Superfast steamship unlikely to shove off again
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Gary A . Warner
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

PHILADELPHIA — I saw a ghost while trying to beat rushhour traffic.

Bypassing the interstate for a road along the banks of the Delaware River, I spotted the USS Olympia, the Spanish-American War battleship that served as Admiral Dewey’s flagship in the Battle of Manila Bay. It’s a museum.

Across the river, I could see the battleship USS New Jersey at anchor. It served from World War II to the run-up to the Persian Gulf War. It is a museum now, too.

But white letters spelling "United States" on a raked prow caught my eye. Thick chains tied down a maritime thoroughbred grown rusted and dirty, left to rot at a pier. The sealant meant to ward off the elements gave the ship a muted, blurry look.

Like a ghost.

The SS United States was once the fastest big ship in the world. It was the last true ocean liner to win the coveted Blue Riband, awarded to the ship that makes the fastest crossing of the North Atlantic. When it steamed from Southampton, England, to New York in three days, 12 hours and 12 minutes in July 1952, the ship knocked almost nine hours off the previous record, set by the Queen Mary in 1938.

Officially, the top speed of the SS United States was 35 knots. But the Pentagon had secretly helped design the ship, which would have been used as a troop transport in case of a Soviet invasion of western Europe. The top speed was actually closer to a remarkable 44 knots.

But the ship’s heyday was brief — less than a decade. By 1958, jets were revolutionizing transatlantic travel. The SS United States saw its clientele slowly slip away. Removed from service in 1969, it was sold and moved repeatedly until arriving in Philadelphia in 1996. Some civic boosters ridiculed the once storied ship as an eyesore.

The ship’s fan clubs lobbied for the vessel to be turned into a floating museum and hotel. But even the most starry-eyed romantic never dreamed the ship might sail once again.

Then Norwegian Cruise Lines struck a deal in April 2003 to return the SS United States to service, most likely as a cruise ship in Hawaii. Because the United States was Americanbuilt, it was one of the few ships that could meet a law requiring ships carrying passengers between U.S. ports either be American-built or -registered. Norwegian previously had to make a two-day detour to Fanning Island to get around the law.

The resurrection of the old steamship wasn’t a pipe dream. Almost all modern cruise ships run on diesel fuel. But Norwegian had experience restoring a venerable steamer.

The company had saved the SS France in 1974, renamed the steamship SS Norway, then sank an additional $120 million into refurbishing the ocean liner to operate as a Caribbean cruise ship.

Things got so giddy that SS United States fans stopped worrying about the wrecker’s torch and shifted their debate to how to keep Norwegian from altering the ocean liner’s classic low silhouette by adding decks, as it had with the SS Norway.

A month later it all blew up — literally. The Norway’s aging boilers exploded off Miami, killing four crew members. The ship now sits idle.

Officially, the SS United States project is still afloat. Susan Robison, a spokeswoman for Norwegian Cruise Lines, said a feasibility study continues.

But many doubt the SS United States will ever see the seas again.

John Maxtone-Graham, an expert on ocean liners, believes all the good wishes will likely come to naught.

It must be one of the longest feasibility studies ever. It started in mid 2003!

Anyway why do they need a feasibility study? NCL originally said they WOULD return her to service -period.

14th April 2003

"When we discovered this American icon was in jeopardy, we saw a unique opportunity and acted immediately. "The S/S United States would be a phenomenal addition to our US flag operation down the road. We remain focused on completing Project America and successfully introducing our innovative US flag cruise ships in Hawaii, but we will now organize a project team to work with US yards, naval engineers and architects to develop plans for what should be the fourth vessel in our US flagged fleet."

[ 04-02-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim in 'Lauderdale:
What's all the fuss about?

---

Yes the article says nothing new, but it does remind us of the unpleasant facts.

A lot of ship nuts feel rather bitter that NCL clearly said they would return her to service and now they don't have the guts to say they were wrong and its not economically possible to do so.

[ 04-02-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

A lot of ship nuts feel rather bitter that NCL clearly said they would return her to service and now they don't have the guts to say they were wrong and its not economically possible to do so.

[ 04-02-2006: Message edited by: Malcolm @ cruisepage ]

---

Malcolm,

in all due respect, "nuts" is a key word here. As stated repeatedly by NCL and others in the past, their focus is squarely on the NCLA newbuild program and once that is complete AND they see profits, THEN they will examine moving forward with the SS US.

Given the fact that most feasibility studies for a newbuild can take the better part of two to three years, a three or four year feasibility study on a conversion of the US, probably the MOST complex conversion the industry has ever seen, is not out of line.

The heart of the matter is that NO other owner of the US has even had a glimmer of hope for the ship. NCL is the only owner the ship has ever had that actually has the money and resources to do it if it's deemed to be practical.

That said, the siren song of the ship nuts seems to be "What are you doing?, you can't do that, how dare you do that?". They love to chastise ship owners over the Norway, SS US, Rotterdam V, et al, ad nauseum and nary one has ever put up a dollar to save these ships. All they do is cry and start pedantic postcard and email campaigns to badger the CEO's. Most of the people who cried foul on NCL and/or continue to do so today, never spent a dime to cruise on her.

But then again, it is all for naught as even if NCL returns her to service, all the ship nuts wll cry foul that they didn't simply re-install her interiors and sail her the same as she came out of the yard in '52.

