CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums

CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/)
-   Celebrity (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/celebrity/)
-   -   Celebrity's Connie to Caribbean cancelled for 4/13/07 (http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/celebrity/317560-celebritys-connie-caribbean-cancelled-4-13-07-a.html)

CruzNut July 20th, 2006 11:32 PM

Celebrity's Connie to Caribbean cancelled for 4/13/07
 
Just in case anyone else was planning on sailing the Connie's Caribbean cruise on 4/13/07 - it's now going to be a transatlantic and then into drydock. Those are the breaks.

Rev22:17 July 21st, 2006 08:44 AM

CruzNut,

Just in case anyone else was planning on sailing the Connie's Caribbean cruise on 4/13/07 - it's now going to be a transatlantic and then into drydock. Those are the breaks.

That means more time at the best destination of all -- At Sea!

Unfortunately, I'm not booked....

Norm.

dkjretired July 22nd, 2006 08:01 AM

Give this one some time to shake out. Celebrity is apparently very confused as to what they are doing with this cruise. The whole thing has been pulled from their system and now they are not saying it will be a transatlantic or the original cruise.

Don

Tide Pride July 24th, 2006 04:02 PM

Well I was booked on this Cruise and from all appearances Celebrity has yanked the rug out from under us.
My TA can not get valid information from Celebrity either.
This is one lousy job of taking care of their customers as Celebrity has not even had the decency to let their paying customers know.
I am sure that Celebrity is not the first line to pull this stunt, but their handling of this matter and lousy customer service will cause me to reevaluate booking future cruises on Celebrity.

Regards,
Ben

Rev22:17 July 24th, 2006 06:45 PM

Ben,

Well I was booked on this Cruise and from all appearances Celebrity has yanked the rug out from under us.
My TA can not get valid information from Celebrity either.
This is one lousy job of taking care of their customers as Celebrity has not even had the decency to let their paying customers know.
I am sure that Celebrity is not the first line to pull this stunt, but their handling of this matter and lousy customer service will cause me to reevaluate booking future cruises on Celebrity.


Don't go off the deep end. I'ts said that the first three reports from the field are always wrong.

In this case, it appears that some people jumped to conclusions based on a possible rumor and the fact that a future cruise apparently disappeared from Celebrity's web site. Let's get this in perspective.

>> 1. Celebrity routinely pulls future cruises from the web site when they have full waiting lists because There's no point in continuing to advertise a cruise that is no longer available for purchase. Thus, the fact that a cruise no longer appears on the web site is not of much significance.

>> 2. If there is a change, as indicated by the rumor, Celebrity's staff probably are still sorting out the details. It's still nine months before sail date, so there will be plenty of time to rebook when the dust settles. It's better to get everything settled and make one definitive announcement, if a change is necessary, than to make speculative announcements that can only cause confusion.

>> 3. Celebrity has a track record of being very fair with compensation when there are changes in ships' schedules. If there's a change, passengers who are already booked probably will have the option of either cancelling, for a full refund, or rebooking in the same category on any other cruise of equal duration before the end of next year with some shipboard credit thrown in to sweeten the pot.

Let's wait for the official announcement rather than rushing to tar and feather people before we have the details.

Norm.

dkjretired July 24th, 2006 07:49 PM

There is apparently a lot of confusion going on with this cruise from what I have been reading on various boards. What I do see universally is a lack of decent information coming out of Celebrity's customer service. One person spoke to three different people and got three different answers. This is not just one person complaining but many including TAs. It looks like no one can get a straight answer.

Don

Rev22:17 July 24th, 2006 08:04 PM

Don,

There is apparently a lot of confusion going on with this cruise from what I have been reading on various boards. What I do see universally is a lack of decent information coming out of Celebrity's customer service. One person spoke to three different people and got three different answers. This is not just one person complaining but many including TAs. It looks like no one can get a straight answer.

Yes. I'm hearing through the grapevine that the staff at Celebrity's call centers range from very good to totally clueless, but this also could be just another symptom of what seems to be a much bigger problem with miscommunication in the line's headquarters. Many of the problems with communication have surfaced in other threads on this board, so I won't rehash them here, but it seems to be an ongoing problem. Nonetheless, I may well show up at the next annual stockholders' meeting and ask the top dogs why the company can't get its act together, citing these examples.

