2 ships at anchor in Sydney Harbour today 20 Feb

[Kiwi Kruzer]

Celebrity Solstice and P&Os Arcadia are having to sit at anchor and tender passengers ashore today. Cunards , Queen Elizabeth is at the Overseas Passenger Terminal at Circular Quay.

 

[By The Bay]

I cannot see a extra terminal being built any time soon. Botany Bay is proving unpopular with the NIMBies.

[SinbadThePorter]

Plenty of room next to that funny looking white building.

[Chiliburn]

Didn't some genius come up with a idea of one ship in the morning at circular quay  and one in the afternoon.

like the ovation takes on 1200 pallets in Sydney ,wouldn't that be good in five hours.

[mr walker]

1 hour ago, By The Bay said:

I cannot see a extra terminal being built any time soon. Botany Bay is proving unpopular with the NIMBies.

 

Get their names & addresses and they can be banned from ever going on a cruise!

[The_Big_M]

45 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

Didn't some genius come up with a idea of one ship in the morning at circular quay  and one in the afternoon.

like the ovation takes on 1200 pallets in Sydney ,wouldn't that be good in five hours.

 

I think they're revisiting that as an idea given the opposition about Botany Bay.

[Brisbane41]

Its disgraceful and an embarrassment. A total waste of time for the passengers also. Until they have more berths in Sydney, whoever is in charge of the port should say dock is booked out, no other cruise ships allowed to enter harbour this day. Part of the problem is the Carnival corp too deliberately sending ships when they know it will be booked out. They are not going to get their hands on Garden Island and they should accept that. This problem has been growing for almost 20 years when the cruise industry started to boom. Plans should have been in place.

[gbenjo]

The Solstice is just doing a port call as part of an Auckland/ Fremantle cruise and the Arcadia is on a world cruise so neither ship is " turning" in Sydney so do not neccessarily  need a terminal and even IF there were a terminal at Botany Bay they would still prefer to be in Sydney Harbour.

 Some idiot politician / bureaucrat may think it a great idea to turn two ships in the one day at the OPT but in the REAL world  it just would not work. Far too many variables and scenarios to be a viable option.

[Chiliburn]

54 minutes ago, mr walker said:

 

Get their names & addresses and they can be banned from ever going on a cruise!

There's people out there that think we cruise lovers are odd

[possum52]

Is Arcadia too big to go under the bridge? If not why wouldn't she be docked at White Bay?

 

Leigh

[gbenjo]

1 hour ago, Brisbane41 said:

Its disgraceful and an embarrassment. A total waste of time for the passengers also. Until they have more berths in Sydney, whoever is in charge of the port should say dock is booked out, no other cruise ships allowed to enter harbour this day. Part of the problem is the Carnival corp too deliberately sending ships when they know it will be booked out. They are not going to get their hands on Garden Island and they should accept that. This problem has been growing for almost 20 years when the cruise industry started to boom. Plans should have been in place.

Why is it a waste of time for the for the passengers?  A quick ten - fifteen minute tender ride from the ship puts them in the heart of the city, the same as( probably better than ) most tender ports in the world and the ship is moored in one of the most beautiful harbours you could wish to be on.  The configuration of the Harbour is what it is and has been forever so planning twenty years ago would not have been much different. Why does the navy have to be in Sydney anyway? Send them off to Darwin or Townsville , closer to the action.

[gbenjo]

14 minutes ago, possum52 said:

Is Arcadia too big to go under the bridge? If not why wouldn't she be docked at White Bay?

 

Leigh

Yes I believe it is, although if you look at Sea Scanner it has both the Solstice and Arcadia moored at Barangaroo, so they must have solved Sydney's terminal problem and got both ships under the Harbour Bridge 😁😁

[possum52]

Thanks gbenjo! Ha ha.

[Chiliburn]

49 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Yes I believe it is, although if you look at Sea Scanner it has both the Solstice and Arcadia moored at Barangaroo, so they must have solved Sydney's terminal problem and got both ships under the Harbour Bridge 😁😁

Graham on a different subject.

last time on ovation they had a counter check in ,before they had people with iPads walking around the crowd doing the check in.

