Who is our new Royal Caribbean ship

[woodscruise]

In todays cruise weekly an article regarding 2 new  gangways at Sydney.

 

"TWO new gangways have arrived at Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal, designed to better support visits from larger cruise ships in excess of 5,000 passengers.

Arriving fully assembled, the gangways were unloaded by crane and installed on the wharf over two days.

NSW State Minister for Transport and Roads Andrew Constance said the two new gangways aim to improve the terminal’s efficiency.

“These new passenger bridges will move over 1,200 people every 30 minutes,” he said.

“The great thing is they increase capacity and speed up boarding and disembarking, making it a much more enjoyable experience for the hundreds of thousands of passengers welcomed at the Overseas Passenger Terminal every year.”

Following a period of testing and commissioning, the new gangways are expected to be operational in time for the 2019/20 cruise season.

The new gangways build on the NSW Government’s recent investments in Sydney’s cruise terminal facilities.

Over 1.6m cruise passengers transit through Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal and White Bay Cruise Terminal each year.

The 300-plus cruise ships visiting New South Wales each year generate $2.75 billion for the state’s economy and support almost 10,000 jobs and generate $800 million in wages."

 

[Chiliburn]

7 hours ago, woodscruise said:

In todays cruise weekly an article regarding 2 new  gangways at Sydney.

 

"TWO new gangways have arrived at Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal, designed to better support visits from larger cruise ships in excess of 5,000 passengers.

 

Arriving fully assembled, the gangways were unloaded by crane and installed on the wharf over two days.

 

NSW State Minister for Transport and Roads Andrew Constance said the two new gangways aim to improve the terminal’s efficiency.

 

“These new passenger bridges will move over 1,200 people every 30 minutes,” he said.

 

“The great thing is they increase capacity and speed up boarding and disembarking, making it a much more enjoyable experience for the hundreds of thousands of passengers welcomed at the Overseas Passenger Terminal every year.”

 

Following a period of testing and commissioning, the new gangways are expected to be operational in time for the 2019/20 cruise season.

 

The new gangways build on the NSW Government’s recent investments in Sydney’s cruise terminal facilities.

 

Over 1.6m cruise passengers transit through Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal and White Bay Cruise Terminal each year.

 

The 300-plus cruise ships visiting New South Wales each year generate $2.75 billion for the state’s economy and support almost 10,000 jobs and generate $800 million in wages."

 

 

 

Interesting.The big ships are here to stay.

Royal Caribbean has placed a order for three new icon class of ships ,reported as bigger.

Plus the oasis 5 (Asia?)and Quantum 5 (USA)currently being built.

[banzaii]

16 hours ago, woodscruise said:

In todays cruise weekly an article regarding 2 new  gangways at Sydney.

 

"TWO new gangways have arrived at Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal, designed to better support visits from larger cruise ships in excess of 5,000 passengers.

 

NSW State Minister for Transport and Roads Andrew Constance said the two new gangways aim to improve the terminal’s efficiency. ....

 

The new gangways build on the NSW Government’s recent investments in Sydney’s cruise terminal facilities.

 

Over 1.6m cruise passengers transit through Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal and White Bay Cruise Terminal each year.

 

The 300-plus cruise ships visiting New South Wales each year generate $2.75 billion for the state’s economy and support almost 10,000 jobs and generate $800 million in wages."

Just a shame that this will do nothing to increase capacity in Sydney.  Unless port authorities only allow 5000 pax ships to use OPT.

[GUT2407]

8 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

Interesting.The big ships are here to stay.

Royal Caribbean has placed a order for three new icon class of ships ,reported as bigger.

Plus the oasis 5 (Asia?)and Quantum 5 (USA)currently being built.

Which makes a 2nd terminal, that is accessible even more urgent.

[GUT2407]

16 hours ago, woodscruise said:

In todays cruise weekly an article regarding 2 new  gangways at Sydney.

 

"TWO new gangways have arrived at Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal, designed to better support visits from larger cruise ships in excess of 5,000 passengers.

 

Arriving fully assembled, the gangways were unloaded by crane and installed on the wharf over two days.

 

NSW State Minister for Transport and Roads Andrew Constance said the two new gangways aim to improve the terminal’s efficiency.

 

“These new passenger bridges will move over 1,200 people every 30 minutes,” he said.

