TRANS-ATLANTIC 9'4'to 9/14/03

[Annie Noname4]

We went on the cruise,and it was o.k.but had a lot of rough weather
15-20ft.waves,and lots of very strong wind.The ship was nice,but they
had only a couple of shows worth seeing,1/MARTY ALLEN,And agroup of
Father,/daughter/& son,they were very good,the cruise director left a
lot to be desired. Would have enjoyed
it more if they had had some dance music ,was hard to find anything
worth while after 10.30,mostly kareokie,or game shows,
Never put the bedspreads back on after day one,and our cabin steward
never had the courtesy to thank us for our generous tip,we had it put on
our bill.
Also will never fly out of "LOGAN" airport in "BOSTON" It is a lousy
airport,and the security guards acted more like the german gestapo than
americans,they were very rude,and sarcastic,granted they have a job to
do,but they could at least be polite
Annie

[CupCaked]

.. . . and the ship was. . . ?

(Annie Noname4) wrote:

>We went on the cruise,and it was o.k.but had a lot of rough weather
>15-20ft.waves,and lots of very strong wind.The ship was nice,but they
>had only a couple of shows worth seeing,1/MARTY ALLEN,And agroup of
>Father,/daughter/& son,they were very good,the cruise director left a
>lot to be desired. Would have enjoyed
>it more if they had had some dance music ,was hard to find anything
>worth while after 10.30,mostly kareokie,or game shows,
>Never put the bedspreads back on after day one,and our cabin steward
>never had the courtesy to thank us for our generous tip,we had it put on
>our bill.
>Also will never fly out of "LOGAN" airport in "BOSTON" It is a lousy
>airport,and the security guards acted more like the german gestapo than
>americans,they were very rude,and sarcastic,granted they have a job to
>do,but they could at least be polite
> Annie


__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

[JCG]

"CupCaked" > wrote in message
...
>
> . . . and the ship was. . . ?
>
We were on the Grandeur of the Seas also.
We weren't able to go to Ireland because of rough weather. Halifax was
substituted.
We enjoyed ourselves and most of the shows. They had to cancel one
production show because the seas were so high. It was quite an experience.
There were several different age groups and I think it was really hard to
please everybody on the ship.
Disembarkation was endless. We thought we would be among the first groups
off, but were close to the last. Boston was a pain. We had trouble getting
transportation away from the pier. It was impossible to catch a cab as there
were three ships docked. Don't even get me started on Logan and American
Airlines....
Judy

[PX]

About 2800 people died because of planes that flew out of Logan. Security
is tight there, the tightest I have seen in the US. If it is not as tight
at other airports you go through that is because the other airports are
weak.


"Annie Noname4" > wrote in message
...
> We went on the cruise,and it was o.k.but had a lot of rough weather
> 15-20ft.waves,and lots of very strong wind.The ship was nice,but they
> had only a couple of shows worth seeing,1/MARTY ALLEN,And agroup of
> Father,/daughter/& son,they were very good,the cruise director left a
> lot to be desired. Would have enjoyed
> it more if they had had some dance music ,was hard to find anything
> worth while after 10.30,mostly kareokie,or game shows,
> Never put the bedspreads back on after day one,and our cabin steward
> never had the courtesy to thank us for our generous tip,we had it put on
> our bill.
> Also will never fly out of "LOGAN" airport in "BOSTON" It is a lousy
> airport,and the security guards acted more like the german gestapo than
> americans,they were very rude,and sarcastic,granted they have a job to
> do,but they could at least be polite
> Annie
>

[Annie Noname4]

The ship was "GRANDEUR OF THE SEAS" ROYAL CARIBBEAN",also they kept the
lido closed at night,only place you could get a snack was up on deck 9
in the solarium,hamburgers,and hot dogs ,on stale rolls,only mustard or
catsup,& relish ,no onions,tomatoes or kraut,like most other ships,and
no coffee or tea,only ice water. they had a coffee machine on lido deck
outside,but most times it was out of order.
ANNIE

[Annie Noname4]

JUDY: WE
made the best of the trip,and agree "LOGAN"is the pitts.What deck were
you on,and what dinner seating,we may have crossed paths.Did you meet
the women that they had lost all her luggage? But
she made up for it by hitting the quarter machine in the casino for 500
quarters,and within 15 minuets hit the jackpot on the nickle machines.
Annie

