Costa Concordia owners deny knowing about captain's near-shore salutes

A Costa Concordia executive distanced the company from the practice of near-shore salutes. Costa has suspended Capt. Schettino and declared itself an injured party in the tragic cruise ship sinking.

(AP Photo/DigitalGlobe)
A satellite photo of the cruise ship Costa Concordia shown lying on its starboard side just off the tiny Tuscan island of Isola del Giglio, Italy.

The owners of the sinking Italian cruise liner Costa Concordia were not aware of unsafe practices involving ships coming close to shore to give tourists a better view, Costa Cruises chief executive Pier Luigi Foschi told a newspaper on Friday.

Foschi's comments to the Corriere della Sera daily underline the growing battle between the company and the Concordia's captain, Francesco Schettino, who is blamed for causing the accident, in which at least 11 people died.

Costa has suspended Schettino and declared itself an injured party in the case, in which the captain is accused by prosecutors of multiple manslaughter, causing a shipwreck and abandoning ship before all the passengers were evacuated.

IN PICTURES: The sinking of the Costa Concordia

Investigators say Schettino steered the 114,500 tonne vessel too close to the Tuscan island of Giglio, where it ran aground and capsized last week.

Some islanders said they had been told beforehand that he would perform a manoeuvre known as a "salute" which took the ship within 150 metres of the shore.

Foschi told the Corriere della Sera that ships sometimes passed near to shore during what he termed "tourist navigation" but he said this was always performed safely and he denied that the company knew the Concordia would be going so close.

"I can't rule out that individual captains, without informing us, may have set a course closer to land. However I can rule out ever having known that they may have done it unsafely," he said.

"Personally, I think he wasn't honest with us," he said.

Schettino's lawyer Bruno Leporatti denied that his client had delayed before reporting the accident to the company.

"Schettino immediately informed Costa of the problem, that is, the impact with the rocks," he told reporters.


The disgraced captain has admitted coming too close to the shore but has denied bearing sole responsibility, saying other factors may have been involved.

"Schettino told me that if he made any errors, he is ready to assume his responsibilities," Leporatti said.

Doubts have already been expressed about whether Costa Cruises, a unit of Carnival Corp, the world's largest cruise operator, can have been unaware of the practice of ships "saluting".

Enrico Scerni, former president of the ship classification organisation RINA, suggested in a newspaper interview that it was difficult to believe that Costa was unaware that captains often went close to Giglio to "salute" the island and give passengers a closer view.

Scerni resigned from his position soon afterwards and RINA issued a statement saying that the routes specified by Costa "conformed with all criteria of good navigation".

Foschi criticised delays in evacuating the ship after it struck a rock which gashed its hull and denied that any pressure had been exerted on Schettino to wait before deciding to abandon ship because of cost considerations.

"I assure you absolutely that no one thought in financial terms. That would be a choice that would violate our ethics," he told the newspaper.

IN PICTURES: The sinking of the Costa Concordia

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to