Fire on safari boat Suzana in Egypt (Red Sea Aggressor)

[Wookie]

That is a huge concern in itself. And it makes me wonder how much of the "ignorance" of the Egyptian dive crews to previous liveaboard fires is legitimate versus feigned. It's a lot easier to dismiss safety concerns and blow off safety protocols if you pretend like you've never heard of suh problems before.

Remember, Aggressor Fleet is the franchise issuer and marketing/booking arm and 800 lb gorilla in liveaboard diving. They do not tell their franchise holders how to operate. It is done, but only rarely, that Aggressor Fleet will pull a franchise out from under a boat owner, so yes, while they might have sent around a list of safety concerns regarding the Conception fire, they are not the operations arm of franchised liveaboards, and there have been no conclusions in the Conception fire anyway.

Aggressor looks bad here, but looking at it from their side, they licensed another boat owner to use their name only.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Aggressor looks bad here, but looking at it from their side, they licensed another boat owner to use their name only.

Do you happen to know if the arrangement between Aggressor and the boat owners is a franchise or a license? Franchising and licensing are different things. A franchisor has more control over a franchisee than a licensor does over a licensee. I have wondered before about what arrangement Aggressor uses. A licensor can generally require their licensee offer a certain level of quality, but not much beyond that.

 

[scubadada]

Remember, Aggressor Fleet is the franchise issuer and marketing/booking arm and 800 lb gorilla in liveaboard diving. They do not tell their franchise holders how to operate. It is done, but only rarely, that Aggressor Fleet will pull a franchise out from under a boat owner, so yes, while they might have sent around a list of safety concerns regarding the Conception fire, they are not the operations arm of franchised liveaboards, and there have been no conclusions in the Conception fire anyway.

Aggressor looks bad here, but looking at it from their side, they licensed another boat owner to use their name only.

Hi Frank,

I'm not at all sure that is true, see my earlier post Fire on safari boat Suzana in Egypt (Red Sea Aggressor). I'm quite sure that Aggressor fully expects their franchise boats to perform according to their SOPs. Exactly, what that may say with regard to safety issues is up to debate.

 

[Schwob]

Remember, Aggressor Fleet is the franchise issuer and marketing/booking arm and 800 lb gorilla in liveaboard diving. They do not tell their franchise holders how to operate. It is done, but only rarely, that Aggressor Fleet will pull a franchise out from under a boat owner, so yes, while they might have sent around a list of safety concerns regarding the Conception fire, they are not the operations arm of franchised liveaboards, and there have been no conclusions in the Conception fire anyway.

Aggressor looks bad here, but looking at it from their side, they licensed another boat owner to use their name only.

Well, true.

But my impression was that their first public statement in the matter was something to the effect of:
Unfortunately, yesterday the Red Sea Aggressor I suffered a fire. After everyone was accounted for at the muster station and the order to evacuate was given, one guest apparently decided to return to their room during the evacuation to retrieve something and is missing. All other guests are safe.

And if so indeed between them and the two first hand victim accounts I read there are two totally different kind of "truths" being told. One being that no smoke detector beeped, rang or whatever they do, no crew member but passengers alerted passengers to the fire, exiting through the emergency hatch initially being blocked by the mattress of the then still sleeping only then awakening crew member there, that being the first crew member seen during the incident by those passengers and there, so my impression from reading, being no accounting of everyone at the muster station and no crew ordered evacuation but a bunch of passengers jumping off the bow in part because people on the nearby Emperor boat shouted for them to do so (the fire itself likely plaid a bigger role, but jumping off a high boat into a dark sea with nothing but maybe underwear to you is a big decision that will cause some to hesitate).
At least I think I read that right in that German account. And if so and if that account is truthful (I wouldn't know, but guess who I might think has the bigger motivation to alter the truth, not that what I think is relevant at all) and if the above is indeed the initial public statement by Aggressor, then what makes that them?

 

[Urmama]

They do not tell their franchise holders how to operate.

