Allure and propulsion problems.

[MASCREW]

If anybody hears any details how Royal is going to repair the azipod, please post.

 

 

Just off Allure today!

 

Captain Johnny during his Q&A yesterday stated:

 

"The ship will be semi-dry docked in the Bahamas sometime in February, to repair bearing issues with the center azipod"

 

and

 

"The ship may be lifted into a position suitable to make repairs to the azipod possible, not a full dry dock however"

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also, for those who insist on repeating about how common itinerary changes are, Blah Blah Blah............

 

WE GET THAT!

 

BUT, If RCL is aware that they will be forced to change an itinerary (which they have known for 2 months, per Captain Johnny) THEN, THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY CUSTOMERS!

 

I don't care of the times are changed at all. BUT, if it is foreseeable that it will happen, INFORM THE PASSENGERS!

 

They have NO problem spending money and time sending emails and making phone calls to tell ME "NOT TO COME TO THE PIER PRIOR TO 12:30"

[CleveRocks]

All just theory I made up from, a comment that came from a waiter. Isn't CC fun:D

 

We will just have to wait till we hear back from the bartender by the pool for confirmation.:D

 

I knew I had a reliable source! He wasn't just any waiter, he was a Samba Grill gaucho. I figured if they trust him with a huge knife out in public then they trust him with heretofore non-public information, too. :D

[chengkp75]

Chief -

 

I found a blog from 2009 by Richard Fain that lists Oasis' Lightweight tonnage as 88,600 lwt, and the deadweight tonnage as (17,000 dwt). I'm assuming that the Allure's number is about the same...

 

The Grand Bahama Shipyard website lists the lifting capacity as 82,500 tons...

 

Are they using the same types of "tons" for the weight of the ship and the lifting capacity of the floating drydock? Because then, the ship would be too heavy.. even if they empty all the fuel tanks out

 

Aloha,

 

John

 

ps: here's the website that lists the weights for the Oasis:

 

http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/chairmans-blog/?p=321

 

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how technical the RCI chairman is, or how technical the article was. He mentions lightweight or lightship as 88,600 lwt. And he generally refers to (or the reporter uses the term) "tons" which can most frequently refers to the "short ton" (2000lbs). However, the shipyard's webpage refers to "tonnes", which are metric tons (2205lbs). So, the drydocks lift of 82,500 tonnes is 90,900 tons.

[Paulette3028]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how technical the RCI chairman is, or how technical the article was. He mentions lightweight or lightship as 88,600 lwt. And he generally refers to (or the reporter uses the term) "tons" which can most frequently refers to the "short ton" (2000lbs). However, the shipyard's webpage refers to "tonnes", which are metric tons (2205lbs). So, the drydocks lift of 82,500 tonnes is 90,900 tons.

 

I am sure they are taking the ship to a dry dock that can handle the repair they need to make. It would make NO SENSE to take the ship out of service for a week and put it in a facility that can't repair the problem.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Paulette3028

[chengkp75]

I am sure they are taking the ship to a dry dock that can handle the repair they need to make. It would make NO SENSE to take the ship out of service for a week and put it in a facility that can't repair the problem.

 

Of course they will. What folks are asking, is how is the repair going to be accomplished, since the company has declared for the Bahamas shipyard, and some folks here like to look into the technical aspects, and they have seen that from appearances, the Allure is too big for the dock. I am presenting some possible technical solutions from my experience.

 

A further solution is a "partial docking" where the drydock is used to lift the ship part way out of the water, so that some of the weight is still being supported by the ship's own buoyancy. This would require tipping the dock down by the bow to raise the stern and the pods clear of the water. While tipping is common in cargo ship repairs, there is not enough ballast or cargo space on a cruise ship to effect enough tipping, but the dock could be used to assist this, by just lifting the stern.

 

February is a while off, but it will be interesting to see how the repair is done. Some of this creative engineering is needed because RCI does not want to take the ship to a yard with a dock that can definitely take her, which would be in Europe.

Edited November 18, 2013 by chengkp75

[Paulette3028]

Of course they will. What folks are asking, is how is the repair going to be accomplished, since the company has declared for the Bahamas shipyard, and some folks here like to look into the technical aspects, and they have seen that from appearances, the Allure is too big for the dock. I am presenting some possible technical solutions from my experience.

