How much would cruise prices rise if you use crews fron the US or Western Europe

[Velvetwater]

The post I replied to and I were both talking about the early 20th century, which is vastly different from the 1850's. The 1850's example was just to show how, even then, some people valued education so highly that they would go without shoes to get it.

 

My great-grandfather was a mill worker in the early 20th century, as were most people in Colne in those days. He worked 60 hours a week - 5 and a half days - which is typical; he had two children and no wife (she died when the younger child was 2), which was also fairly typical. But he also was a keen amateur photographer, and a fine series of pictures of birds hatching and raising a brood have survived - people in those days did not live a life of endless drudgery, unlike (say) my great-great grandfather on the other side who started work in the 1840's and who remembered the days when they only got 2 days holiday a year - Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

 

People in England did not live in third world penury relative to the USA and see working on a cruise ship as the way to riches (unlike India now). Working on a ship was an option, but neither better nor worse paid than life on land.

 

Agree with this...not to mention part of the 19th century was the industrial boom where people had more options for work than ever before.

 

A good look at the history of cities such as Derby, Birmingham, Nottingham and Coventry especially will show you how good employment and industry was in past centuries on Land in the Midlands even with some of the disasters that they had to endure.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Velvetwater

[navybankerteacher]

Velvetwater and dsrdsrdsr: I applaud you jingoism, but have to question your understanding of socioeconomic conditions in nineteenth century and early twentieth century Britain. The intent of this thread was to speculate on the staffing of liners in the early decades of the twentieth century as it would compare to today's practice where cruise ships can only operate with staff from third world regions who have no other options.

 

Titanic' crew list shows that she was virtually entirely staffed with people from Britain. They were very poorly paid - a number of the surviving crew members were notified that they "went off the clock" ie had their pay stopped when they departed the ship.

 

In entering the discussion, I pointed out that there was low enough domestic employment opportunities in Britain for White Star to profitably staff the ship with British people - who were happy to take such menial positions. Cruise lines today cannot profitably so staff their ships.

 

Anyone with a reasonable understanding of socioeconomic conditions in Britain and, yes, the US as well until after WW I knows that the fairly rigid class structure permitted the existence of substantial numbers of people who were glad to take menial shipboard positions because of the lack of other opportunity.

 

This is not a shot at Britain - but your apparent unfamiliarity with your social history does raise in my mind questions about your schools.

[BruceMuzz]

It makes me wonder why NCL America still sails.

 

Fares are three to four times what they are on other NCL ships

 

Service is widely reported as being sub-standard.

 

Bulk of passengers have to pay for flight from mainland, vs cruising Hawaii on HAL, Princess and probably others from West Coast.

 

Apparently there is no casino -does Hawaii not permit gambling.

 

Lack of duty free status makes drinks and everything on board over-priced.

 

It might be said that the passenger manifest might be appropriately titled:

 

Ship of Fools.

 

NCL America was a $2 BILLION investment that went horribly wrong.

The original plan was to own a small fleet of American Flag ships in

Hawaii that could not possibly make a profit - but feeding all their passengers to and from airlines, bus lines, hotels, golf courses, shops, tour companies, and resorts (all owned by NCL/star Cruises) that could make plenty money with a near monopoly in Hawaii.

But the overall plan met resistance from locals, and started running out of time and money.

The owners hoped to pressure Hawaiian legislators to allow gambling and duty free goods onboard. That never happened. Despite advice from those of us who had seen this sort of idea fail in Hawaii before, the NCL execs claimed that they were smarter than "those other guys". Apparently they were not.

They failed to foresee the absolutely substandard product they got when American College students tried to replace Filipinos and Romanians on a cruise ship.

 

Now they are stuck with Pride of America, a terribly badly designed and built cruise ship that has such a powerful "American" design and theme onboard that no other company would ever buy it.

With it's American Flag, Registry, and crew, it is not allowed to legally carry passengers anywhere except Hawaii.

If they give up the American flag, registry, and crew to sail elsewhere as an international vessel, the ship cannot compete with other vessels - and if they give up the U.S. flag, it can never be legally re-converted to American Registry to sail in Hawaii again.

