Passport question and carnival triumph

[Tiger926]

Agreed.
But even in this extremely rare situation, on a ship stranded in the middle of the Caribbean, passports STILL were not a necessity.

I have agreed multiple times in this thread that a passport is a good thing to have. What is "upsetting to me" is that people are so judgemental about those who don't have a passport.

Is that because Carnival knew so many people didn't have passports and chose an outcome (sailing to Mobile instead of Mexico), that made passports not necessary?

Judgment comes when people make decisions in a way that could bring difficulties to others all because they put their needs first.

Two scenarios:

A family chooses not to get passports and has a medical emergency in which they need to be evacuated to dropped off at nearest port, then they will deal with that consequence in a personal manner.

Hundreds of passengers don't buy passports and a shipwide emergency happens in which their lack of passports now cause thousands of others to be inconvenienced because of that, we now have problems. See the difference?

I love this argument. Can we say to people going to Disney "If you can afford to undertake such travel, you can afford to stay on property?"

Not the same thing at all . You staying at the Marriott outside of the main gates will not affect anyone else but yourself. There are no widespread safety issues that will affect other WDW guests, like what happened on the Triumph.

This is not the same argument whatsoever.

This whole discussion boils down to altruism and foresight. What is the effect of me not having a passport on others? If it just harms me or my family, that is my choice to take those consequences. Could it affect and hamper the safety of others in a largescale problem? Then my decision now becomes for the good of others, and we would all hope passports are purchased.

As we saw, that was not the case. If it is proven that lack of passports factored into Carnival's safety plan in going to Mobile instead of Mexico, that would be very interesting to see what happens...

Will safety rules change? Will passport rules change?

Tiger

 

[sam_gordon]

Is that because Carnival knew so many people didn't have passports and chose an outcome (sailing to Mobile instead of Mexico), that made passports not necessary?

Judgment comes when people make decisions in a way that could bring difficulties to others all because they put their needs first.

Two scenarios:

A family chooses not to get passports and has a medical emergency in which they need to be evacuated to dropped off at nearest port, then they will deal with that consequence in a personal manner.

Hundreds of passengers don't buy passports and a shipwide emergency happens in which their lack of passports now cause thousands of others to be inconvenienced because of that, we now have problems. See the difference?




Not the same thing at all . You staying at the Marriott outside of the main gates will not affect anyone else but yourself. There are no widespread safety issues that will affect other WDW guests, like what happened on the Triumph.

This is not the same argument whatsoever.

This whole discussion boils down to altruism and foresight. What is the effect of me not having a passport on others? If it just harms me or my family, that is my choice to take those consequences. Could it affect and hamper the safety of others in a largescale problem? Then my decision now becomes for the good of others, and we would all hope passports are purchased.

As we saw, that was not the case. If it is proven that lack of passports factored into Carnival's safety plan in going to Mobile instead of Mexico, that would be very interesting to see what happens...

Will safety rules change? Will passport rules change?

Tiger

But what has been stated numerous times, including on page 1 of this thread by numerous people, the main reason they brought the Triumph back to the US instead of Mexico was the tides...

1) The ship had drifted 90 miles north by the time the tugs got to it. That put it equidistant between the US & Mexico.
2) Towing the ship to the north (US) would be with the current (ie: easier & faster). Heading south (Mexico) would be against the current (ie: harder & slower).

I agree that if a if passenger not having a passport affects others, then it's needed. But when has that ever happened? If people are willing to accept the consequences of not having a passport, why not let them?

ETA: If a cruiseline or the government decides to require passports for cruise passengers, then fine. But until they are required, I don't see calling those without passports "fools" or "stupid".

 

[Tiger926]

But what has been stated numerous times, including on page 1 of this thread by numerous people, the main reason they brought the Triumph back to the US instead of Mexico was the tides...

1) The ship had drifted 90 miles north by the time the tugs got to it. That put it equidistant between the US & Mexico.
2) Towing the ship to the north (US) would be with the current (ie: easier & faster). Heading south (Mexico) would be against the current (ie: harder & slower).

I agree that if a if passenger not having a passport affects others, then it's needed. But when has that ever happened? If people are willing to accept the consequences of not having a passport, why not let them?

ETA: If a cruiseline or the government decides to require passports for cruise passengers, then fine. But until they are required, I don't see calling those without passports "fools" or "stupid".

Yup, and I said multiple times that IF it is proven that not having passports affected the outcome, then that is major.

We only know what Carnival is telling us, which could be a lie. I suspect more info will come out in the investigations and lawsuits, and if it is shown Carnival made right decision, that is great.

I happen to think it is foolish to not have a passport when leaving your country, as I am huge on safety. And I absolutely would always have passports for my children in that case.

