CARNIVAL Cruise included a prohibition against class action suits in the small print

[snagglepuss]

and "passengers' contract with Carnival says they cannot sue for emotional distress - only for physical injuries."

Why people go on cruises especially after the Concordia in Italy last year tragedy is beyond me. This industry has NO ETHICS WHATSOEVER.


SNIP

Cassie Terry of Brazoria County, Texas filed the suit less than 24 hours after arriving on dry land in Mobile, Alabama, alleging that she was forced to wade through human feces from overflowing toilets.

Her suit also claimed Carnival failed to provide a seaworthy vessel and sanitary conditions.

She suffered physical and emotional harm, including anxiety, nervousness and the loss of the enjoyment of life, according to the complaint filed in federal court in Miami.

Whether lawsuits will be successful has been doubted by legal analysts, who have speculated passengers will find it difficult to sue Carnival for any damages thanks to a legal structure shielding operators from big-money lawsuits








Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279126/Carnival-lawsuits-First-passenger-sues-cruise-line-stricken-ship.html#ixzz2L0I46nyg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[MADem]

1. PTSD has physical manifestations. A good crew of lawyers could file a

thousand individual suits.

I think someone oughta try.

I can tell you, if they don't make this right, I will remember them not-fondly. Five hundred bucks and a voucher for a "free" cruise does not even begin to cut it. Those people were tortured for days on end.

This isn't to say I'm planning on going on a cruise anytime soon, but I've thought about it--and now I'm thinking it's a lousy idea! At least with that cruise line!

[snagglepuss]

2. The offer of a free cruise is in my opinion simply sneering contempt

from Carnival which probably knows that few passengers will take up the offer.

[MADem]

9. I agree. They'll probably raise their booze prices on other trips to

pay for the small expenditure of travelling money they offered these suffering basstids as "compensation" for their treatment.

[rdking647]

3. so what would be acceptable?

how much?
10k a person? a million a person???

whats a reasonable amount for a mechanical failure?

[riqster]

4. It's not so much the engine fire,

But more the lack of preparedness for what could ensue. Any risk analyst could have gamed this scenario and Carnival either didn't do so; or didn't implement their recommendations.

I mean, c'mon; engine failure at distances x, y, and z from port. 4,000 people on board for x range of hours. Create and operationalize contingency plans. This is not "rocket surgery".

[MADem]

8. Twenty grand per, plus refund and expense pay outs--that'll teach 'em to not pull that shit again.

They could have gotten the people off that vessel, or at least given them an option. It would have taken a while, and it would have been an expensive proposition, but it would have been a better solution, both in terms of customer satisfaction and public relations, than leaving them to suffer for days on end, surrounded by sewage, sleeping on deck in the open air, and waiting in line for hours to eat sandwiches.

[rdking647]

10. taking them off teh vessel wasnt a real option

transfering people between ships on the open see is dangerous. in addition where would they go? its not like there where any ships with spare capacity in the area

[MADem]

19. Sure it was; that thing was dead in the water.

The sea state was good, the weather was fair. The conditions were optimal.

There are a zillion ways to get people off a vessel, from a crane on an operating vessel alongside, to hydraulic gangways, to helicopter transfer, or even a very sturdy, stairway-like accom ladder.

People could have been given a choice--stay with the poop on the poop deck, or go to the rescue ship.

I'm not talking highlining people or forcing them down a jacob's ladder; these methods I'm talking about are used to transfer hospital patients at sea in a far worse sea state than these folks were encountering.

I would wager that these folks would rather have been stashed on the deck of a tramp steamer with working toilets going full steam ahead towards port, rather than being towed at walking speed in a "voyage of the damned."

I'll bet that these guys didn't even TRY to think out of the box or seek out help from other maritime agencies. I think they just tried to tough it out on the cheap. Their organizational judment is in their ass; it reflects on their business in a very bad way.

[rdking647]

22. 4000 people.... over open water to another ship

not realistic

[MADem]

42. All might not have wanted to go, but those that wanted to go should have been

offered an opportunity. The seas were flat and calm and serene--it's not like it would have been a rough transition. Those fancy new hydraulic gangways are almost like going up a wide and sturdy staircase.

It could have been done, had Carnival had contingency plans in place.

They were woefully unprepared for this sort of thing. Even the speed of the tow was lame in the extreme.

[Politicalboi]

54. They could have used the lifeboats

With a small ship or 2 to pick up the passengers.

