were always confident that in a real emergency, the well trained staff and crew would know what to do, and would execute their duties to ensure passenger safety.

 

Watching the National Geographic expose on the events surrounding the Concordia, which included cell phone footage and passenger accounts of the harrowing circumstances on board, I could not help but to envision myself in similar circumstances, and it is simply chilling. We were shocked beyond belief that the situation on board had been allowed to escalate to such chaos. Accounts of passengers running from lifeboat to lifeboat, trying to find room, and ultimately having to jump and swim to shore defied belief.

 

I am well aware that the true facts are still being investigated, but, at this time, the public perception is that there was a complete breakdown of the command structure and safety procedures. Footage showing people being directed back to their cabins while the ship was clearly taking on water was very disturbing.

 

I am not writing to ask for anything from you. I simply want you to be aware of the impressions of one pair of formerly enthusiastic cruisers. I would imagine that we are representative of many others, who might not take the time to write.

 

Our perceptions are that:

 

 

• The crew performed admirably under the circumstances.
  
• The passengers were not properly informed of emergency procedures.
  
• The Captain and senior staff unnecessarily delayed alerting passengers and evacuating the ship, causing unnecessary risk.
  
• The delay in evacuation caused issues with the launching of the lifeboats.
  
• There was a breakdown of communications on all fronts.
  

 

Again, these are perceptions, not facts, but as is often said, perception IS reality.

 

The current cruise industry response of re-evaluating the mechanics of the safety briefing and muster drill is only one small part in restoring confidence. Speaking only for myself, I need to see steps that will demonstrate that the Captain and senior staff are deserving of the trust that we put into them.

 

It is somewhat ironic that the Concordia incident, demonstrating such a poor response by a commanding officer in the face of an emergency, came at the same time as the anniversary of the successful water landing of US Airways Flight 1549 by Captain Sully Sullenberger. There could not be a greater contrast between two disastrous events.

 

We've come a long way since the sinking of the Titanic, and yet it seems that the fundamental issues of safety of life at sea still remain. I don't know how you will accomplish it, but you need to either somehow restore public faith in the commanding officers of your ships, or rely on the public to gradually forget the horrific events that occurred on January 13th.

 

Most Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Obviously you have valid points but I for one will not stop cruising (I may not ever sail on Costa unless of course I know for a fact that a captain could be trusted - have only been on 1 Costa cruise back in 1992 and never went back). #1 cruise line is Princess closely followed by RCI and Carnival. I've been cruising since 1972 (some 78 cruises so far) and have always felt safe. I believe it was this captain's poor judgment that has now left a bad image on cruising but not for all - maybe first-time cruisers for sure. While you will probably receive a response eventually, and maybe, just maybe they might value your business and try to entice you with a discount, many people will still cruise no matter what. I just think in my opinion that most people will rethink what cruise line they choose in the future and for us as a family, Costa is NOT on that list right now. While their newer ships look fabulous, I have safety concerns now because of this whole incident.

[cruiselover57]

To the OP, I totally respect your decision, after all it's your vacation and you should decide what will give you the greatest pleasure. Certainly worrying about what might happen isn't the way to do that.

 

The issue here isn't that accidents don't happen everywhere, everyday, everyway. I've been on cruise ships through bad storms and hurricanes, in Hawaii for 2 tsunamis and the middle east during a bombing. Certainly, no one was responsible for causing the incident (well, other than the bombing of course) but in each case the officers, staff and people responsible for my safety (besides me) acted with good leadership and sense and made the situation a non issue.

 

That's what is so disturbing about the Concordia is that the leadership that should have happened after the accident never materialized. Captain Poultry finished his dinner and fled. Where were the rest of the officers? Why didn't someone else take the leadership role once the great chicken left the ship?

 

The crew was ill trained but many probably would have been more effective with proper leadership. When the tsunamis were headed to Hawaii the hotel staff in both cases, provided instructions and information and provided assistance to ensure everyone was evacuated to a safe area. Thankfully, these threats came to almost nothing but had they been life threatening we would have been safe. On the cruise ships in both cases the captains made unpopular decisions to leave ports early or miss ports altogether to avoid the storm and all were safe. They were leaders and their crews defended their decisions because they knew the quality of the captains involved. In the case of the bombing, the hotel triaged all of the guests and made sure they were safe and taken care of, something the Costa line didn't for their guests.

