BA news in NY

[thistimeplease]

Your subtlety was willfully ignored ;)

 

Perhaps I was harsh with my opening sentence but after reading pages and pages of apologist remarks, it was my first thought and thus, the first I wrote. I do stand behind it as it remains my opinion.

 

In PA, we received the exact amount of snow forecast by the news as did our home in Vermont. The use of the word "bombogenesis" was used from day one. I still have the date and time index in my search engine from when I queried that word as I had recalled hearing it before but not its meaning.

 

 

 

 

 

It also remains my opinion that NCL knew of the risks and that the decision to sail through it was made not by the person with maritime experience but rather a suit in hong kong. I suspect only the suits, the Captain and his wife will ever know the truth.

 

I agree with you, I believe that this was a corporate decision, but then again what do I know.

[billslowsky]

I've been on three cruises where we changed our route due to hurricanes. I did not feel the need to interview myself and send it to the local news. I did not feel the need for compensation. People were ill on the boat, the decks were closed off at times. Barf bags on every stairwell.

 

People who suffered actual damages should be compensated. Rough seas are part of what you signed up for.

 

The tv family was offered $500 per person by NCL already. And turned it down.

[Enavigo]

I've been on three cruises where we changed our route due to hurricanes. I did not feel the need to interview myself and send it to the local news. I did not feel the need for compensation. People were ill on the boat, the decks were closed off at times. Barf bags on every stairwell.

 

 

 

People who suffered actual damages should be compensated. Rough seas are part of what you signed up for.

 

 

 

The tv family was offered $500 per person by NCL already. And turned it down.

 

 

 

They should have taken the $500. Better than anything they will get in binding, non-discovery arbitration in Miami, FL ... the cruise capital of the US. Dumb decision.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[ShannonSC2]

I sympathize with every one, who feared for their lives and those that were ill and tired from not sleeping. Unfortunately, cruising the Atlantic in the winter can sometimes be like gambling. Some cruises will get great weather and others will be crappy.

 

We have been cruising since 1986 ( been on over 70 cruises) and we have been in every kind of situation that you can imagine experiencing on a cruise. The most important thing that I can say as a fact is that the cruise line and its officers will never knowingly endanger its passengers and the ship and put both into a dangerous situation. First and foremost in every captain's mind and goal is the safety and comfort of their passengers.

 

There was one time that we cruised on the Celebrity Horizon and the captain decided to stay in New York until the next day. Passengers were furious that we stayed until we got to Bermuda and saw the other ships, who left New York as planned. They encourntered the storm and the bow of the ship looked like a crushed soda can. So you sometimes you never please the passengers on the decisions made.

 

We were on the Crown one time and we left early to try to avoid Hurricane Bonnie. The captain's plan was to go South and go behind the storm based on forecaster's prediction. Of course, the storm slowed down and even though we were only supposed to be on the fringes, we felt the full strength of the storm. It was literally a roller coaster ride for a day and a half and people were. Dry sick. We arrived in New York in the evening instead of early morning.

 

The bomb cyclone event was not heard in the Northeast area until Wednesday afternoon. Most forecast for the Northeast was changed once it hit the southeast area on Wednesday, way after the Breakaway was well on their way to New York. New York City and most of New Jersey were supposed to get 1-3 inches. Coastal areas in NJ and Long Island were predicted to have 6-8 inches. Well those predictions were all wrong and the winds came out to be hurricane force winds.

 

I believe NCL and its officers made their decisions based on sophisticated weather apps but Mother Nature can sometimes be fickle.

 

 

Mother Nature is hard to predict even with the best technology. Systems can speed up or slow down in no time. In SC we knew a storm was coming but we didn't expect to get hit with 5-8 inches of snow. Charleston was supposed to get snow and wind up with 5.3 inches while Myrtle Beach got freezing rain/ice.

[ShannonSC2]

people planning to vacation cruising the atlantic ocean need to be aware that that mother nature is unpredictable. She cannot be controlled by ncl, only managed to the best of their ability. People making decisions are people, also doing so to the best of their ability.

 

I have been on some rough seas while on a ship. I've been on some scary sailboat rides, too. I've been in jets that bounced from turbulence, and on prop plane rides that felt like roller coaster rides. I've had my heart in my throat and been scared out of my wits.

 

But i didn't blame anyone. I blamed the weather. Because i knew stepping on every one of those vessels that it was machine vs. Mother nature. I trusted the captains/pilots and i took the risk.

 

I read a good point on another forum today. Today's cruisers are spoiled. Now on a ship, unless you are outside or looking out a window, you don't even know when you've left the port. Stabilizers are so advanced that passengers don't expect to feel ships move! While that's great most of the time, when you step onto a cruise ship you can't forget that you are embarking on an ocean journey and no one can guarantee smooth sailing.