[Annie Noname4]

JUDY: Forgot our flight was supposed to leave logan at 3.30
p.m.everyone was on board plane,and 15 minuets they took everyone
off,the plane had no brakes,boarded another 1/2 hour later,started to
taxi out,only to be put on hold for 20 minuets because
phila.international had stopped all incoming flights due to a severe
thunderstorm alert,was never so glad as we were when we finally reached
our home in jersey. Annie

[JCG]

Annie,
We were on Deck 8 and had a very attentive cabin attendant. We had late
seating and sat at table 16 with two other couples.
I hadn't heard about the lost luggage, although we saw some loaded onto the
ship either at LeHavre or Plymouth. Good for her winning against nearly
impossible odds!
Judy

"Annie Noname4" > wrote in message
...
> JUDY: WE
> made the best of the trip,and agree "LOGAN"is the pitts.What deck were
> you on,and what dinner seating,we may have crossed paths.Did you meet
> the women that they had lost all her luggage? But
> she made up for it by hitting the quarter machine in the casino for 500
> quarters,and within 15 minuets hit the jackpot on the nickle machines.
> Annie
>

[JCG]

How ironic. We were on a plane that was supposed to leave at 3 pm. We were
taken off the plane about 3:15 and put on another plane due to "fluid on the
landing gear." We did leave at 4 and arrived in Baltimore and missed any
rain. Sunday turned out to be the most stressful day of our vacation.
Anything that could go wrong, did. It was an awful ending to a pleasant 10
days.
Judy

"Annie Noname4" > wrote in message
...
> JUDY: Forgot our flight was supposed to leave logan at 3.30
> p.m.everyone was on board plane,and 15 minuets they took everyone
> off,the plane had no brakes,boarded another 1/2 hour later,started to
> taxi out,only to be put on hold for 20 minuets because
> phila.international had stopped all incoming flights due to a severe
> thunderstorm alert,was never so glad as we were when we finally reached
> our home in jersey. Annie
>

[Jason Peterson]

I was just about to post the same thing. There is always been a fine line
between security and convenience, until 9/11 convenience was usually the
norm. Unless we want more airplanes used as building demolition material,
then we will need to put up with these "German Gestapo" tactics at airports.
Frankly I feel it is a small price to pay!

Jason


"PX" > wrote in message ...
> About 2800 people died because of planes that flew out of Logan. Security
> is tight there, the tightest I have seen in the US. If it is not as tight
> at other airports you go through that is because the other airports are
> weak.
>
>
> "Annie Noname4" > wrote in message
> ...
> > We went on the cruise,and it was o.k.but had a lot of rough weather
> > 15-20ft.waves,and lots of very strong wind.The ship was nice,but they
> > had only a couple of shows worth seeing,1/MARTY ALLEN,And agroup of
> > Father,/daughter/& son,they were very good,the cruise director left a
> > lot to be desired. Would have enjoyed
> > it more if they had had some dance music ,was hard to find anything
> > worth while after 10.30,mostly kareokie,or game shows,
> > Never put the bedspreads back on after day one,and our cabin steward
> > never had the courtesy to thank us for our generous tip,we had it put on
> > our bill.
> > Also will never fly out of "LOGAN" airport in "BOSTON" It is a lousy
> > airport,and the security guards acted more like the german gestapo than
> > americans,they were very rude,and sarcastic,granted they have a job to
> > do,but they could at least be polite
> > Annie
> >
>
>

[MJDEEG]

what ship?
Happy Cruisin'
Mark
Home Port:
Monmouth County,NJ.

[CupCaked]

"Jason Peterson" > wrote:

>I was just about to post the same thing. There is always been a fine line
>between security and convenience, until 9/11 convenience was usually the
>norm. Unless we want more airplanes used as building demolition material,
>then we will need to put up with these "German Gestapo" tactics at airports.
>Frankly I feel it is a small price to pay!

I feel the same way. Having to fly home from Europe days after
9-11-01, the only thing I wanted was a secure feeling when I got on
that plane. BA out of Heathrow did an excellent job.

All I ask is to be safe.

Karen

__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

[E.k.R.]

