What we Like about cruising today?

[Cruise_Princess]

Ok so I ramble on about the good old days every 5 minutes ( sign if getting older so they say!!) LOL

But...in this 21st century of being able to cruise at the drop of a hat...what is it that you like BETTER now than it was in the good old days???...dare I say it on QE2...is there any improvements for you ?

I suppose I have to say ( somewhat reluctantly of course!!)  the  passenger cabins...they are much more luxurious and fitted than QE2s were...they were aging towards the end though I have to say I loved them to bits...specially the portholes which I STILL WANT !!  But the en suite cabin bathrooms are lovely  on the new ships...and the beds of course!!  Obviously they are much better...but I would still want my wee deck 3 cabin on QE2!!   As nice as they are.... the new ships 'staterooms' as they call them are too quiet!!! and too far away from the sea!  But the air conditioning is much more efficient!

Incidentally....I see the new Queen is having plenty of drawers ...even UNDER the beds...but then where on earth do you store your suitcase?  On the ceiling?

[Twynkle]

'How the New Cruise Safety Bill Affects You'

This could be good for passengers
However, if the Crew are going to need to be trained as 'scene of crime' investigators, extra training could not only cost the companies (pax) more, might it also change relationships between them...

http://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/news/news.cfm?ID=4007

Thoughts of Cluedo also come to mind!!

[Tom]

This legislation is a step in the right direction, but I think there are still some very serious deficiencies in cruise ship security.  Perhaps someone can prove me wrong, but wouldn't it be ludicrously easy to hijack a cruise ship and cause some serious damage?

1. No weapons onboard.  Wouldn't you effectively hold the entire ship hostage with just a single gun?  Sure, most ships have LRAD's these days, but I think those would be fairly useless if the threat is already onboard.
2. I don't think you even need a bomb to cause death/destruction/mayhem.  I see a few possibilities off the top of my head:
   a. Mess with the ballasting system and send the ship on a sharp, high speed turn.  Sure to cause severe injuries at the very least, could possibly capsize vessels with bad metacentric heights at the very worst.  Seems like there's a news story every other month of people getting injured when ships make violent maneuvers in order to avoid obstacles.  Wouldn't that combined with some other small adjustments lead to some fairly catastrophic results?
   b. Chemical attack.  Norovirus isn't specific to cruise ships, but it thrives and spreads like wildfire in the confines of a cruise ship.  Just release a deadly virus and let it do the work for you.  Something fairly potent and fast acting could easily infect and kill hundreds within a matter of days.
   c. Set multiple fires onboard the ship.  I'm not talking about 2 or 3, but perhaps upwards of 10 or more starting at the same time.  Sure, the crew are regularly trained to combat fires at sea, but would they be able to cope with multiple different blazes throughout the ship at the same time?  A single fire was enough to cause millions in damage on the Star Princess years ago.  9 separate fires took down the great Queen Elizabeth, and she had the luck of being in a harbor with fire fighting services available.  Imagine what would happen if this were to happen in the middle of the ocean.

Makes you wonder why none of these nuts haven't tried something like this yet.

[Cruise_Princess]

We sailed on Ocean Countess recently much to our disadvantage!  No xray security check on boarding or at ANY port!!!  Beat that one.....

Scary or WHAT?

[Peter Mugridge]

Tom.... it's already been done unfortunately.  Achille Lauro...

[cunardqueen]

On the MSC Melody in 2005 the security was very tight at embarkation and . On my late night wonderings it was quite reassuring to see them (not that l was expecting anything to happen) on deck, always in pairs.
 Interestingly they were not in the ships uniform but they did have the walkie talki things on the sleeves and the ear pieces. Actually quite menacing and how l imagine the KGB would look.
But l couldnt take them seriously after l saw them in the short sleeved jackets, reminded me too much of Duncan (chase me) Norvelle



< broken image link removed>

I half expected when l met them on deck to be frisked and asked for my papers...

[Tom]

There's a fundamental difference with the Achille Lauro affair; the terrorist onboard were interested in holding the ship's passengers and crew hostage to bargain for the release of Palestinian prisoners.  These days, terrorist are less interested in holding people hostage and more interested in making statements through desperate acts of large scale violence.

The security checks, at least on the lines I've been on, have been incredibly lax.  Metal detectors are considerably weaker than their airport counterparts in most cases.  How qualified are these security people anyway?  Airports in the US, with all of their trained government agents, regularly fail to detect fake weapons during testing.  Even if they were as good as US federal security agents, it's still far from a guarantee that they'd be able to catch most dangerous materials/substances.

Sure, these days there are cameras everywhere on most ships and, on some lines, you can even find the occasional security guard roaming the decks late at night.  However, there are 100's of cameras to cycle through just a few monitors, only a few people dedicated to monitoring these cameras, if any at all, and guards can't be everywhere at once.  With adequate planning/observation it would be easy enough for a few guys to exploit this system just long enough for them to pull something off.  It only takes a matter of seconds.

[Isabelle Prondzynski]

All this security business is what I do not like about air travel today. If any of this constant checking and rechecking and watching and filming was extended to cruising and perhaps tightened even further, it would totally put me off. I am much more in favour of trusting my human companions and acting on my trust -- as we all do when we catch a bus, a metro or a train. Alternatively, if I felt I could not trust them, I would prefer to stay at home or take a walk in the woods.

The basic forms of security (having to show my card and having to put my bags through some sort of harmless x-ray machine) I am just about prepared to put up with.

Don't we all long for the days when we could invite our friends to see us off over afternoon tea on board, and when we could wander round the ship without being shooed off the quayside by security guards?

If we feared that anyone seriously evil wanted to harm a ship, the security precautions we would need to take, would be so invasive that the voyage would become a chore rather than a pleasure. There is a balance to be struck somewhere, after due assessment of the likely risk... which I would estimate to be quite low.

[Peter Mugridge]

Isabelle - there is already CCTV recording on just about every bus, metro car and railway carriage in this country; most of them have four cameras in every carriage.

You are right in that you don't have to go through the whole palaver like you do with air travel, and I agree that it is that hassle rather than the actual risk which is off-putting.  I also don't think that any measures would stop a really determined group anyway.

[Rob Lightbody]

The security stuff, that has robbed us all of our freedoms since 9-11, is all a load of nonsense.  All that can ever happen, is to "shut the stable door after the horse has bolted".  E.g. on 9-11 "they" surprised "us" by what they did and now airplanes have reinforced doors, air marshalls and we have stronger security at the gates in airports.  "They" probably couldn't do exactly the same thing again, but they could do something else.

In Glasgow, for instance, I have long thought about what a terrorist would do to bring the city to a complete standstill - and it wouldn't be too hard.

Alex Salmond, our first minister, had his finest hour after the attack on Glasgow Airport.  While the 24-hour news channels rolled, and while everybody over-reacted, he marched onto TV and DEMANDED that the airport re-open immediately.  Our economy was suffering not from the attack, but from the security put in place after it.  Before 9-11 I could drive upt o Glasgow airport and drop-off or pick-up a friend for free, quickly and easily.  Now?  I have to drive miles, pay for the privelege, it takes huge hassle and inconvenience and expense.  Why?  Just in case "they" again drive a car into the doors.  Personally, I'd rather retain our freedom and take my chances.