in rod we trust

6 hours ago, gbenjo said:

Not only are  they not from Royal but they are at least three or four years old .Adam Armstrong left RCCL in August  2018 and joined Silverseas and the story from Louise Goldsbury mentions the Ovation coming  coming to Sydney for the first time "next season". The Ovation is now in its fourth season in Australia so that is how old these "stories" are..many things change in four years.Gavin Smith has gone from Australia,ran RCCL, in Europe I believe, for a couple of years and returned to Australia to once again head operations here. Yes they obviously need another terminal in Sydney but they, or any one else will not just build it and destroy the Bay.  I will wait to see the current management statements FROM RCCL, not just stories from journalists. Perhaps Louise Goldsbury, who is connected to Cruise Critic, could seek out the up to date intentions of RCCL for us.

like I said anybody with common sense can read that link.   majority of people can clearly read royal carribeans intentions to destroy anything to get what they want ... but common sense aint to common here

7 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

Another statement with no backing, 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemicallef/2018/09/01/the-cruise-industrys-boom-is-primed-to-continue/#14c28fa12d89

so you want me to believe that from the cruise industry ..  yet you handful ,  you all choose not to believe the above links I posted from the cruise industry, royal carribean ceo ,  and this forum. ..  

reads like double standards to me...  

  few of you called for the facts I put them up in black and white and many more of them that can be checked .. and yet you's choose to ignore them ..   just goes to show how you think about your own country . who cares what we destroy so long as its ''convenient for me''  stuff what its going to destroy..  

6 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

I've given a lot more facts than your unrelated fears and attempted scare campaign. 

 

Just the very post above has two more facts... as against the two things you made up to try to pretend you actually have any basis to your claims.

and your facts are please enlighten me with them .. 

5 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

The comment that brought this on from you was "if you read royal carribeans report "

Neither of the above are reports from Royal Caribbean, so don't say it's us making things up - it's you. The first is a story in traveller, which is a Fairfax newspaper, and the second is an article on this site.

 

Your second instance in just that post of making things up is you claimed "they still plan on taking a cruise up to Sydney harbor  for those passengers that get on at botany bay so they can see the views and linger around for 4 odd hrs not docked "

 

NOWHERE in what you claim is their official report (which it isn't: https://www.traveller.com.au/bound-for-botany-bay-as-the-harbour-overflows-with-cruise-passengers-2bgc3) does it say anything like the above. It will be a replacement terminal for people to get on and off the ship from in Sydney, not spend another 4 hours doing a harbour cruise in Sydney.

ok you choose to read it that way. even tho many will see who the horse is in the above links talking about moving there fleet and birth space .. but that's ok I knew you blokes would choose to ignore it as per normal.. you depart botany bay at 4 takes you 1/2 to get there sun doesn't go down to 8-830 pm in summer daylight savings .. what are they going to do circle around the heads for 3 hrs then come in for the last hr .. come on get real please 

1 minute ago, The_Big_M said:

 

The same as your comment that all the local fish was sold to overseas markets, so "all about the bottom dollar" as well. And don't worry, the cruise lines all have a sustainable business model as there is no benefit in visiting over populated or damaged destinations.

 

Doesn't sound like much difference between local fishermen and cruise companies as far as their business practices and what motivates them. 

no comparison what so ever , local care about there environment..

  royal carribean and cruise ships don't give a stuff they will destroy anything or do anything to get there profits .''greed drives them'' up  as seen in the botany bay proposal, cayman islands and many more places and reefs around the world .. so long as they can fill there pockets they don't give a rats about what they destroy to get it.. ....  no matter what your looking for you still have no facts for the positives to having it built there,  other than ''convenience'' as you mentioned .. im still waiting for your facts.. 

17 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Actually, I don't think it's been posted. 

 

While there have been a lot of scary videos about unrelated ships in unrelated countries many decades ago, and a post with some screen images of a Ports document, I don't believe there has been any RCL report. And I honestly doubt such a document would be made publicly available. Strategic documents aren't distributed publicly.

ok just for you two .. ill repost it  as you blokes just choose to make up what you like and don't look over the countless facts about botany bay I posted .. you blokes are just looking for any excuse or reason you can find and no facts about nothing. imstill waiting for the positives why a whole bay need to be destroyed , but there is none , your excuse or reason to have it go ahead is ''just for our convenience''  ..

another thing is do you read posts from your own forum  as this is from your own forum and not by me...  there is the official one as well I will get that as well just for you blokes..

so here you go have a good read of these both .. you will see royal carribean is the only ones really calling for it as it states only 4 of there 44 ships fit under the harbor bridge and that's why they want to destroy botany for there greed.. 

https://www.traveller.com.au/bound-for-botany-bay-as-the-harbour-overflows-with-cruise-passengers-2bgc3

and here is it from rcl own ceo , there also is a another one published after this  as well .. as I said I have posted many facts and you blokes ignore them for your own agenda.. maybe its probably you know its not right to destroy a whole bay for royal carribean , or maybe it helps you blokes sleep at night .. or trying to feel good about cruising altho you know deep down inside its really doing a lot of harm .. next time read your own forum here it is

https://www.cruisecritic.com.au/news/news.cfm?ID=6542

17 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

So local fishermen are plundering our waters for Australian fish, then sending them overseas for their own greed just to make more dollars from those with the most money, and not selling to Australians.

 

Thanks for confirming Aussie fishermen are just greedy and taking away our resources from our country. All local fishing should be banned then.

 

As you say, got to take a stand sometime to protect the future for the kids , grandkids etc .. we cant just sell it of and keep destroying this beautiful country .. Since you were aware of this, what action have you taken about this?

local fisherman don't plunder they have strict limits and net sizes , they have built a sustainable fishing eco system  as they understand  the need for  it... the only ones that plunder are these pathetic trawler factories owned by china and other countries that sit of our coast line plundering .. but don't worry most of the fish you eat are from Asian fish farms from supermarkets .. don't forget to have a good think when your eating on the cruise ship , ask yourself , I wonder what 3 rd world country this food is from  lol  as they are no different to any supermarket its all about the bottom dollar,

2 hours ago, NSWP said:

And 3 million do.  So I do declare the 'do's' the winners, by a long neck.

 

the only ones that want it are about 5 of you's and port authority  but this is a cruise forum so no surprise  there  ..  id expect that from here .. and considering I cruise as well maybe not as much or often as some of you garbage can junkies .. at least I try and protect our country rather than see it all destroyed for convenience ..  I hope one day the gov comes for something you like just so you can cop the same..   but don't worry if you think people who don't want a cruise terminal to destroy botany bay are a problem .. just wait to the climate activist get a hold of the pollution of these ships .. its just beginning the storm is brewing all over the world we see more people and countries starting to ban and protest about cruise ship's .. 

9 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

I think they may already have figured out that you are just speculating at what may or may not have been redacted.

they can speculate what they want ..  common sense will tell you they are hiding info as its not in there favour  to build it or a good idea either.. so lets just hide it from the public  as I said anybody with common sense,  but common sense isn't so common …  I know deep down in people on here , they know its not right to destroy a whole  bay just for royal carribean mega ships..   as its there country as well and there kids call this home.. where do we draw the line against destruction to our country .. gota take a stand sometime to protect the future for the kids , grandkids etc .. we cant just sell it of and keep destroying this beautiful country .. 

1 minute ago, MicCanberra said:

Just in case, as you seem to be a bit confused.

A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence.

 you best tell that to the other's  

I wonder which insurance company will be the first to go under or seek gov assistance with all the houses burnt and hail damage reports in nsw …  

3 hours ago, gbenjo said:

No not at all .. It is not  about convenience  cost to the passenger and the cruise line may  be one factor but there are many more aspects that just do not make it feasible or practical ...it does not work for anybody but you chose to ignore that because it does not suit your agenda........ copy and paste ...copy and paste.

the facts are all there for all to look into it themselves so don't have to read my facts ..  go and search it yourself .. you may not like what you find out .. go and ask nsw liberal party or nsw ports to send you the info in there 68 page without redactions .. tell em your a royal carribean fan boy they might let you see the real truth 

3 hours ago, gbenjo said:

I have no idea what you are rambling on about ....it makes no sense.

But  .. the part about people from overseas  wanting to see Sydney  Harbour....well how about they fly into Sydney  ( dollars for the  local economy)  stay at a hotel ( more money for the local economy)  jump on a Captain Cook  Cruise and sail around the harbour ( even more money for the local economy)  before heading to Botany Bay  to board their  cruise  it’s called tourism.....win win.

 why would they want to board a garbage can after they have just seen the best on offer..  they will stay in Sydney and enjoy it not get squashed into a garbage can 

1 hour ago, gbenjo said:

YES it does matter where they get on. The costs, the logistics, the providoring, airports  and a dozen other factors dictates that regional terminals are not practical. Anybody with any knowledge of the cruise industry and a bit of commonsense would know this does not work.

so botany bay proposed cruise terminal is a port of convenience more than anything else for there bottom dollar regardless of what they destroy its all for the greedy bottom dollar   ..  as that's what your really saying

44 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

Maybe they could have the bands do concerts in the new terminal at Botany during the off season.

sound like a plan  I can park my boat and watch from the side ..  in the elcheapo alley seats ..  on another note I can hear thunderstorms  in Sydney looks like it might start raining again ..

1 minute ago, lyndarra said:

So, you have seen the ships' catering inventories and can totally confirm what you said?

I have friend who work at one of the companies that supply some of the garbage can's with there food he tells me that most of there stuff besides vegies and some meats are imported  from these so countries .. its cheaper than buying local and improves there profits..  I would do the same if I owned a cruise line or a supplier to the garbage cans ..they do it in Australia at the supermarkets you think the cruise lines are any different when it comes to the bottom dollar .. don't kid yourself they have your best interest at heart ..

3 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Look where..I am asking a simple question..I have not seen this report but would like to so that I can make an informed conclusion ..is it in one of your “copy/ paste” replies?

that's what ya said about all the other facts but choose to ignore them as well and how can you make a informed decision if port authority and nsw liberal gov  are with holding all the relevant info.. nobody can but we can go on from what has happen in the past due to other developments in botany bay .. and also what that whole area is used for and by whom ..  and as it stands there is no way it should be destroyed just for a cruise ship terminal to be used from 3-4 months of the yr 

18 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

Someone said the other day that cruising is much better for the environment than fishing or building dams.

Maybe the government should make cruising compulsory , especially out of Botany Bay, not only will it justify building the new terminal there but it will also alleviate the water usage in the dams.

its also better for your health with norovirus  that's good for you ..  not to mention all that seafood you eat from Vietnam and Thailand china etc .. do you think cruise line companies have your health at  heart .. they buy the cheapest food from where they can get it and so do there suppliers to keep the profits up.. next time your on a garbage can  take a good long hard look at the food you are eating .. but then again a bit of sauce and herbs , pepper , salt you wont taste any toxins in there lol .. don't think aussie supply your fish on these garbage can ships , the good fish all goes to other markets in the world that pay top dollar ..  the garbage can ships only buy the cheapest crap to make more profit.. hope you take the time to see the very low standards these other countries have , then again don't look better to not know then know lol  

3 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Which  report is this you speak of? Where can I find it?The one you posted previously only said they were lobbying the govt to build the new terminal.

if you bothered to read some of them you would know and seen it from there ceo's ..  go back and look . 

6 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

MY Brother and SIL were there as well, it is damned inconvenient, when you cannot bring anything to sit on and are totally exposed.

my misses and I went up to the hunter valley she went to see Elton john and been there watching other bands and loves it 

2 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

I acknowledged the warnings existed; the cleanliness of the sediment is not in dispute.

