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

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

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."

 

Right. There is no value in doing that. Those things are totally irrelevant to whether or not cruising is safe.

[Esprit]

What amazes me is the 65% of cruisers that are NOT outraged by this incident.

 

I think the percentage is a lot higher and includes me.

 

There is a new Youtube video showing an often calm air on board as the life boats are being deployed. The crew are seen joking about how difficult it is to stand up with the list of the ship. Not the panic and chaos the Media would have us believe.

[greg-nc]

There is a new Youtube video showing an often calm air on board as the life boats are being deployed. The crew are seen joking about how difficult it is to stand up with the list of the ship. Not the panic and chaos the Media would have us believe.

 

I think that most of the videos were filmed before the first lifeboats left the ship and the sense of panic set in. I expect after the ship started tilting towards 70 degrees there was huge panic and chaos among the passengers left on board. There is simply limited documentary film showing the panic because nearly all the cell phones / cameras landed up in the water from stranded passengers (and they were too busy saving their lives to film). Do you think that 400 passengers swam to shore because they enjoyed the cold water? Or were they afraid they were going to die as no further boats picked them up. Do you think that the passengers picked up by copter were not afraid the ship was going to totally go under?

[IndyDenise]

[

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.

 

"----------------

 

If I thought it was JUST a reckless captain, I would have no problem booking Costa...HOWEVER, I think that there is more to the story than just one reckless captain...

[Esprit]

I think that most of the videos were filmed before the first lifeboats left the ship and the sense of panic set in. I expect after the ship started tilting towards 70 degrees there was huge panic and chaos among the passengers left on board. There is simply limited documentary film showing the panic because nearly all the cell phones / cameras landed up in the water from stranded passengers (and they were too busy saving their lives to film). Do you think that 400 passengers swam to shore because they enjoyed the cold water? Or were they afraid they were going to die as no further boats picked them up. Do you think that the passengers picked up by copter were not afraid the ship was going to totally go under?

 

All I ask is that you watch the footage and see for yourself rather than rely on selective media coverage

[Queen_Of_Natick]

I'll continue to cruise, but not the big mega ships. I've never had a good feeling about those things to begin with, and this particular accident does put me off of them quite a bit, to the point I will avoid them altogether.

 

I'll back up a bit. Flying for me after 9/11 was nerve wracking. It took me many months and prescription of Valium to get me back up in the air. Some people refused to fly after that and didn't.

 

And while its true accidents happen, the events leading up to, and the immediate handling of the accident afterwards is what can sometimes put many people off than the accident itself.

 

As our world as gotten smaller because of the internet, major incidences invoke fight or flight in many of us. For some avoidance is the best way to go. I don't blame the OP for their feelings at all, they have to do whatever is best for them.

 

 

 

-Q

[Mr XFT]

Actually, that was not the whole point of my "ridiculous letter", as I've restated several times. The letter is about perceptions,

 

Um, yes. And that perception is "not feeling safe." That is the point of the letter. Unless somehow, your ultimate concern is that the captain and crew are morally violating the rules, and rule breaking is absolutely abhorrent to you. Otherwise, if you know it or not, your letter is stating that you are worried about the negative impact of the staff's actions on your personal well-being. In other words, it's about not feeling safe.

 

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.

 

How would you like them to address it then, if they can't talk about how safe cruising is? This is part of the reason I believe your viewpoint is nonsense. Do you want to get a psych profile for the whole crew available for your perusal? Do you want to interview all these people like you're finding a babysitter? What do you want? Aside from ludicrous measures, all they are left with is to point out their safety measures, point out their training procedures and point out the safety record of cruising.

 

Where you fall off the wagon is to assign the attitudes of that captain and crew, and possibly company; to the entire industry. You do this automatically and arbitrarily, in spite of very little evidence to suggest a bigger problem, and in spite of a VERY good safety record. I would entirely understand if you did not want to go near Costa. There is actually logic for this, pending the investigation which has had hints that higher-ups at Costa knew or encouraged this cowboy captain. I am not aware of anything that suggests this attitude extends beyond the Costa brand, and they are vastly different and largely seperate from even other Carnival corporate brands.

 

Right. There is no value in doing that. Those things are totally irrelevant to whether or not cruising is safe.

