Why? Because it's the LAW.

[DevCruise]

So people who dont get passports are idiots? The law cearly states that you do not have to have a passport to cruise on a closed loop cruise. But according to you, you have to have a passport. I guess everyone is going to have to give you a call before they cruise next time to see if they have your permission to cruise without a passport.

 

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.

[Mizzouaholic]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.

Not everyones an expert on traveling. Alot of people don't realize that there is any difference between traveling with a birth certificate or a passport.

[zenful6219]

I'll type real s l o w l y.

 

Royal doesn't have any American flagged ships. NCL doesn't either. NCLA has a single ship, US Flagged, and it took an act of Congress (and union approval) for it to be US Flagged, since it didn't otherwise qualify. NCLA has, in effect, a government sanctioned monopoly.

 

First, I don't appreciate your condescension.

 

It just seems like every single time someone on Cruise CRITIC brings up anything negative related to Carnival Cruise Lines, there are a host of people here to defend Carnival no matter what! This website is called Cruise Critic, not Cruise Supporter, Cruise Champion, Cruise Advocate......whatever word is opposite of "critic." People are not perfect and, since some seem to think corporations are people, neither are they! They make bad decisions and mistakes that negatively impact people. A site like Cruise Critic is the appropriate place to communicate those issues.

 

We get it! Some people on Cruise Critic are biased toward Carnival and, for whatever reason, are on 24/7damage control for the company, but this is a site for critiquing cruises and cruise companies.

 

As far as the OP's comment is concerned, I believe there is a problem when a company, like Carnival, registers their ships in other countries to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. and adhering to U.S. employment laws. Then, when something like Triumph happens, they expect and receive support from the U.S. military. It's wrong and laws should be changed so companies like Carnival don't get away with paying 1.1% taxes to the U.S. government.

[zenful6219]

For goodness sake, can you give it a rest? I get so tired of accusations on this board about "cheerleaders" and "bashers". Sometimes it seems like we revert to schoolyard taunting if we don't agree with a poster.

 

It's called Cruise Critic! However, on Cruise Critic almost every single time someone posts anything deemed "negative" regarding a cruise or cruise line, the so-called "cheerleaders" respond almost immediately. And, if you look at the posts some of these people create, they're almost always pro-cruise company. If this were called Cruise Advocate or Cruise Supporter or Cruise Champion, I'd understand, but it's not.

[WpgCruise]

Deleted comment.

[tkportersat]

From what I read or saw on the news I thought the direction of the current in addition to the 900+ who didn't have passports was the deciding factor between heading to Progreso or Mobile.

 

Everyone is worried about the 1000 idiots who didn't have passports. What about the 2000 who DID have passports??? Again the minority gets preference. I'm not saying this was the only consideration as to where to tow the ship . Actually it should have been and I hope it was the LAST consideration. Safety should have been first. I'm just saying that there are 2000 people out there who were smart enough to part with a few bucks to get a passport. I'll bet they are pis-ed if this was the reason for going to Mobile.

 

And after looking at a map I don't understand why they didn't tow the ship back to Galveston? It sure looks closer than Mobile.

[Sargent_Schultz]

First, I don't appreciate your condescension.

 

It just seems like every single time someone on Cruise CRITIC brings up anything negative related to Carnival Cruise Lines, there are a host of people here to defend Carnival no matter what! This website is called Cruise Critic, not Cruise Supporter, Cruise Champion, Cruise Advocate......whatever word is opposite of "critic." People are not perfect and, since some seem to think corporations are people, neither are they! They make bad decisions and mistakes that negatively impact people. A site like Cruise Critic is the appropriate place to communicate those issues.

 

We get it! Some people on Cruise Critic are biased toward Carnival and, for whatever reason, are on 24/7damage control for the company, but this is a site for critiquing cruises and cruise companies.

 

As far as the OP's comment is concerned, I believe there is a problem when a company, like Carnival, registers their ships in other countries to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. and adhering to U.S. employment laws. Then, when something like Triumph happens, they expect and receive support from the U.S. military. It's wrong and laws should be changed so companies like Carnival don't get away with paying 1.1% taxes to the U.S. government.

