More trouble for Carnival Cruises

Carnival cruise ship stuck at port

The quick and dirty: A Carnival ship got stuck at a port in St. Maarten due to generator trouble and people had to be flown back home. The passengers were refunded an amount equal to three days' worth of travel and were given half off a future cruise.

My question...between this and the previous situation where a ship had to be towed back to port, is ANYONE going want to take a Carnival cruise anymore?

My question: Given that cruise ships are specifically designed to make sure you have as little to do with actually being on water as possible, why not take a trip to any number of vacation destinations on land and save yourself a shitload of money while enjoying the same luxuries?

I know, right?

Personally, I just don't get the cruise thing. I get more than enough water-based travel enjoyment just from a 3-hour river cruise out of Hudson, WI.

Quote :

take a trip to any number of vacation destinations on land and save yourself a shitload of money while enjoying the same luxuries?

Because that is impossible???? I mean, you could drive to a place for cheaper, but it would be driving to a place which is not really as comfortable or relaxing, is it? You could maybe take a train, but it would still not be as nice unless you sprung for some sort of extra fancy train car which would not be any cheaper. And even an expensive first class flight is not going to give you the same shit as a cruise liner, no even close.

Srsly, what method of travel gives you the same luxuries for cheaper? Shit, what other method period will give you pool access as you travel?

The cruise isn't the means of travel, it's the destination.

Go to Vegas, get the same results.

I would think that this would be more of the reason why people wouldn't want to go on cruises anymore.

Aggie wrote:

I would think that this would be more of the reason why people wouldn't want to go on cruises anymore.

Really, if this didn't turn fucking idiots off of boats, nothing will.

Penguin wrote:

The cruise isn't the means of travel, it's the destination.

Go to Vegas, get the same results.

All the people I know who do cruises do it half for the cruise and half for the neat shit they get to see on the other side.

Also I am p sure Vegas is actually more expensive than most cruises.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Penguin wrote:

The cruise isn't the means of travel, it's the destination.

Go to Vegas, get the same results.

All the people I know who do cruises do it half for the cruise and half for the neat shit they get to see on the other side.

Also I am p sure Vegas is actually more expensive than most cruises.

Depends on where and when. I went to Vegas for a friend's wedding a couple of years ago and got a room for $21 (and no, the place didn't rent by the hour). It was Circus Circus in midweek in May, aka the off-season for families with kids.

Because trains and cars and airplanes never have accidents!

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

All the people I know who do cruises do it half for the cruise and half for the neat shit they get to see on the other side.

Well I know a legion of people who've had cruise ships rammed up their butts. What say you?

Lady Anne wrote:

Depends on where and when. I went to Vegas for a friend's wedding a couple of years ago and got a room for $21 (and no, the place didn't rent by the hour). It was Circus Circus in midweek in May, aka the off-season for families with kids.

We are talking equivilent luxury though, if it is not at cruise-ship level then it does not count.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Depends on where and when. I went to Vegas for a friend's wedding a couple of years ago and got a room for $21 (and no, the place didn't rent by the hour). It was Circus Circus in midweek in May, aka the off-season for families with kids.

We are talking equivilent luxury though, if it is not at cruise-ship level then it does not count.

Except, that's the thing.

On your typical big oceangoing cruise, you are basically stuffing yourself and your family in a tiny, shitty hotel room (unless you pay top dollar) for the duration of the cruise. During said cruise, you occasionally go outside, while everything is designed to direct you inward, towards the bars, restaurants, shops, shows, and especially casinos, while the very ship itself is built to hardly move with the ocean to prevent seasickness. Occasionally, you go outside and might sun yourself for an ocean view that, unless you live in flyover country, you could've had for the cost of gas and a cheapass hotel on the coast.

There is nothing about cruise liners that has anything to do with cruising the seas, besides being a massive mall that swallows up and disgorges consumers on preordained businesses. The ship may as well never leave port and have TVs set up over the portholes and windows showing different locations to the passengers.

And don't get me started on the environmental destruction

Penguin wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Depends on where and when. I went to Vegas for a friend's wedding a couple of years ago and got a room for $21 (and no, the place didn't rent by the hour). It was Circus Circus in midweek in May, aka the off-season for families with kids.

We are talking equivilent luxury though, if it is not at cruise-ship level then it does not count.

Except, that's the thing.

On your typical big oceangoing cruise, you are basically stuffing yourself and your family in a tiny, shitty hotel room (unless you pay top dollar) for the duration of the cruise. During said cruise, you occasionally go outside, while everything is designed to direct you inward, towards the bars, restaurants, shops, shows, and especially casinos, while the very ship itself is built to hardly move with the ocean to prevent seasickness. Occasionally, you go outside and might sun yourself for an ocean view that, unless you live in flyover country, you could've had for the cost of gas and a cheapass hotel on the coast.

There is nothing about cruise liners that has anything to do with cruising the seas, besides being a massive mall that swallows up and disgorges consumers on preordained businesses. The ship may as well never leave port and have TVs set up over the portholes and windows showing different locations to the passengers.

And don't get me started on the environmental destruction

Not to mention all the germs you pick up from being stuffed in a can for several days/weeks. The ships aren't berthed long enough to truly clean and sterilize everything, so chances are quite high that you're going to get sick.

