ace2542

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

While the Captain has the "overriding authority" to make these decisions at the time, if it is found that they disregarded an imminent danger to people who turn out not to be terrorists, he and the cruise line could be sued under the "Death on High Seas Act", among other maritime laws.

If it was a terrorist strike would massive law suits from the passengers not be forthcoming?

31 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, ace, but do you see underwater when you look out the windows in the Golden Lion?  No?  Then how does an area about 15-20 feet above the ship flood?  

Chart room would flood probably. And captain has 10 seconds to react?. How far away would the ship be is the big question.

Lets just pray it never happens. Of course you could really avoid it by simply sailing on by as you say they can.

35 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Which just goes to show how uninformed about maritime issues you are.  Naval vessels today do not have armor plated hulls.  They are mild steel hulls, just like cruise ships and other merchant ships.

 

Oh, you mean the boat that looks damaged or sinking that can suddenly accelerate to 60 miles per hour and strike the ship?  How do you disguise a cigarette racing boat as a sinking wreck?  Do you know how bow thrusters work?  They push enough water away from the ship to move the thousands of tons of ship away from a dock.  If directed at a small boat, it typically will swamp or sink that boat.  And, besides, just exploding something alongside a ship does not guarantee that you would seriously damage the ship, let alone blow a hole in her.  That requires either a vast amount of explosive, or a shaped charge pressed against the hull, or some form of damping to direct the explosive force towards the ship, and not in all directions.

 

And, even if the ship is stopped, the Captain will have the ability to steer and use thrusters, to keep the damaged boat away from his ship.  Or do you think the Captain is so incompetent or uncaring that he would just let the boat drift closer and closer, without taking the basic precautions that sent the rescue boat out to the refugees in the first place?

 

Always amusing, and always uninformed, as usual, ace.

I never said 60 mph. Just hit from however many yards  away. How much explosive 500 pounds in weight? So not very big? Or is that big? Such an impact against the QM2 detonated 3 ft away from the side of the ship that has the chart room and golden lion would breach both venues kill people and flood the ship on both decks? Won't sink the QM2 but the point is made. And besides the QM2 or ay cruise ship could not react to a ship that suddenly came it from 300 yards away could it?

I know enough to say any cruise ship could probably outrun nearly any ship they could get their hands on so the only chance of success would be from stationary position.

7 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

And I believe the duty to rescue is an absolute duty to rescue and would in fact extend to a shipwrecked pirate, unpopular as this might be.

And that duty trumps safety of the passenger and crew? Bear in mind it was far different world when that duty was inacted than it is today sadly.

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And ace, shaking my head that you've resurrected this fear of using rescue as a terrorist tactic.  In case you haven't noticed, ships have evolved quite a bit since the heyday of fire ships.  And, before you bring up possible explosives, remember the USS Cole, which was damaged similarly as you think, and which had a huge hole blown in the side, but guess what, it never sank.

 

Besides, the ship never lets the refugee boat or liferaft, or whatever, alongside the ship.  The ship sends the rescue boat, or a lifeboat, to the persons needing assistance, and then transfer them from their craft to the rescue/lifeboat one at a time, not allowing anything to be carried over.

Cruise ship don't have the armour the U.S.S Cole had do they?.  Many people woul die in a copycat attack? Pray they never try it. With the cruise ship at a full stop they would be able to strike if they suddenly came at the ship the captain would have no chance to evade would he?

Such an attack would really change the industry just like 9/11 did for flying.

56 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

Security is paramount and no one wants a stricken cruise ship on their watch

So why stop to rescue ships in the middle of the ocean? Doesn't that rescue put everyone at risk. It could be anyone on that ship

They can deploy water cannon and sonic defences and yet they stop to recsue ships in the middle of the ocean and it could be anyone including a bunch of terrorists in a fire ship with a load of explosives who then proceed to ramp the ship once it stops. A fancyful scenario perhaps but then so was 9/11.

A fire ship is what was used in war when ships where made of wood back in the days of francis drake they would fill one with gunpower and send it into the enemy fleet in port if they could catch them there.

12 hours ago, NE John said:

As someone working in NYC and lived in Brooklyn, Yes! Stay near the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal and the Brooklyn Marriott. 

