Thread Discussing Rolls Royce Mermaid Pod ("Pod") Issues Affecting Celebrity Vessels

[LeftcoastBC]

Hi Floris,

 

You are right that from May 27 of this year until now, there have been no reported pod problems on Celebrity m-class ships. Whether you could call 2007 a good year for Celebrity m-class ships, I will leave that one up to others to decide.

 

Actually I was doing just that while aboard the Infinity several weeks ago and although the Engine room staff didn't (couldn't ? wouldn't!!) say anything I thought I saw them touching wood and having crossed fingers. :) or whatever sailers do instead.

[Bilyeu5]

One of the posts in this thread said that a pod had been replaced on the Infinity. Can anyone verify that? Does it mean I wouldn't need to be concerned about the issue if booking on her to Alaska next spring?

[LeftcoastBC]

One of the posts in this thread said that a pod had been replaced on the Infinity. Can anyone verify that? Does it mean I wouldn't need to be concerned about the issue if booking on her to Alaska next spring?

 

I can verify the pod replacement.

 

It means only that it was replaced and to date everything is fine. Nothing more nothing less.

[Lois R]

Denise, click on one of their names...they are Host Walt and/or

Host Anne...

[CatServants]

Thanks again, Lois!

 

Happy cruising!

 

Denise

[2Canucks]

Does anyone know when the last time the pods on the Summit broke down?

 

How often does this usually happen with this "class" of ship?

 

What actually happens when the pods breakdown?

 

Please share your experience or knowledge with us.

 

Pat :)

[Shirley and Les]

Does anyone know when the last time the pods on the Summit broke down?

How often does this usually happen with this "class" of ship?

What actually happens when the pods breakdown?

Please share your experience or knowledge with us.

Pat :)

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=519029

 

If you read all seven pages of the above linked thread, you will know more about pods on the Celebrity M class ships than you ever wanted to know. :confused:

I think you can get certified as a marine propulsion engineer from one of those correspondence colleges after reading the entire thing. :eek:

We personally know the Summit was in drydock in May/June, 2005, for replacement of a pod bearing. It happened two weeks before our Summit cruise to Alaska but our cruise was not affected. Normally, the ship has to travel at reduced speed after a pod bearing problem is found.

Les

[sasset]

In a nutshell (to save reading that entire other thread) the last Summit pod issue was a Pod failure and dry dock May 20, 2006.

 

We are watching this carefully as we are sailing on the Summit soon and were on board for a Millennium pod issue cruise last November.

 

As far as how often: no way to predict, except that the Summit has a history of about every fifteen months or so.

 

When they breakdown: I have no direct information of a complete breakdown...someone jump in here...in our case it was a partial. The ship must travel at a reduced speed. There was a missed port (a $300 cabin credit for the loss) a shortened stay at another port and an extra day crossing the Atlantic (due to the reduction of speed). The cruise following ours was cancelled for a drydock for repairs.

 

Regards

[florisdekort]

There have been no POD problems fleet wide since January, so let's be very quiet, and not jinx things by starting threads about it... :D The answers to your questions are all here:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=519029

 

Floris

[Shirley and Les]

There have been no POD problems fleet wide since January, so let's be very quiet, and not jinx things by starting threads about it... :D The answers to your questions are all here:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=519029

Floris

Huh?

Both the Millie and the Infinity had pod problems this year. These ships had the problems corrected during scheduled drydocks in the Spring of 2007. We have firsthand knowledge of the Infinity's problems from our 14 night Hawaii cruise. We arrived in Hawaii several hours late and left there a halfday early due to the imposed limitations on maximum speed.

If you look at post #124 of the thread you referenced, someone provided details when you last commented there were no pod issues in '07.

Les

[Drew B]

As was reported the last pod problem for the Summit was in early May of 2006 and the problems on the Summit, in the past, happen about every 14 or 15 months. When these problems first begin the ship must reduce speed which in turn can result in missed ports, changed itineraries and late arrivals. To answer your question about reports from those who were on one of those cruises, one example is contained in reviews from those onboard the Summit in 2006. The reviews are titled May 6, 2006 Summit.