Lady Anne wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Penguin wrote:

The cruise isn't the means of travel, it's the destination.

Go to Vegas, get the same results.

All the people I know who do cruises do it half for the cruise and half for the neat shit they get to see on the other side.

Also I am p sure Vegas is actually more expensive than most cruises.

Depends on where and when. I went to Vegas for a friend's wedding a couple of years ago and got a room for $21 (and no, the place didn't rent by the hour). It was Circus Circus in midweek in May, aka the off-season for families with kids.

And if you become a member at one of the casinos, they offer promotions. Like become a member, get your free play, then use the points you earn to stay for a week at 4 Queens or whatever for like, $20 a night. There's a lot of member-exclusive crap you can get, and next year they'll want your business again, and give you mailers for discounts. Don't even have to gamble all that much.

I've known people to get the fancy hotel rooms, but most of them are fairly cheap if you know how to work it. The point of Vegas is to do crazy shit, with the hotel room as a spot to crash. Plane tickets to/from Vegas aren't that much depending where in the country you are. Stock your fridge with cheapy snacks, and set out and about. Easy.

I went on a Carnival cruise ship. I didn't get sick, the ship was comfortable and clean, with excellent food and I got to see Venice, Corcula, Delphi, the Corinth canal, Athens, Rhodes, Crete, Santorini, the Corinth canal again and back up to Venice in under a fortnight. Never went near the casinos.

Just sayin'.

Cruises sound really cool but I gotta admit with all the news about ships wrecking and/or malfunctioning, even if it's some sort of fluke, makes my fear of being in the wide open ocean worse. Like, I know most are safe but it's just they kindasorta scare the crap outta me. It's always been like that. Maybe one would be fun, someday, but in the meantime, Vegas it is.

Or NYC but really, Vegas is cheaper

Must have been cool to see all those sights however
Gahhh, but it seems terrifying at the same time!

Pardon my irrationality

Well, I would think twice about crossing an ocean, maybe, but we didn't get far from land. And it wasn't the open ocean that did for the Titanic, it was a damn great iceberg. Wasn't really the open sea that did for the Costa Concordia either, it was the land.

The worst cruise I ever went on was on the Uganda. A 'school ship' that had classrooms. We went from Athens to Rhodes, to Alexandria, to Italy, and home from Naples. Eight days of pure hell. Stuck with a hundred others on metal palettes in a room under the waterline, (so no windows). Six toilets and eight sinks for us all. No showers or baths. The food was totally inedible and although we were told September in the Med was cool, but not cold, it was bloody freezing! I must be one of the few people in the world to see the Pyramids of Cairo in the pouring rain!

We were never allowed on any of the decks as they were reserved for 'paying' passengers. We did pay, through the nose for this 'educational' trip. When we did sneak upstairs we found our teachers, who had gone for free, had lovely cabins with portholes and en suite bathrooms. My ex went on the Uganda a few years before me and hated it. When my cousin went one person in her room got Chicken Pox, so the whole lot of them were quarantined for the entire cruise. Didn't see a thing and didn't get any money back.

Most memorable part of my trip was the two day jaunt from Alexandria to Italy. In a force nine gale. Boat heaving, people throwing up left, right and centre. It was lovely. When the Uganda went as a hospital vessel to the Falklands and thenceafter was scrapped, I remember the news saying many kids who'd been on it would be sad.

Just no. Good riddance.

But the Carnival trip was cool, although the original date we were supposed to go the boat snagged it's propeller. We were offered an upgrade a year later for half price, so we took it. So, to reply to the OP, GamesmasterAnthony, yeah, if a cruise was free, I'd take a Carnival ship. I've been on a bus trip from Brussels to Switzerland, (via Luxembourg and France). Then done Lucerne before heading down to Italy to visit Florence, Rome, Naples, Pompei, Capri, Assisi and Venice, before coming back via Austria, Germany, France, Luxembourg, France again and home.

You have to get up every day and have your case outside by dawn. A new room every night and packing and unpacking to do. Cruises are a lot less hassle. Besides, we went to and came back from France on a cross-Channel ferry, despite the European Gateway, The Herald of Free Enterprise and the Estonia. Went around europe on a bus, and buses crash. You take the chance, ya know?

TL:DR Yeah. Delphi and Santorini were breathtaking.

Disco Stu, I don't remember what's the name for the phenomenon but obviously the probability of events which are underreported tends to be underestimated.
For one of these:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
you get hundreds, probably thousands of these:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You're three times as likely to die in a road accident while getting to the pier than you are when on the ship. Hopefully that helps put things in perspective...
I hate cruise ships for a dozen reasons, but intrinsic lack of safety is not one of them.

It's just the whole exotic-ness of the thing. Not sensical nor statistical or really logical by any means... you know?

Disco Stu wrote:

It's just the whole exotic-ness of the thing. Not sensical nor statistical or really logical by any means... you know?

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to offer some help.
I have claustrophobia, in my current job I'm sometimes required to enter some really tight places, and needed to get over the thing or give up some career opportunities, so I analysed my problem. I was able to pinpoint the origin of my phobia to a famous incident, and to acknowledge that it had no resemblance to the situations I would eventually face.
I'll never be fond of waterboxes or pipes, but sense and logic were useful in reducing my dislike of them to a manageable level.
[/memememe]