 

I didn't appreciate your false accusation. There is no need to harass me or make things personal.

 

Carnival isn't doing anything different than other cruise lines in registering ships in other countries. They would be out of business if they did - the US is simply non-competitive in most areas of commerce.

 

The 1.1% number is often misinterpreted and is for Corporate, not the Carnival cruise line. Not only is it misinterpreted, it is faulty logic.

[zenful6219]

I didn't appreciate your false accusation. There is no need to harass me or make things personal.

 

Carnival isn't doing anything different than other cruise lines in registering ships in other countries. They would be out of business if they did - the US is simply non-competitive in most areas of commerce.

 

The 1.1% number is often misinterpreted and is for Corporate, not the Carnival cruise line. Not only is it misinterpreted, it is faulty logic.

 

I repeat. This is Cruise Critic, not Cruise Champion. This is the place where people should be able to bring up all matter of issues related to cruising and cruise companies. Furthermore, we shouldn't have to drudge through the endless number of posts and replies from people (not centering anyone out individually) who do nothing but praise, defend, champion, and advocate for any particular company.

[tkportersat]

Isn't that a contradiction? So cruise critic is only for complaining and giving negative opinions but not for positive ones? I would hate for you to have to keep "drudging through replies that praise, defend, etc.".

 

I repeat. This is Cruise Critic, not Cruise Champion. This is the place where people should be able to bring up all matter of issues related to cruising and cruise companies. Furthermore, we shouldn't have to drudge through the endless number of posts and replies from people (not centering anyone out individually) who do nothing but praise, defend, champion, and advocate for any particular company.

[Sargent_Schultz]

I repeat. This is Cruise Critic, not Cruise Champion. This is the place where people should be able to bring up all matter of issues related to cruising and cruise companies. Furthermore, we shouldn't have to drudge through the endless number of posts and replies from people (not centering anyone out individually) who do nothing but praise, defend, champion, and advocate for any particular company.

 

Cruise Critic - not Cruiser Critic. There are rules against harassment. If you don't like my posts, ignore them and move on.

[rudechuck]

Make as many guess's as you want about what will happen with law suits and Carnival "T". This happened in open waters and "Maritime Law" will rule. Lets not forget the ship is registered in the BAH's. There's a reason for that.

(notice the US Coast Guard on site-- why is that--- this is a BAH ship -- many ships registered in BAH-- why don't they foot the bill?) US taxpayer footin' the bill "AGAIN". Don't want to pay US taxes by registering outside the US but certainly want to use it's Assets. Don't we have a group of US citizens claiming the same--- Wesley Snipes ---.

Laura hope this isn't controversial???

 

Damn you, Wesley Snipes. This is all YOUR fault.

[SvetlanaJr]

Make as many guess's as you want about what will happen with law suits and Carnival "T". This happened in open waters and "Maritime Law" will rule. Lets not forget the ship is registered in the BAH's. There's a reason for that.

(notice the US Coast Guard on site-- why is that--- this is a BAH ship -- many ships registered in BAH-- why don't they foot the bill?) US taxpayer footin' the bill "AGAIN". Don't want to pay US taxes by registering outside the US but certainly want to use it's Assets. Don't we have a group of US citizens claiming the same--- Wesley Snipes ---.

Laura hope this isn't controversial???

 

I understand exactly what you are saying. Americans paid for the training, the equipment and the waiting at the ready, to rescue the CCL ship.

 

CCL pays little tax for this protection. They go out of their way to avoid taxes and responsibilities. Their corporate officers are rewarded handsomely, and it is the American tax payers who foot the bill. This is not a level playing field.

[EastTex]

It's called Cruise Critic! However, on Cruise Critic almost every single time someone posts anything deemed "negative" regarding a cruise or cruise line, the so-called "cheerleaders" respond almost immediately. And, if you look at the posts some of these people create, they're almost always pro-cruise company. If this were called Cruise Advocate or Cruise Supporter or Cruise Champion, I'd understand, but it's not.

