quote:

---

Originally posted by rem-dk:
It is hard to believe that problems with pods is a big problem.
As far as I know all Vista and Spirit class ships have pods, and I don´t remember having heard of any big problems for these ships. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DEIx15x8:
I'm guessing Carnival is still scared after the whole QM2 issue with Rolls Royce.

---

I'm not so sure about that. Carnival Corp. continues to order new ships (depending on the brand) with pods. They also order ships with traditional shafts and propellers, so it really depends on the requirements of the individual brand. I'm just saying that as a corporation, it appears they have not completely banned pods from newbuild orders.

Considering that the Princess newbuilds do not include pods, I would say that Carnival has decided this may be a best practice for multiple brands, considering that it is likely the Princess platform will be used for other brands.

It is interesting to note that Carnival was the first major brand to order a new ship with pods. It was the CARNIVAL ELATION. This was really a leap of faith on their part, as usually Carnival is quite conservative. They must have really been sold on the cost benefits of pods to be the guinea pig so to speak. Funny enough, I don't recall any pod problems on either ELATION or PARADISE, the two oldest major cruise ships with pods.

Ernie

[ 12-13-2010: Message edited by: eroller ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:
[...] Funny enough, I don't recall any pod problems on either ELATION or PARADISE, the two oldest major cruise ships with pods.
[...]

---

As said above, not all problems have been made public.

Actually, there were rumors that plans to change some since then often repeated ship designs to podded propulsion were canceled on rather short notice some years ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

As said above, not all problems have been made public.

---

I would imagine it's difficult to keep major problems private. Anything truly major would likely result in a canceled or delayed cruise, or at the very minimum a missed port. In the age of the internet and message boards, a backed up toilet is made public almost immediately, let alone a missed port or delayed/canceled cruise.

Maybe Princess think that with the knowledge that they do have problems they wont get much compensation from the manufacturer for having a ship out of service considering it is now widely known knowledge that ships from QM2, to the Celebrity ones etc are having repeated problems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sutho:
Personally I cant see what the major problem with traditional propulsion was that gave cruise lines the idea there was a dire need not to continue using the tradional method.

---

I recall reading a quote from Stephen Payne regarding QM2 and her pods in one of my QM2 books. He stated something to the effect that QM2 simply would not be possible without pods. I think they provide a level of maneuverability that is simply not possible with a traditional propulsion system. The same might be true with the Oasis Class ships, which require a lot of trust to maneuvers in high winds.

Recently NORWEGIAN EPIC had to spend the night in Cozumel due to high winds. Other ships were able to depart on their scheduled itinerary. I'm not sure if the lack of pods had anything to do with that, or if the ship may be underpowered for her size? I'll have to look at the output of her thrusters compared to other ships.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chip:
The Paradise did have a pod problem on it's millennium cruise. The ship's itinerary had to be changed from a Eastern Caribbean sailing to a Western Caribbean itinerary.

---

I vaguely recall this. Anyway it doesn't seem too unreasonable to have some type of engine/propulsion issue in 12 years of service. Overall I would say the ship has had a pretty good track record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by reeves35:
Regardless o fthe pros and cons of pods, it is encouraging thst, despite being the behomoth of the cruise industry, Carnival still allows its subsidiaries some flexibility in the design of their fleets:
Carnival - Pods
Cunard- Pods
Princess - Traditional
P&O Australia - Oars and Sticky Tape

Brad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

I would imagine it's difficult to keep major problems private. Anything truly major would likely result in a canceled or delayed cruise a backed up toilet is made public almost immediately[...]

---

No, that's simply not the case, many problems are indeed kept private.

Passengers of course notice immediately whether a toilet is backed up but not necessarily how 'some' equipment 'down in the engine room' is 'behaving'. Mind you, not all problems are a reason to miss a port or an entire cruise nor is it always about units failing (entirely). For an operator it's also important whether the equipments performs as promised by the manufacturer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

[...] I think they provide a level of maneuverability that is simply not possible with a traditional propulsion system. [...]

---

Manoeuvrability at low speeds is certainly an advantage of podded propulsion - it is simply more expensive to provided that for a ship with conventional shafts and propellers. However, it's not impossible.

[ 12-14-2010: Message edited by: Ernst ]