Star Azipod News and progress

[Loonbeam]

I can. Have seen it. They will scream willful negligence, etc. Doesn't mean they will WIN, but there are always a bunch of lawyers willing to fire paperwork at a company in hopes of a go away settlement and a quick buck.

 

Nobody died, nobody got injured, nobody was put at risk. Missing ports is specifically mentioned in the contract. I can't imagine some going to court over missed ports.

 

The video posted earlier in this thread also shows that passengers aren't angry about missing a port, they are angry because they feel betrayed. Being 100% transparent would solve that. Letters saying that all is well while the next paragraph says that the ship needs towing feels like a trick played by a Turkish carpet salesmen. It's just childish to act as if there's nothing wrong. IMHO, multi-billion companies like NCL should treat their clientele like adults. "X went wrong, then Y went wrong, this is really exceptional and obviously not what we wanted. The doohicky is inspected 4 times per day but now it failed, just like your car can let you down all of a sudden. Again, we're very sorry. We will give you money, we'll arrange flights for you if you want to disembark, we can offer you strawberries covered in chocolate, but there's nothing else we can do."

[VK3DQ]

No one died , no one was hurt and no one was put at risk

 

The last statement is wrong , anyone who has anything to do with the sea will understand the risk , they were is a drifting ship 32km off a lea shore , all that was needed to turn debacle into disaster was a southerly gale !! it arrived 42 hours to late to create havoc.

 

 

The have no concept at all of the danger that was about them , I know that bit of sea .....

 

 

Makes me scream ...you just dont take chances , the ship had a history over a number of months of propulsion failure and they chose to go to sea in a ship with a band aid fix .. they deserved all they got and are the luckiest people for a long time , they ended up with a tow in a nice calm sea , instead of a mayday call while drifting in a force 8 gale towards a lea shore

 

The flag sate has a lot to answer for ...

 

 

Regards

 

John

[rscales2]

Nobody was put at risk. NCL needs better communication. I am going to use my cruise credit and cruise rewards and April on the Epic a new ship that won't go awry.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[karoo]

Nobody was put at risk. NCL needs better communication. I am going to use my cruise credit and cruise rewards and April on the Epic a new ship that won't go awry.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

Have a great cruise!

PS- I thought about what you said about me supporting/defending management. I am definitely not a Del Rio fan (Kevin Sheehan - yes) and even stopped cruising for a while with NCL, but I am a crew fan as I always feel I have been treated so well onboard. I don't like to see them treated badly and abused for something out of their control.

 

And when it comes to suing for the posters suggesting it -From a legal point of view you can't sue for something that might have happened. It has to actually happen.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[casofilia]

Nobody was put at risk. NCL needs better communication. I am going to use my cruise credit and cruise rewards and April on the Epic a new ship that won't go awry.

 

I hope you had your fingers, toes, legs, arms and eyes crossed when you wrote that. vbg Dare I remind you of the Titanic!!

[VK3DQ]

Nobody was put at risk. NCL needs better communication. I am going to use my cruise credit and cruise rewards and April on the Epic a new ship that won't go awry.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Well ... I just hit the roof ..dont you have ANY concept of what could have happened ? Ships can drift for days in the open sea without risk they are in greatest danger on a lee shore with a wind blowing towards that shore, the wind arrives 42 hours late Gale force 8 ...the ship would have been drifting towards that shore nicely .. Oh dear Please understand you never turn your back on the sea , if you do it will kill you , it does not care .....

 

 

 

Again I suggest Brian Callisons "Ferry Down" as recommended reading for travelers on the next voyage this ship makes

 

Regards

 

John (Royal Navy Retired)

[tazza_0712]

Well ... I just hit the roof ..dont you have ANY concept of what could have happened ? Ships can drift for days in the open sea without risk they are in greatest danger on a lee shore with a wind blowing towards that shore, the wind arrives 42 hours late Gale force 8 ...the ship would have been drifting towards that shore nicely .. Oh dear Please understand you never turn your back on the sea , if you do it will kill you , it does not care .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again I suggest Brian Callisons "Ferry Down" as recommended reading for travelers on the next voyage this ship makes

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

John (Royal Navy Retired)

 

 

 

For others to suggest there was no risk, shows their complete and utter complacency for human safety at sea.

