Thread Discussing Rolls Royce Mermaid Pod ("Pod") Issues Affecting Celebrity Vessels

I'm on the Infinity on April 8 roundtrip San Diego to Hawaii--first time sailing for four days at sea (which sort of wigs me out anyway). We were just informed that we will be arriving at our first stop two hours late, and we will be departing Hawaii 12 hours early--meaning a full five days at sea on the return.

I understand that these changes are more than likely a result of the ongoing pod problems; however I admit that it's a bit more than frustrating that Celebrity is always so closed mouth about everything.

Can someone give me a brief explanation of what the pod problem is and how it should impact such a long overseas voyage? I need something to make me feel better about this!

The problem is a faulty bearing in the pod. It was a problem in the design of the pods by the manufacturer. Due to lawsuits ongoing, they only thing X can do at this time is continue to let the manfacturer continue to try to correct the problem. Once the lawsuits are settled, they can replace the pods all together. Basically, the pods when having trouble will slow down the ship. More than likely, X is waiting for the manufacturer to come up with another solution before scheduling drydock to replace the parts. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Blue Cats,

I just wanted to reassure you about sea days. I know you are disappointed about the loss of time in Hawaii, but I wanted to reassure you that the sea days on the Infinity were some of the most enjoyable times on the San Diego/Hawaii cruise that I took in Nov 2005.

There will be lots of activities to attend, lots of time to relax and unwind after your hectic tour days in Hawaii. Lots of great food, service, and fun. I had cruised several times on other voyages that had lots of sea days but never the 4/5 in a row that the Hawaii cruise offered, but I had enjoyed my sea days so much previously, I was really looking forward to so many in a row.

Not to worry, Sea Days are some of the best parts of cruising!!!

The Milli is going in for a new pod replacement April 2 to April 21. Celebrity was really the first line to install the pods and run them at long voyages (transatlantic, R/T Hawaii and Alaksa). We were on the Seven Seas Mariner (Regent) when she first came out, April 2001 and we lost a pod going to Bermuda from Fort Lauderdale. We lost a few ports that trip. ALso they have been monitoring the QM2 as she has had some maintenance on her pods as well. When they removed the damage pod the ship had an extreme vibration.

OK here it is from Dudes that DON'T CRUISE (thank god!)

http://www.ebearing.com/news2002/032701.htm

The problem is a faulty bearing in the pod. It was a problem in the design of the pods by the manufacturer. Due to lawsuits ongoing, they only thing X can do at this time is continue to let the manfacturer continue to try to correct the problem. Once the lawsuits are settled, they can replace the pods all together.

Is that fact or speculation? I've heard people say that they thought the lawsuit was the reason why the pods weren't getting fixed, but I never heard that had been confirmed, so I assumed it was conjecture.

OK here it is from Dudes that DON'T CRUISE (thank god!)

 

http://www.ebearing.com/news2002/032701.htm

Thank you for the link to a concise summary of the situation. Very informative, even though the link is several years old.

Oh, wasn't the last Infinity pod problem determined to be electrical rather than the ongoing thrust bearing problem.

twobluecats,

I'm on the Infinity on April 8 roundtrip San Diego to Hawaii--first time sailing for four days at sea (which sort of wigs me out anyway). We were just informed that we will be arriving at our first stop two hours late, and we will be departing Hawaii 12 hours early--meaning a full five days at sea on the return.

 

I understand that these changes are more than likely a result of the ongoing pod problems; however I admit that it's a bit more than frustrating that Celebrity is always so closed mouth about everything.

 

Can someone give me a brief explanation of what the pod problem is and how it should impact such a long overseas voyage? I need something to make me feel better about this!

Speaking as an engineer, the basic concept of the "pod" propulsion system is to replace the conventional shafts and rudders with rotating propulsion pods external to the hull that contain the drive motors, much shorter shafts, and journal and thrust bearings. The shafts penetrate the pod housing rather than the hull and, of course, have conventional propellers on the end. This arrangement has two theoretical advantages -- it removes machinery from the hull, freeing up space in the hull for other use, and it also allows construction of the propulsion pods as integrated units. Unfortunately, it also moves several potential failure points -- the journal bearings, the thrust bearings, and the electric motors -- to locations that are not accessible when the ship is in the water. To repair these components, it's necessary to put the ship into drydock -- a fairly expensive procedure -- so that shipyard workers can remove the cases from the pods to gain access. With a conventional prupulsion system, the ship's crew could replace a main thrust bearng and all but one or two of the journal bearings or reqwind a motor at sea.