In any case, those who are booked should proceed on the assumption that GTS Constellation is still scheduled to go to the Caribbean on 13 April 2007 until there's official word otherwise.

Norm.

scapel July 25th, 2006 01:25 PM

Well I was booked on this Cruise and from all appearances Celebrity has yanked the rug out from under us.
My TA can not get valid information from Celebrity either.
This is one lousy job of taking care of their customers as Celebrity has not even had the decency to let their paying customers know.
I am sure that Celebrity is not the first line to pull this stunt, but their handling of this matter and lousy customer service will cause me to reevaluate booking future cruises on Celebrity.

Regards,
Ben
Ben,
I am a loyal member of Celebrity and am ashamed of their lack of communication. My TA also had difficulty with their management. They have beautiful ships, but of course with pod problems particularly with the Infinity. I don't understand why they have such intradepartmental confusion in their offices, but they do. April of 2007 change however is enough time for people to make changes. I had a cruise cancelled two days before departure.
I get mad just hearing these things, and wish I could just drive down there and straighten it out.

CruisingChick July 26th, 2006 10:47 AM

I am too booked for the April 13, 2007 10 night Caribbean. When I go to the Celebrity web-site and put in my booking ID number it now states I am booked on a 12 night TA leaving April 13. Well I can't do a 12 night TA. Celebrity is really annoying many of their loyal customers with this. They are screwing up 3 different cruises, April 13, April 23 and May 5. I am really upset over this.

Rev22:17 July 26th, 2006 05:33 PM

CruisingChick,

I am too booked for the April 13, 2007 10 night Caribbean. When I go to the Celebrity web-site and put in my booking ID number it now states I am booked on a 12 night TA leaving April 13. Well I can't do a 12 night TA.

I don't know the circumstances that may have required a change to the ship's itinerary, but you certainly have plenty of time to cancel and rebook on a different itinerary. Most travel agents do not charge for getting a deposit refunded if you rebook on a different itinerary at the same time.

JTOL, perhaps they finally are going to get rid of the "Bar at the Edge of the Earth" shluck???

Norm.

Manuel July 27th, 2006 03:29 PM

We booked this cruise while on board the Mercury, (April 2006), and while there is time to rebook, that is not the point. We chose this date and itinerary for a reason and to have Celebrity yank it out of service is really unacceptable. Not only are we repeat cruisers, but we are also stockholders and very disappointed with Celebrity on their timetable as to notifying cruisers and/or TA's of any change.
Let's hope some common sense reaches corporate headquarters.

M&R

CruzNut July 27th, 2006 07:23 PM

This was posted today by the moderator on another board. Needless to say, there are a lot of people upset about this. Agree with Manuel - the point is we wanted this itinerary at this date. And the Bar at the Edge already switched, they now have Cirque in the theater.

As previously speculated, It is now confirmed that the 4/13/07 Constellation sailing that was previously a 10 night Ultimate Caribbean, is now a Transatlantic sailing. It appars that Celebrity has overhauled Constellation's Drydock schedule, and this is what has caused all the changes.

At least we know our original 10 night Ultimate Caribbean sailing is cancelled, and those on the 4/23/07 TA sailing, know that their TA is happening on 4/13/07 instead.

Furthermore, the 5/5/07 Scandanavia and Russia sailing is also cancelled, and the 9/20/07 7 night Westbound TA, is now a 12 night Westbound TA departing on 9/15/07 from Dover.

While we are very unhappy, at least we can put this to rest. I would suggest you call your Travel Agent or if you booked on your own... call Celebrity. More details are available as of this morning.

Good Luck to everyone who had bookings on these sailings !

Manuel July 31st, 2006 03:43 PM

Hi:
As of this date, we were forced to book a Carnival cruise. How could Celebrity do this to us? We will miss the conceirge class, the champage greeting when boarding, the in-cabin breakfast and the overall service that Celebrity is famous for. But a cruise is a cruise and when April rolls around, after our New England winters, we are ready for the Carribean.
Let's hope that Celebrity will not be cancelling our Alaska cruise in July, '07 or we will really have a problem.

