Another possible drowning - Disney Fantasy ******UPDATE

[mom2rtk]

How about this.

If a given person does not like to assume any degree of risk......... they not let their own kids swim during the hours there is no lifeguard on duty. No construction of fences needed, no extra expense required.

Nobody is going to make anyone let their kids swim without a lifeguard present. People are entitled to regulate the degree of risk they are comfortable with in their lives. But what I don't like is when they impose that on others.

I guess in an odd way, that makes it sort of similar to the recent 40 page discussion about older kids in the women's bathroom. As I recall, the bottom line on that thread was do whatever you want to mitigate risk in your own life, but quit imposing it on others (in that case by taking the older boy into the stall so others didn't have to be uncomfortable).

 

[Tiger926]

Late to this thread as busy Easter weekend, but just read through much of it.

As has been mentioned countless times, the pool areas are chaotic disasters waiting to happen: swimming, sliding, water play areas, recreational activities, parties, shows, Funnelvision, food stations and bartenders selling drinks. Where do lifeguards fit in? Nowhere.

Not only are the pools ridiculously small, but the areas are so crowded with a million other activities. We lasted seconds at the pools on the Fantasy, and we had had enough.

There absolutely is lack of parental supervision, crowd capacity and safety issues galore, so we removed our children. Actually, they took one look at the chaos and removed themselves. I went in pool with my very tall child and she said that she couldn't hear herself think due to the noise and craziness around her. Not a safe water situation at all.

With the set up the way it is, it is a huge amount of risk, which I am frankly surprised Disney allows, considering age restrictions and height restrictions at parks.

The entire pool area for us was a disaster waiting to happen and we didn't feel comfortable with the pools at all. The smallness and chaos of them drove us away and will continue to keep us away on every Disney Cruise, with their current set-up.

I hope the boy is doing better today, as is his family.

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[North of Mouse]

My DS first job was a lifeguard for Disney on WDW property. He worked 40 hours a week minimum and an 8 hour day. They are never a lone lifeguard. From my understanding of the story this was an extended family trip and relatives were in the pool with the boy and when the kid went under it was the cousin that pulled him up and the dad of the boy began the CPR.

My kids were competition swimmers and I'm all for parents keeping an eye on their kids as lifeguards are for emergencies however I cannot wrap my brain around Disney deciding not to have lifeguards posted during busy times at the family pool on the cruise ship. I realize it is posted but I can't agree that it is a grand idea. Lifeguards do so much more than watch for drowning guests, they maintain order, watch for stupid diving guests, guests tossing each other in the pool, standing on each others shoulders, you name it or it is a freak'n free for all in a main pool. Quiet pools, well that is a different debate.

You are getting two situations confused. This is the story about the boy drowning at the POP pool, not about the near drowning on the Fantasy.

 

[TwingleMum]

This is certainly tragic and I hope the boy gets better but to blame Disney is convenient. The parents are responsible for their child. Bottom line. If the parents weren't there they shoulder responsibility. I can't tell you how many times I see unattended children at the WDW pools. It dangerous and unfair. We are frequent WDW visitors and love swimming. I can't tell you how many times a lifeguard I know will be annoyed and point out a kid with no parent. The parents use them as babysitters. Lifeguards are not babysitters!! You wouldn't give a 9 yr old your car keys. They aren't old enough. Children aren't old enough to swim without an adult. I don't care how great your kid swims -- no adult no swim. Simple as that. I have an IGP. My 4 boys have been swimming since they are 2. We swim every weekend in the winter at the club. They are fish. They are not allowed to swim without my DH or I. They are not allowed near the pool without us. Lets face it u tell them wait 4 u and they promise but 1 push and horseplay leads to another and someone mysteriously gets in the pool. So no adult no swim rule ends tragedies. I investigate drownings and every year my stomach knots when I hear a 3 yr old in the bottom of pool call. Those families lives have been changed in an instant. there are no words to say. 90% of the time I hear "I took my eye off them for a minute" Heartbreaking. Yes ,pools are fun and kids love them but they are also dangerous with out proper parental supervision. Disney is not their parent and cannot be expected to be. Parents need to be responsible for their own children.
sorry about smiley on iPad & hit submit & smiley at same time.

 

[FlyingDumbo]

Yes either lifeguards on duty or the pool is closed. And certainly if they are not lit for night swimming they should be closed.

Once again this is my personal opinion. I dont think WDW is going to change how they are doing things bc of my opinion but I can still have one. I am a big proponent of personal responsibility but to me the risk is way to dangerous and people do not for one minute take those signs seriously enough.

And these same people will suddenly pay attention to the "pool closed" sign? Highly unlikely. Not Disney's fault if people ignore the signs.

 

[Mkrop]

I'm not trying to change your opinion - just trying to work out what, exactly, your opinion is. You said "I dont think the pools should be unattended EVER", I wasn't sure if you really meant was literally written (24-hour life guards) or if you meant that they should be closed when there are no life guards.

