Not that Royal Caribbean is perfect, but...

[Aquahound]

[quote name='Cindy'][SIZE=3]I don't understand the blind loyalty of some to a corporation, and their immediate denigration of anyone who dares to state an opposing view. Surely even the most devoted Carnival fan must want to know that their chosen cruise line is above all else, safe!!![/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I also don't understand the unwillingness of people to accept the explanations of posters who have expertise in maritime operations and safety. Aquahound 's posts are a perfect example of that phenomenon...repeatedly and patiently explaining the role of the USCG and why they didn't abandon ship, but nobody would listen. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]

Thank you Cindy. Yea, it can be a little frustrating. I realize that to some, I am probably just another anonymous poster spewing my opinion, but even when I posted specific references and U.S. Codes, they still argued. Like Ed just said, it doesn't fit their narrative. They came up with it in their minds and by golly, that's the way it is.

That's ok though. These people are on the water and they are who I refer to as job security. ;)

[aurelius180]

[quote name='Aquahound']Thank you Cindy. Yea, it can be a little frustrating. I realize that to some, I am probably just another anonymous poster spewing my opinion, but even when I posted specific references and U.S. Codes, they still argued. Like Ed just said, it doesn't fit their narrative. They came up with it in their minds and by golly, that's the way it is.

That's ok though. These people are on the water and they are who I refer to as job security. ;)[/quote]


It baffles me that on a fairly regular basis their is conversation on here regarding the inability of some cruisers to make it to Coco Cay due to wind. Mind you, this is with a fully functioning ship that's at anchor and with stabilizers. It's missed on a fairly regular basis due to wind. All of a sudden a ship dead in the water out at sea can just unload all it's passengers?

Not to minimize the plight of the passengers but Carnival is expected to risk possible death(s) moving people simply because they're in an uncomfortable situation?

Carnival probably has plenty of blame for the cause and some of their actions after the disabling of the ship. But deciding not to move the passengers off the ship is not one of them.

[Aquahound]

[quote name='aurelius180']It baffles me that on a fairly regular basis their is conversation on here regarding the inability of some cruisers to make it to Coco Cay due to wind. Mind you, this is with a fully functioning ship that's at anchor and with stabilizers. It's missed on a fairly regular basis due to wind. All of a sudden a ship dead in the water out at sea can just unload all it's passengers?

Not to minimize the plight of the passengers but Carnival is expected to risk possible death(s) moving people simply because they're in an uncomfortable situation?

Carnival probably has plenty of blame for the cause and some of their actions after the disabling of the ship. But deciding not to move the passengers off the ship is not one of them.[/QUOTE]

You are exactly right. Post fire actions taken by Carnival were textbook. I applaud their handling of this bad situation.

Pre-fire? Well, there is still a lot to come out of that but I think you are right in that regard as well. I am comfortable in saying Carnival will take a black eye for that. Makes me wonder what other ships of theirs are running around in disrepair. I know Destiny/Sunshine has a long history of mechanical problems. Lets hope she doesn't join her Splendor and Triumph sisters in infamy.

[rosebud1g]

[quote name='Aquahound']Ok, I have got to address this post.

First, for goodness sake, who is "taking joy" over what happened to those poor people on that ship? It has got to take a good degree of insecurity to think other people are laughing at this. That is just ridiculous.

Second, fact is fact. No amount of cruise line cheerleading (or hating) can cover the fact that Carnival has had 2 catastrophic ship failures due to fire in the past few years, leaving passengers stranded at sea for several days. Couple those major incidents with the rash of collisions Carnival has had over the past few years, I am confident top brass needs to conduct a safety stand down and take a close look at the way they do business. You can Google search other cruise lines all you want, but none have had the track record Carnival has had over the past few years wrt marine incidents.....and no, the number of ships they own does not hold water.[/quote]

very well said Aquahound.

