I have a new solution for the pod problems!

[Drew B]

Rewrite the itineraries so that they can all be accomplished at the slower speeds (17 knots or whatever). Sure it might mean fewer ports, shorter times in port or longer cruises overall, but at least all of the passengers will get what they paid for! Ships in the past couldn't go as fast as ships today and people managed. Then, if pax choose other itineraries, they can choose to sail other lines. However, if people like the M-Class ships, they can book them knowing that they will either get the cruise they expected (even if they have to slow down due to wear on the bearings) or they will have a cancellation with a full refund and free cruise...

[cruisinelsewhere]

Now there is a plan.....I like your thinking!!:D

[cechase]

Drew B, we think that your suggestion should be considered by Celebrity management, at least until they are able to rectify the pod issues. It is disturbing that now electrical issues have arisen which seems to be an entirely and unexpected problem with the pods.

 

As you know, our September cruise on Infinity cruised at a maximum of 19 knots with electrical issues on the port pod limiting power on that pod to 70%. However we made every port on time and departed on time, and it was a great cruise.

 

In the late 50's, I served as the Supply Officer [also qualified as officer of the deck underway] on a LST in the Western Pacific with two transpacific cruises and we had a max of 14 knots! We always reached our destination :D - eventually! :D

[two rabbits]

Drew B, we think that your suggestion should be considered by Celebrity management, at least until they are able to rectify the pod issues. It is disturbing that now electrical issues have arisen which seems to be an entirely and unexpected problem with the pods.

 

As you know, our September cruise on Infinity cruised at a maximum of 19 knots with electrical issues on the port pod limiting power on that pod to 70%. However we made every port on time and departed on time, and it was a great cruise.

 

In the late 50's, I served as the Supply Officer [also qualified as officer of the deck underway] on a LST in the Western Pacific with two transpacific cruises and we had a max of 14 knots! We always reached our destination :D - eventually! :D

 

Any suggestion should be considered by Celebrity to stop the alienation of good customers, by the recurring pod failures.

I agree that it is disturbing, that this is the fourth pod problem in a little over six months. It is also disturbing that, so far, three of the four failures have resulted in emergency dry dock to fix the problem, causing missed ports, reduction in port time and three cancelled cruises. True, the effects on passengers vacations have not all been the same, with the effect on some cruises being minor and some the effect was major. If I am not mistaken the problem on the Infinity, mentioned above, on the September cruise began on the July 9 cruise and went on, well off and on, until dry dock on September 13.

[lysolqn]

No need to change itineraries to accommodate possible pod problems - along with life preservers in each cabin X should place oars. In case of an emergency (aka pod failure)...well, you know where I'm going.

[Rev22:17]

cechase,

 

It is disturbing that now electrical issues have arisen which seems to be an entirely and unexpected problem with the pods.

 

It's a new problem, but one that is not exactly unexpected. Large electrical motors do burn out, requiring rewinding, from time to time. The problem here is exactly the same as with the thrust bearings -- they havet o put the ship into drydock and open the pods to gain access to the motors to rewind them. With a conventional propulsion system, both the motors and the thrust bearings would be inside the hull where the crew of the ship would be able to repair them at sea.

 

Norm.

[caviargal]

Drew, I think your suggestion bears consideration and I imagine the itineraries would not be so severely impacted as to render them unappealing.

 

Although I still like your idea of using the money from the new corkage fees to fix the pods:D.

[bluenosers]

It is quite obvious at this point that replacing the bearings are only a temporary repair for a defective or inferior design. Celebrity will not solve this problem in co-operation with Rolls-Royce and the Builders. The Mermaid Pods do seem to be the culprit and not unique to Celebrity. Carnival has had problems with these pods as well as the Queen Mary 2 to mention a couple. The ABB Pods found on the Radiance and Voyager class vessels among others have been very effective with little problems and down time. With the "M" Class vessels starting to age Celebrity (Royal Caribbean) will have to soon decide when enough is enough with Mermaid and move on. These vessels are huge investments and not something you want moving the industry away from you. In order to regain the confidence of the industry Celebrity will have to correct this issue once and for all and let their legal people deal with Rolls-Royce and the builder.

[bbornino]

It was not unusual to have airplanes retrofitted with different engines when the original ones were inadequate or unreliable. X should determine which pods give the best service and retro those on the Millie class. QM2 had the problem when one screw hit the pier. Oosterdam is down to one engine also

[Andy]

Rewrite the itineraries so that they can all be accomplished at the slower speeds (17 knots or whatever). Sure it might mean fewer ports, shorter times in port or longer cruises overall, but at least all of the passengers will get what they paid for! Ships in the past couldn't go as fast as ships today and people managed. Then, if pax choose other itineraries, they can choose to sail other lines. However, if people like the M-Class ships, they can book them knowing that they will either get the cruise they expected (even if they have to slow down due to wear on the bearings) or they will have a cancellation with a full refund and free cruise...

