World's Largest Cruise Ship To Be Scrapped Before First Voyage (gizmodo.com.au) 155
The ship that would have become the world's largest cruise liner has been scrapped before it ever had the chance to take its maiden voyage. Gizmodo reports: Global Dream II was slated to carry 9,000 passengers and was built by German-Hong Kong shipbuilding firm MV Werften to the tune of nearly $US1.4 ($2) billion, according to the Daily Mail. It was nearly finished when the company went bankrupt at the start of this year. Since that happened, no buyer has stepped up to buy the 20-deck, 341.99 m-long monstrosity. That means it's now destined for the scrap heap. The Mail says that Global Dream II also features an outdoor waterpark and a movie theatre.
The capacity of this ship blows the second largest ship, the Oasis-class Wonder of the Sea which is owned and operated by Royal Caribbean, out of the water (I love a good pun). The Wonder of the Seas has a passenger capacity of only 6,988. Pathetic. Despite the $US1.4 ($2) billion put out to build this behemoth, the ship still needs about $US230,000,000 ($319,286,000) worth of work. Apparently, it is structurally complete, but equipment and passenger facilities still need to be finished. Eagle-eyed readers will have noted the "II" in the ship's name. Yes, there is a twin Global Dream, but it hasn't been given the ax... yet. The Mail reports that right now the two ships are being stored in a German shipyard in Wismar. However, that yard will soon be used to build military vessels. That means the Global Dreams have to be out of there by the end of next year.
The capacity of this ship blows the second largest ship, the Oasis-class Wonder of the Sea which is owned and operated by Royal Caribbean, out of the water (I love a good pun). The Wonder of the Seas has a passenger capacity of only 6,988. Pathetic. Despite the $US1.4 ($2) billion put out to build this behemoth, the ship still needs about $US230,000,000 ($319,286,000) worth of work. Apparently, it is structurally complete, but equipment and passenger facilities still need to be finished. Eagle-eyed readers will have noted the "II" in the ship's name. Yes, there is a twin Global Dream, but it hasn't been given the ax... yet. The Mail reports that right now the two ships are being stored in a German shipyard in Wismar. However, that yard will soon be used to build military vessels. That means the Global Dreams have to be out of there by the end of next year.
And ordinary ppl feel pressure to save resources (Score:4, Insightful)
The company went bankrupt but I am sure the banks that funded this ship got significant profit.
This is an outrageous example of capitalism corruption.
While European governments pressures ordinary people to save on gas, electricity, survive with sky-rocketing price for anything, including essential food. We have those conglomerates companies performing large scale corruption. Not just corruption in the sense of old style mafias, (although I have the feeling, they share the same background), but plain corruption with direct damages on our economy, our environment.
How much resources, virgin materials, have been sequestrated to build such non-sense, environmentally unfriendly of a cruise ship, nobody will ever use. The disposal of it, and recycle of what can be is neither 100% recovery of resources, neither free.
Re: And ordinary ppl feel pressure to save resourc (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's frankly idiotic is making excuses for the excesses of capitalism, which are destroying our life support system.
Nobody should be allowed to begin a capital project like this without setting aside enough money to cover its termination.
Re: (Score:2)
This is frankly idiotic. The money is gone. The company is bankrupt. They don't have the money to repay any bank loans.
That is overstating it. They may not have the cash but they have assets, for example, an enormous shipyard. Banks will often have secured loans and be high on the list of people to get whatever value the administrators can salvage. It may be they have overextended and take a hit, or it may not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's now how bank loans work, at least not in Europe. The bank must have capital to lend out. It generally comes from customer deposits and other accumulated wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial banks do, in fact, create money (i.e. increase the money supply) when they issue loans. You might want to read up about that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
The whole thing makes a certain kind of sense, so long as you completely ignore human behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Interest certainly can be said to be creating money by a certain definition, but the OP wrote
"The money the bank loans out does not exist before the loan."
That is factually incorrect, the money loaned out at the start comes from the bank's assets.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read the links? Methinks you didn't, because you're flat-out wrong.