[pepsicruiser]

I only read first post and all I can say is I wouldn't personally go on any ship buit in 1999. I don't care what cruise line it is. I find the older ships are usually shorter cruises which means cheaper prices which brings on the younger party people (and I don't blame them if $$ is an issue) just not for me. An older ship is apt to have problems and I don't care which line it is.

I have sailed many lines over the past 30+ years including Carnival and never enjoyed every cruise. Some better than others. But like I said I stay with most newer ships whatever line it is. BTW take a look at Carnivals new Sunshine ship. It looks very nice and although I haven't been on Carnival in a number of years I'd try it. Every line has problems and RCCL is no exception. Like I said JMO but older ships eventually have problems just like an old car lol.

[aurelius180]

[quote name='pepsicruiser']I only read first post and all I can say is I wouldn't personally go on any ship buit in 1999. I don't care what cruise line it is. I find the older ships are usually shorter cruises which means cheaper prices which brings on the younger party people (and I don't blame them if $$ is an issue) just not for me. An older ship is apt to have problems and I don't care which line it is.
[/quote]


8:45pm on the first night of an August cruise aboard the Majesty of the Seas. Amazing amount of younger party people. :rolleyes:

[img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7274/7834889820_8fefdca315.jpg[/img]

[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8391/8481996379_b367b17d20.jpg[/img]

[MrFunInTheSun]

[quote name='pepsicruiser']I only read first post and all I can say is I wouldn't personally go on any ship buit in 1999. I don't care what cruise line it is. I find the older ships are usually shorter cruises which means cheaper prices which brings on the younger party people (and I don't blame them if $$ is an issue) just not for me. An older ship is apt to have problems and I don't care which line it is.

I have sailed many lines over the past 30+ years including Carnival and never enjoyed every cruise. Some better than others. But like I said I stay with most newer ships whatever line it is. BTW take a look at Carnivals new Sunshine ship. It looks very nice and although I haven't been on Carnival in a number of years I'd try it. Every line has problems and RCCL is no exception. Like I said JMO but older ships eventually have problems just like an old car lol.[/quote]


You do realize the Carnival Sunshine will not be and is not a "New" ship, right? It's the Carnival Destiny built in 1995 and being refurbished and renamed to Carnival Sunshine.

Are you meaning the Carnival Breeze which just launched in 2012? Not all the short cruisers are filled up with party people and boozers. There could be a few handfuls, but not the entire list of passengers from my experience on short cruises with Royal Caribbean and Carnival.

[Cruising89143]

[quote name='pepsicruiser']I only read first post and all I can say is I wouldn't personally go on any ship buit in 1999. I don't care what cruise line it is. I find the older ships are usually shorter cruises which means cheaper prices which brings on the younger party people (and I don't blame them if $$ is an issue) just not for me. An older ship is apt to have problems and I don't care which line it is.

I have sailed many lines over the past 30+ years including Carnival and never enjoyed every cruise. Some better than others. But like I said I stay with most newer ships whatever line it is. BTW take a look at Carnivals new Sunshine ship. It looks very nice and although I haven't been on Carnival in a number of years I'd try it. Every line has problems and RCCL is no exception. Like I said JMO but older ships eventually have problems just like an old car lol.[/QUOTE]


Age has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to how a company maintains their fleet. My first cruise was in 1986 on NCL and the ship was built in 1968. Back them they were not churning out ships yearly like they are now and you very seldom heard of problems. I took a cruise in 1993 on Dolphin Cruise Lines Seabreeze. A ship built in 1958 and had a great time on that cruise. I have also been on three night cruises that were more calm than many seven day cruises.

[3dog]

[quote name='pepsicruiser']I only read first post and all I can say is I wouldn't personally go on any ship buit in 1999. I don't care what cruise line it is. I find the older ships are usually shorter cruises which means cheaper prices which brings on the younger party people (and I don't blame them if $$ is an issue) just not for me. An older ship is apt to have problems and I don't care which line it is.[/QUOTE]

Voyager of the seas launched in 1999. Certainly isn't doing shorter cruises, and still is considered a game changer and more innovative than a number of ships built since and has no significant incidents reported.