 Was that a one off with the counter or have thy scraped the iPads

[gbenjo]

21 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

Graham on a different subject.

last time on ovation they had a counter check in ,before they had people with iPads walking around the crowd doing the check in.

 Was that a one off with the counter or have thy scraped the iPads

No the IPads have not been scrapped.

We actually always use two systems for Ovation check in. The majority of pax who have done the on line check in  and printed out set sails etc will be processed through the I Pad system (Next Gen) on level 1 and the rest will be checked in using the other system on the level 2. To be honest I have never done actual check in for Ovation as I always do  A Pass security on board and am not fully aware of exactly who gets sent where to check in.

On the last Ovation turn on the 14th Feb, the NG system unfortunately crashed and all paxs were  processed  through  the  "counter" system (which is supposed to be a bit slower) but we still had almost all guests on board by about 3pm..a great effort from our team.

[gbenjo]

5 hours ago, SinbadThePorter said:

Plenty of room next to that funny looking white building.

 

Now that would make a pretty cool Cruise Terminal

[Brisbane41]

3 hours ago, gbenjo said:

Why is it a waste of time for the for the passengers?  A quick ten - fifteen minute tender ride from the ship puts them in the heart of the city, the same as( probably better than ) most tender ports in the world and the ship is moored in one of the most beautiful harbours you could wish to be on.  The configuration of the Harbour is what it is and has been forever so planning twenty years ago would not have been much different. Why does the navy have to be in Sydney anyway? Send them off to Darwin or Townsville , closer to the action.

You have obviously never done a cruise that involves tenders before have you?

 

Let me explain. First with 2,000 passengers on the ship there will inevitably be a queue of passengers. Some may have to wait over an hour or more to even board the tender. Repeat the same situation in reverse and you get the gist of why it is a waste of their time.

 

Obviously you also have very little knowledge about Naval requirements also. The Navy is in Sydney because it is a major trading port where our oil and resources are imported. At a time of war targeting our oil lines and supply lines is vital to shutting the nation down. Having the Navy based in Sydney affords it that protection to protect the major ports of Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and Melbourne and not be too spread out. Perth on the other side for the same reason. Also basing the ships in Sydney is not only important for protection of trade and shipping, it also affords the Navy a long distance area to operate and train in making it logistically harder for an enemy or hostile nation in times of peace to deploy assets to spy on our fleet activities and tactics. Lastly basing the ships up north is rather foolish and irresponsible. Townsville is blocked by the Great Barrier Reef making navigation longer and harder leaving less room to employ tactics and Darwin is in much the same situation except it is also within view of foreign espionage or vessels intending to spy on our activities not to mention the extreme tidal movements.

 

Krudd the Dudd back when he was desperate may have aired Brisbane as an option, but it was nothing more than an ill thought out election stunt to grab votes when he was desperate.

 

The Navy will never be moved out of Sydney. With two major oil refineries in NSW, the trade and major infrastructure and seats of government being in close proximity, the Navy needs to be in prime position to defend those assets at all costs. Air cover is another example, having the fleet in Sydney would also make it harder for an enemy to deploy a carrier and land an invasion force at our major airports in our major cities. Basing in Sydney gives the Navy adequate range to cover as far south as Melbourne and as far north as the Torres Straight. Perth on the other side must cover Darwin as well as Adelaide and its trade and oil reserves. To not protect would allow our supply lines to be cut and the country to fall in a time of war.

[Toryhere]

1 hour ago, Brisbane41 said:

You have obviously never done a cruise that involves tenders before have you?

 

Let me explain. First with 2,000 passengers on the ship there will inevitably be a queue of passengers. Some may have to wait over an hour or more to even board the tender. Repeat the same situation in reverse and you get the gist of why it is a waste of their time.