[MADem]

58. Easier--and way safer--to just do a "tender transfer."

You need a large vessel to do it, but you basically strap the two together, put up a couple of hydraulic gangways, and people walk across. Takes some decent seamanship on the part of those conning, but it can be done.

[jberryhill]

57. The what is the point?

It takes hours to get the people on and off at a port designed for that purpose.

Let's say 1500 people wanted to get off, and there was anothe vessel handy to accommodate them and willing to take the liability for doing so. How many a minute are you going to transfer, and make everyone else wait for that to happen?

In your calculation, please show what figure you are using for the percentage chance of injury or death. Because at 1%, you are going to injure or kill 15 people.

[MADem]

59. Not if you do a tender transfer. You could do it fairly quickly.

You'd need a receiving vessel, and people who left would have to leave their shit behind and pick it up later.

CARNIVAL uses them all the time to get into ports that are too shallow for their ships. It's the same principle as this, only reversed:

See, they do it all the time, and no one dies.

[jberryhill]

62. When the stabilizers are working

And I've seen plenty of problems with the ironshore at Georgetown.

Cayman doesn't have a deepwater port, and the tender transfers they have to do there is one of the reasons the big ships have been dropping it from their itineraries. One of the issues in Cayman right now is a plan to blast out part of the reef at West Bay, so they can put in a dock that won't require tender transfers. And if conditions are not right - as often happens, they have to moor off Bodden Town for a much hairier transfer.

I'll be down there next week, and if we get marginally imperfect conditions, I'll see if I can get some pictures of what it looks like, because the swells on a "calm sea" off Gtown are much smaller than in the open ocean.

[snagglepuss]

14. What beggars belief is that when they finally got on land

they had to get into another line to get a hot meal. With so much prep time, Carnival should have ensured that hot meals were handed out in an efficient manner. A photo of that huge line up is at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278616/Carnival-Triumph-Passengers-finally-dock-Mobile-sleeping-sheets-giant-tent-city.html

[MADem]

72. Also, from what some of the passengers were saying,

they wanted to stay in Mobile overnight, but Carnival told them they had to go to NOLA. So they got thrown on buses, and one of those buses broke down--I guess it's a three hour ride. Talk about cruelty!

The hotels in Mobile had gone to some trouble blocking rooms for these people in anticipation, and none of them were used. Some suggest Carnival has some sort of beef with Mobile, because they cancelled construction of a cruise pier or something, and were "making 'em pay." I don't know if that is true.

[me b zola]

17. That sounds reasonable to me

Although I would consider going as high as 50k/passenger. If they don't feel a sharp kick to their wallet, I would have no confidence in their assurances that this would not happen again.

[MADem]

20. Sure, I could go that high, easily!

That vessel should appear in the dictionary next to the word "fuckup!"

[leftynyc]

12. Whatever will HURT

That's the problem with large corporations (like oil companies whose ships run aground or rigs that blow up in the Gulf) - they aren't paying fines that HURT and HURT BAD. It's the only thing that will change the behavior.

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. the "mechanical failure" is apparently result of trying to save money

and of poor design.
The engines move the ship should be separate from what powers the toilets and lights and etc.
But on Carnival, "life support" is the same system as propulsion.
no fall back system.

[jberryhill]

28. ...which will also fail on other procedural grounds

The class action prohibition is not the only term of the agreement, one can be assured.

Individuals are injured on cruise ships every day. Some are even raped by crew members. These will not be the first injured passengers to find out the many ways in which Carnival is protected from suit.

And the people on the Triumph suffered nothing, NOTHING, relative to the many severe physical injuries on cruise ships for which individuals have been unable to hold Carnival liable.

[MADem]

30. Well, time will tell. We'll just have to see.

Your other examples are rather apples and oranges--one person here, one person there. Dribs and drabs. Certainly, their damages were egregious, but what they didn't have was MASS. If a thousand people were injured or assaulted all at the same time, on the same ship, and in effect, held hostage for a week, you can be damn sure folks would sit up and take notice. Oftentimes, the media coverage that one poor soul gets from a tramatic event aboard a ship depends on the Q rating of the victim--if they're personable, the networks find them to be worth covering. Crabby old granny falling down on a slippery deck? She's lucky if she gets an affiliate interview. Blond teenager assaulted by swarthy crew member? Light up those phones! She'll do every network and the cable newsers until another "event" pushes her off the top of the heap. It's all about those Nielsens, after all.

