woodofpine

Norm's the expert here!

I indicated that "The pods (bearings) are poorly designed"; norm even took issue with that statement even though that is the core fact of law X is taking and having to prove to recover in litigation...

Norm has stated one fact/opinion that is worth considering...

"So Celebrity followed the course of action dictated by the progress of the legal proceedings."

Personal experience has shown me that the strategy embodied in that statement is generally a poor business model.

Businesses and industries that do NOT follow that "letting the tail wag the dog" model generally are better off... from Tobacco to Microsoft. It is not proactive. In construction litigation, I tell clients that begin looking in that direction that, "If you want lawyers to construct your building via the courts it's going to be the longest most expensive project you've ever seen."

If Norm's statement does reflect X' operative problem solving strategy then it's no surprise that the problem hasn't been solved, and it's unlikely it will be for at least a few years to come. After all, even if RCI hits a home run in court (at trial) all that gets them is a judgment for money; it doesn't fix the propulsion systems.

Can someone give me a brief explanation of what the pod problem is and how it should impact such a long overseas voyage? I need something to make me feel better about this!

Norm? ;)

The pods (bearings) are poorly designed - that's it.

This was a new design technology and unfortunately X got saddled with a problem design. X' M-class pods have performed poorly on a consistent basis (from a breakdown percentage standpoint) and despite enormous corrective effort they remain problem prone. It'a not X' fault; many azipod designs proved problem prone. NCL, Carnival - all the buyers of these custom design products had problems early on. The ones X got have simply proven to be the worst of the bunch from a remedial standpoint.

X keeps quite about it because passenger insecurity in the product (itineraries and schedules) is a REALLY serious threat to their business. I can't blame them for that at all, although it comes with it's own built in customer backlash.

The manufacturer of the pods "took it seriously" from the get go - that hasn't made the problems any easier to fix long term; this particular design appears fundamentally flawed.

I don't have first hand insight, but it was my understanding that the litigation over this matter between RCI - Chantiers/ALSTOM - Rolls-Royce was settled some time ago. On products of this nature, litigation doesn't prevent repairs and remedial redesign efforts from occurring; remedial efforts are economically mandatory regardless of the parties legal posture. Litigation simply addresses apportionment of the costs involved and other economic fall out.

When a problem of this magnitude arises it's a daunting business problem for all concerned. These aren't "return it to the dealer for a replacement" items, it's all custom made, custom designed mega-tooling that can't be just "switched out" for something "better". I'm sure the production, design, and business managers at ALSTOMS, RR, and RCI/X have all lost far more sleep over this than any passenger or group of passengers have complaining and credit lobbying over a missed port (the validity of their complaints and credit claims aside).

Some pioneers get slaughtered... X seems to be taking its arrows as best it can...

OK here it is from Dudes that DON'T CRUISE (thank god!)

http://www.ebearing.com/news2002/032701.htm

My mother keeps a photo of her and my late father aboard the Carla C. from sometime in '80's. Mom really likes cruises and my father did not (couldn't get over the memory of WWII troop ships) so they didn't cruise except once or twice. After dad died though she became quite the cruiser and turned us all on to it!