Can the Cruise Industry survive ?

[Art]

Originally Posted by AlaskaProf

Curious about this airplane. Biggest Lear I'm familiar with carries 9 (and I think one of them has to sit on the toilet) plus crew.


I do agree with your aversion to crowded spaces; I gave up big-ship cruises after dodging a norovirus in 2007.

I simply saw Lear's out the window... didn't pay attention to make of jet we were on. My son set it up...

https://fly.setjet.com/general-landi...SAAEgLa2fD_BwE

[Benthic2]

Originally Posted by Insequent

You missed a couple of things: first they can and do catch fire from time to time
https://www.9news.com.au/national/cr...1-f4d9ea7c5ec3


Second, as I go past them on leaving the Port of Brisbane I notice they probably have 10-12 lifeboats each side. With 3000-5000 pax + crew that is not going to be enough if abandon ship is required!

Contained in the article you linked to: "Nobody was injured as a result of the fire" There are lots of reasons to avoid a cruise but fear of death or injury in a fire is NOT one of them. They are built with fire resistant materials, staffed with hundreds of people trained in fire safety, have fire hoses throughout the ship, sprinklers everywhere, and have hourly watches checking every area of the ship. You are at a MUCH greater risk of fire in a residential building.

As for lifeboat capacity, all cruise ships follow the Safetly Of Life At Sea Convention which mandates that there is enough life boat/raft capacity for 125% of the ships occupants, however I do not recall the last time a cruise ship deployed life boats. It was probably the Costa Concordia, which was due to human error, which can happen in any mode of travel. ( You stated 10-12 lifeboats on each side...11 lifeboats per side could hold 3,300 people ) According to Forbes, you are almost 1 million times less likely to die in a cruise ship than an automobile*.

There are a lot of reasons not to go on a cruise. Safety is not one of them.

*https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe...h=4258bf631475

[Art]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

Contained in the article you linked to: "Nobody was injured as a result of the fire" There are lots of reasons to avoid a cruise but fear of death or injury in a fire is NOT one of them. They are built with fire resistant materials, staffed with hundreds of people trained in fire safety, have fire hoses throughout the ship, sprinklers everywhere, and have hourly watches checking every area of the ship. You are at a MUCH greater risk of fire in a residential building.

As for lifeboat capacity, all cruise ships follow the Safetly Of Life At Sea Convention which mandates that there is enough life boat/raft capacity for 125% of the ships occupants, however I do not recall the last time a cruise ship deployed life boats. It was probably the Costa Concordia, which was due to human error, which can happen in any mode of travel. ( You stated 10-12 lifeboats on each side...11 lifeboats per side could hold 3,300 people ) According to Forbes, you are almost 1 million times less likely to die in a cruise ship than an automobile*.

There are a lot of reasons not to go on a cruise. Safety is not one of them.

*https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe...h=4258bf631475

Aboard ship, I walked under and near the life-boats. Also saw plenty used as transports to other cruise liners when the liner had no room at dock. Most on ship we were aboard were twin screw and looked to be built like a tank. Whether single or twin screw the props and shaft were well protected. Superstructure design looked suited to withstand storms... if needed!

[Insequent]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

Contained in the article you linked to: "Nobody was injured as a result of the fire" There are lots of reasons to avoid a cruise but fear of death or injury in a fire is NOT one of them. They are built with fire resistant materials, staffed with hundreds of people trained in fire safety, have fire hoses throughout the ship, sprinklers everywhere, and have hourly watches checking every area of the ship. You are at a MUCH greater risk of fire in a residential building.

As for lifeboat capacity, all cruise ships follow the Safetly Of Life At Sea Convention which mandates that there is enough life boat/raft capacity for 125% of the ships occupants, however I do not recall the last time a cruise ship deployed life boats. It was probably the Costa Concordia, which was due to human error, which can happen in any mode of travel. ( You stated 10-12 lifeboats on each side...11 lifeboats per side could hold 3,300 people ) According to Forbes, you are almost 1 million times less likely to die in a cruise ship than an automobile*.

There are a lot of reasons not to go on a cruise. Safety is not one of them.

*https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe...h=4258bf631475

A quick search found a few cruise fires, mostly in ER. Nobody died that I'm aware of, but being stranded at sea for a period is not appealing.

