I think at least one of the offers to buy the Norway was real, and it came from Dubai. The timing of the sudden and unexpected sale of the QE2 was too close to be coincidental. Cunard was second choice, but knew a good deal when they saw one and seized it. However, since Norway was much more historically significant, and much larger, I think she was Dubai's first pick, but they gave up after being jerked around by NCL/Star, Metha, or a combination of the two because they wanted nothing but the ship's destruction.
We will probably never know the truth: who was a credible party and who was hot air. I must, however, hold Reuben Goossens at least partially responsible for creating much of the false hope that existed last year. While this self-promoting "maritime historian" was probably a victim of wishful thinking and acted with good intentions, his overheated, cryptic "I can't reveal . . . " statements and promises of further info lent an falsely-authoritative air to his assertions and raised hopes in many of us that only came crashing down.
Posts: 286 | Location: Upstate NY | Registered: December 29, 2005
Reuben did promise many times to eventually reveal the details behind what he supposedly knew. Now that the ship has been devoured to a point beyond redemption, it would seem the appropriate time for Reuben to follow through and tell us the rest of the story. He's said he plans to continue writing about ships even though his health no longer permits him to be a crusader to save them. I can think of no better contribution he could make to maritime history than to tell the WHOLE story of the lamentable (avoidable?) demise of the SS Norway, as he knows it.
Originally posted by Karen1054: Reuben did promise many times to eventually reveal the details behind what he supposedly knew. Now that the ship has been devoured to a point beyond redemption, it would seem the appropriate time for Reuben to follow through and tell us the rest of the story. He's said he plans to continue writing about ships even though his health no longer permits him to be a crusader to save them. I can think of no better contribution he could make to maritime history than to tell the WHOLE story of the lamentable (avoidable?) demise of the SS Norway, as he knows it.
Unless he really did make most of it up...
I would also appreciate more from Reuben of what couldn't have been said before. But apparently we will never see that in print.
Navillus had previously posted on this thread. He was funneling information to this thread. If he actually had truthful intentions (and spent money to have the Norway's hull inspected while at Alang), why wouldn't he want to explain himself in some way or another? I would think he would want to clear ideas that he was anything but sincere....unless of course...
Like i said....outside of this forum, this whole saga was far less dramatic. The only one who really made a difference was Gopal...but his interests were for changing the working conditions at Alang....not for saving the Norway.
Posts: 79 | Location: Long Island, New York | Registered: December 30, 2005
Navillus had previously posted on this thread. He was funneling information to this thread. If he actually had truthful intentions (and spent money to have the Norway's hull inspected while at Alang), why wouldn't he want to explain himself in some way or another? I would think he would want to clear ideas that he was anything but sincere....unless of course...
Like i said....outside of this forum, this whole saga was far less dramatic. The only one who really made a difference was Gopal...but his interests were for changing the working conditions at Alang....not for saving the Norway.
The only REAL party that wanted the SS Norway was that large hotel chain in France. They inspected the ship and found that it was not practical to buy the vessel, bacause of two things:
1. The ship was heavilly modified. Inside and out.
2. NCL allowed the vessel to go in a state of disrepair, which led to the boiler room accident. This should not have been allowed to happen. And for the NCL management team who were responsible for the defered maintainance by not listening to their Engineers concerns, when they addressed this problem to them, should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
HAD NCL retained the ship as the SS France, both inside and out, it would have been purchased for their asking price. But they didn't. The problem goes all the way back to the Kloster era, when he first bought the SS France and modified it rather than operating it as is until 1990. The money that was used to convert the SS France almost left them bankrupt.
The $100 Million that NCL used to convert the ship should have been used to upgrade their existing fleet by enlarging them with a mid section, which RCCL did to their early ships. Perhaps NCL would have been a very different company today if they had done so.
Dan Lague
Posts: 347 | Location: Florida | Registered: May 16, 2006
I agree Dan, the SS France really was never designed as a "short hop" cruising ship, but rather as a transatlantic liner. The engines themselves were not designed for frequent shutdowns and warm-ups that the cruising environment requires and I would agree that the maintenance concerns (that were not addressed properly by the operator) created risks that were then amplified by these frequent shutdowns and warm-ups. Just like when you build long haul airliner and then use if for short hops, be prepared for a much higher maintenance bill for increased wear and tear and a greater risk of mechanical failure! It's not rocket science but simple physics and economics.
quote:
Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
quote:
Originally posted by Keath: Let's not forget Navillus......
Navillus had previously posted on this thread. He was funneling information to this thread. If he actually had truthful intentions (and spent money to have the Norway's hull inspected while at Alang), why wouldn't he want to explain himself in some way or another? I would think he would want to clear ideas that he was anything but sincere....unless of course...
Like i said....outside of this forum, this whole saga was far less dramatic. The only one who really made a difference was Gopal...but his interests were for changing the working conditions at Alang....not for saving the Norway.
The only REAL party that wanted the SS Norway was that large hotel chain in France. They inspected the ship and found that it was not practical to buy the vessel, bacause of two things:
1. The ship was heavilly modified. Inside and out.
2. NCL allowed the vessel to go in a state of disrepair, which led to the boiler room accident. This should not have been allowed to happen. And for the NCL management team who were responsible for the defered maintainance by not listening to their Engineers concerns, when they addressed this problem to them, should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
HAD NCL retained the ship as the SS France, both inside and out, it would have been purchased for their asking price. But they didn't. The problem goes all the way back to the Kloster era, when he first bought the SS France and modified it rather than operating it as is until 1990. The money that was used to convert the SS France almost left them bankrupt.
The $100 Million that NCL used to convert the ship should have been used to upgrade their existing fleet by enlarging them with a mid section, which RCCL did to their early ships. Perhaps NCL would have been a very different company today if they had done so.
Last time i open a blog ( in French ) over the : s/s NORWAY Many photos of " OUR " Beautiful Ship ...
Now i have finish two big section : The first over the Norway at Bremerhaven ( May 2005 & November 2003 ) . The second over the Norway in the Caribbean March 2002 ( my " last " vacancy on board ) .
1. The ship was heavilly modified. Inside and out.
2. NCL allowed the vessel to go in a state of disrepair, which led to the boiler room accident. This should not have been allowed to happen. And for the NCL management team who were responsible for the defered maintainance by not listening to their Engineers concerns, when they addressed this problem to them, should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
HAD NCL retained the ship as the SS France, both inside and out, it would have been purchased for their asking price. But they didn't. The problem goes all the way back to the Kloster era, when he first bought the SS France and modified it rather than operating it as is until 1990. The money that was used to convert the SS France almost left them bankrupt.
The $100 Million that NCL used to convert the ship should have been used to upgrade their existing fleet by enlarging them with a mid section, which RCCL did to their early ships. Perhaps NCL would have been a very different company today if they had done so.
I'd like to offer some thoughts concerning the NCL mods that made FRANCE into NORWAY, but overlooking those to her propulsion systems; obviously, there was no need for 160,000 hp and 30-knot speeds (and the fuel required therefor!) in a Caribbean cruise ship!
While I among others appreciated the ship in her FRANCE configuration, the fact remains that in that form she was short of open deck areas -- not a major consideration on the North Atlantic but a big one for the Caribbean. One could also argue that much of her original interior decor was quite understated, and profited, at least for cruisepax, by some brightening. Call it glitz, but the new market expected it, at least in some areas.
But throughout her cruising career NORWAY's owners waged a constant battle to maintain her appeal in the face of newer, more up-to-date ships with larger staterooms and more amenities. Although I regretted the upper-deck additions of the '90s that so devastated her appearance, they gave the ship another decade of service.
In the end, however, she was superannuated by newbuildings that offered passengers far more for their money. Modifying passenger spaces did not address the ship's aging mechanical structure; by 2002 she had seen her day. The majority of cruisepax aren't interested in the ships themselves; they are looking for sea air, new destinations, and being coddled in hotel-like comfort. Sentimentalists who savor a "classic" ship just don't comprise enough of the market to justify the work needed to keep NORWAY sailing.
I do agree that in FRANCE configuration the ship would have had greater appeal for stationary preservation a la QE2 in Dubai. But in that form she wouldn't have been a very good cruise ship.
Posts: 286 | Location: Upstate NY | Registered: December 29, 2005
Originally posted by Changoleon: Yeap....the two added decks from the 90's killed the ship
I disagree. Although I admit they were ugly, they did add more than a decade onto the life of the ship. What I often found ironic, though, was the subset of liner nuts who had to sail in these cabins. Not I. I once refused an upgrade from our Fjord Deck cabin as I wanted to sleep in what was part of SS France.
LisaP
Posts: 2597 | Location: Massachusetts, USA | Registered: December 17, 2005
Over on the FINNJETweb forum there's a photo of Finnjet beached at Alang. In the background you can see Norway and, though it's a little unclear, it does seem like the bow is gone.
I'm not sure whether it's permissible here to post link-outs to another forum. Please just delete if it isn't:
<Link removed>
Off on a tangent a little, but I really found the beaching of Finnjet to be both personally shocking and a little ironic. (I did quite the double-take when I read it on Maritime Matters. Finnjet?! That Finnjet?!) As a child, Volume 5 of Arnold Kludas' "Great Passenger Ships of the World" was more or less my personal bible. The very last entry in that book is Finnjet, with a photo of the as-yet unfinished gas turbine ferry fitting out. In my stuck-in-a-time-warp mind, Finnjet and her ilk still is still unfinished and about to enter service. She represents what will replace our beloved liners. The future, not the past. Seeing her on the beach is a bizarre anachronism, like seeing a photo of one of the grounded Concordes.