 

No they aren't. They are absolutely relevant. What is safe? Everyday activities that we participate in without even a second thought, are a very good comparison to the perceived unsafe activity of cruising.

[KatetheWanderer]

Twenty two Carnival passengers robbed at gunpoint in P.V. during a shore excursion. Link below. Pretty bold. Mexico can't get a handle in the yearly uptick in violence. Dangerous business. Traveling. All sorts of awful things can happen on land--anytime, anywhere. I wonder whether you are statistically safer on a cruise ship than on land with all the various mishaps and mayhem that can befall you moving about on land and mingling with other earth inhabitants. Robberies at gunpoint on ships? Not bloody likely. You can stay out as late as you like and go clubbing never having to be too concerned about random crime. I feel safer on the sea than on the land in third world countries. Probably everywhere now that I think about it. Why should the Concordia accident change that perception. One hundred million passengers cruised safely in the past 15 years. The odds appear astronomically against getting hurt on a ship. My crazy fear of sharks started with that darn movie in the 70's. I doubt I'll watch specials on the Concordia disaster. Why should I risk ruining such a fun safe activity like cruising by dwelling on the remotest of possibilities.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/24/10500812-22-carnival-cruise-passengers-robbed-at-gunpoint-on-ship-sponsored-tour-in-mexico

[pspercy]

Crew can not take it upon themselves to know what procedure is in place when an emergency happens.

 

The crew most certainly CAN know the procedures, it should be a huge part of their training. However they depend upon the officers to initiate and guide those procedures to a successful conclusion.

[JLC@SD]

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.

 

Keep in mind that the "land based" vacation will probably involve driving on land.....and there are many irresponsible drivers out there......that are even more irresponsible that Capt. S.........and half of them are driving right at you on the opposite side of the road.....;).

 

I'll take a cruise any day.......over a "land based vacation".

[pspercy]

allowing (or allegedly demanding) the sail-bys by its captains.

 

And THAT is the big question isn't it ? Did Costa corporate know and encourage this or was it really just the actions of one rogue skipper. Costa's future may rest on the answer as if corporate tacitly encouraged it then they risk zero reimbursement from their insurers. With this in mind it's obviously in their interest to see the Captain demonised.

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

No they aren't. They are absolutely relevant. What is safe? Everyday activities that we participate in without even a second thought, are a very good comparison to the perceived unsafe activity of cruising.

 

No, actually, walking down the street on the sidewalk doesn't making cruising any more safe or any less safe.

[KatetheWanderer]

The phobia of fear of flying has a funky name. I wonder if they will come up with a fear of cruising. Here is a National Geographic article entitled "Overcome Your Fear of Flying." http://natgeotv.com/uk/air-crash-investigation/fear-of-flying. It notes that the 9/11 coverage spawned an increase in people who have such a phobia despite, as the article notes, "Statistically, flying is the safest mode of transport there is." Same rational statement can be made about cruising. I wonder why the National Geographic made such as statement in an article about a phobia? Oh yeah, to point out the irrationality of the phobia.

 

An anxiety coach reports that, "The heavy media coverage of an airplane crash often causes people to become afraid." http://www.anxietycoach.com/causes-fear-of-flying.html

 

He goes on, "Air crashes are extremely rare, and so they usually get an enormous amount of media coverage. Many people developed a fear of flying, at least temporarily, in response to the terrorism of September, 2001... and came to believe that [their] fear is an accurate sign of danger" because, "You get tricked by the assumption, 'If I feel afraid, then I'm in danger.' You come to believe that your fear means that flying is too dangerous, even though you almost certainly engage in activities, every day, which are much more dangerous than flying."

 

Subsitute the word "cruising" in the statement of the anxiety coach to produce the same analysis for cruise phobics. Treating a phobia of cruising spawned by the Concordia disaster is beyond the professional expertise and capability of this board. I'm irrationally afraid of sharks. I choose not to treat the phobia. I snorkel but I will probably never dive. The land- based option is best for cruise phobics. Why get on a ship, if you are just going to freak out. A vacation should be all about relaxation.

