Serenade having azipod problems?

[broberts]

Azipod is a brand name. To date they have been very reliable. I don't think a single incident, especially given the number of ships using them, is worth worrying about.

The X Millenium ships use a pod drive system from a company owned by Rolls Royce. If memory serves its brand name is Mermaid. Unlike Azipods, the Mermaid system has proven problematic, at least on cruise ships.

[Ocean Boy]

[quote name='broberts'] I don't think a single incident, especially given the number of ships using them, is worth worrying about.
[/QUOTE]
Right, unless it affects YOUR cruise. Again, that is the topic, not the general reliability of the product. RCI has a great track record with the pods that they are using.

[Bluenose Sandy]

I'm on the Serenade heading for Vancouver at the end of our cruise right now. What we were told was: because of an azipod problem, the captain chose to "proactively" reduce speed and that would affect certain ports... the big changes were Hubbard Glacier (5:30 to 8:30 instead of 1 to 4) and Skagway (actual reduced port time... only 12:00 to 8:30 instead of, I think, 7:30 to 8:30). So I read that as "drive your car slow if you think it might break down and if you don't push it, it won't break down" and in fact, we haven't noticed anything weird about the ship or heard another word about it. The glacier viewing worked out fine, great views, but I think the main dinner seating was pretty deserted and the Windjammer was packed later in the evening (give up glacier viewing to go to the dining room??? I think NOT! and everyone else too...). The Skagway thing was a drag... it did limit people who wanted to have a full day of excursions, especially those who planned a trip to Haines because the fast ferry schedule didn't work well with our port times. But the ship is not broken! All is well, Cruisechick!

[winncove]

Can anyone tell us the bottom line? Will whatever is wrong that causes shorter Glacier viewing & less time in ports be fixed & when? Water displacement vs tonnage really isn't my concern since we sail in 1 month!
TIA

[Guest LetMeGo]

[quote name='winncove']Can anyone tell us the bottom line? Will whatever is wrong that causes shorter Glacier viewing & less time in ports be fixed & when? Water displacement vs tonnage really isn't my concern since we sail in 1 month!
TIA[/quote]

The bottom line is that it's a minor problem that could be fiixed with a few days of drydocking, but RCCL doesn't want cancel a whole cruise because of it.

Would you be glad if they chose to cancel [B]your[/B] cruise to fix the problem, or would you rather take the slightly different programme mentioned earlier?

[winncove]

[B]Tero[/B]: I've read this thread from the beginning. I don't pretend to understand the technical parts. Of course none of us wants our cruise cancelled. What I am interested in is will the problem progress so that we may miss ports or have even less time in one or more- as was one of the original questions. Of course the RCCL site still shows full schedule and I know better than to call them for info.

[Guest LetMeGo]

[quote name='winncove'][B]Tero[/B]: I've read this thread from the beginning. I don't pretend to understand the technical parts. Of course none of us wants our cruise cancelled. What I am interested in is will the problem progress so that we may miss ports or have even less time in one or more- as was one of the original questions. Of course the RCCL site still shows full schedule and I know better than to call them for info.[/quote]

It's alright, you don't have to even read the technical messages. ;)

I'm sure that RCCL doesn't want the fault to progress any more than the passengers do. They would have to pay more in compensations if the cruise was cancelled midway, rather than completely. It is in their best interests to inconvenience the passengers as little as possible, and that is what they are doing.


As for the problem progressing, it is impossible to know.

At this point I would speculate that the problem is not going to get worse, as it's not in the engines themselves (because of the relatively small drop in the speed, and the fact that they obviously wouldn't want to risk the ship losing it's manouverability completely).

Since the ship does have electrical propulsion, I would guess that one out of the five generators producing the ship's power is inoperable, and they are still keeping the sixth as a reserve.