MERGED - QM2 2024 Brooklyn Revised Schedule

[rsquare]

13 hours ago, Queenvee said:

 Someone mentioned that using the Manhattan terminal is more expensive for Cunard than Brooklyn - anyone know if that's the reason they use Brooklyn?  I always assumed it was because the Manhattan terminal was smaller than Brooklyn.

The story that I heard is that QM2 sticks out too far into the Hudson, and that the US Coast Guard essentially prohibited it from using the west side piers, and indeed that's why the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal was built.  The extra expense of using the Manhattan Cruise Terminal may be in the form of Coast Guard penalties.

 

Obviously, the terminal at Red Hook has found other uses, since Bluemarble's list shows it hosting Crystal Serenity, a much smaller ship than the Mary.

 

I'm curious as to whether QM2 has used, or could use, the Cape Liberty docking facilities in Bayonne.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by rsquare

[NE John]

57 minutes ago, rsquare said:

The story that I heard is that QM2 sticks out too far into the Hudson, and that the US Coast Guard essentially prohibited it from using the west side piers, and indeed that's why the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal was built.  The extra expense of using the Manhattan Cruise Terminal may be in the form of Coast Guard penalties.

 

Obviously, the terminal at Red Hook has found other uses, since Bluemarble's list shows it hosting Crystal Serenity, a much smaller ship than the Mary.

 

I'm curious as to whether QM2 has used, or could use, the Cape Liberty docking facilities in Bayonne.

 

 

Yes, larger ships have to use Brooklyn due to blocking the Hudson River issue. MSC is marketing very heavily in the NYC area with flashy commercials and very low fares and obviously pax are signing up for those MSC mega ships that also can’t use West side docks. Interesting to hear about Crystal using Brooklyn. 
I mentioned in a previous thread that I’m concerned that these mega ships will crowd out other lines for dock space. Even parent company Carnival has to worry with their biggest ship holding “only” ~5,200 people. RCCL out with one next month topping 7k+ pax, largest of them all, for now. 
 

[bluemarble]

1 hour ago, rsquare said:

I'm curious as to whether QM2 has used, or could use, the Cape Liberty docking facilities in Bayonne.

 

QM2 did use Cape Liberty in Bayonne on one occasion. That was September 30, 2006 when there was a conflict with Crown Princess at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal. As far as I know, that's the only time QM2 has used Cape Liberty.

[david,Mississauga]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:10 PM, rsquare said:

The story that I heard is that QM2 sticks out too far into the Hudson, and that the US Coast Guard essentially prohibited it from using the west side piers, and indeed that's why the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal was built. 

...

 

 

 

There was much discussion about this at the time the QM2 entered service.  From information I have seen, the QM2 is only 112 feet longer than the original Queen Mary. 

 

I forget the years, but twice we have boarded the QM2 in Manhattan after Red Hook was in service. The first time, a ship with higher passenger capacity was assigned to Red Hook and the other time the main gangway had been damaged by an RCCL ship. 

[NE John]

Looking at photos of ocean liners docked on the Hudson River piers from back in the day shows the liners docked at the Hudson piers:

This scene looks awful crowded and I am questioning the rationale (including mine) that today’s bigger ships crowd the Hudson River more than in decades past. 
The current terminal facilities are bigger than years before too to process more pax. 

As a bonus, here’s an undated photo on QM2 on the West Side:

[exlondoner]

What a super photo. Isn’t the issue that now they see ships sticking out as a security risk (why?), then they had never heard of such a thing?

[ExArkie]

22 hours ago, exlondoner said:

What a super photo. Isn’t the issue that now they see ships sticking out as a security risk (why?), then they had never heard of such a thing?

Could the security issue be related to the width of the River for passage into and out of the terminal? (i.e., damage to one ship in the area could block the entire channel)

 

I'm pretty sure the NCL Breakaway routinely uses Manhattan - we saw her coming in while QM2 was docking in Brooklyn a couple of years ago. According to published information, Breakaway is 1,068 feet long, while QM2 is 1,132 feet, a difference of 64 feet. If there is a length limitation, QM2 must be just barely over it.

[Underwatr]

On 12/3/2023 at 1:04 PM, bluemarble said:

I've highlighted the rescheduled 2024 dates for QM2 which originally were a day or two later on dates that have been reassigned to MSC Meraviglia

Ahh, that explains why QM2 is doing 6-day crossings followed by 8-day crossings on a couple of occasions. I couldn't figure out why they were bothering to show the speed only to go slowly on the return.

Those 2024 dates are the 9-15 June Westbound (6 days) followed by the 15-23 June eastbound (8), then the 23-29 June westbound (6) and the 6-14 July eastbound (8), and then 21-27 July (W) and 27 Jul-4 Aug (E).

The 21 Dec date isn't just a faster crossing since the preceding Westbound leaves Southampton on 14 Dec (it typically leaves on 15 Dec for the Caribbean holiday voyage).

[bluemarble]

53 minutes ago, Underwatr said:

Ahh, that explains why QM2 is doing 6-day crossings followed by 8-day crossings on a couple of occasions. I couldn't figure out why they were bothering to show the speed only to go slowly on the return.

Those 2024 dates are the 9-15 June Westbound (6 days) followed by the 15-23 June eastbound (8), then the 23-29 June westbound (6) and the 6-14 July eastbound (8), and then 21-27 July (W) and 27 Jul-4 Aug (E).

The 21 Dec date isn't just a faster crossing since the preceding Westbound leaves Southampton on 14 Dec (it typically leaves on 15 Dec for the Caribbean holiday voyage).

 

Right. They had to adjust the dates in Brooklyn but they decided not to adjust any of the dates in Southampton except for that December date. The December 14, 2024 crossing was originally scheduled to depart Southampton on December 15 as usual. Instead, the preceding voyage to Rotterdam and Zeebrugge has been shortened by one day. That voyage was originally going to spend two days in Zeebrugge on December 13-14 and return to Southampton on December 15. Now it's going to return to Southampton on December 14 after just one day in Zeebrugge on December 13.