Carnival Splendor launched in 2008, and had a fire within 2 years that disabled all power requiring a tow to port.

Costa Concordia launched in 2006, though it's problems were primarily the captain.

[pepsicruiser]

Somewhere in there I said It was JMO and I stand by it. Is it the Magesty that has gotten so many poor reviews lately. People either love them or not. MHO is not. But I am amazed to read the Sunshine is a refurbished ship wow they did amazing things to that one. You have low prices and attract those who don't want to spend as much and to me that equals young people who want to party again JMHO. You want to go be my guest but don't think I will change my mind. Thank you for your opinions and that is what they are "your honest opinions". Not looking for an arguement.

[pepsicruiser]

[quote name='3dog']Voyager of the seas launched in 1999. Certainly isn't doing shorter cruises, and still is considered a game changer and more innovative than a number of ships built since and has no significant incidents reported.

Carnival Splendor launched in 2008, and had a fire within 2 years that disabled all power requiring a tow to port.

Costa Concordia launched in 2006, though it's problems were primarily the captain.[/quote]

I think you forgot the "Titanic" lol.

[MrFunInTheSun]

[quote name='pepsicruiser']Somewhere in there I said It was JMO and I stand by it. Is it the Magesty that has gotten so many poor reviews lately. People either love them or not. MHO is not. But I am amazed to read the Sunshine is a refurbished ship wow they did amazing things to that one. You have low prices and attract those who don't want to spend as much and to me that equals young people who want to party again JMHO. You want to go be my guest but don't think I will change my mind. Thank you for your opinions and that is what they are "your honest opinions". Not looking for an arguement.[/quote]

Hopefully the Carnival Sunshine will look and be as nice as the pictures and virtual tours they show online. They are making the transformation now. Her first voyage as the Carnival Sunshine won't be until around April 26, 2013.

February 4,2013 was her last voyage as the Carnival Destiny as she headed to Venice for her refurbishment and transformation into the Carnival Sunshine.

[temple1]

[quote name='Aquahound']

Second, fact is fact. No amount of cruise line cheerleading (or hating) can cover the fact that Carnival has had 2 catastrophic ship failures due to fire in the past few years, leaving passengers stranded at sea for several days. Couple those major incidents with the rash of collisions Carnival has had over the past few years, I am confident top brass needs to conduct a safety stand down and take a close look at the way they do business. You can Google search other cruise lines all you want, but none have had the track record Carnival has had over the past few years wrt marine incidents.....and no, the number of ships they own does not hold water.[/quote]

That was a question I asked over on the Carnival boards on one of the more sane threads about the situation. After the horrendous 3 years they have had as a corporation - 2 Costa incidents, multiple ship collisions, Splendor and now the Triumph fire and disabling - when does Sr Management take their heads out of their stock portfolios and take a serious look at the operations of their business? Also to take a look at what they can do up front to minimize passenger discomfort in such a situation. (I put it much more nicely over there because I think they might track me down and shoot my dog! :eek: )

As you say - a top down review of what the heck is going on!

About people calling in CNN (only watched it a little for this but that sure is a crappy so called news network.) One woman called in a couple of times and repeated soemthing that I nearly chocked on when I heard her say it and then repeated in another call to them a couple of days later - the ship was listing 45 degrees the first night and the next night it was listing the same amount the other way! I'm not one to know much about ships and their mechanics but I do know it I'm in bed and the ship lists that much my butt will soon be on the floor! :eek:

[3dog]

[quote name='Aquahound']Second, fact is fact. No amount of cruise line cheerleading (or hating) can cover the fact that Carnival has had 2 catastrophic ship failures due to fire in the past few years, leaving passengers stranded at sea for several days. Couple those major incidents with the rash of collisions Carnival has had over the past few years, I am confident top brass needs to conduct a safety stand down and take a close look at the way they do business. You can Google search other cruise lines all you want, but none have had the track record Carnival has had over the past few years wrt marine incidents.....and no, the number of ships they own does not hold water.[/QUOTE]

A number of posts suggest that this "could happen to any line". And to be fair, fires on cruise ships occur more often than people may realize.

