Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mirror.co.uk)   Terrified tourists stuck on the Caribbean Island of St Thomas during Hurricane Irma were left 'stranded' when a Marriott rescue ship refused to allow non-hotel guests to board. They had 200 seats open   ( mirror.co.uk) divider line
    More: Sick, Cruise ship, Hurricane Irma, St Thomas, Marriott, Caribbean Sea, Puerto Rico, Hotel, Marriott rescue ship  
•       •       •

7865 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Sep 2017 at 12:58 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-11 08:28:26 PM  
Christ, what assholes.
 
FNG [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2017-09-11 08:38:57 PM  
That is seriously messed up.
 
2017-09-11 08:48:36 PM  
Mormon hospitality?
 
2017-09-11 09:23:25 PM  
Governor Mapp should have had it seized for his people:

"Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory's Justice Department."
 
2017-09-11 09:48:04 PM  
Probably a liability issue. I expect Marriott passengers are insured and sign waivers, so they are afraid letting random people on board exposes them to too much risk.
 
2017-09-11 11:26:11 PM  

gilgigamesh: Probably a liability issue. I expect Marriott passengers are insured and sign waivers, so they are afraid letting random people on board exposes them to too much risk.


That definitely explains the other cruise lines offering rescues...

But sure.  Even though their liability at sea is very low and the risk of being sued for saving someone's ass before a hurricane hits is....miniscule.  And the marketing value of helping anyone you can is extraordinary.

Despite all those things, they did succeed in putting their bottom-line ahead of lives.  So there's that, which is nice.
 
2017-09-12 12:01:42 AM  
The safety and security of our guests is a top priority

"F*ck everybody else" he added.
 
2017-09-12 12:10:32 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-09-12 12:11:44 AM  

wejash: gilgigamesh: Probably a liability issue. I expect Marriott passengers are insured and sign waivers, so they are afraid letting random people on board exposes them to too much risk.

That definitely explains the other cruise lines offering rescues...

But sure.  Even though their liability at sea is very low and the risk of being sued for saving someone's ass before a hurricane hits is....miniscule.  And the marketing value of helping anyone you can is extraordinary.

Despite all those things, they did succeed in putting their bottom-line ahead of lives.  So there's that, which is nice.


Im not saying they made a moral decision. Either way it's about their bottom line over human decency.
 
2017-09-12 12:14:32 AM  

wejash: Despite all those things, they did succeed in putting their bottom-line ahead of lives.  So there's that, which is nice.


Capitalism at it's finest. Also, the Marriott Family is good friends with someone who can speak truth to power:

img.fark.net
 
2017-09-12 12:27:18 AM  
I would have stood upwind of the Marriott plate glass windows and tossed random things up into the wind.

/who is going to remember this when they book their February hooker-n-blow trip
 
2017-09-12 01:00:52 AM  
Liabilitiy is another word for "only following orders"..put in modern day terms.
 
2017-09-12 01:00:56 AM  

wejash: Mormon hospitality?


Members only. * Wink wink*
 
2017-09-12 01:04:29 AM  
scontent.cdninstagram.com
"For the love of God sir, there are two seats!"
"I like to put my feet up."
 
2017-09-12 01:05:16 AM  

fusillade762: The safety and security of our guests is a top priority

"F*ck everybody else" he added.


This is seriously farked up.

Given their statement, my intention is to never be in a position where my safety matters to them.
 
2017-09-12 01:07:11 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-09-12 01:07:31 AM  
In other news, don't book a Caribbean vacation during hurricane season and expect freebies.

If you do, get travel insurance.
 
2017-09-12 01:08:46 AM  
The Marriott hotel on San Diego bay has been a long time favorite for extended weekend getaways. They can now kiss my money goodbye as I'll be taking a left turn at Albuquerque instead.
 
2017-09-12 01:13:22 AM  
For those of you wishing to avoid doing business with slime like this, here is a list of their brands. Too bad because I like the restaurant in the Westin near my work, but I can't stomach supporting corporate sociopaths who are this brazen.
 
2017-09-12 01:15:08 AM  
For liability purposes, it is the hurricane that will kill you, not us.
 
2017-09-12 01:16:37 AM  

gilgigamesh: Im not saying they made a moral decision. Either way it's about their bottom line over human decency.


