Mutany on the Mary

[MuseCruiser]

Carriesue,

 

There was an ACCIDENT on the way out of Fort Lauderdale when one of the pods hit something. Responsibility is yet to be determined. ...

Peter

 

Yes, it was an accident, but when accidents happen, say, in surgery or on a bus, litigation usually results in the party related to the accident to pay a rather hefty sum to the party affected.

[rtphokie]

If this were not so pathetic it would almost be comical. These people sure sound like they have found the "American way". The minute something doesn't go as planned, SUE! I have a feeling no matter how many meetings Cunard hosts onboard, or how much compensation Cunard provides, it won't be enough for some of these people (born complainers and whiners).

 

Where to begin??? First off I wonder how many of these people realize they are on a mechanical object and things can go wrong?

 

While you are correct that far too often people scream "I'll sue!" at the first sign of any deviation from their plans, this situation is a little different.

 

I appears that Cunard intentionally withheld information about their plans to prevent passengers from attempting to disembark. The mention of the Jones act is silly, implying that this tied Cunard's hands to just plain wrong. The Jones Act doesn't prohibit passengers from disembarking in US port if the previous port visited was not a foreign port, but it does impose a $200 per passenger fine.

 

At the very least, the woman who wanted to disembark to attend a funeral and actually the whole ship could disembark legally. I'm guessing if Cunard was that concerned about it's bottom line, they could charge her the $200.

 

I'm guessing the decision was made by the captain or by the Cunard brass not to give the bad news about the ports under they were underway because every passenger they could prevent from disembarking in Fort Lauderdale saved the company money.

[2moose]

I think you can get it in the USM too Jim lol

you are sharp as a tack!!!luv ya jim

[ocngypz]

Every passenger booked under the Cunard UK tariff has to have travel insurance. IT IS MANDATORY.

 

They should keep their traps shut.. because they have been given more than they are entitled to under the UK Passage contract which gives CREDIT ONLY towards another Cunard booking and 40 GBP.

 

It appears the UK tariff sold the NY-RIO sailing in shorter segments. It is possible some people were going to debark in Barbados. However, again insurance is mandatory.

 

Naturally, many people do not cover all prepaid holiday expenses to save money on insurance. Live and learn.

 

Passengers booked under the UK tariff are under UK court jurisdiction. However, the Cunard passage contract is, of course, in favor of the cruiseline.. as all passage contracts are.

[2moose]

As much as I am disgusted with these passengers antics, I am even more disgusted with the BBC and CNN for referencing the gangway tragedy, which has beyond nothing to do with this issue.

 

On the other hand, I do think Cunard is wildly arrogant to say "the ship is the destination." That was unecessary and only increased the anger further. Cunard, you should learn this is only going to rile people further.

 

I say, give the passengers who are behaving their money back. For the rest, let 'em sue. Look at their arguments:

 

1. "We could have been let off in Fort Lauderdale" - unfortunately this line of reasoning is fallacious, archaic law or not. Violating the Jones Act is breaking the law. No court is going to put up with anyone who says Cunard should have knowingly let 1500 passengers break the law, whether they paid the fine or not. That's like saying to a cop, "officer, I'll give you the $450 fine in advance if you'll just allow me to speed through a couple of red lights."

 

2. "We missed all our ports" - Read the terms of your cruise ticket. It says NO COMPENSATION for this kind of change. That's in writing and YOU agreed to it when you paid for your cruise, whether you like it or not (and whether you read it or not.)

 

3. "We paid money for tours, etc on the ports that were missed" - If you booked the ship's shore excursions, you're covered so no worries. As for the rest of it, well...don't most companies have cancellation guidelines? And isn't this what travel insurance is for? In any case, Cunard still legally owes you nothing.

 

4. "The ship is not the destination, we are being held prisoner" - okay, it sucks to miss your ports and be at sea when you want to be on the beach. There is no denying that. Yes, your vacation may very well be ruined. Mine would be too no matter how good the food is. And I would be very angry. But again the fact is, Cunard is not obligated to give you a dime. Not a single dime.

 

5. "We're not going to leave the ship in Rio." - Ever been in a Brazilian prison? You just might have the chance if you take this route. Consider it a complimentary shore excursion.

