The_Big_M

Likely. But it could also be equipment related.

They state their involvement is "Short." They also define that as: " Short investigations provide a summary and analysis of commonly occurring transport safety accidents and incidents. Investigation activity includes sourcing photos and documentation of any transport vehicle damage and/or accident site, interviews of involved parties, collection of documents such as procedures and internal investigations by manufacturers and operators. Short investigation result in a report of up to eight pages including a description of the sequence of events, limited contextual factual information, a short analysis and findings. Findings include safety factors (the events and conditions that increased the risk of incident or accident happening) but only examines the actions and conditions directly relating to the occurrence and any proactive safety actions taken by industry." Thus, it's just gathering facts for the main investigation, possibly passenger/crew details, technical content from manufacturers if part of the ship build, that sort of thing. No heavy investigative analysis.

Appalling. Less so about the initial interaction, as we don't know what led up to it, it may have been some other factors as LMaxwell suggests, who knows. That's where the comments about 3 perspectives have come from. But it's actually what subsequently happened with the concierge lying about helping, having an assistant, and then getting security, and then avoiding/ignoring the passenger the rest of the cruise because of their own poor behaviour that actually screams out how terribly suited this concierge is. This is directly observed with full context, and also after they had a chance to reflect/recover if there were any other unrelated issues that caused the first one.

You'd be more inconvenienced by the shakes than any benefit from convenience.

What's Princes wharf for then? Is it only overflow when Queens is unavailable?

Just realistic. Today's news is how the required public transport upgrade conditional for WestConnex is not being fulfilled in the apparent near future, even though WestConnex is to complete in a few months. As for White bay, sure it's reachable but there have been a fair number of complaints here about the lack of accessibility, such that a number of members here even call it "White Elephant" (for a number of reasons, not just that). And the second airport, no, that was the issue, no PT to be part of the implementation. But hope you have a good day, perhaps PT free. :-)

Which means our track record isn't good. Look at two recent pieces of relevant infrastructure. White Bay. No public transport built. Private operator finally decided to come in for opportunity, but had a hard time of it, with result not great. Sydney 2nd airport. No public transport planned for opening. After public and expert criticism, government agreed to build something. And now strike 3...

Which goes back to my original point.

The two times I've sailed Quantum class out of China to Asia, Japanese immigration has been done onboard and it's quite quick. The Japanese immigration staff come onboard, passengers file around the deck outside Wonderland, and everything moves quickly. All done in under half an hour. However, on Millennium we had to visit the port and go through their customs procedures. This was much slower, but due to unexpected arrival otherwise it would have been handled differently. I can say the way you had it isn't the normal way for these larger ships, but not sure why they did it the traditional way in this case.

Not a great comparison. Most large terminals overseas have better connections than buses, especially where many need to be moved. That location is why the cruise terminal was determined there, but again good connections would provision better scalable solutions. As just a couple of examples, there is both a heavy rail network with Doomben not that far off, and similarly the air train was built for the airport which is obviously close by. No need to restrict a vision to have everything road based, which is only suited to low volumes of traffic.

That's only of use to locals, and only a limited number of them. Parking isn't a long term viable option for growth; it gets you into the same mess as a lack of terminals, and encourages congestion and just isn't suitable for many.

Another unfortunate approach. Why are our governments so backward thinking? In most overseas centres, integration with public transport is a key design element.

While not perfect, it doesn't sound like systemic issues either. There is the case about preparing for audits, but I don't see that that is actually a breach - it's standard for companies to prepare for audits.

Ask them to bid on the Royal Down, and you'll assess whether they are successful.

Not quite. Pricing was always displayed as a single price pre-GST, e.g. including wholesale taxes. When GST was introduced there was a specific discussion about whether the extra tax would be displayed separately (as it typically is in the US), and there was a specific call that GST was also to be included as part of the price. So it wasn't a change in the general rule, nor a change in component pricing, just about the GST itself that was made in 2000.