chengkp75

Then she would need an original Certificate, with a more in depth inspection.

If the ship has not been in the US for more than 24 months, the Certificate of Compliance is no longer valid, and it has to be renewed before the ship can enter US waters to embark passengers, so the USCG would send inspectors overseas (at Oceania's expense) to conduct the inspection.

The cost savings of LNG is narrowing in the US market, and is almost non-existent in other places around the world, so trying to do what he suggests is possible, but it would never be financially viable. This is not unique to QM2, very often even a relatively newer ship has to totally replace a system because the manufacturer stops making that model. Rolls Royce stopped making a control system for a bow thruster that we had installed in a tanker just 4 years prior, and there was no recourse but to renew the entire system. While expensive, this kind of equipment renewal is not uncommon.

When in port, they are subject to some of the laws of the port country. There is a very large gray area of overlap between port state jurisdiction and flag state jurisdiction. But, yes, as the ships are UK flag, they would fall under UK laws.

In my professional opinion, there is no way that either LNG or ammonia would be retrofitted to the QM2, as this requires cryogenic tanks and an inert gas systems, which would require tearing out the entire bottom of the hull to accommodate, if space is available. This is likely her "hull speed", or the speed at which the hull form drives through the water most efficiently. Stability has nothing to do with speed. Trying to drive a ship faster than her hull speed requires horsepower that increases exponentially with each knot. This is why QM2 can travel at 26 knots with just her 4 diesels running, while it takes the two gas turbines, which amount to 42% of her total power, to get the speed from 26 to 30 knots. As others have noted, fuel consumption is related to speed exponentially, so the last 10% of speed requires about 60% of the fuel consumption. I don't see the QM2 returning to 6 night crossings for economic reasons, and also don't see 8 night crossings happening either, as this changes the demographic of the cruise.

It still shows a lack of due diligence when purchasing the ship, and a lack of experience in ship maintenance and repair in not anticipating what could, and what is typically needed, when dry docking and surveying older tonnage.

The most likely use for hydrogen is in fuel cells, rather than engines. The biggest drawback to hydrogen is how to produce it in vast quantities in a green process. Today, most hydrogen is made from steam reforming of methane, which produces greenhouse gases.

There is a vast difference between the Hindenburg (gaseous hydrogen) and a cruise ship using liquified hydrogen and inert atmospheres. Both technologies have crossovers to LNG technology, and the major difference is in the metallurgy for the tanks and piping since the cryogenics are at a lower temperature than LNG.

Any ship can pass a class society survey, it just amounts to how much time and money you want to put into the ship.

Very low risk of capsizing unless a major, severe storm is encountered, and even then, more likely a break in the tow line. They will fill the ballast, fresh water, and fuel tanks with water, and this, along with the major loss of weight from stripping the hotel, will lower the center of gravity to a large degree. Her fuel tanks, which were cleaned decades ago, would hold about 20,000 tons of water, right at the bottom of the ship.

NCL's interest in the SSUS ended when Apollo Management bought a chunk of Genting's shares (dropping Genting from a majority share). When Lim and Genting bought Crystal, he was again in a position to purchase the SSUS, and went so far as the feasibility study and a year's worth of docking costs, but then the study came back too expensive, and Genting Hong Kong (the Genting subsidiary that bought Crystal) went belly up so it would not have likely made it to fruition in any case.

Yes, it was a bit incomprehensible the amount of fixation KT Lim had for the SSUS.

So, interesting point, as recently as 2008, I would find at least one person each week that had put their "horseshoe" lifejacket on in a way that would have them float face down. Those "horseshoe" lifejackets are still in extremely wide usage. We were also always instructed that men in particular should cross their feet when jumping into the water, so that the "family jewels" don't become the "family jowls".

It may well be deferred for a year, as a bit of this happened during the pandemic, but by now I would think the DNV database would reflect the deferred timing.

So, the bolded qualifier is okay, but ones by others are not? And, by the way, I will be bound by my qualifiers that most mainstream cruise lines will offload a 30+ year old ship, but that in some cases they won't. As for NCL and the SSUS, while their purchase price was never disclosed, they sold it to the Conservancy for $3 million. The feasibility study commissioned by Crystal cruises was over $1 million.

Escape's bottom survey, as well as the main class renewal is due Oct 2025, so that is when a dry dock should happen.

Two totally different ships comparing the SSUS to POA. Older ships like the SSUS used lower strength steel than today's ships, so they used more of it (i.e. thicker plating). So, the plating does not reach the point of needing replacement as soon. Secondly, the SSUS has been sitting in essentially fresh water in Philadelphia for the last 30 years. The salt front of the Delaware river is about 30 miles downstream of Philly. When NCL bought the SSUS, as I've said, there was little intention, except in the mind of KT Lim, that the ship could be returned to service, but it did represent a US bottom, so it was purchased to prevent any competition. This just shows a lack of understanding of ship maintenance. The "old hull" is what limits a ship's life, due to inspection and steel replacement costs. The machinery is overhauled on a regular basis (for instance, the diesel engines are completely torn down and overhauled with major components like pistons, cylinder heads, and bearings renewed every 2.5 years (about 12,000 hours)). Newer ships, with their thinner, stronger steel hulls, are indeed designed for a 30 year life expectancy. Does that mean the ship gets scrapped at 30 years? No, but after 15 years the cost of hull maintenance starts to climb exponentially, and at 30 years it becomes a major impediment to a mainstream cruise line continuing to operate the ship. I, using my professional qualifications, will state that most major mainstream cruise lines do sell off their 30+ year old bottoms, though there can be other financial considerations leading to the retention in some cases. Gonna question my qualifiers? Philly shipyard has two graving docks capable of building a replacement for POA in the US, meeting the PVSA requirement. Given that Hanwa (a Korean shipyard company) has bought Philly Shipyard, and given Philly ship's proven building concept of forming the hull steel in the US, and importing everything else from Korea (engine room modules and machinery, superstructure, etc) in shippable blocks (they have done this for decades building Jones Act compliant tankers and container ships), I would suspect that either Philly or NASSCO will get the contract for a replacement.