 

A further solution is a "partial docking" where the drydock is used to lift the ship part way out of the water, so that some of the weight is still being supported by the ship's own buoyancy. This would require tipping the dock down by the bow to raise the stern and the pods clear of the water. While tipping is common in cargo ship repairs, there is not enough ballast or cargo space on a cruise ship to effect enough tipping, but the dock could be used to assist this, by just lifting the stern.

 

February is a while off, but it will be interesting to see how the repair is done. Some of this creative engineering is needed because RCI does not want to take the ship to a yard with a dock that can definitely take her, which would be in Europe.

 

You make a an interesting point of a 'partial docking' -- from my POV, I don't worry about how they do it, just that they do it.

 

I put this in the same category of my computer or cellphone....when it doesn't work right, I just want it fixed...and don't really care, how...just that it is done, so the inconvenience I may be having is over with.

 

I am not a nautical engineer, and don't profess to be.

[TheInnocentAge]

A further solution is a "partial docking" where the drydock is used to lift the ship part way out of the water, so that some of the weight is still being supported by the ship's own buoyancy. This would require tipping the dock down by the bow to raise the stern and the pods clear of the water.

 

Sounds like what was mentioned yesterday in post #754 above.

[giusri]

Sounds like what was mentioned yesterday in post #754 above.

 

exactly!

enjoy your cruise!

[chengkp75]

Sounds like what was mentioned yesterday in post #754 above.

 

That's what got me thinking about it, it isn't a routine operation, and will require some pretty good skills from the dockmaster.

[Clarea]

That's what got me thinking about it, it isn't a routine operation, and will require some pretty good skills from the dockmaster.

It's been facinating to read the discussion on how the repair might be done. When you talk about a partial docking, my thoughts run to all the planning they must be doing to prevent the ship from warping when a large part of it is not supported.

[chengkp75]

It's been facinating to read the discussion on how the repair might be done. When you talk about a partial docking, my thoughts run to all the planning they must be doing to prevent the ship from warping when a large part of it is not supported.

 

What I think will be done is to have the ship blocked on the dock like a normal drydocking, where the block locations are determined at the ship's design stage to prevent twist, and then they will pump the dock up until the ship is resting on the blocks, and then start to pump the aft end of the dock up, while maintaining the forward end as is. The ship will have weight on the aft blocks, and some on the forward blocks, but the forward end of the drydock will still be flooded, and there will be some buoyancy in the hull forward to lessen the weight on the dock. Even during normal drydockings, the area where the pods are attached, probably the aft most 100 feet of the ship is left without support.

 

Here is a picture of a ship with three pods, and you can clearly see the vast area that is not supported by keel blocks.

[Clarea]

What I think will be done is to have the ship blocked on the dock like a normal drydocking, where the block locations are determined at the ship's design stage to prevent twist, and then they will pump the dock up until the ship is resting on the blocks, and then start to pump the aft end of the dock up, while maintaining the forward end as is. The ship will have weight on the aft blocks, and some on the forward blocks, but the forward end of the drydock will still be flooded, and there will be some buoyancy in the hull forward to lessen the weight on the dock. Even during normal drydockings, the area where the pods are attached, probably the aft most 100 feet of the ship is left without support.

 

Here is a picture of a ship with three pods, and you can clearly see the vast area that is not supported by keel blocks.

I see what you mean. The ship structure is already designed to have that large aft area unsupported without warping. Thanks for the photo.

[mjldvlks]

The Nat Geo show "World's Toughest Fixes: Operation Cruise Ship" is about the installing an engine on Radiance [adding a new piston (I assume) engine which is cheaper to use in port than the turbines]. While Radiance is quite a bit smaller than Allure [90,000 gt for Radiance compared to 226,000 gt for Allure] this show has a couple of things that will give you an idea about what Allure is getting ready to go through. It demonstrates how the floating drydocks at GBSW function, and it has a brief clip on replacing the bearings on the azipods [they did as much as they could while she was in the dry dock for 20 days]. I think you can watch it on line [most of it anyway]. It does not appear to be scheduled for broadcast anytime soon.

[CleveRocks]

On every line we have sailed we have had ports replaced, or port times altered (Disney, Princess, Celebrity, Carnival and RCI)--this is common in the industry. If a one hour two hour change is going to upset you this much, I think you may want to consider that cruising is not the right type of vacation for you.

I'm not sure why you don't understand the point several people have tried to make. Every reasonable cruise passenger understands that changes can happen due to any number of unanticipated reasons (including but not limited to weather, mechanical problem, medical emergency, political/civil issue, etc.). None of those situations can anticipated or controlled for, and therefore everyone understands when changes happen due to these UNFORESEEN events.

