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

Deepwater for Cruise Ships

Recommended Posts

So there we have it then (iomtoday). After 2 FOI requests, because they refused to answer the first one (or hadn't made a figure up in time), the spend figures for visiting cruise passengers is released. £44 each.

Not the £70+ that had previously been claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

So there we have it then (iomtoday). After 2 FOI requests, because they refused to answer the first one (or hadn't made a figure up in time), the spend figures for visiting cruise passengers is released. £44 each.

Not the £70+ that had previously been claimed.

Having spent several hours on pole position watching overweight yanks, which is to say most of them, dodging landing bikers to get their shuttle back to the mother-ship I would say that £44 apiece is a massiver over-exaggeration.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

So there we have it then (iomtoday). After 2 FOI requests, because they refused to answer the first one (or hadn't made a figure up in time), the spend figures for visiting cruise passengers is released. £44 each.

Not the £70+ that had previously been claimed.

Rather than a second FoI request, it was an appeal from the first one[1], which had asked Can you please confirm that the Department has carried out analysis to determine the current value of a cruise passenger when visiting the Isle of Man. If so please advise what that figure is and how it is calculated.  This was refused initially but when it was appealed at the end of November even the crew of the Sparshop Enterprise realised there was no way it could get away with that and released the information at the last possible moment over the Christmas holidays in the hope no one would notice.

It's worth looking at the full answer they gave:

Quote

 

Upon review the Department accepts that no public harm will result in providing this information and considers that it should be released. Therefore we are disclosing the following information relating to the value of a cruise passenger when visiting the Isle of Man.

The Deloitte report on development of an Isle of Man cruise ship deep water berth, submitted to the Department in July 2017, states “We have calculated an average of £44.48 as the average passenger gross spend in the economy per head”.

In terms of the methodology, the report states that “We have obtained the average passenger gross spends from a number of reports, including historic Isle of Man figures , other comparable islands and Rest of World (ROW) from 2012-2015, resulting in a calculated average gross spend of £44.48”.

 

So they paid Deloittes to basically come up with a vague guess[2] - and are still trying to hide the way it was calculated. if it was based on anything at all.

It's also worth pointing out that such estimates are only based on those who bother to come ashore but the figures seem to be applied to the full complement of passengers.  Also not all that 'gross spend' will stay on the Island.  If a tour of the Island is included (and that's the item most likely to make a big contribution), there will be a fairly hefty commission that is retained by the cruise company.  So even if these optimistic figures are accurate they may be over-estimating the economic benefit.

 

[1]  Unlike most other FoI requests, the requester clearly knew what to do and demolished the attempt to evade scrutiny surgically:  The DoE asserts that the information is "qualified exempt information", but do not justify why that specific piece of information cannot be released. They claim it is still being used to develop policy. But the specific piece of information requested exists, and will not change, so there can be no justification for withholding it. It is in the public interest to release it. It is not reasonable for the information to be withheld. The factors for withholding the information do not outweigh the factors for its release.  Despite the assertion that the Dept requires further time to consider the information does not alter the fact of a cruise passenger spend. No public harm would result in providing this information.”

[2]  Which they still managed to give to the nearest penny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe it is anywhere near £44. How much did that stupid answer cost to obtain and how much more will it cost for people to lie in support of that figure.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

I don't believe it is anywhere near £44. How much did that stupid answer cost to obtain and how much more will it cost for people to lie in support of that figure.?

44 pence would  be closer to the truth.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

So there we have it then (iomtoday). After 2 FOI requests, because they refused to answer the first one (or hadn't made a figure up in time), the spend figures for visiting cruise passengers is released. £44 each.

Not the £70+ that had previously been claimed.

On 17/01/2017 at 1:00 PM, Bobbie Bobster said:

I fired up the Fermi estimator and this is what I got.

Average direct spend per cruise visitor seems to be order of magnitude about £100. Say indirect spend via fees, service costs etc is 50% on top of that.

Assume smallish vessels, max 1,000 and 80% of the passengers visit. So that's £120k turnover per ship visit.

Take the "economic benefit" as similar to the margin on the turnover at about 25%, that's £30k per ship visit. Say 50 visits per season, that's £1.5m per annum of benefit.

Very quick and dirty analysis, but the direct economic benefit busienss case doesn't seem to stack up.

ETA: There's probably a VAT/tax benefit in addition which might double the economic benefit, but it's still a long payback for £50mil.

In the overall scheme of things, I wasn't too far out with my estimate - in the context of analysing if spending £50mil on a berth made economic sense.  Makes even less sense at £44 per head.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

I don't believe it is anywhere near £44. How much did that stupid answer cost to obtain and how much more will it cost for people to lie in support of that figure.?

Actually shore tours for cruise visitors can be quite expensive.  Here's one for Orkney that is £89 per person for a full day.   Not everyone takes them of course, and those that do spend little else.  And as I said, a lot of the money is swallowed up by the cruise company as commission (they try to get people to pay in advance through them). 

But it's still not a lot compared to a normal holidaymaker.  After all most of what a tourist spends is on accommodation, evening meals and getting here.  And with a cruise passenger all those are already paid for to someone else.

  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Oh Dear ,just a little reminder of what can and does happen when people underestimate the power of the sea!

 

                        A 'catastrophic failure' led to Holyhead Marina destruction and it will cost millions to fix it - Daily Post.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wot, no IOM photos?

Plenty of damage in Douglas - Sea Terminal windows, tarmac on the Promenade walkway, and fencing along the sea wall.

Much potential from a storm like Emma for damage to a big cruise ship berth if we had one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage down north too. That cavity revealed underneath the top screed is, I'd bet, what Douglas prom is like underneath, but on a larger scale, which is why it needs rather more than just a topical dressing...

 

_20180305_122623.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, quilp said:

 That cavity revealed underneath the top screed is, I'd bet, what Douglas prom is like underneath, but on a larger scale, which is why it needs rather more than just a topical dressing...

 

You don't have to bet nuthin'.

Just nip down to the Promenade yourself. There has been no road collapse as far as I know, despite taking one heck of a battering.

Shore Road Gansey (Bay ny Carrickey) road collapsed 15? or so years ago, outside the Shore. But Douglas Promenade has been robust. Needs keeping an eye on of course but essentially ok.

The chap on Manx Radio this morning (Andrew Jessop?) just seemed to be hand-wringing for hand-wringings sake. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, quilp said:

Damage down north too. That cavity revealed underneath the top screed is, I'd bet, what Douglas prom is like underneath, but on a larger scale, which is why it needs rather more than just a topical dressing...

 

_20180305_122623.JPG

Am told that material from under the walkway screed has been drawn away under the wall by the tidal action leading to the collapse. The same thing happened about 4 years ago, further down toward the boat park.  Only took DOI 2 years to get their contractors round to rebuild it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 7:16 PM, Non-Believer said:

So there we have it then (iomtoday). After 2 FOI requests, because they refused to answer the first one (or hadn't made a figure up in time), the spend figures for visiting cruise passengers is released. £44 each.

Not the £70+ that had previously been claimed.

I get very worried about the clearly fake business case being built around this. The only think in the back of my head that’s reigning me in is that John Whitaker saw the IOM ok on the Pinewood deal. What’s the chance that we have bought land that we will just flip at a nice profit and invest into a port elsewhere? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...