quote:

---

After repeated attempts to resolve issues satisfactorily, Celebrity Cruises filed a $300 million lawsuit today against Rolls Royce and Alstom Power Conversion, co-producers of a ship pod- propulsion system, to recover lost revenue and costs associated with failing pods. The lawsuit was filed in state court in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The lawsuit charges that the Rolls Royce and Alstom Power Conversion pods, brand-named Mermaid, have failed repeatedly, resulting in cancelled cruises and thousands of disappointed guests. These recurring failures cost the company hundreds of million of dollars, for which the lawsuit seeks restitution.

The lawsuit further claims that Rolls Royce and Alstom Power Conversion misrepresented their product, which was "defectively designed" and "deceptively and fraudulently marketed."

Mermaid pods are installed on four Celebrity ships -- Millennium, Summit, Infinity and Constellation. All four had one or more mechanical or electrical problems with the pods, which caused the ships to be taken out of water -- and out of service -- to repair.

"Unfortunately, the Mermaid pods have not lived up to the manufacturers' promise or to Celebrity's high operating standards," said Jack Williams, president and chief operating officer of Celebrity. "This has created intolerable consequences for our guests, and imposed unacceptable conditions on our company."

There are -- and have been -- no safety issues with any of these ships. All have been given clearance to sail by the U.S. Coast Guard and the ships' classification society. Even with the problems, safety was never compromised.

"Guests and travel agents should continue to have full confidence in the Celebrity brand," Williams said. "We have modified the more troublesome components, and we are working on a permanent solution.

"In the meantime, guests should know that any cruise we have to cancel, as a result of any issue with these pods, we will back with a full refund and a free cruise."

Propulsion pods consist of an electrical motor and a propeller. They are typically favored by cruise operators because the pod's design -- a 360 degree rotating unit -- provides a number of advantages, including greater maneuverability.

---

The French government will keep Alstom afloat by participating in a €2.8bn ($3.2bn) refinancing that gives the government a 31.5% stake in the industrial giant. Alstom is the troubled parent of shipbuilder Chantiers de l’Atlantique.
But there is concern that the European Commission could sink the plan if Brussels decides the bailout constitutes illegal state aid, and some analysts warn the rescue is only a short-term solution.

Looks like Alstom is losing it's shirt on the QM2!!! And bet Princess is happy it got it's 2 ships out of that yard. It doesn't have any more orders on the books.

quote:

---

sread said:
What's the difference between an Azipod and a Mermaid?

---

Carnival to study pod claims
8/8/2003

Carnival Corp. -- whose Queen Mary 2 is fitted with four Mermaid pods -- is examining Royal Caribbean’s claim against the pod producers to see if it discloses anything new from a technical perspective, a high-level Carnival official told Seatrade Insider. ‘Much of Celebrity’s complaint is in effect historical,’ the Europe-based Carnival official said. ‘We expect to benefit from the experience which Celebrity has unfortunately had with being the first company to specify a prototype product.’
Carnival Corp. chairman and ceo Micky Arison described his company’s relationship with both Chantiers de l’Atlantique and Rolls-Royce as ‘excellent.’ He told Seatrade Insider that Carnival officials are ‘working cooperatively’ with the yard and the pod producers ‘to provide the best expert verification that the steps taken by Rolls-Royce and Alstom Power Conversion to remedy the technical issues which gave rise to the Celebrity problems have been fully rectified in the pods supplied for QM2.’

I'll bet Carnival is putting the pressure on Alstom and Rolls, not only over the pods but the also the money problems. Alstom is getting bailed out by the French Gov'mt.
"first company to specify a prototype product" They should have got "Azipods" a proven product.

[ 08-10-2003: Message edited by: cncservo ]

Every now and then, I come up with an idea which may have eluded the most astute of technical minds.

The propellors on pod-fitted ships face forward. Conventionally, they face aft. Now in the case of a ship moving forward, at say, 23 knots, if an obstruction is encountered, say a floating container or a large floating log (we are not talkiong icebergs or derelicts here), a conventionally propelled vessel would whack it with the bow, and the object would be essentially diverted along the flanks of the vessel before it encounters the propellors, if, in fact it does.

But on pod-fitted, "tractor" propellors would tend to draw in the object and strike it. or so I hypothesize. Ok, such an impact would have a signficant effect on the thrust bearings, would it not?

And could such phenomena contribute to eventual, possibly premature thrust-bearing failures?

I had similar thoughts when the Boeing "jetfoil" began service on Puget Sound, some years back. I was workiong on a contract on the USN's high-speed ships program, and remember making such observations to my colleagues.

Well, the jetfoils began hitting large submerged logs in Puget Sound, the inevitable byprodcts of a timber industry working with BIG logs, (Douglas Firs and such) to the extent that operations were eventually abandoned. Other economic factors were involved, but........

So has anyone considered the "impact factor" on f'wd-facing propulsion screws?

I stand corrected! That is what happens when you are out of the information-flow loop for more than ten years!