And unfortunately, the pods on the Millennium class have been particularly prone to failure. Each ship has experienced such failures at intervals of about one per year. And, as others have noted, the manufacturer of the pods has refused to admit that there's a problem so Celebrity can't do much except continue to operate the ships, with emergency drydockings when the pods fail, until the lawsuits over the problem get resolved.

The silver lining here is that Celebrity has been very good toward pssengers booked on cruises that get cancelled. The normal compensation is a full refund of the fare paid to Celebrity plus certificate for a FREE cruise of equal duration.

Anyway, the latest update is that at least one of the pods on GTS Infinity was replaced last year with a redesigned pod so apparently the manufacturer is now taking the problem seriously.

And I really doubt that a change in schedule on a cruise to Hawai'i is due to a pod problem. The LAST thing that Celebrity needs is for a ship to go "dead in the water" midway between the west coast and Hawai'i due to concurrent failure of both pods. It would be absolute stupididty to send these ships on that type of itinerary with pods that are not working correctly.

Norm.

Wow, Norm! Thanks for the information--it was quite informative.

I wish Celebrity would be more upfront about why they make changes. I've heard that several folks have been told it is the pod issue, and others have been told it has to do with the ocean currents. Either way, I hope the cruise goes off without a hitch as we are really looking forward to a relaxing and pampered vacation!

And I really doubt that a change in schedule on a cruise to Hawai'i is due to a pod problem.

Unfortunately, though, that is exactly what I have been told by the X reps each time I have called. The changes to the itinerary was only tweaked at the beginning and end of the cruise. Not that big a deal, if you ask me. But it was done to allow a litle more sea time to get to/from Hawaii.

At least, as I said, that is what I was told by X.

Celeste

And, according to the 3/25/07 Roll Call, looks like they modified their Panama Canal itinerary also because of "enforced speed restrictions."

The pods (bearings) are poorly designed - that's it.

This was a new design technology and unfortunately X got saddled with a problem design. X' M-class pods have performed poorly on a consistent basis (from a breakdown percentage standpoint) and despite enormous corrective effort they remain problem prone. It'a not X' fault; many azipod designs proved problem prone. NCL, Carnival - all the buyers of these custom design products had problems early on. The ones X got have simply proven to be the worst of the bunch from a remedial standpoint.

X keeps quite about it because passenger insecurity in the product (itineraries and schedules) is a REALLY serious threat to their business. I can't blame them for that at all, although it comes with it's own built in customer backlash.

The manufacturer of the pods "took it seriously" from the get go - that hasn't made the problems any easier to fix long term; this particular design appears fundamentally flawed.

I don't have first hand insight, but it was my understanding that the litigation over this matter between RCI - Chantiers/ALSTOM - Rolls-Royce was settled some time ago. On products of this nature, litigation doesn't prevent repairs and remedial redesign efforts from occurring; remedial efforts are economically mandatory regardless of the parties legal posture. Litigation simply addresses apportionment of the costs involved and other economic fall out.

When a problem of this magnitude arises it's a daunting business problem for all concerned. These aren't "return it to the dealer for a replacement" items, it's all custom made, custom designed mega-tooling that can't be just "switched out" for something "better". I'm sure the production, design, and business managers at ALSTOMS, RR, and RCI/X have all lost far more sleep over this than any passenger or group of passengers have complaining and credit lobbying over a missed port (the validity of their complaints and credit claims aside).

Some pioneers get slaughtered... X seems to be taking its arrows as best it can...

Celeste,

Unfortunately, though, that is exactly what I have been told by the X reps each time I have called. The changes to the itinerary was only tweaked at the beginning and end of the cruise. Not that big a deal, if you ask me. But it was done to allow a litle more sea time to get to/from Hawaii.

