Splendor cruise ship fire - 3 reasons why you will lose if you sue

On 11/14/10 8:05 PM, Charles wrote:
In , Val Kraut
wrote:

O Good! - the Carnival image must be preserved - there are no operating
toilets, the place smells - but we're above serving Spam delivered at the
Taxpayers expense. I still think, as a taxpayer, they owe an apology.

I am not a Carnival fan but from everything I have read they handled
the fire well.

I'm not sure they handled the fire well. They seem to have lied to the
passengers when there was a lot of smoke coming out... they said it was
a smoke condition, not a fire. I think that's lying.

--Tom


How it happened and why the power could not be restored
needs to be investigated so it hopefully can be prevented from
happening again. Carnival apologized to the Splendor passengers for
what they went through. They thanked the Navy. Your attitude is a
little much.

On 11/14/10 8:40 PM, Jean O'Boyle wrote:
"Val wrote in message
...

" Carnival says the Spam was not ordered, it was substituted by a vendor.
All Carnival did was state that none was served to guests in response
to the media making a big deal about Spam being served to luxury cruise
ship passengers.

O Good! - the Carnival image must be preserved - there are no operating
toilets, the place smells - but we're above serving Spam delivered at the
Taxpayers expense. I still think, as a taxpayer, they owe an apology.


You are so very over the top in your criticism....it was an ACCIDENT for
heaven's sake.

I don't think we know that yet. It could also have been poor
maintenance, negligence or something else besides an "accident". We
need to let the NTSB get to the bottom of what happened.

--Tom

On 11/14/10 8:53 PM, Charles wrote:
In , Val Kraut
wrote:

No it's not a bit much - they were on the ropes and called for help and then
criticized what the help delivered because it didn't fit what they think
their image is - so next time help yourself. Make a nice T-Shirt - I'd
rather starve on Carnival than eat Spam!

They did not criticize what was delivered. The media made a big deal
about what was delivered. They only corrected the reports that
passengers were fed spam with the fact that they were not.

As far as Carnival's image. I have read dozens of first hand reports
from passengers who were onboard the Splendor during the incident and
pretty much they report that the response of the crew onboard was
awesome

There are other reports that said after the accident, the crew was
nowhere to be found much of the time.

--Tom

Tom K wrote:

I'm not sure they handled the fire well. They seem to have lied to
the passengers when there was a lot of smoke coming out... they said
it was a smoke condition, not a fire. I think that's lying.

--Tom

I don't think calling it a smoke condition is lying. And you don't want
to get on the PA and cause a panic.

--
Charles

On 11/14/2010 8:59 PM, Tom K wrote:
On 11/14/10 8:40 PM, Jean O'Boyle wrote:
"Val wrote in message
...

" Carnival says the Spam was not ordered, it was substituted by a
vendor.
All Carnival did was state that none was served to guests in response
to the media making a big deal about Spam being served to luxury cruise
ship passengers.

O Good! - the Carnival image must be preserved - there are no operating
toilets, the place smells - but we're above serving Spam delivered at
the
Taxpayers expense. I still think, as a taxpayer, they owe an apology.


You are so very over the top in your criticism....it was an ACCIDENT for
heaven's sake.

I don't think we know that yet. It could also have been poor
maintenance, negligence or something else besides an "accident". We need
to let the NTSB get to the bottom of what happened.

--Tom

Even if it was an "accident" It just seems exceedingly strange that
there was not sufficient backup or spare parts to keep the generation of
electricity at more than basic emergency levels.

I keep coming back to this question. Why was there such reliance on a
single generator?

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

In article , Tom K
wrote:

There are other reports that said after the accident, the crew was
nowhere to be found much of the time.

That is not what I have been reading.

--
Charles

On 11/14/10 10:46 PM, Charles wrote:
Tom wrote:

I'm not sure they handled the fire well. They seem to have lied to
the passengers when there was a lot of smoke coming out... they said
it was a smoke condition, not a fire. I think that's lying.

--Tom

I don't think calling it a smoke condition is lying. And you don't want
to get on the PA and cause a panic.


I believe they said "it was a smoke condition and not a fire"... not
that they played word games, and said "it was a samoke condition". They
said it wasn't a fire. To me, that's lying.

But since I wasn't there, it's only second hand info.

On 11/14/10 10:51 PM, Janet Wilder wrote:
On 11/14/2010 8:59 PM, Tom K wrote:
On 11/14/10 8:40 PM, Jean O'Boyle wrote:
"Val wrote in message
...

" Carnival says the Spam was not ordered, it was substituted by a
vendor.
All Carnival did was state that none was served to guests in response
to the media making a big deal about Spam being served to luxury
cruise
ship passengers.

O Good! - the Carnival image must be preserved - there are no operating
toilets, the place smells - but we're above serving Spam delivered at
the
Taxpayers expense. I still think, as a taxpayer, they owe an apology.


You are so very over the top in your criticism....it was an ACCIDENT for
heaven's sake.

I don't think we know that yet. It could also have been poor
maintenance, negligence or something else besides an "accident". We need
to let the NTSB get to the bottom of what happened.

--Tom

Even if it was an "accident" It just seems exceedingly strange that
there was not sufficient backup or spare parts to keep the generation of
electricity at more than basic emergency levels.

I keep coming back to this question. Why was there such reliance on a
single generator?


My other big question. Why didn't they go to the nearest land location
that had a pier? Why keep passenger extra days bringing them back to
California? It seems like they needlessly subjected the passengers to
horrible conditions for longer than they needed to.

--Tom

On 11/14/10 10:53 PM, Charles wrote:
In , Tom K
wrote:

There are other reports that said after the accident, the crew was
nowhere to be found much of the time.

That is not what I have been reading.


That was a report on the news.

On 11/14/2010 11:25 PM, Tom K wrote:
On 11/14/10 10:46 PM, Charles wrote:
Tom wrote:

I'm not sure they handled the fire well. They seem to have lied to
the passengers when there was a lot of smoke coming out... they said
it was a smoke condition, not a fire. I think that's lying.

--Tom

I don't think calling it a smoke condition is lying. And you don't want
to get on the PA and cause a panic.


I believe they said "it was a smoke condition and not a fire"... not
that they played word games, and said "it was a samoke condition". They
said it wasn't a fire. To me, that's lying.

But since I wasn't there, it's only second hand info.

Tom, why don't you take a look at the cruise director's blog? I think
his name is John Herald or something like that.lol I saw it on
facebook, but I think you could also find it on cruisecritic. It is very
interesting and tells you what was happening step by step, also his
thought process as he was making announcements to the passengers. If you
do read it, I would be interested in what you think of it. He has posted
part 1 through part 4 and there is more coming on monday.

sue