Manuel

P.S. thank you for the info CruzNut.

scapel July 31st, 2006 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manuel
Hi:
As of this date, we were forced to book a Carnival cruise. How could Celebrity do this to us? We will miss the conceirge class, the champage greeting when boarding, the in-cabin breakfast and the overall service that Celebrity is famous for. But a cruise is a cruise and when April rolls around, after our New England winters, we are ready for the Carribean.
Let's hope that Celebrity will not be cancelling our Alaska cruise in July, '07 or we will really have a problem.

Manuel

P.S. thank you for the info CruzNut.

Manuel,
I can assure you that Celbrity did not single you out and do this on purpose. I don't know why they changed the itinerary, but I think you are do an explanation. I would like you to post the explanation later. If you cannot get an explanation, I think you have a gripe and should continue to press the point.
I had a cruise cancelled by Celebrity two days before departure. Can you imagine the hassle I had to go through cancelling all the pre-arrangements I had made?
I still like Celebrity, but I think you are due an explanation. My explanation was that the ship lost one of the pods and had to go into dry dock.
Please continue to press the pont, for if you don't the Cruise line will suffer poor publicity. I do like Celebrity and wish them to improve and explain their decisions.

Rev22:17 July 31st, 2006 10:09 PM

CruzNut,

As previously speculated, It is now confirmed that the 4/13/07 Constellation sailing that was previously a 10 night Ultimate Caribbean, is now a Transatlantic sailing. It appars that Celebrity has overhauled Constellation's Drydock schedule, and this is what has caused all the changes.

The parent company's latest press release may shed some light on this. Note the following paragraph.

We continue to successfully implement energy conservation initiatives and enhancements in types and sourcing of fuels. In addition to many smaller projects such as using LED lights, reflective window film treatment and restructuring itineraries, the company recently concluded a contract for the installation of diesel generators on our gas turbine ships. This project should generate significant savings in fuel costs. The first installation is scheduled for April 2007. In addition, the company has embarked on a program, on its gas turbine ships, to use limited quantities of biodiesel, which is a fuel made from vegetable oil feed stocks such as soy bean or palm oil. Biodiesel has significant environmental benefits, including lower NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) emissions, as well as being a renewable energy source. (boldface added)

The company's "gas turbine ships" include the four vessels of the Millennium class. Thus, it appears that GTS Constellation is heading to the yards for installation of at least one diesel generator. It's not clear that she will go into drydock or not, as installation of a diesel generator normally would not require drydocking the vessel.

Now, a few questions....

>> 1. Will the new diesel generator(s) augment or replace existing gas turnbine generators?

>> 2. Will the ship retain her present classification as a Gas Turbine Ship (GTS) or be reclassified as a Motor Vessel (MV)?

>> 3. Will the "Bar at the Edge of the Earth" decor that makes the disco loook like a dump go away while she is in the yards?

Inquiring minds want to know....

Norm.

sealegs August 1st, 2006 07:02 PM

:) Good afternoon, Norm,

My opinions: 1/ the class still remains gaz turbine generator-equipped, with the diesel being an auxilliary. 2/ Thus, I would think it will retain its GTS name & 3/ RIGHT ON !!!!.

However, on the subject of #3, there was a beautiful, and revealing pix of GTS Constellation sailing away from Bergen, or Olden....and a close-up frontal view gave me the very solid impression her lounge area on deck #11 was NOT obstructed , leading me to beleive X somehow found the time and the method to clean the CDS remnants off that area, in the recent past. Surprising, since GTS Summit is still afflicted with that horrible stuff ( I see her every other saturday...painful to look at...)...and she WAS drydocked in May for over 100 hours ( emergency pod repairs) which would have given them ample time to cleanup Revelation lounge....I am referring to a very indepth explanation you had given us a while back as to why such ''clean up'' has to await a drydock...Go figure !!!

ALSO, isn't GTS Millenium due for drydock in '06 for the same auxilliary diesel generator installation ??? X seems to be moving fast on this.
Just as well.
RCI wants to do the same thing with their Radiance class ships.

I just hope GTS Constellation gets a thorough and proper down time drydock out of this diesel thing....she needs it and so does GST Summit, since GST Millenium ( Nov'05) and GST Infinity ( Mar'06) got theirs already.

