Underwater Expeditions Commitment to Safety

[Underwater Expeditions]

Underwater Expeditions (UE) has a high degree of concern for the safety of our customers and the enormous degree of misinformation being spread on this message board leads me to post information which will hopefully clear up some of the issues. My name is Donna J. Phillips and I am currently serving as Operations Manager of UE Freeport; it is in this capacity that I would like to address these recent events and explain my decisions.
First let me assure you that UE’s concern for the safety of our customers is foremost. UE management, staff, and crew alike actually do care for each and every one of our customers and that is the very reason that we refuse service to anyone clearly deemed to be at abnormal risk. I believe that we absolutely have an obligation to act prudently when we become aware of individuals whose lives are clearly threatened by the extreme conditions that can exist in off-shore fishing. Additionally, when one person develops a condition which requires a coast guard evacuation, the entire group of passengers, captains, and crew, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard, face a host of additional risks related to such evacuation.
To clarify this specific situation, the customer who was denied access to the boat, in my opinion, has not been entirely candid in his statements regarding UE’s recent refusal to allow him to fish on the Big E. The individual posting comments, “Snagged”, was never told that he was being denied access to the fishing trip due to age but was specifically told that the reason he could not take this trip was due to his health condition. The individual, on two separate occasions over the past two years, experienced medical conditions requiring Coast Guard helicopter evacuation from the vessel. In addition to putting “Snagged” at risk, these evacuations presented potential hazards to the vessel’s crew, the vessel’s other passengers, and the members of the Coast Guard rescue team. While UE is truly complimented by the fact that “Snagged” thinks so highly of the Big E and UE’s services to apparently become irate by our refusal to allow him to board the vessel for yet another offshore trip, UE simply cannot accept the potential risk to it’s crew and other passengers.
It is unfortunate that “Snagged” failed to identify himself to UE as a passenger on our latest trip until two days before the trip’s departure. As “Snagged” is aware, he was notified of our decision within hours of our learning that he intended to be a passenger. To have provided any other answer would, in my opinion, have clearly been negligent behavior, affecting the safety of both this individual and all others aboard the vessel. UE is committed to providing the finest and safest fishing experience in the entire Gulf Coast to all of its guests and will not stray from these commitments.
Finally, please note that there seems to be a huge “mob-mentality” taking place here. In our defense, please understand that all of UE’s owners, employees and crew members are Texas Gulf Coast residents who thoroughly enjoy fishing with others who love the sport. We understand your concern for your fellow fisherman and we are likewise sorry for his medical condition. We are, however, surprised that “Snagged” has shown so little concern for the potential effect his condition might have on his fellow guests and the vessel’s crew. For those of you who can understand our responsibility to protect both the individual fisherman and the group as well, we will always welcome you aboard!

[TBaker]

We certainly appreciate your response. However, what many of us here are having a difficult time with is what, precisely, is his condition that presents such a problem? As far as most of us can tell, it was a matter of dehydration, which is something that can happen to any of us on any offshore trip. Nothing else has been put forth. Can you or someone please clarify if there is more?

[gman]

Donna i know this isnt your fault and please dont take this personal however ... UE can can slice it, dice it anyway you want I believe it is wrong to deny someone a trip when the apparent issue was dehydration. The man caught two back to back 100 pound AJ's. It happens to young studs as well as older studs.

In the end, he is a very respected, liked person who has been a good customer of yours. In addition to take the stance of not allowing him to fish and then publically disputing it on the boards is insane. Not only did you deny him but now you are basically saying he has been un truthful ... talk about kicking a man when he is down. You would have been better letting it die down in my book

I realize you didn't make the decision and the owner did but I do feel you have the responsibility to let the owner know that in tough times like today when money is tight you shouldn't give good customers any reason to stray from your business. A simple waiver made by the owners attorney would have sufficed and covered your liabilities and you wouldnt have a "mob scene" by us fisherman who want justice

[gmack]

Don't want to start an arguement, but if the guy had to be medi-vacked two times off my boat there wouldn't be a third time!

Gary

[Underwater Expeditions]

TBaker--I have been reluctant to specify details regarding "Snagged's" medical condition because I wasn't on board and I'm not a medical doctor. I was present the day the Big E returned on the 4th and, there himself to pick up his fish that day, Snagged told me himself that he had been without a pulse for 20 minutes before the evacuation. I've also heard reports from the physicians on board and I believe you will find posts (either here or in 2cool) relating to the fact that other passengers on the July trip found Snagged to have been unconcious and without a pulse.

[Snagged]

Donna your passing on false information.

1. I have had exactly one (1) medivac off your or any other boats.

2. The condition was/is NOT an "ongoing" medicial condition.

Your company had my phone number and my e-mail address and at no time did you bother to contact me and state that I was no longer allowed to use your service.

[MrBill]

"The individual, on two separate occasions over the past two years, experienced medical conditions requiring Coast Guard helicopter evacuation from the vessel."


"I have had exactly one (1) medivac off your or any other boats."


Somebody is not telling the truth. I hope your right Donna, because if your not, you not only tossed this guy under the bus, you ran over him a couple of times and left his character embedded in the asphalt.

[gman]

Can the Big E please provide the two dates and or trips this happened on so we can sort through all the allegations

[Uncle Russ]

Donna: I too thank you for addressing this. My opinion of UWE as a standup, class organization is well known on this board. I, better than most, understand your position. I will not address your and Jerry's conversations or business interactions because I wasn't there. While you have to be the final judge of the apparent risk of any hypothetical rescue operation to your craft or customers, I would respectfully differ from your characterization of that risk--I have no doubt it is far less in terms of vulnerability than the simplest drift past a floating oil rig.

I will not quite say with gman that a waiver is a cure-all for the liability issue, but I would suggest that it would be a good step. I, for one, was surprised that everyone was not asked to sign a waiver at time of boarding or before. (I would be more than happy to do so.)

What I, as one of your customers, would respectfully ask is this: If you have not already done so, (and I gather from the wording of your post that you have) confer with your insurance company and/or legal counsel with regard to the following: What is the degree of liability, if any, incurred by your company/insurance underwriter for allowing someone aboard who has a prior history of having to be medivaced? In other words, would it really constitute negligence?

I absolutely agree with MrBill that the facts on how many times Jerry was medivaced need to be checked and clarified--and (again, with respect) if your facts are wrong, then alleging misrepresentation on his part becomes a lot more questionable on yours--not saying your company did so intentionally, but it sure sounds like you were implying that he did so intentionally.

Since your company and Jerry have both engaged in this discussion openly, I think all of us as your customers and potential customers would appreciate your updating us on your findings. And finally, I hope you would, in the privacy of your own company dealings make what you consider to be a sound business decision based on the actual facts. Thanks again for weighing in on this.

Russ Roberts

[Underwater Expeditions]

Gman, I'll be happy to answer questions individually, but it appears that a few individuals (particularly in the other forum) are deliberately trying to provoke the situation, so I won't be making further postings. If you and/or anyone else who has questions will e-mail me at dphillips@underwaterexpeditions.com, I'll be happy to respond!