| Author |
Message |
    
Robin Skeens
Member
Username: meichi
Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 2, 2003 - 10:49 pm: | 
|
What is the immediate effect and the long-term effects of the sinking of Titanic? |
Kyrila Scully
Member
Username: childstar413
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 3, 2003 - 12:59 am: |
|
In the words of a friend of mine, the answer is: a) a lot of people had a bad day. b) James Cameron made a lot of money
Seriously, though, read "Down With the Old Canoe"
by Steven Biel at your local library.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek,
Kyrila |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 3, 2003 - 6:05 am: |
|
Robin, the answer is "Not as much as is popularly thought." Sure, some changes were made to maritime regulations, but they were made piecemeal and inefficiently. Apart from anything else, WW I spoiled plans for international cooperation. The USA didn't sign up to the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) until 1936.
There was very little advance in some fields for many years. As late as the 1960s, some ships were carrying more than one boat per set of davits, with a fat chance of using them in a crisis. Radio rules contained many exceptions and until quite recently many cargo ships carried only one operator, plus an emergency alarm.
You'd be surprised at what goes on today. You can still buy brand new engineless lifeboats, just like those on Titanic, except they are made of glass reinforced plastic. A few months ago, Australian authorities arrested a visiting ship for not having a mast and sail for her engineless lifeboat!
After the disaster, great structural changes were made to Olympic and Britannic but these were panic measures intended to salvage White Star's reputation. Ships today are built much like Titanic and are just as sinkable.
There's far more I could go into, but you can see why I say that the legacy of Titanic is very doubtful. Safety at sea remains an ongoing battle. Don't get me started on flags of convenience and the ships of shame that fly them. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 7181
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 4:16 am: |
|
>>Don't get me started on flags of convenience and the ships of shame that fly them.<<
Humph...all you really need to hold a fleet review of a lot of flag-of-convenience ships is a glass bottom boat! Even a U.S. flag is no gaurantee that anyone is actually enforcing the laws that exist. Anyone who doesn't believe me, read up on the story of the S.S. Marine Electric in "Until The Sea Shall Free Them" by Robert Frump.
This ship had holes in the deck which the crew outlined with chalk, and yet the Coast Gaurd inspectors who cleared the thing to sail just walked right on by. This overage World War Two built ship would put to sea with a cargo of coal in the winter of 1983. The ship broke up and sank in a storm.
A copy of the book can be had from Amazon.com. Just go HERE to order.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2296
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 9:23 pm: |
|
The United States Coast Guard I am sad to say in my professional opinion is far from a competent inspection agency. When it come's to rescue and usually enviromental clean up the Coast Guard are experts and have my deepest admiration, but there inspections leave a lot to be desired.
The inspection of the Tanker Erica, a few of the QE2 inspections, hundreds of Carnvial inspections, not to mention there lack of consistancy on the Great Lakes and there ability to cause companies on the Lakes to loose thousands if not millions of dollars on meaningless and not always legal grounds has cost them there reputation when it comes to inspections and there ability to monitor and control safety and sea issues as mandated (or was mandated when the CG was part of DOT) by law.
The Marine Electric is on of thousands of examples. The Fitzgerald could almost be put in the same category.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
monica ahll
Member
Username: monica
Post Number: 126
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 9:49 pm: |
|
I know nothing about ships, but I do know about Inspectors. Is the problem the audit society we live in - where 'governments' set targets, which usually mean very little in terms of operational effectiveness - but look good in media reports? Yours - totally oppressed by audits -
Monica |
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2297
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 10:15 pm: |
|
BINGO!!!
That and when you place young untrained men in charge of things they have no training in bad things happen. Especially when doing the job on paper and not doing the job in reality means promotion.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 253
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2003 - 3:20 am: |
|
Don't forget that the American cruise ship industry today sails exclusively under foreign registry flags like Liberian and Panamanian, (cheaper tax-wise), hires foreign crew members (Filipino, Indonesian, Eastern European)to avoid paying the required US minimum wage (way cheaper), deliberately throws in a foreign port of call (Jones Act)to avoid paying (you guessed it) taxes, and often neglects proper training for these hard-working participants in a profit-minded industry. I was scheduled to sail on the SS Norway on May 24, 2003, when the boiler explosion occurred. Eight crewmen were killed, and - no surprise - none of them were Americans!