 

if you can't accept that, you need to vacation on dry land.

 

amen!

[Zenica]

People planning to vacation cruising the Atlantic Ocean need to be aware that that Mother Nature is unpredictable. She cannot be controlled by NCL, only managed to the best of their ability. People making decisions are PEOPLE, also doing so to the best of their ability.

 

I have been on some rough seas while on a ship. I've been on some scary sailboat rides, too. I've been in jets that bounced from turbulence, and on prop plane rides that felt like roller coaster rides. I've had my heart in my throat and been scared out of my wits.

 

But I didn't blame anyone. I blamed the weather. Because I knew stepping on every one of those vessels that it was machine vs. Mother Nature. I trusted the captains/pilots and I took the risk.

 

If you can't accept that, you need to vacation on dry land.

 

 

 

amen!

 

 

You're both missing the point made by many.

 

This wasn't something that snuck up on the vessel while already in transit. It wasn't a weather condition that developed in an hour while the cruise was already underway. It was a storm being discussed by meteorologists well ahead of its arrival. It was a storm that the cruise line made a conscience decision to send the ship directly into despite the repeated warnings from people that were monitoring the storms trajectory and strength. Granted, meteorologists didn't specifically call out to the cruise line(s) to say..."please don't send ships into the storm" but did they really need to???

 

It wasn't advised to drive in that storm, my local airport grounded all flights, I doubt harbor masters would have given their blessings to anyone wanting to take their boat out yet somehow the apologist thinks it is perfectly ok to send a ship with over 4k lives onboard directly into the storms path. Keep in mind, storms are generally more severe over the water than on land.

 

Yes, amen to staying on dry land if it helps avoid one greedy suit but unfortunately, there are others.

[pcakes122]

somehow the apologist thinks it is perfectly ok to send a ship with over 4k lives onboard directly into the storms path.

And NO ONE got hurt. Not a single report of a scratch, bumped head, anyone hit by flying glass, no slips on wet floors, NOTHING. Zilch.

 

Please cut the drama. People were inconvenienced and some may have been frightened (don't believe everything you read, btw. In another thread someone reported that "everyone was throwing up" on the return tender from GSC - however I just watched a video of that rocky ride and passengers were LAUGHING. No vomit anywhere.) I've already stated multiple times that a cruise credit as a "good will" gesture would be nice.

 

However, please stop the dramatic dialogue of how 'the corporate man' doesn't care about the lives of 'the little people'. Again, not a hair on any one of the 4,000 passengers' heads was hurt. Not even the poor children (lest we forget them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[Zenica]

And NO ONE got hurt. Not a single report of a scratch, bumped head, anyone hit by flying glass, no slips on wet floors, NOTHING. Zilch.

 

Please cut the drama. People were inconvenienced and some may have been frightened (don't believe everything you read, btw. In another thread someone reported that "everyone was throwing up" on the return tender from GSC - however I just watched a video of that rocky ride and passengers were LAUGHING. No vomit anywhere.) I've already stated multiple times that a cruise credit as a "good will" gesture would be nice.

 

However, please stop the dramatic dialogue of how 'the corporate man' doesn't care about the lives of 'the little people'. Again, not a hair on any one of the 4,000 passengers' heads was hurt. Not even the poor children (lest we forget them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

 

When my neighbor that gambles wins, he boasts.

When he loses....

 

The ends do not justify the means in this instance. Simply put, the fact no one suffered an injury that we know of isn't material in the face of logic that clearly dictates prudence over chance would have been the safer course.

 

Do you really think there was a zero percent risk this could have gone the other way? That percentage, however low, do you want it applied to your life? Spare me the "accepted risks when you board the ship" defense, those apply to the unavoidable, not the ignored.

[billslowsky]

And NO ONE got hurt. Not a single report of a scratch, bumped head, anyone hit by flying glass, no slips on wet floors, NOTHING. Zilch.

 

Please cut the drama. People were inconvenienced and some may have been frightened (don't believe everything you read, btw. In another thread someone reported that "everyone was throwing up" on the return tender from GSC - however I just watched a video of that rocky ride and passengers were LAUGHING. No vomit anywhere.) I've already stated multiple times that a cruise credit as a "good will" gesture would be nice.

 

However, please stop the dramatic dialogue of how 'the corporate man' doesn't care about the lives of 'the little people'. Again, not a hair on any one of the 4,000 passengers' heads was hurt. Not even the poor children (lest we forget them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

Zenica's clearly obsessed with getting in the last word. Not about facts, reasonability, just the last word.

[pcakes122]

When my neighbor that gambles wins, he boasts.

When he loses....