The post generating this response mentioned an RCCL ship last year. That would be Azamara Quest, a fire in the engine room disabled power. The crew were able to restore some power and propulsion, and the ship made port on it's own power.

Allure of the Seas had a fire in the engine room not too long after. The fire was quickly extinguished, and the incident was barely noticed by passengers, the ship continued on it's itinerary.


Fire on Splendor, ship looses all power with some restoration from emergency generators, ship towed to port (fire apparently caused damage to electrical systems preventing core power restoration.)

Fire on Triumph, ship looses all power, partial restoration with emergency generators and portable generators provided by USCG. (initial USCG reports indicate that the engines are intact, and the fire was probably not caused by the engines, so why the full electrical failure?)


And to also be fair, there is an unsubstantiated report of a fire on Adventure of the seas that caused power to go out for two minutes. The ship continued on it's itinerary unaffected. Note: the report apparently can only be found on CC, where another report indicates that it was a power failure due to a fuel pump failure that was fixed by switching to another fuel pump.

Fire on Allegra, ship looses all power (not sure if any was restored); ship towed to port. Though as a significantly older ship with a different history, it is probably not fair to include it in the same company of reports.

So even though fires are occurring elsewhere, totally disabling fires are appearing on the base foundation from the Fincantieri shipyard (of which there are a number operated by CCL).

[3dog]

[quote name='pepsicruiser']I think you forgot the "Titanic" lol.[/QUOTE]

Didn't think it was fair to add, as it launched [I]way[/I] before 1999. ;)

[Aquahound]

[quote name='pepsicruiser']BTW take a look at Carnivals new Sunshine ship. It looks very nice and although I haven't been on Carnival in a number of years I'd try it.[/QUOTE]

Since you brought up Sunshine, I'll add I have great concern about that ship. That ship has had more propulsion problems than any other cruise ship I know. I can only hope it's not yet another design/maintenance flaw that will lead to yet another dead ship.

There has been a lot of discussion why they decided to change the name...something not common for a cruise line to do. I suspect they are trying to get out from under the negative opinion associated with Destiny.

[3dog]

[quote name='temple1']About people calling in CNN (only watched it a little for this but that sure is a crappy so called news network.) One woman called in a couple of times and repeated soemthing that I nearly chocked on when I heard her say it and then repeated in another call to them a couple of days later - the ship was listing 45 degrees the first night and the next night it was listing the same amount the other way! I'm not one to know much about ships and their mechanics but I do know it I'm in bed and the ship lists that much my butt will soon be on the floor! :eek:[/QUOTE]

A 45 degree list is pretty serious, and if it happened, there would likely be a large number of injuries and everybody would have likely reported it as "I thought I was going to die!" About 2 years ago, Brilliance took a hit from a wave while trying to make port. A number of passengers sustained minor to moderate injuries (including broken bones, and one report of a head injury eventually leading to death). And IIRC, that was a 15 to 20 degree list.

[Cruising89143]

[quote name='Aquahound']Since you brought up Sunshine, I'll add I have great concern about that ship. That ship has had more propulsion problems than any other cruise ship I know. I can only hope it's not yet another design/maintenance flaw that will lead to yet another dead ship.

There has been a lot of discussion why they decided to change the name...something not common for a cruise line to do. I suspect they are trying to get out from under the negative opinion associated with Destiny.[/QUOTE]

Yep. She just had issues prior to leaving for the shipyards for her rebuilding and rebranding.

[url]http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1770136[/url]

I cruised on this ship right after she entered service. She was the first ship to hit 100,000 tons and she was crowded. Very crowded. Now they are taking away public space to add more cabins and passengers. Crazy.

