That PS has cancelled another 2 cruises

The cruise from AU toNZ,
and then the first cruise out of AK

Pacific Sky: further cruises cancelled

******

P&O Australia

XCUZME

Carnival Au

pour out on a

Pacific Sky is NOT jinxed nor are her days with P&O Australia almost over. The latest cancelations, in fact the last 3 lots of cancelations have all been to do with the same problem! First they cancelled 2 cruises when the problem arose, then they cancelled 5 more when they set out the time line for repair, and now obviously that time line has had to be extended so they are cancelling another 2.

This problem also, is completely seperate to the problems she had last year which caused a number of cancelations, they were due to jelleyfish being taken into the cooling system whilst the ship was in the brisbane river. This latest problem is with the gear box.

Now if you put this into perspective, Pacific Sky is over 20 years old and sure she has had mechanical problems which forced her to cancel cruises, but how many of Celebrety's newbuilds have had to cancel cruises and go back into dry dock? are they jinxed? How many times has the QE2 suffered problems, even after just having had extensive refits? is she jinxed? NO, and in neither cases are the ships in question bad ships. But they are pieces of machinery, subject to human controls and maintenance, and most machines experience technical difficulty throughout there lives.

Pacific Sky is a great ship, good looking, with traditional lines, a great layout, good space ratio, good sized cabins, a great variety of public rooms and having sailed on her 4 times since November 2000, i can tell you she has a really friendly crew and provides consistent quality in food and service. Besides all the hyped up and blown out of proportion media rubbish, she actually has a very loyal following here in Australia, and i can tell you she will do well with her new itineraries in Asia, Australian's have been looking for a REAL alternative to the south pacific for a long time, and these new itineraries will bring back a lot of past cruisers who want to cruise but not to the same old islands!

Finally, i just want to draw a comparison between the Pacific Sky and the RVL trio of which 2 will soon be sailing for Fred Olsen. I sailed on the ex Norwegian Star when she sailed out of Sydney and found her to be a very pleasant ship, but if you directly compare her to the Sky, i think the Sky wins hands down.... Would others agree? They both have loved features such as dedicated Cinemas, wide open Promenade decks, forward facing observation lounges and a high number of varied public rooms for ships their size. But the Sky can offer just that much more choice with her increased size, an extra pool, more open deck space, a larger show room, larger casino/gym/shop/leisure areas, and larger cabins. Now these 3 ships have proved to be very succesful, and lines have infact seen them to be valuable enough to re-engine and complete significant modifications and upgrades to keep them in service.

Therefor if Pacific Sky provides a better starting package, she offers much more potential in the long run than these 3 ships, and i think we could see her receive major upgrades if not new engines in the coming years, which will prolong her life for many years to come. Whether this is under the P&O Australia banner or another line i think will have a lot to do with her success next year out of Singapore, and perhaps this time next year we will know more about her long term future.

As far as all this jinxed rubbish and even some people talking about sending her to the scrap heap i think no one could be farther off course!!!! She is way to valuable to scrap, as i said, just compare her to the RVL trio!!!

quote:

---

Thoughts anyone.....

---

Theres a speech with some passion!

I agree with alot of that sydneyboy... it does however bring us back to the old arguement of 'why doesnt p&o aus have any fulltime new tonnage'?

quote:

---

Originally posted by SydneyBoy:
First they cancelled 2 cruises when the problem arose, then they cancelled 5 more when they set out the time line for repair, and now obviously that time line has had to be extended so they are cancelling another 2.

---

9 cancelled cruises within 6 months. Is there any other ship that has had 9 cancelled cruises within 10 years or ever?

quote:

---

how many of Celebrety's newbuilds have had to cancel cruises and go back into dry dock? are they jinxed? How many times has the QE2 suffered problems, even after just having had extensive refits? is she jinxed? NO,...

---

Non of these problems have caused so many cancellations.

quote:

---

Finally, i just want to draw a comparison between the Pacific Sky and the RVL trio of which 2 will soon be sailing for Fred Olsen. I sailed on the ex Norwegian Star when she sailed out of Sydney and found her to be a very pleasant ship, but if you directly compare her to the Sky, i think the Sky wins hands down.... Would others agree?

---

No

quote:

---

They both have loved features such as dedicated Cinemas, wide open Promenade decks, forward facing observation lounges and a high number of varied public rooms for ships their size. But the Sky can offer just that much more choice with her increased size, an extra pool, more open deck space, a larger show room, larger casino/gym/shop/leisure areas, and larger cabins.