Banks do not need to have adequate assets to cover their loans - to loan $1,000,000 the bank does *not* need to have $1,000,000 in cash on hand. That's what "fractional-reserve" banking means, the bank only needs a percentage of its liability held as assets in reserve.
As a matter of fact a bank does not even have to have enough assets to cover the deposits it's holding, let alone what it's loaned out. Per the Wiki, [wikipedia.org] under internationa
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct, but there still is money creation going on which is what the OP was alluding to. European banks, like banks in most western countries, operate under a reserve ratio, and the money they lend out is actually in use in multiple accounts simultaneously. Read up on reserve ratio and money multiplier effect. Banks lending money does, in fact, create money out of nothing as it were. So the OP is essentially correct. The money lost by the banks was essentially multiplied money so they really hav
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That is factually incorrect, the money loaned out at the start comes from the bank's assets.
No, they don't. Banks in the EU (like the US, and everywhere else in the world) practice fractional reserve lending. They're required to have a small fraction of the value they lend as assets. The rest of the money -- usually around 90% -- they invent out of thin air.
This seems bizarre, but it's actually genius. It accomplishes two very important goals: First, it means that the money supply can expand and contract easily as the economy needs. This system was used even when currencies were based on "hard
Re: (Score:2)
Fractional reserves are cash on hand, not assets as the parent was talking about. You're talking about two different things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, no wonder we have high inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
That's now how bank loans work, at least not in Europe. The bank must have capital to lend out. It generally comes from customer deposits and other accumulated wealth.
You are thinking on one level. Repeat the cycle several times, and money is created.
1. Bank lends money to cruise ship company.
2. Cruise ship company pays ship builder with money.
3. Ship builder deposits money in bank.
4. Bank lends money out again. BOOM! Money created by spending the same money twice.
Central banks control the money supply by regulating the amount of money banks need to keep in the form of cash. [wikipedia.org] This limits the amount of money can be spent multiple times through lending.
Re: (Score:2)
3. Ship builder deposits money in bank.
In all likelihood, the ship builder is playing games with the money too - they are probably taking the money from this project to payoff loans from a prior project, pay some profits to shareholders / owners, and then make some initial investments in building this project (including materials, workforce, etc.). They probably are also financing a portion of the ship building as well with additional loans (maybe even from the same bank) given that the ship was probably not purchased directly up front with all
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Imagine you have a very contrived example of a bank that has $100 in the bank. They make two loans for $75 each + $25 interest.
It doesn't work that way. Your contrived bank with $100 in deposits can lend out some of that $100, but must hold a fraction of that in reserve. Get it? "Fractional reserve?"
If the reserve ratio is 10%, then they can lend out $90. The remaining $10 is kept on hand to deal with customer withdrawals, etc.
Fractional Reserve Does Not Work That Way (Score:5, Informative)
Your contrived bank with $100 in deposits can lend out some of that $100, but must hold a fraction of that in reserve.
Bizarrely that is NOT how banks operate. The fractional reserve rate [investopedia.com] is the fraction of the total amount of loans that banks must have on hand. So, with a reserve rate of 10% and $100 in deposits, a bank can loan up to $1000. Banks literally have a license from their government to print money. That may come as a bit of a shock (it did when I learnt about it) but look it up - that is how they operate.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
. So, with a reserve rate of 10% and $100 in deposits, a bank can loan up to $1000.
"Deposits" and "reserves" are not the same thing, and no bank can loan more than the assets it has (less its reserves)--it's giving real, actual money to someone when it makes a loan.
Banks literally have a license from their government to print money. That may come as a bit of a shock (it did when I learnt about it) but look it up - that is how they operate.
A central bank (such as the federal reserve) can do that. They control money supply, create and destroy money. The bank down the street cannot. They can only lend a portion of their assets.
Re:Fractional Reserve Does Not Work That Way (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but the post you responded to is 100% correct. And you seem to be misunderstanding how fractional reserve works.
Banks cannot lend in excess of their deposits*. Ever. The part you seem to misunderstand is that money that is lent is typically redeposited. Same bank or different bank, it counts as a deposit. And in theory, the same bank they borrowed from. And a portion of that deposit can be lent. And so on.
And it would be weird, but possible, to just let borrowed money sit in the bank unspent. Paying interest on a loan of money that isn't being used. But possible.
So, in theory, a bank could get a $100 deposit, lend the maximum, have that money deposited, lend the maximum on that deposit and so on. With a 10% reserve, you are correct that they could end up lending $1000 from an initial $100 deposit.
Which appears to create money, and has the same effect as creating money, but in actuality doesn't. Do the accounting for every loan for the bank and the lenders/depositors and you get a sum total of $100. The reserve is to account for the risk if someone in the chain doesn't pay back a loan (because the loan isn't due yet or because of bankruptcy) before depositors want their money.
Think of it like this: Person A lends $20 to Person B who lends $20 who lends $20 to person A who lends $20 to Person B. How much money is there? Just $20. A deposit is, for all intents and purposes, a loan. So this is the same as Person A and Bank B doing a 0% fractional reserve banking. But even if they kept at it, it wouldn't create unlimited money. Just a bunch of deposits and loans and the same $20 adding up to, you guessed it, $20 belonging to Person A.
*Except the Federal Reserve. They CAN create money, though not print it. And they deposit money in banks, starting the whole cycle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The money is gone.
On the contrary. Banks create money when issuing loans. The money the bank loans out does not exist before the loan. But the conditions for the loan allows the bank to plunder the company dry in real assets.
This is an aspect of banking that too many people refuses to acknowledge. Loans are also taking away resources from the future before they are even made available. It is a bet that these resources will exist and be available in the future. What an incredible privilege for banks to take control of resources not yet existing and making profits out of this control. Future generations pays for it even if the loan is entirely repaid to the bank, since the bank took "ownership" of a future resource. This is steal
Re: (Score:2)
This is an aspect of banking that too many people refuses to acknowledge.
Because it's not correct. Only central banks do what the parent said.
Re: (Score:2)
Only central banks do what the parent said.
That's not true. In most countries, most banks essentially have a license from the government to print money with the only limit being that they keep a certain fraction of the value of their loans on hand. It surprised me when I found this out but look it up - the banking system is far dodgier than most of us realize.
Re: (Score:2)
No I think what you are looking for is that they provide IOUs backed by assets and ROIs. They essentially provide "liquidity" in a market. They don't "create" money.
Its like one penny can be exchanged through many hands to provide for commerce of purchasing fertilizer, farming, shipping, processing, and selling bread. With one penny, each piece has to wait for the penny to come to their hand; which causes spoilage from start up times. Banks keep the penny but allow parallaization of some parts (ie: star
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm. No.
You really need to get an econ book and read it. The only banks that "create" money are the central banks of the various currencies. The money that banks lend out came from somewhere...could be "customers" deposits, could be investors (investment banks arrange these), but they managers of any given bank doesn't wake up in the morning and say "Hmmm I think I will give XYZ a 100million loan...write that up!" without already having the asset on their books from somewhere else.
Sorry, you are 100% wr
Re: The money is gone. (Score:2)
Banks canâ(TM)t print money. They can transfer money electronically that they donâ(TM)t have right now, but they are 100% responsible for that money.
Re: (Score:2)
I got to wonder if it every occurred to you that maybe... just maybe you are "really that fucking stupid" and you don't actually know how banks work?
Re: And ordinary ppl feel pressure to save resourc (Score:5, Insightful)
if you owe a million to the bank and can't pay, you've got a problem
if you owe a billion to the bank and can't pay, the bank's got a problem
if you owe 500 billion to the bank and can't pay, the taxpayers got a problem
Re: And ordinary ppl feel pressure to save resourc (Score:5, Informative)
The GP said:
<quote>
You really think the banks lose? Who do you think will pay for the banks' losses? How do you think banks work?
Are people here really that fucking stupid to believe that banks lose?
</quote>
The poster did not attack anyone's heritage, religion, place of origin, or anything else except the abstract group of people who think that banks can "lose". Please, enlighten us on how this is anti-Semetic slur. Especially when both sides of the pond have seen banks getting bailed out again and again after lending out money without doing their due diligence or caring what happens when their investments go astray. We sadly live in a world where indeed most banks are too big to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're fabricating a story to support your position, are you aware that you're doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes its capitalism but its not operating in the way you think and there is nothing corrupt about it.
Decision to build that ship, and the agreements to capitalize and finance it were all made before the pandemic I would guess. Then into the pandemic there was the constant question should we stop will this end and when will things go back to normal?
Now we know the pandemic is endemic. Most of the public believes (probably rightly) that another pandemic could start any time. They demand be packed into a float
As much as I despise cruise ships... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:As much as I despise cruise ships... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I hope they got paid.
And let's be honest, who has the satisfaction of actually seeing his work coming to fruition these days? Ever been part of a project where you poured your heart into it only to see it canceled because the new manager didn't want his predecessor's work succeed and overshadow his own delusions of grandeur?
Re: (Score:3)
who has the satisfaction of actually seeing his work coming to fruition these days?
Well many people do.
Ever been part of a project where you poured your heart into it only to see it canceled because the new manager didn't want his predecessor's work succeed and overshadow his own delusions of grandeur?
Yeah, once in my career. What you're describing exists but is not the norm, and the example I have experienced is overshadowed by the many examples of projects where I've had managers come and go while the projects have continued through to execution, and in some cases were even expanded on post execution. Arseholes exist, but the majority of people aren't one.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's be honest, who has the satisfaction of actually seeing his work coming to fruition these days?
I do. It's my favorite thing about my job... what I do not only comes to fruition but directly improves the lives of billions of people (albeit in small ways that many of them don't notice).
Though I did spend many years building things that were never used, and it sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations. Not many people are that lucky.
My work is pretty much making work for other people. Guess who is the most popular person in the office. I swear, if the cafeteria is packed and at a table there's only two people and nobody is joining them, and they're also ignoring each other, you have found internal auditing and IT security.
Re: (Score:2)
Been there, done that. Also even if the project does succeed, how often is the outcome really observable nowadays. Congrats, we increased metric ABC by 2%. Everyone go have a drink on the expense account and be back tomorrow to do the same thing with metric XYZ.
Re: (Score:2)
...it must really suck for all those employees who have put this ship together, never to be able to see it set sail. They have worked for nothing for years.
It is sad, but quite common in many industries, including coders.
Re: (Score:2)
What doesn't suck is that they made real wages for all their hard work. I'm sure the backers of the project took a hit but for them it's likely a rounding error in their profits, while a whole lot of workers and craftspeople made a good living. And the ship never goes to sea, so it doesn't pollute with high-sulphur fossil fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
They have worked for nothing for years.
Not true! Cruise ships represent environmental tragedy, and this waste of resources is a smaller environmental tragedy, so they still generally accomplished their goals.
Floating retirement home (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone should set up a Kickstarter campaign to sell it off as timeshare or long term retirement.
Loads of high-income, not too old people recently (or permanently kidless) who should nowfree up their real-estate to the younger generation, and that could invest in a long term floating city.
Re:Floating retirement home (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be sure a *lot* of very smart people did the maths on that, and plenty more options.
It just was not worth the finishing cost and upkeep. Don't fall for the sunk cost fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fall for the sunk cost fallacy.
The sunk cost fallacy doesn't completely apply to whoever bought it from the bankrupt company. They only had to offer more than the scrap value + have $200 million to finish building it.
Re: (Score:2)
They did the math and this is an actual thing! E.g. you can have a 20 year lease for million bucks or so on this cruise ship, which ought to be long enough until the end of retirement: https://www.storylines.com/the... [storylines.com]
It might be an investment scam or something, I would never consider such a thing, but it looks like someone's trying to sell the idea at least.
