AL3XCruise

1 hour ago, GettotheSun said:

I'm pretty confident based on the vast amount of information that NCL asked me to input into THEIR system, they absolutely should flag to me if my passport is invalid for travel purposes according to their policy.

I think the question becomes 1) how much time and effort does it take to code this for every combination of itinerary, passenger nationality, etc., and then keep it updated to changing international requirements and 2) if there is an error in this process does NCL have any liability for providing an indication that someone is good to go?  

Right now, they spend no money and have the freedom to grant or refuse compensation at their sole discretion.  

A long time ago I worked on a project that included some aspects of what would be required to make a verification system work.  It took a lot of man hours, as some nations do not make information readily accessible or have very complex requirements regarding entry.  I doubt NCL would want to deal with it in house. 

There may be some third-parties that dig through all the intricacies and resell the information in a standardized format, but that costs a lot more than putting a few notes in the travel documents.  

That all said... it seems reasonable that some kind of flag could be made saying like "The data you have entered indicates your  passport expires less than six months from the last day of your cruise; please verify that your travel documents will meet the requirements..."  It is easy to code, leaves the responsibility entirely with the customer, but adds in an extra reminder for those that may be unaware.

I've left the equipment I plan to use in ambient conditions ahead of time.  Depending on the lenses and conditions it can take 15 minutes to over an hour.  In very humid conditions I'll try to keep it sealed to minimize condensation as temperature equalizes.

I also have a dew heater that I use for astrophotography.  I may experiment with that next time I don't have an hour to let my telephoto acclimate.  

41 minutes ago, kasmith2 said:

Joebucks:  so if you look at my chart, the miracle is the least crowded, followed by the Sun?

I believe a @Joebucks was making a point about the ratio not being overemphasized by some people.  If your comparing a ship with a ratio of 34 to one with 36, the design of the vessel is going to have a much bigger impact than that number.  Even bigger differences aren't always accurate, because as has been pointed out spaces not available to passengers (like engine room, galleys, etc) are included in the GT figure and don't always vary linearly from ship to ship.  Furthermore, it is a measure of interior space, so if you looking to find out how crowded the sun deck is your better reading reviews.

That, of course, doesn't even get into changes is passenger loads on different lines/itineraries/etc.

In short, it is a rough estimate that can give some idea when comparing ships, but reviews and first hand accounts will generally give you better information.

My first experience at the port was the worst I've ever seen.  Staff were rude and unprofessional, getting into loud and heated arguments with each other.  3+ hours of chaos and confusion.  Had it been the first time the ship had sailed from Manhattan I might have been more understanding, but at the time Breakaway had been sailing there for months.

After that, I was hesitant to sail out of Manhattan again.  However, the second time around things were far better, though it still was probably about two hours from the curb to the ship.  Of course I arrived fairly early, so those boarding in the early afternoon may have a much shorter wait.  If a noon, 1pm boarding is to your liking, it probably will help avoid the worst delays (baring any unusual issues).

I know very little about lens development, but I'd surmise trying to make a material improvement in some of the existing EF lenses is very hard to do, and most people who own an array of "L" glass aren't going to shell out more cash for a couple minor tweaks.  The ROI for coming a version III of the EF 100-400 lens, where many already own the I or II model, is probably a lot less than giving the RF crowd a 100-400 lens that nobody currently has.

I do wonder if the RF lenses start with their EF counterparts as a template or if they are "fresh" designs.

But I do think Canon, and the world, seem headed in the mirorrless direction.  I suppose we shall see.  I know I for one am not planning to run out and invest in a mirrored 1DXIII.  Not that I would be getting one if it was mirorrless... but possible obsolescence is a more palatable reason in my mind than "I just can't justify the cost for what I do."

16 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

I really disliked Epic. I’ll never sail that ship again. There’s a reason NCL only built one of those garbage barges. 

NCL built one because of a contractual dispute with the shipyard.  The second ship was axed long before Epic ever saw a passenger.  That said, the design has proven to be one of the most divisive of modern cruise ships, and I'm sure some feel NCL was fortunate to dodge a bullet.  Personally I don't have much interest in Epic, but some folks still love it.