 

At least, as I said, that is what I was told by X.

I wish for the day "that is what I was told by X" will mean that information is reliable. Unfortunately, I constantly hear from travel agents that they frequently have to call Celebrity's special line for travel agents three or four times to get straight answers on questions that really affect a passenger's plans, and the reason for a change in schedule is not exactly in that category. Unfortunately, it seems that they can't say, "I'll find out the answer and call you back" when they really don't know. In this case, I'm suspicious that the phone reps are saying "pod problems" because it's a convenient alibi when they really don't know the right answer.

FWIW, I also would like to have a nickel for every error that we have found on Celebrity's web site and in Celebrity's brochures....

Norm.

Norm.

The Preacher,

I don't think anyone believes that Celebrity has changed all those schedules on the Panama cruises and the Hawaii cruises just to allow more sea time for guests and to allow Celebrity to give out OBC's to all passengers. The cost of these onboard credits is about $600,000 for just one cruise, I know that X treats passengers well while on board, but not that well! I am a former TA and I can assure everyone that that is not true.

Yes, the shipboard credits and free cruises are expensive, but Celebrity undoubtedly will recover those costs through the lawsuit.

The problem is the pods are failing, period.

I doubt that any of us have any reliable source to substantiate that statement.

I too wonder about why the problem has not been fixed by now. I saw where Chessbriar mentioned that the lawsuit is stopping any effort to address the problem by Celebrity. As one poster noted, I too would think that anyone who had certain knowledge of that fact would have to either work for Celebrity or be part of the legal team that is seeking a resolution of the lawsuit. I can't believe that information as sensitive as that is available to just anyone.

The fact of the lawsuit and the company's assessment of the likely outcome are public information, disclosed in the parent company's annual report on form 10-K to the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and also in the company's regular annual report that it mails to all shareholders, and updated both in the company's quarterly reports to the SEC on form 10-Q and, as necessary, via press releases disclosing any change in status. The SEC enforces provisions of U. S. law that require such disclosure of all companies whose stocks trade on any stock exchange in the United States. The assessment of its likely outcome also provides some details as to the nature and current status of the suit. So those of us who own stock in the parent company, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE: RCL) receive such information routinely.

Although one must be somewhat familiar with the legal process and potential issues in judicial procedings to read between the lines of the public disclosures and the company's actions, it's really not all that difficult to do so. If Celebrity were to take the four ships of the Millennium class out of service, the manufactuer of the pods would claim in court that the pods were not really defective but that Celebrity failed to give them a fair trial. Unfortunately, there's no way to know how bad the pods really are without running these ships on normal schedules and letting them fail. In the absence of such evidence, you never know for sure what a jury will do with such counterarguments. Thus, any lawyer worth his salt would tell the company to keep these ships in service in spite of the occasional failures. Fortunately, it's not very likely that both pods will fail at the same time.

Norm.

Although one must be somewhat familiar with the legal process and potential issues in judicial procedings to read between the lines of the public disclosures and the company's actions, it's really not all that difficult to do so. If Celebrity were to take the four ships of the Millennium class out of service, the manufactuer of the pods would claim in court that the pods were not really defective but that Celebrity failed to give them a fair trial. Unfortunately, there's no way to know how bad the pods really are without running these ships on normal schedules and letting them fail. In the absence of such evidence, you never know for sure what a jury will do with such counterarguments. Thus, any lawyer worth his salt would tell the company to keep these ships in service in spite of the occasional failures. Fortunately, it's not very likely that both pods will fail at the same time.

On the flip side, if there was a fix available and X failed to avail themselves of it, the manufacturer of the pods would claim in court that the years of expenditures for free cruises and OBC's (above the cost to repair) are not their responsibility because X COULD have fixed the pods but chose not to.

I think the reason they haven't fixed the pods is because there is no solution that is economically feasible, lawsuit or no lawsuit.

woodofpine,

The pods (bearings) are poorly designed - that's it.

Hmmm....

Actually, the bearings of two standard designs (one for journal bearings and the other for thrust bearings) that ships have used routinely for several decades. They are pretty reliable, but they do fail occasionally.

