Norm, ooops....sorry about my misposting....the '' thrust bearing on my port side typing finger wore out a little quickly here...''...
No problem. BTW, you can edit your own posts when that happens. When you view a thread, there's an "edit" button on the right side of the header bars immediately above each of your posts (and only your posts) in that thread. If you click the "edit" button above your post, it will put the post in an edit window so you can modify it. There's also a button below the edit window that will delete it.
... 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
That scenario is pretty unlikely. Shipboard electrical systems have circuit breakers all over the place to ensure that damage in one panel does not cause damage in another.
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.''
Once you show a pattern of consistent failure on four vessels over the span of four or five years, you have a very compelling argument that prudence requires scheduled replacement as a matter of routine maintenance to prevent further failures from disrupting operations until improved bearings become available. You also have the compelling argument that a scheduled three-day drydocking at an operationally convenient time is a lot less costly than an emergency drydocking in peak season that forces cancellation of a whole cruise with compensation to affected passengers.
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.
If I were the lawyers for the respndents in the lawsuit, I would present the argument that the line, seeing a pattern of malfunction, should have acted to minimize both the cost and the impact of continued problems and that damages should be limited to that which the line could not have prevented. Here, I would concede full damages through about 2004 but insist that the line should have scheduled repairs in 2005 and beyond. This would entail a few assumptions.
>> 1. The ship would be out of service for fewer days because she wouls not have "down time" from the occurrance of the problem until a shipyard in the vicinity could do the work, so the loss of revenue would have been less.
>> 2. The line would not have had to pay compensation to passengers who were booked on the cancelled cruises.
>> 3. The line would not have incurred the cost of shipping replacement parts around the world on an emergency basis because the parts for scheduled maintenance could have been rdered enough in advance to allow regular surface delivery.
>> 4. The line would not have incurred premium cost for drydocking on an emergency basis, including overtime pay for the shipyard workers.
But it will be interesting to see how much Celebrity actually collects in this lawsuit.