I find it kind of funny that it is being compared to Apex, an Edge class ship.  Edge's design has certainly elicited a wide array of positive and negative opinions as well.  For me, personally, I'd find it easier to deal with the Apex's negatives than those of the Epic, but that will vary from person to person.  It also deepens on cabin; suites on both ships rectify some of the issues people are most vocal about.

On 1/3/2020 at 6:36 AM, chengkp75 said:

They are only more economical than diesels when run at full load, which is why the QM2 has both diesels and gas turbines, and only used the gas turbines when the last couple of knots of speed were needed, when they could be run at full load. 

I was under the impression a gas turbine is always less efficient than a large marine diesel, even when both are at high loads.  The turbines, however, weigh only a fraction as much for the amount of power produced, so there is less dead weight to lug around when not in use.  

19 hours ago, sfbearcat said:

QM2 sailed 6day crossings thru 2009...So it must not have been that expensive...7day crossing must bring in enough revenue to cover the extra days food and still increase profits

The fuel savings of the slow down are substantial.  I'm sure they weighed on board spending, initial revenues, fuel costs, utilization of the ship, and incremental costs related to the extra day very carefully before making the change.

18 hours ago, foodsvcmgr said:

Somewhat like owning a Porsche yet never driving faster than 50 mph.

If the window sticker on your Porsche quoted "feet per gallon" you might feel differently ;).

15 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

As a reality check,  I just pointed the previous posters (shipgeeks and evandbob) to a data driven chart shared earlier by yet another poster (cruseforme). Nothing to do with any "opinion" of mine or cruiseline I may prefer. Rather, I trust that most discerning consumers prefer to have factual information.

 

Please be respectful of OP's original question: "...which ships have the best/largest outdoor spaces."

I do agree with your premise that in general higher end lines are going to have more space available.  After all, it is one of the strengths that justify the added cost.  However, if the OP is trying to compare between ships operated by similar tier lines, the information about space ratio isn't very useful.  It is, after all, a measurement of interior space (and not directly related to ft3 despite what the site implies). 

In addition, ships of very similar tonnage can have dramatically different layouts, particularly among mass market and mid-tier lines where significant space can be devoted to "attractions" and areas reserved for suite guests or requiring additional fees.  Likely another plus for a higher end line, but if the OP is trying to compare NCL/RCI/CCL space ratio isn't all that useful in determining exterior crowds.

In short, I agree with your overall premise, but I want to be respectful of the original question as well.  Thus far they have sailed on NCL and haven't indicated a desire to go to a different type of line.  I do like facts, but if they stick with a mainstream, some of the facts presented are easily misinterpreted.  

Best wishes for a Happy New Year!

4 minutes ago, AGards said:

It is complaining about complainers.  That is my opinion.   You were the one arguing the semantics of what I was originally saying

Then say it is your opinion, I can respectfully disagree with that.  But don't try to justify it with a dictionary definition and then claim others are arguing semantics.  

1 minute ago, AGards said:

Should I of used the words "making fun of"?  Does that make it better? 

Perhaps it is more accurate, but it defeats the entire purpose of your original post that this was a "A thread devoted to people complaining about people complaining."

If you feel it is inappropriate to find humor that someone thinks the ship was too big for the port, that is your right.  But make that argument, not one that people here are being hypocritical. 

2 hours ago, AGards said:

ok well, the definition of complaining is "the expression of dissatisfaction or annoyance about something".  Is that not EXACTLY what you guys are doing?  Expressing your annoyance about the complainers? 

 I would argue most people on this thread are expressing amusement, not expressing "dissatisfaction or annoyance."

3 minutes ago, Newleno said:

Nope thats not it, take another guess at it

Actually that is EXACTLY it.  NCL cancelled subsequent F3 Class ships before Epic was completed.  The cancellation had nothing to do with passengers not liking the ship as none had been on it.