Cheers
Claude G
:wink:

Rev22:17 August 1st, 2006 08:51 PM

Claude,

1/ the class still remains gaz turbine generator-equipped, with the diesel being an auxilliary. 2/ Thus, I would think it will retain its GTS name

It's actually up to the classification society to which the ship belongs. The gas turbines are prime movers on electric generators that power electric motors that turn the shaft, so some classification socieites would have assigned the "Motor Vessel" (MV) or "Motor Ship" (MS) classification to these vessels in the beginning.

However, on the subject of #3, there was a beautiful, and revealing pix of GTS Constellation sailing away from Bergen, or Olden....and a close-up frontal view gave me the very solid impression her lounge area on deck #11 was NOT obstructed , leading me to beleive X somehow found the time and the method to clean the CDS remnants off that area, in the recent past.

Or it may have been an old photo of GTS Consetllation... or simply an aspect that did not show the garbage....

Better to expect the worst and be pleasantly surprised than to expect the best and be bitterly disappointed.

ALSO, isn't GTS Millenium due for drydock in '06 for the same auxilliary diesel generator installation ??? X seems to be moving fast on this.
Just as well.
RCI wants to do the same thing with their Radiance class ships.


The parent company apparently expects significant reduction in the consumption of fuel, with conseqeunt savings in operating cost. The executives must figure that it will be pretty big if they are foregoing two or three weeks of revenue for a special visit to the yards.

Norm.

dkjretired August 6th, 2006 10:20 AM

Probably a continuation of the new engines that are going onto the Solestic Class ships which had previously been announced. Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but some believe that this will solve the pod problem. I think they are not related but could be wrong.

Don

scapel August 6th, 2006 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkjretired
Probably a continuation of the new engines that are going onto the Solestic Class ships which had previously been announced. Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but some believe that this will solve the pod problem. I think they are not related but could be wrong.

Don

Don,
I don't believe the new diesel generators will fix the pod problem. Apparently the Gas turbines are not producing enough power to generators to produce enough electricity. Also I think the Millennium on her second voyage had a convertor problem with electricity to one pod.
I kind of understand that the marine grade diesel is burned and the gas given off is used to run turbines that spin generators to produce electricity that power the pods system and all the electricity for the ship.
The heat given off is also used to heat water.
I guess the new generators will be diesel internal combuston in either an old piston or a turbo roatary type engine for production of electricity.
These would be backup in case the Gas Turbines were not procucing enough electricity.
What do you think?

Rev22:17 August 6th, 2006 04:51 PM

Don,

Probably a continuation of the new engines that are going onto the Solestic Class ships which had previously been announced. Someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but some believe that this will solve the pod problem. I think they are not related but could be wrong.

No, the installation of diesel generators will not do anything to solve the pod problem. The diesel generators will be nothing more than an alternate source of electrical power. I'm not familiar with the configuration of the electrical plant on these ships, but I'm guessing that the plant is split with some gas turbines supplying the propulsion pods and others supplying base (hotel, navigation and communication systems, etc.) electrical loads. The company expects that the diesels will be more efficient than the gas turbines in enough situations so the savings in usage of fuel will more than offset the cost incurred to buy and install the new generators.

Norm.

Rev22:17 August 6th, 2006 05:04 PM

scapel,

I don't believe the new diesel generators will fix the pod problem.

That's correct.

Apparently the Gas turbines are not producing enough power to generators to produce enough electricity.

No, nothing of the sort. The gas turbines provide plenty of power, and these ships have not had problems maintaining schedules due to lack of power. Rather, it's entirely a question of fuel efficiency. Gas turbines are not very efficient at low power, so the company expects the savings in fuel consumption to pay the costs incurred to buy and to install the new generators in a fairly short time.

I kind of understand that the marine grade diesel is burned and the gas given off is used to run turbines that spin generators to produce electricity that power the pods system and all the electricity for the ship.

Yes, that's absolutely correct. I'm not sure why you include the words "sort of"....

I guess the new generators will be diesel internal combuston in either an old piston or a turbo roatary type engine for production of electricity.

Hmmm.... Rotary diesels? That's an interesting idea, and certainly theoretically possible, but I'm not aware of any such engines. Do you have a link to such a product?

These would be backup in case the Gas Turbines were not procucing enough electricity.

No, not a back-up. Rather, it's an auxilliary system for times when there's not enough demand to place full load on a gas turbine.