 

“The great thing is they increase capacity and speed up boarding and disembarking, making it a much more enjoyable experience for the hundreds of thousands of passengers welcomed at the Overseas Passenger Terminal every year.”

 

Following a period of testing and commissioning, the new gangways are expected to be operational in time for the 2019/20 cruise season.

 

The new gangways build on the NSW Government’s recent investments in Sydney’s cruise terminal facilities.

 

Over 1.6m cruise passengers transit through Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal and White Bay Cruise Terminal each year.

 

The 300-plus cruise ships visiting New South Wales each year generate $2.75 billion for the state’s economy and support almost 10,000 jobs and generate $800 million in wages."

 

 

 

I heard that about 90% of those wages go to one check in agent.

 

could be fake news I guess.

[GUT2407]

20 minutes ago, banzaii said:

Just a shame that this will do nothing to increase capacity in Sydney.  Unless port authorities only allow 5000 pax ships to use OPT.

But do what with all those 2000 or so ships?

[banzaii]

1 hour ago, GUT2407 said:

But do what with all those 2000 or so ships?

Hey I'm not here to solve those issues.  My opinion is that the Navy do not need to be where they are.

 

I an just saying that maybe if the pollies want to brag about cruise statistics, embarking and disembarking efficiency are as not as good as improving passenger capacity.  If you don't improve berthing capacity, the only way to increase is to increase capacity of ships berthed at OPT.

[MicCanberra]

The navy should move north.

[The_Big_M]

The Navy should stay where they are. :-)

[Chiliburn]

28 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

The Navy should stay where they are. 🙂

WHY 

 isn’t decentralisation a good idea.

sure services wouldn’t be there but they would follow.

 

if you build it they will come.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Chiliburn

[GUT2407]

2 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

WHY 

 isn’t decentralisation a good idea.

sure services wouldn’t be there but they would follow.

 

if you build it they will come.

And with Williamtown (R.A.A.F) and Singleton (Army) close by, NEWCASTLE wouldn’t be a silly option.

[banzaii]

5 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

The navy should move north.

 

3 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

The Navy should stay where they are. 🙂

 

1 minute ago, GUT2407 said:

And with Williamtown (R.A.A.F) and Singleton (Army) close by, NEWCASTLE wouldn’t be a silly option.

The Navy can be anywhere in Australia and there are far more strategic locations than Sydney Harbour.

 

I'm sure in times of war, the cruise ships would have no hesitation to make way for the destroyers.

[MicCanberra]

4 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

The Navy should stay where they are. 🙂

I am sure they can find a suitable replacement location if they wanted to.

[MicCanberra]

53 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

And with Williamtown (R.A.A.F) and Singleton (Army) close by, NEWCASTLE wouldn’t be a silly option.

Agreed.

[MicCanberra]

42 minutes ago, banzaii said:

 

 

The Navy can be anywhere in Australia and there are far more strategic locations than Sydney Harbour.

 

I'm sure in times of war, the cruise ships would have no hesitation to make way for the destroyers.

Definitely agree.

[MicCanberra]

On 7/17/2019 at 9:23 PM, woodscruise said:

In todays cruise weekly an article regarding 2 new  gangways at Sydney.

 

"TWO new gangways have arrived at Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal, designed to better support visits from larger cruise ships in excess of 5,000 passengers.

 

Arriving fully assembled, the gangways were unloaded by crane and installed on the wharf over two days.

 

NSW State Minister for Transport and Roads Andrew Constance said the two new gangways aim to improve the terminal’s efficiency.

 

“These new passenger bridges will move over 1,200 people every 30 minutes,” he said.

 

“The great thing is they increase capacity and speed up boarding and disembarking, making it a much more enjoyable experience for the hundreds of thousands of passengers welcomed at the Overseas Passenger Terminal every year.”

 

Following a period of testing and commissioning, the new gangways are expected to be operational in time for the 2019/20 cruise season.

 

The new gangways build on the NSW Government’s recent investments in Sydney’s cruise terminal facilities.

 

Over 1.6m cruise passengers transit through Sydney’s Overseas Passenger Terminal and White Bay Cruise Terminal each year.

 

The 300-plus cruise ships visiting New South Wales each year generate $2.75 billion for the state’s economy and support almost 10,000 jobs and generate $800 million in wages."

 

 

 

Great stuff. anything that improves embarkation and debarkation is a good thing.