1 hour ago, Greek Boss said:

I think Baltimore would be an excellent port of call for one of the Leonardo class ships

Most ships in Leonardo's size range are to tall for the bridges entering Baltimore.  They haven't published enough info about the new ships to know for sure, but the template they are being based on has a tall, narrow superstructure.  Because of that I doubt it will be materially shorter than its 140,000 GT peers, but time will tell.

Still, even if a Leonardo ship can't fit, it could free up a smaller vessel to serve Baltimore, or they could try to attract Baltimore/DC cruisers with an itinerary out of Norfolk. 

But I agree, it would be nice if they manage to design the vessel to service Baltimore and other bridge limited ports.

40 minutes ago, 3rdGenCunarder said:

So if they didn't fix the azipod, what did they do at the shipyard in Freeport?

None of us know for sure, but in past instances of pod failure the propeller blades have been removed (as @rafinmd mentioned)

.  This reduces drag coming off inoperative pod, improving efficiency and speed.  Depending on the design of the pod, it may also prevent additional damage from occurring.

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

At least in the US, the USCG requires the escort tug in all ports for ships that no longer have redundant steering. 

Unrelated to ships with pods, but do single screw/single rudder vessels have multiple actuators on the rudder to provide redundancy?  

1 hour ago, SlipperyVic said:

I don't think NCL should really be calling their dining freestyle anymore. The only freestyle thing about it now is no assigned seating. Before the megaships sailed into the picture, NCL's freestyle was much more free. I feel that it's a shame they have had to stray from that.

I suppose I see "freestyle dining" on a megaship as akin to going to a local downtown district and having multiple choices for meals and entertainment.  Some I can walk in or have short wait, some will have long waits, and others require reservations. 

That counters some of the first cruises I went on where everyone dined at one of two fixed times and a show in the main theater played twice nightly, timed in accordance with dinner.  A performer or two around the ship was the only other option for entertainment, and the buffet the only other venue for a meal.  No waits, no reservations, no options.

I understand that to some freestyle means walking into whatever you want on short notice, and would love if that option was available.  The logistics involved, however, make me doubt I'll see it... at least not a pricepoint I'd like!  So for now I'm willing to take the good with the bad.

1 hour ago, SlipperyVic said:

Having to pre-book things is the antithesis of freestyle cruising. That's not a complaint it's a fact of life.

I'm sure many people share that opinion, but a small amount of research would show them what ships and lines would be the best fit for their preferences.  Someone who spends thousands of dollars with no research and then complains they didn't like the way reservations were handled is the antithesis of a smart consumer.

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

You're probably right. Looks like the safe rating per azipod is @12 knots max. I doubt that one azipod could be run at 15 knots for extended periods?

You are making an assumption that there is a linear relationship between speed and power.  That is incorrect, the relationship is exponential.  As speed increases, each additional knot takes significantly more power than the one before it.  Thus it is quite reasonable the ship can operate at well over half its cruising speed on half the power.  15+ knots continuously does not seem unreasonable.

35 minutes ago, twangster said:

There are a few ports where a pilot assumes command of the ship.  Most ports the Master of the vessel is in command although they can at times allow another senior officer such as a Staff Captain to assume control and dock or leave a pier.  The idea is to groom a senior officer so that they can one day become a full Captain themselves.  Even if a Staff Captain is in command the Master is ultimately responsible for the vessel and all passengers on board.  

33 minutes ago, BNBR said:

No.  They offer navigation suggestions to the Captain.  They never touch the controls.  The captain makes the final decision on whether to even take the suggestion.

Just for clarification:  In many cases a pilot takes the "conn" and issues commands directly to the individual at the controls.  However, the Master has the authority to countermand that, and is generally responsible for the vessel's safety regardless of who is issuing commands or at the controls.  The most notable place where a pilot (or his employer) assumes financial liability is the Panama Canal.  The Chief or another experienced marine Like Capt BJ or Heidi13 could expand further and may know more specifics about Cozumel and the procedures used by local pilots there.

7 minutes ago, WackyWayne said:

based upon Wikipedia, Glory has 2 traditional props. Are there other sources that say Glory has pods or stern thrusters?