 

For those of us who choose to go boldly where a zillion cruisers have gone before (Del Sol and Diamonds International come to mind.. cough..) cruising is no more safe or less safe than it was before the Concordia disaster or the National Geographic program.

[Mr XFT]

No, actually, walking down the street on the sidewalk doesn't making cruising any more safe or any less safe.

 

:rolleyes: Really? Ok, maybe I could trouble you to actually read that little bit of text you quoted. I said it is a very good comparison to consider the statistical dangers of our every day activities before we go worrying and hand wringinig about how dangerous cruising is perceived to be. These things we do every single day, don't necessarily even bring us any enjoyment, yet are much more dangerous than a cruise. So refusing to cruise for pleasure, on any line, with any company, is scrambled logic.

[ChipLondon]

Have you also stopped crossing the road ?

This is a terrible tragedy that could easily been avoided, but if we all took similar action, then non of us would ever go out again.

[Spudhunter]

Have you also stopped crossing the road?

 

Seriously? It took you 140 posts to come up with this snappy comeback?:rolleyes:

[KatetheWanderer]

Have you also stopped crossing the road ?

This is a terrible tragedy that could easily been avoided, but if we all took similar action, then non of us would ever go out again.

 

Not sure about your suggestion of not going out again. Home is fraught with peril as well, especially for some of us after watching a scary movie about a serial killer. The television goes off, the house is dark. Every bump in the night spells danger. What we saw on the screen triggers the emotions and nerve responses programmed into our DNA to perpetuate our survival as a species. We shake it off and tell ourself that we are just being silly. We use logic to begin behaving rationally again. It keeps us from running screaming out in the night to the neighbor's house in torn ice cream stained sweats. We reassure. We lower our fear response through rational thinking. Nothing statistically is likely to ever happen in our home at night whether we watch a scary movie or not. The fear is real. The danger isn't.

 

BTW--It is good that the Spudhunter has joined us to track posts and mete out its brand of frontier justice. We've needed someone like it to keep us in line. I use "it" protectively so as not to offend, depending on the sex of the Spudhunter. In the past, I've accidentally assumed the wrong sex of a poster only to ignite a firestorm of drama.

 

ChipLondon, for the love of all that is cruisable, man! don't wait another 140 posts to unfurl a snappy comeback. Act sooner next time. There are other posters out there keeping track of your numbers. Bear that in mind and proceed accordingly.

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

:rolleyes: Really? Ok, maybe I could trouble you to actually read that little bit of text you quoted. I said it is a very good comparison to consider the statistical dangers of our every day activities before we go worrying and hand wringinig about how dangerous cruising is perceived to be. These things we do every single day, don't necessarily even bring us any enjoyment, yet are much more dangerous than a cruise. So refusing to cruise for pleasure, on any line, with any company, is scrambled logic.

 

It makes sense for everyone to consider their personal situation, and determine for themselves (not "we," not "us") their level of risk. That is what our OP has done -- he has considered his personal risk and decided against cruising. That is a smart decision. Most of the time it is probably okay to just get on the boat without a personal thought to whether there is any risk in it for you, and it is probably exactly what most of the folks on Costa Concordia did. But, not everyone is going to be quite so willing to continue cruising without any thought as to whether it is safe for them to do so.

[TheBestIsYetToCome]

Have you also stopped crossing the road ?

This is a terrible tragedy that could easily been avoided, but if we all took similar action, then non of us would ever go out again.

 

Let's make this easy for everyone who is worried about flying, taxis, busses, sidewalks and their own homes:

 

If it's not necessary for you to [insert any activity here], and you don't draw more enjoyment from [insert same activity here] as opposed to [insert another activity here], and if your personal assessment of the risk of [insert first activity here] suggests that you are likely to be safer [insert second activity here] than [insert first activity here], yes, for you, it would be a smart decision to avoid [first activity.]

 

I'm not even sure why this discussion was moved here, because this isn't the cruising safety board, it's the Costa board. Not to minimize the cruising safety issues at Costa, but those are a specific topic relevant to Costa and this seems more suited to a general cruising topic.

