Anthem keeps docking us around

[pspercy]

Or RCI, home of the four burned out clutches are "cosmetic damage".

 

Please can we have a third option.

 

The pod was shut down as a precaution. The clutch problem was maybe suspected but was only specifically diagnosed after making port.

[broberts]

The pod was shut down as a precaution. The clutch problem was maybe suspected but was only specifically diagnosed after making port.

 

Having to shut down a propulsion unit, even as a precaution did not come about because of "cosmetic or superficial damage". There is quite a range between superficial and catastrophic. The burned out clutches lie somewhere between. Frankly I do not characterize a lifeboat torn from its mounts "superficial". Minor perhaps, but not superficial or cosmetic. RCI was not honest in their characterization of the damage.

[Rosbiffer]

Have any fellow travellers received any emails or communications from RCI since returning home? Am surprised not to have received anything yet...

[MommaBear55]

Have any fellow travellers received any emails or communications from RCI since returning home? Am surprised not to have received anything yet...

 

If the review emails are generated automatically, those would be sent after planned disembarkation, so in the next day or two. It will be interesting to find out if they do send an Antem Feb 6 follow up email.

[shaun07]

Having to shut down a propulsion unit, even as a precaution did not come about because of "cosmetic or superficial damage". There is quite a range between superficial and catastrophic. The burned out clutches lie somewhere between. Frankly I do not characterize a lifeboat torn from its mounts "superficial". Minor perhaps, but not superficial or cosmetic. RCI was not honest in their characterization of the damage.

 

I know!! The ra ra's will find a way to spin this, pun intended,d so that they don't have to face that RCCL are deceitful and all their loyalty is laughable.

Edited February 13, 2016 by shaun07

[beachnative]

I know!! The ra ra's will find a way to spin this, pun intended,d so that they don't have to face that RCCL are deceitful and all their loyalty is laughable.

 

Shaun, I hope you can eventually get over your severely negative view of Royal Caribbean and begin to enjoy cruising again. I've enjoyed reading all the threads based on the Feb. 6 cruise and have hoped that your recovery would begin as the (few) knowledgeable posters explained, in detail, everything that you asked.

 

Sincerely, good luck to you.

[The_Big_M]

The pod was shut down as a precaution. The clutch problem was maybe suspected but was only specifically diagnosed after making port.

 

It was definitely more than suspected, otherwise they wouldn't have shut it down.

 

It was shut down because it was damaged. And damage to one half of the propulsion systems is more than "cosmetic damage."

[xpcdoojk]

It was definitely more than suspected, otherwise they wouldn't have shut it down.

 

It was shut down because it was damaged. And damage to one half of the propulsion systems is more than "cosmetic damage."

 

Not to simply argue with you, but clutches are wearable items. I.E. They are supposed to wear and be replaced. So, because of the conditions they wore out the clutches. Since you are in OZ imagine you drove your car onto the beach, you got stuck and you spun your rear wheel drive car's tires to get unstuck. You could conceivably wear all of the tread off your rear tires. But since you are not stuck, you can still drive the car, but you shouldn't. Replacing the tires, would mean your car is not damaged, but that you wore out your tires which needed replacing. You don't need to replace the car it is perfectly fine, and with new tires as good as new.

 

JC

Edited February 13, 2016 by xpcdoojk

[shaun07]

Shaun, I hope you can eventually get over your severely negative view of Royal Caribbean and begin to enjoy cruising again. I've enjoyed reading all the threads based on the Feb. 6 cruise and have hoped that your recovery would begin as the (few) knowledgeable posters explained, in detail, everything that you asked.

 

Sincerely, good luck to you.

 

Thank you, while some have explained some things that have honestly helped me gain some perspective. Most just try to bend truths to fit their own POV of what happened , but is fiction made to sound like fact.

[The_Big_M]

Shaun, I hope you can eventually get over your severely negative view of Royal Caribbean and begin to enjoy cruising again. I've enjoyed reading all the threads based on the Feb. 6 cruise and have hoped that your recovery would begin as the (few) knowledgeable posters explained, in detail, everything that you asked.

 

His statement was accurate. The damage was not just superficial, hence the statement was deceitful.

 

Unfortunately the reality is that the situation was made negative by the lack of honesty. Some may spin in that 'it was for the passengers good' not to get worried. That doesn't change that it was deceitful and the reality is it doesn't treat people as grown-ups.

[Deptacon]

Having to shut down a propulsion unit, even as a precaution did not come about because of "cosmetic or superficial damage". There is quite a range between superficial and catastrophic. The burned out clutches lie somewhere between. Frankly I do not characterize a lifeboat torn from its mounts "superficial". Minor perhaps, but not superficial or cosmetic. RCI was not honest in their characterization of the damage.

 

Did it cause the risk of the ship to be lost? the likely hood of the vessel being lost at sea? No.... so yes, losing a lifeboat is superficial.... It did not cause increased likely hood of the loss of the ship like hull damage, loss of stability, pumping systems would....