Isn't this the truth Karen! I don't think anyone objects to having
security, it's all about the way it's carried out. There is still a huge
difference between the security in Europe as opposed to the US. In a word,
it's called professionalism. They are decades ahead in this regard, not to
mention the design of their airports. Europe has taken security seriously
for years, the US is just now discovering the meaning of the word.

Ernie




"CupCaked" > wrote in message
...
> I feel the same way. Having to fly home from Europe days after
> 9-11-01, the only thing I wanted was a secure feeling when I got on
> that plane. BA out of Heathrow did an excellent job.
>
> All I ask is to be safe.
>
> Karen

>

[B D]

I think SPRING is the best time to cross ATLANTIC.

[Howard Garland]

Having crossed three times in Spring and three in late Summer/Fall, I
agree with your observation.

Howard

B D wrote:
> I think SPRING is the best time to cross ATLANTIC.
>

[CupCaked]

(B D) wrote:

>I think SPRING is the best time to cross ATLANTIC.

My favorite crossing of all was last December!

Karen


__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

[CupCaked]

"E.k.R." > wrote:

>Isn't this the truth Karen! I don't think anyone objects to having
>security, it's all about the way it's carried out. There is still a huge
>difference between the security in Europe as opposed to the US. In a word,
>it's called professionalism. They are decades ahead in this regard, not to
>mention the design of their airports. Europe has taken security seriously
>for years, the US is just now discovering the meaning of the word.

You hit it square on the jaw, Ernie! The differences in the way
things are done are amazing and that's just what I can see from my
comsumer's point of view as a flyer.

Karen

__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

[Howard Garland]

You are right Ernie, if you're talking about airline security but
security at the ports is another matter. In September 2002, I sailed
from Harich, England to the US on the Brilliance of the Seas. While
boarding the ship, I was shocked to see that while passenger carry-on
luggage was being passed through x-ray, the crew was permitted to board
alongside us with all kinds of carry-on items (including some pretty big
duffle bags), that were never screened.

Howard

E.k.R. wrote:

> Isn't this the truth Karen! I don't think anyone objects to having
> security, it's all about the way it's carried out. There is still a huge
> difference between the security in Europe as opposed to the US. In a word,
> it's called professionalism. They are decades ahead in this regard, not to
> mention the design of their airports. Europe has taken security seriously
> for years, the US is just now discovering the meaning of the word.
>
> Ernie
>
>
>
>
> "CupCaked" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I feel the same way. Having to fly home from Europe days after
>
>>9-11-01, the only thing I wanted was a secure feeling when I got on
>>that plane. BA out of Heathrow did an excellent job.
>>
>>All I ask is to be safe.
>>
>>Karen
>
>
>
>

[E.k.R.]

Howard,
Yes, I was talking about airport security, but I know exactly what you mean
about the crew. This is certainly the largest venerability concerning
cruise ships today. Passengers are checked rather extensively, both in
advance and at the ship. A passenger manifest is now sent to the TSA for a
check against aliases and known terrorists, just like the airlines do. In
fact, this is now a requirement of the US Federal Border Security Act and
one of the reasons cruise lines need to know more personal information about
each passenger. In the past, just a name would suffice in most cases unless
the cruise was overseas. Of course we all know the scrutiny endured with
getting on and off the ship. Most line now use an A-Pass security system,
which matches a face with the name, not to mention the x-rays and metal
detectors.

Crew on the other hand endure very little security. Unlike airline
employees, which are fingerprinted and have an extensive background check,
none of this is required for cruise ship crews. In fact even if it were, it
would be rather difficult. Many of the crew come from 3rd world countries
where things like background checks are unheard of. Frankly, many are lucky
to have a record of berth. They are hired by recruiting agencies employed
by the various cruise lines, and as more and more ships were built, the need
for more and more crews became an urgent priority. Recruiting agencies
resorted to areas of the world they never considered before, all in an
attempt to have a large pool of bodies available for the cruise lines. Once
onboard ship, they are issued a crew pass and pretty much have carte'
blanche to the entire ship, with little to no security when they get on and
off.