But the thing is, they didn't choose the bottom line. They chose PR disaster, which is never good for the bottom line. More often than not nowadays the moral decision is also the right business decision, and anyone would a management education or experience should be able to recognize that. All the bad PR this causes will costs them quite a bit in the coming weeks.
 
2017-09-12 01:16:42 AM  
Last year I took a vacation that had me staying in a Marriott in Arlington, VA.

That will not happen again.
 
2017-09-12 01:18:03 AM  
They could have at least offer them the "Friends and Family" rate to be rescued.
 
2017-09-12 01:18:30 AM  

gilgigamesh: Probably a liability issue. I expect Marriott passengers are insured and sign waivers, so they are afraid letting random people on board exposes them to too much risk.


Well, wonder how much risk it will turn out to entail to leave in a half empty boat while people are left to fend for themselves in a seriously risky situation.

Rather more I suspect.
 
2017-09-12 01:19:41 AM  
I would have lovingly made them a Molotov cocktail in response.  If I'm going down because you want to be a dick, I'm taking you with me.

/dnrtfa
//website gave my IPad AIDS from all the ads.
///You couldn't buy this kind of bad publicity if you tried.
 
2017-09-12 01:20:19 AM  
Since this article appears in a British tabloid, I now doubt the existence of hurricanes, sentient beings, corporations and Caribbean islands.

/DNRTFA
 
2017-09-12 01:25:47 AM  

gilgigamesh: Probably a liability issue. I expect Marriott passengers are insured and sign waivers, so they are afraid letting random people on board exposes them to too much risk.


Ya know what? That's a bullshiat answer. It's unethical to let people sit there on a dock and not let them on. The whole article reeks of "lets try to weasel our way out of this" And it doesn't work. No. The decision was unethical and immoral.

I hope this comes back to haunt them in the future.
 
2017-09-12 01:26:42 AM  
Nothing surprises me anymore.

Over the last few months, we've seen people trying to find just how far the depths of humanity can go. If they had printed out the press release on still-dripping skin, flensed from a newborn, it wouldn't surprise me.
 
2017-09-12 01:27:02 AM  
Venn Diagram of sociopathy and C-level executives.

img.fark.net
 
2017-09-12 01:31:41 AM  

gilgigamesh: Probably a liability issue. I expect Marriott passengers are insured and sign waivers, so they are afraid letting random people on board exposes them to too much risk.


Risk of what, exactly?
 
2017-09-12 01:32:48 AM  
Any confirmation besides "The Mirror"?
 
2017-09-12 01:34:13 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-09-12 01:36:06 AM  
The rare opportunity for some positive cruise ship PR and of course they squander it.
 
2017-09-12 01:37:57 AM  
So is "Marriott" just a slurred pronunciation of "May They Rot" ?
 
2017-09-12 01:42:18 AM  
Well, on the side of the cruise line, let's ask the following questions...
- How big a crowd was on the dock?  Would 'opening the doors' lead to a riot when they were full? (Probably yes)
- Who do they let on?  Children, sure, but they need a guardian.  Let's go with the mother in the spirit of women and children first..  Then who, assuming there is room.  Do we do lottery?  First come, first serve?  You look cute, and I'm going to get laid if I let you on?
- Of those people who don't get a berth...  how many will sue them for not chosing them?  If anyone dies, and the family can prove the deceased was on the dock, can they sue the cruise line for letting their beloved so&so die because they didn't get a berth?
(Just the first three headaches to jump to mind...)

On the flip side, if the cruise line goes with 'no ticket, no berth', they save themselves from all of that crap.

So how about thinking of this before you all start the lynching...
 
2017-09-12 01:43:27 AM  
img.fark.netOne Idea I haven't seen anyone else propose is that the hotel had agreed to pay per head. The rescue ship wasn't interested in providing any free seats.
 
2017-09-12 01:46:40 AM  
In the end it's all about making sure that Marriot's workers look out for the best interest of Marriot and boy did they lick that boot here.
 