[The_Big_M]

4 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

WHY 

 isn’t decentralisation a good idea.

sure services wouldn’t be there but they would follow.

 

if you build it they will come.

 

Not really, when your business is mostly centralised logistics and supplies. Amazon, Costco and even Woolworths and similar build their distribution centres in a consolidate way. Having stores all over the place is problematic. Further, where training and intelligence capability are significant as here, it makes sense to have them close to training and learning facilities.

 

The idea of 'build it and they will come' has been proven false and just a cliché so many times - and moreover calls for a massive cash splash, which we're not exactly rolling in right now. "Budget emergency, deficit disaster" come to mind. 

 

As for the "services to follow" there's already a shortage/excess demand for specialists in other remote areas. Tell me, if you were a specialist, why would you choose to go somewhere remote, away from your friends, away from services and other facilities, just because there's a government department there, when there are other options still in Sydney? Who would?!

 

Laughable.

 

[The_Big_M]

1 hour ago, banzaii said:

 

 

The Navy can be anywhere in Australia and there are far more strategic locations than Sydney Harbour.

 

I'm sure in times of war, the cruise ships would have no hesitation to make way for the destroyers.

 

The first part is simply false. Services and logistics need to be nearby, otherwise there is a massive expense increase freighting people and supplies around. And the claim of strategic is wrong - what is the strategy?

 

Your last assurance is laughable. The modern world is about contracts - and once gained, anything is hard fought to give up. If your claim were true then they could just have sold back the Woolloomooloo wharves from private interest for a much more suitable purpose of cruise ships. And if the business case was there, that would already have been done.

[The_Big_M]

1 hour ago, MicCanberra said:

I am sure they can find a suitable replacement location if they wanted to.

 

The issue isn't a location. The issue is the practicality of it. 

 

Unless perhaps the cruise industry wants to fund all the ongoing operations of relocation? No, didn't think so.

[Chiliburn]

8 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

And with Williamtown (R.A.A.F) and Singleton (Army) close by, NEWCASTLE wouldn’t be a silly option.

I’m sure the cash they got for garden Island would build nice facilities in Newcastle.

 

6 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

The issue isn't a location. The issue is the practicality of it. 

 

Unless perhaps the cruise industry wants to fund all the ongoing operations of relocation? No, didn't think so.

I friend of mine drives from Gosford to garden Island each day as a contractor.

 Newcastle would be closer.

I can’t see how retail chain logistics and a military base support can be compared.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Chiliburn

[banzaii]

10 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

The first part is simply false. Services and logistics need to be nearby, otherwise there is a massive expense increase freighting people and supplies around. And the claim of strategic is wrong - what is the strategy?

 

Your last assurance is laughable. The modern world is about contracts - and once gained, anything is hard fought to give up. If your claim were true then they could just have sold back the Woolloomooloo wharves from private interest for a much more suitable purpose of cruise ships. And if the business case was there, that would already have been done.

The Navy and indeed the defence forces already have services and logistics Australia wide.  Pick one!

 

If our Navy and defence forces don't have a defence strategy, we are in bigger trouble than I thought.

 

I'm glad I gave you a laugh, but I'm  pretty sure all those contract mean nothing after declaration of war.  Even the owners of the Wooloomooloo wharf properties might not want to be there if there is the threat of a torpedo up their wazoo!

 

I applaud your passion for your opinion, but please do not insult mine.

[GUT2407]

5 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

I’m sure the cash they got for garden Island would build nice facilities in Newcastle.

 

I friend of mine drives from Gosford to garden Island each day as a contractor.

 Newcastle would be closer.

I can’t see how retail chain logistics and a military base support can be compared.

Except even stores like Woolworths supply from multiple places of origin 

[MicCanberra]

Personally I think Darwin or Cairns would make an excellent place for a Naval base, may even increase the economies of the regions.

[lyndarra]

13 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

And with Williamtown (R.A.A.F) and Singleton (Army) close by, NEWCASTLE wouldn’t be a silly option.

Newcastle would not, IMHO, have enough room, too many coal loaders. Port Stephens however.......

[MicCanberra]

Just now, lyndarra said:

Newcastle would not, IMHO, have enough room, too many coal loaders. Port Stephens however.......

They had one there before but closed it.

Must have been too far from distribution areas, if only they had ships and such to get them around.