[Velvetwater]

Velvetwater and dsrdsrdsr: I applaud you jingoism, but have to question your understanding of socioeconomic conditions in nineteenth century and early twentieth century Britain. The intent of this thread was to speculate on the staffing of liners in the early decades of the twentieth century as it would compare to today's practice where cruise ships can only operate with staff from third world regions who have no other options.

 

Titanic' crew list shows that she was virtually entirely staffed with people from Britain. They were very poorly paid - a number of the surviving crew members were notified that they "went off the clock" ie had their pay stopped when they departed the ship.

 

In entering the discussion, I pointed out that there was low enough domestic employment opportunities in Britain for White Star to profitably staff the ship with British people - who were happy to take such menial positions. Cruise lines today cannot profitably so staff their ships.

 

Anyone with a reasonable understanding of socioeconomic conditions in Britain and, yes, the US as well until after WW I knows that the fairly rigid class structure permitted the existence of substantial numbers of people who were glad to take menial shipboard positions because of the lack of other opportunity.

 

This is not a shot at Britain - but your apparent unfamiliarity with your social history does raise in my mind questions about your schools.

 

Im not particuarly worried about shots at Britain...that is something I am used to. I am quite the opposite of patriotic about the UK as well but thats for a different time.

 

I find your sweeping statements and generalisations about another country's history worrying especially as a fellow teacher (Even though my little ones are busy doing synthetic phonics instead of economic history)...particularly the Midlands statement.

 

So far you base assumptions of economy on one industry with little regard for the rest.Not to mention you are questioning two individuals that grew up learning about this stuff as educational bread and butter in their own country. Not only that but you are debating with individuals with family history directly contradicting some of your statements. Not to say that living in a country means you are the final word or that your own history may be British but do you not find it odd the only Brits in this thread are questioning you?

 

There is also the idealism of projects such as the Titanic and whatnot. People desired to be part of and work for it. There are such accounts of people leaving moderately to well paid and secure jobs to take up work with her or on her as well as those looking for work. Not to mention the location of her construction played a part in it all as well.

 

Also this isnt the first time you have questioned teaching/teachers on CC within unrelated posts which makes me wonder in itself.

 

Cheers me duck.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Velvetwater

[OCruisers]

Some of us are perfectly happy with having an International Crew. :)

LuLu

[SPacificbound]

When NCL changed their NCL Sky (Bahamas Flag) to Pride of Aloha (American Flag) and hired all American crew, they had to pay American wages, benefits, overtime, and unemployment insurance.

They also had to add 100 extra crew to do the same job that the Filipinos and Romanians had done previously. That still didn't get the job done, so they tried to hire local labor to help clean the ship at several ports. Many of the hired local help didn't show up - and the ones that did show up were stealing everything they could get their hands on. So they gave up on that idea.

 

In the end, NCL received a special waiver to hire a higher percentage of foreigners who were Green Card Holders. They still had to pay the American wages, benefits, overtime, and unemployment insurance, but the job was more or less getting done.

 

Pride of Aloha's labor costs increased by $1 Million per week with the American crew.

The costs were complicated by the fact that when an American Crew Member went home for his unpaid vacation, he/she tended to claim unemployment benefits during that "vacation".

NCL America's unemployment insurance premiums went up so high that they were forced to pay the crew for a full 12 months a year when they were only working for 6 or 8 months.

 

The situation is further complicated by a US Coast Guard requirement that the majority of the crew on a US Flag ship must have a lifeboat driving certificate. Generally a good idea, but very difficult to get. If the minimum number of crew onboard does not have the certificate, the ship cannot sail with passengers. The crew quickly figured out that this lifeboat certificate is a rock solid job guarantee. They cannot be fired. At that point, discipline went out the window. Any crew member with a lifeboat certificate can do whatever he wants with impunity - and his bosses are forced to beg him to stay.

 

Although the single remaining NCL America ship in Hawaii (Pride of America) has far higher fares than the other ships, it still cannot make a profit. The American wages guarantee that the ship will always lose money. It is only the profits from the other International NCL ships that allow Pride of America to continue operating.

