ManxBaz

Do Macquarie actually own any of the SP now? It is my understanding that their only involvement is as consultants or advisors and the SP is owned by pension plans as long term investment.

John Wright, in my belief you are correct when you say there should be two ro ro vessels. You then say with strict regulations two companies could operate providing they provide a certain number of services, you mean have two UA? You are back at square one but with what profits to be made split between two companies, in order to get a return on their investments I don't think you would see a fall in fares or freight rates, you would just be doubling costs with the same income to cover everything.

Pongo what you are saying is basicly nationalise the SP. That was put to Tynwald a few months back and they almost shit themselves as it goes against their Freedom to Flourish mantra. Besides, look at the success they are making out of the Government owned buses and airport!

The IoM Government wouldn't lose control of the sea routes, the IoM PUBLIC would, in return for what? If the Market controlled the sailings by demand then you would probably find the only passenger sailings would be the daytime weekend trips. Other commercial players wouldn't step in, the fianancial outlay wouldn't be worth what they would receive. I admit, yes they are in competition for foot passengers, but what I meant by two different markets I was referring to the logistics of each operation not competition for market share.

Comparing air and sea is like comparing chalk and cheese, they are two totally different markets. The idea of ships stopping off to pick up freight would not work, as I've already said why would companies inconvenience their own customers and risk losing them to rivals and add hours onto a journey for what to them would be an insignificant number of trailers, added to that the island would lose control of it's sea routes. Plus the basic fact that all the ro ro vessels you see passing the island are too big to use Douglas harbour and the majority of them don't carry passengers. When Manxline started the SP had the side loading vessels with the spiral ramps at the stern. Craning vehicles on and off had ceased many years previous.

When she was new the lady had a service speed of 21 knots. After her midlife refit she done 18-19 knots, about the same as the BMC.

Oops, sorry, messed up my reply there. I guess it's a question of swings and roundabouts. Keeping passenger rates down low enough to entice holiday makers and locals onto the boats and off the airlines, and keeping the hauliers happy.

Why should the weekly shop be more expensive in order to subsidise people putting their cars on the boat ?

That is true, as I've said I agree Fastcraft are an out dated, expensive, inefficient type of vessel. That is a IOM Government requirement not a SP one. I would think the SP would be more than happy just to use conventional ships, but apparently the general public like getting from A to B in the fastest possible time.

Thank god, someone who can see the reality and not some Utopian dream.

There are alternatives, they are called airlines, but trying to get your car on as hand baggage is a bastard. How is the UA out of date? it guarantees regular services. We are going round in circles,there is not enough freight for two services as proven by recent events, linkspan or not! Huge debts that have to be serviced out of profits, just like the MEA, Man Utd and every other company, that's the way of the world in these greed is good times. To keep passeger rates down why not subsidise with the freight.

Gazza, Mezeron have now one small 500 ton coaster. If you mean Dohle, how big are Macquarie and the pension funds who actually own the SP? Pongo, I agree with you that Fastcraft are out of date and inefficient and a conventional ship would be alot better,not only in the green sense but in any poor weather. A lot of freight is in a hurry. Just ask Tesco, Shopriite,Co Op and M&S. They are the high worth cargo, where the money is! Bricks and cement and fertiliser can be shipped at any time but it's more than a few hours difference. You say there isn't a need for a passenger service every day, imagine the shit that would hit the fan if the SP tried to pull that one, you would be first in the queue to slag them off.

Pongo, you are right when you say oil prices will dictate the cost of freight and passengers to the IOM in the future, competition or not. You say freight rates should not subsidise passenger fares, if that was the case fares on the fastcraft would go through the roof, if every crossing had to pay it's way I would hate to think what the fares would be to Ireland. You mention the possibility of passing vessels calling into Douglas as competition. Why would these companies want too? Competition is hard enough on Irish Sea routes, why would companies want to go out of their way and delay their customers by calling in to the Island and picking up a insignificant number of trailers? Apart from the vessels actually fitting into Douglas harbour! Gazza, you are quite right in saying anybody who wants to ship with Mezeron has every right to do so. If it's not in a rush, why not! But your final sentance sums it up, it was nothing more than a little stunt from a small company.

The market is there for one operator. If there is no UA all there would be is services to the NW UK and nothing else. How would that be beneficial to the Isle of Man, especially the tourist industy?

They got a significant share of the market but still couldn't make a profit, size of ship doesn't come into it. If by a level playing field you mean they would have to run loss making passenger services as well it just wouldn't work. all you would end up with is two companies running two vessels to the NW England carrying freight and passengers once a day each. There would be no services to Ireland or extra summer services to the UK because either company wouldn't have too. That's why there is a UA , to guarentee those services.

Haven't the events of the last week confirmed that there isn't the volume of freight to sustain two companies. Mezeron couldn't do it with two cheaply chartered vessels, the costs of a ro-ro vessel would be considerably more, how would that be sustainable.

The Commadore Clipper is the main Ro/pax vessel running to the Channel Islands, basically doing the same job as the BMC. She is very similar to the BMC, built to fit the run she was to be used on. She had a very serious cardeck fire last year but luckily there were no casualties. Also down that area are Wightlink, another Macquarie purchase.

ACL ships are ocean going vessels. A ship small enough to fit in Douglas harbour would not be able to have a ramp large enough to work in all states of the tide.

The price rise allowed for this year has already happened.

Not forgetting the MEA electricity price hike due in 8ish weeks..

Manxman8180 if you just google it or I think there is a link on wiki.

To my knowledge the only thing holding back any body using a ro ro is the unavailability of a link span. Regarding the stern door ramp it would have to be as long as the link span in Douglas to cover all statesof tide.

The side loading ferries were an ingenious design but was used purely by SP. Having side loading ships would be perfect would be if there was no tide, but the ramps used on ro ro vessels, stern or side loading, can only be used within narrow parameters. That why there are link spans, effectively making the quayside the same height to the ship what ever the state of tide.

Theambo, prices have already risen for this year in line with the UA.

Sean south you state there are ro-ro vessels that can load and discharge without the use of a link span, how then do you operate a regular (as in same time every day) ferry service when you have to wait for the tide?