 

6. "Cunard was dishonest when they didn't tell us their ports were canceled in advance." - Maybe so. The court will decide if Cunard knew in advance or not. Fact is, they could have known a week earlier and still owed you nothing for missed ports. I don't blame them for not saying anything if they actually did know, because they knew very well it would lead to passengers wanting to leave when they could not do so because of the Jones Act, which no one would understand anyway. Judging by this crowd, mass riots would ensue and people would probably be throwing their luggage overboard and jumping in after it before the ship could get out of the harbor.

 

People, you can cry and bleat all you want (and you are entitled to do so) but it is all in writing on the back of your cruise ticket. What's there is 100 times stronger than any sympathy your sob stories will gain. Whether you agree with the Jones Act or not, it is United States law, and no, you are not above the law. My advice? Take the 50% and run, because you are going to lose. And this is coming from someone who totally agrees that your vacation was ruined. But you need to buck up and be realistic about this. And in the future, take your money elsewhere if you are that angry with Cunard.

if you believe you can win this legal action than let the lawyers take this case on a contingency basis only!!! also i have a bridge in brooklyn for sale very cheap please respond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[travel-to-go]

? But if Cunard wanted to it could have taken the people to the Bahamas and let as many off as wanted without a fine(it probrably would cost more to fly out of the Bahamas back to where ever people were going) I feel sorry for the crew. After all this isn't their fault at all.

 

The Bahamas is a whole different question. The Bahamas is one of the highest priced ports in the Carib. It also has an exit fee. The ship cannot just port in anywhere, and for tendering, it is the port (somewhere in the Bahamas) we have most often had to scrub on any cruise. Likewise, every single passenger must fill out Bahamas immigration form.This would be a logistical nightmare. Additionally, you are now going somewhere extra that the ship had not planned to travel to. This changes all of your times. If they had to cut out St Kitts, Barbados and Bahia due to time constraints, then going to the Bahamas would have made things worse. They did not expect to stay as long as they had to in Ft Lauderdale. The Coast Guard ordered them to submit to a tug (whether they needed it or not) on the way back. I am certain that slowed them down coming back in. Disabling the pod and removing the propeller took longer than they exoected it to. They had set the time for leaving three seperate times! Then it was strictly up to the Coast Guard when they would release the ship to leave. They couldn't go anywhere until the Coast Guard released them.

 

From the Coast Guard's web page:

A Captain of the Port Order was issued by the Coast Guard requiring the Queen Mary 2 to use tug-boats to assist in returning to port.

The vessel will be required to remain at the pier until the Coast Guard determines if the vessels and its passengers are safe.

From all indications, the Commodore and crew likely had no idea just what kind of speed she would make. I think it is safe to assume that they had never cruised with three eninges before, one of them having had the screw (prop) removed. The physics of this equation changes everything. How much additional thrust must be brought in on the port side static pod to overcome the adverse drag of the propellerless (but still an aerodynamic- or hydrodanamic- whatever the word is) force to be reckoned with and accounted for, of the now disabled starboard pod, both in determining speed and correction for adverse yaw. I am certain the ship has never been run in that configuration, also taking into account the seas at that moment (currents, wind, "the trades", and whatever esle could have an effect) It has been said that the QM2 does not have a rated "top speed". I do not know why, but I am pretty sure that I have read this more than once, so there must be a reason. While I am certain they suspected they might have to push the envelope, and would get nowhere near the fuel economies they had counted on by going a more "leisurely speed with the stabilzers deployed, I rather doubt they would put out rumors and "Well, maybes" to the passengers and worry them needlessly. If I'm about to die, let me know.(maybe! Maybe not!) but if I'm on vacation, do I really want to know all of the perusings of the brdige? Well, *I* would, but then, I'm a geek! But honestly, Many wouldn't want to know, wouldn't care and certainly wouldn't want to spend time worrying about what might or might not happen! Again, I am not in any way shape or form, negating the disappointment and loss that some passengers suffered. On our 3 Jan cruise, Marc was told (by someone who was in a position to know) that the Commodore had relatives (8 of them) waiting in Puerto Moins, anxiously looking forward to seeing him in his last year as Commodore before his retirement. I am quite certain they were disappointed, as was he, and I am sure they incurred some expense traveling there, since they likely don't live there (or maybe they do! I don't know!) It was to be an inaugural port, and that is usually something special!