While I'm not trying to scare anyone, you can easily see cruise ships are
still venerable. I'm also not trying to degrade the crew or make them out
to be the bad guy. All the crews I have encountered are wonderful, and I
love the fact they are so multi-cultural. Of course the same reason I love
the crews makes it very easy for a "bad guy" to fit right in without anyone
noticing. With crews of over 1000 people on many ships today, most of the
crew do not even know each other. Besides that, they are always coming and
going either with their contract beginning or ending, or being transferred
to another ship.

Without saying anymore, I think you can read between the lines. What is the
solution? I don't know if there is one, but a start would be a more
thorough inspection of all crew members embarking and disembarking the ship
at every port of call. I think it's impossible to perform background checks
(they just don't exist in many of these countries), so it's up to the cruise
lines to have security at the source, which is the ship. They do a great
job with the passengers, so now they also need to focus on the crew.

Sorry this was so long winded!

Ernie







"Howard Garland" > wrote in message
...
> You are right Ernie, if you're talking about airline security but
> security at the ports is another matter. In September 2002, I sailed
> from Harich, England to the US on the Brilliance of the Seas. While
> boarding the ship, I was shocked to see that while passenger carry-on
> luggage was being passed through x-ray, the crew was permitted to board
> alongside us with all kinds of carry-on items (including some pretty big
> duffle bags), that were never screened.
>
> Howard

[Asya Kamsky]

In article >,
E.k.R. > wrote:
>about the crew. This is certainly the largest venerability concerning

I think you mean "vulnerability".

>Crew on the other hand endure very little security. Unlike airline
>employees, which are fingerprinted and have an extensive background check,
>none of this is required for cruise ship crews. In fact even if it were, it
>would be rather difficult. Many of the crew come from 3rd world countries
>where things like background checks are unheard of. Frankly, many are lucky

Okay, I'm not sure where you get this information. Most every country
in the world has police and court systems that have things like criminal
records on file.

>to have a record of berth. They are hired by recruiting agencies employed

Birth. And that's rather presumptuous of you. This crew isn't hired
from the jungles, third world countries aren't as backward as you seem
to think they are.

>Recruiting agencies
>resorted to areas of the world they never considered before,

You mean, like Eastern Europe where literacy rates are much higher than
they are in this country?

>still venerable. I'm also not trying to degrade the crew or make them out
>to be the bad guy.

Do you mean denigrade?

>I don't know if there is one, but a start would be a more
>thorough inspection of all crew members embarking and disembarking the ship
>at every port of call. I think it's impossible to perform background checks
>(they just don't exist in many of these countries),

I disagree. Many of "these" countries have background checks just like
this country does.

Once someone is screened and hired, they should be allowed to do
their job.
--
Asya Kamsky

"To forgive is an act of compassion. It is not done because
people deserve it, it's done because they need it." -- Rupert Giles.

[E.k.R.]

Asya,
I don't need a spelling or grammar lesson from you or anyone else. So my
spelling is not perfect, deal with it. It seems you understood perfectly
the points I was trying to get across.

Your sole intent seems an attempt to discredit my post based on spelling
errors. I think you can do better then that.

Yes I meant "vulnerability", but thank you for pointing it out. And no, I
did NOT mean "denigrade" (is this a word? - not according to Webster's), I
meant degrade. Look it up. Possibly you meant "denigrate", but then you
don't make mistakes, do you? I will try not to play teacher like you did
and with withhold "correcting" the rest of your post.

I don't know about you Asya, but I have worked onboard ship as a Purser for
a few years, and spent several years working in the head office for two
major cruise lines. I know the procedures of how crew are hired, screened,
etc. What credentials do you have in this regard? I have also traveled the
world extensively (including all those third world countries I was
mentioning), have you? When I stated many of "these", yes I said "these"
countries do not have the capability for background checks on every citizen,
it was not something I made up. It is fact.

You feel once a crew member is hired, let them do their job. Well, that is
exactly what is happening now with basically little regard to security. If
proper pre-screenings were able to be accomplished, this might not be such a
bad idea. Of course this is not a perfect world and these screenings are
just not possible, and also are too expensive. So we are left with the
notion of the crew going through the same screenings as passengers when
embarking and disembarking the ship. What is so wrong with this, and how
does it keep them from "doing their job". Passengers are actually
pre-screened to a much higher degree then crew, and must still endure the
routine security checks when getting on and off the ship. Why not the crew?

