manshimajin

It may be higher than that. I can find some Eurostat figures for minimum wages - the UK minimum wage in 2009 was the equivalent of €1010. Eurostat shows the Estonian mimimum as €278 in 2009 - so about 1/4 of UK minimum. Source I assume that their wages are regulate under Estonian law and therefore come within EU oversight but not UK/IOM oversight.

Correct they don't have to comply, the crews rates and conditions were agreed in Estonia, its the same for the foreign crews on North Sea and Channel ferries. As Estonia is in the EU they presumably have to adhere to Estonian/EU (EEC) rules on minimum wages, hours of work, safety etc that are legislated in Estonia? and do they pay minimum or market wages based on Estonia? Certainly the Estonian minimum wage is about 1/4 of the UK one.

Barrie I was interested that the IOMSPC claimed in 2008 that an agreement with the government set the minimum speed at which they could operate fastcraft (but was silent in relation to the BMC). This was part of MW's rationale for not saving costs by reducing speed - and for the need to have a surcharge on fuel. Presumably one of the steps that they might take in dealing with competition could be to reduce fuel costs, which MW says is one of their biggest costs. Based on the Stena savings of 25% in fuel costs by reducing speed by 16% a similar reduction would increase the twice a day crossing times to and from Heysham from 14 hours to 16.3. That would mean turnround times of just under 2 hours rather than 2.5 hours. I don't know how feasible this is but I do wonder if this is one of a number of ways of trying to reduce costs to improve competitiveness? Of course if they only had one return crossing in the low season savings on fuel by adjusting speed could also be an additional saving.

Barrie your comment reminded me of a quote that Mark Woodward made on Manx Forums on 4 July 2008: This was in response to a question as to whether, like other ferry companies were doing on the Irish Sea (and the RN had also done), the IOMSPC could reduce speeds to make fuel savings to avoid the need for fuel surcharges. You will know much better what the relationship beyween speed and fuel consumption at sea but there was a report that Stena's reduction of 16% in crossing speed on the Dublin-Holyhead route had reduced fuel useage by in excess of 25%. MW said that fuel was the major cost for the IOMSPC. I had not know until that particular post that the Steam Packet were required to maintain minimum speeds (mind you MW was rather coy in not saying whether these 'required' speeds were actually slower than the service speeds they were THEN operating to).

Megan I understand that you are not reading the posts here any more ... Like you I don't know the precise number of non-nationals (including UK staff) employed on an off and on basis by the IOMSPC - I do know that they are extremely courteous and often very cultured people - but MW made quite a point that Mezeron was using non-nationals when he also is doing the same when it is convenient for it and suits his needs!. It is a sensible strategy for IOMSPC to do in managing business peaks - but MW shouldn't criticise others for doing what his company is also doing. On the marketing issue - I am responding in part to comments made by Mark Woodard on this forum in the past when he said that the IOMSPCs market was the 84,000 inhabitants of the IOM. I think that is incredibly unimaginative. At a time when staycations have become so much more popular shouldn't all Island transport operators plus the Tourist folk be trying to do more? last year for example traffic to the Scottish Islands increased considerably but not to here. You seem to dimiss tourism as an industry but in most European countries and much farther afield it is SERIOUS business and a MAJOR employer. Adopting a trivial attitude to it will ensure that it continues to decline. That is something for other threads but your dismissal is sadly too trite and unthought through.

I know that I have been wondering if they could manage with once per day sailings in off-peak times and step up frequency in the higher useage times. What schedule would best suit M&S, Tesco and Shoprite freight into Douglas? The daytime schedule would allow them to take delivery and restock overnight and be more attractive to passenger traffic. Is that the best for stores? That way the BMC could moor for 14 hours in Douglas and as you say once passengers and cars were disembarked the removal of freight could proceed more slowly than at present and equally the return containers could be loaded well ahead of sailing time. I wonder how other ferry companies manage crewing when they have reduced sailing frequencies? The IOMSPC use of non-nationals is clearly part of the scene. Could they retain existing 'Manx' crews through the low peak but on a reduced number of days per week? In any case I wonder what percentage the crew salaries are of the running costs? MW was saying last year that fuel was the single biggest cost for them and I guess financing must be up there too.

