747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:15 am

With the recent Costa Concordia sinking, I sometimes think about, if the crew ( not the captain and some of his officers) did not do such a good job evacuating the ship, there could have been a high fatality rate on the Costa Concordia. Now Cruise ships, are in the top four largest type ships in the world, as a matter of fact, they are the second largest type of ships in the world. Now unlike tankers and container ships, cruise ships cargo is human lives, and the larger the ship, the more passengers it is likely to carry. Even though I would love to see a cruise ship that is larger than the Oasis of The Seas class, I wonder, have these cruise ships have become too large?
 
LGWflyer
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:38 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:18 am

I don't think they are too big, they just got to have the right experienced crew to sail them. I'd personally say these big cruise ships are as safe as flying and I would go one one tomorrow for a month if you gave me the chance.
3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4082
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:24 am

They are not to big, however the bigger cruiseships the more experienced and better trained captains and crew is required. Size of the ships does'nt matter, if the captain is not on the bridge or in other ways have sufficient command and focus of the ship the thing with Costa Concordia will happen no matter what size.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:50 am

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 2):
Size of the ships does'nt matter

I would disagree. A big ship has no real disadvantage in the immediate aftermath of an incident, same ratio of life boats, same ratio of staff, same level of redundancies etc. That's all been mandated through various governing bodies. The problem comes afterwards during the shore-based rescue operations.

Already the sinking of the Costa Concordia completely swamped the island with people. The vessel had three times as many people on board as the island has inhabitants. Local emergency services can barely cope with such numbers. Fortunately the Italian mainland is nearby and the local coast guard where well equiped and trained.

Imagine this had happened not near Italy but, for example, near one of the smaller islands in the carribean or the pacific? Or worse still, somewhere remote from land like the antarctic (remember the MS Explorer sinking in 2007)? You can't count on a navy or merchant vessel being nearby when the things go rough. And even if they are, you'd need a full carrier battle group to pick-up and house 4000+ people!
Attamottamotta!
 
photopilot
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:16 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:53 am

The simple fact is that cruising is becoming a very competitive market segment of worldwide travel. However people want more features on their ships, more hype, more entertainment, more recreational activities.... and all at the lowest price possible. Hence the birth of the big cruise liners where the fixed costs of running a ship are cheaper per passenger than the smaller ships. Lower fixed costs means cheaper fares and higher profits to the cruise lines.

And of course that's not counting the "mine is bigger than yours" attitude that seems to accompany everything in business.
 
LGWflyer
Posts: 2233
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:38 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:09 am

Another thing also is that US aircraft carriers carry more people than the biggest cruise ships. They carry something like 5000-6000 people (correct me if im wrong). Even though its not passenger ships, think how many people are onboard.
3 words... I Love Aviation!!!
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13401
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:41 am

Quoting photopilot (Reply 4):
Hence the birth of the big cruise liners where the fixed costs of running a ship are cheaper per passenger than the smaller ships. Lower fixed costs means cheaper fares and higher profits to the cruise lines.

  

And, not to mention, more opportunity for more ancillary revenue in the form of onboard gaming activity, alcohol sales, boutique dining, etc. That's where the cruise lines are making their money, not the actual cruise fare itself, and as long as the cruise industry continues to go this route, you'll see ships of 110,000 to 150,000 tons being "standard size" within 5 years.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
2707200X
Posts: 4764
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:31 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:55 am

I think the biggest problem with very large cruise ships is weather the harbors can accommodate the size and area it takes while on port. Cruise ships for their size have a relatively small draft. The Oasis of the Seas and Allure have a draft of 30 feet and at 230,000 tones that is quite small. A lot of container ships with less than half the mass of the Oasis or smaller cruise ships have a far deeper draft and are more prone to hitting underwater obstructions. What happened with the Costa Concordia was a case of human error and sheer neglect as can be said for the captain who allegedly tripped into the lifeboat and made his way to the island whilst telling his passengers not to get on the lifeboats.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7865
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:42 am

I hate to come out and make accusations before an investigation is concluded, but all safety precautions are worthless if you put someone like this "captain" in charge.

Small or big ship, it doesn't matter. In fact the industry's safety track record is still very very good.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9818
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:50 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
With the recent Costa Concordia sinking, I sometimes think about, if the crew ( not the captain and some of his officers) did not do such a good job evacuating the ship, there could have been a high fatality rate on the Costa Concordia. Now Cruise ships, are in the top four largest type ships in the world, as a matter of fact, they are the second largest type of ships in the world. Now unlike tankers and container ships, cruise ships cargo is human lives, and the larger the ship, the more passengers it is likely to carry. Even though I would love to see a cruise ship that is larger than the Oasis of The Seas class, I wonder, have these cruise ships have become too large?