The funny thing is, other than a few members here, most "ship nuts" I know of have never and will never take a cruise.

Please pardon my rant.....

However, I personally loved the Norway. I was very grateful that NCL saved her and was never critical of her conversion.

Assuming NCL used a bit of taste converting the SS United States, I would not be critical of her either. Although I would hope that her profile was not change too dramatically – at least no more than the SS France’s was. I accept her interiors would be modern.

I’m not sure about ship not s not taking cruises. Most of the ships nuts I know belong to the SSHSA or OLS and a multiple cruisers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim in 'Lauderdale:

NCL is the only owner the ship has ever had that actually has the money and resources to do it if it's deemed to be practical.

--Tim

---

Key word there "if."
Like NCL will ever "deem it practical."

I have to agree with Patsy. NCL is not going to spend millions on a small ship whose only feature is her historical signifigance. Apart from the few ship enthusiasts no one is going to care and choose her for it. NCL would not make enough profit. They will instead spend thier money on new ships that can have all the bells and whistles that modern cruisers are looking for.

The SS United States has an American built hull which gets her around the Jones Act. If not she would have been razor blades long ago.

If there was no Jones Act NCL would have put the NCL Dream or other mediocre ship on a route like that.

She is not a cookie cutter cruise ship or liner. Everything about her is custom and unique. Most of her original creators are dead. She is a nautical vintage Corvette which you just can bring to Pep Boys for a tune up.

All of the shipyards who have bid on her cringe at the idea of building around the camber, shear, and tumblehome. The # of shipwrights that can work on her is dwindling fast.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.S.S.Normandie:

NCL is not going to spend millions on a small ship whose only feature is her historical signifigance. Apart from the few ship enthusiasts no one is going to care and choose her for it. NCL would not make enough profit. They will instead spend thier money on new ships that can have all the bells and whistles that modern cruisers are looking for.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by J.S.S.Normandie:

They will instead spend thier money on new ships that can have all the bells and whistles that modern cruisers are looking for.

---

And graffiti hulls.

Sorry, Ernst. But if NCL didn't do half the bad things they do, there wouldn't be half as much bad sentiment against them. What would they want a delapitated old ship for when they have their brand spanking new Pride of America and clones to fly the Stars & Stripes? If Norway doesn't fit in with their image, what chance does the United States? As Malcolm said in an earlier post, this 'feasibility study' has gone on 3 years. They must know by now what they'll do with her. Just once we'd like them to be honest. "Yes/No Norway will be/not be scrapped." (delete as applicable) "Yes/No the United States will/will not be part of our fleet" (delete as applicable). But it seems honesty is an alien concept to them. And all the while they do this 'study', she just sits there rotting even more until there will be defintely no chance to slavage her as a going concern. It seems the only thing they know how to do is spend money when they plan to do nothing like Norway's berthing fees at Bremerhaven. Looks like they're doing the same thing with the United States as she just sits there slowly disintegrating.

[ 04-02-2006: Message edited by: Patsy ]

[ 04-03-2006: Message edited by: Ernst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patsy:
But if NCL didn't do half the bad things they do, there wouldn't be half as much bad sentiment against them. ... As Malcolm said in an earlier post, this 'feasibility study' has gone on 3 years.

---

And just what do you think a feasibility study completed two years ago would be worth now? Do you think it would now be worth the paper it was written on? Can't you see that things have changed in the last two years, and that even if something had been completed then it would have to be revisited now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gpcruisedude:
If NCL is SERIOUS about returning the United States to service then why dont they keep us up to date on whats happening with her and let us all share in the bringing her back to service thing!

---

Ernst asked why they were keeping these ships laid up. I think they don't want to scrap her and cause bad publicity before establishing themselves in the US. And the Independence isn't being scrapped because they think that people might start to think they will do the same with the United States.

This study has gone on far too long. By now they have to have the answers. Besides, to announce that they will return US to service woud be good publicity. So, why haven't they if they intend to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Globaliser:
So tell us, just what "bad things" have NCL done? Would you rather that they had abandoned all these ships or left them alone to be scrapped years earlier than they now will be?

And just what do you think a feasibility study completed two years ago would be worth now? Do you think it would now be worth the paper it was written on? Can't you see that things have changed in the last two years, and that even if something had been completed then it would have to be revisited now?

The phrase "I want" does not a business case make.

---

Blimey Globaliser. Do I have to list everything ever moaned about them on here? There were a lot of members complaining about them regarding this, that and the other long before I even joined. Before I stared even reading this board they were just a cruise company to me. But I've had my eyes well and truly opened. I'm not a brand fan like some here. I'm a ship fan no matter who owns them. And if Cunard, RCI or whoever behaved they way NCL have over Norway/US/Indy I'd be just as angry with them. They faff about wasting money when it's clear they won't do anything because they don't want to. So why waste the money? in the first place? As for the study, they would have known long ago whether she was able to be refurbished or not (same with Indy). But they drag their heels and say and do nothing. Yes things have changed in the last 2 years. But then they could have done something 2 years ago, couldn't they? She could be up and running by now if that was really their intention. 10 years from now she'll most likely still be sitting there (as will Indy) while they do more 'studies' rather than just say, "Here's a squillion bucks - get her back to her glory days".

So I can imagine that they are in the process of evaluating that. This might not be their top priority project and not all their resources go into that, but still - also, it could actually be that they wait for some things before deciding.