WOW!!! 3rd Ship

[GenieDana]

Are you saying that the Disney Wonder and Disney Magic somehow have hulls with thinner steel plates than other cruise ships that sail in both Caribbean and Alaska waters?

And are you saying that the diesel-electric motors in the Disney Wonder and Disney Magic are incapable of operating as cleanly as the diesel-electric motors of other cruise ships?

What is the basis for these statements?

No and No(well maybe)

What I said was a hull designed for the Caribbean will not average the same speeds over a cruising season in rougher seas.

The second statement is that some newer ships are using engine designs with significantly less emmissions and some have been retrofitted that sail the Alask market, With Alaska, the regulatory environment for vessels operating in their coastal wasters is more likely to be impacted by tightening emmision standards.

The engines on the Magic and Wonder are not the most environmentally friendly out there.

Here are a few examples for further reading (my basis):

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCP/is_2_23/ai_78256219

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCP/is_1_26/ai_n6100061

http://alaska.nwcruiseship.org/article.cfm?menuId=28&articleId=102

http://bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_ss_mspetition.pdf

http://www.serconline.org/cruiseShipPollution.html

http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?IssueID=536&Article=2870

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

What I said was a hull designed for the Caribbean will not average the same speeds over a cruising season in rougher seas.

But you previously wrote, "and buttress the hulls" -- which would mean to reinforce the hulls.

Also, the Alaska inside passage route is offen protected from the open ocean by islands -- that's why it's called the "inside passage" -- so it's generally quite calm.

Finally, is it really true that the Disney ships have a different hull design than other lines' modern cruise ships? What is the basis for this statement? After all, other cruise lines move ships between the Caribbean and Alaska. Yes, old ocean liners were designed differently, but I thought modern cruse ships are generally similar.

The second statement is that some newer ships are using engine designs with significantly less emmissions and some have been retrofitted that sail the Alask market, With Alaska, the regulatory environment for vessels operating in their coastal wasters is more likely to be impacted by tightening emmision standards.

But you previously wrote, "refit the engines with smokeless replacements" -- that's quite different than retrofitting existing diesel electric engines to lower emissions.

Thank you for clarifying your concerns about using an existing DCL ship for Alaska cruises. So there's not a need to reinforce the hull and replace the engines after all.

 

[invaderzim]

Finally, is it really true that the Disney ships have a different hull design than other lines' modern cruise ships? What is the basis for this statement? After all, other cruise lines move ships between the Caribbean and Alaska. Yes, old ocean liners were designed differently, but I thought modern cruse ships are generally similar

I agree with Horace...

Lest we forget, both Disney ships were sailed from Italy through the North Atlantic -- much rougher seas than anything in the Caribbean. Since the ship disasters of the earlier 20th Century (like the Titanic and Andrea Doria), all passenger liners have to be built to meet certain specifications for durability and safety. Hence, the Disney Ships would not be built any less sturdy than any other ship -- whether it be for Caribbean passage, or Mediterranean passage or Northern Atlantic or Pacific sailings.