Anthem keeps docking us around

[reallyitsmema]

Thanks Shaun, I can never get pictures to copy with Chrome.

[foxgoodrich]

That's where we met!

 

We made out even better than you!

 

We had a JS, so we got $850. (we used some of it to treat ourselves Royally with dinner at 150 Central Park with wine pairing ;) )

 

Hotels covered, meals covered, transportation changes covered. (for two days) And since my sons live in Orlando, I just changed my flight from FLL to MCO and spent two wonderful days with them, and then they drove me to Fort Lauderdale for the cruise!

 

The FCC was easy to apply, too.

 

:)

 

Oh yes! We had a D8 balcony so we only got $650, but hey - I'll take it! We didn't manage to spend 100 bucks a day per person on food with free breakfast at Embassy Suites, but we did have some mighty fine crab at the Rustic Inn one night. And I came home from that cruise with a very nice spendy piece of Romero Britto luggage from the Britto gallery.:D And we had a lot of drinks and very nice wine with dinner.:o We applied our FCC to a cruise that was already booked - easy peasy and it worked just like a check!!

 

I remember we met and chatted at the Aqua Theater one day, and I think I might recognize you if I see you again. (which I hope I do!)

Judy

[kneught77]

Yes, it was before the storm. I interpreted the question to mean...was there a problem before sailing, because someone else made that allegation. I may have misinterpreted the question.

 

Sorry.. I was referring to after the storm before heading back to port.

[KarinaGW]

unneeded post. Someone explained the future cruise credit far better than I did. I prefer to acknowledge the people who have better knowledge than I.

Edited February 12, 2016 by KarinaGW

[megr1125]

Slight clarification...it's a 50% cruise credit (according to the staff member I talked to)....which means we're getting a certificate worth 50% of whatever we paid for this cruise...Paid 2600? 1300....5500? 2750. Still not chump change and might still be 50% off a cruise if you hit a sail right. I wonder how they work in combo with the BOGOs...that could be quite the score.

 

Correct, it's 50% of the CRUISE FARE portion that you paid, so not taxes etc (usually) and while it's been a while since I have seen or used one, the FCC may be combinable with other things. And for those who think that it's a 50% reduction in the fare of a future cruise.....it is not...

 

hth

Edited February 12, 2016 by megr1125

[chengkp75]

Without more detail, I really can't speculate as to what the problem is or was. It definitely wasn't affected during the storm, or the ship would not have been able to hold her head into the wind/seas in that kind of force.

 

Azipods can be shut down by something as simple as a metal particle in the oil triggering an alarm switch, which happened to a Carnival ship a couple years ago, and required tug escort all the way down the Mississippi river. The problem with azipods is that there is virtually no room for a human inside of it, and it cannot be entered while running. It may have simply required some maintenance to reset it, but given the seas, the shaft was windmilling and it wasn't considered safe to enter the pod to lock it and do maintenance.

 

It could be a control issue, where the speed control thyristors have overheated and failed. It could be mechanical, either steering (directional) or bearings. I will say that these are the newer XO azipods where the thrust bearings can be renewed without drydocking.

 

It could be that the pod is capable of working fine, but causes a warning alarm like high temperature, and so they decided not to use it unless necessary.

 

Okay, I'm speculating, but just giving the possibilities, and until more facts come out, I'm just as curious as the next guy.

[shaun07]

If you have sailed on ships with Az Pods you should probably know they can be prone to problems. I have been on the Freedom where its sailed an entire cruise on 1 Pod. The bearings in them can get damage and they shut them down however they can be used if really needed. So just consider that perhaps they did set sail with all the Pods fully operational. If the ship was anywhere near 20+ knows they were all operational. Let's assume one Pod was damaged in the storm so after the storm was over they shut it down as a precaution to prevent more damage. Yes they probably knew but at that point there was probably no need to get people more upset. The fact that they sailed so slowly coming back should have been the first clue. I am surprised no passengers noticed one Pod being out. I would have noticed it but would not have been concerned at that point.

 

This is all based on the assumption these reports are accurate.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

I think most people onboard had suspicions of a bigger issue but where too afraid to think about it.

So one went down and they thought it was a good idea to sail up the east coast. what if the other goes then what?

[chengkp75]

I think most people onboard had suspicions of a bigger issue but where too afraid to think about it.

So one went down and they thought it was a good idea to sail up the east coast. what if the other goes then what?

 

Well, a couple of things come to me. First, the USCG didn't say the starboard pod was inoperable, they said it "wasn't operating properly". This kind of leads me to what I mentioned above, that the pod had an alarm condition, they didn't feel it was safe to enter it, but could have used it in an emergency, but decided to save it until really needed.

[shaun07]

Well, a couple of things come to me. First, the USCG didn't say the starboard pod was inoperable, they said it "wasn't operating properly". This kind of leads me to what I mentioned above, that the pod had an alarm condition, they didn't feel it was safe to enter it, but could have used it in an emergency, but decided to save it until really needed.

 

it has to be serious enough if they haven't fixed it yet and the coast guard won't let them sail

[foxgoodrich]

Yes, it was before the storm. I interpreted the question to mean...was there a problem before sailing, because someone else made that allegation. I may have misinterpreted the question.

 

You inferred correctly and you did not misinterpret the question. That poster did indeed imply that the problem existed before sailing. I'm starting to get a little disgusted here and I just almost said something about that poster that would insult all the little girls in the world and would imply that he needs to grow something(s) and move on as I feel somewhat betrayed now. But I know I'm a better person than that, so I am reminding myself that I must continue to have compassion and give that poster the benefit of the doubt. It's becoming more difficult. (And now I will seek help from Dr. Merlot.;))

Judy

[cheezwiz]

Found the picture but can't get it copied. It is in this guys twitter.

