Plans for Greenwich cruise terminal abandoned

[Cotswold Eagle]

The long-delayed plans for a Thames-side cruise terminal at the Enderby Wharf site in Greenwich have finally been abandoned. There has been a very effective anti-pollution campaign locally, but I haven’t head of any knock-on effect on the current mooring arrangements off Greenwich Pier. But most cruisers will still have to cope with the fiction that Dover and Southampton are ‘London’ 🙂

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46209399 

[Globaliser]

42 minutes ago, Cotswold Eagle said:

But most cruisers will still have to cope with the fiction that Dover and Southampton are ‘London’

 

And Harwich!

 

If the ships can't moor to a fixed dock, presumably that means that they will have no option but to keep their engines running whilst moored in the middle of the river a few hundred yards away?

[LHT28]

51 minutes ago, Cotswold Eagle said:

 But most cruisers will still have to cope with the fiction that Dover and Southampton are ‘London’ 🙂

 

 Maybe they use London  as  the the landing point  for most international  pax

otherwise they would be looking for airports  at Dover & Southampton 🙂

yes SOU is close to the port  but  many international flights  do not go there

JMO

[Cotswold Eagle]

1 hour ago, Globaliser said:

 

And Harwich!

 

If the ships can't moor to a fixed dock, presumably that means that they will have no option but to keep their engines running whilst moored in the middle of the river a few hundred yards away?

 

Quite. I suppose the two differences are (a) expectations of more visits with a ‘proper’ terminal (b) the plans for Enderby Wharf include dense housing right next to the terminal. 

 

But with London’s air problems, I suppose attention may switch to ships moored in the river. 

[Globaliser]

1 hour ago, LHT28 said:

Maybe they use London  as  the the landing point  for most international  pax

otherwise they would be looking for airports  at Dover & Southampton

 

No, it's just preying on ignorance to pretend to people that they're going to be in/near London when it's not true. And all over the CC boards, you can see the results of this in the form of confusion about where the cruise is going to start/finish.

 

Cruise lines have no difficulty naming either Galveston or Port Canaveral as the departure point even though they are in similar situations in relation to their nearest useful airports.

[LHT28]

31 minutes ago, Globaliser said:

 

No, it's just preying on ignorance to pretend to people that they're going to be in/near London when it's not true. And all over the CC boards, you can see the results of this in the form of confusion about where the cruise is going to start/finish.

 

maybe petition the cruise lines to post  the  port instead of city with the airport

like Civitavecchia  instead of Rome  most people would figure it out  ..eventually 😉

[John Bull]

7 hours ago, Globaliser said:

it's just preying on ignorance to pretend to people that they're going to be in/near London when it's not true.

Sadly I have to agree.

Same applies elsewhere in the world.

Mebbe they're learning from Ryanair, the undisputed kings of such subterfuge 

 

But some cruise lines do toe the line here and there

eg London (Southampton) or Southampton (for London), and I'd have no argument with that.

 

JB 

 

[Globaliser]

13 hours ago, LHT28 said:

maybe petition the cruise lines to post  the  port instead of city with the airport

 

That will have as much effect as asking turkeys to vote for Christmas (or Thanksgiving). It's the cruise lines who benefit most from this dishonesty.

 

6 hours ago, John Bull said:

Southampton (for London)

 

I have no trouble with this. It makes clear that Southampton is not London. However, "London (Southampton)" fails that test, IMHO.