Going back to the Carnival Cruise thing, I never understood this...

[Ken Burch]

At one point, they sent another Carnival Cruise ship out with more food for the people stuck on the first ship. If they second ship could be brought out there anyway, why couldn't they just use THAT ship to take the passengers home on?

Why did they make those people stay on the damn boat until it got back to port? Did Carnival have something to lose by letting the ordeal end earlier?

Never heard an explanation for that.

If this was discussed in a thread, please just post a link. Thanks.

[NV Whino]

1. As I understand it...

Choppy seas made it very dangerous to transfer passengers. I had the same question.

[Bay Boy]

2. An explanation I heard was...

...the danger involved in the transferring of 3,000 from one pitching ship to another. I'm sure it was unpleasant to spend all that time on that powerless ship but it beats having someone fall into the ocean and possibly be crushed between 2 massive ships.

[freeplessinseattle]

4. Yes, I saw and interview with a lady who was transferred

due to a medical issue, and it was a very harrowing experience. It looked a lot trickier than you might think, and she almost backed out, afraid she was going to fall into the water.

[Paulie]

3. This wiki article speaks of underway replenishment

Moving people via basket. And it's scary enough for healthy sailors just moving fuel and supplies, let alone disabled passengers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underway_replenishment

[Posteritatis]

10. Or even perfectly healthy passengers (and cruise ship crews). (nt)

[KaryninMiami]

5. I'm thinking that second ship had passengers on board

I was actually on a ship during this incident but I believe the second cruise ship with provisions was filled with passengers. If that's the case, it's not legal to carry more on without life jackets and enough space for them. Plus the weather was terrible so moving that many passengers from one ship to the other works have been very dangerous.

Carnival knew in the big picture, the passengers on the Triumph were never really in danger once the fire went out. And though it was by no means terrific, they had food and drinks. Even though it was a nightmare for those on board, it really was the safest thing to do.. Must have sucked to have been there of course.

[Ken Burch]

6. If they had to be kept on board, why couldn't the ship be towed back?

Was there a reason it could only get to port under its own power?

[KaryninMiami]

7. Wasn't it half power half tow?

I'm not sure - but if the waves were rough it could have made tge towing too dangerous. But I thought it was a combination of both-although that may not have been the case till they were very nearby Mobile.

Trust me- if there was a way to get them off that ship faster and still stay safe-or a closer port with facilities (hotels, airlift, etc.) in a closer vacinity, things would have been different. They wanted those people off of that ship as soon as possible. Every hour added more press and more lawsuits.

[Ken Burch]

8. OK

I appreciate your comments.

Thanks for your responses here.

[Posteritatis]

9. A combination of sea conditions and cruise ships just not being built for that

You can only tow ships of that size (or even anywhere near that size) with either pretty specialized ships or ships that were built with that sort of thing in mind (like some warships). Hauling on those scales means the hauler has to be able to physically withstand the strain and have enough engine power to do so. A typical cruise liner isn't going to have that excess power, and they're (relatively) fragile ships to boot.

Add rough seas and you end up with a situation where it was more likely that you'd get two damaged ships, on top of whatever injuries occurred when the tow line (or the part of one of the ships it was attached to) gave way.