Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Disney Trip Planning Forums > The DIS Unplugged Podcast
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-19-2013, 11:28 AM   #16
Julylady
DIS Veteran
 
Julylady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: West side of the mitten
Posts: 986

Prior to the Disney Fantasy - Hurricane Sandy cruise, I would have said that Disney would always err on the side of caution, with guest experience being the bottom line when making these types of decisions. Sadly, I no longer believe that. I believe that both Carnival and Disney will make the decision that is most favorable to them financially. I think Carnival knew they had engine issues and took a chance that everything would be okay because they didn't want to cancel a cruise. Unfortunately, Disney took that same gamble with the Fantasy last fall.

I was on a Disney Magic cruise several years ago (2006?) that had engine issues. We ended up not leaving St. Thomas until a part and a person to install the part were flown in from Norway (I think). We finally were underway about 2:30am. Due to that delay, we missed Castaway Cay. People on the ship were furious and we ended up getting 1/2 off a future cruise. I personally was thrilled with that offer! My concern is that if that identical situation happened today, the Magic would have left St. Thomas and potentially had a problem while at sea. If that had occured, we would have been in the exact same situation as the Carnival ship.
Julylady is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 02:58 PM   #17
North of Mouse
DIS Veteran
 
North of Mouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by k5jmh View Post
...what provisions are in place? Do they have have back up electrical and drive power? Do they have contracts with 3rd party companies in place for the displacement of the passengers?

I would be curious to see how DCL would handle the same scenario.
From what I understand about the seas, etc. at that time, it would have been too dangerous to try to transfer the passengers, even if another ship had been sent. That would have been quite an endeavor.
North of Mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 03:29 PM   #18
darrengs
DIS Veteran
 
darrengs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 720

The IMO enacted a new guideline that all ships built on or after July 1, 2010 having a length of 120 meters or more or having three or more main vertical zone, must follow. The "Safe Return to Port", basically calls for ships to be able to "limp" back to port with basic functions due to redundancy.

http://www.gl-group.com/en/15494.php

So the Dream and Fantasy would be better suited in this situation then the Wonder and Magic.

Also as you can the Cruise Industry is not some type of rogue industry running around willy nilly "unregulated" as the media has been reported. Between the Coast guard, IMO and CDC, they are not "unregulated".
__________________
Darren

darrengs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 03:39 PM   #19
OKW Lover

Yes, we love Old Key West
Connoisseur of the fine things in life, and has the time to enjoy them (Just ask his wife)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 2 miles north of the Castle!
Posts: 20,819

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrengs View Post
The IMO enacted a new guideline that all ships built on or after July 1, 2010 having a length of 120 meters or more or having three or more main vertical zone, must follow. The "Safe Return to Port", basically calls for ships to be able to "limp" back to port with basic functions due to redundancy.
Interesting. Weren't the Dream/Fantasy already under construction at that point? Or at least had their design specifications finished? Do they fall under this new guideline?
__________________
OKW Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 04:15 PM   #20
JimmyV
Por favor manténganse alejado de las puertas.
 
JimmyV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,119

Quote:
Originally Posted by OKW Lover View Post
Interesting. Weren't the Dream/Fantasy already under construction at that point? Or at least had their design specifications finished? Do they fall under this new guideline?
I'm not positive, but I think that the redundancy requirements were written in 2006, to be fully implemented by July, 2010. That would mean that the newer Disney ships should have been built with full knowledge of the requirements. I don't know if that means that requirements were mandatory. But they were certainly known. It's hard to imagine a ship like the Fantasy beginning to sail in mid-2012 without adhering to two-year-old rules that had been passed 6 years earlier. But what do I know?
JimmyV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 10:29 PM   #21
darrengs
DIS Veteran
 
darrengs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 720

Quote:
Originally Posted by OKW Lover

Interesting. Weren't the Dream/Fantasy already under construction at that point? Or at least had their design specifications finished? Do they fall under this new guideline?
Good point, luckily my next cruise is on the Norwegian Breakaway, and it is being built with the second engine room with separate electrical.
__________________
Darren

darrengs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.