The USG could also tell Carnival that they're no longer welcome in US ports until they get their shit together. Then they can see how many ships they can fill sailing out out of the Bahamas.

You know, just because other people suffered terribly on other cruises doesn't mean that these people didn't suffer too. It's not about meeting a threshold of pain or inconvenience. These folks didn't sign up to shit in a bucket on the "poop deck." They had an expectation of sumptuous meals, delightful cabin service, disco dancing in ship nightclubs, gambling, and swimming in shipboard pools--not sleepy on a damp mattress under the stars to escape the stench of sewage.

I wouldn't count on a "fail." I think these people will get redress.

[jberryhill]

34. I didn't say these people didn't suffer

But what they are going to find out is what people with profound injuries have been finding out for years.

And MASS doesn't matter - in fact, that's the whole point of a class action which, as the article notes, they signed away the right to do.

And, again, before you accuse me of being sympathetic to Carnival, I note for the record that I won an arbitration against them on a matter not related to personal injury, (http://www.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/601111.htm), so I'm not shilling for them.

Oh, and by the way, Florida attorneys are prevented by FL state law from trying to contact the passengers for at least 30 days or something like that (I can't remember the time period), so Carnival has about a month's free first crack at them.

[MADem]

41. If they all sue individually, they don't need to worry about a class action suit limitation.

And a court could well rule that bullshit printed on a ticket is not controlling.

I think you are too ready to say "Don't even try." I think these folks should try, they should try HARD, they should contact their legislators, they should find every opportunity, via letters to government officials, appearances on talky-newsy shoes, call-in opportunities to radio, etc., to put these basstids on the spot.

I'm betting many of the passengers aren't from FL--I'll bet most are from north of the Mason-Dixon, or west of the Mississippi. And I'll bet they won't be shy about contacting their attorneys, either. They've been forged in fire, too--never underestimate the unity of people who have gone through hell together. A leader will come to the fore. He or she will motivate the others. They've exchanged addresses, and made lifelong friends. It wouldn't surprise me if they've already fired up an email or FB list to keep in touch.

I'm not ready to give the victory to Carnival. I think they are going to feel the mighty punch of a couple of thousand pissed off passengers, merged with the force of public opinion. They can't undo all that iPhone footage and pictures. They will end up paying, one way, or another.

[jberryhill]

44. I think you are too ready to say "Don't even try."

By all means, they can try. I'm sure they are not reading this thread.

But you seem to be aware that, except in one instance, Carnival skates on crew rapes. The one time they had to settle was after a remand from a federal circuit court indicated that they had asserted a procedural defense too late. They would have skated on that one too.

Letters, talk shows, etc. etc. don't mean jack in court, no matter what preening TV celebrity lawyers would have you believe. And Carnival owns a bigger chunk of the legislatures of the states where they have interests than you might think. But, again, there is no legislative action that would be relevant here anyway.

But let's get down to brass tacks, shall we.

Quantify the damages.

Let's do: lost wages, physical injury, and psychological injury.

Lost wages:

Even if you were to start taking the contract apart piece by piece, the notion that waiving damages for lost wages due to late arrival would be negated is, really, kind of silly. No carrier in the travel business is liable for consequential damages for you being late or being sent to the wrong place. Even without the contract, it is normal that shit happens which makes travel take longer than expected. Anyone who has ever been delayed by an airline knows this. Being late from equipment failure is, by itself, pretty mundane. Having passengers agree to waive consequentials due to equipment failure is not going to be found unreasonable by a court, and it doesn't matter if it is one passenger or all of them because, duh, if the ship is delayed from equipment failure, they are all late. There is no warranty your trip will depart or return at the scheduled time.

Physical injury:

I haven't even heard of any physical injuries. I think someone fell on some stairs, and there were some indications of bad food and nausea. Yeah... sue for suffering from nausea from an ocean voyage. A couple of years ago, Carnival poisoned a shitload of folks on one of their boats. Adverse verdicts: 0

Having to smell sewage is not a physical injury. Sure, it's unpleasant, sickening, gross, whatever. But, again, I went on an ocean voyage and smelled bad stuff. Really? And how did the ocean smell?

