Talk:MS Freedom of the Seas
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MS Freedom of the Seas article.|
|WikiProject Ships||(Rated C-class)|
According the the QM2 page, she will lose her title of largest passenger ship to the Freedom of the Seas in May 2006. Freedom of the Seas at 1112 ft (according to this article) is in no way, shape, form or dimension larger than the QM2 at 1132 ft. Can someone spot the error?
Presumably it refers to the tonnage of the ships -- the Freedom's 158,000 tons will be greater than the QM2's 150,000. Liamdaly620 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And no, tonnage is not the weight of the ship, but the volume of the ship measured in 100*cubic feet (of all stupid, imperial measures)
The "title" of world's largest cruise ship correctly belongs to the Freedom of the Seas, as by convention ships are measured in size by their displacement, not their length. So whilst the QM2 is longer, the title belongs to the Freedom because of its displacement. JonEastham 19:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- By convention passenger ships are measured by gross tonnage, not displacement. And Freedom of the Seas may well displace less than QM2 and the two prior Queens. Compared to QM2, Freedom is longer and wider overall, but her hull is narrower and she draws significantly less water. Freedom however likely has a higher block coefficient than QM2's .61. We would need actual dimensions of the submerged hulls of both ships and the block coefficient for Freedom to determine which ship is heavier. Despite her slightly smaller gross tonnage QM2 may well have a higher displacement than Freedom of the Seas. Kablammo 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The name "gross tonnage" may be confusing but the idea is not. It makes since that volume (3 dimensions) or square footage (two dimensions) be a measurment of an object's "largeness".(Gary Joseph 22:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC))
Some discrepancies in this article have arisen, I have updated part of the ship information in the side bar, however information on source websites is conflicting.
The article currently states the ship will be christened on 2nd May 2006 in New York. By my calculations it takes about 7 days for the Freedom of the Seas to cross the Atlantic at full speed (~5,800km / 40km/h = 145h) would take about 6 days. Now, the Freedom is due to leave Southampton Cruise terminal for its maiden voyage at 17:00 on the 30th April. The BBC news report from today says its sailing straight from Oslo to New York, whilst the Southampton Cruise Terminal  has it scheduled to be there this weekend. With fireworks etc to send it off. If someone could confirm these either way. JonEastham 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- I took pics of her in Oslo, and its stated here in the newspapers that she sails for Southampton. Ulflarsen 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
She was berthed in Southampton last night (30/4) and though there were fireworks at 2030 according to the local news she is not due to sail for NY until Wednesday. Britmax 10:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Facts about the ship
** The $1 million per day costs need to be check, as if you do a quick check with the average cruise price times the maximum passengers, it means that the ship would only break even if its completely full (or overfull)EVERYDAY, so maybe someones wants to look into that statements. -Jon M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This section needs to be looked at and have citations given for each of the facts currently listed/or remove them. As a few of them are dubious and poorly written. For instance it says Two Statue of Libertys would match the height of the 63.4 metre tall ship. First off, the ship is 63.7m high and the statue of liberty is 93m high. Or about 46m if you dont include the base, just the copper structure. Either way, its incorrect. JonEastham 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Other errors: "weighs as much as 125,000 elephants"-- 12,500 maybe (but would need citation to authority), but not 125,000; and a comparision of Titanic's beam with Freedom's extreme width high up on superstructure is essentially meaningless.
- Also there have been several recent changes stating Freedom is the second largest ship. Second to what? By gross tonnage she and sister(s) are the largest, and gross tonnage is the typical measure of size of passenger ships. Kablammo 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is an unregistered user who keeps changing the statements so that they say it's "second largest" and the largest of royal carribean's fleet rather than the world's largest. I have been reverting them. But they keep altering the statements back. JonEastham 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the incorrect facts on weight and height, and also the misleading comparison between Titanic's hull breadth and Freedom's extreme width-- some 57' wider than her hull breadth. Kablammo 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed 28000 gallons of fuel per hour to pounds of fuel. The engine manufacturer's website states that the SFOC for the engine is ~170 g/kWh. .17 kg * 12600 kW per engine * 6 engines = 12852 kg per hour. 12852 kg = 28333 lbs.--Avro125 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I HATE it when dickheads constantly change facts without discussing why or citing their sources. I've had jerks do that to me before, and I swear i wish wikipedia would just permanently ban them and God would send a plague of locusts to their house or something. DurotarLord 16:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Changed fuel consumption back to pounds. Here's the source: http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/global/docs/en/ship_power/products/4str/figures_w46.pdf The math is explained above. --Avro125 13:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Further, 20,000 lbs of beef and 69,000 steaks is suspect, unless the steaks are quarter-pounders. (If some of the beef is in the form of hamburgers, meatballs, etc. then the numbers are even less believable.) Kufat (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- No one ever seems to talk about these things, but feeding people is not a no-loss situation. You can't feed cruise passengers leftovers. Unless you do it very carefully! Soup? I don't know. You can't ever ever ever run out. So you will discard food after each meal. Can you feed it to the crew? I don't know. What will the crew tolerate? :) So computing it on a daily basis is smarter than weekly. Once displayed, it may make no difference if the passenger picks it up and eats it, picks it up and eats one teaspoon, picks it up and eats none of it, or doesn't pick it up at all. Cook does not want to risk contamination by putting it out a second time, I would guess.