The real problem is that the pod design puts these bearings outside the hull, where the crew cannot do anything while the ship is in the water. On a conventional system, the main thrust bearings and most of the journal bearings would be inside the hull, where the crew could replace them while at sea if necessary. If the main thrust bearings aboard MV Galaxy were to fail during the night, the ship would slow down a few knots while the engineering crew replaced them -- a process that takes only a few hours -- and be back to full speed by morning, so the impact might be a late arrival in the next port of call. Alas, on ships with pods, the only way to get to these bearings is to put the ship into drydock where shipyard workers can remove the pod covers to gain access. This process depends upon the availability, on very short notice, of a drydock that's big enough to accommodate the ship. Note that the time required to put the ship into drydock, open the pod covers, reclose the pod covers, and take the ship out of drydock exceed the time required to repair the bearings by a considerable amount, though it's also likely that some other pending work that requires a shipyard's facilities will happen while the ship is there.

[/quote=You]This was a new design technology and unfortunately X got saddled with a problem design. X' M-class pods have performed poorly on a consistent basis (from a breakdown percentage standpoint) and despite enormous corrective effort they remain problem prone. It'a not X' fault; many azipod designs proved problem prone. NCL, Carnival - all the buyers of these custom design products had problems early on. The ones X got have simply proven to be the worst of the bunch from a remedial standpoint.

I'm really not sure why the pods on the Millennium class seem to fail more frequently than others, but I do know that the failures have not always been the same component. Nonetheless, I suspect that the manufacturer of these pods cut tolerances too fine....

X keeps quite about it because passenger insecurity in the product (itineraries and schedules) is a REALLY serious threat to their business. I can't blame them for that at all, although it comes with it's own built in customer backlash.

That, and parties to lawsuit also have to deal with the legal implications of public statements about a problem that might contaminate a jury pool. In many foreign countries, it is illegal for parties to a lawsuit to speak to the press or anybody else about the problem, excepting such disclosures as various laws may require.

The manufacturer of the pods "took it seriously" from the get go - that hasn't made the problems any easier to fix long term; this particular design appears fundamentally flawed.

Well, if consider "denied the existence of a problem for five years in the hope that the lawsuit would go away" to be one way to take it seriously....

The manufacturer finally came up with a revised design last year and installed at least one pod built to the revised design aboard GTS Infinity last fall. Had the manufacturer really taken the problem seriously, the problem probably would have been resolved three or four years ago.

I don't have first hand insight, but it was my understanding that the litigation over this matter between RCI - Chantiers/ALSTOM - Rolls-Royce was settled some time ago. On products of this nature, litigation doesn't prevent repairs and remedial redesign efforts from occurring; remedial efforts are economically mandatory regardless of the parties legal posture. Litigation simply addresses apportionment of the costs involved and other economic fall out.

No, that's not accurate on several counts.

>> 1. The lawsuit has neither settled nor gone to trial. it is still pending. (But apparently discovery has proceeded to a point at which the respondant has acknowledged that there is in fact a problem.) I do believe that the part of the case that was against the shipbuilder, Chantiers de L'Atlantique, was settled, though.

>> 2. Had Celebrity replaced the pod after two or three failures of various components, the legal argument on the other side is that the product simply malfunctioned and that it would have worked properly if it had been repaired rather than replaced. Unfortunately, the failures, although about annual on each ship, have not consistently involved the same component. Sometimes a journal bearing has failed, sometimes a thrust bearing has failed, and in a few instances a motor has failed. Were the same component failing consistently, the nessessary modification to the pods would have been more obvious.

>> 3. It's not at all clear that replacement of the units with units from another manufacturer would have been either feasible or economical. Units of this type typically do not have standard interfaces with the hull of the ship that would make them interchangeable across manufacturers. Indeed, the replacement of these pods with pods from another manufacturer may well require major redesign of the structural members where the post penetrates the hull due to differences in the size of the post and the separation between the point of penetration and the actual pod. This would be a very extensive modification that would take the ship out of service for several months, compared to a week to replace the failed element.

So Celebrity followed the course of action dictated by the progress of the legal proceedings.

