New Brisbane Cruise Terminal

[Tejas57]

Apologies if there is already a thread for this but I have not seen it.

 

Background: Portside Wharf can not handle large cruise ships so currently they dock at the grain terminal which has limited facilites for cruise ships. As per https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-s-158m-cruise-ship-terminal-proposal-hits-a-hurdle-20180302-p4z2jr.html

 

The Port of Brisbane has teamed up with Carnival to build a market demand driven terminal. Carnival proposes to pay an annual fee to the Port of Brisbane Authority for 15 years in return for “first pick” of 100 berthing days at the new cruise ship terminal as part of the agreement, to a maximum of “four days a week”.

 

The ACCC is not too fond of this and could knock the proposal on the head meaning it will not go ahead

[Silverado6x6]

I hope Brisbane gets a good deal, on a long vacation several years ago i flew out of Brisbane, lovely airport, much better than Sydney or Melbourne and even smaller Adelaide.

[banzaii]

It's a bit odd that all previous articles state that in principle agreement had been reached with both Carnival and Royal Caribbean.

 

Now that may just be a commitment to use the terminal, but I was of the opinion that both were making "contributions" towards the cost of the development.

 

I believe both lines are looking to leave additional ships in the south pacific over Oz winter and Bris Vegas seems to be key.

[The_Big_M]

It's a bit odd that all previous articles state that in principle agreement had been reached with both Carnival and Royal Caribbean.

 

Now that may just be a commitment to use the terminal, but I was of the opinion that both were making "contributions" towards the cost of the development.

 

Doesn't seem Carnival are funding it - but have made a commitment to utilise the terminal for 100 days each year or guarantee payment if not. The worse thing is to fund a terminal then have a white elephant as a cruise line up and goes somewhere else for better revenue, as they have done many times. In return for that commitment though they equally get priority to select and use those days. Both of these seem valid.

 

Unfortunately it seems two smaller cruise lines objected to that commitment being made, raising the complaint with the ACCC.

[Hunter69]

Carnival are the only ones seeming to support Brisbane now & in Future; With there P&O boats going out of there regular & repositioning of The Spirit up there in 2020 as strongly rumoured. Would be great for 7 day cruises to the islands; visit up to 4 ports, just a week turn-around, just like USA. I would drive 5 hours to Brisbane to save 2 days at sea instead of my current 3 hour commute to sail from Sydney..

[Tejas57]

\ Would be great for 7 day cruises to the islands; visit up to 4 ports, just a week turn-around, just like USA. I would drive 5 hours to Brisbane to save 2 days at sea instead of my current 3 hour commute to sail from Sydney..

 

 

I'm going a 7 nighter out of brisbane in september - only 3 ports though (Noumea, Mare and Villa)

 

this is the first i've heard of the spirit being moved up here. i wouldn't mind that. i was on it's 3rd cruise out of sydney and really enjoyed the ship

[Mr&MrsCookie]

So much for it being ready by end of 2019 like the Premier announced...My hubby has been doing some work on Kingsford Smith Drive and said there's no way any more construction can happen in that area until that project is finished which is months away.

[jn2003]

There is some interesting documents on the ACCC website.

https://www.accc.gov.au/public-registers/authorisations-and-notifications-registers/authorisations-register/port-of-brisbane-pty-ltd-carnival-plc

 

One of the submissions (Jan 2018) has before and after photos showing that the construction, or preparation of the site, is underway.

[MicCanberra]

Apologies if there is already a thread for this but I have not seen it.

 

Background: Portside Wharf can not handle large cruise ships so currently they dock at the grain terminal which has limited facilites for cruise ships. As per https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-s-158m-cruise-ship-terminal-proposal-hits-a-hurdle-20180302-p4z2jr.html

 

The Port of Brisbane has teamed up with Carnival to build a market demand driven terminal. Carnival proposes to pay an annual fee to the Port of Brisbane Authority for 15 years in return for “first pick” of 100 berthing days at the new cruise ship terminal as part of the agreement, to a maximum of “four days a week”.

 

The ACCC is not too fond of this and could knock the proposal on the head meaning it will not go ahead

I read this report and it is a bit strange how it varied from the original reports.

[MicCanberra]

There is some interesting documents on the ACCC website.

https://www.accc.gov.au/public-registers/authorisations-and-notifications-registers/authorisations-register/port-of-brisbane-pty-ltd-carnival-plc

 

One of the submissions (Jan 2018) has before and after photos showing that the construction, or preparation of the site, is underway.

Cheers for the link.:D

[Mr&MrsCookie]

There is some interesting documents on the ACCC website.

https://www.accc.gov.au/public-registers/authorisations-and-notifications-registers/authorisations-register/port-of-brisbane-pty-ltd-carnival-plc

 

One of the submissions (Jan 2018) has before and after photos showing that the construction, or preparation of the site, is underway.