While the White Star Line (and not alone) was probably negligent in the training of many of the hastily acquired crew to man the Titanic, and profit was definitely a motive, I'm not sure if comparisons to early 1900 Transatlantic travel would be relevant to the modern cruiseline practices. Modernity has ruled out communication issues, and has taken advantage of escaping tax laws. It may all boil down to the same thing, though. |
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2298
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2003 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Escaping tax's the US Minium Wage and all that are part of America's ailing steel industry on the Great Lakes as well. It is cheaper to mine and ship steel from Russia then mine it in Minnesota and get it to Cleveland.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
monica ahll
Member
Username: monica
Post Number: 128
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2003 - 9:02 pm: |
|
It's all rather depressing isn't it? Not to mention dangerous, in terms of ships. I'm impressed that Mary goes on so many cruises, knowing what she does!
Re Inspectors and such - a mature student of mine told me this week that she is charged with implementing a computer system to copy every clinician's letter to another colleague - to the patient. Sounds great, but think further. My Dr. sister is in despair - how can she now be honest with her colleagues? And Inspectors now demand that I have an individual learning plan for every student. No problem - given more resources than I've ever had in my life before. But those are not forthcoming. I suppose all these audit systems will implode eventually, but not before honest and ethical workers simply give up, overwhelmed by bureaucratic interference and the lack of trust in trained and experienced professionals. |
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 255
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 10:53 pm: |
|
And that's exactly what I did in 1998, monica - gave up. I was overwhelmed by government demands for pages of written individual educational plans (IEPs), deadlines for progress reports, written lesson plans, written goals and objectives, and the expectation of actually teaching something during all of this! If any government official would have showed up in my classroom to "audit", I would have immediately put them to work helping me maintain control and communicate with my Severely Handicapped students. 25 years of experience in the business begat a demand for an additional Masters' Degree, to which I replied, "See ya!" |
Robin Skeens
Member
Username: meichi
Post Number: 2
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 11:14 pm: |
|
What does all this have to do with the Titanic?????? |
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 258
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Backtrack a few pages, and you'll see the connection. It has to do with accountability. |
Robin Skeens
Member
Username: meichi
Post Number: 3
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 11:49 pm: |
|
You need to backtrack alot...I didn't ask for the accountability. I asked.....What is the immediate effect and the long-term effects of the sinking of Titanic? I asked for the effects of the sinking of the titanic and you all went nuts on me. |
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 259
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 - 12:30 am: |
|
Well, your question had to do with the "immediate" and "long-term" effects of the Titanic sinking, and I don't know how you can avoid accountability. Look at the changes made immediately after the disaster - adequate number of lifeboats for the number of crew/passengers, mandatory 24-hour wireless communication, and the establishment of the International Ice Patrol. Those "immediate" implementations provided "accountability" in the case of a future, similar, disaster. The second part of your question deals with "long-term" effects. Do some research on the many changes in requirements for naval transportation between 1912 and 2003, and you'll read A LOT about "accountability". |
Barbara Personett
Member
Username: indianabarb
Post Number: 30
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 - 5:55 pm: |
|
I was on a cruise lately (my 11th) and the first item the ship lines attend to is the lifeboat drill for the passengers. They are insistent that you DO attend the drill.
The cruise ship has an employee assigned to a lifeboat station with a clipboard listing names of passengers assigned to that boat. If you do not attend the drill, you receive a scolding note in your cabin from the crew. About 3 of the 60 people I traveled with did not attend and they all received notes.
I am sure that the insistence of these drills is partially due to the lifeboat disaster from the Titanic.
|
monica ahll
Member
Username: monica
Post Number: 133
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Robin,
there's a lot of stuff on this site re the aftermath of the sinking. So you have to forgive older hands for extending the argument to present day conditions in various scenarios, even if they don't seem relevant to you. I'm comparatively new to this site, and I don't think I've managed to make one original post yet! You just have to go with the flow, and if the Moderators think the argument is getting off-topic, they will intervene and say so.
Monica |
Dave Tuttle
Member
Username: dave_tuttle
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 1:46 am: |
|
As to the immediate:
1) ALL ships were immediately required to carry lifeboats for ALL souls on board---PERIOD! Even without the mandatory regulation, no line would have been able to avoid the expense. Olympic's crew went on strike immediately after the disaster and wouldn't sail until rafts were added as a temporary measure for all.
2) Any passenger vessel carrying more than 50 passengers had to become wireless equipped.
3) Wireless had to be monitored 24/7. If this meant extra operators, so be it.