Psychological injury:

I know it is a popular belief that "something made me feel bad so I can sue", but in actual courts it simply doesn't work that way. First off, if your "pain and suffering" is not something for which you have had to seek medical attention and treatment, then saying "But it was really, really bad" is just not going to go anywhere. So, is the waiver unreasonable? Well, a lot of people will suffer from previously unknown susceptibility to claustrophobia, agoraphobia, and all kinds of things about being on a ship at sea which affects them in ways they didn't expect. There's a built-in risk of that kind of thing. But if you are talking about numbers, then I would be willing to bet that few people who signed up for a cruise, and have returned to their normal lives, are going to spend the hours it takes on a shrink's couch to establish a cognizable injury here. Of the 3K passengers, might some of them be suffering from some kind of treatable trauma? Maybe a few, that's pretty much statistically certain. But a lot... no. And the agreement says, in a nutshell "A lot of scary random crap can happen on a cruise that will scare the bejeebers out of you. You accept that." Is that kind of thing inherently unreasonable? No, not really. Read the back of your ticket at a sporting event some time - you'd think you were going to a Roman circus instead of a baseball game.

-------

Now before you accuse me of being callous and just not appreciating the hell these people went through, let me put it this way - I do a lot of travel and I am aware of the long legal history of cruise lines, which is why you wouldn't catch me dead on one of these salmonella palaces. These people went through hell, and I sure wouldn't trade places with any of them for a huge pile of money.

But contrary to what insurance companies want you to think -but claims of "something bad happened to me, I'm upset about it and have a full set of working limbs and organs, and therefore I'm entitled to a lot of money" don't get as much traction as people think they do. And it is even tougher when the parties have already agreed to a contract - a contract that has been battle-tested and refined through a lot of court cases and experience - that precludes a lot of claims for foreseeable stuff. Is it foreseeable that there can be a mechanical failure and an ensuing set of dire circumstances? Yeah, it is. It's almost a question of, what would you expect might happen on a ship at sea if a critical system fails? You had a contract in front of your face spelling this out for you, and you agreed to it.

The first thing you do when you board are learn emergency instructions and procedures. The lifeboats are not there for decoration. They are a huge hint that says, "Shit happens."

Was it a contract of adhesion? No. Bring me the guy who put a gun to your head and made you book a cruise.

I have no idea who these "lawyers of the north" you are familiar with. Having practiced in Philadelphia for a long time, I believe I am sufficiently northern, and also not licensed to practice in any jurisdiction relevant to this dispute.

And again, we are talking about civil claims arising on a Bahamian flag vessel in international waters. You can go on all the talk shows you want, but Oprah isn't re-negotiating the treaty relating to civil claims arising on vessels in international waters. These ships don't carry Bahamian flags because Carnival found the colors charming.

And then there is this: The current offer is full refund, vouchers for future equal credit, and $500. No, you don't get any of that unless you agree to waive any claims you have. So you can take your refund and $500 in cold hard cash right now - anywhere from a total in the neighborhood $1200 or so, sell your vouchers on ebay, and come out with, say, $1500 or so in your hands right quick. Or you can end up on a wonderful voyage through civil procedure for the next couple of years, with no certain result in sight and a lot of heartache along the way. Out of 3000 passengers, how many do you think you have left?

[tammywammy]

45. Very informative post. Thanks. n/t

[MADem]

48. The jury in the Court of Public Opinion is already weighing in on Carnival's offer, and they're

saying Carnival is CHEAP.

Believe me, if nothing 'big' happens in the media for the next few weeks, this story is fodder--particularly if passengers have good pictures. And I'll bet plenty of 'em do.

Turn on NBC right now--Brian Williams is doing a show, replete w/pictures--and the pictures are incredibly ... disgusting!

People are pissed off and I don't blame 'em.

[jberryhill]

55. People DIED in the Costa Concordia

Carnival owns and operated this ship, seen nightly for weeks just a few months ago:



Do you think there was a person aboard the Triumph, with their upcoming cruise already booked, who didn't see those pictures?

You bet Carnival is CHEAP. That's why people book Carnival cruises.

It's a safe bet that people who were booked for the next dozen sailings of the Triumph are, right now, upset that they have to change their plans than whether any of these people have an effective right to sue.

[MADem]

56. But that was "over there." Not here, in good old America!

They didn't make the connection.

It only counts when it happens at home.

I'm betting the people who were going to sail on the Triumph are grateful that they escaped that fate. I'd be saying "Phew--that could have been ME! Wonder if I can grab a last minute deal at a SANDALS, instead?"