 

 

I was on that sailing and wrote a review about it. Having now sailed X to Alaska again on the Mercury, I can really see how much the pod problems did worsen my earlier cruise. However, it was not in the way one might think. The loss of ports was certainly a bummer. However, it was not the biggest problem. The biggest problem was being stuck on a boat with a thousand or so angry, negative, disgruntled passengers who wanted to talk about nothing else. Leaving aside whether or not they had good reason to act/feel this way, it is a simple fact that they did act and feel this way. Their negativity had a profound impact on the ambiance of the ship.

 

I was very lucky last week to sail with a bunch of nice, happy, positive folks, and it made all the difference in the world. :)

[Captain Cosmo]

You're right - cruising would be so much more pleasant if the passengers stopped having any expectations at all...

[Drew B]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. :confused:

 

Their dissatisfaction and their expression of their dissatisfaction affected me. That doesn't mean they weren't entitled to be dissatisfied. It just means that my cruise was less pleasant because of how they behaved.

 

I imagine that my cruise would also be ruined if I had been on that cruise where all the folks died in the accident on the excursion in South America. With all that sadness, it would be hard to be happy. Does that mean that the people shouldn't have been sad? No. Does that mean that my enjoyment takes precedence over their expression of their sadness? No. It's simply a fact that the state of mind of fellow passengers impacts those around them.

 

All things being equal, I would much rather be on a ship filled with happy people. Whether that occurs because everything goes well or because they have no expectations isn't the issue to me. That's their business. How their attitude affects me is my business.

[Shirley and Les]

You're right - cruising would be so much more pleasant if the passengers stopped having any expectations at all...

Was this post missing a :rolleyes: or at least a ;) ? The post kinda reminds me of the old Rodney Dangerfield line, "Call me when you have no class!"

Les

[Quendryth]

This may be answered somewhere in this thread, but I really don't want to read 7 pages of things I don't have a clue to understanding! So forgive me in advance.

 

What powers the ships on Celebrity's line if not the pod system? I never hear of any problems on the C class ships such as Galaxy or Century. So what posessed X to change to the pod system to begin with? Someone told me so they did not need tugs in port was the reason.

 

What other cruise line has this system? Does HAL or Carnival ? Has it broken down the same is X?

 

Just curious for some answers!

 

Thanks for helping me get to sleep tonight!

 

Faith

[Shirley and Les]

This may be answered somewhere in this thread, but I really don't want to read 7 pages of things I don't have a clue to understanding! So forgive me in advance.

What powers the ships on Celebrity's line if not the pod system? I never hear of any problems on the C class ships such as Galaxy or Century. So what posessed X to change to the pod system to begin with? Someone told me so they did not need tugs in port was the reason.

What other cruise line has this system? Does HAL or Carnival ? Has it broken down the same is X?

Just curious for some answers!

Thanks for helping me get to sleep tonight!

Faith

Faith,

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a photo of a Celebrity ship pulling into port. :eek:

 

Seriously, I think the older ships were powered by fixed screws (propellers) with a separate rudder for steering. This is the old classic system.

The pods rotate so they provide both the power and steering for the ship.

Les

[First in Class]

I'm new to the pod discussion and want to make sure I've got this right:

 

The engineering defect/flaw causing failure hasn't been fully fixed.

-and therefore-

Replacements of failed pods simply means that the replaced pod is likely to fail again at some point in the future.

 

Did I get that right? Or are recent pod failures for different pods than those that previously failed?

 

Appreciate your thoughts.

[LeftcoastBC]

I'm new to the pod discussion and want to make sure I've got this right:

 

The engineering defect/flaw causing failure hasn't been fully fixed.

-and therefore-

Replacements of failed pods simply means that the replaced pod is likely to fail again at some point in the future.

 

Did I get that right? Or are recent pod failures for different pods than those that previously failed?

 

Appreciate your thoughts.

 

Well sort of. Every time they think they "Have it fixed" it's not.

But...this year no new problems have arisen after a drydock for repairs. The fixes done this year I believe actually started with problems last year that they just kept sailing with.

 

So I guess the answer is "Maybe"

[c-legs]

Has anyone heard anything about how the Summit is doing - speed wise? I have a cruise booked next March on the Summit and wondered if anyone has heard anything about any recent POD issues with the Summit. I know that the Summit has not had any POD problems for over a year now and that I am getting into the danger area for a possible failure. Thanks to all for a very informative thread.