In my opinion, the last chance that the SSUS had of returning to service was decades ago, before she was towed to Turkey and the interior stripped. The last feasibility study done by Crystal cruises was in the $800 million mark, IIRC, because they would be renewing the power plant, and this would constitute a "major overhaul" of the ship, and she would have had to be brought up to current SOLAS standards. The largest problem here was the need for two rudders, and this would have required an entirely new stern section.

As a senior ship's officer in the NCL America project from the beginning, I'll just point out a correction. Neither the SS Constitution, nor the SS US, were ever intended for the Hawaiian trade. The "Connie" was purchased with the intention to scrap her, as she was severely outdated, and in terrible mechanical condition (not counting the inefficiency of the steam plant), her purchase was simply to keep the US "bottom" (hull) from going to a competitor, who would have a PVSA compliant ship to compete against. The SS US was KT Lim's (owner of NCL at the time) dream (and fixation, as he continued this with Crystal cruises) to return the ship to operation, but to place it in world cruise market.

So, for the POA, it was delivered in June, 2005. Therefore her renewal dry docks will be: (past) June, 2010, June 2015, and June, 2020 (or a month earlier). So, the next renewal dry dock is May - June 2025. The only variable is whether or not they suspended the ship's certificates during Covid.

The dry dock "clock" starts when the ship is delivered from the newbuild shipyard. At that point, the 5 year clock starts. That 5 year clock remains the same for the remainder of the ship's life. All ship's certifications, surveys, and documents are renewed every 5 years. So, while class may allow a dry dock a month earlier than 5 years from delivery, it will not allow any deviation later (i.e. if the renewal date is March, they will allow a dry dock in February, but not any later than March). And, when the ship reaches 15 years old, the "mid-period" dry docking (ships are required to dry dock "twice in 5 years"), which up until then has been substituted with an underwater survey, is no longer allowed, so the ship has to dry dock every approximately 2.5 years. The allowable window for this "mid-period" dry docking has more flexibility, in that it can be anywhere from 27 months to 32 months since the last dry docking (so a 6 month span), and a cruise line could try to schedule according to peak periods for this inspection, but again the second factor comes into play: when is a dry dock available. Remember that every ship in the world follows the same dry dock calendar, and cruise ships only account for about 5% of world shipping. So, the cruise ships need to contend with all the cargo ships taking dry dock slots when trying to schedule a dry dock. Cargo ships don't have "peak seasons", so they will take any slot that fits their statutory calendar, and will typically book those slots two or more years in advance. So, the cruise line has to say, "here's our statutory window of time, what shipyard is in our operating part of the world, that has a slot available?" and take that slot, regardless of market concerns. So, unless the cruise lines arrange with the newbuilding shipyard for a specific delivery date that would fall in those "shoulder" months (and given the full order books at those newbuild yards, that isn't likely), the cruise line's choice of dry docking months is set when the contract to build the ship is signed, and doesn't change until the ship is scrapped.

There would only be a single sprinkler for each balcony. The sprinkler system is fully charged with pressurized water, but will only come out at the sprinkler that has had the "pill" melted. The pill holds the sprinkler head closed until it reaches a rated temperature, it ruptures, and the valve falls out of the sprinkler head. So, most likely, the sprinklers on the balconies on each side of the fire did not get hot enough to activate.

Non-Karen input from a former senior ship's officer with NCL. Yes, the policy used to be that opening balcony dividers was at the Captain's discretion, along with the guidance of the classification society's rules for fire safety. As noted, there were limits on how many total dividers could be opened, and how many in a row, or in any given fire zone, and when more dividers were not allowed, complaints were made. So, the company went to a "no open dividers" rule to take it out of the Captain's discretion. So, yes, it is a fire hazard, no, you won't be allowed to do it, and yes, there is a possibility of getting disembarked for doing it (read the ticket contract). And, the Hotel Director will tell you this face to face. Different risk tolerances set by different insurance underwriters. And, the sole reason that dividers can open is not for passenger convenience, it is to prevent another Star Princess, where the firefighters could not proceed from one balcony to the next. Why do some cruise lines put coffee makers or tea kettles in every cabin, and others don't? Risk tolerance, and financial decisions regarding whether it is worth the labor cost to inspect and repair those items semi-annually for fire safety, or not.

Not really. Dry dock scheduling is set by the classification societies (in this case DNV) on set schedules (i.e. class sets a 2 month window every 2.5 years for a dry dock), and setting the time within that window is determined by dock availability, as dry docks are in constant demand, as this docking was set 9 months in advance.

It's a round trip on the same boat.