Editorial: Fated DQ Exemption Stirs Up A Fuss

A blurb in the August 19 St. Louis Post-Dispatch says it all:

“Washington—In a campaign that stretches to the rivers of Europe, steamboat enthusiasts are lobbying to save the famed Delta Queen after Congress refused to renew a fire-safety exemption that has let it operate for nearly four decades.”

The vessel is recognized as a National Historical Landmark.

So the question is: to save or not to save? Lurking beneath the surface is the fear and possibility that a fire, particularly in the middle of the night, could be devastating. Hundreds of lives could be lost.

Is the 240-foot-long DQ a beautiful old boat? Yes, it is. Would winning a new exemption please its loyal fans? Yes, it would. Would keeping it alive on the rivers be a sound decision economically for its owner, Majestic America Line? Perhaps and perhaps not. Its crew is very large, and maintaining the “style” passengers favor has to be expensive.

Majestic, which supported the exemption up till last year, has acquiesced and announced a retirement celebration for next year. The company believes, however, that its passengers and crew are adequately protected by various fire and smoke detection devices. Those who disagree are numerous and make some good points. The owners have also made it clear that they would be “ecstatic” if someone else would carry the torch to help gain further exemption.

Quoted in the Post article is Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which refused to renew the DQ’s 10-year exemption:

“I can’t imagine the number of lives that could be lost if a fire started on the Delta Queen when everyone is asleep,” he said. “Congress would never exempt a particular 747 aircraft from FAA safety standards, and we should not exempt a passenger vessel carrying hundreds of sleeping people from Coast Guard safety standards.”

While precedence is not the issue, Oberstar has a point. If the DQ is provided further exemption, can exemption be denied to other boats that apply for it? Fortunately there are only a handful of overnight passenger vessels in the nation and the others are not made of wood.

There were numerous disasters involving old-time steamboats. Hundreds, even thousands, of people perished in some of them. But times were different then. Today we are more safety conscious, and we should be. We demand seatbelts in automobiles and rightly so. But that is not denying that some people never use them and never get hurt.

For those unfamiliar with the issue, the DQ is constructed primarily of wood. Even though the Coast Guard was dead set against it, the vessel won an exemption from fire safety standards in 1970 and has been able to offer overnight cruises ever since. This is not to suggest that its owners neglect fire safety. Numerous and costly improvements have been made.

The DQ provides many fond memories for those who love to ride it and read about it; we know of individuals who have cruised on the vessel dozens of times. Might it also be said it provides nightmares for those concerned about safety?

Is the DQ less safe today than it was 10 years ago? Twenty years ago? Probably not. Certainly the owners have spent money to improve fire and smoke detection. Is concern for safety playing a bigger role in this issue than it should?

Vicki Webster, St. Louis, who took part in the original effort to “save the Queen,” told the Post she believes the issue is “stupid.” She said, “It’s a typical case of people wanting to be protected from Day One from harm.” People might have to ride planes and buses and streetcars from time to time, “but nobody has to ride on the Delta Queen.” She has a point. At a price of $2,300 to $3,600 per person for staterooms for a seven-day cruise, it is certainly a matter of choice.

Those who support cutting off the exemption might suggest that we should not be afraid to inconvenience a few in order to do what is right for the many. There are, of course, those who would ask, “Is protecting hundreds of passengers against a disastrous fire by denying them overnight cruises on the DQ the right thing to do?”

Adventurers have always risked varying degrees of danger. Do we deny them the right to hike across a desert or climb a mountain? Laboratory experiments can involve a high degree of risk; do we deny scientists the right to experiment?

Even prior to the steamboat disasters of the past it can be assumed passengers were lulled into a certain sense of safety. Certainly they did not expect to die as they did. Most who board the DQ must assume they are perfectly safe because of its good record. This means they are under a certain degree of influence. It does not guarantee safety. The Post reports that in February, the vessel underwent a Coast Guard inspection and it was found that improper wiring “created a possible fire hazard.” It was fixed. But what if a nighttime fire had occurred?

One river watcher said that most of the people who can afford to ride the DQ are elderly. Wouldn’t getting to safety be more difficult for them?

This issue will no doubt stir blistering debate. Both the pros and cons are fired up and willing to do battle for what they believe to be the correct choice. The defenders of the Queen have just begun to fight.

Pick a side and stay tuned!

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)