Cammell Laird & Costa Crociere

I was having a chat over a pint last night and was informed that Costa Crociere, the parent company of the stricken liner, were instrumental in Cammell Laird shutting down. It sounded like Costa were trying to reduce the cost of their build. Can anyone out there shed any light on this for me as it sounds interesting.

http://www.oceanlinermuseum.co.uk/Cammell%20Laird%20Shipbuilders%20to%20the%20World.htm

The Years Of Uncertainty, scroll down.

I remember Cammell Laird building a mid section for an Italion Cruise ship which was built but not paid for by the cruise line who changed there mind on the refit and backed out,Don`t know what became of the mid section whether it was scrapped or sold I think it was scrapped tbh after taking them to Court

Thanks for the enlightenment there fellahs. I hope Costa go bust themselves now. Was told last night that Costa reckoned the build wasn't up to spec, can't see that because of all the skills that were present at the yard, just not feasible. Maybe some more gen will come out apart from the official line.

I worked on this mid section (worked at lairds for about 18 months) It was for the costa classica to be lengthened. It was built on the slipway then launched and towed round to the wet basin. When it was about 90% complete we heard the costa classica was on its last cruise then sailing to lairds for lengthening. The next think we heard was it had been told to turn round and not come because the work was not up to standard. It sat in the wet basin for some time then got scrapped along with many skilled men's jobs.

What is funny about this, is that any contract of this size goes through the government who then effectively underwrite the contract. It seemed convenient for the government to let camel lairds slip away.

Tks, good gen. Keep it coming, finding it very interesting. That wiggi was more or less what I was told about last night, by a woman, she probably knew someone who worked there. She was very vehement about it that it was a put up job.

Its all I could find BC mate http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/j...ssica-refit-falls-through/284369.article

You can see some excellent pictures of Lairds' ill-fated Costa Classica mid-section at...

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=252090.msg6692312#msg6692312

.. scroll to the posting by Andonagasaki.

I read elsewhere that the mid-section eventually went for scrap to Ukraine.

Attached picture 1zv2v5l.jpg

Apparently the receiver took Costa to the European court for the sum of £42 million around 2003/4, can't find the outcome anywhere, if indeed there's been one.

There's a story here about arbitration over the mid-section dispute going against Laird's ...

http://www.freesun.be/freesun_news/10_november_2006/costa_cammel.html

Quote

Cammel Laird: Arbitration Closes With Favourable Outcome For Costa Crociere

Arbitration Tribunal decides that the contract was terminated for the non performance by the former UK group and orders it to pay damages

Genoa - October 27, 2006 - Costa Crociere has announced the outcome of its lengthy dispute with Cammell Laird Holdings Plc, which began in 2000. The Arbitration Tribunal hearing the case - composed of the Arbitrators Messrs Professor Pietro Trimarchi (Chairman), Professor Guido Alpa and Lucio Crispo - ruled unanimously that termination of the agreement between the two parties had occurred due to the non performance of the contract on the part of the former shipyard, now in administration, and ordered them to pay damages to the cruise company. The Arbitrators' judgment recognises in full the correctness of Costa Crociere's decision to refer the matter to arbitration.

The dispute first arose over the performance of a shipbuilding contract, signed by Costa Crociere and Cammell Laird Holdings Plc, under the terms of which the former British shipbuilder and repair yard was to have built and inserted in the existing ship a hull section for the lengthening of the cruise ship Costa Classica. The work should have taken place in late 2000, early 2001.

Due to Cammell Laird's failure to complete the construction in time and to proceed with the lengthening, Costa Crociere decided to suspend the performance of the contract, not sending the ship to the yard. The contract was later cancelled in January 2001.

In the course of the arbitration proceedings, during which Costa Crociere was represented by the lawyers Messrs Andrea D'Angelo, Gian Paolo Maraini and Marco Lopez, the reasons that led Costa Crociere to withdraw from the contract were presented to the Tribunal. The Italian cruise company's arguments were subsequently upheld by the Arbitrators, becoming the basis for their ruling.

Good find Yoller and thanks.

A couple more stories on the arbitration here ..

http://www.tradewindsnews.com/daily/article475135.ece?service=printArticle

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk...aird-for-50m-deal-fiasco-64375-18018927/

... I don't know anything about these things, but it seems a bit odd that it was an all-Italian tribunal. Perish the thought, but could there have been a danger of some bias?

Originally Posted by Liverpool Daily Post

Tribunal blames Cammell Laird for £50m deal fiasco

BY WILL BATCHELOR, Daily Post Oct 31 2006

SHIPBUILDER Cammell Laird was blamed yesterday for the failure of a deal that led to the firm's collapse.

The company called in the receivers in 2001 after a £50m contract to lengthen the Italian cruise ship Costa Classica fell through.

Cammell Laird claimed that it had already built the hull section at its yard in Birkenhead, where it was waiting to be fitted.

But the ship's owners, Costa Cruises, claimed the hull section was not built within the agreed time or to the specified quality.

