Pride of America: A Brits View

[London-Calling]

I don't beliven too many Brits make the long journey and cruise POA. Well I did in July. Below is my very long review from a Brits viewpoint:

 

https://malcolmoliver.wordpress.com/ncls-pride-of-america-a-british-perspective/

[ryarger]

Thanks for the write up!

 

One small correction - Cadillac Diner is an included venue. It’s the equivalent to O’Sheehan’s/The Local on other NCL ships.

 

I loved our time on the PoA a decade ago, but agree with you that its primary purpose is to be a floating hotel. But given actual hotel prices in Hawaii, I do think it’s a good value. There’s just no escaping that Hawaii is extremely expensive! It’s by far the most beautiful place I’ve ever seen, though.

[London-Calling]

That's for the correction. Good point about the cost of Hawaii hotels.

[RNCheryl]

Thanks for  your contribution to the American economy.  I enjoyed your review.  Any review of your excursions?

[dlh015]

10 hours ago, London-Calling said:

I don't beliven too many Brits make the long journey and cruise POA. Well I did in July. Below is my very long review from a Brits viewpoint:

 

https://malcolmoliver.wordpress.com/ncls-pride-of-america-a-british-perspective/

Enjoyed your write-up.

 

A few typos:

 

"was docked at Peir 2,"

 

"POA does not have some children’s facilities, but they are not very extensive"

 

"You will not be surprised to here..."

[valleyvillage]

So generous of you to write this and post it here. You are a delight!

[wncretired]

Excellent review.Thank you!!

[London-Calling]

2 hours ago, dlh015 said:

Enjoyed your write-up.

 

A few typos:

 

 

Thanks!

[Seas2mountains]

Thank you so much for taking the time to write a review with photos. We will do online check-in later this week for our POA cruise that starts next month.

 

Your review made me more excited as we have been warned about some concerns with POA. I'm glad to hear you had a nice cruise!

[London-Calling]

14 minutes ago, Seas2mountains said:

Your review made me more excited as we have been warned about some concerns with POA. I'm glad to hear you had a nice cruise!

Great! I see no reason why you will not enjoy the experience.  Hopefully I have given you a realistic appraisal. Enjoy!

[MoulinVert]

Dear London-Calling,

 

We sincerely appreciate your comprehensive review!  We’ve been discussing whether we should take an excursion on the POA and your first-hand account is very helpful!  While it is very evident that you were diligently documenting your time on the POA (which we honestly appreciate), I hope you had the opportunity to enjoy a little holiday, too!

Thank you so much for your contribution!

[London-Calling]

Thank you. I make very brief notes while onboard and DO focus on enjoying the cruise. I do the hard worm (the write-up).when I get home.  I would not want to do a live stream or vlog. Than.would spoil the experience.

[chengkp75]

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.

[London-Calling]

10 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

As a senior ship's officer in the NCL America project from the beginning, I'll just point out a correction.

Thank you. Most useful.

I would have loved to see the SS United Ststes returned to service. I guess the sums did not add up.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, London-Calling said:

Thank you. Most useful.

I would have loved to see the SS United Ststes returned to service. I guess the sums did not add up.

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.

[London-Calling]

46 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

 

 

The last feasibility study done by Crystal cruises was in the $800 million mark...

Thanks. I guess it cheaper to build a new ship than return an outdated ocean liner back to service, but that not the point! It's never going to be a cheap option.😉

 

I guess Pride will need replacing in the next ten years.

 

Edited August 28 by London-Calling

[Capitan Obvious]

12 minutes ago, London-Calling said:

Thanks. I guess it cheaper to build a new ship than return an outdated ocean liner back to service, but that not the point! It's never going to be a cheap option.😉

 

I guess Pride will need replacing in the next ten years.

 

 

Why?

 

When NCL purchased the United States, she was over 50 years old and had been sitting unmaintained for over 30+ years.

 

Pride of America was christened in June 2005 which means that she is just over 19 years old...and you want to replace her in the next ten years?

 

If a 50 year old United States has potential for an extended life, then surely a much newer Pride of America...which is NOT sitting, unmaintained and rusting...could also have much life left.

[London-Calling]

33 minutes ago, Capitan Obvious said:

 

If a 50 year old United States has potential for an extended life, then surely a much newer Pride of America...which is NOT sitting, unmaintained and rusting...could also have much life left.

In ten years POA will be 30.  I belive that is the life expectancy of modern cruise ships. The major lines rarely operate their ships beyond 30. If they do, it is often only for a year or two. Anyway, the general public does not seem to like old ships.

 

 

[Capitan Obvious]

33 minutes ago, London-Calling said:

In ten years POA will be 30.  I belive that is the life expectancy of modern cruise ships. The major lines rarely operate their ships beyond 30. If they do, it is often only for a year or two. Anyway, the general public does not seem to like old ships.

 

 

 

You believe, but don't know for certain. Major lines rarely...but what about the non-major lines? What about the rarely? This is the problem in speaking in qualifiers.

 

Anyway, in ten years, when the POA will be 29, it will still be newer than the period that the United States had been left unused before NCL purchased it. The ship could easily be overhauled and placed back into service. Only the hull would be "old"....everything else could be replaced with brand new.

[London-Calling]

20 minutes ago, Capitan Obvious said:

 

You believe, but don't know for certain. Major lines rarely...but what about the non-major lines? What about the rarely? This is the problem in speaking in qualifiers.

Yes I am speculating and discussing the matter. Knowbody can tell us the future of POA.

 

Will NCL want to replace POA at 30 ish (or so), which might be difficult in terms of getting another ship to comply with the  American flagged status or is a major refit more practical? Of course I don't know!

 

I welcome others opinions.

 

As for the SS United States: so much work needed to be be done, to teturn her yo service, including changing the shape of the hull For SOLAS, the cost was too prohibitive. Also very little of the original ship would have remained.

[Capitan Obvious]

31 minutes ago, London-Calling said:

As for the SS United States: so much work needed to be be done, to teturn her yo service, including changing the shape of the hull For SOLAS, the cost was too prohibitive. Also very little of the original ship would have remained.

 

Well, that is nice...in hindsight. All of these issues could be determined by engineers without having to purchase the ship first. And since NCL did in fact, purchase the ship, this was obviously NOT the basis behind NCL's thinking when they purchased a ship that was over 50 years old that had been sitting for over 30 years...which is, of course, my initial point. Full circle.

[London-Calling]

...so why did NCL purchase her? To stop others getting the hull and using it to compete with NCL America?

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, Capitan Obvious said:

When NCL purchased the United States, she was over 50 years old and had been sitting unmaintained for over 30+ years.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Capitan Obvious said:

Anyway, in ten years, when the POA will be 29, it will still be newer than the period that the United States had been left unused before NCL purchased it. The ship could easily be overhauled and placed back into service. Only the hull would be "old"....everything else could be replaced with brand new.

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?

 

1 hour ago, London-Calling said:

Will NCL want to replace POA at 30 ish (or so), which might be difficult in terms of getting another ship to comply with the  American flagged status or is a major refit more practical? Of course I don't know!

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.

[London-Calling]

42 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Two totally different ships comparing the SSUS to POA. 

What a very informative answer chngkp75. Thank you.

 

That what I was looking for a layman, rather than some sort of "word play".

[Capitan Obvious]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Gonna question my qualifiers?

You misunderstand, I don't question the qualifiers themselves, I question the need for the qualifiers at all. It is the need to use "some" and "most" as a way to allow you to say something, but not be bound to it.