Ismay vs Todays CEOs

[Don Tweed]

Maybe this is not the proper place for this thread but it seems to fit here!
I see so much familiar with Ismays actions on that night as I do with the growing list of big business executives of today.
Look how many have jumped or abandoned "ships" in their care to save them selves!
They will be villainized and hopefully punished for their deeds.
Just as Ismay was.
Titanic, Worldcom, Enron, etc.
Lives were not lost in the most recent cases.
But many were destroyed by these mens actions.
So maybe things have not changed as much as they should, or maybe we have fallen back into the realm of complacency and need to open our eyes with a start, once more!

Just my opinion, Don

 

[Dave Moran]

Actually that's a pretty good analogy - one might also mention the crocodile tears wept by such CEOs when some disaster - the Herald Of Free Enterprise, the Paddington Rail disaster and so on - is caused bt their own negligence and cost cutting in the first place...

 

[Kyrila Scully]

I agree. Well thought, Don.

 

[Erik Wood]

Very interesting thought Don, I like it and rings true in the shipping industry more then you know. Still today there are a lot of "Ismay's" out there.

 

[Charmaine Sia]

This is a very unique thought-provoking idea. Indeed, Titanic isn't just about the ship, but the people on it really can compare to people today. It seems that after nearly a century, the human instinct for survival remains so strong, to the extent of "abandoning ship" and others for personal survival.

Thanks for the thought, Don.

Regards,
Charmaine

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Don Tweed said:

"Look how many have jumped or abandoned "ships" in their care to save them selves!"

Or - been booted out the door, in at least one case I can think of. Now to see if 'that' company sinks .....

 

[Don Tweed]

Here is a statement made by Maryland Sen. Rayner after the disaster:
"Mr. President, this is where the trouble lies. We punish inferior officers and subordinate employees for neglect of duty, but the men at the head who give the orders and reap the profit we permit to escape. All the civilized nations of the world will applaud the criminal prosecution of the management of this line, and if they can be made to suffer, as they ought and should be, no sympathy will go out for them; and if it does it will be hushed and drowned and submerged in the overwhelming lamentation, that today reechoes throughout every quarter and section of the civilized world, for the victims of their culpable carelessness, a recklessness that sent hundreds of their fellow beings into eternity, desolating homes and firesides, and turned this land into a home for mourning.
In this hour of our calamity we appeal to the God of the universe for strengthening faith and we appeal to the majesty of the law to deal out retributive justice to this guilty company to the last degree."
That could have been spoken a week ago or even yesterday.
Change a few words and I could see a Senator of today uttering those same sentiments.
-Don

 

[Steve Arnold]

I don't think Ismay can hold a candle to today's crooks. I wouldn't even call him a crook. Circumstances put him in a bad light. Had he gone down with the ship we'd all be calling him a hero for helping to load lifeboats. I think the public needed a scapegoat and he was it. Sure, he made mistakes just like a lot of other people who have the burden of sharing the blame for the Titanic disaster, but I don't think it's fair to compare him to today's crooks who have devasted segments of our economy for their own personal gain. Ismay pales in comparison to the current breed of CEOs in the news.

 

[Don Tweed]

Very true Steve.
Maybe the main finger should be pointed to Whie Star Line instead.
But, Ismay was the manager and had final word on alot of safety features that were abandoned in favor of luxury.
The lifeboats being deminished by half certainly comes to mind!
Although when the chips are down and a persons self preservation becomes priority one, that one individual rescinds all other priorities to save ones self.
Reguards, Don

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

But I don't think you can blame specifically Ismay for the lifeboats.

Many, if not all, of the liner companies did not supply lifeboats for all, as brought out at the British Inquiry. If we were to blame Ismay, we must blame all the other owners.

The people REALLY responsible for the number of lifeboats carried was the British Board of Trade. Who, through a very arcane way of looking at things, did not require lifeboats for all. Lifeboats for all was looked at as too impracticle to be workable. I was shocked to read witness after witness at the British Inquiry saying "Why would we want to have lifeboats for all? It's not doable!" Very different than the way we look at it today.

Did Ismay cut the number of lifeboats by half? Absolutely not! In fact, he either asked for, or allowed, the Titanic to set to sea with more than the number required by the BOT.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Beware anachronism.

Befor we get too wrapped up in bashing Ismay, let's put him in the context of the times, and what they actually knew.

Cutting the lifeboat numbers by half certainly seems foolish in hindsight, but what did their most recent experience tell them about it? The most recent experince was the loss of the RMS Republic, and while that ship didn't have lifeboats for all, she remained afloat long enough for passengers and crew to be ferried to the rescue vessels. They expected no less of the Titanic in a similar scenerio. Icebergs didn't occur to them.

