FACILITIES FOR PASSENGERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 32, 6 August 1936, Page 8

FACILITIES FOR PASSENGERS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —As one of the passengers who I disembarked from the Wanganella last Friday, and on behalf of the various passengers who asked me to voice their complaint, I must strongly protest against the inadequacy of the arrangements made: to disembark the passengers, and transfer their cabin luggage from the ship to the wharf for the necessary Customs inspection. The passengers, including elderly ladies, women with infants, and children, had to reach the wharf by means of a rather perilous descent for anyone riot active on their legs, or without experience of climbing. A moveable raised platform placed under the ;base of the gangway would have made the angle less acute, and therefore much easier to descend. ■ On the wharf, we entered the Customs, shed, and we. patiently waited for our cabin luggage to come to hand. Half .an hour, then three-quarters of an hour went by. Finally we discovered that the luggage was coming off the ship by a sling and was dumped on the wharf in a heap. It was raining; the wharf was full of puddles. Two or three stewards were valiantly trying to retrieve luggage which they considered themselves personally responsible for. They; had a difficult task, and having found our luggage we had to begin the long traverse back through the rain and puddles to the Customs doorway. Now, Sir, a doorway opposite the deposited • luggage could easily have been opened/ the luggage carried inside to be out of the rain, and placed in some semblance of order. The passengers than could have picked out their luggage, the Red Caps could have carried the same to the Customs officers; valuable time, splashed clothes, and frayed tempers could have been avoided and the reputation of the port saved from . being further belittled. Why did the authorities responsible not provide an additional gangway with an easier grade or a luggage chute, so that the stewards could deposit the luggage in the shsd in the accustomed manner? Why the long delay, before the luggage was dumped on the wharf? Why not have a gangway for both high and low tides? I do not know whose actions were responsible for the delay. ; i only know the passengers suffered, and also know that the faulty arrangements mentioned can, and should be, altered. —I am, etc.; . R. DAVISON. [Inquiries made show that.most of the complaints made above are justified, but the blame does not'lie with the Harbour Board. Adequate facilities for the disembarking of passengers in safety-and''comfort are provided by the Harbour Board at the: wharves, like the Queen's Wharf, which are intended for passenger traffic. But when a shipping company requests that its vessel shall be berthed at a cargo wharf, as was the case in this instance, it is not the fault of the Harbour Board if passengers are inconvenienced. The longest gangway available was used for the Wanganella, but the abnormally high,tide and the comparatively low wharf at which the vessel was berthed combined to make it not long enough. Had the vessel berthed at a passenger wharf, as the Harbour Board would have much preferred, there would have been no trouble; about the gangWay; The shipping company concerned is responsible for the unloading of the luggage, not the Harbour Board, and the red caps may only take the luggage from the trestles. The reason why the Wanganella was! berthed at a cargo wharf,: at the request of her owners, was that a.large, outward cargo was waiting to be put on board.]