2017-09-12 01:49:59 AM  

GrogSmash: Well, on the side of the cruise line, let's ask the following questions...
- How big a crowd was on the dock?  Would 'opening the doors' lead to a riot when they were full? (Probably yes)
- Who do they let on?  Children, sure, but they need a guardian.  Let's go with the mother in the spirit of women and children first..  Then who, assuming there is room.  Do we do lottery?  First come, first serve?  You look cute, and I'm going to get laid if I let you on?
- Of those people who don't get a berth...  how many will sue them for not chosing them?  If anyone dies, and the family can prove the deceased was on the dock, can they sue the cruise line for letting their beloved so&so die because they didn't get a berth?
(Just the first three headaches to jump to mind...)

On the flip side, if the cruise line goes with 'no ticket, no berth', they save themselves from all of that crap.

So how about thinking of this before you all start the lynching...


The article says the crowd was 35 people with 200 available berths on the ship. So this wasn't defensible even with your amoral standards.
 
2017-09-12 01:50:15 AM  

GrogSmash: Well, on the side of the cruise line, let's ask the following questions...
- How big a crowd was on the dock?  Would 'opening the doors' lead to a riot when they were full? (Probably yes)
- Who do they let on?  Children, sure, but they need a guardian.  Let's go with the mother in the spirit of women and children first..  Then who, assuming there is room.  Do we do lottery?  First come, first serve?  You look cute, and I'm going to get laid if I let you on?
- Of those people who don't get a berth...  how many will sue them for not chosing them?  If anyone dies, and the family can prove the deceased was on the dock, can they sue the cruise line for letting their beloved so&so die because they didn't get a berth?
(Just the first three headaches to jump to mind...)

On the flip side, if the cruise line goes with 'no ticket, no berth', they save themselves from all of that crap.

So how about thinking of this before you all start the lynching...


The crowd on the dock was 35 people.

They had spare capacity for 200.
 
2017-09-12 01:53:51 AM  

GrogSmash: Well, on the side of the cruise line, let's ask the following questions...
- How big a crowd was on the dock?  Would 'opening the doors' lead to a riot when they were full? (Probably yes)
- Who do they let on?  Children, sure, but they need a guardian.  Let's go with the mother in the spirit of women and children first..  Then who, assuming there is room.  Do we do lottery?  First come, first serve?  You look cute, and I'm going to get laid if I let you on?
- Of those people who don't get a berth...  how many will sue them for not chosing them?  If anyone dies, and the family can prove the deceased was on the dock, can they sue the cruise line for letting their beloved so&so die because they didn't get a berth?
(Just the first three headaches to jump to mind...)

On the flip side, if the cruise line goes with 'no ticket, no berth', they save themselves from all of that crap.

So how about thinking of this before you all start the lynching...


If only there was some sort of article that could answer your questions.

Around 35 people wanting to board the charter vessel (not cruise ship).  The vessel left with room for 200 more passengers.  There was room for everyone 5 times over.
 
2017-09-12 01:54:29 AM  
Aren't there some kind of "good samaritan" maritime laws where Marriott doesn't have to worry about liability and insurance for making rescues during a hurricane or something?

I get that they have to look out for their own ass this day and age, but I find it silly that there aren't some sort of lawsthat say you aren't allowed to be a douchebag and sue the vessel/crew/company that saved you while you were in distress.
 
2017-09-12 01:55:46 AM  
Approves.

i.ytimg.com
 
2017-09-12 01:55:51 AM  

bikkurikun: gilgigamesh: Im not saying they made a moral decision. Either way it's about their bottom line over human decency.

But the thing is, they didn't choose the bottom line. They chose PR disaster, which is never good for the bottom line. More often than not nowadays the moral decision is also the right business decision, and anyone would a management education or experience should be able to recognize that. All the bad PR this causes will costs them quite a bit in the coming weeks.


widespread information dissemination is not a new thing. You think companies would have figured out by now that acting like total asshats to people *will* blow up in their faces and hit them in the pocketbook. How did they think their monkeyshines would not be reported? How did they think they would come out ahead by doing that?
 
