Question bugging me about the Triumph disaster cruise

[belle2]

sailor_jimc I appreciated and respected your honest account of what happened! Thank you for sharing it:)

[Elaine5715]

Who lost weight and why? There was no food nor drink shortage.

 

That was the point of my comment. NO ONE has stated they lost weight due to lack of food and there are no pictures posted of either this starvation or the "horrific" conditions. (And Ruth, the " " means I doubt the truth of the conditions.)

[FlaMilkman]

The only thing that I would criticize Carnival about is that Mobile was NOT the closest port that the Triumph could be towed to. The selection of Mobile was made as it would be the port where the ship would be repaired thus negating the time and expense needed for a paid second tow from a closer port to the engine fire where they could have more quickly disembarked guests. (Remember, at the time Carnival wasn't planning on paying back the Coast Guard for the original tow, as per naval tradition, but changed their minds after a public outcry). Also, as they initially believed the Triumph could be quickly repaired, by taking her to Mobile it would shorten the repair process and get her back into service quicker. Only after the initial inspections and the decision to implement much more stringent safety protocols was the Triumph taken out of service for a considerable length of time. Consequently, financial circumstances partially dictated the decision making process which led to additional hardships for those on-board.

[dd2355]

Who lost weight and why?

How to put this delicately... There aren't many Americans who are at risk of starvation if they were to go without food for a couple days... :D

 

People don't have a grasp of risk vs. numbers at all. Obviously the mass media publicity has skewed the reasoning.

Yes. Anything to get viewership even if it's a tempest in a teacup.

 

Experienced cruisers know to arrive at least a day early at the port, and to either stay a day later, or at least to book return flights in the afternoon.

Yep. IMHO any fault lies with the people scheduling things too tight to leave them options if something happens. Oh, you planned to fly into your cruise departure city the morning of your cruise and the airline lost your luggage? They have t-shirts and swim trunks in the gift shop. Oh, you planned a 12pm departing flight and missed it due to fog? Sorry, no sympathy from me; you made your bet, rolled the dice and lost.

Edited February 27, 2014 by dd2355

[airmj2123]

The only thing that I would criticize Carnival about is that Mobile was NOT the closest port that the Triumph could be towed to. The selection of Mobile was made as it would be the port where the ship would be repaired thus negating the time and expense needed for a paid second tow from a closer port to the engine fire where they could have more quickly disembarked guests. (Remember, at the time Carnival wasn't planning on paying back the Coast Guard for the original tow, as per naval tradition, but changed their minds after a public outcry). Also, as they initially believed the Triumph could be quickly repaired, by taking her to Mobile it would shorten the repair process and get her back into service quicker. Only after the initial inspections and the decision to implement much more stringent safety protocols was the Triumph taken out of service for a considerable length of time. Consequently, financial circumstances partially dictated the decision making process which led to additional hardships for those on-board.

 

Based on what the coast guard advised, Mobile was actually the quickest port to travel to. Also, it was the easiest access port.... This was talked about for a very long time during the disaster and the coast guard talked about why Mobile was a better option.

 

IMO, a company as worried about profits as CCL, would realize the cost per each additional hour of having news coverage of your broken ship outweighs the potential revenue of 3-5 extra days of sailing.

[sailor_jimc]

The only thing that I would criticize Carnival about is that Mobile was NOT the closest port that the Triumph could be towed to. The selection of Mobile was made as it would be the port where the ship would be repaired thus negating the time and expense needed for a paid second tow from a closer port to the engine fire where they could have more quickly disembarked guests. (Remember, at the time Carnival wasn't planning on paying back the Coast Guard for the original tow, as per naval tradition, but changed their minds after a public outcry). Also, as they initially believed the Triumph could be quickly repaired, by taking her to Mobile it would shorten the repair process and get her back into service quicker. Only after the initial inspections and the decision to implement much more stringent safety protocols was the Triumph taken out of service for a considerable length of time. Consequently, financial circumstances partially dictated the decision making process which led to additional hardships for those on-board.

 

Wow.. not sure where you got your information from- But Mobile was NOT the first place they told us we were going to be towed to. Originally we were to be towed to Progresso. But the winds were pushing us north east pretty strong (per my gps we were 10 mph as some points.) By the time the Mexican tug reached us we were dead in the middle between Mobile and Progresso, but the winds were still pushing us north east.. If they tried to tow us to Progresso we would not have made good progress against the wind... The US ocean going tug was from Mobile and yes the repair facilities there made it much more attractive I am sure but with the wind and the tug we started moving at about 18mph so going to mobile WAS the best move. And as one of the people on the ship I sure would rather try to get home from mobile in the US then from Progresso in Mexico. They said if the later was the case they would have had to bus us all to Cancun for their airport and then those that sailed without passports would have had problems trying to fly home.