 

As for the behavior of a relative few passengers, egged on by the ringleaders, We have a saying where I come from (originally the hills of Tennessee) "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." There is no excuse for the rudeness of booing the Commodore and staff as they are taking their time to at least try to be available and take complaints, and no excuse for booing other passengers expressing their opinions. And NEVER is there an excuse to take it out on the people on the lowest rung of the Cunard hierarchy- those there to serve you individually! (much less threaten to ruin the vacations of the passengers expecting to inhabit the cabins they are supposed to be vacating! They want to make sure they ruin other people's vacations, too? How will that make them feel better or make them whole?) And giving in to people exhibiting such behavior is like a bell to Pavlov's dogs! You'll set precedent forever!

 

Now, about those hats and gowns! Have there been any cool themed balls on formal nights yet? Pirate night? What kind of questions on the Pub Trivia? (if they're repeats of the ones we had, I might be willing to give up the answers... for a fee! <G>

Is there ANYthing else going on on the ship! Do tell! Let me live vicariously!

Karie

(who seems to be getting repetitious and redundant!)

[travel-to-go]

if you believe you can win this legal action than let the lawyers take this case on a contingency basis only!!! also i have a bridge in brooklyn for sale very cheap please respond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Gee, let's not get people even MORE riled! Can we leave Brooklyn (and the new pier at Red Hook) out of this? <LOL>!

 

BTW, the woman whose Grandmother died- When told of this at the meeting, the Commodore said this was the first he'd heard of it. (according to our own cc'ers reporting) Would she have disembarked (by helicopter or in St Kitts) if they had not had to go back to Port Everglades? Some would've, some would not. At any rate, she would have been reponsible for her own added expenses in so-doing. Did she go to the purser to see what her options were? After all, they DID let passengers off in Ft Laud. They arranged shore excursions and ran buses to the Sawgrass Mall! If she had an issue, I am certain she could have made arrangements at that time. She obviously chose to stay on (or get back on) the ship, if she knew then.

 

Not saying she might not have had a legitimate gripe! I don't know all of the facts. But that is only one passenger (excuse me, guest! <G>). I really don't think they are that cold-hearted!

 

Just my HO! (humble opinion)

Karie

[2moose]

The Bahamas is a whole different question. The Bahamas is one of the highest priced ports in the Carib. It also has an exit fee. The ship cannot just port in anywhere, and for tendering, it is the port (somewhere in the Bahamas) we have most often had to scrub on any cruise. Likewise, every single passenger must fill out Bahamas immigration form.This would be a logistical nightmare. Additionally, you are now going somewhere extra that the ship had not planned to travel to. This changes all of your times. If they had to cut out St Kitts, Barbados and Bahia due to time constraints, then going to the Bahamas would have made things worse. They did not expect to stay as long as they had to in Ft Lauderdale. The Coast Guard ordered them to submit to a tug (whether they needed it or not) on the way back. I am certain that slowed them down coming back in. Disabling the pod and removing the propeller took longer than they exoected it to. They had set the time for leaving three seperate times! Then it was strictly up to the Coast Guard when they would release the ship to leave. They couldn't go anywhere until the Coast Guard released them.

 

From the Coast Guard's web page:

A Captain of the Port Order was issued by the Coast Guard requiring the Queen Mary 2 to use tug-boats to assist in returning to port.

The vessel will be required to remain at the pier until the Coast Guard determines if the vessels and its passengers are safe.

From all indications, the Commodore and crew likely had no idea just what kind of speed she would make. I think it is safe to assume that they had never cruised with three eninges before, one of them having had the screw (prop) removed. The physics of this equation changes everything. How much additional thrust must be brought in on the port side static pod to overcome the adverse drag of the propellerless (but still an aerodynamic- or hydrodanamic- whatever the word is) force to be reckoned with and accounted for, of the now disabled starboard pod, both in determining speed and correction for adverse yaw. I am certain the ship has never been run in that configuration, also taking into account the seas at that moment (currents, wind, "the trades", and whatever esle could have an effect) It has been said that the QM2 does not have a rated "top speed". I do not know why, but I am pretty sure that I have read this more than once, so there must be a reason. While I am certain they suspected they might have to push the envelope, and would get nowhere near the fuel economies they had counted on by going a more "leisurely speed with the stabilzers deployed, I rather doubt they would put out rumors and "Well, maybes" to the passengers and worry them needlessly. If I'm about to die, let me know.(maybe! Maybe not!) but if I'm on vacation, do I really want to know all of the perusings of the brdige? Well, *I* would, but then, I'm a geek! But honestly, Many wouldn't want to know, wouldn't care and certainly wouldn't want to spend time worrying about what might or might not happen! Again, I am not in any way shape or form, negating the disappointment and loss that some passengers suffered. On our 3 Jan cruise, Marc was told (by someone who was in a position to know) that the Commodore had relatives (8 of them) waiting in Puerto Moins, anxiously looking forward to seeing him in his last year as Commodore before his retirement. I am quite certain they were disappointed, as was he, and I am sure they incurred some expense traveling there, since they likely don't live there (or maybe they do! I don't know!) It was to be an inaugural port, and that is usually something special!