Good evening,

As per last recent reports, sailing right along, no prob.

 

Faith

Cheers

:D

[Coco Creek]

What an education? Thank all for alerting me to a problem with M-Class that Celebrity did not share with me.

 

Losing a port in a cruise or having a cruise cancelled due to an act of nature I can accept. Losing part of a cruise because of a technical malfunction that Celebrity knows about but chooses not to disclose when you book a cruise is not.

 

I think I will stick with Celebrity for a Carribean cruise I have booked. After all, I will be content just to float around in the water. But when it comes to Alaska or Hawaii, I think Celebrity just lost my business.

 

What do you guys recommend? RCL? Princess?

[Drew B]

Losing a port in a cruise or having a cruise cancelled due to an act of nature I can accept. Losing part of a cruise because of a technical malfunction that Celebrity knows about but chooses not to disclose when you book a cruise is not.

 

 

 

I know yours is a common position, but I personally don't understand it. The results are the same - you miss out on a port or a cruise. I don't see why the CAUSE is more important to people than the effect when it is the effect that impacts you... :confused:

[Coco Creek]

I know yours is a common position, but I personally don't understand it. The results are the same - you miss out on a port or a cruise. I don't see why the CAUSE is more important to people than the effect when it is the effect that impacts you... :confused:

 

It is simple to me. An event that happens during a cruise is a happenstance of fate or just plain bad luck. A defect in the propulsion system that is known, but not disclosed in the ordinary course of business, is just plain deception. The former is fate, the latter is deliberate.

[Drew B]

It is simple to me. An event that happens during a cruise is a happenstance of fate or just plain bad luck. A defect in the propulsion system that is known, but not disclosed in the ordinary course of business, is just plain deception. The former is fate, the latter is deliberate.

 

 

In both cases (pods or weather), the cruise line knows the possibility of missing ports and/or cancellation exists. In neither case do they publicize it (but they do cover their heinies with the cruise contract). It seems to me that you are saying that one (the pods) is their fault while the other isn't. Fault is an interesting question. X received faulty machinery from a supplier. They have lost many millions of dollars over this - certainly MUCH more than any passenger has lost, no matter how many cruises have been "ruined". You can choose to look at it as their fault if it makes you feel better. To me, it is more of a sadly unavoidable circumstance for all involved.

 

On the other hand, I agree with you wholeheartedly that it would be nice for X to disclose this problem. However, from a business perspective, I can understand why they don't bring it up themselves. However, I consider it unforgivable when a passenger/potential passenger brings it up and somebody from X blatantly lies about it.

 

I simply hope that I (and everybody else, for that matter) gets the cruises we want as close to 100% of the time as possible. I don't want pod problems OR weather causing disruptions. Sadly, I don't think there is any more chance of solving the pod problems than there is of "solving" weather problems. They are simply a rare but unfortunate part of the experience of cruising M-Class ships on X.

[DeltaOne]

It is simple to me. An event that happens during a cruise is a happenstance of fate or just plain bad luck. A defect in the propulsion system that is known, but not disclosed in the ordinary course of business, is just plain deception. The former is fate, the latter is deliberate.

Celebrity monitors the oil in the propulsion system, checking for metal shavings. They can usually predict a pod failure and take preemptive action. The key word being "usually." They're not hiding anything about pod failures -- just trying to deal with a problem that can't really be permanently solved.

[Drew B]

Celebrity monitors the oil in the propulsion system, checking for metal shavings. They can usually predict a pod failure and take preemptive action. The key word being "usually." They're not hiding anything about pod failures -- just trying to deal with a problem that can't really be permanently solved.

 

 

That is mostly correct, but not entirely. Yes, they monitor the oil. When the amount of microscopic metal shavings reaches a certain designated point, they have to slow the ship down to preserve the bearing. That isn't a prediction of a pod failure. For all intents and purposes, it IS a pod failure. The pods have never actually "failed". What has happened has been that the bearings have begun to wear and preemptive action (slowing down) has been taken. However, it is precisely this preemptive action that has caused the upheaval in itineraries/missed ports until they can replace the bearing, resulting in cancelled cruises.

 

All of this comes from what I was told during a pod "failure" aboard Summit. I think it's accurate, but if it isn't, I apologize.