And please Asya, please refrain from correcting any spelling or grammar
errors in this post, frankly I'm not interested in your teaching skills.
Save it for your children or students, and besides which, you didn't do a
very good job.

Ernie






"Asya Kamsky" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> E.k.R. > wrote:
> >about the crew. This is certainly the largest venerability concerning
>
> I think you mean "vulnerability".
>
> >Crew on the other hand endure very little security. Unlike airline
> >employees, which are fingerprinted and have an extensive background
check,
> >none of this is required for cruise ship crews. In fact even if it were,
it
> >would be rather difficult. Many of the crew come from 3rd world
countries
> >where things like background checks are unheard of. Frankly, many are
lucky
>
> Okay, I'm not sure where you get this information. Most every country
> in the world has police and court systems that have things like criminal
> records on file.
>
> >to have a record of berth. They are hired by recruiting agencies
employed
>
> Birth. And that's rather presumptuous of you. This crew isn't hired
> from the jungles, third world countries aren't as backward as you seem
> to think they are.
>
> >Recruiting agencies
> >resorted to areas of the world they never considered before,
>
> You mean, like Eastern Europe where literacy rates are much higher than
> they are in this country?
>
> >still venerable. I'm also not trying to degrade the crew or make them
out
> >to be the bad guy.
>
> Do you mean denigrade?
>
> >I don't know if there is one, but a start would be a more
> >thorough inspection of all crew members embarking and disembarking the
ship
> >at every port of call. I think it's impossible to perform background
checks
> >(they just don't exist in many of these countries),
>
> I disagree. Many of "these" countries have background checks just like
> this country does.
>
> Once someone is screened and hired, they should be allowed to do
> their job.
> --
> Asya Kamsky
>
> "To forgive is an act of compassion. It is not done because
> people deserve it, it's done because they need it." -- Rupert Giles.

[Bob Gow]

Karen, coming back only a few days later than you and Hans, we agree
thoroughly. It is not fun having to wait in line, but it beats being
ballast for a weapons system. And yes, British Airways did an
excellent job of getting us home. They lost a lot of buisness because
by the Friday after the Norway docked (9/21) the New York bound flight
was half filled. And, yes, seeing the pile where the WTC omce stood
really hurt.

>Unless we want more airplanes used as building demolition material,
>>then we will need to put up with these "German Gestapo" tactics at airports.
>>Frankly I feel it is a small price to pay!
>
>I feel the same way. Having to fly home from Europe days after
>9-11-01, the only thing I wanted was a secure feeling when I got on
>that plane. BA out of Heathrow did an excellent job.
>
>All I ask is to be safe.
>
>Karen
>
> __ /7__/7__/7__
> \::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
>(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

Bob Gow
"Experience is what you get when
you expected something else."

[Asya Kamsky]

In article >,
E.k.R. > wrote:
>I don't know about you Asya, but I have worked onboard ship as a Purser for
>a few years, and spent several years working in the head office for two
>major cruise lines. I know the procedures of how crew are hired, screened,
>etc. What credentials do you have in this regard? I have also traveled the
>world extensively (including all those third world countries I was
>mentioning), have you?

Yeah, I've also actually lived in some of those countries. And you know
what? They keep records. They have criminals and tend to know who they
are. Many of these countries even have something we in the US don't have,
a national ID card or a passport, mandatory for adults.

Btw, in *this* country, a background check for a job is usually a
fairly meaningless driving record search. Occassionally it would
be a criminal record search (in the state you're in, only!)

I don't see how that provides much security some people seek.

>pre-screened to a much higher degree then crew, and must still endure the
>routine security checks when getting on and off the ship. Why not the crew?

Because the impression I've gotten while getting on and off the ship is
that they were a lot more interested in looking for liquor to confiscate
than, say, explosives. I suppose if they saw a gun on the xray they'd
stop me, but many dangerous substances would not show up with the screening
methods they use.

Honestly, I'm not worried about terrorists getting a *job* on a cruiseship
to do damage when it's much easier to get on the ship as a passenger and
takes much less time. And last I checked ships can't be crashed into
skyscrapers or the White House...

--
Asya Kamsky

"To forgive is an act of compassion. It is not done because
people deserve it, it's done because they need it." -- Rupert Giles.