 

However, the issue is your claim that EPA said Botany Bay should not be dredged. They have not said that. However, there is a warning on connecting channels as it is something to be aware of and hence where sediment is disturbed it needs to be handled correctly. Think of it like asbestos - also very harmful so warnings exist wherever renovations occur involving it, but given special handling it can be dealt with.

maybe on land it can you can wet it down or evacuate people in surrounding building etc or wait till a day when there is no winds .. but in the water with swells , wind and undercurrents , you have no control as where that sediments will end up or destroy

3 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

It's not "for convenience." It's actually to provide capacity which is currently limited, so it is a necessity for that market.

 

Your previous deflection then gave the alternatives of Eden, Wollongong or Newcastle. However, they're different cities entirely and would have a far greater eco impact (and "gridlock impact") than the bus ride from Botany to the city that you go on about. So try some consistency in your arguments instead of just repeating the same old fear based arguments which lack logic.

if you read royal carribeans report they still plan on taking a cruise up to Sydney harbor  for those passengers that get on at botany bay so they can see the views and linger around for 4 odd hrs not docked so .. it don't matter if they get on at Newcastle Wollongong or eden they still will get to see Sydney .. 

4 minutes ago, Wavell said:

I.R.W.T I have done 40 odd cruises over 30 years all over the world.On 1 cruise we had Sir David Attenborough as a guest speaker and he enjoyed his time on the  ["floating garbage can  ] as you call them.    join destinction they will listen to you.

I been hearing they are planning a protest against royal carribean ..  against these garbage can's  pollution  and destruction of botany bay..  im in no nut case groups except this one here .. 

Just now, The_Big_M said:

 

To be fair, it appears there is something new. A new claim that "EPA states the bay should not be dredged".

 

Of course, they said no such thing. It appears to be twisting a warning about disturbing the sediment on connecting flows. But that doesn't sound as good for his position and is something you can deal with instead of a blanket ban.

its not new its fact .. why is it that most bottom dwelling fish in botany bay and Sydney harbor has a warning on how much of it you can eat ..  wouldn't happen to be the toxins would it ..   but like I said as long as the port goes ahead for your convenience stuff what at risk ..  maybe you can tell me why it wont put all those facts I mention  will destroy the bay at risk ,  you seem to be more well informed than most on here not all but most so maybe you have reason's or id prefer facts as why it wont destroy it

1 hour ago, mr walker said:

 

If an equivalent size dam, or number of dams had been built in Sydney basin sometime between 1960's & 2017, presumably they would have been filled to the brim in 2017, and thus we would have 2.2M ML to see us through to next serious rains instead of only half that as we have now. Not sure what circles you move in, but I find many people have been discussing new dams over a number of years.

 

Nature provides us water for free, all we need to do is collect it and store enough to last us thru dry spells.

 

I clearly remember Chicken Little Flannery with his 'our dams may never be filled again' story. Since then we saw Brisbane almost washed away when their main dam flooded, and the Warragamba Dam has been over full at least 3 times since then, and plans are afoot to raise the wall again as protection against future flooding. This will also serve to increase the dam capacity.

 

Building dams to store water & investing in rainwater harvesting & re-use are much more sensible than energy thirsty desal plants.

don't think building the dam walls higher is a good thing as this day and era it was built for  a certain amount of load  adding to it is just to risky with the corrupt politicians and builder's we have these days .. too risky if things go wrong we will be left with no dam .. cant afford that risk.. better to build a new one we can either collect rain or pipe it in for storage 

8 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Like I said ...the same old tired nonsensical answer.... Nothing new..nothing constructive  just the same old rant.

yet I don't see any info from you as why it wont destroy the bay or destroy the last remaining beach on the northside of botany that the indigenous people still use today and the last beach still in use by them in the Sydney basin area..  or the eco system or the family friendly area or anything else for that matter ..  so long as you get a port for convenience stuff what's  at risk ..    

oh wait you have no real proof or info as the port authority and nsw liberals  don't want to make it public ..