Gold Coast Cruise Ship terminal proposal sunk

[mattson]

pardon the pun, but it seemed appropriate.

 

whether you're fore or against the development of a Cruise ship terminal on the Gold Coast, it seems the leading proposal by the ASF consortium has been sunk by QLD Labor premier.

 

Breaking News: Cruise Ship Terminal Dead

 

Even though it was only going to be a "stop-over" port, would have still enjoyed seeing the big ships near the Gold Coast.

 

Here's hoping the Brisbane proposal gets its finger out.

[Gnomey]

We are committed to advancing tourism opportunities and economic growth

 

That must be a good reason to can the new terminal straight up!

[Aus Traveller]

We are committed to advancing tourism opportunities and economic growth

 

That must be a good reason to can the new terminal straight up!

They have also canned dredging and development of the port of Cairns that would allow present-day cruiseships to dock instead of tendering into Yorkeys Knob.

[The_Big_M]

Not really breaking news, given it was their policy pre-election that it would not be built.

[Kiwi_cruiser]

They have also canned dredging and development of the port of Cairns that would allow present-day cruiseships to dock instead of tendering into Yorkeys Knob.

 

:(

 

That sucks :rolleyes:

[GUT2407]

They have also canned dredging and development of the port of Cairns that would allow present-day cruiseships to dock instead of tendering into Yorkeys Knob.

 

 

Probably think the cruise lines should pay for it.

[Kiwi Kruzer]

I have always had doubts about the viability of cruise ships docking at the Gold Coast.

Its not called Surfers Paradise for nothing and Wave Break Island means just that.....neither are indusive to cruising.

Very sad to hear about abandoning the channel at Cairns. They had the potential to become a cruise hub, not just for Australia but for the whole South Pacific and Asia.

Should the cruise lines pay for and put in these facilities?

My take on it is YES...they are the ones making all the dosh........although they have a huge PR machine telling the ports how well they do out of a visit, the fact remains they are in and out in one day....not very often and only in season. The locals have to be fleet of foot to make any money as the passengers are mostly looking to do and buy things on the cheap.The cruise line wants them back on board so they can frequent their own shops and bars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OzKiwiJJ]

Should the cruise lines pay for and put in these facilities?

My take on it is YES...they are the ones making all the dosh........although they have a huge PR machine telling the ports how well they do out of a visit, the fact remains they are in and out in one day....not very often and only in season. The locals have to be fleet of foot to make any money as the passengers are mostly looking to do and buy things on the cheap.The cruise line wants them back on board so they can frequent their own shops and bars.

 

 

I agree in principle but the cruise lines would then find a way of passing that cost onto the passengers. :(

 

Actually, it probably should be a combined effort - some contributions from the cruise lines but also some from the locals - they could pay for a swanky cruise terminal that includes shops and restaurants ;)

[The_Big_M]

I agree in principle but the cruise lines would then find a way of passing that cost onto the passengers. :(

 

Actually, it probably should be a combined effort - some contributions from the cruise lines but also some from the locals - they could pay for a swanky cruise terminal that includes shops and restaurants ;)

 

Yes, Portside (Hamilton) is a good model for that. Even now, they're still developing that area. I was surprised how much it's changed in the last few years.

[Beanb41]

I have always had doubts about the viability of cruise ships docking at the Gold Coast.

Its not called Surfers Paradise for nothing and Wave Break Island means just that.....neither are indusive to cruising.

Very sad to hear about abandoning the channel at Cairns. They had the potential to become a cruise hub, not just for Australia but for the whole South Pacific and Asia.

Should the cruise lines pay for and put in these facilities?

My take on it is YES...they are the ones making all the dosh........although they have a huge PR machine telling the ports how well they do out of a visit, the fact remains they are in and out in one day....not very often and only in season. The locals have to be fleet of foot to make any money as the passengers are mostly looking to do and buy things on the cheap.The cruise line wants them back on board so they can frequent their own shops and bars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question of upgrading Lyttleton Port at Christchurch for cruise ships has also been the discussion over recent times. Lyttleton port was badly damaged during the Christchurch earthquakes. Estimated cost of a new cruise terminal over $NZ100 million. As a consequence cruise ships will be going to Akaroa for the foreseeable future. There are greater priorities where $100 million can be spent rather than a cruise terminal

[Kiwi Kruzer]

I agree in principle but the cruise lines would then find a way of passing that cost onto the passengers. :(

 

Actually, it probably should be a combined effort - some contributions from the cruise lines but also some from the locals - they could pay for a swanky cruise terminal that includes shops and restaurants ;)

 

Isnt that the way it should be?