 

IMHO, the biggest disaster was the lack of leadership on the part of the Captain, the crew and the cruiseline. Accidents happen, it's what you do afterward that really counts.

 

Very well put!

[u2cruiser]

To the OP, I totally respect your decision, after all it's your vacation and you should decide what will give you the greatest pleasure. Certainly worrying about what might happen isn't the way to do that.

 

The issue here isn't that accidents don't happen everywhere, everyday, everyway. I've been on cruise ships through bad storms and hurricanes, in Hawaii for 2 tsunamis and the middle east during a bombing. Certainly, no one was responsible for causing the incident (well, other than the bombing of course) but in each case the officers, staff and people responsible for my safety (besides me) acted with good leadership and sense and made the situation a non issue.

 

That's what is so disturbing about the Concordia is that the leadership that should have happened after the accident never materialized. Captain Poultry finished his dinner and fled. Where were the rest of the officers? Why didn't someone else take the leadership role once the great chicken left the ship?

 

The crew was ill trained but many probably would have been more effective with proper leadership. When the tsunamis were headed to Hawaii the hotel staff in both cases, provided instructions and information and provided assistance to ensure everyone was evacuated to a safe area. Thankfully, these threats came to almost nothing but had they been life threatening we would have been safe. On the cruise ships in both cases the captains made unpopular decisions to leave ports early or miss ports altogether to avoid the storm and all were safe. They were leaders and their crews defended their decisions because they knew the quality of the captains involved. In the case of the bombing, the hotel triaged all of the guests and made sure they were safe and taken care of, something the Costa line didn't for their guests.

 

IMHO, the biggest disaster was the lack of leadership on the part of the Captain, the crew and the cruiseline. Accidents happen, it's what you do afterward that really counts.

 

Great post.

 

I wonder how many of us who continue to cruise will ever feel entirely safe in any future emergencies onboard? Will the terrible events of the Concordia cause us to mistrust those who have our lives in their hands in future?

 

I have always felt absolutely safe on a cruise ship even in very rough seas. I had no idea that such a catastrophe as this could happen in 2012.

 

I must admit that I am not craving a cruise like I usually do as soon as I return from my last one. I have started looking again, but today's news about the discovery of more bodies has set me back again. Such a tragic and uneccesary waste of lives. :(

 

Now, I know I would never wait patiently for instructions in the event of an emergency nor would I go back to wait in the cabin as Concordia passengers were told to. I will make sure I familiarise myself with the lifeboat deck and how to get to it both portside and starboard from my cabin and also from the other places I spend most time on a cruise.

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

Or cars. Or buses. Or airplane. Or taxis. Etc., etc., etc.

 

DON

 

If the operators of any of those want to take an additional, unnecessary, life-taking risk while shes a passenger (as the captain of Concordia did), then, yeah, it makes sense for her reevaluate whether she want to get in the car, bus, plane or taxi with them. Who are WE to determine HER level of risk??

[Keel Haul]

Or cars. Or buses. Or airplane. Or taxis. Etc., etc., etc.

 

DON

Sorry you get second place.

[IndyDenise]

[i take issue with your assertion that the abandon ship failed miserably. It worked spectacularly. Nearly all of the passengers and many of the crew were able to be evacuated in the first wave of boats.

 

__________________________

 

I take issue with your claims that the evacuation worked spectacularly.

Nearly all of the passengers were able to be evacuated in the first wave? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!

Tell that to the hundreds that jumped and swam to safety. Tell that to the hundreds that climbed rope ladders and waited on the ship's side for rescue. Tell that to the 60 passengers that were airlifted to safety. Tell that to the passengers that were denied a seat in a lifeboat because it was " crew only" .

And..the only reason that more did not perish was due to one lucky wind that pushed the ship close to shore.

 

 

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

I disagree as well.

 

I feel like I've been treated to one of those disembarkation talks where you're told that there is no perfect cruise, nonetheless please rate the cruise you just took as perfect whether it was or not. Not everyone got off Concordia alive, not everyone got off in a lifeboat, not everyone got to their station in an organized muster, not everyone got called to abandon ship at the appropriate time. (I could go on...)

 

There were serious, serious problems with this evacuation. Spectacularly serious.

[greg-nc]

Was the train's engineer recklessly showboating? Did he completely decompensate emotionally? Did he lie to the passengers about the seriousness of the incident? Did he fail to request the proper assistance immediately? Did he leave his dying passengers and the rest of his crew without a commander? If so, then, yes, it might be a good idea for her MIL to do precisely as you suggest.