- What no editors in the food service business? :) Student7 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be M/S Freedom of the Seas not (as it currently is) M/S Freedom of the Seas? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to go ahead and change it. Jarfingle 08:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make the change, but someone should check this out: The daily operating cost is stated at $6mil per day. This seems highly implausable. Here's why... The ship typically has about 4,300 passangers (give or take). A passanger pays an AVERAGE of about $2,000 (estimated, give or take a few hundred bucks) for the week. The range of fee goes from about $700/week per person for the cheapest tickets to a few thousand per person for the largest suites (say, $5,000 per person), so this average varies from week to week, depending on availability/demand, season, etc. Taking into account that these are estimates, even so, we see that $2,000 x 4,300 paying passengers = $8.6mil FOR THE WEEK in revenue. If the operating cost were as stated, a week's operating cost would be $42million !! There's no way that this is possible from a business point of view. The correct figure, I'm guessing, is $6mil FOR A WEEK, not for each day. This would make sense, as this would entail about a worthwhile profit each week for the company. (Keep in mind, it ALSO must recoup the $800million it cost to manufacture the ship before the investment even begins to yield a profit OVERALL.)
The only way the current figure makes sense is if the ship earns another, say, $35million EACH WEEK from sources of revenue other than passenger fees. (And that would be just to BREAK EVEN each week, not taking into account ROI for the cost of making the ship.) This additional weekly revenue would come from: Profits from alchohol purchases. Profits from elected "pay" dinners (only a small portion of the passengers do this). Profits from the retail sales aboard the ship (art and items from the shop, e.g. souveniers). Profits from the Casino. Profits from elected "excursions" on the islands for those who do so. On-going advertising fees earned from promotions and advertisements from companies. It seems implausable that all that adds up to over $35 million dollars EACH WEEK. Assuming that a ship turns even a slight profit, that would be an average of almost $10,000 per passenger! (Keep in mind, many passengers are children...so, minus the ongoing adevertising fees from companies, this would entail that each adult was spending an average of $10,000 on the ship during the week.) Again, these figures assume RC would be just looking to break even. We can only assume that RC is turning a worthwhile profit after all is said and done.
Thus: change "daily" operating cost to "WEEKLY" operating cost of $6mil. Otherwise, Royal Carribean is losing 10's of millions each week it runs the ship!
- "I'm guessing, is $6mil FOR A WEEK, not for each day" Is this the basis for the $1 million per day figure? I agree with the logic that $6 million per day is probably too high, but we can't just invent a new figure here. Given that no one has found a source for this for quite some time, I am removing this fact from the article. -- Bdentremont (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The gross tonnage (gt) of the vessel has been stated in various edits of this article as 154,000, 154,407, 158,000, and 160,000. Published figures use most or all of these, so support can be found for any of them. I have changed the table to use the actual rating by DNV of 154,407. As that is the official rating by the applicable classification society it is the one that should be used.
Various figures have been given for deadweight tonnage; I have deleted this value as it does not have a lot of meaning for passenger vessels.
There was a figure for displacement given earlier; that has also been deleted as its source was not given and the figure seems too high (especially in comparison to QM2's estimated displacement of 76,000 t for a liner of similar volume but with more robust construction than a cruise ship). Displacement would be an interesting figure if a reliable source can be found. Kablammo 15:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- She's not longer than QM2 so why is she the largest ?
Larger gross tonnage, which is how passenger ships are measured. Kablammo 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no way a ship can be shorter, narrower and shallower than Qm2 yet displace more water,please make this section conform to the laws of physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Comparison with USS Nimitz
I have deleted this claim:
Nimitz has a greater wl breadth and overall width, much deeper draft, and is longer at the waterline than Freedom of the Seas. The cruise ship is only larger in overall length. Nimitz also has a much higher displacement. Kablammo 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"It is one of the few ships with 4 bow thrusters on each side with 8 bow thrusters in total."
......Who wrote that?
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- Triggered by
\bship-technology\.com\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
Lost at sea
I wonder whether we should record the occasional "lost at sea" incident. The ship seems like an innocent bystander. It didn't founder or anything. Kind of like somebody jumping off a pier. We don't record that as part of the Pier article. Or someone using Rockefeller Plaza as a place to set himself afire. Not the Plaza's "fault" nor germane to the Plaza article. In these cases, merely a locale. Quite different from having a boat sink! Student7 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- The editor that added that section added similar sections to dozens and dozens of cruise ship articles. It's a bit like an article for a small town discussing every mysterious disappearance, but I didn't know if there was any consensus for removal. Perhaps this should be raised at WP:SHIPS. My personal vote would be to remove the lost at sea mentions unless the events themselves demonstrate notability, but as far as I know there isn't an official policy that supports my opinion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Student7: I raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#RfC:_Inclusion_of_.22Lost_at_sea.22_and_.22Missing_person.22_incidents_in_ship_articles. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Rannikon Puolustaja, 2/2006, p. 77