The same argument was made when Jumbo jets started flying, like the 747.

The problem here is that the captain thought it would be a good idea to divert from his course, and basically do a flyby where the ship really did not need to be. It's as if the Pilot of an A380 decided that, before landing, he would buzz a friend's house at 50 feet. You might get away with it, but it's really not a good idea, and more importantly NOT NECESSARY. And just like with big jets, the culture with large ships must be, "don't screw around, get from Point A to Point B with the minimum of diversions and avoiding every hazard possible."
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:33 am

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 10):
The problem here is that the captain thought it would be a good idea to divert from his course, and basically do a flyby where the ship really did not need to be. It's as if the Pilot of an A380 decided that, before landing, he would buzz a friend's house at 50 feet. You might get away with it, but it's really not a good idea, and more importantly NOT NECESSARY. And just like with big jets, the culture with large ships must be, "don't screw around, get from Point A to Point B with the minimum of diversions and avoiding every hazard possible."

And, if you are going to screw around, at least have the common sense to be on the bridge when it's happening.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:16 am

It's a good question, but my main argument against the new mega sized pax ships is that they are ugly. They have no grace or beauty about them. They are like a 1000 foot building floating their side. I have seen a few in the Hudson river at or to/from docking and they just overwhelm. Some of them may be too big in close quarters to have enough margin of safety and if something goes wrong with the engines, control systems, electrical systems, or have a freak wave hit them, it is a much larger potential for disaster despite much better safety equipment.

I would also wonder about the long-term economic situation of so many mega-liners. We are seeing a shrinkage of incomes and increasing costs of living in the USA and Europe by many working and middle class people who have fed for years the growth in the cruise industry. Cruise companies will be caught in a squeeze of costs including fuel, labor and even the costs of financing and ships themselves, yet limited in the ability to raise fares or needing to keep the ships full of pax as break-even points.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13401
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:02 am

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):
It's a good question, but my main argument against the new mega sized pax ships is that they are ugly. They have no grace or beauty about them.



In your opinion. There are others - myself included - who find them visually appealing.

But regardless of either opinion, it's clear that very large cruise ships provide significant economies of scale to their operators and will therefore continue to be built for the forseeable future.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
EY460
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:25 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:13 am

I personally think that larger ships are safe. Cruise ships are divided into fire zone every 35 m, so larger ships have more fire zones (even 7 or 8). In case of a fire (the most likely emergency on board a ship) there is more structural protection. Larger ships are also safer in bad weather (it's not the first time that smaller ships had their navigation bridge window smashed in bad weather, with the consequence of losing propulsion/steering). Of course there is the problem of managing large crowd in case something goes wrong. The problem of large cruise ships cruising in remote areas (such as the Antartic Reason) is well known to the industry (the larger ships sailing there have similar size to the Costa Concordia). Up to know the issue has been resolved with a risk assessment and with additional safety measures but I'm sure something will change after the Costa accident.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:20 pm

The thing that concerns me as a casual and unqualified observer, about the mega cruis ships such as Oasis/Allure, is they seem under equipped in the life boat/raft department.

I am sure they meet the numbers required by SOLAS and other certifying authorities, it just seems to me that a vessel carrying 8000 or so people should have more than 14 very large life boats. I accept there seems to be a significant number of (large) inflatable rafts as well.

My concern is a small number of large boats/rafts is less desireable than a large number of smaller ones, an incident that disables a single boat leaves a much larger gap in the rescue capacity.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
EY460
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:25 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:57 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 19):
The thing that concerns me as a casual and unqualified observer, about the mega cruis ships such as Oasis/Allure, is they seem under equipped in the life boat/raft department.

I am sure they meet the numbers required by SOLAS and other certifying authorities, it just seems to me that a vessel carrying 8000 or so people should have more than 14 very large life boats. I accept there seems to be a significant number of (large) inflatable rafts as well.

My concern is a small number of large boats/rafts is less desireable than a large number of smaller ones, an incident that disables a single boat leaves a much larger gap in the rescue capacity.

I'll try to briefly explain the lifesaving requirements for passenger ships according to SOLAS:
- Every ship has a Passenger Ship Safety Certificate which states the maximum persons (pax + crewmwmbers) which is certified to carry:
- A ship must carry enough lifeboats on each side carrying at least 37.5% of the maximum capacity;
- The remaining 25% of the capacity can be accommodated on board inflatable life-rafts or MES (maritime evacuation system), larger life-rafts which can be boarded directly through chutes;
- Before the Allure/Oasis OTS, according to SOLAS the maximum capacity of a lifeboat was 150 persons. This rule was modified to allow larger boats on those two ships and on the following larger ships.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:21 pm

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 5):
Another thing also is that US aircraft carriers carry more people than the biggest cruise ships. They carry something like 5000-6000 people (correct me if im wrong). Even though its not passenger ships, think how many people are onboard.

But each and everyone is a soldier with a certain amount of discipline enforced by training and everybody has a role to play in an emergency. Each knows exactly what he has to do in an evacuation and has his emergency station.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:22 pm

Some cruise ships are probably too big to visit certain ports such as Venice:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/world/europe/15venice.html
I support the right to arm bears
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:47 pm

Quoting EY460 (Reply 15):
- Every ship has a Passenger Ship Safety Certificate which states the maximum persons (pax + crewmwmbers) which is certified to carry:

I had no doubt that Oasis/Allure met the mumerical requirements, it is just how they do it that I have doubts about.

Quoting EY460 (Reply 15):
- Before the Allure/Oasis OTS, according to SOLAS the maximum capacity of a lifeboat was 150 persons. This rule was modified to allow larger boats on those two ships and on the following larger ships.

Modifying safety rules to suit commercial interests is not a practice to make a habit of.
EY460 by your numbers, each of the 14 lifeboats on the Oasis/Allure would have a capacity of something like 430 persons, that is almost 3 times the capacity allowed previously and makes those lifeboats into sizable "ships" in their own right.

If just one or two of those craft are incapacitated there will be a lot of pax treading water!!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
EY460
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:25 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:18 am

Quoting stealthz (Reply 18):
EY460 by your numbers, each of the 14 lifeboats on the Oasis/Allure would have a capacity of something like 430 persons, that is almost 3 times the capacity allowed previously and makes those lifeboats into sizable "ships" in their own right.

The capacity of these boats is 370 persons. There is a short video on YouTube about these boats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn6N1B6SvMs

Quoting EY460 (Reply 15):
I'll try to briefly explain the lifesaving requirements for passenger ships according to SOLAS:
- Every ship has a Passenger Ship Safety Certificate which states the maximum persons (pax + crewmwmbers) which is certified to carry:
- A ship must carry enough lifeboats on each side carrying at least 37.5% of the maximum capacity;
- The remaining 25% of the capacity can be accommodated on board inflatable life-rafts or MES (maritime evacuation system), larger life-rafts which can be boarded directly through chutes;
- Before the Allure/Oasis OTS, according to SOLAS the maximum capacity of a lifeboat was 150 persons. This rule was modified to allow larger boats on those two ships and on the following larger ships.

I forgot to mention something extremely important in my previous post. Cruise ships must carry an additional 25% spare capacity on life rafts. This means that each ship must have at least 125% of her maximum capacity on lifeboats and life rafts, with at least 75% on lifeboats and the rest on liferafts.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8530
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:35 am

Not as long as they can navigate down the Ems River on their first journey.

Always a phantastic sight to see.

 
powered by Eierlikör
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:21 pm

Quoting EY460 (Reply 19):
The capacity of these boats is 370 persons.

EY, not disputing your (or Carnival's) math, my issue is concentrating such a large percentage of the pax /crew in such a small number of craft.

Not sure how many life rafts there are.. a brief study of photos shows something like 24 a side, let's say there are 50 to cater for 3976 people (6296 pax + 2165 crew = 8461 x 125%=10,576 subtract 6600 in 18x Life boats), almost 80 to a life raft... big rafts!!

When one looks at the failure rate of life boats, rafts etc in recent ship incidents I think the small number of (large) craft provided by the Oasis/Allure(and likely many other large ships) is likely to, as I said earlier, leave many treading water.

I believe the relatively ( I admit not completely) successful evacuation of the Concordia was in large part due to its proximity to land and the availability of competent rescue services, one shudders to think what might have happened if she was in a more remote location.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:57 pm

The thing is most of those "big" cruise ships operate in areas of high usage, namely the Caribbean. That's why Port Canaveral (very near the Kennedy Space Center) and the Port of Miami can accommodate these big ships. Cruise ships that ply the Mediterranean tend to be a bit smaller (in my opinion), probably due to size limitations at Mediterranean ports.
 
EY460
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:25 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:21 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 21):
Not sure how many life rafts there are.. a brief study of photos shows something like 24 a side, let's say there are 50 to cater for 3976 people (6296 pax + 2165 crew = 8461 x 125%=10,576 subtract 6600 in 18x Life boats), almost 80 to a life raft... big rafts!!

It depends. If the liferaft is davit launched, the largest raft I've seen could carry 35 persons. If the liferaft is connected to an MES they can be larger, up to 80/90 persons.
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9198
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sun Jan 22, 2012 2:45 pm

Many of these newly built cruise ships like the Oasis and Allure are way too big to suit my taste. The Queen Mary 2 is the Large size limit for me. The others are Xtra Large size and I have no desire to go sailing on them.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 9864
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:03 pm

Quoting EY460 (Reply 15):
- Before the Allure/Oasis OTS, according to SOLAS the maximum capacity of a lifeboat was 150 persons. This rule was modified to allow larger boats on those two ships and on the following larger ships.

I doubt we will see anything larger than an Oasis Class for a very long time, no other cruise ship operator has plans to match their size, even RCCL won't be building any larger vessels, their next class is a fair bit smaller.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 20):
Not as long as they can navigate down the Ems River on their first journey.

You won't see a vessel the size of an Oasis being built at Meyer Verf, the building dock is too small.

I rather like the proposed France 2, it's an innovative looking vessel. I hope it's built.

http://photo.parismatch.com/media/photos2/4.-photos-conso/voyages/france/2133399-1-fre-FR/France-paquebot-France-croisiere.jpg
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:49 pm

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 1):
I would go one one tomorrow for a month if you gave me the chance.

That is basically how we booked our 5 day cruise (also out of Rome) and I'm looking for another bargain.

Reality is those large ships are pretty nice to sail on IF you have a compatible pax base. Ours was Royal Caribbean and that worked very well for us. Plenty of room to avoid places not of concern to us, like the Casino.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 2):
however the bigger cruiseships the more experienced and better trained captains and crew is required

Even a smaller cruise ship needs to have professional officers and crew.

The DDG I sailed on wasn't that big, but we had outstanding officers. Our CO on the DDG had over 15 years before being given a command and the CO of the CG(N) had over 20. The Chicken of the Sea had, what, 10 years with the company, starting in "Security"?

Stronger requirements in both training and experience. My concern from this event is that it might have highlighted a rush to promote by MBAs who want to build ships faster than they can properly staffed.

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 3):
That's all been mandated through various governing bodies.

And maybe our governments can get together and improve standards. Not abnormal after a major accident in any industry.

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 3):
The problem comes afterwards during the shore-based rescue operations.

That was simply a blessing to have land so close to the ship when it had to be abandoned.

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 3):
Imagine this had happened not near Italy but, for example, near one of the smaller islands in the carribean or the pacific?

We sailed across the Pacific (both ways) for 3 WestPac deployments, including two R&R cruises to Australia. No land close enough to swim to most of the time. As for small islands in the ocean, most survivors would be happy for standing room only when floating in a lifeboat in the ocean.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 4):
Hence the birth of the big cruise liners where the fixed costs of running a ship are cheaper per passenger than the smaller ships. Lower fixed costs means cheaper fares and higher profits to the cruise lines.

But it doesn't mean you go cheap on the quality of the crew, the training end educational standards and experience requirements. Just like the training & experience to qualify for battleships were greater than the Tin Cans.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 14):
they seem under equipped in the life boat/raft department.

A lot of the rafts are there, but not obvious from the various pictures you see.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 16):
Each knows exactly what he has to do in an evacuation and has his emergency station.

In the Navy our emergencies were handled under General Quarters with Damage Control personnel handling the emergencies like a fire, and the rest of us staying at Battle Stations.

With a cruise ship emergencies need to be trained for just as vigorously. Crew members have the ability to learn multiple emergency functions and should be ready to assume which ever one is needed at the time. It is a different environment, but there is no need for the crew to be any less trained in emergencies - functions as well as over all procedures.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 24):
The Queen Mary 2 is the Large size limit for me.

I wasn't concerned about the size of the ship we went on - we had a comfortable room, a nice balcony to relax on and were able to stay in the parts of the ship we enjoyed. There were no drunks running around yelling, or too many kids that you can trip over.

Quoting EY460 (Reply 19):
There is a short video on YouTube about these boats.

That's pretty impressive when you get down to it and might become a standard in the future for smaller ships.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
I rather like the proposed France 2, it's an innovative looking vessel.

Interesting looking, but passengers want, and will pay for balconies. That's why you have the high walls on the current lines of the cruise ships.

I'll assume that there is something in the stacks. Public rooms, staterooms, etc. Both look like a 7 story hotel.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:15 am

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
unlike tankers and container ships, cruise ships cargo is human lives, and the larger the ship, the more passengers it is likely to carry.