 

As for the behavior of a relative few passengers, egged on by the ringleaders, We have a saying where I come from (originally the hills of Tennessee) "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." There is no excuse for the rudeness of booing the Commodore and staff as they are taking their time to at least try to be available and take complaints, and no excuse for booing other passengers expressing their opinions. And NEVER is there an excuse to take it out on the people on the lowest rung of the Cunard hierarchy- those there to serve you individually! (much less threaten to ruin the vacations of the passengers expecting to inhabit the cabins they are supposed to be vacating! They want to make sure they ruin other people's vacations, too? How will that make them feel better or make them whole?) And giving in to people exhibiting such behavior is like a bell to Pavlov's dogs! You'll set precedent forever!

 

Now, about those hats and gowns! Have there been any cool themed balls on formal nights yet? Pirate night? What kind of questions on the Pub Trivia? (if they're repeats of the ones we had, I might be willing to give up the answers... for a fee! <G>

Is there ANYthing else going on on the ship! Do tell! Let me live vicariously!

Karie

(who seems to be getting repetitious and redundant!)

WILL YOU MARRY ME , PLEASE????????????????? JIM

[travel-to-go]

WILL YOU MARRY ME , PLEASE????????????????? JIM

 

Well, I don't know, Jim- Does the offer include cruises? I just might consider!....

Then too, Marc will probably insist I drag him along. I supose we'd need to get a suite!

 

<G>

Karie,

Who cannot be bought.... cheaply!

[HookedOnSeaDays]

I really hope these passengers give up this class-action lawsuit before they get in over their heads and end up with nothing in the end. I would hate to see that happen to them. I know they are angry, and they have every right to be angry about the unfortunate circumstances which brought their ports to be canceled. But they are already doomed by the terms of the passage contract - there's just no hope for further compensation.

 

And I very much wish that they would settle down and give the crew back their tips. The poor crew did nothing to deserve the way they are being treated.

[Bollinge]

I saw a copy of a crew contract on the internet a few months ago. I think it was from Carnival or RCCL.

 

It said the crew member involved was entitled to a minimum (low) wage, to be augmented by tips. In the event of those tips not being forthcoming (and I can think of many reasons why that might be, including the present brouhaha on QM2) the Cruise line would make up the wages to a certain (reasonable) level.

 

Of course, I can't find the exact article to reproduce here right now, but it was a report of legal proceedings brought by a crew member in respect of an injury sustained on board. This is why the minutiae of the crew contract was laid bare.

 

Perhaps those irate passengers aboard are aware that Cunard will have to make the wages up.

 

Tips should be included in the fare anyway.

[guernseyguy]

Of course, I can't find the exact article to reproduce here right now, ...

It would be very helpful....so much rumour flying around......

 

Perhaps those irate passengers aboard are aware that Cunard will have to make the wages up.

 

But we don't know that do we - this is Cunard, not RCCL or Carnival

 

Tips should be included in the fare anyway.

 

But they are not - so this as far as we know - is coming out of the staff's pockets, not Cunards.

 

Peter

[jimneycrkit]

Not saying all the Brits are rude but I was only refering back to a question that was asked if they they were British for the most part. There are only about 500 Americans on board so yes the majority are British. I have met quite a few who are very pleasant and have the usual sense of humor about the whole thing.However the non disgruntled passengers all wish we could throw them overboard and for the most part we are American. A few Americans tried to stand up for the Commodore at the last meeting and were booed by the Brits loudly and told to shut up.

 

Free wine again with dinner last night. The disgruntled group I think has figured out that a sit in isn't going to work but they are stilling trying to find lawyers. A lady sitting next to me at lunch was speaking to one of the group leaders yesterday and told him that she had been trying to call a lawyer. She said that the ship kept disconnecting her calls and they were listening in on her calls. Talk about paranoid.They are compalining also about not getting the BBC news, the commodore is censoring the news now they think. They meet in small groups all over the ship and have another meeting planned . The gal that wanted off in FL did not find out about her grandmother unitl after the ship had sailed for the second time and she wanted the ship to helicopter off and pay her for it. The ship was never towed by tug boats, that was missed reported. There was no oil slick as has been reported also. We knew we would probably miss a port or two before we left. We knew we would be going slower. The only people that disembarked in FL for good were a family that had a medical emergancy and the whole family got off. The passenger from S America was taken off with heart problems. Since I was standing there at the time I know this for a fact.

 

Well only a another 2 days and we will be in Rio and they can all get off.

 

We have had pirate balls,a Carnival ball and a Black and White ball so far. The lecturers are great and very interesting. Food seems to be better than the last time I was on board. Very warm weather as was expected.

 

Now to go eat again LOL

 

Melissa

[Bollinge]

That's why I said perhaps they are aware.

 

I'll enquire who posted the original article, on the Celebrity board I think.

[mufi]

Carriesue,

In case you did not see my post yesterday (I think it was) When you withhold tips from the onboard account, and pay them directly, they must pool what you give them.

 

Can you give any hard evidence that this is the case?

 

David.

[guernseyguy]

However the non disgruntled passengers all wish we could throw them overboard ...The gal that wanted off in FL did not find out about her grandmother unitl after the ship had sailed for the second time and she wanted the ship to helicopter off and pay her for it. We knew we would probably miss a port or two before we left. We knew we would be going slower. The only people that disembarked in FL for good were a family that had a medical emergancy and the whole family got off.

Now to go eat again LOL

Melissa

 

Melissa,

 

Thankyou for continuing to post - I think we should call you 'Myth-Buster'...so much mis-information going around, but then again the emptiest vessels make the loudest noise.....Looking forward to their quayside 'Cruise from hell' quotes......

 

Peter

[Bollinge]

Sorry that the scenario is getting tedious for those of you on board who are happy with the situation.

 

The Brits who are dissatisfied with their holiday should now make the most of it, come home quietly and then make a claim under the aforementioned Package Tour Regulations.

 

I think they will be pleasantly surprised when they receive around 70-80% of their total fare (air and cruise) refunded. Anyone who is looking for a Solicitor should refer to an earlier post in which I suggested the email of an eminent lawyer who specialises in nothing but holiday complaints.

 

The MD of Cunard was on national TV this morning. Unfortunately I had the sound turned down typing this!

[chasetf]

Carriesue, There was an ACCIDENT on the way out of Fort Lauderdale when one of the pods hit something. Responsibility is yet to be determined.

The Captain is always responsible. The Commodore is their top guy and is near retirement. They may not make a big deal about it....but the 50% refund and free wine at dinner is the cheap part of what it will eventually cost Cunard. If it was the US Navy, he probably would not be in command at this point.

 

Dry dock and missed cruises will be the killer.:eek:

 

Ships only make money when they are at sea. :D

[Bollinge]

Interesting article about public relations:

 

http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/blogtalk/wpn-58-20060124FirstrateCruiseLinePracticesThirdRatePR.html

 

This accident is a carbon copy of one that happened to QE2 in 1992.

 

She was making top speed off Marthas Vineyard with the local pilot embarked, when she hit a submerged object causing a massive gash in the hull.

 

The Captain and Pilot were blamed, but also the 1939 US Hydrographic Survey Charts, which failed to show the bump on the sea bed.

 

http://www.irbs.com/lists/navigation/0108/0072.html

 

I note that there are now claims that the stabilisers are not being deployed, so as to cut down on drag and increase speed, resulting in mal de mer. It is an ongoing PR disaster. They have not said which subequent voyage(s) will have to be cancelled for the drydock. We are booked on one, hence my intense interest.

[guernseyguy]

Interesting article about public relations: This accident is a carbon copy of one that happened to QE2 in 1992.

Oh dear, more 'irreparable harm' to Cunard's reputation, just like the 'irreparable harm' from Martha's Vinyard, or the 'irreparable harm' from the unfinished refit......