 

Very interesting post, thank you. :)

[ren0312]

NCL's US flagged ship operating out of Hawaii gives you the answer. It is obvious that, if economically possible, cruise lines would prefer to be US flagged - as that would give them a much greater market: coastal cruises, not having to do closed loop, or call at "distant foreign port" on some itineraries - ie Ensenada after Hawaii, etc. US labor costs make it impossible.

 

Of course, in the early 20th century referred to by OP, much of the service staff were essentially from the equivalent of today's thrived world - Ireland, rural areas of the US and Britain - where there were no job opportunities at home.

 

The ultimate development, of course, will be once today's developing countries develop to the point of providing employment, and globalization levels the income world-wide, very few of us will be able to cruise - it will once more be the province of the very wealthy.

 

The price for a steerage ticket in the Titanic is US$900 in today's money for a dormitory bunk, considering that the waiter in that ship made US$4000 in today's money, why is the fare so expensive?

[swedish weave]

Any of the cruise lines could hire American crews if they could find people willing to work for the wages they pay. That would not be an easy task.

 

I know a couple of Americans who work on NCL ships.Theyare very good workers and are doing the jobs for the travel opportunities and the adventure instead of for the money. Both are from wealthy families and probably won't make a career out of this, but they have great attitudes and provide very good service. That is not the norm for most Americans who go to sea as a lark instead of looking at it as a job.

 

I should add that they work on foreign register ships.

 

I want to add a comment about Bruce Muzz explanation of the Hawaii three ship experiment. That may be why Quentin Veatch is no longer with NCL

Edited June 17, 2014 by swedish weave

[ren0312]

Some credit card companies tried charging a higher interest rate on a category of card that promises 'US-based call centers'. That is, you are assured that the person on the call will speak 'American English'. It was only moderately successful. Although lots of people complain about talking to Manilla, not enough were willing to pay the extra fee.

 

The cruise lines welcome Americans as job applicants, but they have to work the same hours for the same pay as everyone else. Not many Americans would accept those conditions, and that's why the proportion is so low.

 

Why would the cruise line improve pay and work hours to attract American crew, when (most) passengers aren't willing to pay the difference in cruise fares?

 

At what level would it matter? Maybe you want your head waiter to be easier to understand... is it important that the guy bringing the bread and water be? Cabin stewards? Bartenders? Casino dealers? Room service? Kitchen staff? Dish washers? Laundry? Where to draw the line?

 

Only those in direct customer-contact? Does keep someone who does great work, but doesn't come from the US, from being promoted? Also, just because a person is from the US, doesn't mean that they are easy to understand, has a great personality, or has good customer service skills.

 

IMHO, if an American wanted to work on the cruise ship, and was satisfied with the pay/duties, they would apply.

 

So, sorry if this sounds harsh -- I wanted to bring up other points of view and considerations that occurred to me.

 

Well I am sure UAL would like to use Burundian labor but they can not? When did cruise lines start to use crews from the third world because the SS United States and the 2 Queens still used native crew.

Edited June 17, 2014 by ren0312

[swedish weave]

Well I am sure UAL would like to use Burundian labor but they can not? When did cruise lines start to use crews from the third world because the SS United States and the 2 Queens still used native crew.

 

I am not sure when the change occurred, but when the shipbuilding industry in the USA shut down, the ships had to be built elsewhere so could not be registered as American ships. The cruise lines registered their ships in foreign countries for tax purposes, and began hiring crews from many other countries.

[ren0312]

It makes me wonder why NCL America still sails.

 

Fares are three to four times what they are on other NCL ships

 

Service is widely reported as being sub-standard.

 

Bulk of passengers have to pay for flight from mainland, vs cruising Hawaii on HAL, Princess and probably others from West Coast.

 

Apparently there is no casino -does Hawaii not permit gambling.

 

Lack of duty free status makes drinks and everything on board over-priced.

 

It might be said that the passenger manifest might be appropriately titled:

 

Ship of Fools.

 

How much does NCL pay relative to the USN? I wonder why prices would rise that high, because I thought that fuel, instead of wages was the primary factor in the bottom line of cruise lines, like it is in the airline industry. And those same American college workers seem to do fine working in Boeing factories in SC or the BMW plant, or in the local Applebees.

