Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

b4mbi

Subscribers
  • Content Count

    1,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

540 Excellent

3 Followers

About b4mbi

  • Rank
    MF Guru
  • Birthday 03/05/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Doolish

Recent Profile Visitors

1,638 profile views
  1. Almost this. A redesigned deep water port, providing strategic resilience for the Island's lifeline ferry services plus other commercial maritime opportunities, not just cruise.
  2. Have you got "nothing" between your ears?! I'm sorry i have to take issue with that, and that attitude. The island has loads to offer and what it has to offer is not better or worse than Liverpool or Belfast, just different!! Medieval castles Victorian transport network Stunning glens and walks Viking heritage Coastal sports/beach's Motorsport heritage All in a relatively small area and achievable in a day trip, perfect for the cruise passenger. What does a cruise passenger want? To see different places, not just big cities! How does Orkney get 100,000+ visitors p.a. with its tourist offering? Because it has the infrastructure. We need better harbour infrastructure.
  3. here's one for you.... Gib arrest Iranian tanker UK has biggest power cut in a decade Gib release tanker...…...
  4. My thoughts echoed. Must be using the any publicity is good publicity marketing approach, but when this undermines your credibility???
  5. "In 2017, Mr Clanton launched a GoFundMe bid to raise £1bn for the E.G.G - ’Ecological Geophysical Galleon’ - a 180-acre floating city off the Manx coast.So far, his crowdfunder has raised the grand sum of £4,815" The Reading University PhD student called Ian is £999,995,185 short of funds for his plans. He seems articulate and pleasant sort of a chap, but clearly is untainted by reality.
  6. The latest proposals have been dreamt up by a firm of local architects, probably off their own back, without anyone commissioning them. Can't see it would have taken very long to draw those proposals up. To my knowledge (and from their website) they are a well established local firm, with no experience what-so-ever in berth/port design. It's their own admission that the primary goal/driver of this design was to provide more parking space! (and whether that is necessary is debatable) I am quite surprised (as probably were the DoI) at these proposals, as there appears to have been no consideration or consultation with anyone having a marine background as they would have immediately pointed out that berths are supposed to provide shelter/calmer waters - this completely exposed berth doesn't in any way and as drawn is totally unviable. All the proposal is doing is creating more noise about cruise when an expanded port including a deep water berth should be the focus, to ensure the Island has resilience for its lifeline services, and provide opportunities to explore multiple different revenue streams.
  7. bee careful!
  8. letting the atheist side down, only got 11/15.
  9. Perhaps some form of weedkiller could be sprayed or cutting device employed? Most efficient way of doing that would surely be to pull some sort of device behind a locomotive of some kind.....
  10. Ah, found in the audited 2017/18 govt accounts included in Customs & Excise Treasury income Air Passenger Duty receipts 2017/18 £5.054m (page 63) Also in those accounts, the DoI's operating losses from "ports" was £4.6m (page 54) Yes, fair enough, the capital spend also has to be funded, so APD and ports departure tax go to Treasury who then allocate the capital spend. Agree it's difficult to attract more shops/retail on departure, as people don't spend long enough in the airport awaiting departure as it's not a transfer hub! pickup/drop off charges/fees to taxi's cause more aggravation and ill will than they're worth. Would rather losses were made than additional £150k revenue and all the ill will that creates.
  11. thanks john, so smoke and mirrors really saying that the airport is operationally "loss making" as it wasn't clear at all in that redacted report if APD was included in the airports income. Looks like in 17/18 Government raked in £7.5m from APD according to this fella discussing a slash in APD. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/manx-government-can-decide-on-passenger-tax-cut/ Bit of a farce if they don't include APD, as without an airport, NO APD!!! I think the issue rather is that APD goes into the general government pot, rather than being specifically allocated for airport matters, which in any sensible world it should be.... Just like any revenue generated by the harbours should go directly back into the harbours.
  12. I have a feeling this is going to be very embarrassing....
  13. b4mbi

    Save?

    Prima facie evidence in that newer drivers have accepted differing T&C's! Also some form of benchmarking is surely possible, with other comparable commercial operations, in similar jurisdictions?
  14. b4mbi

    Save?

    of course for the private sector too! In fact, there's more incentive in the private sector to take drop in wages if a company is making significant operating losses, if it's a choice between that and having no job at all as the company has gone under. Government employees don't have that risk.
  15. b4mbi

    Save?

    Oh, I don't blame them for it. There is a reason they've been offered a lumpsum to give up their very generous t&c's!!! However, the employer should be able to vary it's rates of pay as it sees fit. Wages can't just be a one way street upwards if prevailing conditions don't warrant that. Especially seeing as those wages are taxpayer funded. Of course this strays in the wider area of why we have a bus service. I have serious doubts you'd get the same service level across the island for the same ticket price if it was run by a purely commercial organisation. So effectively I think we have to accept that a bus service serving all communities on the island should be subsidised by the taxpayer. The operators of that service have an obligation to minimise that subsidy, which must entail the operator being able to vary t&c's, if it's obvious that initial t&c's were too generous.
×
×
  • Create New...