Unfortunately, not all of the information exchanged is accurate. Rumors are often taken as fact and facts can be forgotten as new theories emerge and gain momentum.

The recent discussion of the fate of the Norway on this forum and others strikes me as a great example of this phenomenon.

In the interest of providing a factual context for the discussion I have pulled together the following news articles from archived editions of the weekly Cruise News that is published each Monday on this site.

From this Archived Cruise News

>> May 25, 2003 - explosion in the boiler room kills seven crew members and injures 13

>> May 26, 2003 - NCL cancels Norway's June 15 and June 22 sailings as NTSB investigators attempt to determine cause of explosion

>> June 9, 2003 - NCL cancels all Norway sailings through September 28, 2003

>> June 30, 2003 - Norway leaves Miami for Land's End at the western edge of the English Channel. NCL said that it is still determining which shipyard will complete the repairs. Exactly what type of repairs are made is also not clear. At this time, NCL still says that she is on schedule to begin sailing again on October 5th, 2003.

From this Archived Cruise News

>> July 21, 2003 - Norway Return Delayed - Big Time. According to NCL, the "the delivery timeframe for the new replacement boiler itself is estimated to be between seven to 12 months, a timeframe that is significantly longer than first indicated to NCL". NCL also announces Norway will be laid up at Lloyd Werft

>> August 25, 2003 - NCL discloses that the Norway boiler explosion will cost as much as $11 million in lost revenue and other expenses in 2003. Star said the accident cost $3.9 million in the second quarter of this year and that that it could impact second half of the year profits by an additional $7 million.

From this Archived Cruise News

>> March 22, 2004 - Norway, Finished with Engines? Speaking at an industry conference last week in Miami, NCL president Colin Veitch said that the vessel no longer was part of NCL's plans and that "...the S/S Norway would not return to the North American cruise market." Veitch went on to say that NCL was evaluating offers from other parties that have expressed interest in converting the 1,035 ft. liner into a hotel.

From this Archived Cruise News

>> February 28, 2005 - Norwegian Cruise Line is prepared to sell the former French Line flagship, Norway (ex France) to the scrap yards if a buyer is not found by the end of the month.

From this Archived Cruise News

>> April 11, 2005 - Norway Escapes Scrapyard? Word on the street is that Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL) Norway, will be transferred over to parent company Star cruises and towed to Port Kland in Malaysia to be used in a yet to be disclosed "new venture".... While the news that the cruise ship might have avoided the shipbreakers brought hope to the ship's many supporters, not everyone was convinced that the ship had been given a reprieve. Specifically, the lack of details about the "new venture" led some industry insiders to speculate that the move might be more a way to avoid having to remove asbestos from the ship rather than an genuine attempt to use her again.

>> April 29, 2005 - National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on Friday released select documents from its investigation into the cause of the boiler room explosion.

>> May 2, 2005 - Sources tell us that Norwegian Cruise Lines' (NCL) Norway, will begin her journey to Port Klang in Malaysia within the next two weeks.

>> May 9, 2005 - More details of "new venture" released.

From this Archived Cruise News

>> January 9, 2006 - Rumors have been circulating over the past several weeks that NCL's Norway, the former flagship of the French Line, is finally headed for the scrap yard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by viking109:
Latest news on ss maritime includes two very interesting internal NCL memos regarding concern over the state of the boilers way back in 1997. No wonder Star are desperate to see the Norway scrapped.
Who seriously thinks Star will do anything with the SS US other than eventually scrap her. Modified to any great extent, she would not appeal to classic fans and at the same time probably still be considered too old by "todays cruisers".

---

Those memos mean nothing - Mr. Gossens is drawing conclusions where none can be drawn or exist. To take thses two VERY OLD memos from 1996 and 1997 that essentially campaign to re-engine the ship and draw the conclusion that NCL knew the cost of repairs and knew from day one that they would scrap her is ludicrous.

Why he continues to vilify NCL and what he hopes to gain from it is beyond me. Additionally, if he wants to blame anyone for the state of the ship, why does he not lay blame at the fleet of the Kloster organization? Or even Svenn Dahl? Surely they bear some responsibility for the neglect the "old lady" suffered for so many years during which Kloster deferred maintenance.

He's drawing suppositions and grasping at straws in an attempt to vilify this company. How and why he thinks this will help him is beyond me. In fact, it will just make any and all other companies reticent to deal with him.

At the end of the day, all he is doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Just my two cents...

It seems to be a bit far fetched that NCL had her towed to Bremerhaven already knowing that she will be scrapped. Actually they might have done that because they believed that the costs might be in this order of magnitude as given in these documents. One must not forget that the explosion causes damage to the ship - like the asbestos contamination - it sounds credible and consistent to me that these costs were only realized in Bremerhaven.

But it is not only the inconsistend argumentation why makes me beleive that this ("Dubai Project") is not a very seriouse undertaking.