---

She also has more pax and a lower space ratio.

quote:

---

Now these 3 ships have proved to be very succesful, and lines have infact seen them to be valuable enough to re-engine and complete significant modifications and upgrades to keep them in service.

---

Indeed, and they are 30 years old.. surviving an awful lot better than Pacific Sky.

quote:

---

Therefor if Pacific Sky provides a better starting package, she offers much more potential in the long run than these 3 ships, and i think we could see her receive major upgrades if not new engines in the coming years, which will prolong her life for many years to come.

---

Which perhaps they should been doing now, if not earlier in the year. Don't forget the hull corrosion problems 2 years too.

quote:

---

She is way to valuable to scrap, as i said, just compare her to the RVL trio!!!

---

Who are far superior imho

quote:

---

Thoughts anyone.....

---

Just my thoughts to mull over.

quote:

---

9 cancelled cruises within 6 months. Is there any other ship that has had 9 cancelled cruises within 10 years or ever?

---

I can't answer that question, but as for number of nights out of service, the Aurora i think must take the cake, and she is relatively new!!! now don't tell me she is not a gorgeous ship, or is she to ready for the scrapheap because of her problems?

quote:

---

Non of these problems have caused so many cancellations.

---

Maybe not so many, but they occurred so soon after construction, what sort of problems will these ships experience after the pods have endured over 20 years service??

quote:

---

She also has more pax and a lower space ratio.

---

Actually, if you compare both ships full twin share capacity, or lower berths divided by GRT, then you will find Pacific Sky wins hands down. Black Watch Space ratio (28492/798) 35.7 approx and Pacific Sky (46000/1200) 38.3 approx.

quote:

---

Which perhaps they should been doing now, if not earlier in the year. Don't forget the hull corrosion problems 2 years too.

---

Once discovered, a full inspection was done with sounding equipment and she has now been fully repaired. This was seemingly an un-thought of problem which went undetected by the Lloyds register inspections, and it may well be a yet undetected problem in many other ships??

You say many times that the RVL trio are far superior and surviving alot better than Pacific Sky, but in what ways? What makes you prefer them?

By all accounts the ex Norwegian Star, joining Fred Olsen needs quite a bit of work and many people on this board talk of the trio's poorly maintained states through each of there lives? What i am saying is that Pacific Sky has the potential when she is also 30 to have major works done and be upgraded to a better standard ship than these three were when 30......

What makes the Royal Viking Trio fantastic ships is their layout - especially the layout of the open deck. I hardly know any other ship in service, which has such a nice variety of open deck space, as these ships. No doubt that the quality of their interior is just average, and there are also some technical "problems" (vibrations, smell, bow shape) Compared to Pacific Sky I find their exterior appearance is nicer, altough they actally have a quite boxy hull, which was (is) well hidden when they were "wearing" the Royal Viking (Albatross) livery. (...not to talk about the really bad idea painting the funnel white)

P&O's site says 1550 pax.. if that's the max capacity then comparing to BW, then BW is 32 and PS 29. I understand PS often has many extra berths filled, whereas BW does not, so an actual comparison is probably somwhere between the 2, maybe making them similar. But these are only figures and often do not tell the story, depending on layouts and functionality [if there is such a word] of the space. PS has a high proportion of inside cabins, BW has a handful. PS has no wraparound prom either. I don't think PS would have a proportionate increase in deck space.

PS has the potential, but it seems the work needs to be done now, not in another 10 years time. It's almost as if she's hanging in there being tied up with a bit more string each time something goes wrong, rather than having the root of the problems fixed.

I've been reading a lot of negative comments on the Pacific Sky and they are for the most part unfounded! Sure she has had problems lately, but all ships experience mechanical failures of some sort during their lifetime, she has just had a few problems arrise almost on top of each other. There were many years when she sailed as Sky Princess problem free.

PamM

Your comments regarding the Aurora suggest they will NOT get the problem fixed with Pacific Sky, what do you think she is out of service for and in dry dock at the moment for.... She is being repaired, and we will have the problem fixed, as it was with Aurora. and how is it different circumstances? the only difference i see is that the Aurora is only 5 years old and the Pacific Sky is 21, if Aurora has had this major problem when she is so new, how can you criticise the Pacific Sky who's engines and gearbox's have provided a lot more trouble free service over her life this far??