And staying in Brooklyn means you get a little trip in a Green outer borough taxi. I just might do that myself.

Seems like all cruises to Norway have been stopped forever

Where would it sail from? Might be a cat among the pidgeons if it sailed from maybe Rotterdam to NYC or even Liverpool/NYC.

3 hours ago, twangster said:

Booking with a fake second guest works but will usually result in single CAS points when the fake is a no-show

Until they starting cracking down and cancelling your boking if they catch on? Which they might start doing?

On 3/5/2024 at 7:56 AM, kitkat343 said:

A 75 year old passenger with mobility issues died getting on a tender ship on Cunard after she fell in the ocean

She was high school teacher. That was a game changer for Cunard and a few other lines I think as well.

For example if you booked the meeting room on Anthem perhaps with Tea/Coffee refreshment for a private event not part of the ship daily programme would you have to pay a booking fee or a fee or the tea/coffee?

16 hours ago, A Lew said:

Hi all - my partner and I are moving to Europe for a job. We have a pug mix that is too large (35lbs) to fly in-cabin with and cannot go in cargo because of his snout nose. My job offer only came a few weeks ago, so we couldn't book early enough on the Queen Mary 2 to reserve a kennel for him. I'm posting to see if anyone else is taking their dog on this cruise (It is the QM2 leaving from New York and going to Southampton on June 15-June 23, 2024) and is considering canceling. I know it's a long shot - but we're first on the waitlist, and it's a last-ditch effort. Otherwise, we pay $4000 to ship him. 

You might have  shot of getting onboard. I was hanging out with a guy on an eastbound crossing who was moving his dog and himself from Seattle to London because his wife had got a job at starbucks UK office. That move came together quite quickly I think

So was it Cholera or not?

2 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

??? Power usage has nothing to do with dirty hulls. Plus the regions NZ is most concerned about are places where cruise ships don't dock - Fiordland is scenic cruising only and the Bay of Islands is a tender port.

But cruise ship use far more power and produce far more waste and CO2 emissions than cargo or container ships regardless of dirty hulls.

Why the gap in May/June and not later in the year? Why have they chosen that time?

2 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

Container ships and oil tankers don't enter the areas, like Fiordland and the Bay of Islands etc, where biofouling is a concern. They visit commercial ports.

They  don't use several gig per day (several million KWH of electric per day) equal to the power usage of a city like Southampton or smaller or maybe larger depending upon the size of ship. Cruise ships do.

2 hours ago, OzKiwiJJ said:

Surely there should be a way to solve this problem. I'm guessing there aren't any issues with ships transiting between Australia and NZ, it's just ships that have come from further afield including on world cruises. Could hull-cleaning stops be scheduled into itineraries, essentially as sea days but not going anywhere? If this was done when a ship arrives in Aus/NZ from elsewhere would there be a need for more cleaning while the ship remains in this region?

Wouldn't it need a full dry dock to clean beneath the water line?

4 hours ago, D&N said:

If the authorities actually want cruise ships

They obiviously don't want cruise ships do they?

That the Bliss nightclub isn't in the back of the ship like on other NCL ships. Big plus though O Sheenans is open 24 hours a day!

1 hour ago, jollyjones said:

 

Maybe because it's too difficult / expensive to comply with NZ's very strict biosecurity rules?

 

Wouldn't the Queen Anne be better suited to covering that? Being newer and all that?

55 minutes ago, Ray66 said:

Capacity is 2,996 according to Cunard's website

 

https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/cruise-ships/queen-anne/0

 

1,225 crew = 4,221

Strange the rep was adamant it was 5.2k and capped at 3k

3 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

It seems unlikely as the Statendam, on which she is based, has a capacity of under 3000. 

The Cunard rep said it could take 5.2. Or is that 5.2 with crew do you reckon? I agree with you wouldn't make any sense to operate 50% full and call yourself full.

I was at a cruise event on Sunday and the Cunard rep addressing the room said the ship could take 5,200 but Cunard had restricted it 3000 which is slightly over half. Such a restriction would also explain why QM2 never feels full.

Surely Cunard can't be choosing to operate at half capicity?