Topic starter
06/12/2006 7:12 pm
How is it that the US Coast Guard refers to passengers and some companies refer to guests? In my fifty years in America, I understand that guests come to my house upon my invitation and leave upon my pleasure and do NOT pay for anything. However, passengers pay for the privilege of boarding a vessel and stay for as long as they have paid in advance. Some passengers do some things they would not do in a private home as guests. Therefore, boat owners suggesting that the crew treat passengers as guests does not make sense. For example, can you imagine a crewmember ejecting a passenger for smoking or littering? Where is the logic in this misnaming of passengers as guests? Let's treat passengers for what they are and label them as such--passengers! Then the highest standards of behavior can be available.
06/12/2006 10:48 pm
Hi, Bela:
First, let me apoligize for being such a 'gabby mouth' on the web today. Well, when you're on a roll, you're on a roll. I'll back off for long a spell.
Your question/comment is a good one Re: PASSENGERS vs GUESTS. I 'think' this term 'Guests' has come about today with current marketing, sales in the cruise ship, hotel, resort industry. I've hear 'Guests' used on some lines while others still use 'Passengers.' Whatever they are lines are expected to maintain manifests of all 'Plassenger/Guests' aboard. It's by law, formal and ranks with the official log books. Some airlines use the term 'Flight guests.'
In the old days--and until not too many years ago--passengers were termed 'Souls' on many boats/ships. The British continued to use the term until recently at sea. In the old days anybody stepping on some of the old steamboats or ships was, indeed, a 'soul' due to the dangers of the trips/voyages. You know, "poor soul"..."dead souls"..."souls at sea." Whatever they/us are we pay our on-board expenses following the cruise/trip tariff and get off when the trip is over. A good term today I heard is, "Who is this credit card holder by the name of Flick? Do roses by any other name still smell the same? Well, what do I know?
Cheers,
R. Dale Flick
07/12/2006 4:03 am
R. Dale Flick;2619 wrote:
In the old days--and until not too many years ago--passengers were termed 'Souls' on many boats/ships.
Hi Dale,
My understanding of the use of the word "souls" is that it allows the user to reference the number of people on board (and I've heard it used on airplanes too) without differentiating between crew and passengers.
Thus 160 passengers and 80 crew on the DQ is 240 souls.
And the reason for its use is to facilitate communications during an emergency. Telling emergency personnel that there are 240 souls on board saves time.
Paul
07/12/2006 4:52 am
Yes Paul- using souls simplifies matters for emergencies and all the other load factors used in all the transportation industries.
When I read Bela's post, I thought of the original Wallace and Grommit movie where the evil penguin is a paying house guest. Obviously a paying guest is an oxymoron just like jumbo shrimp.
Personally, I don't like the use of the words clients or customers either all the time but that is proper usage too. But we can't nicely call everyone a river rat either- can we? : )
I think you should think about writing a song about that- it could be kind of funny.
Cheers
Elaine
09/12/2006 7:47 pm
You and your Gibson
Hey Paul,
I was meandering through the members list on stb.org and saw your photo. Attatched (I think) is a photo I took of you and your Gibson. Can't remember if I ever gave you a copy. Feel free to use it if you like. It was taken in Feb. 2003. While I've got you, do you have any idea if the new company plans on having photographers aboard? I've heard that Mikel York is still involved, but man, he hates my guts. I was going to send you a private message, but couldn't figure out how to add an attachment.
John Jarrett
P.S. Well, I guess I still haven't figured out how to do it correctly. Send me your e-mail address and I'll send you a copy.
John Jarrett
09/12/2006 11:22 pm
John Jarrett;2691 wrote: Hey Paul,
While I've got you, do you have any idea if the new company plans on having photographers aboard?
Hi John,
Thanks for the picture, I captured it and saved it. And you did give me a copy but it's been lost.
I have heard that photogs may be part of the mix next year but do not have any definitive idea yet. I would imagine I'll find out before I get back on board the MQ in April. You may want to get in touch with the company in Seattle and ask. Couldn't hurt.
Take care, pal
Paul