It is an ongoing PR disaster. They have not said which subequent voyage(s) will have to be cancelled for the drydock. We are booked on one, hence my intense interest.

 

I'm surprised you are still planning to sail on a line whose reputation is clearly ruined beyond repair, again!;)

 

Peter

 

PS, I don't know how Jackatsea's report in the Nottingham press will turn out, but a poor couple from Birmingham are having a 'Cruise from Hell on Queen Mary 2', with complaints including 'bad weather':

http://*****.com/dh96e

[guernseyguy]

Mr Brian Adler, of Manchester, has been much quoted on the BBC. I'm sure he's a fine fellow, and am sorry that he's not enjoying his voyage. However, his upset may have affected the accuracy of his testimony which in some aspects would appear to be at variance with the evidence.

 

In this blog: http://*****.com/b9nhv

 

He is reported as saying that "they imprisoned us on the ship with no option to disembark" - others on board have said that they spent the day touring Fort Lauderdale.

 

He is also reported as saying that, of the information about the amended itinerary was announced:

"When we set sail from Fort Lauderdale, half an hour later, they announced it over the PA system, which was a disgrace. They couldn’t be bothered assembling everybody to tell them.

Where were you at the time?

We were set out on deck. It was mid-day or just after mid-day. We were by the pool."

 

So, the amended itinerary was announced just after mid-day - and we know from here:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=282464

and Minnie Wonka Girl, that the QM2 in fact sailed at 06.30 - so the revised itinerary was in fact announced (if Mr Adler's pool-side recollection is correct) around 6 hours AFTER sailing, not half an hour - I doubt he was sitting by the pool in the dark, but one never knows. That would have given Cunard enough time to assess the ships speed, which is what they have said they did.

 

As I say, I'm sure Mr Adler is a fine fellow, but under these trying circumstances may not be the most reliable of witnesses.

 

I strongly suspect the post-Rio voyagers will be having more fun.....

 

Peter

[ocngypz]

The Captain is always responsible. The Commodore is their top guy and is near retirement. They may not make a big deal about it....but the 50% refund and free wine at dinner is the cheap part of what it will eventually cost Cunard. If it was the US Navy, he probably would not be in command at this point.

 

Dry dock and missed cruises will be the killer.:eek:

 

Ships only make money when they are at sea. :D

 

Coming through the channel the pilot is at the helm. If the pilot was off course, he will be held accountable and he (in the guise of his insurance company) sued. It is also entirely possible there was something in the channel which should not have been there, which is a great possibility considering Port Everglades was closed to marine traffic several times this fall due to hurricanes.

 

We will just have to wait for the final report.

[mufi]

For a story that no way would CNN be interested in this one has made news pages across the world. The media loves a "cruise to hell" story and how they are loving this one.

 

There are a number of points that occur to me.

 

When the Arcadia abandoned the World Cruise the passengers got a free bar while they were aboard, a full refund and a dicounted future cruise. Most seemed to accept this and although the media had a bit of fun with the story there was not the present hostile coverage and the panomime that seems to be going on aboard here.

 

Cunard are part of a big public company. Their first priority is their shareholders. Anything they are offering they are offering because it is in their interests to do so, and if they thought they could escape all consequences by offering nothing they would do it. And if I was a shareholder I would expect them to.

 

If we are getting the correct drift here most of the passengers who are complaining are British. And most of the passengers are British. They are very probably the sort of folk any of us dined with on our last cruise. If they were not aboard, the ship would be a bit empty, unless they had people on a waiting list. Cunard needs them.

 

David.

[guernseyguy]

Maybe those onboard the QM2 would like to take notice of what the former lawayer, now current judge says about a law suit: As longtime travel industry attorney, and now New York Supreme Court Justice, Thomas Dickerson told the Chicago Tribune in an article that appeared this weekend

 

Here's the article:

http://*****.com/9judk

 

Peter

[smeyer418]

Coming through the channel the pilot is at the helm. If the pilot was off course, he will be held accountable and he (in the guise of his insurance company) sued. It is also entirely possible there was something in the channel which should not have been there, which is a great possibility considering Port Everglades was closed to marine traffic several times this fall due to hurricanes.

 

We will just have to wait for the final report.

 

Nah, the captain is still in charge and responsible also most local/state laws that create ship pilots limit their liability to .10 per ton, or something close to that, so the pilot would pay at most $17,700.00.