When a problem of this magnitude arises it's a daunting business problem for all concerned. These aren't "return it to the dealer for a replacement" items, it's all custom made, custom designed mega-tooling that can't be just "switched out" for something "better". I'm sure the production, design, and business managers at ALSTOMS, RR, and RCI/X have all lost far more sleep over this than any passenger or group of passengers have complaining and credit lobbying over a missed port (the validity of their complaints and credit claims aside).

 

Some pioneers get slaughtered... X seems to be taking its arrows as best it can...

Yes, that's about right.

Norm.

Can someone give me a brief explanation of what the pod problem is and how it should impact such a long overseas voyage? I need something to make me feel better about this!

Norm? ;)

Hello Norm,

 

As a former TA and of course my job was to always try and keep my clients happy and informed, I have a few comments.

 

You: The silver lining here is that Celebrity has been very good toward pssengers booked on cruises that get cancelled. The normal compensation is a full refund of the fare paid to Celebrity plus certificate for a FREE cruise of equal duration.

That is 100% correct but there have been many complaints about compensation from those on the cruise when the problem starts.

Let's see. The contract of passage states that the cruise line may deviate from the published itinerary, including changes of times to ports of call, substution of altenate ports of call, cancellation of ports of call, or such other changes as the cruise line may deem necessary, at any time and for any reason, including malfunction of the vessel, and that passengers are not entitled to any compensatoin if such deviations occur. So the cruise line offers passengers comensation to which they have no legal entitlement whatsoever as a gesture of good will, and some malcontents think it insufficient?

This sounds like a clear case of derilict travel agents who failed to explain the terms properly to their customers and thus left the customers with inapprpopriate expectations.

You: Anyway, the latest update is that at least one of the pods on GTS Infinity was replaced last year with a redesigned pod so apparently the manufacturer is now taking the problem seriously.

 

That is also true that the Infinity was in dry dock for new pods last September. The problem is that the pods began to fail after only about five weeks of service and the next dry dock is not scheduled until mid May of this year.

In fact, there's no indication whatsoever other than speculation that the new pods were "starting to fail" shortly after installation. The speculation apparently was related to technicians aboard the ship who were making measurements to characterize the performance of the new pods to verify that they were performing as expected.. This is very much a normal process when new systems are installed on a ship and operated for the first time.

Of course, passengers seldom see this part of the process because it normally happens during sea trials....

You: And I really doubt that a change in schedule on a cruise to Hawai'i is due to a pod problem. The LAST thing that Celebrity needs is for a ship to go "dead in the water" midway between the west coast and Hawai'i due to concurrent failure of both pods. It would be absolute stupididty to send these ships on that type of itinerary with pods that are not working correctly.

Celebrity has announced changes in four itineraries to allow for reduced speed of the vessel. I can not think of any possible reason other than pod problems, to do that.

It's entirely possible that the tests described above shwed that the new pods were either drawing too much power, risking motor burn-out, or overloading their power suppie when the ship ran at flank (that is, fastest possible) speed. But if that's the case, it's a measure to prevent a prod problem rather than a symptom of a pod problem.

And the engineers might be back at the drawing boards trying to modify the revised design to allow operation at falnk speed....

You: I'm suspicious that the phone reps are saying "pod problems" because it's a convenient alibi when they really don't know the right answer.

In all he years that I worked with Celebrity, pods were always the last thing any customer rep ever wanted to talk about to me.

Times apparently have changed.

You: If Celebrity were to take the four ships of the Millennium class out of service, the manufactuer of the pods would claim in court that the pods were not really defective but that Celebrity failed to give them a fair trial.

It has now been over six years since the first pod failure and I would think you would have to say that Celebrity gave them a fair trial.

Some lawyers will say -- and some juries and judges will buy into -- most anything....

You: So Celebrity followed the course of action dictated by the progress of the legal proceedings.

No one can know for sure (unless you are part of the legal team) and say that the court proceeding are the reason that Celebrity has not taken action to come up with a fix for the defective pods. As you said you are basing your opinion on what you say that you can read between the lines on the stockholder reports. I would equate that to an opinion or an educated guess but nothing more.

