Costa Concordia

I'm curious what other lines you recommend...as someone who has been on seven cruises on four lines, and has and will still look seriously at Costa.

As a quick shortcut, you can look at where the line registers its ships. Any line operating American- or British-registered vessels you can trust to have an exceedingly well-trained crew (the joke is that your waiter can steer the ship in an emergency). Unfortunately, as is usually the case when one country has stricter regulations than another, all the major players no longer register their ships in America or the U.K. Even the historically state-subsidized Cunard line recently switched its ships to Bermuda registry. Cunard remains a very safe line (Queen Mary 2 is their flagship now), despite also being a Carnival company, due to a persistent corporate mentality that takes safety seriously, but I can't promise how long that will last.

My second choice would be to sail on ships of Dutch, German or French registry. Their regulations are a good balance of safe and practical, and lines that aren't actively trying to cut corners don't generally hesitate to register there. Unfortunately, since -- you guessed it -- Carnival purchased Princess Cruises, even these registries are vanishing. (Princess is another one that's holding on to its corporate culture of safety, mostly because the captains that were hired when they were independent refuse to cut corners, but, again, I worry about their future.)

The various Caribbean nations are very popular ports of registry for a number of reasons, mostly due to lower costs. Ships registered in the Bahamas and Bermuda are moderately regulated, and enforcement can be a bit spotty, but realistically if you're taking a cruise you'll be most likely taking it on a ship flying one of these flags. A line that places safety first can operate under a Caribbean flag perfectly safely, though you need to research the individual line's safety record to know for sure.

Italy and Greece are very popular ports of registry with companies that actively want to skimp on safety. Ships operating under these two flags are notoriously unsafe. Many old ships that are no longer legally seaworthy elsewhere "retire" to Italy and Greece and, lo and behold, continue carrying passengers around the Mediterranean (and elsewhere). Greek and Italian crews are infamous for lacking a common language and lacking discipline (and in every accident I can recall on a Greek or Italian vessel, the captain abandoned ship before the passengers were fully off -- in one case before anyone was even informed that there was an emergency). Of course, any line can choose to operate at a higher standard of safety than the government lets you get away with, but be very, very skeptical of ships flying either of these flags.

From a safety standpoint, I, personally, would not hesitate to sail with Royal Caribbean International, Disney Cruise Line, or on many of the various small or local cruise lines. All these have other problems, of course, (being royally expensive, having ships designed by the hotels division rather than the themed entertainment division, and the risk of imminent financial meltdown and/or buyout by Carnival, for example), but they're historically safe, which is the most important thing. I, personally, would love to sail on one of Royal Caribbean's new Oasis-class ships, just to see what a floating city actually feels like...

I would agree with you on the Greek registered ships, certainly. And you may be entirely correct from a safety standpoint, but it would mean I'd never sail again, and I don't want to do that to myself...because I know better than to get on a Disney ship, as I don't want to cruise with children.

I'm very fond of Holland America, but only their smaller ships, which gently discourage children on board. Likewise, Seaborne, who to the best of my knowledge don't accept passengers under 18. I like a smaller ship with formal dining as many nights as possible, that's why I go on cruises.

My Princess experience involved far too many cockroaches and far too much seawater entering my cabin unexpectedly to ever consider them again...and Princess didn't care in the least bit. I have my doubts about their attention to safety since they did not consider it a problem that we had roaches, and when they finally moved us to another cabin, the window had a crack clear across it which allowed seawater to pour in during storms, and several nights we wondered if the window would hold up. We later learned that they had moved us because the previous occupant of that cabin had chosen to leave the ship at the second port because of the window issue.

Both Seaborne and HA had mandatory guest drills before we left port and over my 50+ days at sea with HA, I observed many crew drills, including actual lowering of lifeboats. I never once felt unsafe on a HA ship.

I'm disappointed to hear that about Princess. Other folks I've talked to have all been very happy with their Princess experiences. I'm not surprised, of course, but disappointed.

As dsmoen points out below, ships sailing U.S. waters are subject to US Coast Guard regulations, and therefore are probably safer than their counterparts that only sail foreign waters, so if you're going to take a cruise on a Carnival company, sailing out of L.A./San Pedro or Florida probably makes you a lot safer.

Also, dsmoen's thoughts on cruising has some excellent tips about how you can be safer even on a less-safe ship. I especially like her point about considering what you're wearing, as I've recently been reading some Titanic survivor's accounts and came across one in which a survivor almost didn't make it off the ship because the dress she was wearing made it too difficult to get into the lifeboat. She was only saved because a crewmember took a toy pig she had promised her mother she would always keep on her and threw it into the lifeboat, prompting her to instinctively leap head-first into the boat after it. Once the people in the boat had hold of her arms, they yanked her the rest of the way over the rail (over her screams of protest, one would imagine), and she settled into the boat with an undignified thunk, unable for quite some time to maneuver herself onto one of the benches.

I almost replied before, but I balked since you have a lot more experience with cruises than I do, and I didn't want to sound too ethnicist in bashing the Italians (who don't deserve it -- the trains and subway systems were all great in my experience).

But I do have a little particular experience. My wife and I sailed on the Costa Concordia in 2009 on more or less the same route. Our only other cruise experience was on Celebrity (part of Royal Carribean). The difference was significant, and played into the stereotypes of the Italian. Things happen on Italian time, rather than the clock. No one explains anything, or lets you know about changes ahead of time (or if they do, it's a phone call at 3 AM. Grrr.). On Celebrity, I'm sure if anything was more than five minutes late, someone would be there to tell you in five languages what the hold-up was and when it would be fixed. Some of the Costa staff were somewhat apathetic about serving you (whereas on Celebrity, I actually found the amount of aggressive and fawning service unpleasant - I want a medium between the two). I never felt unsafe, but I would venture to guess that the lack of shipshapeness in their guest relations also affected their safety protocols.