Edited June 17, 2014 by ren0312

[pris993]

I thought NCL tried to have an all American crew in Hawaii but it didn't work out at all. Americans only want to work 8 hours a day for 5 days not 16 hours a day, everyday of the week, with no vacation for 6-8 months and count on tips for a good wage.

Anyone else have comment on NCL's try?

 

That is my impression too. I did a cruise on NCL Jade last year, renamed and cruising the Mediterranean, still had Hawaii themed interior which were appropriate as the Pride of America - it could not make a go of it in Hawaii.

 

Service on board in Hawaii was not that good either, many complaints. Saw it on the local news in San Francisco years ago. Americans don't want to work such long hours.

[dsrdsrdsr]

Titanic' crew list shows that she was virtually entirely staffed with people from Britain. They were very poorly paid - a number of the surviving crew members were notified that they "went off the clock" ie had their pay stopped when they departed the ship.

 

In entering the discussion, I pointed out that there was low enough domestic employment opportunities in Britain for White Star to profitably staff the ship with British people - who were happy to take such menial positions. Cruise lines today cannot profitably so staff their ships.

 

Anyone with a reasonable understanding of socioeconomic conditions in Britain and, yes, the US as well until after WW I knows that the fairly rigid class structure permitted the existence of substantial numbers of people who were glad to take menial shipboard positions because of the lack of other opportunity.

 

This is not a shot at Britain - but your apparent unfamiliarity with your social history does raise in my mind questions about your schools.

I do have a reasonable understanding of socioeconomic conditions in Britain at that time, and I know there were large numbers of domestic staff and cruise ship staff from Britain. What surprises me is your apparent unfamiliarity with conditions in the east coast USA. Quote from your first post (no. 5)

 

"Of course, in the early 20th century referred to by OP, much of the service staff were essentially from the equivalent of today's thrived world - Ireland, rural areas of the US and Britain - where there were no job opportunities at home."

 

You are saying that the east coast USA was the equivalent of the modern-day rich west compared with third-world Britain and rural USA. This is nonsense. There were poor people glad of ship work in New York just as there were in Britain; the USA, even the east coast, was not a haven of plenty where domestic staff could not be found.

[navybankerteacher]

 

.........

 

Cheers me duck.

 

Cheers back to you. I am neither a Brit-brasher nor uninformed about history and economics generally. By way of introduction, I attended a British school for 7 years, two of my sisters married Englishmen, I have six British-schooled nieces and nephews with whom I am very close, and seven (so far) great nieces and nephews at various early stages in the British education system. I have high regard for Britain and her traditions.

 

As a teacher myself, I cannot avoid expressing some views - for which I apologize if you were offended. But I remain amazed by your apparent belief that most working class Britishers had decent options a century ago, so I expressed the unfortunate (yet nonetheless appropriate) question concerning the depth of your understanding of your country's socio-economic history.

 

The fact remains however, in the context of this thread which addresses the economics of cruise ship staffing compared with early 20th century ocean liner staffing: early Cunarders, P&O's, White Stars, etc. were staffed with British crews at low cost because of the limited alternatives available to those filling crew complements.

 

The same dismal set of realities faced the majority of the US population in those years. And these same realities presently existing in the third world largely contribute to the economics of today's mass market cruise industry.

[navybankerteacher]

I am not sure when the change occurred, but when the shipbuilding industry in the USA shut down, the ships had to be built elsewhere so could not be registered as American ships. The cruise lines registered their ships in foreign countries for tax purposes, and began hiring crews from many other countries.

 

It is simply a case of too much success on the part of US organized labor.

 

Ship construction in the US became too expensive, so it was non-competitive against Japanese, Korean and European shipyards; crew wages became so high and working conditions so restrictive that foreign crews were the only economic alternative; protective legislation (PVSA, Jones Act, etc) became so cumbersome - that taken together, the maritime industry had to flee. US policies and regulation "protected" thousands of jobs to death.

[BruceMuzz]

How much does NCL pay relative to the USN? I wonder why prices would rise that high, because I thought that fuel, instead of wages was the primary factor in the bottom line of cruise lines, like it is in the airline industry. And those same American college workers seem to do fine working in Boeing factories in SC or the BMW plant, or in the local Applebees.

