Go Back   Cruise Reviews Forums > General Cruise Chat Questions > Classic Ships Chat
Register Forgot Password?
New! Use your Facebook, Google, AIM & Yahoo accounts to securely log into this site, click logo to login  
Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111 (permalink)  
Old 05-10-2007, 04:50 PM
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 382
Default
If NCL couldn't repair the SS Norway, who in the world will believe that they will fix up the SS United States for $500 Million? Yeah right. I'll be very shock if they actually keep their word.

Personally, the Big U is better off as a floating hotel in NYC.
__________________
Dan Lague
Reply With Quote
  #112 (permalink)  
Old 05-10-2007, 06:38 PM
Ron Clark's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 912
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by Redlinekid2:
If NCL couldn't repair the SS Norway, who in the world will believe that they will fix up the SS United States for $500 Million? Yeah right. I'll be very shock if they actually keep their word.

Personally, the Big U is better off as a floating hotel in NYC.
Let's just leave it that NCL could not find financing to repair the SS Norway. By the way, many potential buyers are also having a hard time finding financing to buy and repair the SS Norway. If financing was not a problem, why haven't they bought the SS Norway yet?

NCL bought the SSUS for a song. Whether they can find financing to refubish her is still a question they haven't answered.

Not many cruise lines have $500 million to $ 1 billion in cash lying around.

How much cash does NCL have in it's bank accounts?
On January 1, 2007 > $63,530,000
On Janaury 1, 2006 > $60,416,000

It would be difficult to repair the SS Norway with cash resources alone. NCL finances new ship construction, and would have to finance SS France repairs, with repair costs so high.

NCL has refinanced ships to raise cash in the past, with second, third, and fourth mortages. But it's the banks that provide the cash.
If no banks will supply another mortage on the SS France, where do you think NCL should do?
Rob a bank?
Reply With Quote
  #113 (permalink)  
Old 05-10-2007, 07:21 PM
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 382
Default
All I'll say is action speaks louder than words, with regards to NCL. I'll believe that the SS United States will sail again when I see it. Until then, I'll stand by my original statement: If NCL couldn't fix up the SS Norway, why would they go through the trouble of renovating the SS United States?

They didn't have to build all of those new ships that they're planning right away. Thus, if they really wanted the Big U to sail again, then they should have renovated the SS Independence and the SS Norway first. But they didn't. Which tells me that they have no intention for returning the Big U to active service.

It has been well over four years since NCL anounced that they acquired the SS United States. It doesn't take that long to do a feasibility study to refit the ship. Just another smoke screen in my opinion.
__________________
Dan Lague
Reply With Quote
  #114 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2007, 09:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 911
Default
You really cannot compare the state of Norway and SSUS, as the situations are totally different. SSUS is a ship whose engines, although old, have had very little use over their lifespan; the NORWAY engines are old and worn out for all practical purposes. The SSUS has already been "gutted" and could easily be retrofitted with the newest of amenities..the NORWAY would have to be fully gutted to do the same. I cannot see any bank financing anything on NORWAY without the removal of the toxics used in her building. If both ships were to be fully refurbished, the SSUS is way ahead of Norway in terms of what must be done. Without a full top to bottom refurbishing, Norway could never be a premium cruise ship again and at best would be similar to Imperial Majesty's operation, and it costs too much to operate for that. The way SSUS was built, its lifespan could feasibly be an eternity with proper maintenance and the potential of success is much greater than that of Norway.
__________________
NEXT: CCL Elation 10-15-11

03-11 CCL Triumph
10-10 CCL Triumph
01-10 CCL Triumph
10-08 CCL Fantasy
03-08 CCL Fantasy
10-07 CCL Holiday
03-07 CCL Holiday
11-06 CCL Triumph
03-06 Caribbean Princess
01-04 CCL Victory
09-03 CCL Destiny
05-03 CCL Imagination
11-02 CCL Imagination
01-02 RCCL Rhapsody of Seas
02-01 RCCL Sovereign of Seas
02-00 RCCL Empress of Seas
01-99 RCCL Sovereign of Seas
01-98 RCCL Majesty of Seas
Reply With Quote
  #115 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2007, 01:04 PM
Ron Clark's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 912
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by tncruiseman:
You really cannot compare the state of Norway and SSUS, as the situations are totally different. SSUS is a ship whose engines, although old, have had very little use over their lifespan; the NORWAY engines are old and worn out for all practical purposes. The SSUS has already been "gutted" and could easily be retrofitted with the newest of amenities..the NORWAY would have to be fully gutted to do the same. I cannot see any bank financing anything on NORWAY without the removal of the toxics used in her building. If both ships were to be fully refurbished, the SSUS is way ahead of Norway in terms of what must be done. Without a full top to bottom refurbishing, Norway could never be a premium cruise ship again and at best would be similar to Imperial Majesty's operation, and it costs too much to operate for that. The way SSUS was built, its lifespan could feasibly be an eternity with proper maintenance and the potential of success is much greater than that of Norway.
I agree. Most forget the SSUS was built to US Navy standards. It has two inch steel hull plates. The SS France was built to commercial standards. Standard thickness for the hull on most any commercial ship is 1 inch.
It's possible the SS France was also built with thicker steel plates. I just don't know.
But we do know that the SSUS hull is in great shape.
"Survey by ultrasound is used to check the thickness of plates. Up to 25% erosion is allowed before repair is necessary. When extensively surveyed after 28 years of service, only a few small areas of the hull showed any erosion and it was less than 12%."