 

https://twitter.com/Keckler12

 

Thanks for finding that. Doesn't seem to go very well with RCCL's claim of "only superficial damage," does it?

[tracks221]

Lots of activity at the port today. coast guard was on the ship, lots of police and official cars, lifeboats getting tested, lots and lots of dumpsters!

[chengkp75]

Thanks for finding that. Doesn't seem to go very well with RCCL's claim of "only superficial damage," does it?

 

Couple of problems with his tweet. First off, that's not a radar, that is a satellite TV or internet dome. Second, ship's radars are not "air search" radars that look into the sky like a weather radar. They are pointed at the sea, because that's what is important in limited visibility, other ships and land.

 

And his photo of the wake, does show the port pod showing a reduced wake, so either it was freewheeling or at reduced power, so my thought about a major bearing problem would be out the window, cause you don't let a damaged bearing rotate like that.

Edited February 12, 2016 by chengkp75

[chengkp75]

it has to be serious enough if they haven't fixed it yet and the coast guard won't let them sail

 

Hell, as part of a Port State inspection, they won't let the ship sail if a fire hose is worn. Not saying it isn't serious, but not saying it is.

[reallyitsmema]

Thanks for finding that. Doesn't seem to go very well with RCCL's claim of "only superficial damage," does it?

 

No way to tell what is up with just one picture, which is why I didn't post it when I saw it last night. Time will tell. It could be something they consider superficial damage and not a major issue but I am not going to speculate.

[libertybelle41]

While I won't be sailing Rccl again I sincerely hope you and anyone else who continue to cruise with rccl only the happiest of vacations. We all work too hard and pay too much money.

 

 

k,bye

[shaun07]

Hell, as part of a Port State inspection, they won't let the ship sail if a fire hose is worn. Not saying it isn't serious, but not saying it is.

 

thats great considering rccl have not been very honest. It will hopefully give the next set of victims some peace of mind knowing the cg have gone over the ship

[John&LaLa]

I guess two questions to ask would be

 

1) Did they know about the propulsion issue, or was this only discovered earlier today upon further inspection?

 

2) Would going to the PC port as originally planned and staying there been a better choice?

 

I don't know enough about how these ships operate.. was sailing with a failing propulsion system a risk? I don't have the answer

 

Last year Freedom was down 1 of her 3 props and she seemed to slow down by 5 or 6 nauts for several voyages. You could see the missing prop wash in her wake.

 

Bad thing is, it took a while to get it fixed

[cruisenfever]

thats great considering rccl have not been very honest. It will hopefully give the next set of victims some peace of mind knowing the cg have gone over the ship

If you have no plans to cruise on RCI ever again, why do you keep posting here??

[chengkp75]

Last year Freedom was down 1 of her 3 props and she seemed to slow down by 5 or 6 nauts for several voyages. You could see the missing prop wash in her wake.

 

Bad thing is, it took a while to get it fixed

 

Slipping by the sites rules, that's "knots". :D

 

Freedom has the older AO pods where you cannot renew the bearings from the inside, so you remove the prop blades and lock the shaft.

[cheezwiz]

Couple of problems with his tweet. First off, that's not a radar, that is a satellite TV or internet dome. Second, ship's radars are not "air search" radars that look into the sky like a weather radar. They are pointed at the sea, because that's what is important in limited visibility, other ships and land.

 

And his photo of the wake, does show the port pod showing a reduced wake, so either it was freewheeling or at reduced power, so my thought about a major bearing problem would be out the window, cause you don't let a damaged bearing rotate like that.

 

I was referring only to the picture of the wake together with the passenger's comment.I don't know a darn thing about radar & such so I stay away from such subjects. I may have put my "thanks" on the wrong post.

[John&LaLa]

Slipping by the sites rules, that's "knots". :D

 

Freedom has the older AO pods where you cannot renew the bearings from the inside, so you remove the prop blades and lock the shaft.

 

You know I wasn't sure about that knots or nauts thing. Knots just didn't look right since nautical is kind of in the word.

[cheezwiz]

No way to tell what is up with just one picture, which is why I didn't post it when I saw it last night. Time will tell. It could be something they consider superficial damage and not a major issue but I am not going to speculate.

 

I don't see images anyway, I have them turned off & have to click the link. I guess it also depends on how one defines "superficial." I'm thinking scratches, dents & broken glass - an engineer could well have an entirely view on the subject. Anyway, thanks again!

[John&LaLa]

Well, a couple of things come to me. First, the USCG didn't say the starboard pod was inoperable, they said it "wasn't operating properly". This kind of leads me to what I mentioned above, that the pod had an alarm condition, they didn't feel it was safe to enter it, but could have used it in an emergency, but decided to save it until really needed.

 

Didn't Lou tell us that the storm couldn't cause any issues below the waterline. :rolleyes:

 

Seriously, I guess it may have been overworked fighting the wind and waves for so long Sunday night.

[reallyitsmema]

I don't see images anyway, I have them turned off & have to click the link. I guess it also depends on how one defines "superficial." I'm thinking scratches, dents & broken glass - an engineer could well have an entirely view on the subject. Anyway, thanks again!

 

You're welcome.:) My chief engineer is unavailable at the moment so haven't been able to get their opinion.