Yes, of course it's an educated guess. But keep in mind that Celebrity's staff are not marine engineers with the skills to design a replacement pod.

And in any case, it's going to be very interesting to find out whether the ships of the Solstice class have pods (and if so, whose) or conventional shafts and rudders....

Norm.

Norm's the expert here!

I indicated that "The pods (bearings) are poorly designed"; norm even took issue with that statement even though that is the core fact of law X is taking and having to prove to recover in litigation...

Norm has stated one fact/opinion that is worth considering...

"So Celebrity followed the course of action dictated by the progress of the legal proceedings."

Personal experience has shown me that the strategy embodied in that statement is generally a poor business model.

Businesses and industries that do NOT follow that "letting the tail wag the dog" model generally are better off... from Tobacco to Microsoft. It is not proactive. In construction litigation, I tell clients that begin looking in that direction that, "If you want lawyers to construct your building via the courts it's going to be the longest most expensive project you've ever seen."

If Norm's statement does reflect X' operative problem solving strategy then it's no surprise that the problem hasn't been solved, and it's unlikely it will be for at least a few years to come. After all, even if RCI hits a home run in court (at trial) all that gets them is a judgment for money; it doesn't fix the propulsion systems.

woodofpine,

Personal experience has shown me that the strategy embodied in that statement is generally a poor business model.

 

Businesses and industries that do NOT follow that "letting the tail wag the dog" model generally are better off... from Tobacco to Microsoft. It is not proactive. In construction litigation, I tell clients that begin looking in that direction that, "If you want lawyers to construct your building via the courts it's going to be the longest most expensive project you've ever seen."

 

That's generally true...

 

If Norm's statement does reflect X' operative problem solving strategy then it's no surprise that the problem hasn't been solved, and it's unlikely it will be for at least a few years to come. After all, even if RCI hits a home run in court (at trial) all that gets them is a judgment for money; it doesn't fix the propulsion systems.

 

... but in this case, what are the alternatives?

 

>> 1. Replacement of the existing pods with a standard design from another manufacturer, with proven reliability, probably would require major structural modification to the hull. Here, I'm talking about not only replacement of the actual fixtures for the pods with different fixtures, but also reconfiguration of the structural members that hold those fixtures in place. This process would involve several months of structural design and testing and several months in drydock to do the work.

 

>> 2. Replacement of the existing pods with custom pods from another manufacturer configured to fit the existing fittings would entail a smilar design and testing effort for the replacement pods, followed by drydocking of the vessels to do the replacement. The new pods might also require different control systems and wiring within the hull.

 

>> 3. The company could scrap the affected ships and write them off as a capital loss. Of course, this option would displease both affected passengers and investors.

 

The bottom line here is that Celebrity does not seem to have any other realistic optiosns in this case. Thus, the company obviously hopes that the manufacturers will admit that the pods are deficient and replace them with a satisfactory design, either as part of the settlement or to satisfy part of the judgement of the pending lawsuit.

 

Norm.

The subject of the Rolls Royce Mermaid ("Pod") issues that have recently affected Celebrity vessels has been discussed in a large number of threads whose topics are other subjects.

In order to bring a bit of order back to the Celebrity boards, please do not engage in "pod" discussions on other threads. Rather, please use this thread to discuss any and all questions and concerns about the Azipods.

Thanks.

For some technical stuff on the problem, please see eBearing News

Thank you Host Walt!

Boy, I'm bad about this technical stuff, but wasn't there an announcement (on cruise critic or cruise news daily) about engineers finally developing a "new solution" to the bearing problems with the mermaid pods? Seems like the news came out about 1-2 weeks ago.

If I recall, they are changing the shape of the bearing, or bearing ring, or something (I'm not a very mechanically, technically adept). I also recall that they were going to slowly install them in all for M class ships as they went in for scheduled drydocks.

Does anybody recall this? Is it too soon for them to use these as the replacements for Infinity?

If I'm totally off base, I apologize in advance. I in on way am intending to be misleading. However, I am hoping to take Infinity to Alaska in 2008 and am praying for reliability by then.

As Norm asked in a previous post, does anyone know what propulsion system will be used in the Solstice class?

thanks,

Gerald