Hull Cleaning again

[Aus Traveller]

41 minutes ago, MMDown Under said:

Reminds me to always book airfares through cruise line because they look after passengers who book air through them.  Otherwise you are on your own.  Can you imagine in these times of high air fares. 

I was booked on the 2020 world cruise from London onwards. I booked my airfare (Aust to UK) through Princess not direct with QANTAS. When the cruise was cancelled, Princess immediately refunded my airfare. I understand that people who booked with the airline were given a future credit. I also booked a 5-night hotel stay in London (not cheap) through QANTAS Hotels because I earned points. When I tried to cancel with the hotel, they refused, but QANTAS Hotels refunded. I had a win-win, but I have to admit it wasn't because I was thinking of how I would get a refund. It just worked out in my favour, for once.

[MMDown Under]

5 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I was booked on the 2020 world cruise from London onwards. I booked my airfare (Aust to UK) through Princess not direct with QANTAS. When the cruise was cancelled, Princess immediately refunded my airfare. I understand that people who booked with the airline were given a future credit. I also booked a 5-night hotel stay in London (not cheap) through QANTAS Hotels because I earned points. When I tried to cancel with the hotel, they refused, but QANTAS Hotels refunded. I had a win-win, but I have to admit it wasn't because I was thinking of how I would get a refund. It just worked out in my favour, for once.

Well done.  Took my friend years to get her money back from business class fares from Air Canada as credits were useless for senior cruisers unlikely to fly to Canada again.  Yes I learnt through experience of world cruise travellers who were stranded all around the world when ships stopped cruising. 

[Jean C]

I was wondering if warmer sea temperatures might be causing what seems to be an exceptional explosion of marine life attaching to the hulls of ships, or if it is simply neglected routine maintenance. It'll be interesting to know the cause, if the truth ever comes out 🤔

[Blackduck59]

4 hours ago, Hammer61 said:

Did hear that Viking will be giving back 50% or more of the fare people have paid due to this stuff up, not sure if thats Cruise Credit or direct credit back to bank accounts/cards.

 

Expect someone at Viking (And Azamara) is in trouble as well, surely, they would have been notified of this requirement by NZ Authorities?

 

Even with a 50% refund that would be the cost of a full cruise on another line. This is just ridiculous. For us the whole Milford sound part of the voyage is a major highlight. To miss that because the cruise line failed to do required maintenance would be a major disappointment. I'm just glad my one and done with Viking was a relatively inexpensive lesson. Ironically that was also on Orion.

Clearly the people of New Zealand have strict expectation for cruise lines so that their ecological treasures are protected for generations to come. Perhaps plans should be made to have the hulls cleaned at one of the yards in Asia as ships reposition to the down under season. I'm sure that would be expensive but would that be more expensive than thousands of pi**ed off passengers? Perhaps upset enough that they never cruise with you again.

[Aus Traveller]

22 minutes ago, Jean C said:

I was wondering if warmer sea temperatures might be causing what seems to be an exceptional explosion of marine life attaching to the hulls of ships, or if it is simply neglected routine maintenance. It'll be interesting to know the cause, if the truth ever comes out 🤔

Could it be that the ships that need their hull cleaning, weren't properly maintained during the COVID lockdown.

[Pushka]

43 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Could it be that the ships that need their hull cleaning, weren't properly maintained during the COVID lockdown.

Apparently the ship was cleaned by divers in Bali just recently. Marine algae grows very quickly but would have thought the anti fouling was up to the task. 

[Aus Traveller]

1 minute ago, Pushka said:

Apparently the ship was cleaned by divers in Bali just recently. Marine algae grows very quickly but would have thought the anti fouling was up to the task. 

That is what I was thinking. If the hulls were cleaned by divers they would not have been painted with anti-fouling treatment. Expensive lesson for the cruise lines involved.

[Aussieflyer]

4 hours ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

Even with a 50% refund that would be the cost of a full cruise on another line. This is just ridiculous. For us the whole Milford sound part of the voyage is a major highlight. To miss that because the cruise line failed to do required maintenance would be a major disappointment. I'm just glad my one and done with Viking was a relatively inexpensive lesson. Ironically that was also on Orion.