I am sorry if I wasnt clear....

my opinion is if the pool is open than lifegurads need to be on duty. If they do not want to have lifeguards than the pool is closed. If a guest is found in the pool after hours, and this is a rule set by the hotel, they can either fine the guest, or ask them to leave. This could be patroled by security or hotel personnel that walk around anyway.

question away about my opinion....I am ok with it.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Exactly. When something horrible like this happens, people try and think of ways to prevent it from happening again. Truth is, you can't prevent every accident from happening, no matter what steps you take to stop them. You could have 30 lifeguards at every pool and still have an accident.

At some point people need to stop thinking accidents can be prevented, and realize when a sign says Swim At Your Own Risk there really is a little risk involved. There is always risk when you are flinging yourself around in a body of water.

This.

I grew up on an island. Every kid I knew had swimming lessons at age 3. Every kid I knew had their boating license by age 13. Our parents trusted us to be as safe as we could be, but they knew they couldn't protect us from everything. I knew of 2 kids who drowned. One was a toddler who died in just several inches of water while his mother and grandmother were less than 10 feet away. Another kid fell through the ice while skating with his family. Never once did I ever hear of even a drowning scare happening when kids were off swimming or boating by themselves (which was very common). Having prepared and trained children does not prevent tragedy. Being there to watch your kid like a hawk does not prevent tragedy. Tragedy is tragic for a reason. These things just make tragedy somewhat less likely.

 

[Colleen27]

There are 3 pools on the Fantasy. Let's take a PP's estimate of 12 full time employees to cover each pool. I like that, it's 2 people per shift, plus a third to give them breaks, plus an extra shift to give people days off. So 36 people.

Now, let's assume they're paying minimum wage plus benefits. That brings us to about $10/hour, and let's double that to cover the room. So 36 people x $800 for a week's cruise. That's $28,800 for a week, or about $7 a passenger.

I would happily pay $14 more for my family of 2 to cruise knowing that there was an extra set of eyes on my kid in the pool, and that someone else would be enforcing rules about jumping and roughhousing, not for my kid, but for all the obnoxious people who seem to think the pool is just for them.

The cost of an employee is much higher than the actual wage paid- you're not taking into account the employer's contribution to social security or other costs like workman's comp, unemployment insurance, health insurance, etc.

I do agree, however, that it isn't as cost-prohibitive on the cruise line as it is at WDW. They very well might be able to ensure 24/7 coverage at the family pools with minimal additional costs to be passed along to passengers.

 

[Tiger926]

The cost of an employee is much higher than the actual wage paid- you're not taking into account the employer's contribution to social security or other costs like workman's comp, unemployment insurance, health insurance, etc.

I do agree, however, that it isn't as cost-prohibitive on the cruise line as it is at WDW. They very well might be able to ensure 24/7 coverage at the family pools with minimal additional costs to be passed along to passengers.

Honestly, since a Disney cruise costs way more than most other cruises, I am sure Disney can afford the lifeguards, at no additional cost to guests.

If it is about money for DCL, then that doesn't compute with me. If it's about liability, as being discussed, or because they don't have to, that is way more believable to me.

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[sam_gordon]

Honestly, since a Disney cruise costs way more than most other cruises, I am sure Disney can afford the lifeguards, at no additional cost to guests.

If it is about money for DCL, then that doesn't compute with me. If it's about liability, as being discussed, or because they don't have to, that is way more believable to me.

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

No company is going to bring in an added charge and not turn it around to their customers.

 

[sam_gordon]

I am sorry if I wasnt clear....

my opinion is if the pool is open than lifegurads need to be on duty. If they do not want to have lifeguards than the pool is closed. If a guest is found in the pool after hours, and this is a rule set by the hotel, they can either fine the guest, or ask them to leave. This could be patroled by security or hotel personnel that walk around anyway.

question away about my opinion....I am ok with it.

You know, it's these kinds of reactions that have resulted in "no tolerance" policies that everyone hates. One tragedy, that may not have been preventable in the first place, and everyone's screaming "we have to keep this from happening again!" I'm sorry people, but sometimes accidents happen.

How many people swim on the Fantasy (to say nothing about other pools) with no life guards and don't have a problem? But because there was ONE (ok, two if you include the drowning at POP) accident, now we need to have all kinds of added rules.

 

[Tiger926]

No company is going to bring in an added charge and not turn it around to their customers.

Why should it be an added cost? It should already be in place with a cruise that caters to kids. Especially one that charges a premium.

Disney Resorts are highly vigilant with lifeguards at resorts and water parks, so why different on cruise?

Another question: how are other cruises for pool lifeguards? We didn't swim much on our NCL cruise before kids, so we can't remember?