 

The ends do not justify the means in this instance. Simply put, the fact no one suffered an injury that we know of isn't material in the face of logic that clearly dictates prudence over chance would have been the safer course.

 

Do you really think there was a zero percent risk this could have gone the other way? That percentage, however low, do you want it applied to your life? Spare me the accepted risks when you board the ship, those apply to the unavoidable, not the ignored.

Don't cruise with NCL again if you don't trust the judgment of their captains or corporate leaders. Not sure what else you can do to make yourself feel better. Life is too short to get yourself all wound up over "what-ifs". Just a little (albeit unsolicited) advice.

[Enavigo]

When my neighbor that gambles wins, he boasts.

When he loses....

 

The ends do not justify the means in this instance. Simply put, the fact no one suffered an injury that we know of isn't material in the face of logic that clearly dictates prudence over chance would have been the safer course.

 

Do you really think there was a zero percent risk this could have gone the other way? That percentage, however low, do you want it applied to your life? Spare me the "accepted risks when you board the ship" defense, those apply to the unavoidable, not the ignored.

 

 

 

And, that's it for me folks on these threads. When we move for legal/factual into moral arguments I, as a rule, bow out.

 

Again, I'm sorry for anyone that went through this and I wish the best.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[chengkp75]

And, that's it for me folks on these threads. When we move for legal/factual into moral arguments I, as a rule, bow out.

 

Again, I'm sorry for anyone that went through this and I wish the best.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Thanks for your legal perspective.

[Zenica]

And, that's it for me folks on these threads. When we move for legal/factual into moral arguments I, as a rule, bow out.

 

Again, I'm sorry for anyone that went through this and I wish the best.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

You interpreted my post, the one you quoted, as a moral argument? Avoiding danger rather than heading straight into it is a "moral" decision for you? Not even for civil servants would I see this as a moral decision save the choice of profession. If that was your understanding of my post....I doubt I could clear it up for you.

[mking8288]

Maybe chengkp75 can help out here - take a good look at the size of the storm. This is the Oceanweather wave chart from Thursday morning - it pretty much tell the big story in the Atlantic with the storm speeding north into New England

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180104/43b3101a9520bedb280b93788cb34f6d.jpg

 

How does NCL/BA and the captain sailed east toward Bermuda to go around this massive moving storm, 500 to 750 nm in all directions (that is, a radius of 1,000 to 1,500 nm) - you cannot do it, unless you take the BA to Europe for a big loop ... everyone stay on the ship, for an extra 3 to 5 days, maybe.

 

Perhaps, NCL could've stay in port or drop anchor off GSC for an extra day or two, or maybe head west & disembark everyone at Port Canaveral to find their own way home ??

 

No, NCL and the BA Captain - while perhaps should and could use a refresher in best practices on customer communications, which isn't his primary duty on the bridge ... - did NOT sail into the storm. I stand corrected if someone onboard has data to demonstrate & show otherwise. And, this does not meant that some of us are on NCL's bankroll, cheerleader or fans, not at all - feel free to use the IGNORE list. Calling others names & tag labels aren't useful in having a dialogue.

[billslowsky]

You interpreted my post, the one you quoted, as a moral argument? Avoiding danger rather than heading straight into it is a "moral" decision for you? Not even for civil servants would I see this as a moral decision save the choice of profession. If that was your understanding of my post....I doubt I could clear it up for you.

 

I didn't. It's just your obsession with having the last word.

[chengkp75]

Yes, for those who thought staying further out to sea would have been better, please note the red zone of the storm, which indicates the highest wave height, so staying further east would have increased the seas, and those seas would have been from astern, causing the ship to be tossed back and forth even worse than taking seas on the bow.

 

Some have proposed "staying in port for an extra day", which port would that have been? GSC was the last port, so you couldn't stay there, since you cannot "enter" this port. As for anchoring there, this is an exposed area, not a sheltered anchorage, which is why there are problems with tendering. Most likely the ship would have dragged anchor there.

 

Again, I will state that the BA did not sail "into the storm" or even "into the storm's path". Now, the Gem sailed into the storm's path, but I'm sure she steered well to the east to put the seas on her bow when going south. No outcry over the Gem.

 

The ability to disembark passengers in Florida would have depended on how many ships were there at the time, limiting berthing space.

[Enavigo]

You interpreted my post, the one you quoted, as a moral argument? Avoiding danger rather than heading straight into it is a "moral" decision for you? Not even for civil servants would I see this as a moral decision save the choice of profession. If that was your understanding of my post....I doubt I could clear it up for you.

 

 

 

I'll try and put it as clearly as I can for you. If you made that argument in my court (attempting to find someone negligent for what COULD have happened and not what DID) not only would I dismiss it with prejudice, I would entertain a motion to grant attorneys fees as well.