 

Fuel is the major cost for all the international cruise lines.

Labor is the major cost for an American Flag Cruise Line.

 

An international cruise ship pays an average of US$13 per day for a tipped employee to be onboard. That includes salary, meals, housing, uniforms, air tickets, insurance.

An American Flag ship pays several hundred dollars per day for the same employee with an American Passport or Green Card.

 

An international cruise ship pays a Captain about $150,000 per year.

An American Flag cruise ship pays a Captain about $450,000 per year.

The same salary disparity goes for many of the officers onboard.

 

The American Maritime Unions were able to demand the highest salaries and perks in the world for their members - even though it bankrupted most of the American Merchant Fleet, all of the American Cruise Lines, and most of the American Maritime Unions.

Edited June 17, 2014 by BruceMuzz

[smeyer418]

It is simply a case of too much success on the part of US organized labor.

 

Ship construction in the US became too expensive, so it was non-competitive against Japanese, Korean and European shipyards; crew wages became so high and working conditions so restrictive that foreign crews were the only economic alternative; protective legislation (PVSA, Jones Act, etc) became so cumbersome - that taken together, the maritime industry had to flee. US policies and regulation "protected" thousands of jobs to death.

 

 

America Unions are pikers compared to Italian, French and Scandinavian ones. Yet this is where most cruise liners are built. Its not the wage structure. These countries pay more. The ship building industry took over from the US Navy ship building when they ship building was privatized. The Navy took all the capacity and the cruise ship building expertise left. Yes Disney has no casino and a price point that matches any US Flagged and crewed ship. There is no public gaming allowed in hawaii as soon as it does the NCL ship will have a casino. And that US workers don't work hard is one of those myths that a guy with a mustache thought would win him that war. US workers have the least time off of any worker in the industrialized world.

[iancal]

I suspect that the prices would rise to the point that we would defer back to our norm of independent land travel.

 

But price would only be one aspect. No doubt the standard of service would decline-just as it apparently has on NCL America cruises.

 

You also have to keep in mind that ship built outside of NA usually come with very large Government subsidies.

Edited June 17, 2014 by iancal

[Velvetwater]

 

As a teacher myself, I cannot avoid expressing some views - for which I apologize if you were offended. But I remain amazed by your apparent belief that most working class Britishers had decent options a century ago, so I expressed the unfortunate (yet nonetheless appropriate) question concerning the depth of your understanding of your country's socio-economic history.

 

 

I never stated that the working class had decent options or denied poverty, merely that they had more than you stated. I mainly said the it wasn't exclusive to the areas you mentioned and that certain parts of Britain had some excellent industries at the time. Yes, working in a Mill for example was not very desirable but because of certain industry growths some situations were not as despairing as the reports made everyone believe.

 

To put simply, the retrospect view likes to dramaticise things and we come to it with a conditioned view which I prefer to dig deeper on.

[navybankerteacher]

America Unions are pikers compared to Italian, French and Scandinavian ones. Yet this is where most cruise liners are built. Its not the wage structure. These countries pay more. The ship building industry took over from the US Navy ship building when they ship building was privatized. The Navy took all the capacity and the cruise ship building expertise left. Yes Disney has no casino and a price point that matches any US Flagged and crewed ship. There is no public gaming allowed in hawaii as soon as it does the NCL ship will have a casino. And that US workers don't work hard is one of those myths that a guy with a mustache thought would win him that war. US workers have the least time off of any worker in the industrialized world.

 

If domestic US commercial shipbuilding was capable of profitable operation why is there none? There is a complex web of wage structure, government regulation and work ethic which produces the present anomalous situation: the biggest market for the cruise industry is in the US yet the front line providers are incapable of operating as US entities.

[BruceMuzz]

If domestic US commercial shipbuilding was capable of profitable operation why is there none? There is a complex web of wage structure, government regulation and work ethic which produces the present anomalous situation: the biggest market for the cruise industry is in the US yet the front line providers are incapable of operating as US entities.

 

US Law requires that a ship be built in the USA before it can be American flagged. The law also requires American ownership, and a large percentage of the crew with US passports or Green Cards.

 

Building cruise ships is a very competitive and specialized business with slim profit margins.