4) The International Ice Patrol was founded. Chief responsibility was given to the U.S. Coast Guard, but all nations using the North Atlantic shipping lanes contributed financially to the cost. Daily wireless broadcasts of ice reports were available to ships at sea.
_____________________________________________
As to the long term:
5) Wireless technology was developed to provide automated warning devices that could monitor the distress band/frequency while unmanned.
6) Wireless grew from the amusement toy of the passengers to a true navigational aid. It had not been taken really seriously in a regulated format for this purpose before Titanic.
7) SOLAS grew out of BOT regulation upgrades, Ice Patrol formation, and many other factors. However, as pointed out earlier in this thread, adoption uniformly around the world was slow to occur.
8) Class society changed forever. The concept of judging the value of a human life by class heard it's first real death knoll as a result. This included repercussions worldwide, but predominately in America and Western Europe. We Americans still had our moments to ponder, such as the atrocities of incarceration of our own citizens of Japanese ancestry (In 1941) and those of discrimination toward those of African descent (until 1964 from a legal standpoint).
_________________
Dave Tuttle
|
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 260
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 3:01 am: |
|
Excellent responses from Barbara, monica, and Dave!! Thanks to you all. Sometimes, we can get a bit off-track, but it generally has to do with the original question, so please forgive us if we have seemed to stray. Hopefully, these last few messages will answer your questions. |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 6:00 am: |
|
Barbara, next time you go cruising, find out how many are on board. Then find out how many places are available in the lifeboats. You'll probably get a rude surprise. |
Andrew Fanner
Member
Username: flinn
Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 8:54 am: |
|
Are we differentiating between lifeboats and life rafts here? Last cross Channel trip I did the ship had four actual lifeboats, a rib or two and a liberal supply of canistered liferafts.
Chatting to one of the crew (nowt much else to do on a 6 hour crossing at night), the expectation in the English Channel is that help is only a couple of hours away so all that needs to be done is to keep people from drowning/dying of exposure. |
Barbara Personett
Member
Username: indianabarb
Post Number: 31
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 11:59 am: |
|
You know I have tried to be nice in my postings in giving out information and I usually get back some rude remark that I don't know what I am talking about. Fine I am finished with this rude board. |
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2302
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Dave hits at one of hidden secrets of the cruise industry, yes there are enough life saving appartus on board for all, but unfortunatly that means some will be in rafts and not boats, also consider that there (these days) over 2500 passengers and crew on the average cruise ship. International law requires that it be done in 30 minutes. Is this possible??? Probably given perfect conditions, but what sinking occurs in perfect conditions???
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
monica ahll
Member
Username: monica
Post Number: 134
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Barbara,
if you're there, I don't think Dave meant to be rude to you at all. I think he was trying to tell you something, in his forthright Aussie way, that he thought you might want to know ie information. I certainly vaguely assumed cruise ships had lifeboat accommodation for all - I count thrashing around in the water trying to get on a cannistered liferaft as something a bit different to an orderly descent in the dry. I sometimes end up feeling as though I don't know anything too, but I try not to mind as it's probably basically true! There are people on this Board who know an awful lot - more than I'd want to in fact - and generally, they are very patient responding to points they must have covered over and over again - it must be trying, sometimes. Anyway - all the best
Monica |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 7375
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 4:54 pm: |
|
>>You know I have tried to be nice in my postings in giving out information and I usually get back some rude remark that I don't know what I am talking about. Fine I am finished with this rude board.<<
Barbara, Dave wasn't being rude. Merely strieghtforward. You might try doing as he suggests and get back to us with what you find out. As large as cruise ships are...and getting larger all the time...placing and adaquate number of boats aboard for all is quite a problem. The reason for this is that you only have so much room to play with in arranging the davits, but also because the sheer numbers of boats required add a substantial amount of topweight.
The topweight added caused problems for several ocean going liners and Great Lakes passenger vessels back in 1912, and I know of one shipping casualty (The Eastland IIRC) where the added extra boats actually caused the ship to roll over on her beam.
Lifeboats present other problems as well in that you have virtually no options on how to arrange them Usually, half go on one side, half go on the other, and if the distressed vessel takes on a substantial list (Like the Andrea Doria) half of the boats are rendered useless. That's why more and more, you see inflatable life rafts with quick release and hydrostatic mechenisms being used in addition or as an alternative to lifeboats. These have sevearal advantages, not the least of which is that they can be launched in any seastate. The same cannot be said of lifeboats.