For some reason, I've always taken a great interest in the Titanic disaster, and read an awful lot about it. Oddly enough, the maximum capacity of the 'Titanic' was 3,574 passengers and crew - almost as much as that of the 'Costa Concordia.' She was only carrying 2,201 'souls on board' on her last voyage - but that was just 'lack of demand,' rather than lack of capacity.

However, at that time, there was no official requirement for her to carry enough lifeboats for everyone on board. There was instead a set of regulations based more on tonnage etc. than on actual carrying capacity. As a result, on that trip the Titanic only had enough lifeboats aboard for about 60% of the people aboard; and even that was a lot more than the regulations required. Sadly, the ship had the 'capability' of carrying up to four lifeboats per davit-set, and could therefore have carried enough boats for everyone on board if the owners had been so inclined.

In the event, out of 2,201 passengers and crew, only 711 survived. But, as the accounts of the survivors show, the high deathrate does not appear to have resulted directly from a shortage of lifeboats, but rather from reluctance among the passengers to get into them. The Titanic's officers were unable to persuade a lot of people to forsake the huge ship (which was at first only a little 'down by the head' and climb into small boats way out in the Atlantic Ocean. One has to bear in mind that besides being advertised as the ultimate in luxury, the Titanic (being the 'last word' in safety, in terms of highly-efficient watertight compartments, a new thing at the time) was also popularly regarded as being 'unsinkable'........

The officers, of course, knew that (given that the iceberg had damaged far too many forward watertight compartments for the ship to remain afloat) they had limited time available to launch the boats before the ship sank. So they had no option but to 'lower away' boats that were often less than half-full, instructing the crews to stay close so that they could return to pick up survivors after the ship sank. In the event, they did a marvellous job in getting all the lifeboats away before the ship went down; but, of course, fishing out survivors on a pitchdark night was never going to be a practical proposition.

Another problem was that the traditional principle ('women and children first') was adhered to to the letter. As the link below shows, only 33% of First Class men survived, and the percentages were a great deal lower in Second and Third Class. So the officers were faced with the task of persuading the women to get into the lifeboats but insisting that they left their husbands (and even older sons) behind.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic

For me, therefore, the truly-astonishing thing about the 'Costa Concordia' sinking is the incredibly-low cost in lives. Particularly since, unlike the 'Titanic' (which sank by the head, with the hull, and therefore the boatdecks, remaining pretty well level for quite some time) this latest ship developed a very pronounced list quite early on. Full marks to the crew for 'getting it right.'

So my response to the question posed by the thread title is basically to thank God that ship design (particularly in terms of equipment, crew training, and passenger safety instruction) has come so far in the years following the Titanic disaster. As to the size of the ship, I wouldn't myself choose to travel on anything that size unless I had to - but that's more the result of a dislike of boarding any sort of 'big ship' if I have the option of travelling on something smaller. Certainly, there's appears to be no doubt at all, to my mind anyway, that 'safety at sea' (whatever the size of the vessel concerned) has progressed immeasurably since 1912.

[Edited 2012-01-22 19:17:45]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8530
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:43 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
You won't see a vessel the size of an Oasis being built at Meyer Verf, the building dock is too small

That's why I answered the question that way

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 25):
rather like the proposed France 2, it's an innovative looking vessel. I hope it's built.

looks like a Panzerkreuzer , or like a stealth ship. Good idea BTW, the rock's can't see the ship.
powered by Eierlikör
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Have Cruise Ships Become Too Big?

Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:28 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 24):
Many of these newly built cruise ships like the Oasis and Allure are way too big to suit my taste. The Queen Mary 2 is the Large size limit for me. The others are Xtra Large size and I have no desire to go sailing on them.

I agree. The QM2, while very big, carries a "small" number of passengers compared to her size. She is also commanded by some of the best officers of the whole Cruise ship eworld, mostly "home-grown" British traditionalist sea officers. No way to think those would risk anything or mis-behave in an emergency. Some time ago there was a (false) fire emergency on board. Passengers reported that within two minutes all restaurants and bars shut down and the crew joined the muster stations. Quite impressive.

The RCCL monsters are beyond the limit I would say with more than twice that number of people on board in a much less stable construction. While it might be not much more of a problem to evacuate its 6000 passengers than a 2000 pax ship it would present a much more difficult task for Coast Guards and other land-based helpers.

As for a nice cruise experience mid-size and large cruise ships (30.000 - 90.000 tons) with the QM2 as an outsized exception are anyway the best, not the XX-large ones which present themselves more like anonymous fun-parks with lots of extra-revenue-earning facilities rather than ships.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, jpetekyxmd80 and 14 guests