I mentioned it already - but I consider it as very bad practice how this project is promoted. If one goes public one should do that only if all relevant details can be revealed. Especially if one looks for support. Combined with the preemtive drawback ("..you are sticking your head out.." etc.) it suggests that the whole thing is just some bumping around - this way the 'proponents' can claim under any circumstances that they 'at least tried to do something'. (.. I already failed to explain that on another occasion ...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim in 'Lauderdale:

why does he not lay blame at the fleet of the Kloster organization? Or even Svenn Dahl? Surely they bear some responsibility for the neglect the "old lady" suffered for so many years during which Kloster deferred maintenance.

Tim

---

At Sea Trade I was told that every ship yard bid on re-engining her and the cost was prohibitive. Her boiler exploded due to thermal fatigue and misuse.

Even if she was diesel-ized her hotel systems were wearing out to the point where 4000ft of spare plumbing lines are on board.

PS
Part of the reason the Oceanic, Regal Empress, Topaz, and Rotterdam had so many years of reliable service was due to good maintinence. I got a chance to see some of the Topaz crew areas and they were spotless.

[ 07-07-2006: Message edited by: desirod7 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
I have heard that Star has a clause in Norway's scrapping contract that the scrapper will have to pay two million dollars back to Star Cruises if the ship is NOT scrapped and sold off to other interests. Has anyone else read this?

---

I have heard it as well and it is probably true. However, there is nothing "sinister" in this clause as it is standard industry practice and has been for years; much the same as when HAL sold the Rottterdam to Premier, HAL included a non-compete clause with a stiff penalty.

First they had agreed to sell to Premier, with trading restrictions in the deal.. then pulled out.

Off she slunk one night to the scrappers.. the deal which included a clause "ownership of the propellers shall not pass until blades have been cut and removed from the vessel and ownership of the boiler, turbine-generators and propulsion motors shall not pass until the vessel is cut up to the extent that it is not practicable to rebuild the vessel".. see sscanberra.com.

This has been mentioned before and conveniently forgotten. I trust those refusing to sail NCL/Star again also refuse to sail P&O and every other line out there who has sold or scrapped a ship.

Scott.. general staff aboard ships, rarely know what's going on within the company on other vessels.. even the Capts. get it wrong sometimes.

Pam

[ 07-08-2006: Message edited by: PamM ]

Rich

[ 07-08-2006: Message edited by: Linerrich ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gpcruisedude:
yes this is something i heard too...but if the breakers have an offer at 4-5 million above what they payed I dont think 2 million is going to be a big deal to them if they do get an offer.They still come out 3 million ahead..!

---

Keep in mind that the breakers are expecting to make money on the scrapping of the ship. They don't buy a ship and hope to sell the scrap for the same amount, or slightly more, that they bought the ship for.

They have profit margins they are trying to achieve and I suspect that those margins call for selling the scrap for more than the $3-4 million premium rumored to be offerred by others. Anybody hazard a guess at the profit margin in ship-breaking?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
I have heard that Star has a clause in Norway's scrapping contract that the scrapper will have to pay two million dollars back to Star Cruises if the ship is NOT scrapped and sold off to other interests. Has anyone else read this?

---

Well this is what I would call a conspiracy! If you read the latest update on ssMaritime it confirms this same thing. Star wanted to get rid of the Norway....for good. Everyone can say "poor perecuted star and ncl they were just practicing good business" but this was somewhat of a conspiracy- a conspiracy to GET RID of the Norway permanently. They are trying to cover up.

The 'only' thing which is suspicouse in this context is the asbestos and hazardous material issue - maybe the prime reason why Star/NCL want her to be scrapped - she is not really a competitor for their present fleet.

[ 07-08-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.S.S.Normandie:

Well this is what I would call a conspiracy! If you read the latest update on ssMaritime it confirms this same thing. Star wanted to get rid of the Norway....for good. Everyone can say "poor perecuted star and ncl they were just practicing good business" but this was somewhat of a conspiracy- a conspiracy to GET RID of the Norway permanently. They are trying to cover up.

Hopefully the UAE will come up with a better deal for the scrappers.....but this waits to be decided.

---

Jonathan,

please outline the plot and supporting evidence for this 'conspiracy' as you see it.

[ 07-08-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.S.S.Normandie:
It was apparent that they were NOT going to use her again as fittings were removed in Bremerhaven.

---

Time & Time AGAIN.. it has been stated that the fittings were NOT removed in Bremerhaven. I am NOT going to search out Raoul's posts again as of people don't read them it's a waste of my time.

If you have evidence fittings were removed in B then produce them [and not heresay from ssmaritime.com].

As has also been said umpteen times, she went to Singapore in the hope she could be utilised in the Genting Casino bid.. that [unfortunately for Genting] was lost, so Norway has to go too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.S.S.Normandie:
NCL wanted to get rid of the Norway after the boiler explosion.

---

Gordon

[ 07-08-2006: Message edited by: Atlcruiser ]