 

Obviously you also have very little knowledge about Naval requirements also. The Navy is in Sydney because it is a major trading port where our oil and resources are imported. At a time of war targeting our oil lines and supply lines is vital to shutting the nation down. Having the Navy based in Sydney affords it that protection to protect the major ports of Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and Melbourne and not be too spread out. Perth on the other side for the same reason. Also basing the ships in Sydney is not only important for protection of trade and shipping, it also affords the Navy a long distance area to operate and train in making it logistically harder for an enemy or hostile nation in times of peace to deploy assets to spy on our fleet activities and tactics. Lastly basing the ships up north is rather foolish and irresponsible. Townsville is blocked by the Great Barrier Reef making navigation longer and harder leaving less room to employ tactics and Darwin is in much the same situation except it is also within view of foreign espionage or vessels intending to spy on our activities not to mention the extreme tidal movements.

 

Krudd the Dudd back when he was desperate may have aired Brisbane as an option, but it was nothing more than an ill thought out election stunt to grab votes when he was desperate.

 

The Navy will never be moved out of Sydney. With two major oil refineries in NSW, the trade and major infrastructure and seats of government being in close proximity, the Navy needs to be in prime position to defend those assets at all costs. Air cover is another example, having the fleet in Sydney would also make it harder for an enemy to deploy a carrier and land an invasion force at our major airports in our major cities. Basing in Sydney gives the Navy adequate range to cover as far south as Melbourne and as far north as the Torres Straight. Perth on the other side must cover Darwin as well as Adelaide and its trade and oil reserves. To not protect would allow our supply lines to be cut and the country to fall in a time of war.

I think Gbenjo was being sarcastic when he asked the question as to why the navy shouldn’t be moved out of the harbour.

 

 

[The_Big_M]

8 hours ago, gbenjo said:

Why does the navy have to be in Sydney anyway? Send them off to Darwin or Townsville , closer to the action.

 

The action's in Sydney. The training's in Sydney. The logistics are in Sydney. The resources are closer to Sydney.

 

How many sea battles have we fought in Australia during the past 50 years? Fortunately, no military action in Aust. so the extra costs of relocating everyone out to a remote outpost over all that time far outweigh the 0 benefit.

[Chiliburn]

12 hours ago, gbenjo said:

No the IPads have not been scrapped.

We actually always use two systems for Ovation check in. The majority of pax who have done the on line check in  and printed out set sails etc will be processed through the I Pad system (Next Gen) on level 1 and the rest will be checked in using the other system on the level 2. To be honest I have never done actual check in for Ovation as I always do  A Pass security on board and am not fully aware of exactly who gets sent where to check in.

On the last Ovation turn on the 14th Feb, the NG system unfortunately crashed and all paxs were  processed  through  the  "counter" system (which is supposed to be a bit slower) but we still had almost all guests on board by about 3pm..a great effort from our team.

Yes a great team.

 I think it was Tauranga NZ the computer system on ovation crashed and nobody was allowed off the ship.They had to do a manual count of people.a lot of people had bookings . It took about 3 hours to get of the ship.

It was a real mess. There was a punch up between staff and guests.So those people got of permanently.

[Kiwi Kruzer]

15 hours ago, possum52 said:

Is Arcadia too big to go under the bridge? If not why wouldn't she be docked at White Bay?

 

Leigh

 

Arcadia is having her turn at the OPT today Thurs 21 Feb. 

I  also wondered if she could go to White Bay . Isn't she the same class at Noordam  ,  and hasn't Noordam at some stage been under the bridge  ......or am I mistaken?

[lyndarra]

Yes, Noordam does go under the bridge, just.

[Brisbane41]

The funnel is presumably higher on the Arcadia preventing it from going under the harbour bridge. I was always sceptical the HAL Vista class ships could fit under when they did knowing that P&O made an effort to mention Arcadia cannot fit under the bridge. Must be a slightly different design on the upper decks surrounding the funnel.

[SeaDog-46]

Brisbane41 - Australia only has 4 oil refineries left out of 8 some time ago & none of them are in NSW.

A lot of our oil product comes from Singapore mainly.

There are now only a handful of Australian Merchant Navy ships left - none of them are oil tankers.

The RAN could not operate far or for long from the Australian coast in a time of emergency.

We also only have a few weeks of oil supply in storage.

[mr walker]

3 hours ago, lyndarra said:

Yes, Noordam does go under the bridge, just.

 

Only on the way in with all the extra weight of disembarking passengers after having 'feasted' on their cruise. The ship sits much higher with the freshly embarked passengers