Dan,

things aren't looking that great for the S/S "Rotterdam" at this time. Yesterday, an ultimatum passed which was set up by Polish authorities. The ship was to leave Polish waters by then. I don't know if this has happened. The dispute is about - well - asbestos, what else.

Dan, HAL did not own SS Rotterdam at the time of the ship's sale to Rotterdam Drydock Company. HAL sold her to Premier Cruises back in 1997 rather than make costly renovations to conform to SOLAS regulations. If I recall correctly, it was referred to as a "business decision." Sounds familiar.

Then again, HAL is far more aware of the history of the line and its ships, as evidenced by the artwork throughout the ships and the Delft tiles given to repeaters.

I am not surprised to hear of the asbestos issue... same era, after all. It's too bad, and I hope it can be resolved. It would be a shame for us to lose two ships.

What follows is a copy of the Email I sent to Mr. Chee Tut Chong, and Miss Jane Poh. I'll Beg if I have to, to get this ship saved!


I wish to state for the record that if you were to allow the SS Norway to be saved and used in some Static roll Like the RMS Queen Mary I would be glad to book future cruises on Your Lines I have long looked forward to a cruise in Hawaii. I also fail to understand how a static roll for a ship you no view as a viable cruise ship conflicts with your future growth plans. Recently the Cunard line made a big deal of "the meeting of the Queen Mary's" in Long beach California. This was a big press event resulting in great public relations for both the new Queen Mary and the static older RMS Queen Mary. I'm sure many people booked passage on the New Queen Mary, and hotel rooms on the old one because of this event. This is your chance to get some favorable media attention and likely many future bookings. To present your brand as a forward looking company with its great new ships, and concerned with preserving the historic roots of it's industry. I dont see how you have anything to loose.
Thank you for your time

Thanks to all for your supportive feedback, I just felt like it was something that needed to be said. Reading some postings here I understand that some people feel they should be apologists for NCL/Star, and that's all fine and good - otherwise this forum would be a series of monologues and not a discussion. However, the tendency to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are seeking to do something that will bring suffering and death to people, as well as destroying one of the greatest pieces of maritime history, is just something that I have to speak out against.

I would also support Reuben's idea to Flood NCL's inboxes, though I'm sure by now Jane Poh has another account set up. My suggestion is for everyone who is interested in doing so, to go do a little bit of research and expand the pool of emails to include new ones and perhaps find changed ones. I will post my findings from today later on in the forum. Regardless of what anyone says, they still DO have control of what happens.

Anyone here not expecting the next news to be that the Norway ( I'm not going to call it Blue Lady -stupid name) has "accidently" beached herself?

Ahoy atlantic109

I agree with your assessment .... STOOPID name .... makes me wanna puke just seeing it. Will NOT ever refer to this ship by that moniker.

And: I promised TC I was gonna be more positive, so I am going to say "No, she won't accidentally beach herself" in answer to your rhetorical question.

On the bright side, it looks like she's made it through another day without the Indian SC "approving" her destruction

This article claims that the inspection is completed:

http://indiaenews.com/2006-07/14448-alang-bound-norwegi...iner-inspected-2.htm

When is the SC due to rule after they have had the report?

quote:

Originally posted by forfour:
When is the SC due to rule after they have had the report?

The court is scheduled to be seated on July 30, this time the full panel not the vacation panel, and I don't know if Norway is on the docket for that day.

quote:

Originally posted by Capt. P:
One other thing I'll mention. I'm certainly no expert, and Ron, you surely know more about me than the subject, but in my experience/knowledge, Yes, it is common for boiler tubes to be 'plugged' or 'capped' when they're found to be leaking. But usually they're repaired as quickly as possible... like within a week... and then returned to operation. Of course I'm speaking from the perspective of an in-service well-funded liner, not a cruise ship, so my knowledge could be incorrect.

The boiler in question will require the boiler to be shudown and cooled to allow plugging. Plugging can usually be performed during a cruise turn-around while in post for most of a day. I supposed plugging could be performed while tied to a pier at any port.

But retubing requires a shuting down the boiler for a long period of time, like during an overhaul at a drydock or shipyard, although drydocking the ship isn't necessary to retube a boiler. Usually, retubing is performed on every tube inside a boiler, and there's a significant number of tubes in a boiler.

Ocean liners, such as the SS France, had plenty of boilers and main turbines that it could remain operating at top speed with one boiler down. But I would think retubing would certainly take more than a week, as it would require significantly more workers to do the job as there will be significantly more tubes to work on. Cruise ships on the other hand, don't necessarily keep significant extra capacity aboard, as the SS Norway lost two main turbines and 4 boilers during the 1980 conversion, and a speed loss from 30+ knots to 25 knots. Removing one of its four boilers from service would slow the speed of the ship down, slow enough to cause it to miss ports in its itinerary while the work was in progress. Remember what happen to the Dream last year when it lost one of it's four main diesels. It could still operate, but until the diesel was placed back in service, it's speed was significantly slower. The same speed lost should occur when a ship loses 25% of its capacity to produce steam.

For example, assuming a 500 tube boiler amongst four boilers, we plug 50 tubes in one boiler, the boiler in question is 10% less capable to produce steam. Overall, looking at four boilers total, the ship's capacity to produce steam is only 2.5% less. But when all 500 tubes are removed and replaced, during the work the entire boiler is out of service, and steam producing capacity for the entire ship is 25% less.

You'll respond that the Norway only last 5+ knots of its full speed when losing 50% of its boilers during the 1980 refurb, and you'll be correct. But it also lost the surplus steam producing capacity of an ocean liner, and doesn't have much extra capacity anymore...

quote:

Originally posted by Alex79818:
The court is scheduled to be seated on July 30, this time the full panel not the vacation panel, and I don't know if Norway is on the docket for that day.

Here's hoping she's bought by the DUBAI investors before then !!!

I heard today from a high ranking source in the Travel Industry that they were contacted by one of the Travel Industry magazines about a story on the Norway being cut up this week.

quote:

Originally posted by Ron Clark:

You'll respond that the Norway only last 5+ knots of its full speed when losing 50% of its boilers during the 1980 refurb, and you'll be correct. But it also lost the surplus steam producing capacity of an ocean liner, and doesn't have much extra capacity anymore...

SS France achieved a top speed of over 35 knots during sea trials. If she lost only the top 5 knots of her speed range, she'd be able to to 30 as Norway, right? But then her max speed is reported as being 25, with a cruising speed averaging between 17 and 22 kts, right?

In any case, I think this is yet another example of the choices which NCL has made in operating the ship. A 5th boiler could have been left onboard as an agile auxiliary, right? NCL also had plenty of opportunity to replace the steam plant with Diesel, or to perform a complete rebuild and upgrade to COGES hybrid or anything of the sort. In the end, they chose to scrap, despite the income, despite the history and despite the fact that they did not intend to follow one iota of the Basel treaty or EWSR in their attempts to do so (incidentally, they've paid far more to try to scrap her as cheaply as possible than they would have if they instead chose to decon in an OECD-country).

If NCL does not rectify this, they have lost my business, my faith in their efforts towards SS United States, and the business of many other people. Norway is perfect for NCL's New York City operations, by the way. Just ask the folks who not too long ago had to contend with a freak rogue wave onboard NCL Dawn. I bet that was a rude awakening.

The SS US would be perfect for New York too.

The costs assosciated to re-engine the SS Norway with more modern technology approached $30 to $50 milion in 1998. That was before the boiler explosion. I would expect the SS US would have the same costs, possibly less since cutting a huge hole into the side of the hull is unneccessary. Remodeling the SS US should be much cheaper than remodeling the SS Norway, as most of the interior, including abestos materials, has been stripped away.

Neither ship has balcony cabins, which I think is a major need for cruise ships today, and for the immediate future. It's amazes me how much more passengers are willing to pay for them.

It would be nice if NCL has the finances and could refurbish both. But of the two, I would rather see NCL refurbish the SS US first. A cruise from New York to Florida, without the Jones Act requirement to sail to the Bahamas, would be a nice cruise. An overnight, or even two overnights at Cape Kennedy would allow passengers to enjoy Orlando better.

That's one itinerary the SS US could do that the SS Norway can never do.

Actually she is...blowing up in Miami means she's eligible for a coastwise salvage title if repaired on US shores. But I think that NCL does have the finances with which to do this, especially if they can afford to come up with newbuilds that weren't even on the drawing board at the time of the acquisition.

I guess my point is that they currently own a small fleet of the most well-known and popular classic ocean liners afloat. If I had a "freestyle/modern" cruise venue with available capital to reinvest after an IPO, I would most certainly use those assets to my strategic market advantage in offering a classic-themed product that contrasts with the ultra-modern carefree product platform of Freestyle. Not only would I then have a product line that has more broad-based appeal, I also would not alienate my existing customers, there'd be no expense of hiding and lying and decontaminating, and I would have the US market cornered from all angles...east coast to the caribbean/USVI/PR, west coast to Alaska, Hawaii without need to sail to fanning island, and throw in a couple of transatlantics and world cruises every once in a while. The product becomes more flexible, as a separate Star subsidiary it will not affect NCL's market identity any more than Orient's "Marco Polo" would, and you don't alienate all these people that are now pi**sed off and boycotting you.

Of course, what's necessary for that to happen now, is two things: 1) Admit to lying (without necessarily admitting to doing anything illegal), and 2) Put the money into the ships so that they'll work for you instead of being a money pit. Hull life is not a concern for any of these vessels, and with ships getting bigger and bigger every year, the concerns of large drafts will be moot as more competitors will have no choice but to use tenders or sacrifice stability.

All they have to do is know when to say when. This approach clearly has not worked and has made the situation worse. Their best bet is to cut their losses, not by continuing on blindly, but by taking steps to RECTIFY the situation and begin open and honest communication with the clients they are attempting to win back.

OR they can keep watching that stock price falling and falling and falling...

Well, about a year after the boiler explosion, NCL was honest and said the SS Norway would never sail again. That wa sover two years ago.

During the interim, between the explosion and Veitch's statement in early 2004, NCL was negotitating for a higher insurance check and waiting on Lloydwerft's price to repair the damage, or modernize the SS Norway, while at the same time allowing French potential buyers to examine, develope plans and financing. I'm sorry all came to naught.

But to suggest NCL was lying, isn't true imho.

If Star Cruises wouldn't take the SS Norway in 2001, why did so many expect them to fix and operate it in 2005? It's been up for sale for over two years.

Which brings up the double standard of the Basel Treaty. Once it's suggested that the SS Norway is being sold for scrap, it's illegal and unhealthy for Asian shipbreakers to break up the ship because it's considered waste. But, it would be okay for Asian shipyard workers to repair the ship, as it wouldn't be considered waste. Either way, Asian workers will potentially inhale the very unhealthy asbestos.

If Asian workers can qualify to repair abestos laden ships, surely they are just as qualified to break one up.

True, there is indeed a double standard, but in all fairness Basel only covers treaties regarding vessels being dismantled. The fact that IMO or EWSR or UN don't take into account repairs to vessels under another convention (maybe they do, I don't know) can't be blamed on Basel though....that's like asking why SOLAS doesn't cover aircraft safety. Different organizations and different international treaties for different purposes. What IS clear however, is that Star/NCL are disregarding those laws, disregarding their clients, disregarding their mounting business losses stemming from this course of action, and disregardimg the emerging need to diversify their venue portfolio to gain market share, as Carnival PLC has wisely done.

As far as the deception issue, again, you might have your opinion - but frankly given NCL's pattern of continued neglect of the Norway, especially after 1997 (and further, given their clearly misleading statements ever since the accident, in which they say they will do one thing and end up doing another) I think that giving them the benefit of the doubt is stretching it quite a bit. This is clearly evidenced by open-source documents available online, such as looking up Norway's record on the coast guard's MIX site, or in BV, as well as the recently-obtained pdf's making reference to her not being treated as well as she should have, and her needing heart surgery instead of cosmetic fixes here and there.



Star, and Colin in particular, may say many things - however actions speak louder than words.

Their actions, so far, are that they have a fleet of ultra-modern and economical ships, the biggest US-Flag operation afloat, Norway owned by a front company in Liberia spending money like crazy trying to scrap her within a reasonable timeframe while maintaining insurance, keeping the ship safe in monsoon season, convincing insurance companies to continue coverage, paying docking fees up the wahoo, waiting or trying to get around a court decision, and trying to get the tugboat skipper to beach the ship without an order.

Meantime they will not rescind a $2M penalty that prevents the scrapper's resale to a non-scrapper, continue to be demonstrably UNMOVABLE in their course, while allthewile SSUS is still in Philly collecting rust and Colin gives indications that Indy is a no-go and changes her name and listing info on ABS.

I just don't think NCL has been honest, or is being honest now. As a client, I feel defrauded, betrayed, and ultimately ignored. It all comes down to the way you treat your customers and give them what they want. That being the case, I think NCL's performance as compared to its competitors has and will continue to speak for itself.

Ron,

In your post you mention the honesty of NCL and Star. I do find this rather odd since reading an article called "Promises made by NCL/Star Cruises about … SS Norway, SS United States and SS Independence" at http://www.ssmaritime.com/newsupdates2.htm This article is about 3/4 down the page. It does jive with all the info I have seen so far.

Also in your post you mention the double standard of the Basel Treaty. The people that build and/or repair ships are not the same as those in the breakers. The builders and/or repair people would be trades persons. They are not the people that would work for "dollars" a day physically tearing apart a ship. I am sure that a trades person would not take (nor be allowed by their Unions to take)the same risks that are so aparent in the ship breakers yards.

Thanks

I don't understand the high cost of replacing the boilers on the Norway. According to the memo from NCL dated November 1997, alternative #2, the total cost of replacing the boilers with 4 V2M8-13 boilers (the same as SS US) comes to $26,800,000. Since NCL now owns the SS US and the SS US has 8 V2M8-13 boilers (which there is no mention of needing replacement) These boilers produce 248,000 hp and as a cruise ship SS US does not need the speed she produces therefore 4 of these boilers could be removed. My math shows that there sould be a $3,500 charge to remove 4 boilers from SS US, $7,000 charge to remove Norways old boilers and install boilers from SS US plus $500,000 for the propellers. I'm sure the price quotes would have included any necessary removal of asbestos since they included installation. As a note, asbestos that is or can be encapsulated does not have to be removed.

As a side note Ron Clark had mentioned having to cut open Norways hull in order to replace the boilers. This is no big deal and is quite common in the case of boiler or engine replacements on ships. There simply is no other way. Also, this was already looked into in 1997.

I feel the excuse of cost of repairs is lame. If these costs are too much for NCL to handle for a ship that can contribute income then how are we to believe NCL will do anything but scrap SS US? They claim there is a market for SS US so the same market is there for Norway.

NEED TO KNOW

Watson Island...Back on May 21 you told us of your find of a plastic model of Norway/France. You asked for opinions in regards to colour. So what was your choice???? France black and red or Norway Carolina blue?

Have a great day