 

I know very well what the title for the forum is. But I see it as a venue for folks to talk about cruises and cruise topics, good or bad. Am I wrong? I took issue with your post because you strayed to take a personal stab at Sargent_Schultz. It doesn't matter if his typical posts are 90%, 50% or 10% pro-Carnival. As I see it, he's got a floor to express his opinions without having to be accused of being a Carnival employee.

 

Look, I'm not trying to get in your face over this. I've been around and come across countless folks, many of whom look at things in life as the glass being half full and others who are just as opposite and see the glass as being half empty. For all I know, the folks you see as being consistent "cheerleaders" are nothing more than folks who see the glass as being half full.

 

OK, said my point. How about we end this way....No Harm, No Foul?

[mbmbird]

I'm not a mariner but I spent 20 years flying jets in the Air Force. If currents and ships react the same as winds aloft, it may indeed be quicker to go to a more distant port.

 

In the air, every knot of headwind directly affects groundspeed. So, an aircraft flying at 350 knots with 20 knots of a headwind component has an effective groundspeed of 330 knots. Conversly, 20 knots of a tailwind component would result in an effective groundspeed of 370 knots. Note, there is a 40 knot difference between the two.

 

Suppose, for arguments sake, a ship can only make 7 knots while under tow. If currents were pushing the ship northbound at an effective rate of 3 knots, then the ship would sail at an effective rate of 10 knots. Conversly, if the ship was towed against a 3 knot current, the 7 knot towed speed would be reduced to an effective speed of 4 knots.

 

Using your estimate of distances, 240 nautical miles to Progresso at 4 knots ould take 60 hours. Sailing 390 nautical miles to Mobile at 10 knots, would take 39 hours.

 

Give or take a bit, flying my plane back from Europe to the states always took about an hour more in flight time than going to Europe because winds aloft are generally west to east.

 

Thank you for your great information.

 

First, I don't appreciate your condescension.

 

It just seems like every single time someone on Cruise CRITIC brings up anything negative related to Carnival Cruise Lines, there are a host of people here to defend Carnival no matter what! This website is called Cruise Critic, not Cruise Supporter, Cruise Champion, Cruise Advocate......whatever word is opposite of "critic." People are not perfect and, since some seem to think corporations are people, neither are they! They make bad decisions and mistakes that negatively impact people. A site like Cruise Critic is the appropriate place to communicate those issues.

 

We get it! Some people on Cruise Critic are biased toward Carnival and, for whatever reason, are on 24/7damage control for the company, but this is a site for critiquing cruises and cruise companies.

 

As far as the OP's comment is concerned, I believe there is a problem when a company, like Carnival, registers their ships in other countries to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. and adhering to U.S. employment laws. Then, when something like Triumph happens, they expect and receive support from the U.S. military. It's wrong and laws should be changed so companies like Carnival don't get away with paying 1.1% taxes to the U.S. government.

 

I beleive Cruise Critic isn't a place just to be negative. Critic doen't always mean to criticize , it means to critique(good & bad)….like a food or movie critic doesn’t ALWAYS have something negative to say. :)

[BeagleOne]

Thank you :), and yes, you do make a very good point. CGC VIGOROUS was already on patrol. If anything, this is costing less because the cutter is running at only a few knots rather than its normal cruising speed. While they are sticking with Triumph in case of any problems, they will still part from the scene if any other vessels are in distress. This is the USCG...this is what we do. And if nothing else, I'm sure there are at least a couple thousand tax paying U.S. citizens on board Triumph that are finding just a little bit of comfort in knowing that cutter is right there beside them.

 

You're welcome! I spoke with the pilot of one of the USCG Katrina helicopters at the Oshkosh airshow in 2006 after he gave a presentation. He said that their CO told them to do whatever they had to do to save people, short of hurting themselves or "breaking the helicopter" as he put it, and if that meant taking pets off the rooftops with the people, do it if they safely could. The pilot told me his crew rescued hundreds of people, 15 dogs, 10 cats, and even a bird! The Navy crews, OTOH, were not allowed to rescue animals no matter how much they might have wanted to.

 

As a veterinarian who volunteered in Mississippi after Katrina (and came back with a mangy refugee puppy, who grew up to be the bigger dog in my profile pic), I was so pleased at how the USCG conducted things. Obviously human life comes first, but it was so nice to see them doing their best to help the refugees...both people AND their pets.