[jberryhill]

60. This is just another day in the life, for Carnival

http://cruisefever.net/0512-norovirus-outbreak-on-the-carnival-freedom/

Norovirus Outbreak Hits Carnival Cruise Ship


http://consumerist.com/2011/08/18/carnival-cruise-becomes-vacation-nightmare/

Carnival Cruise Becomes Vacation Nightmare

http://www.cleanupflorida.com/carnivalabuse.html

The Filthy Way Carnival Treats Its Customers

[jberryhill]

61. The ship wasn't American or in America

The Triumph was a Bahamian vessel in international waters.

[MADem]

63. I realize that, but Carnival markets to a US audience.

The Costa Concordia didn't.

See this commercial? These are Americans portrayed in the ad, the price quoted is US dollars.

The customer base for these cruises isn't Bahamians, it is Americans.

[SidDithers]

5. jberryhill had a good post about this yesterday...

I'll see if I can find it.

ETA: Here's the post http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2368986 though there's more good discussion around the contract on tickets in the the thread.

Sid

[Spirochete]

6. Will they stay in business?

Doesn't seem like people will be lining up to go on a cruise if they may end up stranded at sea on a ship that smells like Ted Nugent on Draft Board day, anyhow.

[rdking647]

7. it may mean a SMALL hit to business in the short term

but long term i doubt it will have any major effect

[customerserviceguy]

32. Then they'll keep on having screw ups

that turn vacations into hell. I suppose that after this, I cannot feel sorry for anybody that rides on one of their garbage scows.

Hell, after what they've already accomplished previous to this, it may be that judges and juries decide to feel that way in this instance. THAT will hurt their business, if you just have to suck it up when a cruise line screws you over, then you're going to be damned careful about which one you choose, won't you?

[leftynyc]

11. So -each passenger can sue

It'll wind up costing them more.

[Bake]

15. The terms of the contract probably require the guest to agree to hold Carnival harmless

i.e., good luck filing a lawsuit.

Sucks, but that's in the fine print that the guests didn't read when they bought the cruise ticket.

Bake, Esq.

DISCLAIMER: I have not read the Carnival ticket terms and conditions, but that would be pretty standard.

[1983law]

66. Someome needs to watch..

South Park's "HUMANCENTtiPAD"

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. People need to find a good lawyer versed in maritime law

They did open themselves for it with some of their actions.

[SidDithers]

16. Which actions?...nt

Sid

[cbayer]

21. Clauses like these often do not hold up.

We shall see, but if they don't adequately compensate these people, I think the backlash will take them down.

[rdking647]

23. whose law do you use

its not a us flagged ship. it wasnt in us waters....

[cbayer]

24. It's US owned and flagged, no?

I don't think it matters what waters it is in. Plus the contract was between the company and the customers.

And then there's US and International maritime law.


I'm not sure, but I feel pretty certain these people have a case for damages. If not, then no one should ever take one of these cruises.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Bahamian flagged

Cheapskates do it to avoid the Jones Act

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. The Jones Act is a bad law and should be repealed anyway.

only US-built and registered ships to ferry goods and passengers between US ports? 75% of crew on said ships to be American? I can't think of any other country that has a similar law.

[davidpdx]

67. Repealing the Jones Act would allow ships to use cheaper labor and ships build

and serviced (repaired) in foreign countries. These ships would be operating in US waters between ports. The only real plus I see in terms of repealing it is that it would drop the price of goods in the areas of the non-continental US (Hawaii, Guam, etc.) by around 30%. It would not require Carnival to flag their ships in the US nor use more US based labor (it would actually allow them even more leeway to operate).

I just wrote a paper for my international business law class a couple of months ago on the Jones Act and my professor published a book about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. So we can use cheaper labor

What could go wrong?

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. it's not just "cheaper labour"

the Jones Act results in higher prices for a broad spectrum of goods, including petroleum (the reason East Coast refineries pay Brent prices for crude and not WTI? That's the Jones Act); as well as making the US shipbuilding industry uncompetitive and making the US cargo shipping industry uncompetitive as well (it's also the reason less than 1% of the world's cargo fleet is US-built and registered).

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Maritime law and treaties

There are protections, and there is even an Admiralty Court.

I will not be too shocked if the Admiralty Court transfers jurisdiction on this to courts in the nationality of the affected. Believe or not, this was not just US citizens. If a European was on board, a case could end in the EU as well. (Recent precedent, the Costa Concordia, wrongful death in Houston Court)

Why it is essential people get a lawyer that specializes in maritime and admiralty law...

And I hope Mexico brings a complaint to the Board of the Admiralty as well, and follows through with the threats of safety inspections.