 

For what it's worth, it's obvious to most that there was indeed risk involved with this "unprecedented" situation.

 

I do understand the "go with the flow" camp that chose to have fun, and are not getting worked up about it - because thankfully, nothing happened, but let's not pretend for a second that there was no danger involved.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big Kev]

The Tasman isn't the best place to be anytime !!!

 

Looky here !!

 

 

 

 

Phil..

[aussie cruzer]

The 18 th Feb roll call were just told by Ncl that the original schedule is expected from Auckland onwards.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[DaveS32]

The 18 th Feb roll call were just told by Ncl that the original schedule is expected from Auckland onwards.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

They must be expecting a full fix then. Let's hope it happens and everything stays working for good!

[Jossamund]

They must be expecting a full fix then. Let's hope it happens and everything stays working for good!

 

NCL have used the word 'expect' - just as they 'expect' the ship to sail Tuesday 1400 hrs local time.

Suggest waiting - a lot of passengers have made new arrangements on the current revised schedule and we all know the value of NCL Expectations!

[MicCanberra]

Nobody was put at risk. NCL needs better communication. I am going to use my cruise credit and cruise rewards and April on the Epic a new ship that won't go awry.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

The Epic is a great ship, well worth doing a cruise on.

[MicCanberra]

The 18 th Feb roll call were just told by Ncl that the original schedule is expected from Auckland onwards.

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Let's hope they are right and they can deliver.:D

[chengkp75]

the ship had a history over a number of months of propulsion failure and they chose to go to sea in a ship with a band aid fix .. Regards

 

John

 

Could you please let me know what the "band aid fix" was that they did? As I've stated earlier, do you have a source of information that leads you to conclude that the repair done in Singapore was not to either class or manufacturer's standards? Do you have information that there was data onboard that the second azipod was failing when the ship left Singapore? Was there data that the azipod repaired in Singapore, even if it had been repaired to manufacturer's standards, was failing when they left Melbourne? Please advise the corners cut and the maintenance short cuts that were done, just to get the ship moving. I just love how everyone figures that there is some conspiracy here, and that every repair is just "lipstick on a pig". I'll go back to my auto analogy. If your fan belt breaks, and your garage fixes it, then a week later the oil seal fails (both not allowing the car to be used), do you go back to the garage and claim the fan belt was a "band aid" repair? Let's wait and see if the Australian maritime board makes a report, and see whether they uphold your "band aid" theory.

 

Each of the ship's diesel engines are torn down completely for overhaul every 12,000 hours (roughly two years), and this is done while in service. This typically means the ship cannot make full speed, and the itineraries are planned accordingly for the two weeks that the overhaul takes, and typically no passenger is aware that they are sailing with one less engine available. An unexpected problem on a further engine will result in reduced speed and revised itineraries. Is this also a "band aid" type repair?

[karoo]

Could you please let me know what the "band aid fix" was that they did? As I've stated earlier, do you have a source of information that leads you to conclude that the repair done in Singapore was not to either class or manufacturer's standards? Do you have information that there was data onboard that the second azipod was failing when the ship left Singapore? Was there data that the azipod repaired in Singapore, even if it had been repaired to manufacturer's standards, was failing when they left Melbourne? Please advise the corners cut and the maintenance short cuts that were done, just to get the ship moving. I just love how everyone figures that there is some conspiracy here, and that every repair is just "lipstick on a pig". I'll go back to my auto analogy. If your fan belt breaks, and your garage fixes it, then a week later the oil seal fails (both not allowing the car to be used), do you go back to the garage and claim the fan belt was a "band aid" repair? Let's wait and see if the Australian maritime board makes a report, and see whether they uphold your "band aid" theory.

 

 

 

Each of the ship's diesel engines are torn down completely for overhaul every 12,000 hours (roughly two years), and this is done while in service. This typically means the ship cannot make full speed, and the itineraries are planned accordingly for the two weeks that the overhaul takes, and typically no passenger is aware that they are sailing with one less engine available. An unexpected problem on a further engine will result in reduced speed and revised itineraries. Is this also a "band aid" type repair?

 

 

Great post. Your posts always sound so informative and logical.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[ECCruise]

The most frustrating part of this whole mess is that I am sitting on the ship at nearly midnight and are "expected" to sail in 12 hours and the last communication from the bridge was almost 50 hours ago. Is the ship repaired? Are the repairs going to plan? Will we in fact sail?