 

But when events are FORESEEN, don't you think it would just be normal and fair for the cruise line to let its passengers know?

 

Let me try to help you understand it from a totally different perspective ...

 

Pretend you are a shut-in and you can't really get out of your house without someone's assistance. You arrange for me to pick you up and take you to see a movie you've been dying to see. You've been looking forward to it for a while. But I get to your house late and there's not enough time to see the movie; you decide we can get a pleasant lunch out instead of seeing that movie you've wanted to see more than anything.

 

When you ask me why I was late (causing you to miss that beloved movie) and I tell you I had a flat tire on the way, you'll understand, you'll realize it just wasn't your lucky day. But if I instead tell you I knew for a long time and I was going to have to work late and I knew I'd make you miss that movie, wouldn't you feel pretty annoyed at me for not letting you know???!!! Maybe you could've made other plans. At least you wouldn't have gotten yours hopes up.

 

If I was late due to unforeseen circumstances, then so be it. But if I knew well in advance I was going to be late and mess up your plans, aren't I rude for not notifying you?

[bilyclub]

I certainly hope she doesn't slide or shift.

[xxHadleyxx]

I'm not sure why you don't understand the point several people have tried to make. Every reasonable cruise passenger understands that changes can happen due to any number of unanticipated reasons (including but not limited to weather, mechanical problem, medical emergency, political/civil issue, etc.). None of those situations can anticipated or controlled for, and therefore everyone understands when changes happen due to these UNFORESEEN events.

 

But when events are FORESEEN, don't you think it would just be normal and fair for the cruise line to let its passengers know?

 

Let me try to help you understand it from a totally different perspective ...

 

Pretend you are a shut-in and you can't really get out of your house without someone's assistance. You arrange for me to pick you up and take you to see a movie you've been dying to see. You've been looking forward to it for a while. But I get to your house late and there's not enough time to see the movie; you decide we can get a pleasant lunch out instead of seeing that movie you've wanted to see more than anything.

 

When you ask me why I was late (causing you to miss that beloved movie) and I tell you I had a flat tire on the way, you'll understand, you'll realize it just wasn't your lucky day. But if I instead tell you I knew for a long time and I was going to have to work late and I knew I'd make you miss that movie, wouldn't you feel pretty annoyed at me for not letting you know???!!! Maybe you could've made other plans. At least you wouldn't have gotten yours hopes up.

 

If I was late due to unforeseen circumstances, then so be it. But if I knew well in advance I was going to be late and mess up your plans, aren't I rude for not notifying you?

 

I was responding to this, as well as other posts about the TIME in port not being enough and focusing on the TIME being shortened as a reason to demand compensation (on this and other threads). I never commented on the issues of WHEN or HOW people were informed about the shorter port day. :

 

"Clearly many if not most of you think the changed port times are neglible. What do you people do in port, sit on a nearby beach and walk around knick knack shopping? The change required me to cancel a private charter to St John. Some of us have a limited appetite for mass-market tourism. To my family, it is a big deal"

[tugboat]

The change required me to cancel a private charter to St John. Some of us have a limited appetite for mass-market tourism. To my family, it is a big deal"

 

Then you go and book the Alllure:confused:

[xxHadleyxx]

Then you go and book the Alllure:confused:

 

Well, since she does not sail Europe at this point and airfare is too high to Florida, and I am not overly interested in any place in the Caribbean that she sails anyway (having been to all plenty and finding them all rather uninteresting), then no, I won't.

 

I was responding to someone whose tone looked down on anyone who could be flexible in a port and claimed that they (the poster, not those who are flexible) have a "limited appetite for mass market tourism" I would argue that a vacation onboard the Allure of the Seas is by its very nature going to be very much mass market tourism--and if the person does not want that, cruising the Allure, or really any major cruise line is NOT the vacation for them.

 

I am not sure why you (or anyone) has an issue with me posting MY opinion when everyone else is doing the same. In MY opinion, losing an hour or so at a port, ANY port, for pretty much ANY reason with or without advanced warning is not worthy of receiving compensation. In MY opinion, when you book a cruise you should know that port times, and even ports to an extent are flexible.

Other have other opinions. Being a discussion board, we all get to share our thoughts.