 

As an aside...I was also extremely impressed with the Bounty rescue. Incredible job. And you're right, I bet the sight of that cutter accompanying the Triumph provided comfort to many of the passengers.

[Sargent_Schultz]

I understand exactly what you are saying. Americans paid for the training, the equipment and the waiting at the ready, to rescue the CCL ship.

 

CCL pays little tax for this protection. They go out of their way to avoid taxes and responsibilities. Their corporate officers are rewarded handsomely, and it is the American tax payers who foot the bill. This is not a level playing field.

 

The USCG is going to be on patrol anyway and likely bored. I can understand Carnival sending them a bill for the training exercise. In any event, if the USCG charged for such service, I'm sure Carnival would gladly pay.

 

Meanwhile, each one of their ships home ported in the US generate thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to local economies.

[weberman]

Thank you for your great information.

 

I believe Cruise Critic isn't a place just to be negative. Critic doen't always mean to criticize , it means to critique(good & bad)….like a food or movie critic doesn’t ALWAYS have something negative to say. :)

 

Well said and to the point.

 

Carninval Corp has a PR nightmare facing them. And to think, they haven't even fully settled the Costa Concordia nightmare.

 

Lets not let this thread turn negative or attack other posters or hopefully the Mod will close this thread as at that point, I don't see much useful information at this point. :confused:

 

I have never cruised Carnival but have cruised many times on their sister line Princess.

 

My only concern is that it APPEARS that Carnival has not managed this serious problem very well! :eek:

[Hotdog 52]

The USCG will do whatever needs to be done. We were on a repositioning cruise, after the Hawaiian portion, from Hawaii to Vancouver and saw the USCG fly out to meet us to evacuate a sick passenger. We were about 400 miles off the Northern coast of California. While they got the passenger off and into the helicopter, they also had a USCG plane circling overhead.

 

I'm sure with the Triumph being in the gulf, passenger could have been evacuated if needed.

 

Also, I'm sure we have subs in the gulf and probably not far away.

 

Apparently, no one has lived in the country and been to an outhouse in the summertime.

[EastTex]

 

Apparently, no one has lived in the country and been to an outhouse in the summertime.

 

Wow...how right you are, forgot about outhouses. I remember visiting folks who had those things when I was a kid and I guess I survived all right. Nothing like an sitting in an outhouse under a hot Texas sun. Need a like button to push for that memory.

 

Of course, this trip down memory lane in no way is meant to diminish the plight of those Triumph cruisers.

[seashells]

We cruised shortly after 9/11

 

In fact we were a ship that was 1/2 full because people were afraid to fly overseas and we were one of the first airlines out of America.

 

Cruising from Barcelona back to Ft. Lauderdale, every single port had U.S.

Coast guards surrounding the ship while in ports, with divers in attendance seeking undership abnormalties.

 

The Coast Guard along with another artillery ship also stood by at EVERY single port

 

The Coast Guard and our military is there to protect Americans, NOT certain ships.

 

Until the American Government can clean up 100 + year old laws, that protect the unions at American ports, the politicians have no say about laws with ships registered in other Nations.

 

It's the main reason that ships are NOT registered in America. However they must comply with certain regulations such as sanitation.

[Don Haynes]

gtalum Did they not already say that they were going to Mobile because it is easier to tow the ship with the current rather than against it?

Going to the USA also helps with the passport issues and there many onboard that do not have passports.

Both of these points were already stated by Carnival.

 

They would still be at sea attempting to tow the ship to Progresso even though it was closer. Ships under tow don't go fast, and ships don't go all that fast at full speed either. There was no sense whatsoever to fight the current even though some idiots, well ignorant folks, will state otherwise.

[the_thunderbird]

There are several reasons I would suspect that cruise ship companies may avoid the US for doing a lot of business, however, to repeat what I had placed in one of the many Triumph threads:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

 

The Jones Act, in part, prevents many cruise ships from being registered in the US. It is also the reason for the random Vancouver Island stop on Seattle departing Alaska cruises lol.

 

Seriously though, this is an important part of a larger discussion.