[villa deauville]

Before I went to work for the Fed Govt they had investigators going to
my neighbours asking quite personel questions.

SUNNY<.........wonders if this is still carried out

S'nd I

[Annie Noname4]

JASON: Still no reason to be out & out rude to people,if they had done
this before there would not have been a 9/11,they can still do their
job,and not be storm troopers,they were so beligerent,that their
supervisor told us he was sorry ,and had a talk with them,have traveled
many airports since 9/11,and never met any like at logan,and hope never
to meet them again,if so we will stop flying,aliens get away with much
more than a law abiding american citizen
Annie

[E.k.R.]

"Asya Kamsky" > wrote in message
...

> Yeah, I've also actually lived in some of those countries. And you know
> what? They keep records. They have criminals and tend to know who they
> are. Many of these countries even have something we in the US don't have,
> a national ID card or a passport, mandatory for adults.


Yes, although a National ID card does not necessarily mean you are not a
criminal. The US is also considering a National ID card.




> Btw, in *this* country, a background check for a job is usually a
> fairly meaningless driving record search. Occassionally it would
> be a criminal record search (in the state you're in, only!)
>
> I don't see how that provides much security some people seek.


I agree, which is why security is necessary at the source, be it an airplane
or cruise ship. The background check would only be one of several layers of
security.




> Because the impression I've gotten while getting on and off the ship is
> that they were a lot more interested in looking for liquor to confiscate
> than, say, explosives. I suppose if they saw a gun on the xray they'd
> stop me, but many dangerous substances would not show up with the
screening
> methods they use.


This is probably true, but at least there is some deterrent. There is none
for the crew.




> Honestly, I'm not worried about terrorists getting a *job* on a cruiseship
> to do damage when it's much easier to get on the ship as a passenger and
> takes much less time. And last I checked ships can't be crashed into
> skyscrapers or the White House...


Actually, I think it would be easier and more effective for a terrorist to
get a job on a cruise ship then to come aboard as passengers. Less
suspicion, and there could be several working together onboard in different
parts of the ship. By being part of the crew, they have access to almost
all areas of the ship without suspicion. They can figure out which areas of
the ship are most vulnerable, and where they can do the most damage. This
would probably take more time then just being a passenger on a ship for a
week. Also, it's easy to get hired on as crew, and virtually no skill or
training is required.. It's not like they would have to learn how to fly an
airplane.

As you mentioned, a ship can't be crashed into the White House, but the
White House is not my major concern. It's more a symbol then anything.
Blowing up 3000 mostly US passengers on a cruise ship would have quite an
impact, with possibly more casualties then 9/11. It would also devastate
the entire industry.

Chances are something like this will never happen, at least I pray that it
doesn't, but who could have ever imagined 9/11 either? The cruise industry
is only one of thousands of possible easy targets, and there *will* be
another terrorist act, that is a given.

Ernie - who has no intention to discontinue cruises, or flying for that
matter. Just making note of a lapse in security that would be easy to
rectify.

[E.k.R.]

I recently heard from a friend that cruises quite a bit (5-6 cruises a
year). He called Celebrity about six months ago to enquire about some
details regarding some cruises he was planning. The reservation agent
answered his questions and he went on to sail on CONSTELLATION on a
transatlantic sailing. A couple days ago, he received a visit from the FBI.
As it turns out, the reservation agent at Celebrity felt he was asking too
many "specific and detailed" questions, and turned him into the FBI as a
possible terrorist. He was dubbed an "anonymous caller", and Celebrity's
phone records were searched for his number. He actually remembers the
agent, and recalls she could barely speak English like so many in South
Florida. His words were "she spoke like she was just off the boat from
Cuba". Ironic!

What else is really ironic, or should I say pathetic, is that my friend
already sailed on CONSTELLATION well before the FBI got around to
questioning him! The damage would have already been done were there any
intent! Also, he is a flight attendant for a major US airline and has had a
thorough background check and has been fingerprinted as required by the
FAA/TSA. Also, he has sailed on Celebrity some 60+ days over the years and
is well established within Celebrity's database.

Needless to say, he was furious about this ridiculous intrusion and has
since written Celebrity and RCI protesting.

