Printable View
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17183134Quote:
An Italian cruise ship with more than 1,000 people on board is without power in the Indian Ocean following a fire.
The Costa Allegra is adrift more than 200 miles southwest of the Seychelles, near Alphonse Island.
The ship is from the same fleet as the Costa Concordia, which capsized off the Italian coast in January, killing 32.
Yet more brilliant Italian boat handling.
When quoting the article it wouldn't of done any harm to add on the bit saying...
Because let's face it, that's the bit we're all interested in.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
Not really a travesty either. Costa Concordia sunk due to a very bad captain and lack of discipline amongst staff, many died. This has had engine problems and will be towed back to port and all will be okay, all the passengers are fine.
Absolutely awful publicity for Costa never the less (and the growing cruise industry in general), their image couldn't be much worse right now.
It was "Breaking news" when I posted it, they only recently added the extra information.
its good to know that no-one was hurt, butdefinitely bad publicity for costa
my granny is on that ship!!! thank god shes ok :OQuote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
^ Was she honestly? :O
Glad nobody was hurt :)
Costa is owned by Carnival who are the largest cruise company in the world. Carnival own 11 cruise brands with over 100 ships. This includes the Carnival Line, the Cunard Line, the Holland America Line, The P&O lines in both the UK and Australia and the Princess Line.
The fact that the Costa Line have had the most recent (well publicised) scenarios is a huge dent to cruising in general and especially the Carnival Company.
In the next few years I predict that the Costa Line will have to be re-branded by Carnival as this is denting their reputation as a whole, including all the other virtually unlinked cruise lines. At a time when the cruising industry needs to brand itself as a safe and relatively cheap way of holidaying Costa appear to be jeopardising this, whether it's down to outdated procedures which were designed for much smaller ships, or whether it's generally down to poor management by the Costa executives I'm sure Carnival will be doing as much as they can to overcome these issues that appear to the general public to be restricted to the Costa ships.
In essence, I believe that it's not an issue with Carnival, but within Costa. There should be no threat at this time for the rest of the company or indeed cruising in general, especially in light of the videos and scare stories that emerged from the Concordia when it capsized.
Terrible publicity for both the company concerned and the industry as a whole. Glad everyone on board were fine.
It'll blow over, airlines managed to after 9/11.
I went on a Carnival Cruise a few years ago. I think the ship was Freedom or some ****. It was by far the worst trip I've ever been on. I hate boats, like don't want to get on, don't want to go near the water just not my idea of fun. We hit rough seas about the 3rd night in, I threw up the entire time and for about the following day.
I won't be sailing after this.
gonna be honest i was never really a boat person before but all these horror stories of recent times are making me want to avoid boats forever.
I'm surprised you felt the rough seas on a ship of that size. May I ask where you were?Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric1
This is the exact view that the cruise companies need to change. I don't know how many ships there are owned by the major companies, at least 1000 with over 1000 passengers I would expect, therefore the odd incident is likely, but they are the ones that are going to impact on people's perception. I believe it's very much a fear of the unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Publicised
In my opinion cruises are the best way to see the sights of the world and to travel safely (not sure on figures, but I feel safer on cruise ships than planes and in many journeys cars)
Also the fact that a ship can have a fire and still be completely safe should be reassuring for people without cruising experience? Imagine a fire on a plane or even something like the London underground. Is that not how people see it?
I believe it goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheryl
1) Planes
2) Cruise Ship
3) Car
Planes are actually incredibly safe.
Im sure that's the way it goes in terms of crashes/journeys. How do people perceive the safety though, I'm sure most people feel safer in cars don't they, I was just wondering hitch way round people would perceive cruising and flyingQuote:
Originally Posted by Chippiewill
Most people assume cars to be the safest but they have a terrible safety record in comparison. Most people are scared of planes due to the bad press they get due to the high causality numbers in the rare event that a crash does happen, due to the high training of pilots they're pretty safe. Cars are normally only unsafe because of driver error e.g. Speeding, maintaining too small a space between vehicles, using mobile phone etc.
I reckon most would assume cruise ships to be pretty safe (Safer than flying in any case) because not much happens to them, problem is they tend to carry several thousand people so if something were to happen it could result in many casualties.
Indeed, but as with the bad press the Concordia got and the issues with the captain etc, I would assume people are more wary of cruise ships at the momentas there hasn't really been many plane crashes (in the news) recently.
Well most people understand them as exceptional circumstances:
a) Stupid, reckless Sea captain who got away with it due to negligence of the company
b) Engine failure is freak coincidence
c) Only Costa will take on an image of "unsafe"
If anything this has made cruise ships safer as captains won't take as many risks.
They're all fair points.
Do you think the image of Carnival will take a hit due to the Costa incidents?
Indeed, the Concordia incident was such a failing in safety. If (as the Captain said) the rock formation it ran aground on wasn't on their maps, why weren't they, did they have outdated maps or was it a failing in the mapping? If it was unknown why did they take that route, that they claimed they had taken before to do the sail by?