Fair point Gazza.

Put another way the owners of Mezeron are a shipping company, the owners of the IOMSPC are a group of pension funds. Ultimately some form of living together will be worked out. Maybe this is already happening behind closed doors. The IOMSPC and its clients may have to come to recognise that however much one wishes that things wouldn't change, they will have to. Maybe the Packet could start getting ideas from the people who use them (use the database MW). It may be reduced service frequencies in low seasons which would reduce costs. Could Manannan be leased out in Winter like they used to do in the past? What innovative marketing ideas can they think of for the 70 million market in the British Isles? etc..etc...

Manxman what you say makes sense. I think though that the reaction on this forum has stemmed from the comments that the Packet have made itself through MW which seemed to be both panicky, threatening and full of doom and gloom for the Island. IMO he was 180 degrees off course in that strategy. What you say is what I think he should have done. Kept the lips firmly zipped in public and got onto dealing with his customers and their concerns pdq. Maybe he is doing it now. At least the Packet have removed his rather ill- considered blog pages from their website.

No of course not - but I was responding to a general comment that lift on lift off container traffic is normal at major ports around the world and therefore must be as efficient as RoRo. No doubt it is in the first type of situation because of the infrastructure not only for lifting but also for marshalling containers and the capacity to handle large ships and large container volumes backed up by road/rail links too. But as you say the Mezeron operation is hardly comparable which is why I posted the two along side one another. A mobile crane on a narrow pier lifting off containers is probably not as efficient as a RoRo ship using a linkspan backed by a large marshalling area and multiple tracor units in the same harbour. My thought was that surely IOMSPC should be in there maximising its freight handling advantage not grumbling about Mezeron. I find it strange that MW didn't say - "competition is great because it makes us maximise our efficiencies an effectiveness in the interest of both our customers and our owners". From experience the arrival of competition can be a big motivator - but at the moment in this case it seems to have had the opposite effect - just lsten to that video!

Your right...none of us do...except MW making a lot of rather silly comments and now apparently, so we hear on the video, exchanging letters with Phil Gawne. If they are doing something constructive then all I can say is "thank goodness" - action speaks louder than words.

errr...yes they do...and then again some places have somewhat less sophisticated arrangements:

If they don't take passengers, they don't get to use the linkspan. Q.E.D.

OOPs did I hear Phil Gawne refer to the 'mismanagement of the IOMSPC" and then back off pdq? A freudian slip...

Megan, you are right that there are a number of issues at play here. The financing of the purchase seems to be a pretty normal Private Equity investment - borrow big, pile repayment and servicing costs on the operating company and hope to sell at a good profit down the line. Unfortunately both the economic downturn and the competition from Mezeron have probably scuppered this strategy in the short term. IMO it is also impossible to ignore the UA as part of this equation. The UA, providing as it does, almost exclusive access to the Linkspans to the IOMSPC has 'goodwill' value. The IOMSPC (I suspect) saw this when they applied for and were granted an extension of the UA and all that the UA entails to 2025/26 (?). But the longer the owner hangs on to the IOMSPC the less the 'goodwill' value of the UA. And bear in mind that the ultimate owner is not a transport company but a group of pension funds. IMO this would normally come togethr to mean that the pension fund would want to dispose of its holdings whilst there was still reasonable life and value in the UA, say 10 years. But the arrival of Mezeron in Douglas has shown that competition is possible and not only potentially affects operating profit but also the market value of the IOMSPC. No wonder they are concerned. Whilst the UA exists Mezeron are not going to be able to bring in a RoRo ship and will have to use the relatively inefficient lift on lift off process. My impression is that the IOMSPC is adapting exactly the wrong approach in face of this competition. Instead of whingeing it should be responding vigorously to the competition it faces. As Barrie Stevens points out the Mezeron ships are probably on short leases so the IOMSPC if it rolled up its sleeves to compete could probably give Mezeron a hard time. Thoughts on what they could do: Give attractive discounted rates to major users subject to them committing to exclusive use of the IOMSPC - if there is any issue of restraint of trade do this on volumes to be carried (which IOMSPC management must have a good idea of) Review the costs of freight transport - I don't know for example if costs are managed to attract freight traffic to low business times? If there are service issues - as suggested on this thread - investigate and do something about them if needed Cut the fleet down to 2 ships - sell the Snaefell and use any money raised to pay off the loan Based on volumes decide whether it would be feasible to make one UK crossing per day only in low traffic times Sail to only one port in the UK and one in Ireland to minimise port costs Try a few marketing experiments on passenger/car sailings - like last minute fares, sales in low booking times, (my hardy perennial) an IOM stop-over fare between UK and Ireland etc...the compay must have accumulated a very useful client database through onine booking that they could use to promote business AS for the quality of staff - I think many of the concerns expressed on the forum relate to the response of management to challenging times. Personally I am a medium level user of the ferries and I have always had positive experiences when dealing with frontline staff including the booking staff when I have needed their help.