The disadvantage is that you have to go swimming to get to the thing. If the sea is cold...like it was in 1912...you could find yourself freezing to death befor you ever reached safety.
For obvious reasons, the cruise industry isn't anxious to advertise these facts, but there they are.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Erik Wood
Moderator
Username: ewood
Post Number: 2306
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 5:39 pm: |
|
The Cruise industry in general hides a lot about the safety practices and abilities of it's crew. The crew can only be trained to react to general situations. Every situation will be different then what you have trained for. Are cruise ship crews prepared to handle a mass evcuation in a short amount of time?? Is any crew prepared for that, and is it possible to really and truely be prepared for that kind of evcuation?? Think of crowding 3000 human beings into a 8 story building that is a thousand feet long and a little over 100 feet wide. Then tell them it is going to sink. What would happen??? Even if all remain calm remember that on average there are 5 passengers to every crew member, both trained an untrained. How can you safely do this??
The flat answer is you can't. You can not safely evcuate a mass amount of passengers in a short amount of time. Evcuation is a dangerous operation even in the best of conditions.
Then remeber that a large chunk of that space is used for the operation of the vessel.
All the Best,
Capt. Erik D. Wood (retired)
|
Barbara Personett
Member
Username: indianabarb
Post Number: 32
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 7:12 pm: |
|
OK-I called the cruise line and inquired about the lifeboats per passenger question and they informed me that it is the law to accomodate"all" passengers. They also said that there were "no" raft type boats on their line. If you have any more questions on this call 1-800-256-6649. |
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 261
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 3:30 am: |
|
I'm not sure what cruiseline you called, Barbara, and I'm certainly not trying to disparage any information you may have received, but reservation agents who answer a call on an 800 number are going to give you information that they've been told to give you. Some can pull it up on a screen, and others will read from a prepared script. Having worked in the travel industry for a few years, I know that many reservation agents who work for cruiselines have never even been on a cruise, or on any large ship. Technically, yes - it is the "law" to "accomodate all passengers/crew". Erik and Michael have made some very valid points, though. Some "lifeboats" are actually tenders, and are larger than the standard uncovered lifeboat, are equipped with lifejackets, and even have restrooms. They're also located in convenient lowering positions on the ship. Caribbean destinations such as Grand Cayman and private islands owned by cruiselines (Coco Cay, Great Stirrup Cay, Princess Cay, Half Moon Cay) require tendering. I've walked around a few boat decks, and have noticed the differences between the covered tenders and the standard lifeboats. The trend in the cruise industry these days is to build the largest and most accomodating ship possible, and there is MUCH competition! Personally, I wouldn't go on a ship with over 1800 passengers (1000 crew), and prefer the smaller - outdated - ships. I don't need to rock-climb or ice skate or water slide or have a DVD in my cabin. Too many decks and 3000 passengers vying at the same time is just not my idea of a good time, or of feeling safe. The fact that there may be (or not be) adequate lifeboat capacity does not guarantee the safety of any passenger/crew. As pointed out by Erik and Michael, circumstances will dictate any safe evacuation. Now, on the other hand, I would never discourage anyone from cruising. I go anytime I can, but awareness and personal preparedness is a real key factor. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 7378
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:40 am: |
|
>>OK-I called the cruise line and inquired about the lifeboats per passenger question and they informed me that it is the law to accomodate"all" passengers.<<
Which doesn't actually answer the question regarding how many boats and how many spaces there actually are, does it? 
One way you can find out for sure is to check the boats and their rated capacities for yourself, then do the arithmatic. That way at least, you know and would not merely have been told.
>>They also said that there were "no" raft type boats on their line.<<
That's interesting. Hopefully, it's not exactly true. If the ship takes on a list, if it's substantial enough, then half the boats would be rendered useless. While the inflatable boats/rafts may not be a sure thing, they're at least a sporting chance.
By chance could you offer the name of the cruise line?
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Barbara Personett
Member
Username: indianabarb
Post Number: 33
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 1:13 pm: |
|
The tenders on this ship were NOT located in the ship area as I had previously observed. I had noticed them before in the bow area. At Grand Caymans the ship line had a tender sent out from the island. If there were any tenders on the ship I did not see them. We were also anchored way out to avoid Port Tax, which by the way, was included in my bill. That info was passed on by a member of Royal Caribbean's crew to some of the passengers in my group.
