Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Chris Blount, Feb 12, 2013.
Why indeed, dems be da rules fur thems dat be constraned widt dem...
One doesn't have to try hard to see a significant pattern like this in under 60 days...it's not not "piling on". Yes...any cruise line can have issues...but none has seen anything remotely close to this....
Actually it seems every cruise line has issues, as seen in this "Events at Sea Report". And just to make it a little more fairly representative let's take a whole year, rather than just cherry picking a few incidents from one cruise line over a short period of time: http://www.cruisejunkie.com/events2012.html
Agree with you that it's a short period of time.
Then again...these are more major incidents than most of the others on that list.
You're right...every cruise line gets hit with "issues". In the case of this Carnival barrage though...these all seem to center heavily on mechanical issues.
The sickness issue is certainly one that can hit any ship. Many ships have the sanitizer units all over the place...and anywhere that food is available. I've never seen an illness issue on any of our cruises, nor know anyone who has cruised and seen it - but it absolutely happens as the list you provided points out.
The problem is that human error enters into the picture for those who fail to do the right thing and use those devices to minimize any chance of spreading illness. I've seen some people skip the units right in front of me, and try to remind them to "please use them". It's a shame that if/when some folks fail to comply...they risk other's health and enjoyment on the cruise.
Probably a good time to get a good deal
Yes, every ship has issues. Looking at that list I see lots and lots of times when ships go without propulsion for days, without power, overflowing toilets, etc. </sarcasm>.
What I really see are many incidents with the Carnival cruise lines. While they are the largest line, not by as much as they have incidents. And granted, many "incidents" include people having medical problems, someone being arrested on outstanding warrants when they return to the US, lost children, etc., yet it still appears that the biggest incidents are far and away most common on Carnival.
If number of "incidents" is your gauge, Carnival loses. If "major incidents" is your measure, Carnival still loses. If the defense is "everyone has some kind of incident, sooner or later", I'll go with better data.
Nice to see that Disney had only four postings for 2012 and 2013 (so far) and none of them where related to facilities issues. Guess that's why we pay a bit more, you get what you pay for.
It may be that some of the problems are coming because they are looking for them. They are doing the tests they should be doing and finding problems.
They probably should be doing such testing in home port with no passengers.
Or three hour tours. If the weather starts to get rough and the tiny ship is tossed one will have to rely on the courage of the fearless crew or the ship would be lost. One may end up on a "deserted" island where the best scientific mind can build anything except a way home.
their next acquisition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilligan's_Island
The "iconic ships of Cunard" (currently the Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary 2 and Queen Victoria) are also owned by Carnival Cruise Lines.
I hope Carnival's maintenance policies don't ruin those great ships.
And don't forget this less than spectacular Carnival cruise:
Yeah, on this one that they deserve everything they get. On the other hand any of the other incidents that have been in the news have been over-hyped IMO.
I agree that Carnival seems to be losing the PR battle right now as it seems every little incident of their's is being jumped on by the news currently and true that is because they've had the incidents to report. However just to see how much is perception and how much is supported by data I just did a quick tally of actual mechanical incidents of the 2012 on that list for the two largest cruise line groups, Carnival & Royal Caribbean. Looks like Carnival had 27 (seemed like Princess had an a lot for them) and Royal Caribbean had 12. Yeah it would definitely would appear that the data says the Carnival group has a bigger problem here. Here's the kicker though, Carnival has about 100 ships in their group of companies and Royal Caribbean has about 45. So slightly more than twice as many ships for Carnival and how many more mechanical incidents did Carnival have than Royal Caribbean? Looks like slightly more than twice as many.
It isn't hyperpbole, it's in the news and the public has a right to know. What I know is, lord willing, I'll never step on board one of those gargantuan, unwieldy monsters.
Numbers can be manipulated - let's compare apples-to-apples if one is going to make those kinds of misleading claims.
The Carnival significant issues the past year (in fact just the past 90 days) are nearly exclusive to Carnival, not their sub-owned other companies. Several of those issues rendered the ships dormant.
Carnival only has 1 more ship than Royal Caribbean in their flagship lines, and Royal Caribbean had no mechanical dormancies the past year. RCCL will be launching 3 new ships in the next 15 months, while Carnival has plans for 1. Carnival has more secondary company ships than RCCL, making their corporate numbers seem larger (including a number of very small ships and lines). Costa had 2 major ship issues in the past 16 months.