Total radio silence. Their communication has gone from good to nonexistent in 2 days.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Forums mobile app

[karoo]

The most frustrating part of this whole mess is that I am sitting on the ship at nearly midnight and are "expected" to sail in 12 hours and the last communication from the bridge was almost 50 hours ago. Is the ship repaired? Are the repairs going to plan? Will we in fact sail?

Total radio silence. Their communication has gone from good to nonexistent in 2 days.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Forums mobile app

 

 

Let's just hope no news is good news.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[VK3DQ]

Could you please let me know what the "band aid fix" was that they did? As I've stated earlier, do you have a source of information that leads you to conclude that the repair done in Singapore was not to either class or manufacturer's standards? Do you have information that there was data onboard that the second azipod was failing when the ship left Singapore? Was there data that the azipod repaired in Singapore, even if it had been repaired to manufacturer's standards, was failing when they left Melbourne? Please advise the corners cut and the maintenance short cuts that were done, just to get the ship moving. I just love how everyone figures that there is some conspiracy here, and that every repair is just "lipstick on a pig". I'll go back to my auto analogy. If your fan belt breaks, and your garage fixes it, then a week later the oil seal fails (both not allowing the car to be used), do you go back to the garage and claim the fan belt was a "band aid" repair? Let's wait and see if the Australian maritime board makes a report, and see whether they uphold your "band aid" theory.

 

Each of the ship's diesel engines are torn down completely for overhaul every 12,000 hours (roughly two years), and this is done while in service. This typically means the ship cannot make full speed, and the itineraries are planned accordingly for the two weeks that the overhaul takes, and typically no passenger is aware that they are sailing with one less engine available. An unexpected problem on a further engine will result in reduced speed and revised itineraries. Is this also a "band aid" type repair?

 

 

 

So after all this wonderful pre planed maintenance perhaps you might inform us how the ship came to be drifting 32km off the coast of Wonthaggi ?

 

The answer is that is very easy for the owners of FOC registered ships to cut corners

 

Properly maintained ships do not have continued multiple incidences of propulsion failure

 

 

Regards

John

[DaveS32]

So after all this wonderful pre planed maintenance perhaps you might inform us how the ship came to be drifting 32km off the coast of Wonthaggi ?

 

The answer is that is very easy for the owners of FOC registered ships to cut corners

 

Properly maintained ships do not have continued multiple incidences of propulsion failure

 

 

Regards

John

Perhaps it's just a "Friday afternoon" ship. I've owned cars that no matter how many times I've repaired them something else goes wrong?!

[Son of a son of a ...]

So after all this wonderful pre planed maintenance perhaps you might inform us how the ship came to be drifting 32km off the coast of Wonthaggi ?

 

The answer is that is very easy for the owners of FOC registered ships to cut corners

 

Properly maintained ships do not have continued multiple incidences of propulsion failure

 

 

Regards

John

 

That is a logical fallacy to conclude that propulsion failure is caused by improperly maintained ships. Sometimes machines break before deadline due to no fault of the operator. I suggest an equal, if not greater, possibility for causation may be a manufacturing or design defect. Wait for all the evidence before passing judgment.

[nevada2121]

I have lived in the American southwest for the last 20 years, we live and die by having AC most of the year.

 

6 years ago, my AC unit started breaking down and as they would replace one old, worn out part with brand new parts, the new parts stressed the remaining older parts, and they began to fail.

 

Every couple of weeks another old part wore out as the new parts worked and brought the unit back up to where it should be at, the units older parts couldn't handle the increased efficiency of the newer parts. This really sucked having no AC for 3 days at a time, in July, August and September while waiting for parts for a 14 year old AC unit to come in.

 

This could be unknown territory with pods, as they replaced the parts as they wore out and they led to other older ones to wear out and so on.

 

The pods seem to work when powered, would lead me to believe it's a problem getting the power from the generators to the pods. If it was the pods, it would be a trip straight to a dry dock, or repairs from inside the ship would be very difficult to impossible to make.

 

They have two black eyes already, I don't think they will risk a KO by sending it out again to breakdown again.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

[chengkp75]

So after all this wonderful pre planed maintenance perhaps you might inform us how the ship came to be drifting 32km off the coast of Wonthaggi ?