[xxHadleyxx]

Then you go and book the Alllure:confused:

 

Or did you think I said that??? I was quoting (again) what I had responded to that Cleverocks seemed to think I was not understanding the issue of timing of announcing shortened port days. I was responding to THAT quote (which I had quoted directly via cruise critic previously, but now I am not able to multi quote so could not do so that time), which was not only about when information was delivered, but about how wronged Cleverocks felt he was simply due to a shorter port day.

 

I think it is silly to book the Allure and then complain that you were somehow "forced" into a mass market tourism experience.

[slyster]

I apologize if this was posted already. I didn't go through every page and checked the last couple of pages for updates. I found this on the RCI website:

 

http://www.royalcaribbean.com/alertsContentPage.do?pagename=homepage_alert&rep=1

[ExCentriX]

Just got off the ship this past Sunday.

 

I know quite a few said the problem with the propulsion will not affect the maneuvering of the ship, and most have said in past review before the propulsion problem, that you feel almost no movement from the ship at all. Even to the point where you even forget that you were in a ship.

 

I have not sailed on many cruises, a total of 6, and this was by far the one that rocked and rumbled the most! It was like that for almost the whole time. But was worst during the first day and the last 3 days. The weather was clear, and the waves looked relatively calm the whole time. For those who were on the this trip, I'm sure they can tell you during the last 2-3 days, the pool water rocked back and forth like you were in one of those wave pools!

 

The 1st night I see the room attendant, I ask him "It's rocking alot than normally?" He said "yah man, we just trying the rush to Nassau." 3rd day "Still quite bad hey?" Him "Yah man, we trying to make up time and trying to get to St-Thomas." The last 2-3 days where it was the worst, I was walking back to the room, seeing him leaning his head on his laundry cart. He looks up with some daze, and I then said "Come on, now tell me this is not normal." He again said "Yah, rocking more than usual, but we just rushing to get home." LOL!

 

I don't get motion sickness, and Propulsion problem causing this or not, I was just disappointed to feel a ship of this size rock and tremble so much, after hearing so many great reviews of how you practically do not feel anything.

[sweetpee_1993]

Well, since she does not sail Europe at this point and airfare is too high to Florida, and I am not overly interested in any place in the Caribbean that she sails anyway (having been to all plenty and finding them all rather uninteresting), then no, I won't.

 

I was responding to someone whose tone looked down on anyone who could be flexible in a port and claimed that they (the poster, not those who are flexible) have a "limited appetite for mass market tourism" I would argue that a vacation onboard the Allure of the Seas is by its very nature going to be very much mass market tourism--and if the person does not want that, cruising the Allure, or really any major cruise line is NOT the vacation for them.

 

I am not sure why you (or anyone) has an issue with me posting MY opinion when everyone else is doing the same. In MY opinion, losing an hour or so at a port, ANY port, for pretty much ANY reason with or without advanced warning is not worthy of receiving compensation. In MY opinion, when you book a cruise you should know that port times, and even ports to an extent are flexible.

Other have other opinions. Being a discussion board, we all get to share our thoughts.

 

I personally like the idea of the ports being an opportunity to switch gears and step away from the masses. Adds more variety to the overall trip.

 

Plus, I've read many times in many places that because the ship is so large you don't necessarily feel like you're amongst as many people as there are. The impression I got was that everyone is pretty spread out.

 

Still don't get how people who are disappointed at shortened port times or having to change their plans (& expectations for their vacation) are anymore right or wrong than people who take it in stride, going for the ship vs. ports. If we all wanted/valued the exact same thing in the cruise it'd prob'ly have a negative overall effect.

[PAL_1]

I was responding to this, as well as other posts about the TIME in port not being enough and focusing on the TIME being shortened as a reason to demand compensation (on this and other threads). I never commented on the issues of WHEN or HOW people were informed about the shorter port day. :

 

"Clearly many if not most of you think the changed port times are neglible. What do you people do in port, sit on a nearby beach and walk around knick knack shopping? The change required me to cancel a private charter to St John. Some of us have a limited appetite for mass-market tourism. To my family, it is a big deal"

 

Nice use of selective quoting. I'm aware of the nature of the ship I booked. Do you understand the word "limited?" It means when in port, we prefer to get off the beaten path.

 

You "forgot" this part of my post, the root of RCL's blatant customer service failure:

 

But what really bothers me is RCL's weeks of denial. Passengers were only notified once aboard the ship, when it would be difficult to change independently arranged excursions. My TA's rep told her twice, weeks apart, that the issue had been repaired. This is disorganization or deliberately misleading.