After all , thats what airports do.

 

[Beanb41]

Isnt that the way it should be?

After all , thats what airports do.

 

 

The trouble is airlines don't have a choice of where they land cruise ships do. Not going to places like Lyttleton or the Gold Coast wont be a deal breaker for around 99.99% of passengers just as not going into Cairns but anchoring of Yorkeys Knob whilst a bloody inconvenience is not a deal breaker for larger ships. I guess one can draw a parallel with USA professional sport. If a city wont build the NFL or Major League baseball a new stadium at their cost then the owners will shift the team to a city that will. Its a matter of balancing up the long term financial benefits versus the high upfront Capital cost that ratepayers have to absorb.

As a ratepayer here in Wellington I would be up in arms if the city committed itself to $100 million to build a cruise terminal not withstanding that the "Commercial Sector" may recoup $20m a year. Its a balancing act that in some sectors is a real positive and others a real negative. From a political perspective I see no votes for a politician in building a cruise port that may or may not be used depending upon the whim of a cruise line. Some of the costs would be recovered from the cruise line by increased port fees which in some instances may be a catalyst to go elsewhere. Higher port charges mean a lower bottom line, as it is passengers are starting to baulk at higher cruise charges. Forums are full of complaints about increased costs and fewer "perks" and lowering of standards.

There are few winners here unless a municipality can attract long term commitments from Cruise lines to base ships in the port for long periods. That aint going to happen in Lyttleton or the Gold Coast. Going into Brisbane on a large ship is a case in point. Big ships cant get under the Gateway bridge and thus have to park at the grain terminal miles from anywhere. I can see a time where Brisbane gets the big heave ho from big ships because of the unpopular berthing situation.

[The_Big_M]

The trouble is airlines don't have a choice of where they land cruise ships do. Not going to places like Lyttleton or the Gold Coast wont be a deal breaker for around 99.99% of passengers just as not going into Cairns but anchoring of Yorkeys Knob whilst a bloody inconvenience is not a deal breaker for larger ships. I guess one can draw a parallel with USA professional sport. If a city wont build the NFL or Major League baseball a new stadium at their cost then the owners will shift the team to a city that will. Its a matter of balancing up the long term financial benefits versus the high upfront Capital cost that ratepayers have to absorb.

As a ratepayer here in Wellington I would be up in arms if the city committed itself to $100 million to build a cruise terminal not withstanding that the "Commercial Sector" may recoup $20m a year. Its a balancing act that in some sectors is a real positive and others a real negative. From a political perspective I see no votes for a politician in building a cruise port that may or may not be used depending upon the whim of a cruise line. Some of the costs would be recovered from the cruise line by increased port fees which in some instances may be a catalyst to go elsewhere. Higher port charges mean a lower bottom line, as it is passengers are starting to baulk at higher cruise charges. Forums are full of complaints about increased costs and fewer "perks" and lowering of standards.

There are few winners here unless a municipality can attract long term commitments from Cruise lines to base ships in the port for long periods. That aint going to happen in Lyttleton or the Gold Coast. Going into Brisbane on a large ship is a case in point. Big ships cant get under the Gateway bridge and thus have to park at the grain terminal miles from anywhere. I can see a time where Brisbane gets the big heave ho from big ships because of the unpopular berthing situation.

 

Even in the US, which is well served, there are many cruisers who have been disgruntled when their favourite cruise line stops operating out of their local port. Many large ports have been abandoned when the cruise line saw a better opportunity elsewhere.

 

And despite how they sell the benefit of providing a perfect terminal for them, when there's a better opportunity elsewhere having a nice terminal isn't going to keep them there.

[MMDown Under]

I have always had doubts about the viability of cruise ships docking at the Gold Coast.

Its not called Surfers Paradise for nothing and Wave Break Island means just that.....neither are indusive to cruising.

 

 

It should never have received the time of the day. Just another greedy developer hoping to get Crown land for a Casino, if you read the fine print of the proposal.

 

The Gold Coast is built on a flood plain. The Spit and South Stradbroke Island are fragile areas. Wave Break Island was built to break the impact of king tides, combined with torrential rain, which have caused extensive flooding in the past.

 

To not proceed with the proposal, which was always just a proposal, was an election commitment of the Labour Government.

 

Passengers can enjoy the Gold Coast from the Brisbane cruise terminals, if the ships stay in port long enough.