[QUOTE=tugsailor;173061]The seamen’s claims in the El Faro case, are NOT large enough to be a threat to TOTE’s continuing economic viability. Besides, insurance will be providing TOTE’s defense and paying any successful claims.
TOTE will certainly assert its rights in this case, such as under the Limitation of Liability Act, but TOTE has no incentive to do anything illegal or unethical, or attempt any sort of cover up.[/QUOTE]
You are correct that it will not hurt Tote’s economic viability. Tote is a small part of the mega-conglomerate Saltchuk.
I am not so sure about there not being any incentive for a cover up. There maybe certain individuals within Tote that don’t want some things to come out.
[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;173106]You are correct that it will not hurt Tote’s economic viability. Tote is a small part of the mega-conglomerate Saltchuk.
I am not so sure about there not being any incentive for a cover up. There maybe certain individuals within Tote that don’t want some things to come out.[/QUOTE]
I would think the possibility exists that the underwriters might not want to payoff on any claims if TOTE did not fulfill every obligation that their ship sail in a seaworthy condition.
in a related not, rumors starting to go round that the EL FARO might well have only had one boiler available to them for the voyage. Can’t say where these rumors are originating and what is the basis for them but I have a PM from a forum member saying same. If this is so and if the USCG and ABS are implicated then may HOLY SHIT HIT THE FAN!
[QUOTE=c.captain;173113]I would think the possibility exists that the underwriters might not want to payoff on any claims if TOTE did not fulfill every obligation that their ship sail in a seaworthy condition.
in a related not, rumors starting to go round that the EL FARO might well have only had one boiler available to them for the voyage. Can’t say where these rumors are originating and what is the basis for them but I have a PM from a forum member saying same. If this is so and if the USCG and ABS are implicated then may HOLY SHIT HIT THE FAN![/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t take too much stock in the one boiler thing. The AIS showed she was making good speed right up until a few hours before the end came. No way she was making that kind of speed on one boiler.
[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;173115]I wouldn’t take too much stock in the one boiler thing. The AIS showed she was making good speed right up until a few hours before the end came. No way she was making that kind of speed on one boiler.[/QUOTE]
well one boiler of no…there is some reason TOTE is continuing to say that they don’t know the cause of the propulsion casualty which to me is patent BULLSHIT and that they are obfuscating this because they are implicated in the reason why. I also say that it involves the Polish riding crew and the port engineer being aboard. Boilers may be a very low hanging piece of fruit yet in August I believe they ship sailed on one boiler and the firm which surveyed them called out major work being needed and very soon too!
[QUOTE=c.captain;173120]well one boiler of no…there is some reason TOTE is continuing to say that they don’t know the cause of the propulsion casualty which to me is patent BULLSHIT and that they are obfuscating this because they are implicated in the reason why. I also say that it involves the Polish riding crew and the port engineer being aboard. Boilers may be a very low hanging piece of fruit yet in August I believe they ship sailed on one boiler and the firm which surveyed them called out major work being needed and very soon too![/QUOTE]
I believe the fitters were prepping the ship for the Alaska trade. It involves a bunch of deicing plumbing for the ramps. It is a ton of work. The El Faro’s deicing equipment had been out of service since she was the Northern Lights.
[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;173123]I believe the fitters were prepping the ship for the Alaska trade. It involves a bunch of deicing plumbing for the ramps. It is a ton of work. The El Faro’s deicing equipment had been out of service since she was the Northern Lights.[/QUOTE]
where is any of that from? so far as I have read TOTE still has not divulged why they were aboard or why propulsion was lost.
[QUOTE=c.captain;173124]where is any of that from? so far as I have read TOTE still has not divulged why they were aboard or why propulsion was lost.[/QUOTE]
Tote may not know why propulsion was lost yet.
IIRC there was mention during the ‘last transmissions’ referring to a hull leak, blown hatch and propulsion issues. More than just the boiler. But. Without the black box (or the rest of the wheelhouse) it may never be found out.
[QUOTE=c.captain;173124]where is any of that from? so far as I have read TOTE still has not divulged why they were aboard or why propulsion was lost.[/QUOTE]
Tote said early on that the riding crew was there working to get the ship ready for Alaska, though they never said exactly what that work entailed so we’ve been speculating here for weeks. It’s probably on the Q&A page if that’s still up.
[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;173115]I wouldn’t take too much stock in the one boiler thing. The AIS showed she was making good speed right up until a few hours before the end came. No way she was making that kind of speed on one boiler.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with the speed and the ship being on 2 boilers. I did 3 months on the Lureline and it was the same type ship and it would need both boilers to run 20 knots. That type turbine has an internal trip solenoid in the hp turbine aft bearing. The SS Glacier Bay had the same arrangement and the coil failed and dumped oil out from under the turbine lifting beam control one time. The engineers had to disassemble the bearing to fix the problem and the company moved the dump outside the bearing for ease of replacement “next time”.
There was an emergency turbine control that overrode every safety shutdown even that oil dump which might have failed open. You can rig a chainfall to pull down on the fulcrum of the turbine lifting beam too (it’s been done before).
[QUOTE=brjones;173131]They lost propulsion due to lube oil failure. Not sure why they could not get her back up running quickly after that though[/QUOTE]
Where does this information come from? I haven’t head it anywhere else.
Unless by lost wages they mean their annual gross times number of working years each crew had left til retirement plus $500k. That’s a cold hearted slap in the face. It’s times like this when you find out how much a persons life is worth. I wonder how many millions of dollars a year in profits that ship made on that run?
It’s a little unclear from just one Mar-Ex article, but it sounds like Tote is offering to settle for the full amount of their liability, provided they are not found negligent. That is not a bad business plan at this point. At this moment no one knows if there was negligence on the part of the company, or if it can be proven.
[QUOTE=Nelson Delmar;173462]It’s a little unclear from just one Mar-Ex article, but it sounds like Tote is offering to settle for the full amount of their liability, provided they are not found negligent. That is not a bad business plan at this point. At this moment no one knows if there was negligence on the part of the company, or if it can be proven.[/QUOTE]
Yes. I agree that this is a smart move by TOTE, and actually a pretty generous offer to the families.
I think it unlikely that the average family would get over $500,000 even if they do prove negligence. A dead Seaman’s life usually does not have a lot of monetary value. Claims for pain and suffering and future earnings are not allowed. In this case there are no medicals. That primarily leaves claims for loss of support. A seaman with a wife and five young children has a larger claim. A divorced seaman with grown children doesn’t have much of a claim at all.
Wonder if siu & amo will step up & take care of their lost members families?? Keep them on insurance & if they’re eligible for pension give it to them.
[QUOTE=Tugted;173473]Wonder if siu & amo will step up & take care of their lost members families?? Keep them on insurance & if they’re eligible for pension give it to them.[/QUOTE]
This is something that we should monitor and comment upon. If the unions do not do right by the families we should be hollering that from the rooftops.