I have noted lately that Pacific Sun has been breaking down allot for P&O Australia, missing ports in order to maintain its scheduled return and undergo repairs.

It is obvoiusly bad for both passengers and the company as both lose out financially in this situation.

I have formed the view that odler ships that are plagued with problems should be sold, scrapped and replaced as they are more trouble than they are worth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sutho:

I have formed the view that odler ships that are plagued with problems should be sold, scrapped and replaced as they are more trouble than they are worth.

---

The most logical reasoning I've seen here in a while--but try telling that to everyone who screamed about the NORWAY, QE2, even the UNITED STATES, while conveniently forgetting about the hundreds and thousands of other liners which lived their lives and were scrapped.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:
20 years----Alang awaits!

F4

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:
20 years----Alang awaits!

F4

---

First things: Mechanical, HVAC, electric, and plumbing systems start to go.

This doomed the Canberra and was plaguing the SSNorway and LoveBoats.

Second is the boilers, SSNorway and Nieuw Amsterdam 1938 are examples. Canberra's had another 5 years before she was scrapped.

Third is the black water tanks that are placed under the machinery. Black water is very corrosive and to rebuild the tanks is a major undertaking. The Zion/Discovery had that problem and did the Island Breeze.

The last thing to go is the hull. Recall the Gripsholm, Connie, and Shalom sank on the way to the breakers.

Modern ships with modular construction and all of the plumbing and electric lines in the same columns are easier to repair. Engines are usually diesel and more easy to rebuild and repair on the ship.

The biggest problem with the old vessels is spare parts. Many of the companies who were original suppliers are out of business or do not make the components anymore and have to be custom fabricated at great expense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
Second is the boilers, SSNorway and Nieuw Amsterdam 1938 are examples. Canberra's had another 5 years before she was scrapped.

---

The Nieuw Amsterdam received in 1967 new boilers from a obsolete US Navy vessel who saw Little employment and was scrapped. The Nieuw Amsterdam was nearly 30 years old. HAL was faced with a problem when here original boilers started to give problems. The ship was still a financial sound and immense popular not only with here passenger and crew but also with company directors. It lasted the Nieuw Amsterdam 6 years extra.

Compared with the Rotterdam who at here end of here HAL career was actually still very successful and was still mechanical sound running with ease 26 knots when necessary. But the new rules here age and higher cost and Arrison obsession with balcony's ended here HAL days. Sadly Premier was not a good owner ruin here boilers. At the end she could do hardly 19 knots.

From what I have seen here, elsewhere on the net most people got over the loss of an old ship and were keen to try the new ones. Didnt Queen Victoria sell out its maiden quicker than QE2 sold out its final voyage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sutho:
[...]
Take any ship that keeps breaking down and cant maintain its schedule, keeps costing the cruise line money in repairs, compensation to passengers, and keeps dissapointing passengers, ending up turning away potential passengers... hypothetically if a ship like that is old, out dated, should it be sold and scrapped or kept in service until it dies.

---

quote:

---

I am just wondering what people think here.[/QB]

---

It's a simple equation - a ship can be kept operating indefinitely. However when the cost of maintenance is as big (or bigger) than the profits being generated, it's withdrawn.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

Mind you, it might still make sense for a cruise line to operate a ship even when it suffers from problems like you described. It's not only that such ship still might make money - a new ship is expensive....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

Ernst, the ship your describe is called 'Thomson Dream'!

---

Hmmm not so new 25 years. I get the feeling that here problems have to do by not willing to invest or to do things the cheapest way possible.

On the other side here fleet mates Celebrity and Spirit are going strong and are now and they are 27 and 26 years old.

Ships 1 to 20 years old: operated by the original owner

Over 20 years old: shifted to second-tier operator within the same corporation (e.g. Pullmantur, Iberocruceros, etc.) or sold externally (e.g. Louis/Thomson)

Over 30 years old: sold outside the corporation, or sold further on to a 3rd or 4th owner.

Over 35 years old: scrapping or a final refurbishment, which could take the ship up to 40-
45 years in case of some former ocean liners. It remains to be seen if the same will happen with the current breed of cruise ships.

Any thought on this?

[ 02-28-2011: Message edited by: rd77 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rd77:
[....]
Over 20 years old: shifted to second-tier operator within the same corporation (e.g. Pullmantur, Iberocruceros, etc.) or sold externally (e.g. Louis/Thomson)

---

This is indeed happening BUT there is another 'driving force' behind this: The lack of balconies of some otherwise 'fine' vessels. I could imagine that ships with balconies could stay with the brand where they started for a longer time since they can more easily be updated in a way that keeps them 'in line' with the rest of the fleet than ship that never had any balcony cabins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rd77:
[QB][...]
Over 35 years old: scrapping or a final refurbishment, which could take the ship up to 40-
45 years in case of some former ocean liners. It remains to be seen if the same will happen with the current breed of cruise ships.
/QB]

---

Older vessels may break down more often, but if there is no outstanding debt on the vessel and repairs cost less than finance on a newer vessel, profits are made and ships sail. All Leisure and their fleet are a good example here. No outstanding debts on their 3 ships. Discovery may well have problems from time to time, and parts do need to be specially made which can take many months, but she makes a profit.

A newer larger vessel with finance required for purchase may not be profitable even if less maintenance is required. Also interesting is that the current vessels qualify for the UK tonnage tax regime, benefiting in lower tax bills on profits, something which may not apply to any newer vessel. There are many reasons why older ships are kept sailing, not just mere passenger likes or throw out at a certain age.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:
I will never sail on a ship more than 15 years old. Inovation on the newer ships just can't be beat IMHO.You either like the old stuff or you don't. After 20 years--- well you decide. Frosty 4

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

Actually, there were quite a lot of rather substantial conversion of 'current breed' passenger ships - ranging from stretching ships like Balmoral or Enchantment of the Seas to new engines for the Royal Viking trio (and yes, some aspects do make the now rather old Royal Viking trio 'current breed').

---

Thanks Ernst, I had forgotten one thing in my comment: the prohibitive cost of newbuilds. There are a lot of lines, of good standing, with older ships that make good money, but not good enough to warrant the ordering of newbuilds (such as: Fred Olsen, Saga, Phoenix). As they can't afford newbuilds, they eventually resort to spending a lot of money on older ships indeed.