American shipyards learned long ago that one good US Navy warship contract, with built-in massive cost over runs, will make them far more profit than dozens of cruise ship newbuilds.

 

When NCL America first got started, they had just purchased - for next to nothing - all the makings of 2 American cruise ships. A shipyard in Mississippi had attempted to build 2 new ships for a struggling American cruise line in Hawaii (sound familiar?).

The cruise line went bankrupt before the ships could be finished.

The shipyard had convinced the US Government to fully finance the building of the 2 new ships (with your tax dollars), but then the shipyard went bankrupt anyway.

NCL was happy to take the leftovers off their hands for a few cents on the dollar.

Thank you American taxpayers.

 

US Law - at that time - required the ships to be completed in the USA.

NCL sent out the jobs for bids from all existing American shipyards - most of which were sitting empty, with most of their employees collecting unemployment benefits.

Not one American shipyard even bothered to bid on the jobs.

 

NCL then had to go to the US Congress to get permission to have their "American" ships built in another country.

Congress wanted to protect this new American Cruise venture - and the American Maritime Unions involved - so they granted permission for NCL to have the first of the 2 ships completed in Germany.

 

The hull of the first vessel was nearly intact, so it was floated and towed over to Germany for completion. When the German shipbuilders had a look at the new hull, they declared that it would have to be dismantled and completely re-built. The American shipyard that had started it had built it like a warship; built for speed - not comfort or stability. No surprise, as the former American shipyard's only shipbuilding experience was US Navy warships.

US Congress ruled that if the hull was dismantled and then rebuilt in Germany, it could not be flagged as a US Ship.

So the Germans tried to correct the poor design by pouring concrete ballast between the plates of the double bottom, in order to make the ship more stable.

During this process, a freak winter storm blew through Europe. The waves in the wet dock where the hull was floating washed into the holes that had been cut for the concrete pouring. The nearly finished hull sank to the bottom of the harbor.

 

Then the US Congress had to make another legal exception, allowing NCL to put an American Flag on a completely foreign-built ship (Norwegian Sky - re-named Pride of Aloha), to replace the sunken "American" hull - which later was raised, repaired, and named Pride of America.

 

Then the US congress had to make another exception for the second "American" hull. The hull was actually in many thousands of rusting pieces, in the bankrupt Mississippi shipyard.

But nothing had actually been built yet.

So the US Congress ruled that if the steel had been cut in the USA, the ship could be completely assembled in another country, and still be flagged as if it had been built in the USA. So NCL loaded all the pieces on ocean-going barges and towed them to Germany, where Pride of Hawaii was constructed.

 

Norwegian Sky / Pride of Aloha failed miserably when it was introduced in Hawaii. It lasted a few years, then was re-flagged to Bahamas with an international crew, and given it's old name back. It's now sailing out of Miami?

 

Pride of Hawaii struggled for a few years after going to Hawaii. They couldn't fill the ship at those high prices, and crew turnover was so bad that they couldn't keep enough employees to continue sailing. They re-flagged that to Bahamas, hired an international crew, and renamed it Norwegian Jade. It's now sailing in Europe?

 

Pride of America is still in Hawaii. It still looks like a military ship on the outside and an American Political Museum on the inside. NCL was able to find enough American crew from the former 2 sister ships to have a complete crew pool for the remaining one. All the salt water that got inside the ship when she sank in Germany is slowly eating away at the interior machinery and wiring. The ship continues to bleed money. Sooner or later, NCL's new owners will very quietly get rid of her somehow.

 

It's unlikely that anyone will make that same financial blunder again anytime soon.

Edited June 17, 2014 by BruceMuzz

[smeyer418]

If domestic US commercial shipbuilding was capable of profitable operation why is there none? There is a complex web of wage structure, government regulation and work ethic which produces the present anomalous situation: the biggest market for the cruise industry is in the US yet the front line providers are incapable of operating as US entities.