Sources:
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question...7040711AAo7m19
and
http://www.ss-united-states.com/br1.html
Reply With Quote
  #116 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-2007, 03:49 AM
CGT's Avatar
CGT CGT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 216
Default
Personally I wouldn't beleive a word from Star Cruises/NCL. In fact I would be more concerned.

The good news is that the US is not owned by Star/NCL, she is still owned by the Cantor Estate. All NCL have is a promissary note, so theres no chance of the vessel being sent to Alang.

I really hope that the 'Big U' is not refurbished by NCL. I can imagine the 'damage' they will cause the vessel, half her engines will have to go in the name of 'fuel economy', her superstructure will be deformed, as was the Norway.

She'll probably have Miami Art Deco revivial interiors that will look cheap and nasty.

I think that the best for the ship is for use in a stationary role. I would prefer a big hotel chain to get her, restore her exterior and convert the rest of her in to a 5 star hotel with all the mod cons. The interior of the ship has gone, so this would not affect the integrity of the vessel. I can imagine her in New York fulfilling this role.

Shes an old girl, and with NCL's record I wouldn't trust them one bit.
__________________
Pjswansea

" Le paquebot France est lancé. Il va épouser la mer. (...) Sa mission sera de transporter d'un bord à l'autre de l'Atlantique des hommes, c'est-à-dire des pensées et des activités, des foyers de connaissance et des sources de travail, de l'art et de la richesse."

Général De Gaulle, le 11 mai 1960

Reply With Quote
  #117 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-2007, 06:47 AM
LisaP's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,540
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by CGT:
I think that the best for the ship is for use in a stationary role. I would prefer a big hotel chain to get her, restore her exterior and convert the rest of her in to a 5 star hotel with all the mod cons. The interior of the ship has gone, so this would not affect the integrity of the vessel. I can imagine her in New York fulfilling this role.
CGT, I suggested something similar back on page 2. Now -- how might we work together to make this happen?
__________________
Happy cruising!
LisaP
Reply With Quote
  #118 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-2007, 08:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Posts: 911
Default
I may be getting facts twisted, but I think I read somewhere that prior to NCL lease/purchase/whatever-it-is arrangement, the owners (Cantor) were considering scrapping her or sinking as an offshore reef. Not defending NCL, but if it weren't for them paying the $1000+ EVERY DAY to have her sit there, she may have already succombed to the torch. We can only wish, wait, and wonder about the future.
Reply With Quote
  #119 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-2007, 02:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 189
Default
Ron
The article actually says that to refurb would cost $500 million - more than the cost of a new build, i.e $500 million is more than the average cost of a new build and not that the SSUS would cost the price of a new build plus another $500 million. This is quite clear when you read the article.
Reply With Quote
  #120 (permalink)  
Old 05-13-2007, 05:25 AM
Ron Clark's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 912
Default
Quote:
Originally posted by atlantic109:
Ron
The article actually says that to refurb would cost $500 million - more than the cost of a new build, i.e $500 million is more than the average cost of a new build and not that the SSUS would cost the price of a new build plus another $500 million. This is quite clear when you read the article.
I placed quotation marks because that sentence was a direct copy and paste from the article.
I don't think it is open to interruption.

I also believe $1 billion is much too high. I also believe $500 million is too high if the main propulsion boilers and turbines aren't replaced. I believe $500 million could be correct if the main propulsion boilers and turbines were replaced. But that's my opinion.

But that's not how that sentence reads, at least to me. It reads and means twice the price of a new ship.
Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
carnival, clark, drydock, nashville, ncl, refurbishing, reviews, ronald, schedule, scrapping, ss, states, triumph, turbine, united

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NCL S/S "United States" statement Raoul Fiebig Norwegian Cruise Line 1 03-05-2004 07:11 AM
United States Restaurant on Infinity dg1904 All Other Cruise Lines 1 12-22-2002 06:54 PM


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
 

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 PM.

Contact Us - Terms of Use - Cruise Reviews Home - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2