Uhm.. That's like Mc Donalds doesnt tell their franchise holders how to prepare a bigmac..

And regarding their over exceptional poor dealing with that whole issue and to keep it hush hush i sincerely hope this will backfire on them. I've made that BDE Tour on that boat almost exactly one year ago and given the quality service on board i would have never thought how bad things can turn out once something goes wrong. Especially as they cost you several hundred bucks more than most competitors.

 

[Wookie]

Do you happen to know if the arrangement between Aggressor and the boat owners is a franchise or a license? Franchising and licensing are different things. A franchisor has more control over a franchisee than a licensor does over a licensee. I have wondered before about what arrangement Aggressor uses. A licensor can generally require their licensee offer a certain level of quality, but not much beyond that.

I do not know the business arrangements between Aggressor Fleet and the vessel owners.

 

[DavidFL]

Remember, Aggressor Fleet is the franchise issuer and marketing/booking arm and 800 lb gorilla in liveaboard diving. They do not tell their franchise holders how to operate. It is done, but only rarely, that Aggressor Fleet will pull a franchise out from under a boat owner, so yes, while they might have sent around a list of safety concerns regarding the Conception fire, they are not the operations arm of franchised liveaboards, and there have been no conclusions in the Conception fire anyway.

Aggressor looks bad here, but looking at it from their side, they licensed another boat owner to use their name only.

I have been tempted to post something like this, because I know it's true that Aggressor is mostly a franchise. I think they do own some of the yachts. I had a very positive experience on Kona Aggressor when a hurricane interrupted our trip and we were put ashore early to shelter out the storm. Nowhere near the consequences of this fire, but all of our interaction with 'employees' of the charter were with the company that owns the yachts...which is not Aggressor.

So as I look at future LOB's, I will try very hard to search 'through' the Aggressor name and brand and dry to discover the record of the yacht's actual owner/operator.

Having said that, Aggressor is a brand. Notwithstanding the details of the franchising agreement, and the legal owner/operator of the yacht, the Aggressor brand is going to attract a significant amount of the downside. To the extent the brand and the franchise continue, they need to be incredibly pro-active and effective in cleaning up operations that incredibly can somehow allow there to be no watch at midnight.

And it is professionally and personally very very sad and 'disappointing' is a huge understatement. Setting aside all the legal chains, I believe the 'brand' bears considerable responsibility for this tragedy.

 

[DandyDon]

Remember, Aggressor Fleet is the franchise issuer and marketing/booking arm and 800 lb gorilla in liveaboard diving. They do not tell their franchise holders how to operate. It is done, but only rarely, that Aggressor Fleet will pull a franchise out from under a boat owner, so yes, while they might have sent around a list of safety concerns regarding the Conception fire, they are not the operations arm of franchised liveaboards, and there have been no conclusions in the Conception fire anyway.

Aggressor looks bad here, but looking at it from their side, they licensed another boat owner to use their name only.

Nope, not buying that. They market these trips under their brand, and people recognize the brand name. They may share responsibility with the owner, but they are still responsible.

 

[ReefHound]

Remember, Aggressor Fleet is the franchise issuer and marketing/booking arm and 800 lb gorilla in liveaboard diving. They do not tell their franchise holders how to operate.

I'll bet the average diver didn't know that.

 

[Schwob]

If you search (I use Google search) 'Red Sea Aggressor fire', and your returns match mine, you will get nothing relevant. If you search 'Fire on Egypt Dive Boat' you will get only two hits that are this recent fire, the second of which is this thread on Scubaboard. The first hit only has the Suzana name for the boat. Seems pretty amazing to me in this connected age, but there appears to be zero connection anywhere but here (and presumably the upcoming Undercurrent) between 'Suzana' and 'Red Sea Aggressor 1'.

Downright spooky, even right now. Zero matching results for "sinking of red sea aggressor". Almost worse, see description below the first result below (in screenshot).