 

As for the sophomoric swipe at my reading comprehension skills, I will only respond with this; apparently my skills were strong enough to serve as editor in chief of one of the nations leading law reviews when in school. So I'm pretty comfortable with my abilities.

 

And now I am really done with this thread.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Enavigo]

Thanks for your legal perspective.

 

 

 

I have gained far more insights from this forum (from folks like you) than I have ever contributed. It's one of the things I like most about Cruise Critic, we all have diverse backgrounds and experiences that add to each others' experiences. I can honestly say that I have enjoyed my cruises far more than I ever would have had I not met the great people on these boards.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Zenica]

I'll try and put it as clearly as I can for you. If you made that argument in my court (attempting to find someone negligent for what COULD have happened and not what DID) not only would I dismiss it with prejudice, I would entertain a motion to grant attorneys fees as well.

 

As for the sophomoric swipe at my reading comprehension skills, I will only respond with this; apparently my skills were strong enough to serve as editor in chief of one of the nations leading law reviews when in school. So I'm pretty comfortable with my abilities.

 

And now I am really done with this thread.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

If your alluding that you sit on a judicial bench or have in the past, then you'd know full well not to cast an opinion without hearing all of the merits and given this is not a court room, you haven't read all of the merits which could be presented. You've read opinion, even those put forth by first responders advising people to avoid the storm if at all possible.

 

 

I do agree, the subject has degraded and further dialogue in the matter would be futile. The ship has, docked.

The cruise line, the media and subsequently my own indulgence into this matter is closed.

[ColinIllinois]

Who knew that we had Judge Judy posting on this forum? ;p

[MsTanyaNYC]

If anyone watches the weather they will see that this storm really came out of nowhere. I live in SC and last weekend there was no snow forecasted for the coast. Who would think Charleston, SC would get 5.3 inches of snow?

 

We have been in similar situations with another cruise line (Carnival). All other ships stayed back and we moved forward missing Freeport. A sub-tropical system formed out of nowhere. And we rode right in the middle of it. Yes it was the worse cruising experience ever but we survived and we still laugh about it. Carnival did nothing for us (no communication, no onboard credit for making us stay in our rooms, nothing). I still cruise and have a great time (storms or no storms). We didn't kick and scream asking for a refund. People were so sick and barf bags were all over the halls. Yes I was disappointed in Carnival in their handling of the situation but we moved on!

 

I think it goes with cruising. Storms are going to come up! We heard about it from RCCL ships last year. Now this year for NCL! From what I understand the captain did a a great job in the conditions! I think being on the BA would be a great ship to handle those kind of storms.

 

 

 

Thanks for your prospective.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Enavigo]

If your alluding that you sit on a judicial bench or have in the past, then you'd know full well not to cast an opinion without hearing all of the merits and given this is not a court room, you haven't read all of the merits which could be presented. You've read opinion, even those put forth by first responders advising people to avoid the storm if at all possible.

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree, the subject has degraded and further dialogue in the matter would be futile. The ship has, docked.

 

The cruise line, the media and subsequently my own indulgence into this matter is closed.

 

 

 

Full disclosure ... I am not a sitting member of the judiciary. My practice is limited to multi-national/cross border complex mergers and acquisitions. Further, none of my insights here are the provision of legal advice within the meaning of the jurisdictions I which I am admitted to practice.

 

I am only trying to add to the diverse opinions presented on this forum. My point was courts act based on facts ... not opinions or hyperbole.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[MsTanyaNYC]

Nobody goes on a cruise and expects to fear for their lives. The captain should have avoided this storm and stayed put in the last port for an extra day. Where in NCL's advertising does it have a disclaimer for water coming down the stairwells and into your cabin? Where does it state if you can't use your cabin the atrium is a place to sleep if you can even sleep? I believe everyone is entitled to a cruise credit equal to their fare towards their next cruise if they choose to cruise again.

 

 

 

Stuff happens. *shrugs* lol. I’ll prob ask for a refund just because but I wouldn’t care if I didn’t get it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Joshgrobanfan]

Been on many cruises over the last 40 years. Looked at the pictures and videos posted of the Breakaway during Grayson. Been through worse weather in the past. I am lucky that I never experience seasickness. If I was the type that got seasick, you can be sure I never would have returned to cruising. Bad weather is part of the cruise experience. It can be exciting although at times a bit scary. NCL could have avoided the bad weather since with today’s technology this is so easy to determine. But I wonder what the threshold is before they decide to change course.

[Snooz Diva]

It wasn't pretty. And it wasn't the worst I ever experienced. But still. Kudos to the crew in the face of questionable corporate decision making.