If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if you sue
On Nov 14, 10:53*pm, Charles wrote:
In article , Tom K wrote: There are other reports that said after the accident, the crew was nowhere to be found much of the time. That is not what I have been reading. -- Charles Nor I.... I have seen where people onboard were saying how great the crew was, esp with the people that are handicapped. and that they handled it fantasticly there will always be someone who will complain. Great publicity for Carnival... |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if you sue
On Nov 14, 11:27*pm, Tom K wrote:
On 11/14/10 10:51 PM, Janet Wilder wrote: On 11/14/2010 8:59 PM, Tom K wrote: On 11/14/10 8:40 PM, Jean O'Boyle wrote: "Val wrote in message ... " Carnival says the Spam was not ordered, it was substituted by a vendor. All Carnival did was state that none was served to guests in response to the media making a big deal about Spam being served to luxury cruise ship passengers. O Good! - the Carnival image must be preserved - there are no operating toilets, the place smells - but we're above serving Spam delivered at the Taxpayers expense. I still think, as a taxpayer, they owe an apology.. You are so very over the top in your criticism....it was an ACCIDENT for heaven's sake. I don't think we know that yet. It could also have been poor maintenance, negligence or something else besides an "accident". We need to let the NTSB get to the bottom of what happened. --Tom Even if it was an "accident" It just seems exceedingly strange that there was not sufficient backup or spare parts to keep the generation of electricity at more than basic emergency levels. I keep coming back to this question. Why was there such reliance on a single generator? My other big question. *Why didn't they go to the nearest land location that had a pier? *Why keep passenger extra days bringing them back to California? *It seems like they needlessly subjected the passengers to horrible conditions for longer than they needed to. --Tom- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - TOm I am sure there is many answers to this demographic... Getting people to their home QUicker then taking buses from Ensenada and if Cartel were around then that be even worst. f they had no passports what a crazy time that would be. and they were not that far away to USA... They allowed people to stay in San Diego with a Daily Stipened too |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if you sue
On Nov 15, 12:05*am, Sue Mullen wrote:
On 11/14/2010 11:25 PM, Tom K wrote: On 11/14/10 10:46 PM, Charles wrote: Tom wrote: I'm not sure they handled the fire well. They seem to have lied to the passengers when there was a lot of smoke coming out... they said it was a smoke condition, not a fire. I think that's lying. --Tom I don't think calling it a smoke condition is lying. And you don't want to get on the PA and cause a panic. I believe they said "it was a smoke condition and not a fire"... not that they played word games, and said "it was a samoke condition". They said it wasn't a fire. To me, that's lying. But since I wasn't there, it's only second hand info. Tom, why don't you take a look at the cruise director's blog? I think his name is John Herald or something like that.lol *I saw it on facebook, but I think you could also find it on cruisecritic. It is very interesting and tells you what was happening step by step, also his thought process as he was making announcements to the passengers. If you do read it, I would be interested in what you think of it. He has posted part 1 through part 4 and there is more coming on monday. sue- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - the blog is really good |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if you sue
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:49:03 -0500, Bill
wrote: On 11/15/2010 8:18 AM, Wrkitout wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:59:38 -0500, wrote: Val Kraut wrote: When you deliver aid to those in need and the recipient says I wouldn't serve that to my guests - that is disrespect! Val Kraut No they didn't. The Press said "they served spam to their guests" and Carnival said "no we didn't" My guess is they would have if they had been stuck longer, but you're the only one who really cares. Actually, if I'd spent $3000+ to go on a cruise and they served me spam it would be the last time I cruised on carnival, so he's not really alone. Really? Even if the alternative was food that had gone bad because the refrigeration was no longer working? And they didn't spend $3000+ for the cruise, all their money is being refunded. Bill Did they step off the ship and get a instant refund, and yes they paid $3000, when they get a refund is debatable. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if you sue
On Nov 15, 6:20*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
* * It wasn't the Navy's Spam. They just delivered it. If the Navy had taken some Spam from the foodlockers of the Reagan or any of the task force, donated it the Splendor, then there MIGHT be an issue. Since it was Carnival's Spam and the Navy just delivered it, you are wrong. I don't even blame the Carnival guy who got the job to quickly supply meat to the ship with 3000 guests in a warm climate and no refrigeration ... and came up with Spam ... |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if yousue
On 11/15/2010 7:21 AM, Stu wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 06:06:29 -0500, wrote: Janet Wilder wrote: I keep coming back to this question. Why was there such reliance on a single generator? There ARE more generators on the ship. However, if the main power lines were damaged(which is what I suspect), or the control system that delivers the power, then it doesn't matter how many generators are available. Then it shows just how bad these ships are designed, where was the backup they could of switch over to? From what I read, there were back up generators in the forward part of the ship but it was the switching mechanism that prevented the other generators from coming on line. I'm no engineer, but it seems to me that there should have been a secondary method of bringing the other generators on line when that switch board crashed. This, I believe, is what the NTSA is also going to be asking. -- Janet Wilder Way-the-heck-south Texas Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if yousue
On 11/15/2010 11:36 AM, nfw wrote:
Did they step off the ship and get a instant refund, and yes they paid $3000, when they get a refund is debatable. People pay $3,000 for a 7 day Carnival cruise? They all couldn't have been in suites? -- Janet Wilder Way-the-heck-south Texas Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if you sue
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:20:57 -0600, Janet Wilder
wrote: On 11/15/2010 7:21 AM, Stu wrote: On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 06:06:29 -0500, wrote: Janet Wilder wrote: I keep coming back to this question. Why was there such reliance on a single generator? There ARE more generators on the ship. However, if the main power lines were damaged(which is what I suspect), or the control system that delivers the power, then it doesn't matter how many generators are available. Then it shows just how bad these ships are designed, where was the backup they could of switch over to? From what I read, there were back up generators in the forward part of the ship but it was the switching mechanism that prevented the other generators from coming on line. I'm no engineer, but it seems to me that there should have been a secondary method of bringing the other generators on line when that switch board crashed. This, I believe, is what the NTSA is also going to be asking. Believe me, You can test the circuit breakers and switches all the time and one can go bad the day after you test them. Thumper |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if you sue
"Tom K" wrote in message ... On 11/15/10 12:33 AM, Jean O'Boyle wrote: "Tom wrote in message ... On 11/14/10 8:40 PM, Jean O'Boyle wrote: You are so very over the top in your criticism....it was an ACCIDENT for heaven's sake. I don't think we know that yet. It could also have been poor maintenance, negligence or something else besides an "accident". We need to let the NTSB get to the bottom of what happened. --Tom Tom, knowing your feelings about Carnival, it does not surprise me that you would take this stance. Next thing you will be saying is that Carnival deliberately set the fire! I'm sure the NTSB will investigate the matter thoroughly. In the mean time, let's stop speculating...it only starts false rumors which people will start reporting as fact... All the reports I have read from the passengers on that ship have been positive about the crew...many of them praised how well they handled the situation. The media sure knows how to stir up a situation for pure sensationalism! No surprise...it is the only thing keeping them financially alive now days. The ship is only a little over two years old....It is very sad that your one and only experience on a 4-5 day Carnival cruise has you carrying a senseless vendetta for so many years. --Jean Tom, I'm sorry if I came down a bit hard on you; perhaps I should not have used the word, "vendetta," but I remember the quick knee jerk response from you whenever anyone mentioned Carnival years ago and when I read such things as: "My other big question. Why didn't they go to the nearest land location that had a pier? Why keep passenger extra days bringing them back to California? It seems like they needlessly subjected the passengers to horrible conditions for longer than they needed to." --Tom "I thought the original plan was to take them to Mexico. And they could have been there 1-2 days earlier. "And what about bringing down a few dozen buses and getting them back to San Diego that way?" "I just ask why they needed to keep them on board any longer than necessary." --Tom Then to my post calling it was an accident, you replied: "I don't think we know that yet. It could also have been poor maintenance, negligence or something else besides an "accident". We need to let the NTSB get to the bottom of what happened." --Tom I'm not sure they handled the fire well. They seem to have lied to the passengers when there was a lot of smoke coming out... they said it was a smoke condition, not a fire. I think that's lying. --Tom All these remarks "smacked' of your old criticisms of Carnival and made me wonder if it had been a cruise line that you liked, would you be saying these things. Ensenada, being the closest port, would have been a horrible choice to have the passengers disembark...after not being able to take showers for days plus the state of mind that they had to be in, it would have been torture for them to end up in Mexico and take buses to San Diego. As it was, the ship arrived in San Diego in the morning not the afternoon... earlier than they predicted. I think that Carnival did the best that they could by their passengers. --Jean |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if yousue
On 11/15/10 5:19 PM, Jean O'Boyle wrote:
All these remarks "smacked' of your old criticisms of Carnival and made me wonder if it had been a cruise line that you liked, would you be saying these things. Ensenada, being the closest port, would have been a horrible choice to have the passengers disembark...after not being able to take showers for days plus the state of mind that they had to be in, it would have been torture for them to end up in Mexico and take buses to San Diego. As it was, the ship arrived in San Diego in the morning not the afternoon... earlier than they predicted. I think that Carnival did the best that they could by their passengers. --Jean I think it's more my lack of faith in global corporations. Like I've said... Ships for multiple lines being registered in places like Liberia, Bahamas, etc. to reduce any liabilities. Car company Toyota have data on previous "run away car" crashes resulting in deaths and not releasing that information out of Japan to prevent US courts and injured parties from seeing it. The BP mess. Johnson and Johnson sending out consultants to buy back massive quantities of Tylenol so that they didn't have to suffer the embarrassment of actually performing a recall of bad product. The list goes on and on... But the next second, that same company is willing to spend billions to spin it the right way. Here's another question. If there was no power. Could they have lowered the life boats if they had to? --Tom |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cruise ship fire in Cozumel???? | Dillon Pyron | Cruises | 3 | August 18th, 2006 10:51 PM |
Cruise ship fire near UK | Joseph Coulter | Cruises | 1 | May 6th, 2006 11:21 PM |
Cruise ship fire near UK | Joseph Coulter | Europe | 3 | May 6th, 2006 11:21 PM |
Cruise Ship Returns After Fire!!! | steinbrenner | Cruises | 2 | January 19th, 2005 07:38 PM |
Cruise Ship Fire in 2000 | Pat | Cruises | 15 | April 20th, 2004 03:03 AM |