Clearly the people of New Zealand have strict expectation for cruise lines so that their ecological treasures are protected for generations to come. Perhaps plans should be made to have the hulls cleaned at one of the yards in Asia as ships reposition to the down under season. I'm sure that would be expensive but would that be more expensive than thousands of pi**ed off passengers? Perhaps upset enough that they never cruise with you again.

Yes, it would be very disappointing but quite a few ships miss the sounds due to poor weather (and with no compensation as not a port that is missed). Silversea missed all three sounds when we were on three years ago because of the high winds. The sounds are not something that can be counted on.

[MicCanberra]

7 hours ago, buchhalm said:

I am just imagining a few divers with scrubbing brushes from Bunnings attached to the ship by a rope.....

 

That must cost a fortune.

And it's not that these guys can stay under water for hours on time...

They have tanks of oxygen to help.

[Stickman1990]

You can add Seven Seas Explorer to the list of those impacted - she’s been turned around today en route to Fiordland and has to return to Australia for a clean - apparently near Adelaide 

 

Theres a lot of discussion on that “other site” and an emerging thread on the Regent forum 

 

[MicCanberra]

Bummer.

[Blackduck59]

1 hour ago, Aussieflyer said:

Yes, it would be very disappointing but quite a few ships miss the sounds due to poor weather (and with no compensation as not a port that is missed). Silversea missed all three sounds when we were on three years ago because of the high winds. The sounds are not something that can be counted on.

 

Weather is something the cruise line has no control over and having what for many is a highlight of a cruise altered by weather is understandable. Having that highlight missed because the cruise line failed to prepare is something else altogether.

Edited January 2, 2023 by Blackduck59

[Aussieflyer]

50 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

Weather is something the cruise line has no control over and having what for many is a highlight of a cruise altered by weather is understandable. Having that highlight missed because the cruise line failed to prepare is something else altogether.

Yes whilst I agree with you and that it would be doubly annoying if it was because of inaction by a cruise line, I was simply noting that to rely on the sounds as a highlight for a NZ cruise is likely to be problematic. Personally whilst the sounds are lovely, I wouldn't rank them the highlight of any NZ cruise.  So much depends on the weather and the rainfall received - the waterfalls can be not so impressive if it has been dry.  

[European_CruiseGirl]

1 hour ago, Aussieflyer said:

Yes whilst I agree with you and that it would be doubly annoying if it was because of inaction by a cruise line, I was simply noting that to rely on the sounds as a highlight for a NZ cruise is likely to be problematic. Personally whilst the sounds are lovely, I wouldn't rank them the highlight of any NZ cruise.  So much depends on the weather and the rainfall received - the waterfalls can be not so impressive if it has been dry.  

I guess one of the problems with the Fjords part is that the voyage was marketed with the name of ”Lord of the Fjords”. So it sounds like a very big deal. And perhaps was for many. But well now the pax on that cruise lost everything after Melbourne, it was the only port they could go. So cancelled port stops for the RSSC Explorer are: Geelong, Burnie, Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, Napier, Tauranga, Bay of Islands 😔

Edited January 2, 2023 by European_CruiseGirl

[arxcards]

10 hours ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

Even with a 50% refund that would be the cost of a full cruise on another line. This is just ridiculous. For us the whole Milford sound part of the voyage is a major highlight. To miss that because the cruise line failed to do required maintenance would be a major disappointment. I'm just glad my one and done with Viking was a relatively inexpensive lesson. Ironically that was also on Orion.

Clearly the people of New Zealand have strict expectation for cruise lines so that their ecological treasures are protected for generations to come. Perhaps plans should be made to have the hulls cleaned at one of the yards in Asia as ships reposition to the down under season. I'm sure that would be expensive but would that be more expensive than thousands of pi**ed off passengers? Perhaps upset enough that they never cruise with you again.

Milford Sound was never on Orion's itinerary, and also not part of their next 4 AU/NZ cruises. I find that even stranger than this whole butt scraping saga.

They missed Napier, Christchurch, Dunedin & Hobart, and only have a short service call in Melbourne, so call that a miss as well.

