2 ships at anchor in Sydney Harbour today 20 Feb

[lyndarra]

1 hour ago, mr walker said:

 

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 

Are you inferring that people leave as passengers and return as cargo?

 

In reality the ship should return lighter than it left. Passengers consume the provisions on board and drink the water. Food is converted to energy required to live and some is stored (maybe a lot gets stored). Waste is less than what in ingested. Water is released as perspiration and in aspiration although its hard to imagine many passengers working up much of a sweat on a cruise unless its during the race to the sea day sale tables or sweating on the last bingo number to come up.

Then there is fuel used for the cruise.

I wonder if anyone has thought of an onboard methane recovery system as a supplementary fuel. Food for thought? (Pun intended)

 

[NSWP]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 12:13 PM, SinbadThePorter said:

Plenty of room next to that funny looking white building.

Yeah, knock that eye sore down and build a new cruise terminal there. Outrageous ships having to tender in from Sydney Harbour. 

[SinbadThePorter]

5 hours ago, SeaDog-46 said:

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.

 

 

Yes, the idea of a naval flotilla sailing out the heads to do battle for Sydney Harbour is a bit romantic.

 

I suspect that the real reason the RAN stays in Sydney Harbour, is that they were there first and don't feel like moving, and the Federal government can't be bothered funding such a move.

 

HMAS Platypus might have been a good option, but none of the Feds cared less about cruising and so it's too late now. Of course there is a well known politician who has a house just near there.

[SeaDog-46]

I thought they had the RAN base there because it was the nearest place to Kings Cross.

[SinbadThePorter]

2 minutes ago, SeaDog-46 said:

I thought they had the RAN base there because it was the nearest place to Kings Cross.

 

 

Nope, Kings Cross is there because it's the nearest place to the RAN.

[gbenjo]

Oops...double post

Edited February 21, 2019 by gbenjo

[gbenjo]

21 hours 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.

HOw about Jervis  Bay then ?

And yes you are right. I have only done a dozen or so cruises so have never had a tender port.......duh 😱 I just wish I had done as many cruises as you so that I could speak with more authority on the subject. I was always under the impression that tendering at certain ports was an inherent  and accepted part of cruising  So just so I am clear on this .. on every cruise ship in the world that goes to a tender port ... it is a waste of time getting off  because you may have to queue up to get off??????........and so for  all the people on the Arcadia doing the world cruise, was Sydney  the only tender port?  And to come half way round the world but not get off because you might lose an hour........rubbish. Perhaps they should complain to P&O ( Carnival) for causing this inconvience and get an OBC.😱

[gbenjo]

6 hours ago, mr walker said:

 

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 

Might be "some " truth in that... I remember seeing somewhere  that ships sit lower in the water at higher speed, so a vessel coming into the harbour could build up more speed to go under the bridge than one having to make a left then right turn just before the bridge coming out of White Bay. I could not see any cruise line depending on this  though to get under the bridge if clearance was that tight.

[dillpickle48]

The Arcadia is based on the Koningsdam and would not fit under the bridge.

 

[lyndarra]

Imagine the collateral damage if a foreign power decided to nuke the Sydney naval base.

[MicCanberra]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 11:27 AM, Kiwi Kruzer said:

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.

 

Cool.

[MicCanberra]

I cannot believe people still think we will be invaded by force via Sydney and that some of these same people think that is where the government is. Australia may be invaded but if it is, it is a soft take over and is through commerce.

[Hunter69]

Newcastle don't need any Navy protection. We got GUT & By the Bay.. No No Sorry; We have Williamtown. The fighter plane base; The Jets (No Not the soccer team); The squadron up here.... 

 

[Hunter69]

Where did they tender the passengers too; Not Circular quay; gets choppy they with all the ferries... Plus I wonder how long the tender ride was. Hope it's quicker then Port D...

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Hunter69

[megsie]

A couple of years ago on Queen Elizabeth, we anchored one night at Athol Buoy and then early hours of the next morning we moved to OPT. 

The tenders took us to Man O'War Steps on the other side of the Opera House, about 15 mins by tender.

Had no problems getting on tenders both ways. In fact I thoroughly enjoyed being in  the middle of the harbour.

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by megsie

[MicCanberra]

Yep, worse thing about tendering in Sydney is all the traffic means a slow ride, but then it is also a great visual to get a mini harbour cruise as well.

[The_Big_M]

Compared to tendering in other places as well, it's more straightforward as there is less need to worry about currents and wind. So tendering usually works better in Sydney than it does as a general rule.

[MicCanberra]

Agreed, and very rarely has a swell even if it may get choppy sometimes.

[Brisbane41]

Those cruise bookings and itineraries are often planned two years in advance. It is not rocket science and being that far in advance it would be smart enough for the port authority to reply back that the berth is booked, go elsewhere on that day. An intelligent cruise line would then simply adjust the schedule they are planning as it would be so much easier to do two years in advance than at the last minute.

 

Despite some people thinking it will be a fun tender ride in the harbour, others may have tours booked, the logistics of coaches would be a hassle

 

The only way I can ever see the Navy sharing Garden Island with visiting cruise ships would be if the cruise industry paid money to develop the east side of the island to include more berths and the cruise industry actually paid for a terminal of sorts that could double for military use such as send-offs and welcome's for deploying naval ships. The Navy would have to have full control over bookings and a strict quota added to not impose on navy activities. If the east side of garden island was turned into docks it would give the Navy more space to dock ships allowing visiting cruise ships to dock on the west side where the QM2 docked that is close to either two main wharf gates that would not be so much of a drama letting passengers in there as that part of the island and base can be more easily controlled and has less security sensitive sites.

 

Currently the RAAF shares runways at RAAF bases, which I think is a good idea if it means maintenance and funding for the upkeep of facilities. The Navy in reality could share Garden Island, but the only drama is at the moment is a lack of space should all their ships need to be in at the same time. The new LHD's we have can only go on the west side where QM2 docked and the other wharf's are far too short to dock them. If the navy got funds for more wharf's I would fully agree that sharing is a good idea. At present it is not.

[MicCanberra]

I think the navy should head north instead of expanding ther Sydney position.

[Brisbane41]

1 hour ago, MicCanberra said:

I think the navy should head north instead of expanding ther Sydney position.

If you read previously you will understand that will never happen.

[MicCanberra]

Never say never.

[DDG 41]

4 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

Those cruise bookings and itineraries are often planned two years in advance. It is not rocket science and being that far in advance it would be smart enough for the port authority to reply back that the berth is booked, go elsewhere on that day. An intelligent cruise line would then simply adjust the schedule they are planning as it would be so much easier to do two years in advance than at the last minute.

Look at the Sydney Port Schedule. They have ships there nearly every single day over summer.

Also if there is a perfectly good anchoring position why change your itinerary and miss the harbor city

[BINDY31]

On 2/21/2019 at 10:53 PM, Hunter69 said:

Where did they tender the passengers too; Not Circular quay; gets choppy they with all the ferries... Plus I wonder how long the tender ride was. Hope it's quicker then Port D...

 

 

 

Solstice wastendering to  wharf at Dawes Point, Arcadia was tendering to Man o war steps near the opera house

[The_Big_M]

I think the cruise lines should work within the environment they have, and as a commercial business make a sufficiently attractive commercial offer, rather than expect others to just give them freebies.