I don't need a law to tell me what is best for me, so the absence of not requiring passports has no bearing on my decision to purchase passports.

Tiger

 

[Candleinthewind]

I look for the government to close the loop on "closed-loop" cruises not requiring a passport someday soon. Carnival was the one that lobbied the most for that exemption. Technically everyone without a passport on Carnival Triumph was in violation because the cruise was not closed loop, but exceptions were made to the law because of the extraordinary circumstances.

Travel insurance absolutely would have covered those passengers who wished to make alternative arrangements and not take what Carnival offered. I don't know anyone who would have sayd no to a hotel right there in Mobile and a flight out in the morning instead of a long bus ride to NOLA.

At the point at which the first tug arrived, they were not in equidistant between Progreso and Mobile. The fact that 900 people did not have passports, over 1/3 of the passengers, played a huge factor in the decision to tow to Mobile. The cost of chartering flights from Merida was far more than from Mobile as well as they would have incurred additional costs towing it to the closest drydock facility.

 

[allison443]

I will never understand why people get so worked up about other people choosing to not have a passport. There are some unusual circumstances in our case where it would be extremely difficult to get my 12 year old a passport but if I had a dollar for every passport lecture I've read on these boards I could probably pay for my upcoming cruise. (Don't worry, passport aren't required.)

Is your cruise going to a foreign country? If its "extremely difficult" to get a passport under normal circumstances, I don't think it would be any easier in an emergency situation would it?
This isn't a lecture-just find it interesting why people do the things they do.

 

[Acklander]

Yup, and I said multiple times that IF it is proven that not having passports affected the outcome, then that is major.

We only know what Carnival is telling us, which could be a lie. I suspect more info will come out in the investigations and lawsuits, and if it is shown Carnival made right decision, that is great.

I happen to think it is foolish to not have a passport when leaving your country, as I am huge on safety. And I absolutely would always have passports for my children in that case.

I don't need a law to tell me what is best for me, so the absence of not requiring passports has no bearing on my decision to purchase passports.

Tiger

Why would carnival lie about the passport issue??? It has no bearing on them and their business. I can see them lying about if the engine had damage before, or if the knew the boat was unsafe or a gazillion other things that might show they were liable for damages, but why would they chance losing credibility over something like passports?

 

[sam_gordon]

At the point at which the first tug arrived, they were not in equidistant between Progreso and Mobile. The fact that 900 people did not have passports, over 1/3 of the passengers, played a huge factor in the decision to tow to Mobile. The cost of chartering flights from Merida was far more than from Mobile as well as they would have incurred additional costs towing it to the closest drydock facility.

I haven't heard any of this. Do you have a link you can post? Well, obviously the chartered flights would cost more than busses for the passengers, but as far a lack of passports playing a huge factor?

Was the tide/current working against towing to Mexico?

 

[NHdisneylover]

ETA: If a cruiseline or the government decides to require passports for cruise passengers, then fine. But until they are required, I don't see calling those without passports "fools" or "stupid".

Well, I DO feel it is foolish and silly to only do something if it is required, if the thing in question is the smart and prudent thing to do.

I think people who ride motorcycles without helmets in states that have no helmet law, are foolish for doing so. I think people who eat fast food for every meal are foolish for doing so. I think people who travel to foreign countries without passports are foolish for doing so.

I don't think laws should be changed to protect people from their own foolishness in any of those cases (and many more)--but I can think someone is foolish even when they do not break laws.

 

[sam_gordon]

Well, I DO feel it is foolish and silly to only do something if it is required, if the thing in question is the smart and prudent thing to do.

I think people who ride motorcycles without helmets in states that have no helmet law, are foolish for doing so. I think people who eat fast food for every meal are foolish for doing so. I think people who travel to foreign countries without passports are foolish for doing so.

I don't think laws should be changed to protect people from their own foolishness in any of those cases (and many more)--but I can think someone is foolish even when they do not break laws.

Again, I think it's an issue with people not doing proper research (which is why I brought up Fast Passes). I would guess if any of those 900 without passports decide to cruise again, they'll have one the next time.

 

[Tiger926]

Why would carnival lie about the passport issue??? It has no bearing on them and their business. I can see them lying about if the engine had damage before, or if the knew the boat was unsafe or a gazillion other things that might show they were liable for damages, but why would they chance losing credibility over something like passports?

Maybe because of lawsuits and the sheer problems docking in Mexico would have caused for over the 900 without passports?

They are saying now that the non-passport guests did not factor into their decision, but none of us know if that is the real reason, which is why investigations are so important.

