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...

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

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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

"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

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