 

The answer is that is very easy for the owners of FOC registered ships to cut corners

 

Properly maintained ships do not have continued multiple incidences of propulsion failure

 

 

Regards

John

 

So, again, you assume that the Australian maritime board cut corners in allowing the ship to proceed from Darwin, that the class society has allowed poor maintenance, and why the other ships in NCL's fleet, all under the same FOC, and all under the same class society (which you seem to repeatedly ignore their impact) have not experienced the same repeated failures? It is far too easy to blame FOC's (and I am not a fan of most of them, nor some of the class societies) based on what happened in the past, but with the changes in the maritime conventions over the last 20 years, ships have become safer and more reliable, and port states have become more active in enforcement.

 

I can't say what caused any of the failures the Star has experienced over the last few months, because I don't have access to the maintenance records, but I am in total agreement with nevada2121 that sequential failure is a more logical solution than "band aid" repairs. There have been instances where I have castigated cruise lines for poor maintenance, as with the Carnival Splendor fire, where they did not follow manufacturer's recommendations regarding engine maintenance, and others where amidst all the hue and cry I have not placed the blame on them, as with the Carnival Triumph, where the part that failed had been renewed within the year before the fire.

 

Until I see a report that says that NCL did not follow the manufacturer's recommended maintenance plan, or used parts that were not approved by class or the manufacturer, I will not support the "band aid" theory.

[cdnsteelman]

I have been following this issue and this thread with great interest tempered by personal relief as I had booked the March 9 sailing from Singapore to Dubai so long ago that I actually started the official roll call for that sailing - as a 50th birthday celebration for myself with my wife and two young children. The downturn the the energy sector - my realm of employment - cost me my job after 27 years and so we canceled our of prudence right at final payment deadline.

 

I appreciate the wealth of technical expertise on this thread from several sources not least the engineering knowledge for the ch.eng. and local seafaring chops provided by John.

 

What I have to add to the conversation is my detailed knowledge of public relations, communications and risk and issues management in globally large organizations. While it's true they are not all the same, most - if not all - have scores of "actuary" style risk managers very adept at understating all the inputs and variables from a bottom line perspective (yes, including tragedy and loss of human life).

 

I won't pretend for a minute that these actuaries are always right (as the science goes the larger the sample the more accurate but discrete inputs will almost always vary) but I will say that despite the massive moaning about how NCL is handling the PR side of the Star situation, they do not believe based on how they are handling it that it will not have a big impact on their bottom line from a reputation perspective and, if they did, they would be making different decisions. I think - with 27 years of experience in this field behind me - that NCL is underestimating the reputational modifier of their risk management to the point where I am writing a proposal to Mr. Del Rio to offer my services as in house crisis management and communications executive. As they say in PR 101 - never waste a good crisis.

 

For those who have been already impacted by the Star issues over the past two months (whether others feel you're good natured or the opposite) I feel for you having survived a horrible sailing with HAL a few years back marked by brutal and untruthful communication. For those sailing onward, may the pods (both of them, and all components feeding them) be with you and if you're on the March 9 sailing would you toast my 50th for me somewhere around Colombo?

[rjrpar]

not true, the dec 22nd sailing we were on was given the option to cancel before boarding

 

 

Let's not confuse this discussion with facts

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[old nutter]

All of the speculation about this series of events is just that - speculation. We know very little by way of proper facts. We should know a bit more about the latest problem if and when a report is published or NCL say something.

 

Saying anything about what was, wasn't or might have been done is worth very little. Just for example, we do not know what caused te captain to stop using the azipods. We do know that the weather was kind to them and that the ship appeared to be safe with thrusters available. We also know that it was far from dead-in-the-water with substantial reserve power available. We do not know if the shutdown was precautionary or because of total failure of some critical parts, be those mechanical or electrical.

 

It does look at present as though the repairs may well be fairly rapid. Perhaps that was due to being able to stop the azipods before anything broke completely and did not damage things by running them sub-optimally. We also do not know whether the captain could have used the azipods at all if it had become necessary because of bad weather coming in before getting back to dockside.

 

The top and bottom is that we have no idea whether this last incident was handled well or badly. We also cannot and perhaps should not second guess the actions of company, captain or authorities on the basis of what we know at present.

Edited February 13, 2017 by old nutter
Spelling