Norm.

sealegs August 7th, 2006 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev22:17
Claude,




However, on the subject of #3, there was a beautiful, and revealing pix of GTS Constellation sailing away from Bergen, or Olden....and a close-up frontal view gave me the very solid impression her lounge area on deck #11 was NOT obstructed , leading me to beleive X somehow found the time and the method to clean the CDS remnants off that area, in the recent past.

Or it may have been an old photo of GTS Consetllation... or simply an aspect that did not show the garbage....

Better to expect the worst and be pleasantly surprised than to expect the best and be bitterly disappointed.




Norm.

:) Good evening, Norm
the picture of GST Constellation I was referring to is very much current, taken during her 2nd last sailing in the Baltic and Scandinavia, leaving Bergen. The photographer, Erik, is aprofessional and sets up from a bridge overlooking the sailaway lane, and takes most brilliant shots of turning into, coming towards , passing by and sailing away. The full front picture I am referring to, with the help of a good quality zoom lens, revealed beyond a doubt that her deck #11 lounge front windows are quite clear of any CDS garbage....Thus my query as to how did X find a way to clean her up, while GST Summit still carries the '' debris''....and DID have a 95+ hours drydock this past may....

BTW, you might be aware that GST Infinity's propulsion systems as a whole ( not the pods, per se) are fussying up ....twice over the last 3 sailings, necessitating dropping anchor, cooling the engines down, '' making required repairs'' then continuing on....I wonder if she's not just due for another emergency drydock....and thus lined up for the diesel auxilliary installation while they're at it...
Poor X;;;;the mechanical maintenance items sure are catching up to the top brass, arent' they....
Now, about GTS Summit....

Cheers
Claude G
:wink:

gambitscuba August 7th, 2006 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sealegs
BTW, you might be aware that GST Infinity's propulsion systems as a whole ( not the pods, per se) are fussying up ....twice over the last 3 sailings, necessitating dropping anchor, cooling the engines down, '' making required repairs'' then continuing on....I wonder if she's not just due for another emergency drydock....and thus lined up for the diesel auxilliary installation while they're at it...
Poor X;;;;the mechanical maintenance items sure are catching up to the top brass, arent' they....
Now, about GTS Summit....

Cheers
Claude G
:wink:

MY POOR SHIP.... I bet the crew is just run ragged... what else have you heard about the GTS Infinity?!?!?!

Rev22:17 August 7th, 2006 08:35 AM

Claude,

the picture of GST Constellation I was referring to is very much current, taken during her 2nd last sailing in the Baltic and Scandinavia, leaving Bergen. The photographer, Erik, is aprofessional and sets up from a bridge overlooking the sailaway lane, and takes most brilliant shots of turning into, coming towards , passing by and sailing away. The full front picture I am referring to, with the help of a good quality zoom lens, revealed beyond a doubt that her deck #11 lounge front windows are quite clear of any CDS garbage....Thus my query as to how did X find a way to clean her up, while GST Summit still carries the '' debris''....and DID have a 95+ hours drydock this past may....

Okay, that casts the previous post about the photos in a completely different light.

BTW, you might be aware that GST Infinity's propulsion systems as a whole ( not the pods, per se) are fussying up ....twice over the last 3 sailings, necessitating dropping anchor, cooling the engines down, '' making required repairs'' then continuing on....I wonder if she's not just due for another emergency drydock....and thus lined up for the diesel auxilliary installation while they're at it...

I saw the posts about apparent problems on one of her Alaska cruises, but apparently it was not the pods. I'm getting the sense that the problem probably is in an electrical control unit, so they don't have to put she ship indo drydock to fix it.

Poor X;;;;the mechanical maintenance items sure are catching up to the top brass, arent' they....

Celebrity actually has one of the best track records in the industry when it comes to mechanical maintenance. The only major recurring problem has been the thrust bearings in the pods on the four vessels of the Millennium class, which appear to be due to defective design -- not Celebrity's fault.

Of course, the line could schedule these vessels for a short annual drydocking to replace the main thrust bearings and thus avoid disruptions to the schedules, now that the executives know that there's a problem.

Now, about GTS Summit....

No matter. My next cruise is aboard GTS Infinity in October, which gives them plenty of time to resolve whatever problems they are having with the propulsion system.

