Rgr that:salute:

A little suprised....unless he's already made a statement admitting some error/wrongdoing :hmmm:

Article where this post is based is incorrect. Read this instead: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16573283 Thanks for Type941!



Wikipedia states that Costa Concordia cost $570M when ordered. Based on finnish newspaper's website Carnival Corporation has insurances as follows:
- loss of profit (no cap mentioned but I'm quite sure that there will be one)
- ship's value up to $30M
- other accident related expenses up to $10M
Carnival expects that foundering of Costa Concordia will cost atleast $95M this most likely not including ship itself.

So if Carnival has to replace the ship (instead of repairing it) then assuming that replacement ship's price tag will be somewhat similar (I'm quite sure it won't) to Costa Concordia's it will mean losses of atlest $520M from ship alone. :o

Not surprisingly according to same article company's stock value in London Stock Exchange have dived 23%.

EDIT: Article link for finnish speakers. Last updated 16 January 2012 at 12:07 (GMT+2).

In comment section of same article from where those insurance numbers come from was following discussion (my translation):
"Captain was among first to leave ship"
"Accident investigation was fast like with Russians. Not all lifeboats were in beach when prosecutor had charges ready."
"Ship's captain was found from the beach around midnight even though passengers were still being rescued from ship. You don't need much more evidence for charges."

I will try to verify that last comment.

EDIT: This ofcourse doesn't explain accident itself but if true tell a lot about captain.

Are all those ecomments just comments in a newpaper comments section writen by readers simply repeating what they read or think they read in newspapers?
According to what I have read the Captain was drunk and asleep while dancing with guests and was swimming to shore after jumping from the bridge in panic in the first lifeboat where he booked into a hotel while wandering on the beach as he was standing on the quay and was also going onto the ship as he was never aboard because he was drinking with an old friend on the island and the ship came in close to pick him up which is why it hit the rocks.

I may have to verify some of those comments.

He's still denying any wrongdoing but the CEO of the company is saying that he made an unauthorized course change. Which brings my mind back to the claim made earlier about 'greeting' the island...but why would a captain do that in the middle of the night?
I'm thinking that the CEO is looking for a diversion from the real problem which you have already touched on. The Black Box investigation will give answers, providing no-one tampers with it... :damn:

Yes. Its from readers' comments section and you described exactly the reason why I used word "try". I have no idea how credible that statement is.

EDIT: Would still like to hear what accident investigators say but this is prosecutors view of situation.
"Asked on the news channel SkyTG24 whether captain Francesco Schettino, arrested on Satruday for multiple homicide, had left the liner "well before all the passengers were evacuated", prosecutor Francesco Verusio replied: "Unfortunately I can confirm that."

The prosecutor also indicated that the ship "was not on the right course", adding that the captain was on the bridge and "therefore responsible for operations".
He said the possible responsibility of other persons apart from the captain and his number two, Ciro Ambrosio, was also being investigated.

Asked whether the crew were not properly prepared, Mr Verusio said: "It was rather the system of command which did not function as it should have done."

Italian media reports have said the captain was on shore around 11.40pm (09.40 AEDT) on Friday while the last passengers were not evacuated until 6am."

I'm having some trouble putting together events:

1) did it lose power before or after anyone felt a hit/jolt?
2) did it list in same place it got damaged or it got damaged earlier and just found a resting place on the sand bank later?
3) It is damaged on the left, but supposedly more damaged to the right, OR it's damaged to the left is overcompensated by forced ballast flooding on the right?

PS. Just can't call this ship *beautiful*... Big - yes, very much so.

Before quoting please check translation etc carefully.

For example they're covered in EXCESS of 30m which means cost + 30m. At least that's what I'm seeing.

So they lose 90m USD in revenues for the fiscal year plus the ship plus the claims. They're not insured on revenue loss, which is bad. But they'll get the value of the ship in full, that's what insurance is for. Ship is likely not build with cash, so no bank in the world would lend money on something which has only 10% of its value insured. ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16573283 - a very general news site. I've got Carnival only analysts notes but won't bore you with those.

Okay... this is what I see in article: "Carnival oli vakuuttanut risteilijän liikennöimättömyydestä aiheutuvat kulut, ja itse laiva on vakuutettu 30 miljoonan dollarin edestä. Vastuuvakuutus kattaa lisäksi kyseisestä onnettomuudesta noin kymmenen miljoonaa dollaria." I just checked that in bold with Google translator and I don't get in excess but this: "the ship is insured for 30 million dollars."

I agree that BBC's article makes more sense, but I can't figure out how that bolded part can be translated to "in excess from sum x"... Or then my language skill in this area is really badly in rust. :doh:

don't rely on translator especially with finnougric languages (i.e. in case of Estonian it's same thing, which i understand). I just think logically, an asset built on bank's loan should be insured on full amount and then some. when I lease a car, no way will they let me insure it only fro 10% in case of a loss for example. surely it's same logic for the ship.


Anyway, i guess they'll remove the sucker one way or the other for scrapping. Can't leave it there. From what I gather at least, doesn't look like it lost power and hit a reef, more like just went to close to the shore...

I originally translated it myself and after you pointed out that inconsistence put it to Google translator which produced mostly "finnoanglican" nonsense.

I trusted to newspaper's text as it have so far been correct even when it have first looked unlogical. Looks like they have bad days too...

It will be interesting to see how they do that removal.

Btw did I understand it correctly that you speak Estonian as your native language?

KO's translation is accurate. There must have been something wrong in the Finnish article itself.

Here's a link to an Italian new site, it has a small map showing the ships courses.

Yeah two of them, the one it was supposed to have been on and the one it actually took.

ANSA - An Italian news service

Checking other sources suggests that this "Captain" and I'm using the term in the loosest sense of the word, was steaming almost directly at the island at almost 16 knots, in a ship thats larger than most non-US aircraft carriers, came hard right to make a nice close pass by the island, and clipped a rocky outcropping that tore the gash in the port side, he then steamed onwards before realising his ship was sinking, and came about to head for the small bay and port that he had passed, that's where she ended up.

The ship is apparently on a shelf, and some 40-50 m from a dropoff to 70-80 m, and there are concerns that bad weather might push the wreck towards the edge, and she'll slide into it, and because of her size, as she goes over, she'll break her back.

If the gossip mentioned earlier in this thread is true that she was making more than 20 knots, then she might have struck the "uncharted" rocks, due to "squatting" in shallow water, same way the QE II clipped a rock on a run to New York a few years back.

Other stuff to emerge is that the crew consists mostly of Sri Lankans and Phillipenos, hired at very low rates, many with little or no command of Italian, and that there were severe problems with the emergency boat drill due to the deck officers and crew not knowing it.

As for the bridge crew... Captain on the beach while his ship founders with 4000 people aboard... Nuf said.

The source informs me there are now clear instructions not to discuss externally so I suppose it now becomes a waiting game...amidst all the speculation :hmmm: