Brisbane41

2 hours ago, lyndarra said:

Geez, oh how I wish I had bowling club or pub grub on my recent MSC cruise. It would have been better than almost anything that was dished up in  the MDR.

Well serves you right for going with MSC! If you pay for mediocrity then you get mediocrity. Personally I wouldn't find MSC suitable to board a dog. I wouldn't cruise with that line even if it was for free and I was paid to go with them.

3 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Your responses don't demonstrate it is totally wrong. And saying something is "better" against such low benchmarks is hardly a ringing endorsement and doesn't address any authenticity.

 

Sea days are one thing, but you don't need a cruise ship to achieve that. If you look at modern cruise ships they're moving away from that experience in any case... as that's not a revenue opportunity for them. More enclosed/interior design, smaller/non-existent promenades and enclaves and walls to be more about the experience onboard than what's outside.

What you say will never happen. There will always be sea days. Look at Australia for example. It is impossible to have a cruise to the Pacific Islands without them.

For me being on a cruise ships is paradise. I do not need the best to be impressed. I could not care less that others find the food dissatisfying. Too bad for them. I have always enjoyed every meal I have had on a cruise ship, enjoyed my time on them and after 17 years of doing so could not fault it.

What you are saying is all wrong. Enclosing the design does not change a thing. It will not change the ability to go to a bar and enjoy a few good drinks while at sea as the ship glides through the ocean. That experience can never be changed.

Then you say I base my benchmark on low expectations, well take one look at the Australians that do cruises and that's all you get the KFC, Pizza Hut, McDonalds crowd. None of them know how to dress up and dress like bogans. I could not picture people like that in anything fancier than a Burger King or McDonalds or an ironed T-shirt at the local bowling club.

Cruising will never be artificial. It is an awesome experience. It will always have its up and down moments but I can guarantee one thing that in the 17 years I have been cruising the ones that enjoy it will always get they way. It is the way of the cruise business. I have seen enough about it in my 17 years and heard enough about it from family who have had 40 years experience before me. You can never say that the cruise industry will be artificial.

11 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

If your concern is about artificiality, you wouldn't be taking a cruise at all. Pretty much everything about a ship is artificial. The food isn't genuine, the service is debatably so, but often more false than not, and the entertainment and attractions are often copies of other things.

 

It's just a money making venture around artificiality.

 

 

Totally wrong. The food is much better than you would get at your average bowling club, McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut and any suburban pub.

What I enjoy is the sea days and moving along the ocean, the fresh air, the stunning sunrise and sunsets, the scenic cruising, port visits, the bars on board. The whole sea life and activity is what I enjoy. It is an experience you cannot get on land.

Intercontinental is close by and if you get a harbour view room you can watch the ship arrive.

The closest train station to the terminal is Nihon-Odori and it is an easy ten minute walk to the terminal.

With Japan you might find it is easier to book a hotel close to a major train line or at the airport. I usually fly into Haneda airport and it has a hotel in the terminal that all I have to do is drop my bags and start exploring and it is well connected by trains to the entire city.

9 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Just because you don't like it, or it is not authentic does not make it offensive or the equivalent of racist. 

 

It may not be authentic but many are not offended by brothels, so the analogy doesn't support that assessment here either.

Yeah may not be offensive or racist but it does effect us all.

It effects those passengers who travel and pay money for a genuine experience in a foreign country. Now if you take racism away then those passengers on Golden Princess were first greeted to New Zealand by people who were fake and not even Maori. Too bad if you wanted a genuine experience. I am sure they will get it elsewhere. What this essentially is a cruise line profiteering and replacing genuine experiences with artificial ones. Soon enough the ship wont have to dock in a port. Lets start implementing virtual reality goggles and keeping them on the ship while touring the port. They would make a fortune.

28 minutes ago, mr walker said:

 

Often though it is people not of that 'race' being offended on behalf of the people of that 'race'. That is what I have an issue with.

I do not see it like that.

Picture this scenario. Would you go to a brothel to find true love? Now it is a rhetorical question of course. Or why go to a park when you can just pop a pill?

Its the authenticity of it. The cruise lines will line passengers up in a port of call in a revenue raising exercise to take photos of passengers of people with something unique to that country. Then it turns out that the people they are using as props in the photos to make money are "fake" its not real.

Now if they were real Maori in New Zealand lining up for photos with passengers it would be a big difference. It is authentic. They know the traditional attire and are the real deal. In Princess Cruise lines case they got Filipino crew members to pose as Maori. It is totally fake. It is just the same as going to a brothel to find the love of your life. You will still find love in a brothel but it won't be real love. It will only ever be fake.

The issues I have with is I have outlined before, but I think everyone is entitled to call this out whether they are a member of that race or culture or not. 

1 hour ago, in rod we trust said:

 

can you please explain what rational discussion or logic  is in destroying a whole bay and eco system  just for a cruise ship terminal … what facts have people disregard .  also what have they made up on this proposal,  you mention few might be agitators..  

 

but look at the real facts …  there are so many negative points and some dangerous ones  that a cruise terminal shouldn't be even considered .. there are plenty other deep water ports up and running to house these 330 mtr ships  don't have to be all in Sydney .. not sure where you live but Sydney is at grid lock ..

you may call me and others nimbyists..   some people care about there country, they don't want to see it sold off for a few bucks.  if people don't stand up for what is right what future is there for your kids and grandkids ..  look back in history and see the few who stood up to give everybody a better life  are they nimbyists ..  I was like many people  if it don't bother me or not in my back yard who cares . until one day a yr ago with fishing lockouts my nephews while out fishing said if all this goes of limits where are we going to fish when we are old enough to buy a boat , what happens to us uncle ??  that bothered me badly  so I took them to a rally against the fishing lockouts and we won.. the smiles they have while fishing is priceless  ..  so call me what ya like but I will stand up and fight for there future and boycott royal carribean who are the ones pushing for it and even offering cash to build it..   

 

There is already an airport and container port on Botany Bay already. A cruise terminal wont make one bit of difference. It is a great idea in my opinion and I would love to see it happen. Sydney desperately needs it. With all international flights going into Sydney opposed to Wollongong or Newcastle and the lack of a super fast rail network to either of those port cities, it makes more sense for Sydney to have it.

I am sure there would be plenty of people living in the area that would love to have it. Generally with protests you only get like 0.01% of the local population turning up and even then the protesters are not local. I would bet that there are a lot of people living around Botany Bay that go on cruises and would love to have the terminal near them.

14 minutes ago, LittleFish1976 said:

This sort of thing ('dressing up' as people from other cultures) is considered cultural appropriation and just not on these days. What I've learnt, from listening to people and trying to fit in with a changing world, is that it doesn't matter if I/we think something is racist; if someone from another culture feels it is racist towards them, then it is.

Its a touchy subject that one. If they are doing it for business or to make money off the culture then it is definitely offensive.

However take Japan for example. They have traditional hotels where a Yukata is left in the room for guests to wear around the hotel and to dinner and within the grounds. Now clearly foreigners are welcome to wear this and it is their traditional dress.

Then there are the countries in the middle east where women are invited or encouraged to wear headscarves or a head covering, yet having them reciprocate and wear western traditional clothes in western countries is another story. The middle east is definitely an area where women are encouraged to wear the traditional and cultural head coverings.

I think if invited to and welcome to wear a countries traditional form of clothing then you are free to do so. If there is some sort of rank order, culture or ritual that only certain people can wear the clothing then it is best not to.

In the case of what happened in New Zealand it was clearly a case of people doing crude drawings on their face with strange non traditional straw skirts. That was clearly wrong.

7 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Anti vaxers are a problem but they are a problem because science has eroded its relationship with the general public. Pharamacutecal companies have done bad things that rightly so make people think twice about the medication they offer. The scientific process has been corrupted by the funding model that is why we have tons of inadequate studies giving misleading results while often there is no money or effort put into replicating tests to double check results and on top of that even when everything is done right the reporting of science is a joke. The extremist fringe groups are in complete control of their message whereas scientists let the media take their studies twist them beyond recognition and when the public finds the representation doesn't match the results they blame the scientists and further distrust in science only grows.

