Silver Surfer

Yes but AFTER the 48 hour quarantine period has elapsed. Read the NHS advice.

I think the audio on this says it all. http://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/manx-group-takes-long-detour-for-return/

To be fair, you do need the government onboard for something like this - you don't want them fighting it every step of the way, it'd be a bollocks I agree Govt would have to be involved for approvals and planning etc but not financing or financial return guarantees.

The private sector may be driving this but they are expecting tax payers to fund it! If it's such a good idea they would want to keep all the Returns for themselves. They don't want to - they want Govt to share the risk. That should tell you all you need to know.....

How can bringing people to the Island to spend money (do you think they pay zero for the services before coming ashore?) be stupid? How many passengers do you think it will really take to recover £50m of build costs, plus another £25m of financing and operational costs? If it is such a 'no brainer' let the shipping person pushing the scheme find the finance and fund it!!

I agree. This is sustainable business if it's developed & handled in the right way. Here's the 2017 schedule for Liverpool: http://www.cruise-liverpool.com/cruise-call-schedule/ Liverpool is an internationally known destination with huge art, music and architectural culture. The Isle of Man is a backward looking twee anachronism. Sure there will always be a small market for that, but cruise passengers want big name destinations. The Scottish Islands only do as well as they do because they are a natural stop over point when cruise ships transit between summer European and Winter Caribbean destinations. Think about it. Cruise liners can and do call in to both Liverpool and Dublin which are iconic places to visit. Do you really think cruise passengers will want to waste another day of their itinerary to cal in to the Isle of Man only a few hours from each of the much more exciting destinations?

You really think that the big Irish Sea operators are going to royally p*** off their passengers and risk losing them to their competitors by 'calling in' to the Isle of Man and adding hours to their journey? You are living in cloud-cuckoo land.....it will never happen.

Yes because I assume you chose to do that off your own back. Same would apply to any similar change because you would be moving to the cheapest fare available for that sailing which may be different to the one you booked, or have different offer conditions. No different to the rest of the travel industry. But my point was that if Steam Packet warn of potential weather disruption they then allow changes for free!

Passengers are already hedging their bets and changing bookings but Dick Turpin (Steam Packet) is really ripping them off with excessive fees for a change. The Steam Packet are very reasonable when they have put out advance weather warnings, and then do not charge fees to change sailings once they have warned of potential problems. When was the last time you saw one of our airlines warn its passengers about weather issues, and then say they wouldn't be charged to change flights? If people choose to change their sailings in advance of any warning being issued by the Steam Packet why shouldn't they pay the same as other passengers on that sailing have paid or pay more if no offers are left?

I sometimes wonder if people like you live in the real world. Peak periods are the same the world over. The other side of the coin is the very cheap fares that others on here have referred to at off-peak periods.

MGP period by any chance?

Gosh Johnny F, It's a brilliant theory, but..... Manannan has been in service for a long time now. If erosion happens as quickly as you say it does, why hasn't this same thing happened many times before? And if the boat, and this equipment in particular, has been recently inspected as I understand it has to be every year in dock, why this time round has it only taken a few weeks for the failure? And just to be clear, unlike NeverAgain, I most definitely am questioning your 'expertise'!

Isn't that axe you've been grinding for so long sharp enough yet?

Oh you read that; must be absolutely true then. Funny because I just went to the 3FM webpage where the headline reads 'SPC calls for passengers to be 'realistic' over problems' What he actually says is 'people' have to be realistic about 'what could be achieved' regarding immunity from third party damage. I don't suppose editors or journalists would ever 'edit' sound bytes to suit their means....

Something that wouldn't stop a crisp packet or a coke bottle but would be big enough to stop something like a large fish being ingested. It most likely wouldn't stop fish nets or ropes either but what's the chances of that? Sounds great in theory, but things are never that straight forward..... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/nyregion/22engines.html