Glory has bow and stern thrusters and an integrated propeller/rudder called the "Promas Lite". 

36 minutes ago, BelowDeck4us said:

The weather conditions were clearly known, including the gusty winds.  So for those who've captained a vessel, if the windy conditions are known, shouldn't you give a wider berth to all obstacles, in anticipation of what happened might just happen?  I'm probably overly simplifying the situation when I compare it to driving in ice and snow, in which case you leave a greater following distance to the nearest vehicle.  But again, I've never operated any type of boat, let alone a cruise ship.  

The big difference is that you can't just line up farther out and come in really slow.  A ship is constantly being impacted by current and wind, and needs to continually adjust for that.  Think about a boat crossing a swift river.  It needs to adjust its course and maintain a certain speed in order to keep from getting pushed downstream.  Ships, likewise, must counter wind and current at all times.  As the ships orientation changes, winds gusts hit the vessel, etc, those in charge need to counteract with the correct amount of power from thrusters and main propulsion.  Too little or too much and you are in the wrong place.  Throw in the ships inertia and the fact that rudders and thrusters have different levels of effectiveness at different speeds and you can see why it takes a long time to command a large vessel.  A few of our members who have commanded larger vessels can probably give better examples.

59 minutes ago, Formula280SS said:

WOW, anyone else thinks it looks like OASIS did a heck of a job with at least its bow and aft Port thruster's (or more, if possible?) to keep Glory away from her?

I haven't seen any reports or video of Oasis doing anything?  All the videos I've seen so plenty of wash coming off of Glory and swirling along the Oasis's hull.  I'm curious what are you referring too?

19 minutes ago, Pratique said:

From my sailing days off the beaches of Cape Cod I learned the hard way that a rudder is useless unless there is forward movement relative to the current, so it seems like the ship is vulnerable to losing directional control when swinging around like that.

Two cents would be generous for my thoughts, but here they are:

Water motion relative to the rudder, and the design of the rudder, are key.  Props pushing a lot of water across a high-lift rudder can start turning the ship even with little or no motion.  And of course Azipods, like on the Oasis, are a different animal.  

But you are right that the wind is still immensely powerful and can cause a loss of control, even though big ships have a few tricks a sailboat lacks (more power, thrusters, and different rudder designs).  Not to mention even if the rudders were effective, using them to turn the ship would probably have pushed the bow closer Oasis.

24 minutes ago, Monica887 said:

I was supposed to be cheating on NCL on Sunday by boarding the glory. I'm so not happy right now.

They wanted you to feel at home so they quickly installed a Boardwalk-like area with Al Fresco dining.

29 minutes ago, Abra85 said:

I also wouldn’t rule out a failure of the stern thrusters. I would have expected to see them working at full power to counter the wind but they were never used throughout the video. Glory sounding it’s whistle could be an indication of that.

The ship also narrowly missed the Oasis, so it is possible that the bridge crew hesitated to apply more thruster (or prop/rudder) power as that could have swung the bow into the side of Oasis.  Or the wind may have simply exceeded the capability of the stern thrusters; they do look like they are kicking up less water than what I've seen typically, but the videos aren't perfect and I don't know how the rough conditions impact what is visible.

36 minutes ago, Abra85 said:

To those saying that someone lost their job over this: absolutely not. The bridge team will give a debriefing of the events, most likely go for some simulator training, and the events will be used to enhance training for the rest of the fleet’s deck officers. Terminating well intentioned officers for stuff like this would cause a degradation in the safety culture of the company. 

Bingo.  If the captain followed the procedures and acted in accordance with his training, the result will be a change in procedures in training

2 hours ago, Sweetnspicy said:

Somebody is getting fired 😳

Depends on the cause.  If those responsible followed all approved procedures and made reasonable decisions they probably won't face and significant reprimand and certainly not termination.  Revised training and procedures are the most likely outcome in that case.   If, for example, they chose to continue a docking maneuver when procedures indicated it should be aborted, they may have more to answer for.