 

Hi Drew !

 

Not a bad idea, but I continue to feel the BEST way to handle the Pod situation is to build in 1 or 2 Drydocks into the schedule for each M-Class ship each year (until a permanent solution is found) to do preventative maintanance BEFORE the Pod has problems, and ruins passenger's vacations. While it is nice to get a free Cruise when this happens, it creates many very unhappy passengers. Surely, Celebrity must realize this, and try to be more proactive about this, other than to wait for a problem to arise, and then deal with it.

 

I always hoped a permanent solution would happen. However, after 6 years of M-Class service, and no current solution in hand, one has to wonder if this will continue indefinitely. If this turns out to be the case, it shouldnt be a huge issue, if only Celebrity built this item into the schedule, and dealt with it as an ongoing maintanance issue. I would think that Cruise cancellations would be reduced to a very small number (if any) with this plan. IMHO, this makes a lot of sense.

[Rev22:17]

Andy,

 

Not a bad idea, but I continue to feel the BEST way to handle the Pod situation is to build in 1 or 2 Drydocks into the schedule for each M-Class ship each year (until a permanent solution is found) to do preventative maintanance BEFORE the Pod has problems, and ruins passenger's vacations. While it is nice to get a free Cruise when this happens, it creates many very unhappy passengers. Surely, Celebrity must realize this, and try to be more proactive about this, other than to wait for a problem to arise, and then deal with it.

 

I always hoped a permanent solution would happen. However, after 6 years of M-Class service, and no current solution in hand, one has to wonder if this will continue indefinitely. If this turns out to be the case, it shouldnt be a huge issue, if only Celebrity built this item into the schedule, and dealt with it as an ongoing maintanance issue. I would think that Cruise cancellations would be reduced to a very small number (if any) with this plan. IMHO, this makes a lot of sense.

 

A permanent solution is readily available -- just replace the pods with similar pods from a different manufacturer!

 

Unfortunately, Celebrity can't do that until there's a final judgement in the lawsuit against the manufacturer of the current pods without handing compelling legal arguments ("You didn't give the new bearing a chance!") to the manufacturer of the pods I think that the case has been in the works for long enough so it should be moving toward trial, though.

 

Norm.

[iandjm]

Hi,

 

The 'M' class ships would greatly benefit from having a small rudder just aft of puds on the centre line. Once at sea the pods could be locked in the straight ahead position and the rudder could be used for the small course corrections required. When in port or for tighter turns the pods could be used as normal. this would greatly cut down the wear and tear on the main shaft thrust bearing, as well as the pod pivot bearing. When at sea the pods are constantly twitching port and starboard to correct the ships course the tiny amounts needed to stay on course.

 

Its only an idea, but makes good sense.

 

Ian :D

[Rev22:17]

Ian,

 

Hi,

 

The 'M' class ships would greatly benefit from having a small rudder just aft of puds on the centre line. Once at sea the pods could be locked in the straight ahead position and the rudder could be used for the small course corrections required. When in port or for tighter turns the pods could be used as normal. this would greatly cut down the wear and tear on the main shaft thrust bearing, as well as the pod pivot bearing. When at sea the pods are constantly twitching port and starboard to correct the ships course the tiny amounts needed to stay on course.

 

Its only an idea, but makes good sense.

 

Sorry to break this to you, but you have the wrong shaft. The shaft in question is the one connected to the propeller. The main thrust bearings prevent the shaft from going forward and leaving the rest of the pod behind. On a conventional ship, they are on the forward end of the propeller shaft -- which puts them insude the hull where the crew can replace them at sea. In the Azipod units, they are on the forward face of a flange connected to the propeller shaft because the propellers are at the forward end of the pod.

 

Norm.

[iandjm]

Ian,

 

 

 

Sorry to break this to you, but you have the wrong shaft. The shaft in question is the one connected to the propeller. The main thrust bearings prevent the shaft from going forward and leaving the rest of the pod behind. On a conventional ship, they are on the forward end of the propeller shaft -- which puts them insude the hull where the crew can replace them at sea. In the Azipod units, they are on the forward face of a flange connected to the propeller shaft because the propellers are at the forward end of the pod.

 

Norm.

 

Very true but the wear rate on this bearing is not helped by the pods twisting left and right constantly correcting the ships course, thus adding to the bearings wear, due to the angular forces on the bearing.