The ship was en route to Merseyside, with Cammell Laird staff on board marking it out for cutting, when it was ordered to return to port.

Cammell Laird was left with the 146ft, 13-deck extension, which would have added 500 cabins to the cruiser, and an unpaid bill.

Its directors blamed the Costa Classica fiasco, along with other problems, when the firm went into receivership in April 2001 with debts of £150m

An arbitration tribunal in Italy ruled that Cammell Laird was to blame for the deal's collapse.

Costa Cruises released a press statement that claimed: "The arbitration tribunal hearing the case ruled unanimously that termination of the agreement between the two parties had occurred due to the non-performance of the contract on the part of the former shipyard, now in administration, and ordered them to pay damages to the cruise company.

"The arbitrators' judgment recognises in full the correctness of Costa Cruises' decision to refer the matter to arbitration.

"Due to Cammell Laird's failure to complete the construction in time and to proceed with the lengthening, Costa Cruises decided to suspend the performance of the contract, not sending the ship to the yard."

The former directors of Cammell Laird were unavailable for comment yesterday.

Les Thomas, a shipbuilding enthusiast who founded the pressure group Save Cammell Laird, questioned the tribunal's findings. He said: "They had already launched the hull section before the Costa Classica arrived, so how can this tribunal rule that construction was not complete?

"It sounds very dubious to me, and I am not sure we will ever get to the truth of the matter.

"This is yet another disappointing chapter in a very murky tale that spelt the end for Cammell Laird."

Genoa-based Costa Cruises, which has 15 ships, is part of the US cruise group Carnival Corporation.

Originally Posted by yoller

A couple more stories on the arbitration here ..

http://www.tradewindsnews.com/daily/article475135.ece?service=printArticle

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk...aird-for-50m-deal-fiasco-64375-18018927/

... I don't know anything about these things, but it seems a bit odd that it was an all-Italian tribunal. Perish the thought, but could there have been a danger of some bias?

I used to do a bit of work for Lairds and the employees during that period and I have seen the mid-section, but what I have not seen is any evidence of the work not being up to standard, only hearsay.

PB

I do a lot of work for Lairds. The workmanship must be up to scratch...Think about it, HOW many warships and vessels has Lairds built?? Must be doing something right. even now they have the contract for the RFA vessels (Royal Fleet Auxillary).
I think the Italians just got cold feet and backed out AS USUAL!!!Easier to run away from things as their history proves!
This contract was a pisstake as i see it.

The biggest problem with this contract was that it was signed according to Italian law & not English law. There were no stage payments as the work proceeded & Lairds had borrowed £40m from a bank to finance this.
The lack of progress & workmanship issues were just a bluff, the real issue being that Costa had just been taken over by Carnival, who had decided that due to a downturn in the cruise business they didn't need the ship to be lengthened.
Although the work was slightly behind, this would not have affected the section's insertion into the ship.
Had this contract been under English law Costa would have lost the case.

Bob.

I remember being sent to photograph the arrival of the Costa Classico into the Mersey & into Lairds for the local papers. I was purched atop of the Birkenhead Priory with a great vantage point for hours until I got the message that it wasn't coming!

Originally Posted by 8HBob

Costa had just been taken over by Carnival, who had decided that due to a downturn in the cruise business they didn't need the ship to be lengthened.

Bob.

They just commissioned the Costa Europa (and her sister) instead!!

Originally Posted by hoseman

I do a lot of work for Lairds. The workmanship must be up to scratch...Think about it, HOW many warships and vessels has Lairds built?? Must be doing something right. even now they have the contract for the RFA vessels (Royal Fleet Auxillary).
I think the Italians just got cold feet and backed out AS USUAL!!!Easier to run away from things as their history proves!
This contract was a pisstake as i see it.

That what I thought regards to high workmanship because as you say they have been building ships for decades.
Also the people who used to work at Laird still demanded a high standard on their vehicles when I used to repair them so I very much doubt it was shoddy workmanship and believe they were sold out.

PB

Originally Posted by 8HBob

The biggest problem with this contract was that it was signed according to Italian law & not English law. There were no stage payments as the work proceeded & Lairds had borrowed £40m from a bank to finance this.
The lack of progress & workmanship issues were just a bluff, the real issue being that Costa had just been taken over by Carnival, who had decided that due to a downturn in the cruise business they didn't need the ship to be lengthened.
Although the work was slightly behind, this would not have affected the section's insertion into the ship.
Had this contract been under English law Costa would have lost the case.

Bob.

Perhaps they should have insisted is was set-up in British law but Lairds were desperate for work at that time and not forgetting thatcher off course who also stuck the knife in.

It was very sad time indeed.

PB

Brilliant info fellahs, very informative and I found all the input spot on, good old wiki. For info, I served on a Lairds built sub, the Aeneas, in the 60's, it was built in 1947 and it was a brilliant boat. It was one of the last A boats scrapped and at one time was refitted to do trials with sub launched missiles. Cammell Lairds workmanship was, and probably still is, second to none. The Eyeties pulled a fast one: or should that be the Yanks?