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[sam_gordon]

Why should it be an added cost? It should already be in place with a cruise that caters to kids. Especially one that charges a premium.

Disney Resorts are highly vigilant with lifeguards at resorts and water parks, so why different on cruise?

Another question: how are other cruises for pool lifeguards? We didn't swim much on our NCL cruise before kids, so we can't remember?

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

Um, it would be an added cost because you'll need to add the personnel to be lifeguards? Just because you think it should already be in place, you know it's not. So you KNOW the cruise line would have to add people to do it.

 

[Tiger926]

Um, it would be an added cost because you'll need to add the personnel to be lifeguards? Just because you think it should already be in place, you know it's not. So you KNOW the cruise line would have to add people to do it.

Well isn't that an obvious answer! You missed the point.

I don't believe that at all. They can dip into the areas of wastage on the ship and fund it that way: food, decorations, etc...

You also didn't answer my question regarding the difference between resorts and cruise in the lifeguard department?

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[NoSoup4U]

I agree.

No, the thrust of my argument has been too much blame has been placed on the parents when people don't know the situation.

And in contrast, too much blame has been on Disney for not having more life guards, more responsibility, etc.

Parents need to watch their own children. Theyre your kids afterall. Having a lifeguard present is great in case someone needs CPR thou.

 

[sam_gordon]

Well isn't that an obvious answer! You missed the point.

I don't believe that at all. They can dip into the areas of wastage on the ship and fund it that way: food, decorations, etc...

You also didn't answer my question regarding the difference between resorts and cruise in the lifeguard department?

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

Of course they could cut other areas to support the increased cost. But I don't see that happening.

And I didn't answer your question because I don't have an answer. If I had to guess, maybe it has something to do with pool size?

 

[Planogirl]

Someone previously asked about non-Disney hotels and many of them not ever having lifeguards and I saw no response to that. I don't recall any of the budget hotels having lifeguards and yet these tragic drownings seem to be very rare.

I agree that Disney doesn't need to have lifeguards at all times. Maybe close the pools to younger kids at a certain time and close the pools altogether when it's real late but lifeguards 24/7 at every pool is overkill IMO.

 

[Tiger926]

Of course they could cut other areas to support the increased cost. But I don't see that happening.

And I didn't answer your question because I don't have an answer. If I had to guess, maybe it has something to do with pool size?

Of course it won't happen, as Disney loves their profit margins. If they aren't required to, then I agree that they aren't going to provide it, unless the lawyers advise otherwise.

Someone previously asked about non-Disney hotels and many of them not ever having lifeguards and I saw no response to that. I don't recall any of the budget hotels having lifeguards and yet these tragic drownings seem to be very rare.

I agree that Disney doesn't need to have lifeguards at all times. Maybe close the pools to younger kids at a certain time and close the pools altogether when it's real late but lifeguards 24/7 at every pool is overkill IMO.

I also have wondered why they don't run the cruise pools like resort pools, with certain hours that lifeguards are in attendance?

Tiger

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards

 

[luvmy3]

Someone previously asked about non-Disney hotels and many of them not ever having lifeguards and I saw no response to that. I don't recall any of the budget hotels having lifeguards and yet these tragic drownings seem to be very rare.

I agree that Disney doesn't need to have lifeguards at all times. Maybe close the pools to younger kids at a certain time and close the pools altogether when it's real late but lifeguards 24/7 at every pool is overkill IMO.

Especially when every child in that pool has a parent or guardian that should be acting as their lifeguard.

 

[Colleen27]

You know, it's these kinds of reactions that have resulted in "no tolerance" policies that everyone hates. One tragedy, that may not have been preventable in the first place, and everyone's screaming "we have to keep this from happening again!" I'm sorry people, but sometimes accidents happen.

How many people swim on the Fantasy (to say nothing about other pools) with no life guards and don't have a problem? But because there was ONE (ok, two if you include the drowning at POP) accident, now we need to have all kinds of added rules.

As tragic as both these cases are, they only illustrate how rare problems are. Disney has swim-at-your-own-risk policies at most of their pools most of the time, with 25K+ rooms on property and average occupancy in the 85-90%. Some very rough math, based on weeklong stays and 2 guests per room, translates that into almost 2.5 million guests per year (and obviously accurate numbers would be higher). But the incident at Pop was the first I've heard of a drowning at an on-site resort. Googling turned up one other case, in 1987. That's a more than acceptable safety record by any objective standard, regardless of emotional "Any accident is too many" rhetoric.

The cruise line has a similar track record - fleet capacity of 13000, so if you assume weeklong cruises for ease of estimating, annual guest capacity of almost 700,000. And yet, this is the only incident I could find any record of regarding a drowning or near drowning onboard. It isn't as though there's a epidemic of unsafe swimming conditions or frequent problems that would justify a total overhaul of policies that both guests and the company seem satisfied with.