Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miami Heat Owner Micky Arison Takes in Game Amidst Carnival Cruise Nightmare
Bleacher Report ^ | 2/14/13 | Zach Buckley

Posted on 02/15/2013 3:59:35 AM PST by SoFloFreeper

Is there ever a bad time to see the defending champion Miami Heat in action? Not if you're Micky Arison, apparently.

(Excerpt) Read more at m.bleacherreport.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; cruise; media; nba
Arison is the CEO of Carnival Cruise Lines...he seems to also have the entire Florida media in his pocket....because he apparently is a liberal billionaire.

Remember what happened to the boss of BP when he went sailing? He was attacked viciously in the media....but apparently the guy who is the boss of LeBron James and Dwyane Wade can party without anyone raising a fuss. Meanwhile, people on his ship are being forced to relieve themselves in plastic bags.

Nice bias, media.

1 posted on 02/15/2013 3:59:53 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Perhaps someone with knowledge of maritime law could answer these questions: Why weren’t passengers removed from the ship? Why weren’t the lifeboats manned and the passengers removed? What stopped passengers from taking a lifeboat and leaving?


2 posted on 02/15/2013 4:07:21 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
I have no knowledge of maritime law, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I'll give it a try.

Why weren’t passengers removed from the ship?

How would you "remove" 4,200 people from a ship on the high seas? That's just about the same number as the crew of an aircraft carrier. Do you know how many ships you would need? Besides, the people were not in danger of dying, just being uncomfortable, so, why would you want to remove them?

Why weren’t the lifeboats manned and the passengers removed?

See above. They were in no immediate danger. Why would you move from a big ship in no danger of sinking to a little lifeboat?

What stopped passengers from taking a lifeboat and leaving?

A bit of common sense? See above.

3 posted on 02/15/2013 4:18:18 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

I don’t disagree with your analysis. My point was to point out the hypocrisy of the leftists in the press...choosing to publicly blast certain businessmen while NEVER DARING to criticize others....


4 posted on 02/15/2013 4:27:57 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
It is my understanding ships were connecting with this ship to bring food and supplies. If food could be transferred, why couldn't passengers?

Perhaps you don't consider living in raw sewage an immediate danger but I do.

5 posted on 02/15/2013 4:28:29 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Do you know how many ships you would need?

Yes, 1

Send another cruise ship out to meet the disabled ship.

Use the tenders to transfer the passengers.

A lot of ports of call do not have docks and the ships use the tenders (lifeboats) to transfer all the passenger (even disabled ones) to shore and then back again

Unless the seas were really rough this is not dangerous.

It would however be expensive as that means they would have to cancel a cruise while the rescue ship is being used.

This was not done simply because of the expense not because it is not doable.

No food, no water, no sanitation facilities, forced to sleep on deck in the weather goes beyound being a little uncomfortable. It is putting the passengers at risk.

Even if there are no lawsuits over this, the bad publicity will cost them millions.


6 posted on 02/15/2013 4:31:12 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN (California does not have a money problem, it has a spending problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6a-SSLc_Yj0&feature=relmfu

Seeing A pattern develop here. And don’t forget that Carnival owns Costa cruises as well


7 posted on 02/15/2013 4:54:12 AM PST by barmag25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

Maybe the supply ships were small and could only carry 50 to 100 passengers at a time. That would be 42 to 84 trips to get everybody off. Who goes first? Who decides who goes first? What if someone is injured or killed in the transfer at sea?


8 posted on 02/15/2013 5:06:18 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
I am not shilling for the cruise line. From what I know about it I would NEVER take a cruise. Ever.

That said, I would not want to be responsible for transferring 4200 people, of varying physical capabilities, at sea between two large ships, tenders or no tenders.

And, yes, Carnival would not take another ship off a cruise to onload these passengers because of cost.

9 posted on 02/15/2013 5:10:40 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
I don't think any deaths will result from this.

That said, I also think that the cruise lines treat their passengers like cattle. Their goal is to get them home alive. Food poisoning and engine failure are part of the deal, at times. I would NEVER take a cruise and put myself at the mercy of these guys.

10 posted on 02/15/2013 5:17:14 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I think the omnipotence of the cruise is about to end soon, they have gotten too big, the safety of the passengers is getting worse every year, and the people are nothing but herds of cattle to these cruise ships owners.

The cruise ships are too big, too many passengers to evacuate, too many people to take care of. There should be limits to keep emergencies manageable.

Also is the legal problems of a foreign registry, it allows them to skirt many US laws.


11 posted on 02/15/2013 5:50:47 AM PST by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
Transferring 4,000 passengers at sea would virtually guarantee a dozen drownings.
The cruise ship arrived at port. No fatalities.
12 posted on 02/15/2013 5:52:14 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

My wife and I have been on four cruises - three with Norwegian and one with Princess. All have been good. It takes a day or so - for me - to get in the proper mindset. Most of the crew are from third world countries - Philippines, Romania, Jamica - and get paid very little. They rely on tips and if you tip them just a couple bucks per day, they will fall over themselves to help you out. I had good times on all four cruises. My wife and I was just on a Norwegian cruise in January and it was the first time we saw a show every night. Good food, good acts, good service. My only complaint would be the other passengers. Most of them treat the crew like crap and then complain about the crew.