Mary-I called Royal Caribbean to ask about the lifeboats and the information previously posted is what was relayed to me. The lady got a little snippy with me that I even brought it up. I imagine more truth, whatever it may be, may come more from the crew. It is just sometime to what you want to believe. I totally agree with you on the Mega liners. I like privacy and there is less on the larger liners. The captain relayed to us that there is a new ship being designed to come out in 2005 that will carry a total of 7000 people. Think of the lifeboat requirements for that one.
Barbara |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 7379
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 1:26 pm: |
|
>>Think of the lifeboat requirements for that one.<<
Is that passengers and crew or just the passengers?
>>Mary-I called Royal Caribbean to ask about the lifeboats and the information previously posted is what was relayed to me. The lady got a little snippy with me that I even brought it up.<<
Oh I'll bet. I think at this point, my response would have been: "Okay, I'll call Carnival-Cunard and see if they're a bit more tractable. Have a nice day."
>>I imagine more truth, whatever it may be, may come more from the crew.<<
Likely as not, this observation is bang on the money too. Sailors...once you can win/earn their trust...can be pretty candid about this sort of thing. Next time you put to sea, you might want to try this approach and let us know what you find out.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 266
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Barbara, the reason your ship (and all ships) have to anchor off of Grand Cayman is to protect the off-shore coral reef in that area, and has nothing to do with port taxes. You'll pay port taxes wherever you go, regardless of tendering.
I've heard about that new RCCL ship. Sometimes I think the modern cruise industry is operating under a 1912 mentality. |
monica ahll
Member
Username: monica
Post Number: 135
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Well, at least all you glamorous cruisers will get to have your disasters in relatively warm and empty waters. Think of me, bucketing around in a soggy liferaft at night in the chilly English Channel, the busiest sealane in the world, listening fearfully to the sounds of all those tankers, trawlers, ferries etc. dashing blindly to the rescue.... |
Barbara Personett
Member
Username: indianabarb
Post Number: 34
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Mary-After I read my post I do agree with you about the port taxes; however, our ship was anchored a lot farther out then the other 4 ships that day. One of the crew members from our ship told us that the farther out you were anchored the lower the port tax. So here we go again; who do you believe. It always makes for good discussion.
Michael-The 7000 would be crew and passengers combined.The captain also informed us in order to accomodate the extra passenger load more decks would be added.
Barbara |
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 267
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 1:11 am: |
|
Barbara - hate to tell you this, but some crew members will tell you WHATEVER to answer questions like: "Why are we anchored much further out?". The answer you got was a lot of..um...shall we say...baloney. Your ship may have arrived later that the other four ships that took the preferred anchorage, but even if you had arrived earlier, you had to anchor according to tonnage. If you were on a Voyager-class ship, you'll always have to anchor further out at Grand Cayman....because the water is deeper. The larger and heavier the ship, the deeper the draft. Port charges really have nothing to do with it, but an answer like you got tends to make a passenger feel justified and pacified. Many crew members resort to illogical answers like that just to make you go away saying, "Oh, gee! Well that makes sense, doesn't it?" And they know you won't bother them again. Port taxes have to do with the number of HOURS you are in port (and the day of the week), and the anchorage position has nothing to do with it. |
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 268
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 1:23 am: |
|
Barbara - hate to tell you this, but some crew members will tell you WHATEVER to answer questions like: "Why are we anchored much further out?". The answer you got was a lot of..um...shall we say...baloney. Your ship may have arrived later than the other four ships that took the preferred anchorage, but even if you had arrived earlier, you had to anchor according to tonnage. If you were on a Voyager-class ship, you'll always have to anchor further out at Grand Cayman....because the water is deeper. The larger and heavier the ship, the deeper the draft. Port charges really have nothing to do with it, but an answer like you got tends to make a passenger feel justified and pacified. Many crew members resort to illogical answers like that just to make you go away saying, "Oh, gee! Well that makes sense, doesn't it?" And they know you won't bother them again. Port taxes have to do with the number of HOURS you are in port (and the day of the week), and the anchorage position has nothing to do with it. |
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 269
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 1:26 am: |
|
Sorry about the duplicate post. |
Barbara Personett
Member
Username: indianabarb
Post Number: 35
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 2:46 am: |
|
Mary-Are you employed by the RCCL? I will post no more responses in this particular thread. |
Mary S. Lynn
Member
Username: deepbluesea
Post Number: 280
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 11:41 pm: |
|
No, Barbara. I'm not employed by any cruise line. |