 

Actually it is coming out today that there was a mechanical issue and the train's brakes were not working. This, of course, will need to be confirmed by the official investigation.

 

The train's engineer survived and is in the hospital with critical injuries.

 

Let me say that this train situation is entirely different than the Concordia situation.

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

Actually it is coming out today that there was a mechanical issue and the train's brakes were not working. This, of course, will need to be confirmed by the official investigation.

 

The train's engineer survived and is in the hospital with critical injuries.

 

Let me say that this train situation is entirely different than the Concordia situation.

 

That was exactly my point. Apples to oranges.

[Dmetrius]

We had been hoping to take his mother on a cruise. She was very hesitant, but had tentatively agreed to try a week on Oasis or Allure with us.

 

Then Concordia sank. She has now made it clear that she doesn't ever want to cruise. Not ever. Never.

 

We will cruise again. But not with my mother-in-law.

And this is a problem HOW?

[bare_eyed_cockatoo]

And this is a problem HOW?

 

Not a problem for us, but a problem for the cruise lines; my MIL would have been a first-time cruiser. Now she'll be a never-cruiser.

 

It's not a one-time loss of revenue, it's the continuing loss of a potential revenue stream.

[nonna5]

Wow if you stopped traveling because of accidents/disasters you would be living in a cacoon in a bunker somewhere.

 

I choose to continue to live my life to the fullest.

[greg-nc]

Let me say that the original letter that started this thread is well written and makes some good points.

 

However in my case, I still plan to go on cruises with my family. We have enjoyed all of our cruises on Celebrity, RCL, and NCL.

 

We are actually looking into cruises for 2013 in the Med (our first time there), and are actually looking at both Celebrity and Costa.

[Mr XFT]

If the operators of any of those want to take an additional, unnecessary, life-taking risk while shes a passenger (as the captain of Concordia did), then, yeah, it makes sense for her reevaluate whether she want to get in the car, bus, plane or taxi with them. Who are WE to determine HER level of risk??

 

So there's no value in pointing out that many many activities are statistically MUCH deadlier than a cruise, just because all of THOSE accidents weren't caused by an arrogant Captain?

 

That's the whole point of this ridiculous letter, not feeling safe. If the desire is a feeling of safety, then get over this Concordia incident, look at the cruise industry's record, and contemplate your chances of death or trauma on a cruise vs a multitude of other things you do each day. This was a reckless captain, one guy. Just because I hear about a drunk driver, doesn't mean everyone on the road is drunk. You people are so stuck on the captain that no other truth or statistics seem to bother you.

 

"Play in traffic, sure, sounds good! At least I won't be ABANDONED BY A CAPTAIN."

[jtmalt]

That's the whole point of this ridiculous letter, not feeling safe. If the desire is a feeling of safety, then get over this Concordia incident, look at the cruise industry's record, and contemplate your chances of death or trauma on a cruise vs a multitude of other things you do each day. This was a reckless captain, one guy. Just because I hear about a drunk driver, doesn't mean everyone on the road is drunk. You people are so stuck on the captain that no other truth or statistics seem to bother you.

 

Actually, that was not the whole point of my "ridiculous letter", as I've restated several times. The letter is about perceptions, and about the cruise lines needing to address those perception in order to win back the 35% of the cruisers that have stopped purchasing their product as a result of this incident.

 

Whether the perceptions are valid or not is a matter of debate, but the fact is, no matter how snarky the rebuttal about statistics, the perceptions won't change. If the cruise lines decide to address this by talking about how safe cruising is, they won't regain any customers until, as always happens, enough time passes that the public begins to forget.

 

My outrage is not so much about the accident itself, but about how the evacuation of the ship was handled. That illustrates a real problem with the way the whole muster procedure is designed. When thirty men, women, and children are killed, not in the accident, but due to a chaotic and disorganized evacuation, it calls into question the whole concept of the muster, which hasn't really changed in nearly 100 years. The exact same problems that caused such dramatic loss of life on the Titanic have still not been addressed, and if not for sheer luck, the same could have happened here. There is absolutely no reason why a single life should have been lost in the aftermath of the collision.

 

This is more than just a single reckless captain. It's about a ship board culture that allowed this to occur without intervention by any other officer, and allowed such a poor response by the officers tasked with the safety of their passengers. What amazes me is the 65% of cruisers that are NOT outraged by this incident.