[Mr XFT]

It makes sense for everyone to consider their personal situation, and determine for themselves (not "we," not "us") their level of risk. That is what our OP has done -- he has considered his personal risk and decided against cruising. That is a smart decision. Most of the time it is probably okay to just get on the boat without a personal thought to whether there is any risk in it for you, and it is probably exactly what most of the folks on Costa Concordia did. But, not everyone is going to be quite so willing to continue cruising without any thought as to whether it is safe for them to do so.

 

Very good post, and I agree with most of it. The issue is that this wasn't just a personal decision. The OP, jmalt decided to go the "look at me, look at me" route and create a discussion thread about his "open letter." He invited comments about what he had written. He even brought up the topic of camparison to other forms of transportation, as in Flight 1549.

 

So when readers comment on the logical mess that this is, and use comparison to other activities; I'd say it's exactly what the OP was asking for.

[jtmalt]

I'm not even sure why this discussion was moved here, because this isn't the cruising safety board, it's the Costa board. Not to minimize the cruising safety issues at Costa, but those are a specific topic relevant to Costa and this seems more suited to a general cruising topic.

 

Actually, this thread was originally posted to the Princess Cruises board, as it was my letter to Princess explaining why they were losing my business as a result of the incident on Costa. The moderators moved it to this forum for their own inscrutable reasons.

 

The OP, jmalt decided to go the "look at me, look at me" route and create a discussion thread about his "open letter." He invited comments about what he had written. He even brought up the topic of camparison to other forms of transportation, as in Flight 1549.

 

So when readers comment on the logical mess that this is, and use comparison to other activities; I'd say it's exactly what the OP was asking for.

 

Mr XFT, I certainly did invite comment, and your comments are welcome, although I don't particularly care for them. I do, however, wish you would stop distorting my words. I was not comparing forms of transportation, I was contrasting two emergency situations.

 

Since it seemed that you were misunderstanding my original posting, I restated and clarified it in post #85 and post #126. Even after those posts you seem either incapable of grasping my point or intent on ignoring it and turning this into a thread about "fear of cruising".

 

Rather than clutter this thread with backbiting between you and I, I'll refrain from responding to your further posts. I hope you don't mind.

[Mr XFT]

Mr XFT, I certainly did invite comment, and your comments are welcome, although I don't particularly care for them. I do, however, wish you would stop distorting my words. I was not comparing forms of transportation, I was contrasting two emergency situations.

 

 

Ok, but when anybody else "contrasts" ANY aspect of ANY activity other than a cruise, they get told (not necessarily by you, but other posters) that it is not one bit relevant.

 

Your original intent is pretty well hidden, as most people seem to interpret it as apprehension about your safety. I think your initial premise that you've decided to stop cruising altogether, coupled with the message, gives a strong indication of this; as your letter was written to parties either marginally connected or practically not at all connected to the Costa incident.

 

If your stance is just some sort of protest, and not a fear of cruising, I guess that's fine, but it is strange, since Princess has not had any indications of this problem and has not had an opportunity to rectify the issue to satisfy your rather nebulous demands. Yet you announced you were pulling your business anyway.

 

So, bottom line is, I apologize for being overly snarky in some posts. You are entitled to your view. My only goal was to point out I didn't think your message got out very clearly. That's all I'll say.

[Tiggertastic]

I'm looking forward on my cruises this year to not hearing the snide remarks about 'do we really have to do this drill thing'. They are normally filled with people moaning about going or some not turning up at all. I hope everyone now pays attention although I'm still uncomfortable with the ones that don't line up up by your lifeboat and show you a film in a restaurant

[ChipLondon]

Seriously, you took 141 posts to come up with this hilarious ( not ) comment :rolleyes:

 

And yes I know you will say that it was only 1 post after mine so realistically no you did not, but my response was also at the time I first read the thread, so am I not allowed to have an opinion just because others have expressed theirs first.

 

 

Seriously? It took you 140 posts to come up with this snappy comeback?:rolleyes:

[thinfool]

I thought you might want to see it, and add your comments, pro or con, to this thread.

 

I think that you need to CC this note to all of the airlines as well. If you are familiar with the circumstances regarding the Air France flight that literally fell out of the sky (bound for Europe from Rio) in totally flyable condition as a result of the Flight Crew's inexperience/lack of training you will know what I mean.

 

There are precious few assurances that we are in competent hands these days. :(