Surely in a business in which staffing demands vary such a lot between summer and winter temporary staff make sense? What doesn't make sense is to use temporary staff as the core workforce. Of course you save on pensions, annual leave etc but you lose on experience and the ability to fix problems from accumulated knowledge.

Would the IOMSPC pension fund have trustees and annual accounts? Surely it should. The members, if concerned should first of all get hold of copies of the accounts. Who has told them that they will lose out - what information do they have to back that up? If they are worried they need to establish the facts not to make a knee-jerk reaction to some third party. At that point they can decide whether or not to panic!

The collective minds of forum members piggy backing of one another....

Didn't we cover this earlier? From what I understood, the Ben might be hindered by insurance issues with regards to passenger safety that the Mezeron service wouldn't be, thus the Mezeron service would, more than likely, sail when the Ben wouldn't. I was intrigued by the negative comments of some staff in M&S about the lack of goods getting through. On your insurance point Andy - if there is an insurance issue is there anything that prevents the IOMSPC saying "we will sail with freight - but due to insurance we cannot carry you passengers today?" . The passengers would be in the same situation whether the Ben didn't sail or whether it sailed without them but the IOMSPC would be able to deliver its freight quota?

To quote this was "A useful Passenger Feedback Forum". Which begs the question that if it was useful why remove it? I thought the problem was that it was NOT a passenger feedback forum. To be 'communication' it has to be two-way - otherwise it is just a proclamation. "Mr Woodward has the full confidence of the Board". P.S. Staff in M&S muttering this morning that they had had no deliveries from the UK for two days. Fair enough given the weather but is the IOMSPC any more dependable than Mezeron when it's rough?

I would say that Macquarie are not doing all that well - particularly when compared with the main Australian Banks which are amongst the strongest in the world at present. The latest results indicate that they are still posting profits and their capital is above minimum requirements. But they are finding the going tough despite exceeding that infamous thing called 'analysts' expectations'. Your '!' may be a bit too pessimistic/optimistic... They are certainly not the ASXs favourite share:

Noticeable how crowded the restaurant is on the clip............had been thinking of going that way to Iceland but having seen the video am having second, third and fourth thoughts. Maybe flying is better subject to volcanic activity. As their strap line says.... Was that word supposed to be Pitchures? Mind you that looks like a bigger ship so maybe.... P.S. I guess the videos are on a guitar site because of the rocking and rolling.

Scratches head ...I wonder what the dividends itemised in the accounts are then?

Thanks for that. I hadn't spotted that note to the accounts. So the reserves have gone from £23.9 million in 2007 to £7.7 million at the end of 2008. Wonder what the position is now? Presumably they can't continue to keep paying big dividends if there are limited reserves?

Gilf UK many thanks for posting the links to the accounts. One thing puzzles me a lot - the dividend policy. Over the 3 years shown in the accounts the IOMSPC has made total operating profits of £42.531 million and paid dividends of £59.595 million i.e. over £17 more paid in dividends than was achieved in operating profits. Would these be payments being made to upstream companies to pay for loan interest? Presumably this is why assets/shareholder funds have dropped by about £8 million p.a. in the same period? At that rate shareholder funds would be wiped out by 2015? If I am reading this correctly there is quite a challenge to generate enough operating profit to cover dividends and to rebuild the balance sheet.