I would also differ in the idea that White Star was indifferent to safety in favour of luxury. Consider that;

a)The lifeboats carried by the Titanic still exceeded contemporary safety regulations and,

b)The standard of watertight protection the Titanic had then in many respects exceeds what can be found on modern cruise ships today. Can anyone name a cruise vessel which would survive having six of her watertight sections open to the sea. I don't know of even one. And even with only 20 boats aboard, only 18 were launched successfully befor the Titanic went down.

The only way I can see extra boats making a really signifigent difference would be that they might not have been so reluctant to load them to capacity.

In sum, they made plans based on the sum total of their actual operating experince. An iceberg as a can opener never occured to them. Could they have done better?

Yes. (It would have been well not to hit the iceberg in the first place!) We know this, but we benefit from knowing what happened and the consequences ex post facto. They didn't have this knowladge.

And while we're at it, we might want to consider the words of the BOT inquiry on Ismay's conduct;

As to the attack on Mr. Bruce Ismay, it resolved itself into the suggestion that, occupying the position of Managing Director of the Steamship Company, some moral duty was imposed upon him to wait on board until the vessel foundered. I do not agree. Mr. Ismay, after rendering assistance to many passengers, found "C" collapsible, the last boat on the starboard side, actually being lowered. No other people were there at the time. There was room for him and he jumped in. (Ismay, 18559) Had he not jumped in he would merely have added one more life, namely, his own, to the number of those lost.

Of course, your results may vary...

 

[Don Tweed]

Bill and Michael,
Very good arguements indeed.
The thread was started to show the comparison in todays times to those of yesteryear.
I have read and heard of Ismays actions on that night and he was concerned with getting the boats away.
I for one would not lay blame on one singular person for the events that took place that night.
Everything went wrong that night and all beliefs and statements concerning said events will always be scrutinized and analyzed till the cows come home.
Simply discussing the matter reaps the rewards we are all looking for.
Insight into a tragedy that should not have happened, yet did.
-Don

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Don said; >>I for one would not lay blame on one singular person for the events that took place that night.<<

Hi Don, neither would I. Events rarely happen in a vacuum and this is all the more so in a disaster of some kind where there is a long sequence of cause and effect. If I had to point to any one singular cause, I would have to point at complacency. With nearly 40 years of operations behind them with virtually no incident, it's pretty easy to see how people of the time thought they could beat the odds. The matter of the RMS Republic could only serve to reinforce the idea that a distressed vessel could act as her own lifeboat at least until help could arrive.

It took an iceberg to trash that notion as well some other questionable practices such as;

•Maintaining speed in all conditions short of bad visibility.
•Basing lifeboat standards on the tonnage of a vessel rather then it's actual passenger/crew complement.
•Poor radio practice.
•Inadaquate training for the crew.

The above just to name a few.

It should be noted to Ismay's credit that he made an order of installing adaquate lifeboats on ships under his control long befor anyone made a law of it. Which see his Senate testimony on Day 11 of the Senate Inquiry;

Senator SMITH. Have you given any instructions to increase the lifeboat capacity of other White Star ships?

Mr. ISMAY. We have given instructions that no ship belonging to the I.M.M. Co. is to leave any port unless she has sufficient boats on board for the accommodation of all the passengers and the whole of the crew.

Senator SMITH. Who gave those instructions?

Mr. ISMAY. I did, sir.

Senator SMITH. When?

Mr. ISMAY. The day after I landed from the Carpathia.

Senator SMITH. Have you any knowledge as to whether that has been done?

Mr. ISMAY. I know, sir, that no ship of that company will sail from any port unless she has sufficient boats to carry the number of passengers she has on board. It may be necessary, and probably will be necessary, to reduce the number of passengers in the cabins.

Hardly the action of a man who was indifferent to safety. Of course, learning this lesson the hard way no doubt influanced his attitudes.

 

[Erik Wood]

Well said Mike.

Safety still doesn't come first. The fines the accompany the lack of it do.

 

[Don Tweed]

Complacency is definitly the word.
Even Cptn. Smith can be lumped into that category.
His statement that ship building had gone beyond anything he could imagine that would allow a ship to founder shows where the mind set of the day was.
And yes the BOT had languished on old standards and rules of safety, when ships tonnage had far exceeded those ships they were first set down for.
Complacency effects so much and touches almost every facet of business.
Best reguards, Don