 

to you, a buffet mouth stuffing tourist...its a big deal, everything is a big deal....

 

It the world of maritime sea faring.... a life boat coming off in weather or clutch problems, IS superficial. It can all be repaired/replaced rather easily, doesn't make the ship go down, and is generally minor in comparison to losing the ship.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Deptacon

[The_Big_M]

Not to simply argue with you, but clutches are wearable items. I.E. They are supposed to wear and be replaced. So, because of the conditions they wore out the clutches. Since you are in OZ imagine you drove your car onto the beach, you got stuck and you spun your rear wheel drive car's tires to get unstuck. You could conceivably wear all of the tread off your rear tires. But since you are not stuck, you can still drive the car, but you shouldn't. Replacing the tires, would mean your car is not damaged, but that you wore out your tires which needed replacing. You don't need to replace the car it is perfectly fine, and with new tires as good as new.

 

 

I agree with your statement of them wearing out in normal use.

 

However, the cause of the damage was not just everyday wear and tear. In normal situations as you describe they would be replaced prior to having an operational impact, as with your analogy of servicing your car. And they were not honest that they were returning to port slower due to the condition.

[xpcdoojk]

I agree with your statement of them wearing out in normal use.

 

However, the cause of the damage was not just everyday wear and tear. In normal situations as you describe they would be replaced prior to having an operational impact, as with your analogy of servicing your car. And they were not honest that they were returning to port slower due to the condition.

 

They drove slowly just like you do on a car with bald tires, if you don't you can tear up perfectly fine car.

 

They may have gotten a years worth of wear in a few hours. Which means that the ship was in stressful conditions, but if the ship sails today at speeds approaching 20 knots then by definition it is only superficial damage.

 

Instead of making statements of "fact" that are just "opinion", why don't we see what actually happens in the next few days. It is possible that they damaged something seriously. None of us "know".

 

JC

[Deptacon]

They drove slowly just like you do on a car with bald tires, if you don't you can tear up perfectly fine car.

 

They may have gotten a years worth of wear in a few hours. Which means that the ship was in stressful conditions, but if the ship sails today at speeds approaching 20 knots then by definition it is only superficial damage.

 

Instead of making statements of "fact" that are just "opinion", why don't we see what actually happens in the next few days. It is possible that they damaged something seriously. None of us "know".

 

JC

 

Don't bother, just like most other threads on Cruise Critic...the over-reaction, dramatization, what a horrible time, what AWFUL service, me me me me crowd is coming out of the woodwork on this anthem event.

 

I'm not even bothering to read most of them..... I really dont know why i poked my head in here

Edited February 13, 2016 by Deptacon

[The_Big_M]

Instead of making statements of "fact" that are just "opinion", why don't we see what actually happens in the next few days. It is possible that they damaged something seriously. None of us "know".

 

Quite true.

 

My response was only to a similar statement of fact that was actually opinion.

[Deptacon]

Some of you, should read this..... instead of being like the MILK and BREAD crowd in a snow storm....

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2314715

[peternina]

Page three, today's Newark Star Ledger.

 

"Storm-damaged cruise ship is deemed nearly seaworthy."

 

Can you imagine getting on American Airlines flight 45 and the announcement was, "We are now boarding flight 45, the aircraft is deemed nearly flight worthy.Have a nice day."

 

Let us get the facts correct.

[Deptacon]

Page three, today's Newark Star Ledger.

 

"Storm-damaged cruise ship is deemed nearly seaworthy."

 

Can you imagine getting on American Airlines flight 45 and the announcement was, "We are now boarding flight 45, the aircraft is deemed nearly flight worthy.Have a nice day."

 

Let us get the facts correct.

 

Simple things can make it not seaworthy my USCG standards.... Does it mean it can't go to sea by law.... yes, does it mean its not seaworthy, physically, no.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Deptacon

[A&L_Ont]

I agree with your statement of them wearing out in normal use.

 

However, the cause of the damage was not just everyday wear and tear. In normal situations as you describe they would be replaced prior to having an operational impact, as with your analogy of servicing your car. And they were not honest that they were returning to port slower due to the condition.

 

Big_M, you make me think about abnormally real wear and tear. Just posing this out loud for something to think about. Could the pod have warranty issues even though it has regular scheduled maintenance? Could the one clutch go in one big storm or could it have been declining in strength since the ship started this last year and the storm was just too much? We would never find out, but just a thought.

 

Allure had internal major pod parts replaced when she had only been at sea for 3 years. One would suspect it should have maintained structural integrity. That might be the reason why they are replacing the parts in both pods. That way they can compare the wear and tear of each and if they are comparable or if one is in great condition and the other is worn out. They can also see how they compare/relate to the manufacturer specs for their age and sailing hours accumulated.

 

She was delivered April 10, 2015 and has not been with RC for a year. New commercial construction (in Canada) has a 1 year warrant period. A new car has a 3 year warranty. What type of warranty does a cruise ship come with?