 

I guess if you are cruising for the ports, a partial refund is not going to make up for any of the disappointment. For those that just want to enjoy the ship no matter where it goes, they could be well satisfied.

[chengkp75]

15 hours ago, Aus Traveller said:

That is what I was thinking. If the hulls were cleaned by divers they would not have been painted with anti-fouling treatment. Expensive lesson for the cruise lines involved.

No.  All ships paint their hulls below the waterline with anti-fouling paint.  There is no "one type fits all" anti-fouling paint, however.  I spent a few years on a tanker that was painted with an anti-fouling paint that assumed the ship would be moving most of the time, so that when the anti-fouling agent in the outer paint layer was depleted, the motion of the water as the ship moved, would abrade the outer layer (microns thick) off, exposing fresh anti-fouling agent.  Unfortunately, the ship then spent 2 years anchored 350 days a year, and despite the anti-fouling paint, when we went to dry dock, and three hull cleanings by divers, they removed 8 cubic meters of barnacles from the hull, it was over 3" thick over 80% of the hull.  Had we been painted with an anti-fouling paint designed for offshore oil rigs, or the like, that don't move, we would have avoided the massive growth.

 

As for dive time, the divers can stay working nearly 8 hours a day, with short breaks, and rotating divers.

[MMDown Under]

56 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

No.  All ships paint their hulls below the waterline with anti-fouling paint.  There is no "one type fits all" anti-fouling paint, however.  I spent a few years on a tanker that was painted with an anti-fouling paint that assumed the ship would be moving most of the time, so that when the anti-fouling agent in the outer paint layer was depleted, the motion of the water as the ship moved, would abrade the outer layer (microns thick) off, exposing fresh anti-fouling agent.  Unfortunately, the ship then spent 2 years anchored 350 days a year, and despite the anti-fouling paint, when we went to dry dock, and three hull cleanings by divers, they removed 8 cubic meters of barnacles from the hull, it was over 3" thick over 80% of the hull.  Had we been painted with an anti-fouling paint designed for offshore oil rigs, or the like, that don't move, we would have avoided the massive growth.

 

As for dive time, the divers can stay working nearly 8 hours a day, with short breaks, and rotating divers.

Thank you for explaining the effectiveness of anti fouling paint. Interesting information!

[Aus Traveller]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

No.  All ships paint their hulls below the waterline with anti-fouling paint.  There is no "one type fits all" anti-fouling paint, however.  I spent a few years on a tanker that was painted with an anti-fouling paint that assumed the ship would be moving most of the time, so that when the anti-fouling agent in the outer paint layer was depleted, the motion of the water as the ship moved, would abrade the outer layer (microns thick) off, exposing fresh anti-fouling agent.  Unfortunately, the ship then spent 2 years anchored 350 days a year, and despite the anti-fouling paint, when we went to dry dock, and three hull cleanings by divers, they removed 8 cubic meters of barnacles from the hull, it was over 3" thick over 80% of the hull.  Had we been painted with an anti-fouling paint designed for offshore oil rigs, or the like, that don't move, we would have avoided the massive growth.

 

As for dive time, the divers can stay working nearly 8 hours a day, with short breaks, and rotating divers.

Thanks for the info, but you appear to have misunderstood my post, or I didn't word it well.🙂 I meant that the fact that these ships have now had to have their hulls cleaned by divers, indicates that anti-fouling paint hadn't been applied recently. Presumably the ships that went into drydock fairly recently would have had their hulls painted then and wouldn't need to have them cleaned now by divers.

[SilvertoGold]

chengkp75: such good info. Thanks.  How long do the different types of anti-fouling paint last?  Do cruise lines always redo this paint in drydocks?

Edited January 2, 2023 by SilvertoGold

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Thanks for the info, but you appear to have misunderstood my post, or I didn't word it well.🙂 I meant that the fact that these ships have now had to have their hulls cleaned by divers, indicates that anti-fouling paint hadn't been applied recently. Presumably the ships that went into drydock fairly recently would have had their hulls painted then and wouldn't need to have them cleaned now by divers.