Where do they dig you people up from? Do you go on a special course somewhere that convinces you to have an unfailing belief that everything you think of and commit to print must be right? Yes great idea, lets put a 'strainer' over a water jet intake producing thousands of horse power. Now why didn't the manufacturers think of that? Did YOU ever pause to consider that there are a number of people on the Island, and even the occasional interested party who although no longer resident have a deep care about their homeland, that happen to be quite sufficirntly qualified to comment, and even express expert, REAL expert, opinion. A filter of some forms over the intake to the pumps that generate the water jet may be problematic, or might be excessively expensive. I do know that in pumped hydro electric plants in Africa macerating active intakes are used to pump water into the holding lake so the technology does exist though I do not believe that it would be cost effective or technically feasible for a glorified tin bath belting through the water like sh*t off a hot shovel but it's not an idea to be treated as being stupid, rather it deserves an explanation why it is not feasible. Or maybe you don't know why? I think long and hard before I comment. And I don't hold myself out as offering an expert opinion either. Of course pumps sometimes have filters on. And of course manufacturers of fast craft will have considered this for their ships. The fact that they aren't built with them, and the fact that the safety critical nature of shipping doesn't insist on them tells me that they are either not generally needed, or they don't generally work. I would suspect the latter. Given the sheer power and forces at play I suspect any grill fine enough to still allow sufficient water flow would not last long....

Where do they dig you people up from? Do you go on a special course somewhere that convinces you to have an unfailing belief that everything you think of and commit to print must be right? Yes great idea, lets put a 'strainer' over a water jet intake producing thousands of horse power. Now why didn't the manufacturers think of that?

And yet another self proclaimed, expert, know-it-all. But even more clever - one that can spot metal fatigue from a photo. The Press Release states that these were checked and passed by the regulatory authorities just before coming in to service this year. '. Metal fatigue is difficult to detect until a component that is fatigued enters the tertiary stage when the creep becomes much more obvious. In fact the bigger the lump of metal the more difficult it is to detect without some serious non destructive testing focusing on parts that are suspected of being subject to exceptional load. Ultrasound testing and micro cracking detection is also far from being totally reliable which is why in the case of aircraft and other safety critical applications components are replaced after a period of use based on the established characteristics of the material used and the stresses that it would have experienced over a period of time. What IS a fact is that the surface of a metal component that has experienced a fatigue failure usually shows a particular surface that is irregular and rough. And, 'Silver Surfer', although most of my career did not involve material science, in the early years it did. See my post above. I would expect that the professionals responsible for certifying this equipment would be aware of all that. And the chances of two of these (according to the Packet) failing at exactly the same time due to metal fatigue? Pretty slim I'd say.

And yet another self proclaimed, expert, know-it-all. But even more clever - one that can spot metal fatigue from a photo. The Press Release states that these were checked and passed by the regulatory authorities just before coming in to service this year. '. You don't have to be an 'expert' to know metal fatigues with age and stress, I said 'looks like' because that IMO is what it looks like, looking at the top photo of the a frame you can see the deterioration its not clean metal where it has been broken/snapped. I think I would rely on marine authorities, classification societies and ship surveyors to determine condition rather than you. I suspect, as a result, the public would be safer too.....

And yet another self proclaimed, expert, know-it-all. But even more clever - one that can spot metal fatigue from a photo. The Press Release states that these were checked and passed by the regulatory authorities just before coming in to service this year. '.

I don't recall many SPCo vessles being propelled by waterjet either, or having the same type of bowthruster. Just saying like. The Ben issue in Feb had nothing to do with the bowthrusters (or obviously any waterjet system) when hitting the Aoife Rose, or fishing gear/debris in my opinion. It was simply a mechanical failure of the CPP system but as always fishing gear is the stock reply. With regard to the Manannan, I am surprised any navy would build a ship for military use that would be so susceptible to being brought to a halt by some fishnets? Oh dear....another self proclaimed, expert, know-it-all. Why should anyone take any note or attribute any weight to what you say? You clearly have an axe to grind and are incapable of objectivity. As for Manannan, as in my earlier post, why don't you bother to get your facts right before you commit to posting? You are wrong on both counts. Manannan was built as a commercial ferry, and converted to use by the US Navy. Oh, and the Packet say she was damaged by 'debris', not 'fishnets'.

Why don't you bother reading what they do put out to the press properly? If you did you would see that they don't mention fishing gear at all, but 'debris'. Just because lazy journalists re-reporting the story talk about fishing gear is no excuse for you not to bother to check your facts before you accuse people of dishonesty.

Engrish may not be there first langrage Both are right and can be used. A true grammar pedant would/should know that. See http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/forecast

Rubbish. Check your facts before posting alarmist nonsense. The boat sailed in this morning so shelves will be stocked as usual.