Of course the reply will be something along the line of, "it's for your own
protection and security". What a joke. Once again everything is justified
in the name of "security". It's such a farce. I'm all for security, but
again, effective security that actually accomplishes something. More and
more rights are being given up in the name of security.

Ernie - who recommends being very careful what you ask when calling a cruise
line!




"villa deauville" > wrote in message
...
> Before I went to work for the Fed Govt they had investigators going to
> my neighbours asking quite personel questions.
>
> SUNNY<.........wonders if this is still carried out
>
> S'nd I
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Sue and Kevin Mullen]

villa deauville wrote:

> Before I went to work for the Fed Govt they had investigators going to
> my neighbours asking quite personel questions.
>
> SUNNY<.........wonders if this is still carried out

When you go for a Dept. of Defense Security Clearance, they do talk to
neighbours and interview your friends. Yes, they still do it.

sue

[CupCaked]

I remember circling Newark Airport on our way in and not wanting to
look out the window at what I knew I would see . . . or what I
woul;dn't see any more. It was as if I didn't look, it wouldn't be
true. What a whole weird trip that was.

On another more cheerful note: 'Coming to the WSS (previously the
Ocean Liner Museum) Holiday Bazaar this December, Bob? :-)

Karen

Bob Gow > wrote:

>Karen, coming back only a few days later than you and Hans, we agree
>thoroughly. It is not fun having to wait in line, but it beats being
>ballast for a weapons system. And yes, British Airways did an
>excellent job of getting us home. They lost a lot of buisness because
>by the Friday after the Norway docked (9/21) the New York bound flight
>was half filled. And, yes, seeing the pile where the WTC omce stood
>really hurt.
>
>>Unless we want more airplanes used as building demolition material,
>>>then we will need to put up with these "German Gestapo" tactics at airports.
>>>Frankly I feel it is a small price to pay!
>>
>>I feel the same way. Having to fly home from Europe days after
>>9-11-01, the only thing I wanted was a secure feeling when I got on
>>that plane. BA out of Heathrow did an excellent job.
>>
>>All I ask is to be safe.
>>
>>Karen
>>
>> __ /7__/7__/7__
>> \::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
>>(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)
>
>Bob Gow
>"Experience is what you get when
> you expected something else."


__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

[Gary Rice]

> Without saying anymore, I think you can read between the lines. What is the
> solution?

Before you look for a "solution", you need to identify a "problem". So
far, I don't see that you've done that. All you've done is spread what
is called "FUD" in the Defense Contracting business. You've cited no
actual instance of being endangered by the Cruise Industry.

"FUD" = "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt"


Gary

[E.k.R.]

You must not have read my post very carefully. I've more than outlined the
problem, it has to do with crew security and hiring practices. You asked,
has there been an "actual instance"? Thank God to my knowledge there has
not. Of course I don't consider that a reason to sit around and wait for
something to happen.

I guess that is the problem with the "Defense Contracting Business". Wait
until something terrible happens then decide that yes, there is a problem.
9/11 may have been prevented *if* the US took a more proactive role in
aviation security especially after the PanAm Lockerbee incident. Instead,
the usual "it can't happen here" mentality took over and now we are dealing
with issues that should have been addressed years ago.

I you think I'm spreading "FUD", then so be it. I'm a realist, and I call
them the way I see them.

I guess you would rather take a "wait and see" approach and deal with
situations after lives are lost.

Ernie


"Gary Rice" > wrote in message
om...
> > Without saying anymore, I think you can read between the lines. What is
the
> > solution?
>
> Before you look for a "solution", you need to identify a "problem". So
> far, I don't see that you've done that. All you've done is spread what
> is called "FUD" in the Defense Contracting business. You've cited no
> actual instance of being endangered by the Cruise Industry.
>
> "FUD" = "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt"
>
>
> Gary

[Bob Gow]

Look foward to that bazzar every December, we can usually get a few
interesting books thought we struck out last year. Hope to see you
there. The Crystal Symphony tour got sold out realuy fast so we
missed out on it. If you are going on the 26th, have a great time.

