Would you expect compensation from a live-aboard operator if

[robint]

From yesterday: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/accidents-incidents/220769-dive-boat-sinking.html

I was thinking more like this:
Amazon.com: No Safe Harbor: The Tragedy of the Dive Ship Wave Dancer: Books: Joe Burnworth
Now those people had grounds for a lawsuit. Getting killed by the liveaboard trumps getting a cold.

 

[murdrcycle]

I said yes to the compensation based on the comments. Not because the crew was sick but because it appears they did not do all they could to minimize the impact such as proper cleaning and sterilization practices etc. A ship is a small confined space and without aggressive measures the recurrence of the illness is that much worse

+1

The passengers agreed to a transaction with reasonable safety measures implied - no one would argue that a dive boat operator should be expected to have a first aid and O2 kit available. The only question here is what we each consider to be reasonable safety measures. I think that having the crew wear masks and performing thorough cleanings is reasonable. It is cheap and doesn't take too much time. I wouldn't expect them to hire a different crew and dry dock the boat, and then fill the dry dock up with Neosporin or anything ridiculous like that (although it would be fun to watch). Masks and cleaning - cheap and easy. I was on a ship with 6,000 other sailors and we were able to keep it relatively disease-free. If someone got sick, everything in their vicinity was constantly cleaned and, yes, sometimes they were forced to wear a mask. Yet in this case these things were not done. While I don't think that the dive op was outwardly negligent, the passengers got less than they agreed to and it was because simple and cheap actions on the dive ops part were overlooked.

What if it was the other way? What if the dive boat got less? What if the dive operator took reservations for X amount of people, had to turn away other guests because they were booked, and then the group shows up with only 40% of the promised headcount? Do you think that the dive operator should be expected to accept 40% of the agreed-upon pay even though it arose due to no or very little reason of his own (after all, he could have over-booked for just such an occasion)? No - the dive operator didn't cause the issue, the passengers did, it caused the dive operator the opportunity of substituting them with other paying guests, and he or she is still intitled to 100% of the agreed-upon rate.

Likewise, the passengers didn't cause the issue, the dive operator did, it caused the passengers the opportunity of substituting to a different illness-free dive operator, and they are entitled to an appropriate rebate.

And to the dive op directly - if your business felt that a passenger owed you money, say for damages of nebulous origin, would you send them a nice letter or would you send them a bill and ask them how they want to handle the transaction? (Of course, this is a rhetorical question - we all know what you would send, probably from an attorney's office.)

 

[Jim Kerr]

What if it was the other way? What if the dive boat got less? What if the dive operator took reservations for X amount of people, had to turn away other guests because they were booked, and then the group shows up with only 40% of the promised headcount? Do you think that the dive operator should be expected to accept 40% of the agreed-upon pay even though it arose due to no or very little reason of his own (after all, he could have over-booked for just such an occasion)? No - the dive operator didn't cause the issue, the passengers did, it caused the dive operator the opportunity of substituting them with other paying guests, and he or she is still intitled to 100% of the agreed-upon rate.

Obviously you have never been on a liveaboard. Before you even step out your front door to drive to the airport to get to the liveaboard they already have your money. They do not wait until you get there to collect the rest. A deposit will only hold a spot on the boat for so long. If the balance hasn't been paid in full 30+ days before the charter is scheduled to depart, then the unpaid spots are released to anyone who wants them and has he money. It's not a job. it's an adventure. :mooner:

 

[DivingPrincessE]

Obviously you have never been on a liveaboard. Before you even step out your front door to drive to the airport to get to the liveaboard they already have your money. They do not wait until you get there to collect the rest. A deposit will only hold a spot on the boat for so long. If the balance hasn't been paid in full 30+ days before the charter is scheduled to depart, then the unpaid spots are released to anyone who wants them and has he money. It's not a job. it's an adventure. :mooner:

While this was my first thought after reading murdrcycle's post as well...I think it just further backs up his point. They aren't willing to take any chances that they won't get all their money. If their actions cause customers to lose out on money spent, oh well...tough luck.

 

[LarryHinDC]

im not germ phobic, just dive healthy... touch wood havent had antibotics for about 15yrs

Yeah, but your daily dose of Vegemite is just as effective!

 

[Scared Silly]

Getting to the party late here. Not taking the crew member off the boat was a mistake. I do not care if the boat is their home - for the next week it is also someone else's home. Letting a sick crew member sleep in the guest cabin was also a mistake. Letting the passengers know about the problem was good. However, it does not sound like enough was done to minimize the situation (in hind sight it would appear to me that no one, guests or crew quite realized how contagious the sickness was). Writing a letter of concern is good, how to suggest compensation is tricky. Sometimes it can back fire as even though what you think is a reasonable approach may not work. On the other hand if a business see's that something goes poorly it would behoove them to jump on it and do something proactively.