Also, with Finnjet on the beach, it means that every single ship in Kludas' book is now potentially on the chopping block. Soon we'll start seeing the boutique liners of the 70s trooping off to Alang. :-(
This message has been edited. Last edited by: IslandCruz,
I do agree that in FRANCE configuration the ship would have had greater appeal for stationary preservation a la QE2 in Dubai. But in that form she wouldn't have been a very good cruise ship.
However, the SS France could have had a life in the same manner as the QE2 under the right company management. NCL wasn't a good match for the SS France, as I felt that the SS France could have competed in the highend cruise market instead of the mass market. I always wondered what if the French Line had just re-organized themselves like HAL, the company might still be around today as a highend specialty brand. I felt that the management of the French Line missed out on that opportunity. They could have kept the SS France on layup while they concentrated on acquiring 2 or 3 smaller ships to convert as luxury cruise ships. If their new business model was a success, then they could have reactivated the SS France again as a ship that sails around the world. Just as the QE2 and the SS Rotterdam V had done.
To me, the SS Norway was a ship that changed the cruise ship industry. But in its last configuation, it wouldn't have been financially practical to revert it back into the SS France. NCL made certain that it would never happen. Remember that Bruce Nierenburg was the marketing executive who convinced Kloster into buying the SS France. At first, Kloster was reluctant to do so because of the high cost of converting the ship. He wanted to concentrate on his existing fleet of ships. But Nierenburg made a very strong case for the ship, which convinced Kloster to buy the SS France.
Were it not for Mr. Nierenburg, the SS France would not have become the SS Norway. And certainly not the SS United States at that point either. We can only speculate what would have happend had NCL not acquired the SS France. Perhaps it could have been scrapped in the 1980s as some have mentioned. Or it could be laugishing on a forgotten pier, like the SS United States.
Dan Lague
Posts: 347 | Location: Florida | Registered: May 16, 2006
Originally posted by Redlinekid2: However, the SS France could have had a life in the same manner as the QE2 under the right company management. NCL wasn't a good match for the SS France, as I felt that the SS France could have competed in the highend cruise market instead of the mass market. I always wondered what if the French Line had just re-organized themselves like HAL, the company might still be around today as a highend specialty brand. I felt that the management of the French Line missed out on that opportunity.
I think some of the difference is that, in the final few years of FRANCE's operation, the French Line had wound down its passenger ship operations, and apparently saw its future as one devoted exclusively to freighter operations. They recognized that the demand for transatlantic liner service had dwindled to a trickle and might die out altogether. HAL, on the other hand, was committed to continuing its passenger ship operations, and actively sought new applications.
Another factor was the French Line's utter dependence upon subsidy to operate FRANCE. When the Franch government pulled that in 1974, operating her became impossible; even though the ship had fairly high "riderships", revenues therefrom never came close to matching her enormous operating costs, a factor that was exacerbated by the 1973 spike in oil prices. Bunker C went from about $20/ton to about $80.
Despite some feelers, FRANCE's future looked pretty bleak when she was tied up at the Quai d'Oubli in the late 1970s. In retrospect, perhaps we should all be happy that she found a new, even brilliant, career in cruising (even if substantial modifications obliterated her previous identity) rather than spending decades in unused decrepitude like UNITED STATES.
I also believe that the two companies were/are fundamentally different, with HAL private and CGT/CGM more along the lines of what the British call a "crown corporation." HAL needs to return profits to remain in existence; the other will be maintained as long as it serves needs perceived by the government. In 1974, carrying passengers was not one of those needs.
Posts: 286 | Location: Upstate NY | Registered: December 29, 2005
Something I forgot to mention in my previous post: The photos of Finnjet show Norway from the starboard side, which I don't think we've seen pictured since breaking began in earnest. They do seem to indicate that the process has been "symmetrical".
quote:
Mr_V, No. It is not permissible to post links to other forums.
Ah, OK, no problem. (Maybe you guys should add this to your Terms of Service to avoid such confusion in future?)
This is certainly one of the most blantant criminal acts that I have ever seen. Dispose of the most famous ship of all time to hide the evidence of their misdeeds. How things have a way of getting back at them. The SS Norway is finally getting its revenge. And rightfully so.
The SS Norway did not deserve to be scrapped. The evidence proves it. I can't believe that Star Cruises would not sell the ship when they had the chance to do so back in 2000. The way they handled the Norway matter makes me sick. As a result I will never sail onboard any of their ships within my lifetime. Thanks to them, the SS Norway is GONE. If they didn't want the SS Norway, Star Cruises should have sold it before the boiler blew up. They certain ran the SS Norway into the ground, deliberately.
Dan Lague
Posts: 347 | Location: Florida | Registered: May 16, 2006