But your comment about children was what prompted me to post after all. On Costa Concordia, although there were pools dedicated for adults only, none of the staff enforced this rule, and thus it was not a rule at all.

Also, a lot of people have talked about the safety drill happening within 24 hours of embarkation. That cruise is just a continual circle around the western Med, and passengers can embark and disembark at several of the stops. So some people are going Rome to Rome, while others are going Barcelona to Barcelona. When we took Concordia, there was certainly not a drill after every embarkation port. There was only one, and it was a few days into our trip. I read elsewhere that they did the drill every 15 days, which means some passengers wouldn't have a drill at all.

I'd actually been hoping you'd post something about your experiences, because, of course, at the time I only got the highlights and had simply filed you in the "enjoyed the cruise" category. Thank you for sharing.

As another counter-example to the Italian stereotype, I'd also point to the actions of La Guardia Costiera, which across-the-board have been disciplined and heroic throughout this entire disaster.

I certainly did enjoy the cruise, and I'm easy-going enough that rough edges here and there didn't bother me. Punctuality is one of my bugaboos, and that was probably the worst thing to deal with -- we would show up on time and everyone else, passengers and staff alike, would show up some casual amount of time later. Though blessedly child-free myself, the presence of kids in the adult pool didn't personally bug me that much, except that I thought it was stupid that they bothered making a rule that no one would enforce. I thought it odd that there was no drill right away, but I didn't have the least concern about safety.

Having crewed on a Greek ship (of Liberian registry, as Monrovia was all the rage at the time), I totally get your point.

We usually sail with NCL, another Carnival company.

Having been crew, the only way a crew member who is subject to USCG rules can not know what a fire alarm sounds like is someone who's on their first cruise and who missed muster. It rarely happens because there is so much pressure for crew drills.

That said, this ship never sailed US waters, so wasn't subject to those rules.

You're probably right that ships that operate in U.S. waters are safer than those that don't. To that end, it's probably wise to leave from California or Florida when practical to do so.

Or Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands.

That's most Caribbean cruises, btw, even some weird itineraries from small lines.

The whole event seems surreal to the utter layman. I assumed these ships were sailed by GPS on a set route. Sure you need the crew in case something movable like a bad storm, iceberg or pirates get in the way, but I thought otherwise it was basically like the Autopia.

Ignorance was definitely bliss.
-Tass

I have to say Tass isn't the only one. I also assumed these ships worked like major airliners - traveling set routes guided by GPS and passed from port-to-port controllers. Of course there is such a thing as pilot error, but you don't hear about a 747 flying too close to the Rockies and clipping a mountain-top! Jim, would you say though that statistically cruising is about as safe as air travel? I.E. accidents are very high-profile but extremely rare by comparison to the number of vessels out there...

O.K., this is a little complicated. Statistically, flying is the safest way to travel. But that's because flying covers all airplanes and sailing covers all ships and boats. Small-boat accidents are extremely common and often fatal, and are not always the result of human error or negligence (remembering that a freak wave cannot be predicted, and is much more likely to swamp a small vessel than a large one). I'm not aware of anyone having run the numbers on the safety of large cruise ships vs. large, commercial aircraft, but I suspect that mathematically both are actually quite safe. That said, there are also airlines I actively avoid due to safety concerns. Mathematically, even the "unsafe" airline is probably safer than some of my recreational activities (ever notice that they just keep an ambulance parked at the bottom of most ski slopes?), but I don't like giving my money to a company that increases its bottom line at the expense of my safety.

And, yes, you're both right that the ship's route should have been pre-set and GPS-guided. In fact, Lloyds Shipping apparently pulled the ship's GPS data to do a graphic that shows just how far off route it was, and published the chart. But given the shifting nature of the sea floor (especially in a ship like Costa Concordia with a 30-foot draft), right-of-way laws that require larger ships to yield to smaller vessels, the possibility of localized navigation hazards, etc., you don't want the ship controlled by GPS, and the captain is -- for safety reasons -- given a lot of latitude in setting the specifics. Good captains understand that charging through 35-foot-deep water in a ship with a 30-foot draft at full speed is dangerous, however, and don't do it...

Certainly the Captain should be in control up to and including beaching the damn thing in appropriate circumstances. But I do think there are a few amateur robot builders who could design a program using maps and sonar to keep the ship in minimum (say) 75 foot waters until the Officer on Duty puts his fingerprint into a scanner.

OTOH, the transcripts make the Captain look like the Prince of Assholes. I'd hire Hazelwood in a heartbeat over this guy.

-Tass

(30 foot draft!? I assumed (in my naivete) it was at least 50-100 foot. I have been guilty of using a known safety multiplier as part of load calculation, but I do make sure it can only hit me).

Some Thoughts on Cruising

User dsmoen referenced to your post from Some Thoughts on Cruising saying: [...] sinking is enough to pull you down with it. 5) Jim Keller has some good points about ship registry. [...]

The top three officers all left at the same time.

That speaks volumes about who Costa picked as the top of their ships.

I've always thought Costa captains were unnecessarily pretty -- not that I mind that, it's just that they seem to be picked with that as a goal rather than competence.

Oh, and it's priceless that he claims he "tripped" in to a lifeboat, and then sat there for an hour before it was lowered...

CruiseCritic snark: Stupid puddle of superglue on the floor of the lifeboat!