OT: The SS United States May Sail Again?

[geofflambert]

How about this. Since we now have a "Northwest Passage"; NYC to the Arctic Sea to Kobe to San Fran.

[Footslogger]

Another thing to add too. I met a mother at work who wanted to go on vacation, but was terrified of planes. So I mentioned that they can sedate you. And she said, "No." That it would bother her for 2 weeks prior to leaving. So for people who are 'scared to fly' this would be a viable option. But honestly, after looking at the SS United States from that video I posted earlier, I'm not sure it is cost effective.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I agree Lokasenna, if there IS a niche market for her. However today, speed through the water is not nearly as important as speed OVER the water. SO if one wants a speedy trip, air is the way to go. If one wants a trip steeped in luxury then the cruise liners are the way to go... I'm not sure there is much of a "niche" left however to support what it would cost to make this ship go! Now if they could raise the RMS Titanic or recreate her for a "period" piece method of travel, then you might have something....

Well, I don't think they would be going for transportation, really. It would still be a cruise ship. It would just be for a cruise with a very specific atmosphere. Namely, before the advent of the modern party ship.

I know of people who find existing cruise ships disgusting/not fun and would rather go on a more low-key (i.e. fewer people on the ship, no ridiculous "amenities", etc.) relaxation cruise. I would also.

This ship also has the advantage of being able to automatically dock at US ports by virtue of being a US ship. At least the article says that's an advantage.

I've been on a lot of cruises and only left from one foreign port (Vancouver.) The major lines all dock here.

Modern cruise economics work because of all the amenities. Casino, drinks, gift shop, extra-fee restaurants, etc. Without them the fares would be through the roof. Big ships cost big bucks to make go.

[crsutton]

Won't happen. Steel ships have a finite lifetime. We are talking about life as a true seagoing vessel-not a pier side attraction. Neglect only serves to shorten that life span and I see nothing but a sorely neglected 60 year old ship here. I have spent enough time on ships and seen enough of the United States to say that I just don't see it ever happening. She won't sail again.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I agree Lokasenna, if there IS a niche market for her. However today, speed through the water is not nearly as important as speed OVER the water. SO if one wants a speedy trip, air is the way to go. If one wants a trip steeped in luxury then the cruise liners are the way to go... I'm not sure there is much of a "niche" left however to support what it would cost to make this ship go! Now if they could raise the RMS Titanic or recreate her for a "period" piece method of travel, then you might have something....

Well, I don't think they would be going for transportation, really. It would still be a cruise ship. It would just be for a cruise with a very specific atmosphere. Namely, before the advent of the modern party ship.

I know of people who find existing cruise ships disgusting/not fun and would rather go on a more low-key (i.e. fewer people on the ship, no ridiculous "amenities", etc.) relaxation cruise. I would also.

This ship also has the advantage of being able to automatically dock at US ports by virtue of being a US ship. At least the article says that's an advantage.

I've been on a lot of cruises and only left from one foreign port (Vancouver.) The major lines all dock here.

Modern cruise economics work because of all the amenities. Casino, drinks, gift shop, extra-fee restaurants, etc. Without them the fares would be through the roof. Big ships cost big bucks to make go.

Ah, but I counter that and say that with those amenities, the fares go through the roof. [;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna




Well, I don't think they would be going for transportation, really. It would still be a cruise ship. It would just be for a cruise with a very specific atmosphere. Namely, before the advent of the modern party ship.

I know of people who find existing cruise ships disgusting/not fun and would rather go on a more low-key (i.e. fewer people on the ship, no ridiculous "amenities", etc.) relaxation cruise. I would also.

This ship also has the advantage of being able to automatically dock at US ports by virtue of being a US ship. At least the article says that's an advantage.

I've been on a lot of cruises and only left from one foreign port (Vancouver.) The major lines all dock here.

Modern cruise economics work because of all the amenities. Casino, drinks, gift shop, extra-fee restaurants, etc. Without them the fares would be through the roof. Big ships cost big bucks to make go.

Ah, but I counter that and say that with those amenities, the fares go through the roof. [;)]

The total cost can, but it's at the passenger's option. The actual fare--the upfront price--is pretty low compared to a resort. If you get an inside cabin, eat the included meals, which are great, and don't drink, gamble, or pay for their shore excursions, a cruise is a very low-cost vacation. Especially if you live close enough to the port to be able to drive to and from. The big lines have re-based a number of ships to the NE and Gulf Coast to allow more driving.

[RangerJoe]

Well, if a lot of people leave the US after the next US election, it would be relatively cheap to go on on the ship with a lot of luggage.

[wdolson]

Please stay away from modern political topics.

Bill