Yacht owners decry pontoon access fee, question closure of jetty

Ritesh Kank, has been in the business since 2013, manages five boats and hires additional ones when required. He said: “We earn around ₹3,000-4,000 per slot (trip). Now, we end up paying ₹500-600 every time we access the pontoon. Customers who are already paying for the boat ask why they should pay extra just to access it

MUMBAI: The closure of Jetty No. 5, opposite the Taj Mahal Palace hotel, is straining the finances of yacht owners. After the Mumbai Port Authority (MbPA) declared it “structurally unsafe and dangerous for use” in August and put an iron gate restricting access to it, operators and their guests have been compelled to access their boats through a privately managed floating pontoon, paying ₹92 per person per day to the Royal Bombay Yacht Club (RBYC).

Mumbai, India – 14 Oct 2026: The closure of Jetty No. 5 at the Gateway of India, in Mumbai, India, on Wednesday, 14 Sept 2026. (Photo by Bhushan Koyande/HT Photo)

The pontoon, operational since last year, was earlier optional, with operators using the concrete slipway at Jetty No. 5 to access for free. However, the closure has made the pontoon their only access point. While five other jetties at the Gateway of India -- numbered 0 to 4 -- continue to serve tourist boats, yacht operators attempting to use them have alleged resistance from those who regularly use the facilities.

Ritesh Kank, has been in the business since 2013, manages five boats and hires additional ones when required. He said: “We earn around ₹3,000-4,000 per slot (trip). Now, we end up paying ₹500-600 every time we access the pontoon. Customers who are already paying for the boat ask why they should pay extra just to access it.”

Attempts to access boats through other jetties have increased the wait time, affecting customer experience and operators’ reputations. He also fears cancellations with customers unwilling to bear the additional charge if imposed, leaving operators to absorb the losses.

Siddhesh Warang, founder of Dreams Sailing Club, who owns five boats and has been sailing and using the jetty for over 25 years, questioned the safety rationale. He pointed out that the floating pontoon and its access ladder had themselves been installed on the same structure declared unsafe by the authority. With the sailing season picking up after Navratri, he said operators expected around five passengers per yacht, apart from employees. In his case, this includes around 12 employees.

“I am paying for all my guests and employees because they will question the unexpected price rise. This is taking a toll on the business. We are made to pay just to access our own yachts,” he said.

Prashant Jadhav, owner of Yacht Getaway Mumbai, said operators were not receiving corresponding safety arrangements or facilities, despite the charges for safety. He pointed out that access to the other five jetties costs ₹5 and alleged discrimination against private yacht owners. He also questioned the safety of the alternative pontoon, saying its ladder had broken on an earlier occasion.

Chetan Rane, joint secretary of the Yacht Operators Welfare Association (YOWA), said that even if the authority’s structural-safety claim was accepted, it had failed to undertake timely repairs. He pointed out that MbPA had carried out repairs at other jetties in March 2025, but had neither audited nor repaired Jetty No. 5.

“If it is structurally unsafe, authorities should immediately work to make it safe instead of keeping it shut indefinitely. We do not believe it is structurally unsafe,” said Rane.

YOWA approached the Bombay High Court on October 3, challenging the MbPA’s decision. It has sought documents establishing the basis for declaring the jetty unsafe, removal of the gate and restoration of free access through the concrete slipway. The petition also questions the pontoon tariffs, the process by which RBYC was entrusted with managing the facility, and the safety of an alternative arrangement installed on a structure declared unsafe.

RBYC functionaries told HT that the decision to shut the jetty and introduce charges had been taken by the MbPA, declining further comment. MbPA’s PRO did not respond to HT’s texts or calls to seek a comment on the issue.