[3dog]

[quote name='cruisingator2']I cruised on this ship right after she entered service. She was the first ship to hit 100,000 tons and she was crowded. Very crowded. Now they are taking away public space to add more cabins and passengers. Crazy.[/QUOTE]

Her refit will add passenger load from 2642 to 3006. As a ship that is 36% smaller than Voyager class (101,353 vs 138,000) but carries only 3% less passengers (3006 vs. 3114 - even as Destiny, she carried 15% fewer pax vs. the 36% smaller ship), it is no wonder she is, and will be crowded.

[Crusing Nut]

[quote name='icecreammama']Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Carnival own Royal Carribean and Princess? On another note, if anything happened to me on my cruise like this, I don't think I would ever get on a ship again. Very scary situation to be in.[/quote]


Our portfolio of leading cruise brands includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises and Seabourn in North America; P&O Cruises (UK), and Cunard in the United Kingdom; AIDA Cruises in Germany; Costa Cruises in Southern Europe; Iberocruceros in Spain; and P&O Cruises (Australia) in Australia.

[URL]http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=140690&p=irol-index[/URL]

[3dog]

Since you brought up Sunshine, I'll add I have great concern about that ship. That ship has had more propulsion problems than any other cruise ship I know. I can only hope it's not yet another design/maintenance flaw that will lead to yet another dead ship.

 

With limited information I have on the core of these ships, the design flaw is that the systems intended to provide some redundancy are sensitive to catastrophic failure. It will be interesting to see the results of the Triumph investigation, but surely total electrical failure should have been a concern to investigate on all ships from a particular design after Splendor.

[mikats]

I am right there with ya Blambky....can't wait! Let the uncruised masses run the prices down....I'll get to cruise more!:p

 

This whole thing has been so hyped I wonder why and then I realize that most people are so tired of all the politics on T.V. they had to make something out of this so more people would watch!:rolleyes:

 

It was unfortunate, it was inconvenient, it was distasteful and probably preventable, but it certainly wasn't a "tragedy" as Piers Morgan is trying to make it out to be.

 

Believe me people, I could relate some personal experiences I suffered right here in a 12 day hospital stay I had that would make your blood run cold and that cruise would pale in comparison. I know that is hard to believe, but it's absolutely true. There are much worse things that happen every day to people. Everything is relative....

 

Sure, I would hope it never happens to me, but get over it......we all have our crosses to bear. There are people who post on CC everyday that have to bear worse things than these passengers did for 5 days....like Brenda and Allen Patrick.

For those that do not know--Allen passed away on Wednesday March 13th in his sleep. RIP-

[Jimnbigd]

The Carnival Dream and Legend has problems this week. I'm beginning to wonder myself if it is not something wrong with the design, operation, and/or maintenance of Carnival ships. There must be a reason these are happening to Carnival but not other lines (even the ones owned by Carnival). I agree with OP. We won't sail Carnival again. Many times there have been sewage odors on the ships. Our last one, the Conquest, had this in the hall by the restrooms just behind the casino, and the smell was always there throughout the cruise. I've only had this once on RCI -- on the Voyager after the last cruise passengers deliberately flushed washcloths down the toilets, causing the system to clog. It took 3 days to get it all cleaned out and working, including shutting off the toilets at night. But RCI did fix the problem. Carnival never did, at least not on our cruises.

[tntornadox]

Unfortunately for Carnival, the Dream and Legend 'incidents' are somewhat more common in the industry but due to the Triumph they are getting much more media attention. The problem on the Dream occurred while they were doing routine maintenance on the backup generator and Carnival couldn't sail with it malfunctioning. The Legend has issues with one of its azipod units which is absolutely not unheard of (indeed, X has had a ton off issues with their M-Class pods). That's also why Carnival's newest ships do not have pods and still have conventional shafts and rudders.

 

As far as completely redundant engine rooms, I hear talk that they are required for new builds after 2010 so only the newest vessels are required to have them. Allure and Oasis have completely redundant systems as does Carnival Breeze and Magic.

[BLAMBKY]

For those that do not know--Allen passed away on Wednesday March 13th in his sleep. RIP-

 

:( I'm am so sorry for the family's loss.