 

I am not looking for excuses for RC. I am thinking about all the possible reasons to why the clutch would go other than the obvious excess stress/use in the storm.

[knittinggirl]

When we were on the Star Princess last year, we had Norovirus, and didn't know how bad it was until we returned to port and red the news. All the captain did was tell us it was onboard, and how many new cases we had.

 

I guess it may have been the same with this Captain. He didn't want to alarm people more than they were already alarmed.

 

On our fog cruise out of Galveston, we stayed in port until day 3. But we never saw that captain on a later cruise. We ran out of alcohol we could sell on day 2, because they were limited on alcohol sales until they were 10 miles out to sea. Some people were very angry because a carnival ship left on Day 2. The captain explained that the Carnival Ship was smaller than ours, so it was easier for them to make that turn. We accepted his explanation, and were even happier about it once the Concordia scraped bottom and sank. At least that captain was careful. On our last cruise, our captain made that turn while we were coming into port while he had the chance. And backed into the dock. Talk about a good driver! I have problems parallel parking!

Edited February 13, 2016 by knittinggirl

[knittinggirl]

 

She was delivered April 10, 2015 and has not been with RC for a year. New commercial construction (in Canada) has a 1 year warrant period. A new car has a 3 year warranty. What type of warranty does a cruise ship come with?

 

 

Wonder if abuse from a hurricane negates the warranty. The warranty people will definitely try to spin it.

Edited February 13, 2016 by knittinggirl

[LMaxwell]

Big_M, you make me think about abnormally real wear and tear. Just posing this out loud for something to think about. Could the pod have warranty issues even though it has regular scheduled maintenance? Could the one clutch go in one big storm or could it have been declining in strength since the ship started this last year and the storm was just too much? We would never find out, but just a thought.

 

Allure had internal major pod parts replaced when she had only been at sea for 3 years. One would suspect it should have maintained structural integrity. That might be the reason why they are replacing the parts in both pods. That way they can compare the wear and tear of each and if they are comparable or if one is in great condition and the other is worn out. They can also see how they compare/relate to the manufacturer specs for their age and sailing hours accumulated.

 

She was delivered April 10, 2015 and has not been with RC for a year. New commercial construction (in Canada) has a 1 year warrant period. A new car has a 3 year warranty. What type of warranty does a cruise ship come with?

 

I am not looking for excuses for RC. I am thinking about all the possible reasons to why the clutch would go other than the obvious excess stress/use in the storm.

 

These are good questions. I guess it comes back to what is the designed service life for a clutch pack or friction material. What are the recommended operating temperatures? What are considered acceptable temperatures for short term duration (and how short or long is that duration)?

 

I don't even necessarily consider this a failure of the clutch to perform. They have ratings and if they operate above those ratings and fail, that's just the design. And it's not even a design problem. Just like if you took a new car and subjected it to more abuse than it is designed for in normal use and you blow out the clutch, no manufacturer will warranty it. But if you drive normally and the disc disintegrates in 6 months due to faulty workmanship, it would be replaced.

 

I'm with you though on learning more. I'm surprised to read from Cheng that they were steering clutches and not propulsion clutches. I guess I had assumed that all cruise ship steering was through some sort of electric hydraulic arrangement.

 

As can be seen, they can change these clutch packs out relatively fast and with the ship in the water, so perhaps they are designed for a faster wear rate than every 5 years?

 

I've nursed along more than few cars with badly slipping clutches to understand if you are very easy they will get you where you need to be, but ask ANYTHING more than them and you fry the whole thing. So maybe that port pod was operating at a very slow speed to protect gear bearings internally?

 

The one thing I will say though is that if you have to power down a pod (to save it) during a storm, that to me is the same as "losing a pod". I know it's splitting hair terminology wise, but the bottom line is the same; loss of use of that pods ability to maintain steerage of the ship. I don't mean to be argumentative with Chief, but that's just my perspective on it.

 

I'd rather watch stuff about this on Science Channel or similar than NBC, CBS news

[grandgeezer]

Wonder if abuse from a hurricane negates the warranty. The warranty people will definitely try to spin it.

 

Negligence by owner negates warranty. They admitted some liability.

[LMaxwell]

Wonder if abuse from a hurricane negates the warranty. The warranty people will definitely try to spin it.

 

The sensors (temperature, time, load, etc.) will tell all.

[A&L_Ont]

Wonder if abuse from a hurricane negates the warranty. The warranty people will definitely try to spin it.

 

Love the azipod "spin" in your comment.

 

Other ships with pods must have sailed in hurricanes and not had this issue before. If both sets of clutches are in different states of condition (especially if they are the same age) then I would think their might be a warranty issue. That being said RC would have to prove with its maintenance books that they have been following the manufacturers guidelines.

 

I doubt we will ever hear what happened, unless there is a lawsuit against the manufacturing company for the loss of revenue. I also add that this is all general thoughts that I am throwing around.