Re:Floating retirement home (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is: living in a tiny cabin is great for a week, when you get off the ship for excursions, eat great meals in the dining area, etc, etc.. However, living in one of those tiny cabins without the entertainment and food is likely to drive you nuts. Provide the entertainment and good, and you're back to being a cruise ship, with all the associated operational costs.
These huge cruise ships that take thousands of passengers are not luxury vacations. They are mass tourism. No high-income people are going to pay to live in cattle-class accomodations. Real luxury cruises are different.
Re: (Score:2)
However, living in one of those tiny cabins without the entertainment and food is likely to drive you nuts. ... These huge cruise ships that take thousands of passengers are not luxury vacations.
You sound like you're talking about a cruise you've had without looking at what's on offer elsewhere. Not only are luxury cruises on mass cruise liners a thing (even on the scale of the Oasis of the Seas) but many of these massive cruise ships offer year long travel options too. Many of these ships definitely have the equivalent of a first class which is very different to the drunks kids and retirees looking out of their little round window on the lower decks.
Re: (Score:2)
Boats are really really expensive in maintenance. There's a reason they're called "Holes in the water you dump your money in."
Re: (Score:2)
Cruise ships are incredibly high cost to operate and maintain. There's no sunk cost here. You can't kickstarter it and then ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Am wondering why a billionaire isn't buying it up to make it into his private yacht.
After all the most expensive private yachts are in the multi billion dollar range.
https://www.prestigeonline.com... [prestigeonline.com]
If it costs another 500m to 1b to buy it and customise it to be a yacht, he / she now has something that nobody else has. A yacht capable of handling all the needs of over 10000 people (including the 1000s of crew for a cruise ship) just handling the needs of one person / family / friends.
Re: Floating retirement home (Score:2)
The problem is that a cruise ship lying on anchor is not where you want to be all year, and the running cost is e
All eggs in one basket (Score:2)
Re: All eggs in one basket (Score:2)
Re: All eggs in one basket (Score:4, Funny)
The main reason being that it will never actually sail with passengers.
Re: (Score:2)
You know the Titanic had 2k+ people onboard? Half the ship didn't stay afloat and we no longer hold such expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern ships do have sufficient life boats for everyone aboard and better communications than the Titanic did
Re: (Score:2)
Except we have had over a century's worth of safety improvements since then.
First, there was a hugely complex formula used to compute how many lifeboats need to be on a ship back then. It was based on the number of first class, second class and third class people. These d
They should screen "Batgirl" in one of it theaters (Score:2)
Shit journalism is shit. (Score:5, Informative)
What, When, Where, Who, Why.
What none of these articles makes clear is that the failed entity isn't just the shipyard, it's Genting Hong Kong, who owns (owned?)
o Star Cruises
o Crystal Cruises
o Dream Crusies (The actual owners of this ocean-going carbuncle)
o Resorts World Manila
o MVWerften (the shipyard that knotted this carbuncle together)
All info sourced from wiki. In less than 5 minutes.
Christ on a crutch, journalism is truly well and dead. "Think what we want you to think!!" instead of "Here's the facts, make of them what you will."
I'll note it is rare for the shipping / cruise lines to own their own shipyard. The very reason I had to look this up is because typically a line will pay for a ship, to be built by some shipyard. Every article linked intimated it was the shipyard that went bust. NONE made the connection that the entire enterprise went bust. None even mentioned the owner of the ships.
And people wonder why things are the way they are. Could shit manipulative "activist" journalism have anything to do with it?
Naah. Easier to manipulate the people instead of giving them the information and letting them make up their own minds.
Re: (Score:2)
"Think what we want you to think!!" instead of "Here's the facts, make of them what you will."
This should be emphasized more in the real world.
Re: Shit journalism is shit. (Score:2)
homless housing (Score:4, Interesting)
Run it over to Los Angeles. Use it as homeless housing. California should really buy it, burns up the budget for homeless housing and solves the NIMBY issues with homeless housing. Should be available at bargain prices.
Options (Score:2)
1. Crowd fund it
2. Turn into a museum
3. Use it as a cargo ship
Don't scrap it for God's sake! Most of the stuff that went into it is unrecoverable. :(
Re: Options (Score:2)
Rethink.. (Score:2)
wedge issue (Score:2)
Re: Pay attention now, editor kiddies (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The pandemic has really hurt cruise ships. One of the earliest outbreaks was on board a cruise ship that had to be quarantined. Even now the requirements for boarding one put some potential customers off. Vaccinations and suitable insurance.
Re: Pay attention now, editor kiddies (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The price, but you deserved the Funny anyway. Too bad your reputation for Funny is not more visible?
Re: Pay attention now, editor kiddies (Score:5, Insightful)
The CDC may have lifted the restrictions, but look at it from the cruise line's point of view. If there is an outbreak of COVID among their mostly older passengers, they are going to have a big problem on their hands. At best lots of people coughing all over the ship, at worst they need to transfer some people to hospitals on shore.
Right now we are letting COVID rip through the population. People are being told to go to work even if they test positive in the UK. The bigger the ship, the greater the risk.
The ones operating in the UK are still requiring proof of vaccination and proof of insurance covering COVID. That insurance is often very expensive because older people tend to have pre-existing conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
If freshly symptomatic people board a cruise ship, there's time for one more "generation" of COVID (two, at a stretch) before the cruise is over and everyone goes home. Even with passengers packed in with sardines -- which they aren't, really -- that just isn't going to create a big problem for the cruise company. That plague ship shitshow from early in the pandemic reached that degree of shitshowery because it went on for *so long* (and among an exclusively unvaccinated and "immunologically naive" populati
Re: Pay attention now, editor kiddies (Score:2)
People arenâ(TM)t being told to go to work even if they test positive. Itâ(TM)s a personal choice and thereâ(TM)s no legal impediment to prevent you from going to work. Just like having the flu: you shouldnâ(TM)t go in to the office if youâ(TM)re sick, but only your employer can decided to stop you
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a choice for most people. If they don't go to work they don't get paid. In the UK there is statutory sick pay, but it's pathetic.
Re: Pay attention now, editor kiddies (Score:3)
Where I live, Visby, Sweden, there have been several cruise ships each week.
Re: (Score:2)
That all changed a month ago. The CDC removed all protocols and ended the opt-in programs the cruiselines were following. They estimate 95% of the population is either vaccinated or prior infected, making the risk of severe covid significantly reduced. Couple that with the proliferation of paxlovid (?) and the risk of severe cases of covid on a cruiseship have fallen to nearly zero. In fact with prior protocols, while the positivity rate was 18 in miami, it was 0.3 onboard cruise ships sailing out of FL. Dont fault Princess Cruise for not having the equipment or staff to handle an outbreak no-one understood. Hell we didnt even have a means of testing. The biggest problem was leaving them at sea without treatment for 2 weeks. They should have medevac the severe cases under strict quarantine. The CDC gambled and lost on how to handle that particular situation.
That is to say, most people are vaccinated as prior infection does not convey lasting immunity.
But your point stands. The problem isn't COVID (as I'm sure cruise lines are requiring passengers to be vaccinated) but the fact that cruises have been on the decline for years before COVID. Most of Europe has removed most of the COVID requirements for months now. I think only Germany are still requiring masks on public transport and a cruise ship wouldn't count as PT. Cruises here have been on sale for months
Re: (Score:2)
Cruise ships are no more crowded than general life, and most of the space in the ones I've been on is not enclosed. When on a cruise I have spent more time in the open air than a typical week on land working, commuting, and at home.
As someone who has designed HVAC for airports, and knows a little bit about ventilation on aircr
Re: (Score:2)
why is booster in quotes?
to distinguish between "original" or "baseline" shots.
do you believe they're actually tracking chip updates in the guise of "booster" shots?
No - and I wouldn't care if they did. Most everyone is walking around with a tracker anyway - voluntarily.
Personally, I don't care about govt tracking. My life isn't all that interesting. There is a 95% probability that I can be found in one of the following locations
-home (a stunning 67% of the time)
-Costco
-Lowe's
-a local medical facility
-my kid's school
-in transit between those places
The other 5% of the time I'm not really anywhere interesting eithe
Re: (Score:2)
That time at home is a minimum too.
Realistically, M-F, I am home at least 20 hours per day, and more probably 22 hrs/day. On weekends, it's usually at least that much.
So track away, motherfuckers!
Re: Pay attention now, editor kiddies (Score:4, Interesting)
The CDC gambled and lost on how to handle that particular situation.
This was a retardation on a global level. It was fucking disgraceful how every country handled cruise ships with infected during COVID. The CDC, and Trump's government did the same thing as Japan, Australia, The Netherlands, Greece, and basically anyone who was oooh soo scared that they may get a handful of COVID cases. Fast forward 2 years and the many thousands of cases we get every day make this look like the single dumbest and inhumane decision governments have taken.
Re: (Score:2)
The CDC gambled and lost on how to handle that particular situation.
This was a retardation on a global level. It was fucking disgraceful how every country handled cruise ships with infected during COVID. The CDC, and Trump's government did the same thing as Japan, Australia, The Netherlands, Greece, and basically anyone who was oooh soo scared that they may get a handful of COVID cases. Fast forward 2 years and the many thousands of cases we get every day make this look like the single dumbest and inhumane decision governments have taken.
The part that was most stupid was allowing them to come ashore without testing and a quarantine period. In the U.S., they basically said, "You can get tested, but if you test positive, we have to quarantine you. Or you can refuse to be tested and just walk out the door." A large percentage of people refused to be tested, and this drove up COVID in Florida pretty severely in the early days of the pandemic, IIRC.
During the early days, it should have been a one-week quarantine period followed by mandatory t
Re: (Score:3)
RC has 5 Oasis class ships with the Wonder finished & in service this year. The first "Oasis" is from 2010 and next is slated for 2024. The prior largest model is the Excellance that has 6 w/ various operators and 3 in progress. They all been refitted and retroed over the years. I been on RC's Oasis and Freedom (3 ships) classes... they are big ships. Their running track loops are 1/2 km!
Clearly there is profit in large ships. But the Excellance operators don't seem to be looking for even bigger.
Nowegian Prima (Score:3)
The Norwegian Prima [wikipedia.org] launched in August with three levels for its go-kart track. There's a 10-story dry-slide down the side of the ship you can race a friend in. Ridiculous? You tell me. (They pass by my house and sometimes I look them up, especially when I am annoyed by their large horns).
https://edition.cnn.com/travel... [cnn.com]
Re: Nowegian Prima (Score:2)
I've done a few cruises. The one from Seattle to Alaska was my favorite. A cruise is basically an all inclusive resort that can move. If the ports of call seem like interesting places to explore,it is worth it.
As for congestion, usually it's no worse than going to a mall. I'm not one to enjoy large crowds but don't have an issue being on a cruise ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s obviously a waste of money. But it seems there is no cruise company around right now that wants a 1.2 billion pound ship for the 200 million needed to finish it, plus some amount more than the scrap value. Probably more running cost than you would get from ticket sales.
After years of "Ermagherd! Biggest cruise ship be da best evah!" outlook, it looks like we've found the limit. Seems no one wants the monstrosity. And who could blame them?
So now, the cruises can concentrate on the experience, not the size, which is better. I mean who would come back from a cruise saying "We had a terrible time, but it was saved by the ship being the largest cruise ship ever"?
Gawd, oh gawd, don't flush it! (Score:2)
Not a bad SP, but I think you negated yourself by propagating the vacuous Subject.
New Subject comes from a joke about Texas, but it applies to the cruise ship industry, which would sadden me if I were rich enough to be a customer for such a luxury.
Now try to imagine what would happen if everyone on a 6,988-toilet luxury cruise ship happened to flush at the same time? (Okay, I'm guessing it's probably half that number (plus crews' heads), but scarcely motivated to RTFS on this one.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay attention now, editor kiddies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pay attention now, editor kiddies (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty horrendous editing there. The 2b figure is AUD.
Daily Mail, a British site, correctly cites the price as 1.2b GBP. Gizmodo Australia cites the price as 1.4b USD / 2b AUD, which is fine for them, but you have to realize you're looking at an Australian site for that.
My first thought was that the 2b might be HKD since the ship is being built by a (partially) Hong Kong shipbuilder, but nope, the exchange rate for USD/HKD is way different.
Standard international currency? When? (Score:2)
End of the vacuous meta-topic about 20% into the discussion? (Even though the bottom comment was substantive.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only parasites are the Tory scum, how typical of you to post deluded far right dribble from your decrepit theme park sliding into the sea of irrelevance after the economic suicide of Brexit.
Re:Holland could use it to house refugees for 9 we (Score:4, Insightful)
Plenty of those parasites swarming over the English Channel at Dover as well. A prison ship in the middle of the North Sea using this unwanted hull would be a great idea.
Still plenty of room before we've made up the losses to the hopeless Tory response to the pandemic.
Re: (Score:3)
Would that be the Tory response that got the vaccine out before any other country in Europe?
Yes, that was good. But the government also ignored calls for an early lockdown, allowed the disease to get entrenched in care homes, and were even encouraging gatherings in the face of warnings from WHO and other experts far beyond any reasonable point.
With a pandemic, the early days have the biggest impact because that's where you cut the roots out of the exponential growth. The Tory handling of the early days was tragically bad.
Re:Holland could use it to house refugees for 9 we (Score:5, Interesting)
You may not know but they aren't "illegal" till they are proven such on their day in court and a judge says so. You may not like that statement, but its your country's (and mine) rules. Rules that your people setup and agreed to. YOU may disagree, but that doesn't mean you get to decide on your own definition of legality.
And once they are proven "illegal" they are sent through the deportation procedures.
You know where the problem is? Your party and the opposition both don't want to fund the judicial processes to find them as illegal or not. Nor do either side want to fund the deportation procedures.
Its kind of like having a restaurant that welcomes patrons, doesn't have a proper menu with prices, and has a massive check out line. But the owner is sitting on his ass, looking out at the crowd and bitching about all the "free loaders" and "thiefs" in line. Maybe you racists can put 1/4 the effort in FIXING your immigration system than you put into complaining online and vilifying innocent people?
Re: Holland could use it to house refugees for 9 w (Score:2)
That's true for most of the countries that are signatories of various Conventions and Treaties. Yeah, they won't let you on a plane because they do the immigration review or know you will fail customs upon landing. Basically due process is given prior to arrival.
But if you are already at the border and seek refuse, asylum, fleeing a conflict zones, or fleeing specific states... Yeah you are afforded special protections and due process. Countries can choose to do due process right there and then, but almos
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, for fuck's sake, who gave mod points to idiotic assholes?
Unlike the lying troll I responded to, I actually provided a citation to the relevant treaty.
work calls (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I recently had a co-worker butt-dial me from his phone during a cruise on the Bahamas. He didn't even know it, but his call log showed it.
Wifi calling...
Re: work calls (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a form of escapism. A cruise is basically a vacation where you literally do not have to lift a
Re: (Score:2)
A ferry is not a cruise ship. A cruise ship is a floating resort. There are spas, gyms, pools, sun decks, lounges, dance clubs, comedy clubs, parties, live music, shopping, casinos, water slides, ice rinks, theater shows, and all kinds of other stuff. And if you don't want to do any of that stuff, you can always just sit on your private balcony and watch the world go by. Hard to get more relaxing than that.
As for your stereotypical 'pensioners' comment - the age of the average cruiser is about 46 (and g