Norm.

sealegs August 7th, 2006 02:36 PM

MY POOR SHIP.... I bet the crew is just run ragged... what else have you heard about the GTS Infinity?!?!?![/quote]

:) Good morning,

Nothing dramatic about the pods themselves....but the electricals components of the overall propulsion system have misbehaved recently.
This would NOT necessitate an emergency drydock ( unless the ripple effect of these malfunctions affect pods components.....,which would only happen if X does not attend to the current problems timely and correctly).

She sailed almost on time yesterday.
You'll be fine.
Yes, the crew is smack right on the front line of the disturbances when a malfunction occur....and they're doing great, on all accounts.

Cheers
ClaudeG
:wink:

rburke August 7th, 2006 02:50 PM

It's now back on their site as of today (8/7) as a Transatlantic cruise sailing 4/13/07. We did a Transatlantic on her last year and it was great.
Bob :D

sealegs August 7th, 2006 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev22:17
Claude,

the picture of GST Constellation I was referring to is very much current, taken during her 2nd last sailing in the Baltic and Scandinavia, leaving Bergen. The photographer, Erik, is aprofessional and sets up from a bridge overlooking the sailaway lane, and takes most brilliant shots of turning into, coming towards , passing by and sailing away. The full front picture I am referring to, with the help of a good quality zoom lens, revealed beyond a doubt that her deck #11 lounge front windows are quite clear of any CDS garbage....Thus my query as to how did X find a way to clean her up, while GST Summit still carries the '' debris''....and DID have a 95+ hours drydock this past may....

Okay, that casts the previous post about the photos in a completely different light.

BTW, you might be aware that GST Infinity's propulsion systems as a whole ( not the pods, per se) are fussying up ....twice over the last 3 sailings, necessitating dropping anchor, cooling the engines down, '' making required repairs'' then continuing on....I wonder if she's not just due for another emergency drydock....and thus lined up for the diesel auxilliary installation while they're at it...

I saw the posts about apparent problems on one of her Alaska cruises, but apparently it was not the pods. I'm getting the sense that the problem probably is in an electrical control unit, so they don't have to put she ship indo drydock to fix it.

Poor X;;;;the mechanical maintenance items sure are catching up to the top brass, arent' they....

Celebrity actually has one of the best track records in the industry when it comes to mechanical maintenance. The only major recurring problem has been the thrust bearings in the pods on the four vessels of the Millennium class, which appear to be due to defective design -- not Celebrity's fault.

Of course, the line could schedule these vessels for a short annual drydocking to replace the main thrust bearings and thus avoid disruptions to the schedules, now that the executives know that there's a problem.

Now, about GTS Summit....

No matter. My next cruise is aboard GTS Infinity in October, which gives them plenty of time to resolve whatever problems they are having with the propulsion system.

Norm.


sealegs August 7th, 2006 03:11 PM

:oops: Norm, ooops....sorry about my misposting....the '' thrust bearing on my port side typing finger wore out a little quickly here...''...

Some toughts:
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.

My opinion.

Cheers
Claude
:wink:

Rev22:17 August 7th, 2006 05:59 PM

Claude,

Nothing dramatic about the pods themselves....but the electricals components of the overall propulsion system have misbehaved recently.
This would NOT necessitate an emergency drydock ( unless the ripple effect of these malfunctions affect pods components.....,which would only happen if X does not attend to the current problems timely and correctly).


When failures happen in the electrical control panels, it usually limits the available power until the repairs are completed, which would restrict the ship's top speed to perhaps 75% or 80% of the normal maximum. On the Millennium class, the normal maximum is about 25 knots so the reduced maximum probably would be around eighteen to twenty knots -- certainly enough to force shortening or even cancellation of scheduled ports of call. It realy is not possible to do anything that would cause further damage to the propulsion system because circuit breakers limit the load on a generator and the power supplied to each pod to safe levels.

The reality is that the crew can repair the electrical panels underway if they have replacemet parts onboard. Unfortunately, the ship does not have room for spares of parts that are not prone to failure and those parts sometimes have to come from the factory -- and, worse, sometimes have to be built to order. In this case, it sounds like it was not possible to get the part to the ship before the ship arrived in Vancouver. Once the part arrived onboard, it may have taken a day or two to install it and to retest the system before resuming normal operations. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the problem basically affected only one turn-around and two cruises.

Norm.

Rev22:17 August 7th, 2006 06:25 PM

Claude,

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.

Norm.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1