The situation was very serious, and required a top decision-making process in order to ensure the safety of thousands of people. Did they make the right decisions? Not sure as I am not the experts who will be determining if they followed proper protocol.

The bottom line is that they are the biggest cruise line in the world, and they have had 2 big disasters at sea over the past year; therefore, I wouldn't take anything they say at face value right now as the PR machine is in charge at this point. Lawsuits will surely follow and future cruisers need to be secured, so I am awaiting more info after the investigations are complete. In this respect, I would never expect them to admit that they pushed ahead to Mobile because of 900 non-passport guests.

Tiger

 

[declansdad]

I look for the government to close the loop on "closed-loop" cruises not requiring a passport someday soon. Carnival was the one that lobbied the most for that exemption. Technically everyone without a passport on Carnival Triumph was in violation because the cruise was not closed loop, but exceptions were made to the law because of the extraordinary circumstances.

Travel insurance absolutely would have covered those passengers who wished to make alternative arrangements and not take what Carnival offered. I don't know anyone who would have sayd no to a hotel right there in Mobile and a flight out in the morning instead of a long bus ride to NOLA.

At the point at which the first tug arrived, they were not in equidistant between Progreso and Mobile. The fact that 900 people did not have passports, over 1/3 of the passengers, played a huge factor in the decision to tow to Mobile. The cost of chartering flights from Merida was far more than from Mobile as well as they would have incurred additional costs towing it to the closest drydock facility.

I haven't heard any of this. Do you have a link you can post? Well, obviously the chartered flights would cost more than busses for the passengers, but as far a lack of passports playing a huge factor?

Was the tide/current working against towing to Mexico?

The currents were working against a tow to Mexico. It would have taken significantly longer to tow to Mexico from the point the Tugs reached the Triumph.

 

[Silly Little Pixie]

That's the problem these days. People have to be "required" (read: forced) to do things that are sensible. Nobody wants to be responsible for thinking on their own. Imagine the cries of RAGE if they had ended up towing the ship to Mexico and 900 people had to wait a couple/few more days before they could get home because THEY didn't have a passport. It would have been 47 more verses of "It's Carnival's fault, they didn't require me to have a passport".

Good grief!

Why should the government have to be responsible for getting you home when you chose not to take the standard steps for international travel?

Even when you think an emergency is unlikely to happen to you, it can. On our cruise last year, my FIL had a major accident the day before we left and was in critical condition. My MIL encouraged us to go ahead and leave as planned, knowing that we (or at least DH) could fly home from port in Mexico. We were able to keep in touch via email and we purchased an international plan to call. It was a huge relief for us to know that we had the ability to leave the cruise on days 3,4, and 5 if necessary. Having passports for all of us gave us huge piece of mind. If he would have taken a turn for the worse, waiting delays for the US embassy or consulate could have meant the difference between getting there before he passed or not.

Thankfully, he has recovered, but we were so glad to have the passports and trip insurance (although it wouldn't have applied in this circumstance).

 

[North of Mouse]

The currents were working against a tow to Mexico. It would have taken significantly longer to tow to Mexico from the point the Tugs reached the Triumph.

Not only longer, but without the stabilizers, very dangerous! They would have been towing against the wind flow. Don't think from what I read that *those not having passports* had *anything* to do with the best decision on where to tow. Also, the ship could be kept at Mobile for repairs.

 

[sam_gordon]

Why should the government have to be responsible for getting you home when you chose not to take the standard steps for international travel?

Where did anyone say the government would have been responsible for getting people home? CARNIVAL would have been responsible.

Now, those without passports might have had to jump through some hoops and the government may have made things easier or sped up the process, but I haven't seen anyone saying the government would take responsibility.

If someone wants to cruise without a passport, let them. If it turns out they need the passport for some reason and they don't have it, it's on them. It doesn't affect anyone else on board (aside from their traveling companions).

 

[Tiger926]

Where did anyone say the government would have been responsible for getting people home? CARNIVAL would have been responsible.

Now, those without passports might have had to jump through some hoops and the government may have made things easier or sped up the process, but I haven't seen anyone saying the government would take responsibility.

If someone wants to cruise without a passport, let them. If it turns out they need the passport for some reason and they don't have it, it's on them. It doesn't affect anyone else on board (aside from their traveling companions).

You really think Carnival would have left 900 people stranded?

I am Canadian, but I know our government has helped many travellers who were stranded in other countries. Not sure about your government though?

The bottom line is that 900 people without passports was I am sure a concern to them at some point. If not, why then even bother reporting or publicizing the number of people without passports? If it were truly a non-issue, than Carnival would not have even discussed that group in the first place as I am thinking the number of non-passport people would only be reported by Carnival. Buy maybe I am wrong, so someone with more knowledge of this topic can maybe weigh in.