13 posted on 02/15/2013 5:56:50 AM PST by 7thson (I've got a seat at the big conference table! I'm gonna paint my logo on it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

Not to mention that if they do lose power their stabilizers go out and every one of these floating bricks is top heavy and unstable. They are not like the luxury liners of the past era.


14 posted on 02/15/2013 6:29:23 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

How about this: the government encouraging COMPETITION in the cruise industry? That might make the product better.

Frankly, I have never heard of someone bitching about how they were treated poorly on a DISNEY cruise, either.

So someone knows how to do it right.


15 posted on 02/15/2013 7:18:47 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I hope he’s sued into oblivion, and he has to sell off the Heat.


16 posted on 02/15/2013 7:21:34 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN; neverdem; SunkenCiv; tioga; secret garden; CPOSharky

Come on!

Think of the speed and actual logistics!

First, to transfer 4200 people in the middle of the ocean is VERY, VERY dangerous! Even in WWII, offloading Marines and Army troops already trained and in very good shape from ships to shore small boats was done in GOOD weather and low seas and was done only off-shore islands and beaches in “sheltered” waters. NEVER in mid-ocean.

Small boats are endangered (and their passengers threatened) by boat movement and tossing - and their “passengers” even more! - by the simple dangers of getting across the open gap between boat and tender. Now, add to that the open water transit, then the second small boat/tender-to-second ship walk-across-water threat? Stupid to try it once. Even worse to try it twice.

And, moving people (few very fit and atheletic!) means NONE will have luggage and clothes and personal gear like toiletries and udnerwear and the like when on the second ship! So now you need to provide all of that to the off-loaded passengers for the days between the “rescue” and when they can be re-united with their stuff once the first ship gets to port. And, the logistics nightmare of re-uniting everybody with their stuff, getting everybody back through customs, and the re-off-loading of the 4200 people and their luggage?

All of the above assumes there actually is a 4200 passenger ship available to “go to the rescue” of the ship. That that supposed 4200 capacity ship can get fuel, load food (from what? source), and then leave whereever it is now ported to get to the ship at sea.

Ships are relatively slow: 4-5 hours to get down the river or out of port, 24 to 48 hours to get to the ship that needs rescue. All that just to put the people in more danger in the open sea?

Would you have the passenger leave the ship and get in open boats and sit un-covered for hours (days?) with no protection against local storms or winds and waves in lifeboats? If you think an un-air conditioned SHIP with no toilets and no heat is “uncomfortable” try an open boat with NOTHING and no toilets and no food and no bedrooms and no privacy and no kitchens and no heat and no bathrooms and no seats and no tables and no walls and no fresh clothes and no dry clothes and no beds ......

Just a bench and a VERY uncomfortable lifejacket worn for hours and hours.

The passengers were very uncomfortable - that is beyond dispute. BUT they were not in “danger” unless and until you put them in the tenders or lifeboats to move them someplace else - IF you can get that other passenger ship out to sea and out to the first ship at all. They are uncomfortable - unless you put them in lifeboats or tenders. And, then, yo put them in very grave danger for no benefit. And much harm and discomfort as you try to sort out the problems later.


17 posted on 02/15/2013 8:55:29 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
It could have been done:

From Carnival FAQ:

At certain ports of call, small boats known as” tenders” are used to transport passengers from the ship to shore. Certain tenders may not be accessible to individuals using wheelchairs or mobility scooters, or the status of the tendering process at a particular port under certain weather, sea, swell, current and/or tide conditions may prove difficult for a safe transfer to take place. In each case, it will be the decision of the ship officials to determine, based on their evaluation of safety issues for our guests and crew, whether or not a guest using a wheelchair may board a tender. In order to safely board tenders, guests must be able to take steps and use a collapsible, fold up wheelchair; motorized wheelchairs and mobility scooters cannot be taken on tenders. *Note—Tendering ports are: Cabo San Lucas, Catalina California, Catalina Island Dominican Republic, Cannes France, Belize, Half Moon Cay Bahamas, Grand Cayman, Zihuatanejo-Ixtapa (Mexico), Kona (Hawaii), Lahaina (Hawaii), Newport Rhode Island, Sitka (Alaska) Moorea (Tahiti), Polynesia, Bora Bora (Tahiti), Polynesia, and Suva, Fiji Islands. Possible Tender: Cozumel, Ketchikan Alaska, Dubrovnik Croatia, Katakolon Greece

18 posted on 02/15/2013 9:05:19 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

I’ve been on two cruises and everything was great. I had the time of my life.

I’ve heard horror stories about food poisoning and illnesses but they’re few and far between.


19 posted on 02/15/2013 12:51:52 PM PST by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Causing trouble since 1976)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson