Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Worlds Largest Ship Prepares To Sail  
User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3520 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2708 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maersks new line of container ships is about to set sail for the first time. 18000 TEUs... Big Ship!

http://www.worldslargestship.com/


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

And sadly, unlike the E-class, built outside Denmark.

User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 968 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2656 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've seen something on Discovery Channel about how they operate its "smaller" sibling. What's the point of trying to save costs per container if you create a logistical nightmare and basically shut the port for all other traffic until this monster lands?


FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6616 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2572 times:

Only a few weeks after the previous record holder was launched, Jules Verne !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 2):
What's the point of trying to save costs per container if you create a logistical nightmare and basically shut the port for all other traffic until this monster lands?

It's essentially the A380 of the oceans. Maersk have identified a small number of routes that can handle extra capacity, and decided to invest the time and money in ships that can fulfill it.

And just as quite a number of airports have had to upgrade their infrastructure to handle the A380 (or even just the possibility of it), so too the port terminals will have to invest in upgraded equipment. Some of them are run by Maersk anyway, so they'll be footing the bill in those places.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19584 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

First of all, the Triple-E is still not as big as Knock Nevis (also Jahr Viking and Seawise Giant), but that ship, sadly, was broken up at Alang. Thus, these ships will be the biggest operating ships in the world.

Interesting design features. The bridge is located farther forward than on other container ships. There are two screws, which is unusual in an era where most container ships and tankers have one screw. Perhaps the size of a single screw was such that the draught was simply not enough to accommodate it? They are also going to sacrifice speed for efficiency, which is an interesting choice. She will be 20% slower than her predecessor, but in the process will burn about half as much fuel per TEU.

Also amusing that their website compared this class not to Titanic but to Freedom of the Seas. Titanic is rather a small ship by modern standards.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6616 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2525 times:

A single engine would be too big, taking too much space (many containers are stored in the hull in this class and the Jules Verne class).

Seawise Giant was big but it was just an oil tanker, technically simpler.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7299 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2434 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
First of all, the Triple-E is still not as big as Knock Nevis (also Jahr Viking and Seawise Giant), but that ship, sadly, was broken up at Alang.

And Knock Nevis wasn't the largest ship ever constructed either that title goes to the 4 Batillus Class supertankers built in St Nazaire, France.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Thus, these ships will be the biggest operating ships in the world.

Although they won't hold that title for very long, once the Pieter Schelte is launched she will be the mother of all ships, and will weight well over 600,000 tons when completed, with cargo she'll weight over 700,000.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
There are two screws, which is unusual in an era where most container ships and tankers have one screw. Perhaps the size of a single screw was such that the draught was simply not enough to accommodate it? They are also going to sacrifice speed for efficiency, which is an interesting choice. She will be 20% slower than her predecessor, but in the process will burn about half as much fuel per TEU.

This has been discussed here before, the reason why the Tripple E is being built with twin engines is that they can use smaller engines, that are not as tall thus reducing the height of the engine room, this allows them to increase the number of containers they can carry.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19584 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
And Knock Nevis wasn't the largest ship ever constructed either that title goes to the 4 Batillus Class supertankers built in St Nazaire, France.

That's actually debatable. Knock Nevis had higher gross tonnage when fully loaded. Her dry weight was lower. There are many ways to measure ships and there isn't one definition of "biggest."

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
This has been discussed here before, the reason why the Tripple E is being built with twin engines is that they can use smaller engines, that are not as tall thus reducing the height of the engine room, this allows them to increase the number of containers they can carry.

Does it not increase the overall volume of the engine compartment, though?


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2367 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
They are also going to sacrifice speed for efficiency, which is an interesting choice. She will be 20% slower than her predecessor, but in the process will burn about half as much fuel per TEU.

Slow-steaming has been all the rage of late in the ocean freight industry. I believe it is a physics issue; the power-to-speed ratio increases severely over a certain threshold for ocean-going vessels like container ships, and that threshold is fairly low compared to other designs (say, a military vessel like a destroyer).

From the perspective of a transportation guy, I hate slow steaming, but in an era of tight budgets, it has its place... provided. Certainly makes keeping inventory low dangerous, with lead times increased by quite a bit.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2142 times:

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 1):
And sadly, unlike the E-class, built outside Denmark.

Indeed, it is built in S-Korea by Daewoo.

Mærsk closed it's own Odense Staalskibsværft in 2012. They actually found it "cheaper" to build in S-Korea than basically building it themselves.

I feel somewhat ... nauseous   

-a



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineracko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Kinda sad that these new supersized container ships lack any kind of elegance. It looks like just a hull with the bridge just slapped somewhere into the middle. The Batillus linked earlier had something majestic about it, this actually looks cheap.



User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2047 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
Mærsk closed it's own Odense Staalskibsværft in 2012. They actually found it "cheaper" to build in S-Korea than basically building it themselves.

It wasn't helped by the fact that the Danish Steelworks closed down a couple of years ago. They were a good source of cheap steel (part of the reason Mærsk had a stake in the company), and when they closed their doors, the shipyard in Odense had to pay market prices for its steel. That, added with the vastly different work culture in Asia, meant that ships from Lindø, their own shipyard, was suddenly 60% more expensive to build then similar Asian builds.

[Edited 2013-07-15 02:47:45]

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10707 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2040 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
Mærsk closed it's own Odense Staalskibsværft in 2012. They actually found it "cheaper" to build in S-Korea than basically building it themselves.

Thus voting against their own country and loosing the knowledge. Bad move.

Quoting racko (Reply 11):
Kinda sad that these new supersized container ships lack any kind of elegance.

Modern shipowners dont care how their ships look like and dont care where they are being built. There is no proudness anymore in the business, just beancounting and in the case of the Maersk-owners, stacking more useless billions on their private accounts (they are among the richest families in the whole of Europe).
That said, I see no way how to make a container ship look good. Its the concept thats ugly.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 9):
Certainly makes keeping inventory low dangerous, with lead times increased by quite a bit

Not much difference as it wasn't overnight delivery before either.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 10):
They actually found it "cheaper" to build in S-Korea than basically building it themselves.

In addition to what mention by other wasn't there also practical problems in that they had reached the maximum possible size.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 14):
Not much difference as it wasn't overnight delivery before either.

An extra week can be a significant expense for many businesses. Businesses have to make up their minds, because most want low transportation costs and want to run JIT or JIT-like systems... there has to be a trade-off somewhere. Reports are suggesting that inventories have been kept abnormally low outside of the Holiday season the last two years for many retailers, so it looks like businesses are playing the "we're in an almost-kinda-but-not-really-recession so we'll assume that purchasing will be flat or barely growing, but if it ticks up suddenly, we're screwed" game.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 15):
An extra week can be a significant expense for many businesses. Businesses have to make up their minds, because most want low transportation costs and want to run JIT or JIT-like systems... there has to be a trade-off somewhere

Clearly the extra expense isn't enough to cover the costs of faster transport.


User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3621 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

After reading the wikipedia articles about a lot of these huge ships it seems their average lifespan is like 10 years? Some only 5. Why is that?

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1919 times:

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 17):
After reading the wikipedia articles about a lot of these huge ships it seems their average lifespan is like 10 years? Some only 5. Why is that?

They get beat up out on the ocean for one, but the bigger reason is just the improvements that have been occurring making the costs of operating the newer ships that much lower and therefore making it cost effective to replace them quickly.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 16):
Clearly the extra expense isn't enough to cover the costs of faster transport.

Or it could be that businesses really aren't aware of how much their transportation choices cost them because they don't give it nearly enough thought, or, rather, don't consider it appropriately in combination with other decisions.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 19):
Or it could be that businesses really aren't aware of how much their transportation choices cost them because they don't give it nearly enough thought, or, rather, don't consider it appropriately in combination with other decisions.

You really think so? My experience is that companies know and actively consider cost to bring products home.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6799 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 2):
What's the point of trying to save costs per container if you create a logistical nightmare and basically shut the port for all other traffic until this monster lands?

Asked and answered, but to add to that, the shipping industry closely measures the non-value added time (I think it's called demurrage) where a ship is either waiting for a berth or otherwise is rendered A) not moving, B) not loading/unloading whilst at port. Akin to the A380 analogy made, there are ports that will have the capability to handle this sucker. Although it's staggering to really contemplate something that big. Wow!

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 7):
This has been discussed here before, the reason why the Tripple E is being built with twin engines is that they can use smaller engines, that are not as tall thus reducing the height of the engine room, this allows them to increase the number of containers they can carry.

I learned something for the day... Interesting. Thanks for passing it along. I'm not big on nautical stuff.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7299 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Does it not increase the overall volume of the engine compartment, though?

The Tripple E is wider than the E class, volume may well be greater but the height is a lot lower, allowing an extra 1 or two layers of containers above the engine room.

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 12):
That, added with the vastly different work culture in Asia, meant that ships from Lindø, their own shipyard, was suddenly 60% more expensive to build then similar Asian builds.

You're alos forgetting the vastly more advanced shipobuilding technology in Korea and the cheaper wages, Daewoo have also never delivered late, amazing really they have built 1000's of ships and never delivered late.

Quoting na (Reply 13):
the case of the Maersk-owners, stacking more useless billions on their private accounts (they are among the richest families in the whole of Europe).

Old Møller kept that yard afloat for as long as he could, from all account he pored billions into it to keep it going, it really only shut down after he kicked the bucket.

Quoting cmf (Reply 14):
In addition to what mention by other wasn't there also practical problems in that they had reached the maximum possible size.

The yard could built them but they would never have been able to get them out to sea.

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 17):
After reading the wikipedia articles about a lot of these huge ships it seems their average lifespan is like 10 years? Some only 5. Why is that?

It's all about economics and when the ships were built, build them at the wrong time and they will lead a short life, the Batillus class were laid up in Norway (not far from where I live, my wife remembers them when she was young) mainly because they were to big and were limited to a few ports which could handle them.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
You really think so? My experience is that companies know and actively consider cost to bring products home.

Define "cost." Because companies absolutely do look at "cost," but whether cost == "total landed cost" is a different story. I know you said "cost to bring products home," but in my research experience and practical experience, companies have big issues with salivating over one or two TLC variables that are very low and failing to consider many other variables that, in the aggregate, can make a decision to source from far away a terrible idea. Some variables can be quantified easily, others not so much, but very few companies, it seems, really understand TLC.

It's not all bad. Companies are getting better. Look at the near-shoring trend. A lot of companies are finally starting to realize that labor cost isn't the be-all, end-all that it was held out to be for the last 20-ish years. There is a lot of stuff that goes into Total Landed Cost. Transportation is a "factor" (I put that in quotes because it's not really one factor, but rather a conglomeration of factors) that, to me, does not get nearly the attention it deserves.

Slow steaming has been good for the ocean lines and the environment (perhaps... again, more ships in rotations might offset the per-ship reductions), but it's adversely affected the shippers. The lines are marketing more frequent calls and more flexible drop-off windows, but that does nothing to remedy the issue of longer lead times. In my opinion, the longer lead times offset the cost savings from lower line-haul costs. Furthermore, it remains to be seen how ports are going to really handle these massive ships. The US ports, especially on the east coast come 2014-ish, have a lot to learn. So, so many things go into TLC. A professor of mine some years ago related a great quote to me about all of this, "Transportation is like a utility, like the electric company. You don't come home, flip on the lights, and call the electric company to thank them for doing a good job. You only call when you want to complain that your lights didn't go on. Transportation is the same way. We get ignored until we mess up."



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19584 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

One thing I wonder is why they didn't go with azimuthing thrusters, rather than fixed props.

As these ships get larger and larger, I would imagine that maneuverability would become very important to the operators. Also, azimuthing pod-mounted props are significantly more efficient. And the engine room could be even more flexibly configuired with multiple small engines generating the electrical propulsion load.

Why are container ship builders so resistant to this architecture?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 22):
The yard could built them but they would never have been able to get them out to sea.

Well, isn't that covered by what I said?

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 23):
but very few companies, it seems, really understand TLC.

Seems we deal with very different companies but my experience is that even small mom and pop companies understand landed cost.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 23):
In my opinion, the longer lead times offset the cost savings from lower line-haul costs

It very much depend on the product and I think many companies got too obsessed with keeping inventory value down, no matter the cost.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
And the engine room could be even more flexibly configuired with multiple small engines generating the electrical propulsion load

Only thing I can imagine is that they think it isn't as straightforward and too new technology thus don't like the risk.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):

It very much depend on the product and I think many companies got too obsessed with keeping inventory value down, no matter the cost.

I'll agree with you on this, for the most part. Inventory is, though, a huge cost for many companies so it rightly gets a lot of attention. Whether it is a particular company's biggest cost (or one most ripe for effectively and reasonably reducing costs) is another question.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19584 posts, RR: 58
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1821 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 25):

Only thing I can imagine is that they think it isn't as straightforward and too new technology thus don't like the risk.

It's been in use on cruise ships since the turn of the century. Very reliable technology. The big difference between a cruise ship and a merchantman is that on the cruise ship, the hotel load is comparable to (or even bigger than) the propulsion load. Thus, the various engines on a cruise ship all power a single electric bus and from that, the various loads (propulsion, hotel, operational) can be distributed as needed. On a merchantman, the propulsion load is the largest load by far, so not quite as much flexibility in generation capacity is needed.

The other issue is that the bow of a merchantman is often broader than that of a cruise ship, making the installation of bow thrusters more challenging. Bow thrusters are necessary on an azipod-driven ship or the entire maneuverability benefit of the azipods is lost.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 26):
Inventory is, though, a huge cost for many companies so it rightly gets a lot of attention.

As I always said when working with supply chain implementations - Inventory isn't a cost, it is an asset that must be managed so it doesn't become a cost.


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):

Container ships operate into a finite set of piers, usually well equipped with infrastructure - cranes, rail lines, truck terminals, and presumably tugs. Cruise ships on the other hand can operate just about anywhere with sufficient draft and piers - and sometimes just anchor offshore. Azipods give cruise ships flexibility container ships don't need.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1741 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Per article posted in link above they plan to run her with only 22 crew. Must be heavily automated.

How does the watch schedule work on a ship like this with only 22 crew aboard?



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1639 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 29):
Cruise ships on the other hand can operate just about anywhere with sufficient draft and piers - and sometimes just anchor offshore

In addition, cruise ships dock every day, or every other day,so tugs would be needed far more frequently than on large container ships. In addition, docking must be as fast and efficient as possible. Passengers don't want to wait around for a cumbersome ship to be maneuvered into position by tugs; certainly this time is important for cargo carriers as well but not enough to require new technologies.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19584 posts, RR: 58
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 29):
Container ships operate into a finite set of piers, usually well equipped with infrastructure - cranes, rail lines, truck terminals, and presumably tugs. Cruise ships on the other hand can operate just about anywhere with sufficient draft and piers - and sometimes just anchor offshore. Azipods give cruise ships flexibility container ships don't need.

It's not just flexibility, though. It's also efficiency. The placement of the propeller in front of the pod in a "puller" configuration actaully knocks a few percent off the fuel consumption, even when the pod is non-azimuthing. For example, Queen Mary 2 uses two azimuthing pods and two "fixi-pods."


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):

QM2 is a third again as fast as the Triple Es. I expect efficiency advantage would be reduced at the lower speed.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6616 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

I don't think they're more efficient, not even as efficient. Those gigantic diesel turning at about 100rpm in direct drive (no gearbox) are as efficient as it gets, there is no way to do better (well there is, the use of the exhaust to make steam and add some power). The azipods are good for maneuverability, low draft, security (several sources of power, several screws), not efficiency (not that they're inefficient either).


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NCL To Sail Year-round From New Orleans posted Wed Feb 10 2010 15:27:14 by MSYtristar
Houston, Largest US City To Elect Openly Gay Mayor posted Sat Dec 12 2009 21:57:06 by FlyingSicilian
Toyota Prepares To Revive MR2 Sports Car As Hybrid posted Fri Mar 20 2009 00:16:15 by StasisLAX
Worlds Largest Zit! posted Fri Dec 5 2008 23:17:00 by SXDFC
BANG...worlds Largest Caliber Handgun posted Wed Feb 27 2008 18:13:03 by RJdxer
Crown And Regal P. Priness Fourth Largest Ship? posted Tue Oct 16 2007 19:15:40 by 747400sp
Why Does QE2 Cruise Ship Have To Retire? posted Tue Oct 2 2007 20:50:59 by United Airline
2nd Cruise Ship Returns To New Orleans posted Fri Oct 27 2006 14:54:45 by MSYtristar
Bush Prepares To Launch October Suprise? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 18:43:58 by ArtieFufkin
London Times: Israel Prepares To Strike Iran posted Sun Dec 11 2005 20:25:06 by RJpieces