Who Really Designed the Oceanic?

So what do you think? Is it a viable claim, or simply written by a ship enthusiast with a vivid imagination?

For the record:
My main objection to the article is that the identity of OCEANIC's designers are indeed known: the legendary Nicolò Costanzi drew up the hull lines (including the famous swan neck stem and hybrid cruiser/transom stern) and Home Lines' executive vice president, Charalambos A. Keusseoglou (of Sun Line fame), was largely responsible for the general arrangement and exterior styling (together with CRDA's naval architects).

I also noted that Mr. Goossens' fuel consumption and speed data (on the bottom of the OCEANIC page) look strikingly familiar to the information I posted here on CT under the "Oceanic to leave Pullmantur" thread last week

[ 10-17-2008: Message edited by: shipsnorway ]

[ 10-17-2008: Message edited by: shipsnorway ]

On his mainpage, he is now claiming being a part in the success of saving the s.s. Rotterdam, as he started the campaign and have handed it over to the Steamship Rotterdam Foundation.

That is a bl.... lie ! !

He has handed over nothing as he had nothing to hand over !
All he did was unauthorised using photographs without giving credit to the original photographers.

He also still has his hate campaign against NCL

Additional information appears to have come to Reuben in January 2008 !

Regarding pictures, as I have mentioned before, some of my pictures which are on this website with my permission have been used by other people who did not contact me first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Whitmore ( Bob ex P&O Cruises):
[....]

Regarding pictures, as I have mentioned before, some of my pictures which are on this website with my permission have been used by other people who did not contact me first.

I do not get ulcers worrying about it or keep complaining as it means the information is going out to a bigger audience !

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Whitmore ( Bob ex P&O Cruises):
From the way that some carry on about their pictures being used it is a wonder they do not have ulcers !

---

To clarify your memories: They were not my pictures, but photos given to the Steamship Rotterdam Foundation by the original photographers under the condition to give them credit !

Those photographers held the Foundation responsible for passing them thru without permission.

I found that Goossens just took them from the Foundation's website without the attached information of the photographers.

People also did that to pictures which I had on Ruebens website but it is no good keep moaning about it.

The reason I started this thread was to discuss - or rather inquire about - the credibility of the theory put forward in the article by Mr. William Vandersteel on Mr. Goessen's website!

[ 10-20-2008: Message edited by: shipsnorway ]

Alex;

The Oceanic is a brilliant design that still works 40 years later provided one does not need a balcony cabin.

Premier did ruin the interiors, and the red hull was like Sophia Loren dressed as Marisa Tomei.

On an object as complex as a ship there is no one designer or engineer, but a team. The 'star' system here is a myth. Richard Rogers, Norman Foster, and Rem Koolhaus have armys of talent working for them. They essentially are the composer and orchestra conductor at the same time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

(...)

Had Mike and Ralph had been planned where 3 classes can turn to one, and low speed econimical operation, they would have lived longer into the 1990's possibly.

---

David, I think this is the view of an American shiplover.

Michelangelo and Raffaelo were in real liners in a line, that was deemed essential by its owners, the Italian state - it was, I think, never the intention that the Italian state would operate a real cruise company. M & R were thus designed as "liners" and not as cruise ships, it was not necessary to do so. When the line stopped, the ships would stop, as indeed happined.

Another question is, if it was wise of the Italian Line to invest in 2 big, beautiful, costly liners, when the end was near...

Also, you don't order two big liners, with the idea that in case of sale they are easy to convert to cruising by a third party. You hope they have long prosperous lives for yourself.

But I think it was no design fault, failure or oversight that they were not easy convertible to cruising.

Oceanic/Home Lines is another story, as they were an independent company, seeking money and profit. Their intention and mission was not to provide an essential service (Italy-US liner service as was the case with Italia) their intention and mission was to have a profitable exploitation of passengers, and if not on a liner service, ah well, than on a cruise service.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:
The Willem has been known to steal photos. .

---

Well, well, here he comes again

Tell me which ones !
If you can's, just shut up !

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johan:

David, I think this is the view of an American shiplover.

Another question is, if it was wise of the Italian Line to invest in 2 big, beautiful, costly liners, when the end was near...

Also, you don't order two big liners, with the idea that in case of sale they are easy to convert to cruising by a third party. You hope they have long prosperous lives for yourself.

J

---

It was a poor business decision by Italian Lines.
The exes refused to see the airplane trend.

If it were 1950, Mike and Ralph could have succeeded.

year 1960: It was unwise to have 40k ton ships that are not easily converted to cruising. Canberra [despite lack of private bath] and SS Rotterdam proved that larger dual purpose ships will make money. Home Lines saw the handwriting on the wall.

Rafaello as a cruiseship did not work well from a financial point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by desirod7:

If it were 1950, Mike and Ralph could have succeeded.

year 1960: It was unwise to have 40k ton ships that are not easily converted to cruising. Canberra [despite lack of private bath] and SS Rotterdam proved that larger dual purpose ships will make money. Home Lines saw the handwriting on the wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
The private lines in most cases saw the writing on the wall while the subsidized lines did'nt need to. Italia could continue to build not one but two large ships that were completely inappropriate for the era. Many of the largest private lines (Costa, P&O, HAL, Cunard) are still around in some form or another today while Italia, CGT, USL and other government backed lines are long gone.

---

As for the lines you mention being "long gone", the only one that is US Lines. Italia and CGT left the passenger shipping business but certainly did not disappear. Italia was privatized in 1998, sold to CP ships in 2002 and wasn't finally merged into CP Ships until 2005 (after which that company was promptly bought by Hapag-Lloyd). CGT was merged with MM to form CGM in 1977 and was privatized and sold to CMA in 1996, forming CMA CGM, which is still going strong as the third-largest container ship operator in the world.

Even US Lines survived operating container ships until 1989.

As containerization just about every major shipping company chose between cargo or passenger shipping. Costa, Cunard and HAL chose passengers; APL, CGT, CP, Italia, USL and others chose cargo. The only ones that really didn't were Hapag-Lloyd and P&O, though the eventually spun off its cruise business.

[ 10-20-2008: Message edited by: dougnewman ]

[ 10-20-2008: Message edited by: lasuvidaboy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
They are long gone the same way the original Pan Am was long gone before the name was reappeared for a short period several years ago.

---