In the end each side has a responsibility as whether to board or disembark a boat. Each side was in a damned if they did and damned if they did not. Unfortunately, they both got damned. But both sides have hopefully learned. For instance, I am sure the boat will be removing crew that are sick and have a plan in place for a crew replacement. On the other hand before boarding a boat asking about illnesses or other problems will be on folk's minds. And voicing concerns about it up front rather than latter.

I guess in the end what I think would be fair is for the boat of offer a non transferable trip at a reduce priced. It will cost them something but it will also cost the guest something. And hopefully it will be a better experience for both.

BTW - Even after the Belize Hurricane accident how many people think to ask about those types of plans before booking a Caribbean live-a-board?

PS as odd as this sounds just the other day the contractor who has 20 years in the business and is doing some work at my house said to me after what I thought was a screw up on their part - "we are always learning"

 

[scubaskipper]

This is a slippery slope we tread. The next time I take a flight someplace and there's that person on the plane that sounds like they have TB, sitting right behind me coughing up a lung, can I ask for my money back on the flight if I get sick three days after I get home? How many times has this same thing happened to any of us that travel? Now imagine you have 20 people from maybe 6 different flights every week bringing God only knows what kind of germs with them. Add to this maybe 1 or 2 of the crew rotating in or out. There is allot of potential for the spread of germs.

It was amazing we never really found this to be a problem. If a crew member was coming down with something I would try to schedule them duties away from the general ships population. You don't have enough staff to just let them stay in bed for the week. They were bubble watcher, out on the sun deck, in the fresh air. They did night watches after everyone else went to bed. They were not to be around anything having to do with the gallery or food service. If they were really bad, usually an injury that required they stay dry for a week or two, they were put off the boat to work in the office as long as we left with the minimum number of crew by USCG regs.

Now, what to do with passengers that come on board sick. Usually got something on the flight down. Signs usually showed up about Wed. Am I a doctor? Do I play one on TV? Did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express? NO. Can I restrick them to quarters? Imagine the lawsuit that could start, it was only an allergy! They held me hostage in my room for the rest of the trip. About my only option would be to clean all surfaces with bleach water solution in general areas after meals and at the end of the day. Industrial cleaning of public head and the infected parties room. Airing out of the boat would be done after all passenger are ashore. USCG regs. usually don't allow for many doors and windows to be open during certain operations of the vessel. Certain doors opening into certain areas of the ship are to remain closed so as to limit access to non essential persons. Certain hatches aren't allowed to be open while the vessel is underway. The list goes on and on. You can bet after all the guests are off ,everything would be open and aired out.

It sure sounds like the company dropped the ball in the public relations area. They could have offered family and friends pricing on the next cruise booked, free nitrox on next cruise, classes , something. You might see if there is any type of trip insurance that would cover this type of thing. At the mention of law suit, does anyone notice how many foreign documented vessels there are? Many live aboard vessels in the Carb. area have been documented in places like the Bahamas instead of the states. Not many leave from the states either. Must be a reason, in favor of the companies interest I would bet. Those kind of boats, operators and situations were always my best ad. It will be interesting to see how this comes out. I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

[djanni]

You say this is an excerpt. I would be very interested in seeing the full text of this initial correspondence you sent to Explorer Ventures regarding this issue. It would be helpful in determining the overall approach and tone you took so that we could gauge why EV reacted the way they did.

I thought about posting the whole e-mail but because I named some of the other sick divers I thought better of it. For now, suffice it to say it was an explanation of the events almost exactly as they were posted here.

You know it's interesting to me how people reacted to my excerpt. I just read it, yet again, and while I was delibertly direct and to the point I still don't find it heavy handed, rude or uncompromising. If I did I wouldn't have posted it.

I said "I propose we use" the following method for calculating a refund and "Please advise how you would like to handle this transaction." The operative word being "you."

The complexion EV put on it isn't a big surprise.

 

[djanni]

Don - While you are waiting to find out if EV is going to enter into any realistic negotiations of an equitable settlement, I'd suggest you go ahead and calculate your total cost for the trip including tips, air fare, and the cost of vacation from your job(s). This number may be a better basis for determining your loss involved in this trip in case you are unable to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement. You might also suggest your fellow tavelers who suffered similar losses do the same.

EV only got $3,390 for the two of us. I didn't think it was fair to ask for money back that didn't go into their pockets.

 

[redacted]

I agree that your basis and your proposal was a fair start point all around. That still only represents a part of your losses incurred during this event as a result of EV not taking adequate and reasonable measuress to prevent or minimize such an occurance. It looks like EV has your $$ and does not intend to do anything other than reject your request and attempt to discredit you. I am surprised by EV's position. At some point, you may need to stop looking for reasonable compensation and start looking for maximum vengeance.