The reason the news media now comes alive when Carnival's name is in play is simply that they have a track record of problems over and over and over. If there was no news, there would be nothing to report.
The fact that this thread was started just a short time ago, and now 2 more Carnival ships have reported significant problems since....illustrates why their name is in the news - not any other reason.
It's all actually a shame in general, as it taints the great experience cruising can be, and makes people assume all cruise lines (and ships) are created equal, which is not the case. That perception hurts the industry as a whole, especially toward those who have never cruised and/or are uninformed.
Copied the following from that incident report:
"In the aftermath of the Carnival Triumph I received the following from a reader: I've worked at Royal (Caribbean) for some time. Over the last decade they have been steadily decreasing the number of marine employees. These are the employees which navigate and maintain the engines. These are the main employees dealing with life saving. If there is a fire - it's the marine team suiting up and fighting the fires. If the ship is listing or sinking - it's the marine team dealing with technical systems such as water tight doors, moving tank contents from one area to another, making contact with rescue services, lowering life boats, etc The reason for the decrease in marine manning? It's purely driven from a greedy profit view point. You can get rid of two marine employees who do not generate any income (they just play a major role in saving lives if something goes wrong) and replace them with a hotel employee such as a marketing and revenue manager, a maitred for income generating speciality restaurants, or bar supervisors. Many times employees are cut in the marine department or doubled up in cabins so the company can revamp the crew cabins into sellable cruise guest cabins. Apx 5 years ago Royal got rid of the safety officer position and combined the job with the chief officer position. There is now talk about changing the marine contracts for 3 stripe officers from 10 weeks on/10 weeks off to 4 months on/2 months off so they match the hotel officer positions. The degree of technical knowledge needed and the tremendous life saving responsibility marine officers have is in no way equal to the demands placed on hotel officers to sell another drink. When the ship is sinking - do you want a marine officer that knows the technical systems or do you want a hotel officer selling you another beer as you are stepping into a lifeboat? The marine team is also the division that has security responsibilities. As you are aware, the number of assaults onboard is no little number. There are many many problems with assaults, people falling overboard, people missing, etc. Is it any wonder we see more drastic disasters at sea than previously seen? I wonder if Carnival followed this same practice and cut their marine employees in order to increase their shipboard revenue generating employees? "
So are cruise lines sacrificing safety and maintenance as the Royal Caribbean employee above claims? On one hand it'd be easy to believe but on the other once again it's just one claim on the internet with no way to confirm it's accuracy.
Too much posturing and political viewpoint from a union guy.
Returned to St. Maarten yesterday morning after a week on the Wind Surf. We were docked between a pair of Carnival ships, I don't recall the names. They sure don't have any trouble filling those things up despite all the bad press.
Except didn't most of those people book their cruises before the Triumph incident? I'm sure cancelling trips or making big changes is not cheap.
I made no misleading claims, just merely reported numbers. The reason why included both cruise lines entire group of ships is because others, including yourself, in this thread kept including them so I was trying to stay consistent. You don't see me trying to say hey "that Costa thing doesn't count because it's not really Carnival" . I mean either you're responsible all the ships you own under all names or you're responsible for none. I find it more disingenuous to say hey let's only include actual Carnival branded ships to actual Royal Caribbean branded ships. And anyway by including both cruise lines entire family it made Carnival look even worse.
I also believe I mentioned that the reason why Carnival is in the news is because they had the incidents to report. I guess my point is if you want to judge Carnival just by the period of time from the time of the Triumph incident to now, then yes they have the worst track record of any cruise line. However whenever I do any research that covers any statistically significant period of time they really don't seem any worse than the industry average by any real margin(or better for that matter, however they do seem to do a little better on their health inspections). The only reason why I even started looking into this at all is that it seemed to me that there seemed to be this impression by some people in this thread that Carnival is bad and everyone knows it's true. Well luckily I came into this conversation not knowing what everyone knew was true so I actually did some research and the facts seem to disagree with what some people think is just "common knowledge". In any case I'm sure I'd change my tune if I ever personally have a bad experience with them but so far so good and if they want to keep earning my business I expect them to keep it that way!