Here is a pic of one of the ships I went past recently, Quantum of the Seas. Apparently it has capacity of 4,905 pax and 1,500 crew. No idea of lifeboat capacity, but I noticed that there was not that many of them! So, it must have quite a large bunch of rafts stored somewhere to be compliant. If they are the self-inflating types presumably they inflate once in the water? Getting a several thousand people into them would be challenging, and take time. Would they load the yellow ones, lower and transfer then lift yellow boat back up for more? Just curious.

[BruceK]

"Lifeboats" are regularly launched to visit places the ship cannot dock. They look maintained no frills pieces of equipment, built like a brick dunny. Whether there are enough, no idea. Over the years pre departure emergency familiarization drills have been downgraded, in 2014 if you didn`t attend the lifeboat station for a lecture you got put ashore, now it`s a box ticking exercise in your cabin.
I try to put out of mind how top heavy they look. In fairness, I`ve been on one with large seas beam on which I thought would be a problem, but there was almost zero roll, due to stabilization, ballast, etc.
Covid and other diseases are the main peril for now.Plus ignoring concerns communicated. Whatever you do, do not watch the 6 episode TV series "Wreck". Not about a sinking, it`s about bad things behind the facade, with crew and "management". You might need a sick-bag but it`s not for the motion of the ship.

[Benthic2]

Liferaft capacity used to be limited to 150 people. About 5 (?) years ago the SOLAS rules made exceptions for some advanced lifeboats that could carry up to 370 people on 2 levels. The were specifically designed for RCL's Quantum/Allure/Oasis of the Seas ships.

I used to regularly conduct practice lifeboat drills with passengers and on a bright sunny day in perfect conditions it was difficult to maintain order for the 10 minute drill. I am not sure if crisis conditions would make the group more, or less manageable. I can't imagine a boat with double the capacity. ( The boats I was familiar with had a capacity of 150)

I was just looking on google and saw that there are some inflatable lifeboats that hold 530 people !!! ( link below ) The boats are launched, inlfated, and then people climb/slide down a corrugated tube to board them. I don't see that working on a ship where the average age is 65+!!!.

I understand evacuation for a slow sinking or a fire, but if conditions are so bad that your 900 foot vessel couldn't handle it, do you really want to climb into a 40 foot one ?? The people would end up like the balls in a lottery machine!

The good thing is that all of this is practically moot. Ships don't sink, and Captains have a lot of choices before issuing an "abandon ship" order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1IgDOU_KKY

[BruceK]

The Australian Border Force, skilled in repelling waterborne arrivals from Asia, India, Sri Lanka,etc, used to keep a string of those orange lifeboats. If they found a vessel, usually decrepit, heading our way, they would load its complement onto one, with just enough fuel and directions to reach Malaysia or wherever else, and send them on their way. No reports one ever sank, unlike some of the original vessels which were usually end of life, even before setting out.

[Benthic2]

Can you imagine being on this lifeboat for this launch ?? ( 50 sec video )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9AmvrTeoXU

[Insequent]

Holy cow, 370 people! These things are 16.7m x 5.6m, a lot bigger than they looked as I went past. Water & food for everyone for a week. Thoughtfully has WC on board, but just one! Presumably they have decent ventilation/airflow as well.

Maybe the inflatables with chutes are primarily for the crew?

https://www.core77.com/posts/97868/W...icture-Them-As

[Insequent]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

Can you imagine being on this lifeboat for this launch ?? ( 50 sec video )

Yes, saw that video not so long ago. Launch angle too steep? Empty and therefore lacking mass & momentum to submarine for a bit on entering the water? Can't say I'd be rushing to participate in a drill....

[Art]

Originally Posted by Insequent

Yes, saw that video not so long ago. Launch angle too steep? Empty and therefore lacking mass & momentum to submarine for a bit on entering the water? Can't say I'd be rushing to
participate in a drill....

I can say: I will not... be on a drill!

[guy with a boat]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

According to Forbes, you are almost 1 million times less likely to die in a cruise ship than an automobile*.

There are a lot of reasons not to go on a cruise. Safety is not one of them.

*https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe...h=4258bf631475

That just might be an imperfect use of statistics. You are one million times more likely to die in a car crash than while climbing Mount Everest. That doesn’t mean high-altitude mountain climbing is safer than driving a car. It just means the time humans spend in cars is a few million times greater than the time spent on cruise ships or climbing Mt Everest.

Cruise ships are a mass of humanity in a confined space crossing oceans and depending on a huge variety of machinery and equipment working properly. To deny that it involves some additional level of risks beyond ordinary life is unrealistic. That doesn’t mean don’t go, but suggesting there are no safety concerns is a bit of a reach for me.