 

Dragging people kicking and screaming is not going to fix the distrust people have with science if anything positioning the etremists as the underdogs fighting the elitism of science is confirming the deep story they have created. The science community needs to acknowledge and fix their problems and they need to push for better representation in the media. Every news organisation should at least have a knowledgable science reporter. The funding model needs to change so that scientists don't have to make their living coming up with endless papers to write. There needs to be a contingent out in the public engaging and educating people. Opening a dialogue will get rid of anti vaxers. Most of these Samoan families never had anyone explain to them how a vaccine actually works. The only people who went from church to church to talk to congregations were anti vaxers. No one from any scientific background made that same effort.

There is not a problem with the medical evidence at all.

The problem is the extreme fringe groups, who are often uneducated fools, and a detriment to the good order of society. If as above you say that the church is facilitating these loonie extremist nuts then the church and various religions aiding them need to be sanctioned and face criminal penalties and fines as well. 

For example if a church minister is allowing an anti-vaxer to spread a message to their congregation then it should be made a criminal offence with a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for the church minister who allowed the message to continue.

As for the likes of facebook and zukerburg, if the likes of him allow anti-vaxer messages on his platform then he should face fines that seize up to 75% of his wealth as well as 50 years in prison. 

If I were writing the laws then that is how it would be.

The problem is that so called "free speech" laws are being used in an extreme way that allow these extremist fringe groups to damage a society worst than communism and authoritarian dictatorships. Anyone abusing free speech in order to destroy and counter the good order of society needs to be denied free speech and severely punished to deter others.

Large amounts of people around the world are actually dying because of diseases that were once eradicated all because extremist fringe groups are allowed to publish and push anti-vaccination messages. This is not right. On a parallel note there are also people called flat-earthers who are also challenging long held scientific proven facts and making society dumber and less trusting as a result. All these extremist groups need to be outlawed, silenced, locked up. I believe China has some good camps to reeducate them and I would fully support those sorts of camps in Australia to deal with such people.  

What I find frustrating about this is that governments around the world will not ban and exclude the extremist fringe groups that promote anti-vaccinations and link it to medical problems without any evidence. In my opinion these groups should be banned from all forms of social media, denied access to media and people and just cut off from society. More people have died from measles than a wild gunmen yet after that incident in New Zealand this year there is a push to ban extremist political groups but where is the push to ban these other movements that cause more damage to society over social media by false and misleading information.

If I were running various countries then anti-vaxers,  flat-earthers and all related extremist fringe groups would be banned from social media, web and print advertising, it would be a criminal offence to have public and private gatherings and a criminal offence to circulate their material. It should by multi-million dollar fines for media platforms that aid and support them and jail terms for individuals that push that sort of message.

3 hours ago, mr walker said:

World is going crazy, with everyone being offended on behalf of others. We have seen, & have photos, of dress-ups at many ports-of-call. Where is the outrage on behalf of pirates, dolphins, koalas, sailors, penguins, Caribbean  cowboys, bordello girls etc etc?????

 

I would consider that the actions of the crew were in bad taste for being corny rather than offensive.

I have actually always hated it. At every port they create bottle-necks at the gangway and disrupt the flow of passengers. With such precious little time in port holding up as many passengers at the gangway and forcing them to queue up for a childish photo is not going to win them any fans.

When they try to bail me up on the gangway exiting the ship I just say loud enough "not interested I am not in kindergarten anymore" and move on.

In regards to the New Zealand situation it appears that the offence was taken not by the fact that they did the dress up but the way they did it by just drawing nonsense lines on their faces implying that the face art was not intricate but something primitive and mindless. That I can understand causes offence.

All of this disruption and time wasting of passengers is all in pursuit of profits.

3 hours ago, lissie said:

Its interesting - as a white Kiwi I see it as racist as well. Its up there with a white man wearing face paint to play a black person.  Maybe the difference this time was that someone got video?  Maybe theyd seen it last time and decided to video the next ship that did it?  Insensitive yes, but racist I think so. 

 

I don't know the port - but I doubt that any member of the public could approach the ship and complain - surely they'd be security. The people who work there are probably busy doing their jobs and aren't  going to raise something - which if  it went the wrong way could get them into trouble at work. 

Its funny because I was exactly thinking the same thing this morning when I saw the news had made it to the ABC. I just thought how do American's view "blackface" these days. You are right it is happening in a secure area and the people working there would have strict conditions regarding their employment and may not get another contract if they upset a visiting cruise ship so it probably was hard to call it out.

3 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

I don't see it as racist - they're not saying anything negative or trying to do anything/discriminate against any race.

 

It's just the modern business world at work - the photographers are just trying to find an angle that's different from the standard photo, so put some costume on to represent the port they're visiting.

 

Does it appeal to me personally - no. But that's just the way things are in a business driven world that we're in.

If anything I see it as more exploitation of "cheap foreign labour". I am not a fan of it. It is unprofessional and sloppy photography that no photographer worth their salt would even attempt. What I find bad about it is that it is treating us all like little kindergarten children lining up for photos with story book characters. It is just condescending and a lack of respect. Not only that it creates massive bottlenecks disembarking the ship slowing down the process and wasting the precious little time that passengers have in a port.

Now is it racist? That is a debatable topic. They may not have intended it to be but the New Zealanders took offence and it appears from the photos that the crew members were Filipino. I do feel for the Maori in this case as those body markings and the way they dress and perform is something that is unique to them. Having people imitate it for a cheap photo may be an insult to them. It could definitely be insulting. Racist maybe not as they are not intending to insult the race. But definitely culturally insensitive is probably the better word.

2 hours ago, geoherb said:

I wish the cruise lines would do away with the costumed crew members posing for photos. Doing so would speed up getting off the ship even for those of us who never stop to pose.

Totally agree. They are treating us like little children in a kindergarten school or pre-school to line up with the special fuzzy characters. Its ever so condescending and childish to treat grown adults like that.

3 minutes ago, lissie said:

Yah - I posted that in the Princess forum - a number of the Americans can't figure out what the problem was!!!! Made the news here - they have apologized - and I get the impression it was some "bright" idea from the (self employed?) ship photographers. They would have got told off if they'd  tried it on a kiwi cruiser

I just saw it there. I had expected it would have been posted in the Australia and New Zealand cruisers section.

I think in general America is taking a step back from political correctness as some political groups over there are taking it to an extreme and what is happening is that you can be racist/rude and offensive to people and it is no longer going to be offensive to some as a form of rebellion against the political correctness brigade.

My personal views are that this was racist, but not only against the New Zealanders and Maori, they are also exploiting those crew members from countries like the Philippines by forcing them to get dressed up and pose for photos with passengers. I have never liked what cruise lines do in regards to photos of this nature in port.

I am going to be 100% honest here.

I have never been a fan of this cheap and tacky way to get childish and mindless photos with passengers who are purportedly adults with crew members forced into indignity and disgrace themselves by dressing up in childish costumes. It really is disgraceful that the crew are forced to do this. If it is not stupid furry animals then it is some sort of gnarly pirate or some character you would expect to find at a 2 year old's birthday party, yet Princess sees fit to demand their crew gets dressed up as these silly things to pose for photos with adults, middle aged adults and retirees. It is nothing short of disgraceful.

I have to agree with New Zealand here. It is racist and it is a slap in the face to their culture and historic background.

I read this news article today and not sure if anyone has seen it.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12290113

I would have to say from the start that I have never been a fan of the cruise lines cheap and tacky ways that they take photos of passengers and have the crew dress up in silly costumes to pose for photos with purportedly adult passengers in a childish manner. Now it appears they have stooped to the level of having their crew impersonate tribal/ethnic/cultural groups for the sake of a photo.

3 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

I guess you n3ver heard about Pearl Harbour, but then you would know more than the Minister for Defence and I can guarantee you that in the 90s Robert Ray and Iam MacLachlin both had concerns

That is a totally ridiculous and silly comparison to make. During WWII the attack on Pearl Harbour was targeting the Battleships and Aircraft carriers. Not the docks. The Hawaiian Islands were in a strategic position to defend and attack other areas of interest so anything based there would have been a target. By attacking ships there it delayed any American response to action.

The difference with Sydney is that it is not in a strategic location to attack or defend any area of influence in the Pacific. It would be a waste of resources to even attack it when the ammunition for an attack could be better utilised elsewhere. Besides Australia does not have any offensive armed ships. All our Naval ships are primarily defensive in nature. We are not capable of launching an offensive attack against another country.

Politicians have never been intelligent people to take notice of. What their concerns may be are nothing but imaginative to further their political career.

When you are an attacking force and Australia having distance as our main defence, no attacking force is going to be stupid enough to waste missiles and ammunition on low priority targets. A naval wharf would not be a target. They would be looking to keep it intact. Considering there is a massive dry dock there that could also be a vital piece of infrastructure to an attacking force to repair their ships on arrival.

14 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

Actually there is another rationale and it was being discussed last century, as a military base it is a target in times of war, and do you really want a major target in a war in the centre of the city. It was a hot topic back when I was working at D.o.D and I finished there mid 90s. 

Actually that is not a logical target in a time of war. It would be foolish and stupid for any enemy to attack the wharf or docks where you can land ships. The reason is the infrastructure can be used to invade and set up and maintain control of an invasion.

The real targets Australia would face in time of war would be our power stations, dam walls, trade shipping with a goal to surrounding the Capital and taking out the government.

Thinking of a wharf as a target at a time of war is a rather childish and immature way of thinking particularly not the thinking of anyone in a military background. A wharf is an asset to both enemy and defender.

Shut down the power and water and cut off the fuel and food supply and you cannot control the population and the government falls. The enemy only needs to set up generators for themselves and supply fuel and water for themselves to take control. 

59 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

But all of Bris’s Issues are based on the Navy staying there, move the Navy out and every one of those disappear.

 

I agree it is probably all or nothing regarding Garden Island.

It is not just the Navy at Garden Island. 

It is Maritime Head Quarters Australia and the signals building next to it that is providing vital defence to the nation that cannot be moved just at a whim. That infrastructure needs a secure location that is well connected and can be protected. It is that building that is off limits and even then if it were to be moved the whole area would still be off limits as there is equipment there that once decommissioned cannot be accessed by the public due to its nature. The whole area will remain off limits to the general public and that means the road alongside it leading to Garden Island on the base.

Even decommissioned warships that have been sunk off our coast still have compartments that are sealed permanently shut that cannot be accessed due to equipment that could not be offloaded. They are still monitored today to prevent access into the area.

It is a security risk and will never happen. It has nothing to do with the grey ships. Once there is equipment, computers and military hardware that can command our ships at sea and have access to our satellite information and control the entire nation then the public is not going to get anywhere near it.

1 hour ago, mr walker said:

or maybe we put the overall community first rather than the NIMBY's. Some would argue that this infrastructure would benefit the many & disadvantage the few. When anything is built, roads, rail, airports, hospitals, schools etc etc, it will always have impact on some members of the community, but for the greater good of the majority. That's how a society works.

You are happy to want your little patch protected, but are happy for others to be impacted at other locations. I am with others, GI is the logical place for the new terminal, but if the NIMBY's there & the chair polishers at Naval HQ stop that option, then I'm all for Yarra Bay

As above there is no logic at all in using Garden Island particularly when you have no understanding of the layout and secure areas. The Captain Cook Dry dock makes that impossible. The only road around the dry dock that can get to the far side of the island goes past highly important buildings like Maritime Head Quarters and signals buildings where important work is done protecting this nation from attack, monitoring sea lanes and keeping the government operating. The areas the road goes past are a national security concern and areas are restricted as "top secret" with members needing to be cleared by ASIO before they go anywhere near it. It is kind of like Pine Gap. Those buildings have so much support infrastructure and sensitive equipment in underground bunkers that they will never be moved. The government knows exactly what is there and will NEVER allow a cruise ship to dock on that part of the island that involves coaches, passengers vehicles using the road past that vital area. It is never going to happen. It is completely illogical, irrational and a national security risk.

On 11/25/2019 at 2:01 PM, The_Big_M said:

 

Doesn't make sense to spend 10 billion+ just to move 10 km.

 

Moreover, there's a lot more docking for the Navy at Garden Island than the probable 2-3 berths we're talking about for cruises. Not enough space for them to move in any case.

Garden Island is definitely not practical as a cruise ship wharf.

There are major issues about using Garden Island. 

First is the Captain Cook Dry Dock. It is kind of like a barrier to the rest of the island. It is difficult for coaches, cars and taxis to get past there and that area is more of a security risk. General public cannot and will never have access to that part of Garden Island. There is a reason why the heritage centre is only accessible by ferry and it is because that part of the island is industrialised, has security areas and is crumbling apart. At present there is work going on at the wharf to make the stronger and longer for naval ships.

Second the wharf opposite the Wolloomooloo finger wharf is not straight. It curves. It has hard enough getting QM2 into that wharf and the residents opposite would put up a major fight more than the people at Botany Bay.

Third there is no cruise terminal at that part of the wharf. A cruise terminal cannot be built there because of existing infrastructure that supports the naval ships.

Garden Island is literally boxed in and cannot be used where the only space exists to dock a ship.

The Federal Government knows what exists at Garden Island. I know what exists at Garden Island. There are secure and security areas there that the public do not know about and are oblivious to.

The only practical place on Garden Island to dock a cruise ship is far south right opposite the finger wharf and bringing a ships nose right up to Harry's Cafe De Waves. Sadly the other side has already been developed so is not practical.

Unless the government can repossess the finger wharf, demolish all those multi-million dollar units and hotel a cruise terminal on Garden Island will never happen.

12 hours ago, possum52 said:

So you are saying that all people who do not have a problem with their inner ears will not get seasick?  What about those who do have an inner ear problem and don't get seasick? My husband is in that category. 

That is not what I was saying. I was saying every body is different and wired differently and things are not the same for all people. The cause of seasickness is a psychological perception problem where the brain is confused by conflicting signals from the bodies sense organs. In the case of your husband his balance receptors probably do not work too well at all and results in not getting seasick.

As previously explained this sickness is psychological. It can only happen because the balance receptors in the inner ear are detecting motion and movement where the eyes are not seeing movement. These two conflicting signals confuse the human brain and it reacts by inducing nausea and vomiting to expel what it precepts as an attack on the body. 

1 hour ago, Aus Traveller said:

B...s.... I started cruising in 1983 and have been seasick on countless occasions. I didn't become immune. For me it is not a psychological matter and my mind is not 'wired differently'. The problem is in my inner ears (confirmed by an ENT doctor). I also get sick on roads that are very winding. Sitting in the back seat is a recipe for disaster in those cases.

You said it yourself. I said "body and mind wired differently" you have now confirmed that you have a problem with your inner ears which is the reason for not becoming accustomed to it. There is nothing wrong with being wired differently to anyone else. If you did not have an inner ear issue then there is a good chance you would not get seasick at all. The fact is as you have just stated you have a problem with your inner ears. This is not shared by everyone and the people who do not share your condition will not get seasick. It is just a fact of life that it is how you were born. No one can change what they are or how they are. It is just life.

22 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

It can be a mind over mater.I used to work at sea and I found if you look at the horizon and get your bearings it disappears.

But I knew a old sea dog that got sick every day but he loved the sea.

It always has been mind over matter. It is a psychological condition. To be very basic the balance receptors in your ears are detecting movement and on a ship your eyes are registering no movement. This confuses the brain which senses the body is under attack and induces nausea and vomiting. Looking at the horizon or sea helped as it caused the eyes to register movement that matched the balance receptors. 

That said the brain and body remembers things and once you get over the initial seasickness you never get it again. Its like learning to ride a bike, once the training wheels come off you do not need to put them on ever again. The body has learned and it is the same for seasickness. 

If for argument sake someone initially needs medication at first and then all of a sudden they realise they do not need medication there is no need to ever go back to it as you will be immune to seasickness for life.

That said there are some people that exist whose body and mind are wired differently to others and will never get over it.