 

Ian

[Rev22:17]

Ian,

 

Very true but the wear rate on this bearing is not helped by the pods twisting left and right constantly correcting the ships course, thus adding to the bearings wear, due to the angular forces on the bearing.

 

There are no angular forces on the main thrust bearing. The properller shaft also has journal bearings at both ends that absorb lateral forces, so it can't twist.

 

FWIW, there's also an astern thrust bearing on the other side of the flange for the main thrust bearing so the shaft can't slide backward, either.

 

Norm.

[iandjm]

Hmmmmm I still feel that pods constant twisting is causing additional wear. Its similar to driving down the road steering left and right constantly, causing your wheel bearings to fail quickly.

 

Anyways there is no point me commenting anymore as you appear to be the designer of the pods ;)

[Moeve]

Have an Idea?? so do I .... Take out the portholes on the bottom deck, put oars through and send those passengers to work. Passengers you want to go somewhere? Then get on with the rowing!!! That should also solve a few other problems such as chair hogging on the pooldeck......

[Nurse Bambi]

Hmmmmm I still feel that pods constant twisting is causing additional wear.

Anyways there is no point me commenting anymore as you appear to be the designer of the pods ;)

 

jandjm,

 

I was thinking the same thing.

Nurse Bambi

[raymac46]

Maybe Celebrity should adopt the mindset of the US Navy of 1912. When they were outfitting USS Texas, the Navy brass was concerned about the reliability of those newfangled turbine engines, so they went with triple expansion reciprocation.

The Texas's massive engines ran for 34 years, took her from Scapa Flow to the Normandy coast to the beaches of Iwo Jima and back. She could do 21 knots in a pinch but most of her cruises were at a steady 12 knots.

Maybe Celebrity could buy her back from the Texas Navy and refit her, although balcony cabins might be a problem. The reliability would still be there I think. :)

[cechase]

Ray, actually the Texas is too small compared to many of the cruise ships today. A number of them are as large as our aircraft carriers.

 

A better choice would be my old ship, a LST built in 1955. You could build a lot of cabins in the tank deck! Of course she was flat bottomed out of necessity [landing on beaches], and sometimes at max power made 14 knots with a tail wind. :D

[mafig]

How about less ports, but staying overnight at some?

[raymac46]

Hmmm....

USS Texas

Displacement: 29500 tons

Length:573 feet

Beam: 106 feet

Draft: 31.5 feet

 

Celebrity Journey

Displacement: 30300 tons

Length: 593 feet

Beam: 95 feet

Draft: 20 feet

 

Seems the old battlewagon is in line with Celebrity's move to smaller ships for specialized cruises, although you might have to take her to deeper water ports I guess.

Somehow I wouldn't relish a cruise on the USS Texas from New York to Bermuda though. Your mileage may differ. :)

[two rabbits]

Hi Drew !

 

Not a bad idea, but I continue to feel the BEST way to handle the Pod situation is to build in 1 or 2 Drydocks into the schedule for each M-Class ship each year (until a permanent solution is found) to do preventative maintanance BEFORE the Pod has problems, and ruins passenger's vacations. While it is nice to get a free Cruise when this happens, it creates many very unhappy passengers. Surely, Celebrity must realize this, and try to be more proactive about this, other than to wait for a problem to arise, and then deal with it.

 

I always hoped a permanent solution would happen. However, after 6 years of M-Class service, and no current solution in hand, one has to wonder if this will continue indefinitely. If this turns out to be the case, it shouldnt be a huge issue, if only Celebrity built this item into the schedule, and dealt with it as an ongoing maintanance issue. I would think that Cruise cancellations would be reduced to a very small number (if any) with this plan. IMHO, this makes a lot of sense.

 

Andy, I think that Celebrity should listen to your suggestion. Since as you said, if this is going to continue indefinitely, then one would think that Celebrity would be concerned about creating many unhappy passengers.

It would also help with PR, if Celebrity would also inform passengers about the recurring propulsion problems when prospective customers ask.

If you look at the timing of the pod failures, just one scheduled PM dry dock per year would almost eliminate all of the emergency drydocks. With the cost in angry passengers and the compensation costs, you would think that this would be a cheaper and much more passenger friendly way to go.

[dkjretired]

How about less ports, but staying overnight at some?

 

Great idea but don't think you'll see it, can't make money in the casino while in port...

[Stock Cop]

I am no expert but I feel they are running the ships the way they are to bolster their lawsuit against the pod manufacturer. Afterall, they have insurance to cover repairs and cancelled cruises, reimburement of passengers,etc.

If they schedule regular drydock intervals that might mask the real number of pod failures they have. That is assuming they actually catch some problems before they occur. We will probably find out what they really want to go with the pod ships after the lawsuit is put to bed?

 

Rich