[BruceK]

Pax probably dead from multiple severe impacts but, on the positive side, demonstrably self righting.

[Benthic2]

I did not mean to change this into a theoretical discussion of Cruise Ship problems. The Fact is there are millions of miles of cruise ship travel every year without any fire or lifeboat problems. Debating the minutia is counter productive.

If you go on a cruise you will not need your lifeboat.

[Benthic2]

Originally Posted by guy with a boat

Cruise ships are a mass of humanity in a confined space crossing oceans and depending on a huge variety of machinery and equipment working properly. To deny that it involves some additional level of risks beyond ordinary life is unrealistic. That doesn’t mean don’t go, but suggesting there are no safety concerns is a bit of a reach for me.

Of course there are risks. Every time you walk outside you assume the risk of falling airplane parts or meteorites.

Every decision we make is a risk/reward evaluation. Considering the risks of driving the "X" miles to work, should we go to work or stay home ?

Just getting out of bed every day assumes a certain level of risk. Taking a cruise is a lower risk than driving to work, swimming in your pool, taking an airline flight. If you want to avoid all risk, be a bubble boy.....the rest of us are willing to assume a risk/reward tradeoff that is more reasonable.

[Hippocampus]

Risk is a hard term to grasp. Epidemiologists use various terminology. Absolute risk, relative risk, attributable risk among others. When comparing risk numbers it’s important to be comparing risk of the same type.

Personally not much worried about SOLAS violations on cruise ships. Nor sinking or fire. Believe even the Italian ship that ran aground didn’t result in multiple deaths.

BTW staying in bed incurs risk as well. The chronic bedridden are subject to a multiplicity of ills and woes from just staying in bed. Here the relative risk would be of interest.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

...Believe even the Italian ship that ran aground didn’t result in multiple deaths...

I agree with your conclusions, but to be a bit pedantic, with regards to the Costa Concordia:

Although a six-hour rescue effort brought most of the passengers ashore, 33 people died: 27 passengers, five crew, and later, a member of the salvage team.

And, to be honest, people do die on cruise ships, just as they die in resort hotels and everywhere else. But by any measure, travel by cruise ship is safer than most other forms of travel.

[guy with a boat]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

Taking a cruise is a lower risk than driving to work, swimming in your pool, taking an airline flight.

You have to know that is not true, which was the point of my earlier post.

Life involves risk and no one said stay home. I just prefer not to sugar-coat the level of risk with badly interpreted statistics. Your opinion is apparently different.

Please carry on.

[Cold Duck]

What do they say, 75% of all accidents happen within 5 miles of home? So, logic tells you not to stay close to home LOL. I got friends who will wear masks for the rest of their lives. Life is risky, hell the only thing more risky than being on a boat in the ocean is being in a small airplane over the ocean. If you are on this forum you are already a "calculated risk taker". Friend just got back yesterday from a Disney cruise to Mexico, ship packed, no one reported with Covid. The original premise of cruise ship industry survival? Yes, it will rebuild. there are things you can do on a cruise you can't do on your own boat (well most of us won't do on our own boat). Visiting Antarctica, cruising down the Amazon, visiting the south pacific Islands, just enjoying getting up with your coffee and watching the sunrise over a beautiful ocean. I am not a cruise line advocate, if it works for you do it. I am looking at a one-way cruise from Hawaii back to the mainland in Apr/May. Cost is about the same as a First Class ticket on the plane but you get 2 weeks of pampering, visit all the Hawaiian Islands (we have our favorite activities for each Island) and drop by Alaska to boot. It's a no brainer to take the "long way home". Oh yes, no way you can get the flavor of some exotic place by stopping for 10 hours and taking a tour. You need to live off the economy to really get the flavor. Minimum of 30 days. Most people just don't have that time. I was lucky the company paid for my visits and even some of those living in the Hilton or equivalent is not living off the economy. You need to shop at the Mercado, hire locals to work for you and more to get the flavor of any place. Cruise ships are the next best thing for millions of people. They will survive.

[Benthic2]

Originally Posted by guy with a boat

You have to know that is not true,
Please carry on.

No...I really don't. I think you are safer on a cruise ship than in your car, house, or office building. This is not hyperbole or exageration. The vast majority of cruise ship deaths are from falling over board. If you have ever been on a cruise ship you would know you have to try really hard to fall overboard. No one does it accidentally or without gross stupidity.