Meanwhile, we will be going back on the Millenium in October for the
transatlantic from Barcelona to Fort Lauderdale. Won't be quite as
nice as the one in 20000 from Genoa to New York but . . . Then
again, the Constellation will be going from Harwich to New York in
2004, so maybe. We do understand why you like transatlantic
crossings.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:24:56 GMT, (CupCaked)
wrote:

>I remember circling Newark Airport on our way in and not wanting to
>look out the window at what I knew I would see . . . or what I
>woul;dn't see any more. It was as if I didn't look, it wouldn't be
>true. What a whole weird trip that was.
>
>On another more cheerful note: 'Coming to the WSS (previously the
>Ocean Liner Museum) Holiday Bazaar this December, Bob? :-)
>
>Karen
>
>Bob Gow > wrote:
>
>>Karen, coming back only a few days later than you and Hans, we agree
>>thoroughly. It is not fun having to wait in line, but it beats being
>>ballast for a weapons system. And yes, British Airways did an
>>excellent job of getting us home. They lost a lot of buisness because
>>by the Friday after the Norway docked (9/21) the New York bound flight
>>was half filled. And, yes, seeing the pile where the WTC omce stood
>>really hurt.
>>
>>>Unless we want more airplanes used as building demolition material,
>>>>then we will need to put up with these "German Gestapo" tactics at airports.
>>>>Frankly I feel it is a small price to pay!
>>>
>>>I feel the same way. Having to fly home from Europe days after
>>>9-11-01, the only thing I wanted was a secure feeling when I got on
>>>that plane. BA out of Heathrow did an excellent job.
>>>
>>>All I ask is to be safe.
>>>
>>>Karen
>>>
>>> __ /7__/7__/7__
>>> \::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
>>>(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)
>>
>>Bob Gow
>>"Experience is what you get when
>> you expected something else."
>
>
> __ /7__/7__/7__
> \::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
>(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

Bob Gow
"Experience is what you get when
you expected something else."

[Gary Rice]

> I guess you would rather take a "wait and see" approach and deal with
> situations after lives are lost.

Actually, I believe in moderation - an appropriate response for the
situation.

I won't diminish the lives lost on 9/11 but when the next big
earthquake happens in California, the number of lives lost could be
100 times the loss in New York.

Yet I see nothing near the level of FUD associated with the next "big
one" as I do with our so-called Homeland Security activities.

AND I see no where near the number of $$$ being spent on earthquake
security as I do on various terrorist prevention things.

I grow very tired of hearing about the things that might be. SARS is a
perfect example of the FUD mentality. Shoot, more people die from
influenza every week than died of SARS in total. Yet we had a
world-wide panic about SARS. Why? Because it sells newspapers.

I could also win the lottery...



Gary

[Howard Garland]

Gary Rice wrote:

> Actually, I believe in moderation - an appropriate response for the
> situation.

> I grow very tired of hearing about the things that might be. SARS is a
> perfect example of the FUD mentality. Shoot, more people die from
> influenza every week than died of SARS in total. Yet we had a
> world-wide panic about SARS. Why? Because it sells newspapers.
>
> I could also win the lottery...

How right you are Gary. Have you seen "Bowling for Columbine" by
Michael Moore. It's really a brilliant film. One of the major themes
in the movie is that we (in the USA) have evolved into a culture that
thrives on fear. Both the media and the new executive branch of our
government deliberately expoit this sorry situation.

Just yesterday, I was trying to get some accurate weather information
because my son was flying from western North Carolina to Philadelphia.
I found it was not possible to learn anything useful from any of the
media, including the Weather Channel on cable TV. All they were
interested in doing was a video replay of some pier crashing into the
ocean off the outer banks of NC.

Howard - who has had as much as he can bear of orange alerts and
racially inflamatory descriptions of criminal suspects.

[Linsifer]

Did you mean to say "vulnerable", Ernie?


Ernie posted:

" This is certainly the largest venerability concerning cruise ships
today......... While I'm not trying to scare anyone, you can easily see cruise
ships are
still venerable. "

[Linsifer]

Oops. Before I came to Asya's correction, I also mentioned the word vulnerable.
Since venerable was used twice, I thought maybe you really did mean it. Sorry.
:(

Ernie wrote:

Asya,
I don't need a spelling or grammar lesson from you or anyone else. So my
spelling is not perfect, deal with it. It seems you understood perfectly
the points I was trying to get across.

Yes I meant "vulnerability", but thank you for pointing it out.