 

Maybe you don't realize RCL (which still hasn't contacted me about next week's cruise) was going to cost me POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS and PRECIOUS VACATION TIME had I not acted proactively.

 

I've come to see this is a bulletin board largely (not exclusively) for RCL superfans and apologists. If you dare criticize RCL, the prevailing attitude is judgmental.

 

You don't get to dictate what is important to my family and me. Spend your dollars however you wish - I will take my business to companies that deal with me fairly, efficiently, deliver what they promise, and own problems of their own making.

 

I think you may want to consider that cruising is not the right type of vacation for you.

 

No, I think Cruise Critic is not the place for me. My apologies to the nicer people here. I don't mean to paint with an overly broad brush.

[xxHadleyxx]

Nice use of selective quoting. I'm aware of the nature of the ship I booked. Do you understand the word "limited?" It means when in port, we prefer to get off the beaten path.

 

You "forgot" this part of my post, the root of RCL's blatant customer service failure:

 

 

 

Maybe you don't realize RCL (which still hasn't contacted me about next week's cruise) was going to cost me POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS and PRECIOUS VACATION TIME had I not acted proactively.

 

I've come to see this is a bulletin board largely (not exclusively) for RCL superfans and apologists. If you dare criticize RCL, the prevailing attitude is judgmental.

 

You don't get to dictate what is important to my family and me. Spend your dollars however you wish - I will take my business to companies that deal with me fairly, efficiently, deliver what they promise, and own problems of their own making.

 

 

 

No, I think Cruise Critic is not the place for me. My apologies to the nicer people here. I don't mean to paint with an overly broad brush.

 

I was responding to the portion I requoted (why I cut it down the second time to just that part--so it was clear WHAT I was responding to. That part where you were a bit insulting to those who spend port time in ways that were not totally disrupted by a one hour time change, and the part where you said that you did not want a mass market experience).

 

Have you cruised much? I ask because every private excursion company I have ever worked with does NOT charge you if your ship misses the port, etc. You pay when you get there (often after the tour). They know the nature of their business means ships missing or coming too late once in a while--so I am surprised you would be out hundreds of dollars.

 

I also ask because no cruise company has EVER contacted me to let me know when port times (or even ports) changed prior to sailing. I have only ever known this because I saw it on the reservation when checking on that onlile, or others did and posted about it here or on the DIS. So far as I know, it is not standard procedure to contact customers about such things (on RCI or other other lines such as Disney, or Princess, etc.).

 

Thus, why I suggested that this may not be the type of vacation experience you are looking for I wasn't trying to be mean about it--just realistic. if that lack of knowledge and control bothers you a lot or you plan things that will mean you lose hundreds of dollars when minor alterations in arrival time occur, then this is a risky way to spend your vacation dollars. If you have not cruised a lot you truly might not realize how common port or time changes are to know that--thus my advice.

Edited November 19, 2013 by NHDisneylover

[jktheangel]

Just got off the ship this past Sunday.

 

I know quite a few said the problem with the propulsion will not affect the maneuvering of the ship, and most have said in past review before the propulsion problem, that you feel almost no movement from the ship at all. Even to the point where you even forget that you were in a ship.

 

I have not sailed on many cruises, a total of 6, and this was by far the one that rocked and rumbled the most! It was like that for almost the whole time. But was worst during the first day and the last 3 days. The weather was clear, and the waves looked relatively calm the whole time. For those who were on the this trip, I'm sure they can tell you during the last 2-3 days, the pool water rocked back and forth like you were in one of those wave pools!

 

The 1st night I see the room attendant, I ask him "It's rocking alot than normally?" He said "yah man, we just trying the rush to Nassau." 3rd day "Still quite bad hey?" Him "Yah man, we trying to make up time and trying to get to St-Thomas." The last 2-3 days where it was the worst, I was walking back to the room, seeing him leaning his head on his laundry cart. He looks up with some daze, and I then said "Come on, now tell me this is not normal." He again said "Yah, rocking more than usual, but we just rushing to get home." LOL!

 

I don't get motion sickness, and Propulsion problem causing this or not, I was just disappointed to feel a ship of this size rock and tremble so much, after hearing so many great reviews of how you practically do not feel anything.

 

I have read where people say they couldn't feel it on this ship so I thought I was crazy. I don't get seasick but I was on allure in 2011 and the pools were swishing back and forth and I has to take medicine from getting sick. The weather was warm out so I am thinking it has everything to do with the size of the ship. Just my opinion

 

 

Jamie