One accident, shit (no pun) happens...three...there are serious issues here.

Let's not go into the Concordia's sinking.

[jberryhill]

29. And there is even a treaty on maritime personal injury claims

Guess who and their lawyers worked hard to get that one in place.

Hint: not the passengers on cruise lines.

[joeunderdog]

47. question:

At what point can clauses in a contact supersede public policy?

I know that landlords can't make up leases that break the rights of tenants even if they sign it. Does that apply here?

[jberryhill]

53. Two things

1. There can be positive law which impacts the ability to contract or addresses specific types of contracts. The landlord tenant code is a good example of a set of statutes that specify certain rights and limits on what can be done in that context. Another example is where a contract relates to illegal subject matter - you can't have an enforcible contract to buy heroin or sell slaves.

2. Sometimes a contract will be so out there as to be unconscionable. The thing is, that category is a lot narrower than every teed off party to a contract would like to believe. Courts don't care if a contract is a bad deal or commercially unreasonable. In order to be unconscionable, the contract has to be pretty much designed to shaft anyone who signs it.

Are the types of carriage contracts used by cruise lines unconscionable? Probably not. Again, it's not like we're talking about the only bread seller in a hungry town. There are a lot of inherent risks in traveling on a ship. A ship can sink and kill everyone aboard. That's not some kind of unknown event. So, the proposition is this - you can take a cruise in comfortable surroundings with a lot of entertainment and food, go to warm places and drink rum, and have a whole crew looking after you for prices that are pretty attractive relative to, say, land based resort hotels. Part of the bargain is that one of the reasons they can do that at a low price is that everyone agrees not to hold the cruise line responsible for a lot of things that can go wrong - and are really no great surprise that they can go wrong.

[llmart]

27. They'll just file for bankruptcy.....

reorganize and rename themselves. The same people running Carnival will end up running some other cruise line.

[CrispyQ]

33. +1

Membership has it's benefits.

[llmart]

36. Are you referring to the membership in the 1% club?

n/t

[CrispyQ]

43. More like the .01% club - membership in the "artificial entities" club -

entities who can kill themselves off, resurrect under a new name, all the while protecting the human entities who made the bad decisions.

[former9thward]

37. No one will file for bankruptcy.

Cruise ships are highly profitable and this will be a small hit no matter what happens.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

51. They already own most of them. Princess is part of Carnival...

[BainsBane]

31. Lawyers can get around those agreements

and I bet they do.

[llmart]

35. I agree with you.

n/t

[jberryhill]

38. How much?

[XRubicon]

39. Class action lawsuits make lawyers rich not people. nt

[RedCappedBandit]

40. I will never give this POS company my money.

All these horror stories aside, these cruise ships are just gargantuan mobile environmental hazards.

[jberryhill]

46. You win all Carnival threads for life!

That anyone is waking up to the fact that Carnival is a world of evil shit from every direction, is the part that surprises me most.

Their labor practices, legal practices, political shenanigans and tax dodging, are uniformly abhorrent.

[KharmaTrain]

49. A PR Disaster On Top Of A PR Disaster...

...the company's reputation is taking a real beating on this...the horror stories of those onboard will cost the company millions in future bookings...and weaseling out of any liability will add insult to injury. This is one where the corporate should "take on for the team" and find ways to make these people "happy" or they'll be all over TV talk shows for the next couple weeks.

[sfpcjock]

50. Carnival also pays _Nothing_ in taxes, runs a casino on shipboard, and their backup plan...

Backup plan is red poop bags.

I'll be mountain biking, thanks.

[Politicalboi]

52. That ship supposedly had engine trouble

Before it took off. They were negligent IMO. They should have put all those passengers in a hotel till they made sure the engine was fine. Or given them their money back with and extra $50.00 for their incompetence.

[davidn3600]

65. Still...I'd rather have engine trouble out at sea than engine trouble in the air

Sounds as though the biggest problem was with the plumbing and the toilets. It seems cruise ships would be wise to invest in better back-up systems that can power the pumps and environmental systems more efficiently.

As for food...trust me, your body will survive just fine without hot food for a couple of days.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. A fire at sea is just as dangerous.

The Navy (Mexican) scrambled for that very reason.

I know, I know, apparently the USCG had teleporters...since they were on station immediately according to the company, another creative lie. All it takes is a look at a damn map.

[democrat2thecore]

71. Two (legal) Words: Bad Faith ..... fine print won't work with something like this. -nt