Why Brooklyn?

[marco]

We recently returned from a TA on QM2 to Brooklyn.  And I've seen MSC is going to have a ship sailing year round out of there.  Why don't they use the Manhattan cruise termials.  SOOOOOO much more convenient to drive to and access from Penn,  Grand Central and Port Authority. Not to mention Manhattan, if  NYC were a port of call. On the QM2, there were several Brits who were sailing back to UK that day and just wanted a day in the city.

 

[Nitemare]

Pricing and capacity issues, including parking

[Charles4515]

10 minutes ago, marco said:

We recently returned from a TA on QM2 to Brooklyn.  And I've seen MSC is going to have a ship sailing year round out of there.  Why don't they use the Manhattan cruise termials.  SOOOOOO much more convenient to drive to and access from Penn,  Grand Central and Port Authority. Not to mention Manhattan, if  NYC were a port of call. On the QM2, there were several Brits who were sailing back to UK that day and just wanted a day in the city.

 

 

Port space at the Manhatten cruise terminal is limited. That is why cruise terminals were opened in Brooklyn and Bayonne. 

[princeton123211]

38 minutes ago, marco said:

On the QM2, there were several Brits who were sailing back to UK that day and just wanted a day in the city.

As said, MCT can only handle really 3 large ships at a time and even then it's pushing it-- as ships have gotten bigger its become more problematic there. It was really designed with the largest ships in mind at the time being the SS France/Norway or QE2-- 2000-2500 passenger ships. Not the 3000-4000 passenger ships that call there now. 

 

Carnival Corp wanted a reliable alternative they could call home for the majority of departures, and not have to compete with other lines for space, which is how we got BCT. Also, there is considerably less maneuvering required for Brooklyn than Manhattan-- ships can arrive and depart much more quickly.  

 

Also the QM2 is so long it also juts out considerably from the end of the Manhattan Cruise Terminal into the channel when docked there-- I think someone told me that it required a patrol boat present anytime she was docked at MCT which I'm sure didn't help the argument to keep her in Manhattan. 

[njhorseman]

3 minutes ago, princeton123211 said:

I think someone told me that it required a patrol boat present anytime she was docked at MCT which I'm sure didn't help the argument to keep her in Manhattan. 

That was me .😉

[shof515]

4 hours ago, princeton123211 said:

Also the QM2 is so long it also juts out considerably from the end of the Manhattan Cruise Terminal into the channel when docked there-- I think someone told me that it required a patrol boat present anytime she was docked at MCT which I'm sure didn't help the argument to keep her in Manhattan. 

according to the terminal website, the maximum length is 1000ft. The length of the QM2 over 1100 feet long, longer then the Norwegian class ships that dock at the MCT. the mega Norweigan ships is a little at around 1050 feet long and also sticks out a tiny bit

[GTJ]

In years past, the west side was filled with piers serving all sorts of ferries and oceanliners. The railroads sought to dump their passengers onto the Hudson Tubes and rid themselves of their ferries, and the jet age sealed the fate of the oceanliners. With a truck and automobile falling onto the street below when the west side highway failed, the entire west side was ripe for redevelopment . . . a redevelopment without piers. Even with a subsequent uptick in cruise travel, the environmentalists and parks supporters will never allow the former maritime traffic to return to Manhattan. At best there will be relatively small and not very substantial passenger ferry terminals for relatively tiny ferries, but nothing like the ocean liner terminals that once existed (and were they to be returned, allowing vessels to tie up parallel to shore so as not to interfere with the channel). Traffic exceeding the minuscule capacity of the Manhattan Cruise Terminal seems relegated to Bayonne and Brooklyn, and least within our lifetimes.

[Got2Cruise]

Brooklyn isn’t that far from Manhattan. Back in the day it even shared the 212 area code.
 

Most ports World Wide are not in the heart of any city. Including the London port. 

 

For any visitors, don’t worry, Brooklyn is fine!

[princeton123211]

Tying this back-- does Queen Mary 2 bunker in Brooklyn on her own or is it indeed "Full Service" fueling? 

[navybankerteacher]

4 hours ago, princeton123211 said:

Tying this back-- does Queen Mary 2 bunker in Brooklyn on her own or is it indeed "Full Service" fueling? 

I am inclined to think that maritime unions’ employment contracts (if not port safety regulations) would effectively provide  “Full Service” fueling.

[chengkp75]

22 hours ago, princeton123211 said:

Tying this back-- does Queen Mary 2 bunker in Brooklyn on her own or is it indeed "Full Service" fueling? 

 

17 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I am inclined to think that maritime unions’ employment contracts (if not port safety regulations) would effectively provide  “Full Service” fueling.

And, you'd be wrong.  US bunker barges, unlike those elsewhere around the world, require the ship to connect the hose (stick the nozzle in the filler) on the ship side, and to control when to stop fueling.  Both ship and bunker barge share responsibility for the safe transfer of fuel.  Pretty much responsibility changes at the side of the receiving vessel.