 

Apparently I don't listen to my hubby coz he told me he delivered cement there last week. oops. Vaguely remember him saying something about the stink...Will be great to have some competition here finally when it's finished - would have preferred RC (was hoping Radiance would home port here) but it will end P&O monopoly :)

[jn2003]

I think it's a shame it's not being built big enough for 2 ships at a time straight up. I can see 2 or 3 years of operation and then needing to expand.

[jn2003]

Quote from one of the submissions ....

"in the event the agreement is authorised, Portside is likely to close because all of Carnival's midsizedand smaller ships will go to the new facility under the agreement, and no other cruise operatorhas ships of a size which can dock at Portside. Portside will no longer be under any legal obligation tothe State of Queensland to operate a cruise terminal and will be free to redevelop the terminal site."

 

The main theme from most of the submissions to the ACCC is that Carnival will squeeze out the competition and we will be back to exactly the same situation as we have now, just with larger ships from the Carnival brand.

 

So it will be interesting to see how the ACCC rules and how this will pan out.

[MicCanberra]

Quote from one of the submissions ....

"in the event the agreement is authorised, Portside is likely to close because all of Carnival's midsizedand smaller ships will go to the new facility under the agreement, and no other cruise operatorhas ships of a size which can dock at Portside. Portside will no longer be under any legal obligation tothe State of Queensland to operate a cruise terminal and will be free to redevelop the terminal site."

 

The main theme from most of the submissions to the ACCC is that Carnival will squeeze out the competition and we will be back to exactly the same situation as we have now, just with larger ships from the Carnival brand.

 

So it will be interesting to see how the ACCC rules and how this will pan out.

I have no problems with carnival building a terminal just for them but it must be at their expense and the same option must be provided to other cruise lines if they wish. Personally, I think it folly to not have a consortium that allows any cruise line to use the facilities.

[banzaii]

I have no problems with carnival building a terminal just for them but it must be at their expense and the same option must be provided to other cruise lines if they wish. Personally, I think it folly to not have a consortium that allows any cruise line to use the facilities.

Carnival should definitely not have any right of veto over a second berth and to remedy that I like the suggestion to just build it 2 berth to start with.

 

The ACCC is right to intervene if the QLD is too stupid to ensure viable competition exists at any new terminal funded by the taxpayer. Even more so if Carnival is moving infrastructure out of the existing terminal and passengers further from the city.

[MicCanberra]

Carnival should definitely not have any right of veto over a second berth and to remedy that I like the suggestion to just build it 2 berth to start with.

 

The ACCC is right to intervene if the QLD is too stupid to ensure viable competition exists at any new terminal funded by the taxpayer. Even more so if Carnival is moving infrastructure out of the existing terminal and passengers further from the city.

Exactly but then we all know what tends to happen when Government is in control.

[The_Big_M]

Carnival should definitely not have any right of veto over a second berth and to remedy that I like the suggestion to just build it 2 berth to start with.

 

 

 

But then that requires even more capital to begin with - and who wants to put that up? Especially with the risk that there won't be demand for it so will just lose their money. Plus if there's the demand claimed for a second berth, with only one berth at the new wharf, Portside will still be viable. It's only if there's a need for 3 berths that another wharf would open. Whereas opening two upfront encourages Portside to be vacated.

[MicCanberra]

But then that requires even more capital to begin with - and who wants to put that up? Especially with the risk that there won't be demand for it so will just lose their money. Plus if there's the demand claimed for a second berth, with only one berth at the new wharf, Portside will still be viable. It's only if there's a need for 3 berths that another wharf would open. Whereas opening two upfront encourages Portside to be vacated.

Except for the large ships not being able to access it.

[The_Big_M]

Except for the large ships not being able to access it.

 

Which is exactly the same as at present.

[Kiwi Kruzer]

I was under the impression that the developers of Portside cant wait to get rid of the cruise ships. They are just a nuisance to their development plans. The berthing of ships there was only meant to be short term. As far as the cruise lines are concerned they will save heaps with the new wharf as they wont have to transit up the river escorted by tugs...saving fuel time and money, lots of money.

[Aus Traveller]

I was under the impression that the developers of Portside cant wait to get rid of the cruise ships. They are just a nuisance to their development plans. The berthing of ships there was only meant to be short term. As far as the cruise lines are concerned they will save heaps with the new wharf as they wont have to transit up the river escorted by tugs...saving fuel time and money, lots of money.

The transit from the mouth of the river to Portside takes one hour. That is a lot of time and also costly (as you said). I imagine that the value of some of the apartments at Portside will rise if the shipping terminal is removed. I cannot imagine living in an apartment such a short distance away from a cruiseship, several days a week, with people able to looking into my living room and, even worse, my bedroom.

[MicCanberra]

The transit from the mouth of the river to Portside takes one hour. That is a lot of time and also costly (as you said). I imagine that the value of some of the apartments at Portside will rise if the shipping terminal is removed. I cannot imagine living in an apartment such a short distance away from a cruiseship, several days a week, with people able to looking into my living room and, even worse, my bedroom.

I don't think I could live there due to the temptation of jumping on every ship.