They were pushed out by the more profitable Navy construction and then lost the expertise. There is a major shortage of dry dock space on the east coast and there has been for years. and the land by the shore has become too valuable. One of the largest graving docks in the country in Red Hook is under the parking lot of the Red Hook Ikea... What use to be junk space along the rivers because of coal plants and

rendering plants has become the most expensive property in the country(see for example the Gowanus canal)

Edited June 17, 2014 by smeyer418

[smeyer418]

US Law requires that a ship be built in the USA before it can be American flagged. The law also requires American ownership, and a large percentage of the crew with US passports or Green Cards.

 

Building cruise ships is a very competitive and specialized business with slim profit margins.

American shipyards learned long ago that one good US Navy warship contract, with built-in massive cost over runs, will make them far more profit than dozens of cruise ship newbuilds.

 

When NCL America first got started, they had just purchased - for next to nothing - all the makings of 2 American cruise ships. A shipyard in Mississippi had attempted to build 2 new ships for a struggling American cruise line in Hawaii (sound familiar?).

The cruise line went bankrupt before the ships could be finished.

The shipyard had convinced the US Government to fully finance the building of the 2 new ships (with your tax dollars), but then the shipyard went bankrupt anyway.

NCL was happy to take the leftovers off their hands for a few cents on the dollar.

Thank you American taxpayers.

 

US Law - at that time - required the ships to be completed in the USA.

NCL sent out the jobs for bids from all existing American shipyards - most of which were sitting empty, with most of their employees collecting unemployment benefits.

Not one American shipyard even bothered to bid on the jobs.

 

NCL then had to go to the US Congress to get permission to have their "American" ships built in another country.

Congress wanted to protect this new American Cruise venture - and the American Maritime Unions involved - so they granted permission for NCL to have the first of the 2 ships completed in Germany.

 

The hull of the first vessel was nearly intact, so it was floated and towed over to Germany for completion. When the German shipbuilders had a look at the new hull, they declared that it would have to be dismantled and completely re-built. The American shipyard that had started it had built it like a warship; built for speed - not comfort or stability. No surprise, as the former American shipyard's only shipbuilding experience was US Navy warships.

US Congress ruled that if the hull was dismantled and then rebuilt in Germany, it could not be flagged as a US Ship.

So the Germans tried to correct the poor design by pouring concrete ballast between the plates of the double bottom, in order to make the ship more stable.

During this process, a freak winter storm blew through Europe. The waves in the wet dock where the hull was floating washed into the holes that had been cut for the concrete pouring. The nearly finished hull sank to the bottom of the harbor.

 

Then the US Congress had to make another legal exception, allowing NCL to put an American Flag on a completely foreign-built ship (Norwegian Sky - re-named Pride of Aloha), to replace the sunken "American" hull - which later was raised, repaired, and named Pride of America.

 

Then the US congress had to make another exception for the second "American" hull. The hull was actually in many thousands of rusting pieces, in the bankrupt Mississippi shipyard.

But nothing had actually been built yet.

So the US Congress ruled that if the steel had been cut in the USA, the ship could be completely assembled in another country, and still be flagged as if it had been built in the USA. So NCL loaded all the pieces on ocean-going barges and towed them to Germany, where Pride of Hawaii was constructed.

 

Norwegian Sky / Pride of Aloha failed miserably when it was introduced in Hawaii. It lasted a few years, then was re-flagged to Bahamas with an international crew, and given it's old name back. It's now sailing out of Miami?

 

Pride of Hawaii struggled for a few years after going to Hawaii. They couldn't fill the ship at those high prices, and crew turnover was so bad that they couldn't keep enough employees to continue sailing. They re-flagged that to Bahamas, hired an international crew, and renamed it Norwegian Jade. It's now sailing in Europe?

 

Pride of America is still in Hawaii. It still looks like a military ship on the outside and an American Political Museum on the inside. NCL was able to find enough American crew from the former 2 sister ships to have a complete crew pool for the remaining one. All the salt water that got inside the ship when she sank in Germany is slowly eating away at the interior machinery and wiring. The ship continues to bleed money. Sooner or later, NCL's new owners will very quietly get rid of her somehow.

 

It's unlikely that anyone will make that same financial blunder again anytime soon.

...if ever.

It bankrupted the German shipyard too!

[jamessemaj]

Have you flown on an American airline lately?

[fortinweb]

Sorry, duplicate post.

Edited June 17, 2014 by fortinweb