Illiac... thank you! I can't help but feel compelled to point out the differences here.
Rev.. while you are correct about density in ships of old, I believe my point here is that those ARE ships of old, which are not nearly as well made, or just plain as NEW, as the ships we are used to. Ships age, they wear out, and it is hard to update an old vessel for maneuaverability.
As the average age of the U.S. market fleet is getting younger, and cruises so affordable, there is no reason to take old ships like these. How many commercial prop planes do you feel safe on these days?
Regarding the ship itself, do you not wonder if these "elusive currents" could have been managed by a more modern ship? It isn't just a matter of size or density, it is equipment. Did it have pods (no), it might have had bow thrusters (probably) but how effective? Were they even working? We know nothing of what actions this captain took or the safety record of this ship. Would a more modern ship have been able to avoid this tragedy under the same circumstances?
You also have to ask about the captain's actions more than the ship itself. Currents aren't like the wind, changing at any given moment.
When did he see the reef which he tried to avoid and couldn't. Do currents change so much that he didn't know how to avoid it? If so, why haven't other ships hit this reef?
Why did it take 1/2 hour for outside authorities to raise him on the radio to assist in rescue efforts?