Tiger

 

[ilovetexas]

Where did anyone say the government would have been responsible for getting people home? CARNIVAL would have been responsible.

Now, those without passports might have had to jump through some hoops and the government may have made things easier or sped up the process, but I haven't seen anyone saying the government would take responsibility.

If someone wants to cruise without a passport, let them. If it turns out they need the passport for some reason and they don't have it, it's on them. It doesn't affect anyone else on board (aside from their traveling companions).

That's all well and good except that CARNIVAL shouldn't have been responsible, either. They, and the US government were going to have to throw things into overdrive (not something bureaucrats are typically good at) in order to expedite emergency passports for 900 people. Carnival would have seen to it (was seeing to it before they decided to head north) since it was a problem with one of their ships.

That's a shame since all that logistical manpower could be used for other things if those 900 people had passports. Ultimately, it's a moot point since they ended up in Mobile.

 

[Tiger926]

That's all well and good except that CARNIVAL shouldn't have been responsible, either. They, and the US government were going to have to throw things into overdrive (not something bureaucrats are typically good at) in order to expedite emergency passports for 900 people. Carnival would have seen to it (was seeing to it before they decided to head north) since it was a problem with one of their ships.

That's a shame since all that logistical manpower could be used for other things if those 900 people had passports. Ultimately, it's a moot point since they ended up in Mobile.

Yes. That has been my point all along. They had their hands full, yet for sure they had to be mindful of the people without passports, since if they headed to Mexico, things would have been much different.

I greatly believe in foresight, and I have to believe they had a great amount of that as they were mapping out their rescue protocol. So it would be good business to know your audience, and in this case 900 people in their audience were not properly prepared for an emergency exit in Mexico.

Tiger

 

[sam_gordon]

You really think Carnival would have left 900 people stranded?

I am Canadian, but I know our government has helped many travellers who were stranded in other countries. Not sure about your government though?

The bottom line is that 900 people without passports was I am sure a concern to them at some point. If not, why then even bother reporting or publicizing the number of people without passports? If it were truly a non-issue, than Carnival would not have even discussed that group in the first place as I am thinking the number of non-passport people would only be reported by Carnival. Buy maybe I am wrong, so someone with more knowledge of this topic can maybe weigh in.

Tiger

That's all well and good except that CARNIVAL shouldn't have been responsible, either. They, and the US government were going to have to throw things into overdrive (not something bureaucrats are typically good at) in order to expedite emergency passports for 900 people. Carnival would have seen to it (was seeing to it before they decided to head north) since it was a problem with one of their ships.

That's a shame since all that logistical manpower could be used for other things if those 900 people had passports. Ultimately, it's a moot point since they ended up in Mobile.

OK, here's what I think would have happened if they had to disembark in Mexico.

There's multiple charter flights at the airport to get those who have passports back to the US.

Those without passports go to the US embassy. Hopefully Carnival has already talked to the embassy about either making arrangements for rushed passports (in which Carnival pays the fees) or some kind of exemption to not require passports for those passengers.

After however many days it takes to make arrangements, Carnival provides transportation to wherever the passengers need it.

Now, in an "ideal" world, those 900 people would be left on their own because it was their decision to not have a passport. But Carnival forced them into a situation where now one was needed.

As far as why Carnival said how many people didn't have passports? I'm guessing a reporter asked the question when it was originally announced they were going to disembark in Mexico.

The non-passports only became a non issue when the decision was made to bring the ship to Mobile.

 

[ilovetexas]

OK, here's what I think would have happened if they had to disembark in Mexico.

There's multiple charter flights at the airport to get those who have passports back to the US.

Those without passports go to their respective embassies. Hopefully Carnival has already talked to the embassies about either making arrangements for rushed passports (in which Carnival pays the fees) or some kind of exemption to not require passports for those passengers.

After however many days it takes to make arrangements, Carnival provides transportation to wherever the passengers need it.

Now, in an "ideal" world, those 900 people would be left on their own because it was their decision to not have a passport. But Carnival forced them into a situation where now one was needed.

As far as why Carnival said how many people didn't have passports? I'm guessing a reporter asked the question when it was originally announced they were going to disembark in Mexico.

The non-passports only became a non issue when the decision was made to bring the ship to Mobile.

Respective embassies? The cruise started and ended in Galveston; any passenger who wasn't a US citizen would already have a passport.

Silly Carnival, what were they thinking?

 

[sam_gordon]

Respective embassies? The cruise started and ended in Galveston; any passenger who wasn't a US citizen would already have a passport.

Silly Carnival, what were they thinking?

You're right. I corrected it.