I think you may be wrong about the deck space as well, i would be surprised if the Pacific Sky infact did not have a higher proportion of outdoor deckspace?? This is one of it's best features, there are 6 Decks featuring open deck space, with direct access from interior areas to outer decks on 5 levels. As you are aware her decks are nicely layered at the rear and her deck area was actually increased significantly when she was refitted at P&O Australia as Pacific Sky.

I don't understand why you say it's like she is tied up with string everytime something goes wrong, this is not the case. We had heavy metal hull works done when the corrosion problem was detected, this was completely fixed and new openings created so the areas could be easily monitered and inspected. Last year when we had problems with jelly fish, we completely emptied her ballasts and re charged her cooling system with distilled water that was trucked in. And now, we are virtually rebuilding her starboard gearbox, with parts specially made in the USA and being brought in. There is no string tying or band-aids here!

After sailing on both the ships in question here, i personally feel that when comparing the layout or "functionality" of both ships as you put it, the Pacific Sky certainly "feels" more open and spacious on the inside. From what i recall it has wider passages, higher ceilings and most of all it has a better connection between the interior spaces and the outer decks, as most of the public rooms are situated on the promenade deck, where you can step straight outside, unlike the RVL trio, who's promenade deck is taken up with cabins and the majority of public rooms are one deck below, meaning you have to go upstairs or right to the back to get outside.

And while both ships have a nicely tiered aft, there is definately much more deck space at the back of Pacific Sky and along the upper decks, i think the biggest sense of space comes from its wider beam.

While Pacific Sky does usually cruise with most of her upper births full, this comes down to the markets the different ships are serving. I am just comparing the ships themselves, as hardware. If you took Pacific Sky into a more premium market then she would obviously sail at around her twin share capacity, like she did under Princess and probably Sitmar.

Im just saying as a ship, purely as a piece of hardware, i think she has more potential to be a really succesful and satisfying ship than the RVL trio, to people who really like ships! Well thats my opinion anyway. I'd be interested in a little more of your reasons for disagreeing though PamM.

quote:

---

I also do not like the layout found on many "older" ships having a bar/show lounge adjected to the pool. But for me it is not relevant at all to have the restaurant or the show lounge on the same level as the promenade deck - Usually one is not going from the pool directly to a formal dinner or a show -

---

Ernst, isn't the main showlounge on the RVL Trio exactly what you describe above, adjacent to the main pool? Its right outside on the same deck.

The Pacific Sky has a pool on the Promenade deck, but this is not the main swimming pool and is generally not used much by guests, the main pool used is up on Lido deck. Ofcourse no one goes straight from the pool to a show or dinner, but it is nice to be able to step outside from the bars/lounges onto the promenade deck with a drink for some fresh air.

[ 05-06-2005: Message edited by: P&Ocruiser ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by P&O:
[QB]

Ernst, isn't the main showlounge on the RVL Trio exactly what you describe above, adjacent to the main pool? Its right outside on the same deck.

QB]

---

The cost of Engine replacement for Pacific Sky could easily be offset by another 10-15 years service, considering the very high yields she produces in the Australian market, with all the extra berths, she frequently sails at 125% occupancy. infact P&O Australia has the highest yields in the Carnival group.

So i wouldn't be so quick to say Carnival will get rid of her. A major refit of the Sky would be far more competitive than any new build for the Aussie market, or indeed another inter brand transfer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by P&O:
Carnival Corp love any ship that can provide great returns, and Pacific Sky has proved that she can (when she is operating trouble free).

The cost of Engine replacement for Pacific Sky could easily be offset by another 10-15 years service, considering the very high yields she produces in the Australian market, with all the extra berths, she frequently sails at 125% occupancy. infact P&O Australia has the highest yields in the Carnival group.

So i wouldn't be so quick to say Carnival will get rid of her. A major refit of the Sky would be far more competitive than any new build for the Aussie market, or indeed another inter brand transfer.

We shall have to wait and see

---

WHICH means, in this case, if Pacific Sky is costing Carnival too much, even though it might ruin sentimental value of a certain few, its not worth it. They'll get rid of it. They dont give a damn if its got a good layout, or if the promenade decks are wide, or if it looks classical...they ONLY care about profit, and if they can fill massive brand-spanking new ships up with cruisers, why not do that instead of keeping an older ship which draws in less return?