In many cases, anti-fouling paint that is 5 years old (the statutory maximum time between dry docks), is still effective, and the ships don't need much cleaning in the dock.  Many locations around the world could care less about marine growth on a ship, and actually would prefer not to have the ship cleaned while in their waters.  Some areas are becoming more stringent about not introducing marine growth into their waters, and therefore growth that would be considered "normal" (light barnacle growth, and weed along the waterline) is now not allowed.  No anti-fouling paint is infallible, and even newly painted ships can exhibit growth in a very short time if the conditions are just right (or wrong).

 

1 minute ago, SilvertoGold said:

chengkp75: such good info. Thanks.  How long do the different types of anti-fouling paint last?  Do cruise lines always redo this paint in drydocks?

As noted above, it lasts well over 5 years, but is always renewed every dry docking (5 years for newer ships, 2.5 years for ships over 15 years old).   Due to environmental concerns, as well as hoping for fuel conservation, some cruise ships are going to bottom paints that do not contain any anti-fouling agent (after all, the anti-fouling agents are poisonous), but that have an extremely hard and slick surface of teflon.  The slick surface helps to keep growth from sticking to the hull in the first place, and the hardness makes it difficult for growth to attach.

[Aus Traveller]

chengkp - Thanks for your detailed explanation. It is very interesting.

[SilvertoGold]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

In many cases, anti-fouling paint that is 5 years old (the statutory maximum time between dry docks), is still effective, and the ships don't need much cleaning in the dock.  Many locations around the world could care less about marine growth on a ship, and actually would prefer not to have the ship cleaned while in their waters.  Some areas are becoming more stringent about not introducing marine growth into their waters, and therefore growth that would be considered "normal" (light barnacle growth, and weed along the waterline) is now not allowed.  No anti-fouling paint is infallible, and even newly painted ships can exhibit growth in a very short time if the conditions are just right (or wrong).

 

As noted above, it lasts well over 5 years, but is always renewed every dry docking (5 years for newer ships, 2.5 years for ships over 15 years old).   Due to environmental concerns, as well as hoping for fuel conservation, some cruise ships are going to bottom paints that do not contain any anti-fouling agent (after all, the anti-fouling agents are poisonous), but that have an extremely hard and slick surface of teflon.  The slick surface helps to keep growth from sticking to the hull in the first place, and the hardness makes it difficult for growth to attach.

Phenomenal info which is very interesting and educational to read about. Very much appreciated

[Pushka]

We have a small boat.  We decided not to apply the anti fouling paint as being a domestic boat, the application would need redoing on an annual basis to avoid growth. We ended up using a floating dry dock as the anti fouling used isn't exactly attractive and it was a new boat. We take it on trailers etc. Other boats didn't bother with either. Within a week we could see algal growth on the underneath of the floating pontoon. And then came the barnacles. Neither impacted on the float dock for the boat.  The only good thing is that the fish love it and they have become a great source of food for the resident infant dolphin that resides in the marina below our apartment who lost its mum three months ago.   
 

Being moored in the water is like a magnet for fouling as per the floating pontoon. Active boats don't have the same problem. We had a kayak in the water for a month and ended up dragging it onto the dock as the deposits already made were like trying to remove cement. 
 

Viking Mars is about to approach New Zealand today. She is a new ship less than a year old. Never laid up for Covid. Hopefully ok. 
 

Orion was cleaned in international waters but just a short distance from Victor Harbor. Now the Regent is having the same thing done there. Guess they have experience now. 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Pushka

[NSWP]

11 hours ago, arxcards said:

Milford Sound was never on Orion's itinerary, and also not part of their next 4 AU/NZ cruises. I find that even stranger than this whole butt scraping saga.

They missed Napier, Christchurch, Dunedin & Hobart, and only have a short service call in Melbourne, so call that a miss as well.

 

I guess if you are cruising for the ports, a partial refund is not going to make up for any of the disappointment. For those that just want to enjoy the ship no matter where it goes, they could be well satisfied.

The NZ Tour Operators have missed out big time by these ships missing NZ.

[MMDown Under]

26 minutes ago, NSWP said:

The NZ Tour Operators have missed out big time by these ships missing NZ.

I feel sorry for the passengers.  What a disappointment for destination cruisers.