Norm, ooops....sorry about my misposting....the '' thrust bearing on my port side typing finger wore out a little quickly here...''...
Yes, you're right in that an electrical component failure does not require drydocking the vessel....my only concern is; if it emerges to be a pattern, and has ultimate ripple effects on the whole propulsion systems,including pods...X may chose to down her and carry on extensive overhaul of the whole electrical...which IMO would be a little dicey under wetdock conditions. She'd have to go out of service for at least one sailing.
My comments about the '' maintenance''at X was not condemning or blaming; if it sounded like that, I'm sorry. It was out of empathy for a line which, as you correctly pointed out, has a sterling record as regards mechanical p.m.....but faces challenges seemingly coming from all sides recently...
Re; X routinely replacing the offending thrust bearings on a scheduled basis:...IMO, wouldn't this , in effect, corrupt the current litigation VS RollsRoyce ?? I suggest X is simply stuck in the proverbial "" between a rock and a hard place'' here.....simply has to let the thrust bearings FAIL, then react with whatever emergency measures are appropriate, plus their inherent costs....all of which simply gets added to the current list of evidences ,part of the current law suit still being dealt with.
While your proposed routine scheduled proactive replacement process makes a lot of practical sense, it might in effect allow RollsRoyce to wash their hands of the whole thing by saying'' You CHOSE to replace them, they did not FAIL.''
The more this saga continues , the more I suspect X is simply advised by its legal people to ''go with the flow'' and let the system fail, painful as it is, as this is precisely the grounds of our lawsuits VS RollsRoyce: a systematic failure. Once this litigation is solved, then much more practical measures can be put in place.