2017-09-12 01:56:12 AM  

Troy Aikman's Giant Thumbs: GrogSmash: Well, on the side of the cruise line, let's ask the following questions...
- How big a crowd was on the dock?  Would 'opening the doors' lead to a riot when they were full? (Probably yes)
- Who do they let on?  Children, sure, but they need a guardian.  Let's go with the mother in the spirit of women and children first..  Then who, assuming there is room.  Do we do lottery?  First come, first serve?  You look cute, and I'm going to get laid if I let you on?
- Of those people who don't get a berth...  how many will sue them for not chosing them?  If anyone dies, and the family can prove the deceased was on the dock, can they sue the cruise line for letting their beloved so&so die because they didn't get a berth?
(Just the first three headaches to jump to mind...)

On the flip side, if the cruise line goes with 'no ticket, no berth', they save themselves from all of that crap.

So how about thinking of this before you all start the lynching...

The article says the crowd was 35 people with 200 available berths on the ship. So this wasn't defensible even with your amoral standards.


35...  until they opened the doors.  I doubt it would have remained that small once word got out.

As for amoral...  Last I checked asking questions about circumstances, and admitting they play a factor before jumping to a good ol' fashioned lynching wasn't amoral.  Lynching first, questions later... that's a different story.
 
2017-09-12 02:00:03 AM  

MythDragon: bikkurikun: gilgigamesh: Im not saying they made a moral decision. Either way it's about their bottom line over human decency.

But the thing is, they didn't choose the bottom line. They chose PR disaster, which is never good for the bottom line. More often than not nowadays the moral decision is also the right business decision, and anyone would a management education or experience should be able to recognize that. All the bad PR this causes will costs them quite a bit in the coming weeks.

widespread information dissemination is not a new thing. You think companies would have figured out by now that acting like total asshats to people *will* blow up in their faces and hit them in the pocketbook. How did they think their monkeyshines would not be reported? How did they think they would come out ahead by doing that?


Because grunts on the ground (or water) aren't thinking about marketing and were likely panicking?

/not saying it's an excuse
//well, actually I am
third slashie? no room
 
2017-09-12 02:01:49 AM  

thisisyourbrainonFark: MythDragon: bikkurikun: gilgigamesh: Im not saying they made a moral decision. Either way it's about their bottom line over human decency.

But the thing is, they didn't choose the bottom line. They chose PR disaster, which is never good for the bottom line. More often than not nowadays the moral decision is also the right business decision, and anyone would a management education or experience should be able to recognize that. All the bad PR this causes will costs them quite a bit in the coming weeks.

widespread information dissemination is not a new thing. You think companies would have figured out by now that acting like total asshats to people *will* blow up in their faces and hit them in the pocketbook. How did they think their monkeyshines would not be reported? How did they think they would come out ahead by doing that?

Because grunts on the ground (or water) aren't thinking about marketing and were likely panicking?

/not saying it's an excuse
//well, actually I am
third slashie? no room


The grunts on the ground didn't make the decision.

For fark's sake, doesn't anyone RTFA?
 
2017-09-12 02:04:44 AM  

jtown: For fark's sake, doesn't anyone RTFA?


Why the fark would we do that?
 
2017-09-12 02:05:32 AM  
Marriott has ganked me enough times to earn a solid "Never Again" rating.
 
2017-09-12 02:09:14 AM  

Olfin Bedwere: gilgigamesh: Probably a liability issue. I expect Marriott passengers are insured and sign waivers, so they are afraid letting random people on board exposes them to too much risk.

Risk of what, exactly?


If one of the tourists was carrying an infectious disease, or attacked another passenger, or was carrying peanuts and someone was allergic, that opens the business up to lawsuits.

You can TRY telling an executive that the risk of any of those is minimal, and outweighed by, y'know, not leaving fellow human beings to die, but then you might as well try to explain quantum physics to a goldfish.
 
2017-09-12 02:09:40 AM  

viscountalpha: gilgigamesh: Probably a liability issue. I expect Marriott passengers are insured and sign waivers, so they are afraid letting random people on board exposes them to too much risk.

Ya know what? That's a bullshiat answer. It's unethical to let people sit there on a dock and not let them on. The whole article reeks of "lets try to weasel our way out of this" And it doesn't work. No. The decision was unethical and immoral.

I hope this comes back to haunt them in the future.


Again all the left wing nuts fault. Since these people on the cruise are paying a lot of money for their vacation, and so many left wings are so sue happy. They had no choice but to keep things status quo to not be hit by potential numerous lawsuits.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report