b4mbi Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 (edited) As for the SPCo it looks like Macquarrie have bought a £200 million pig in a poke and they aren't going to like it. Woodward was making noises this evening as if he was going to demand that the Govt vary the user agreement to extend SPCo exclusivity beyond the linkspan. Money for lawyers perhaps but the UA is unambiguous and I don't see how it can be made to mean something that it does not say. Most likely outcome? Macquarrie will bail out at a huge loss - they are unwinding positions in lots of their investments to rein in borrowings and this is just one more. This. Fault lies with IOMSPC BoD and/or shareholder investors that approved the UA on it's existing terms, if those terms did not provide full exclusivity for all "containerised" freight traffic through Douglas (or any other Manx port for that matter), which it is obvious that it didn't. The UA in its existing form must have been made avaiable to the investors before they invested, so it looks like a really poor investment decision paying £225m for a company with physical assets of less than 1/10th of that. Sure there is value in the UA, but it appears not £200m...... would be most interesting to see the UA and it's exact terms and who can terminate / vary it. Presumably if MW asking for variation in it, then IOMG have power to cancel it and vary so that any freight operator using linkspan pays for the privilige and then income from that is used as subsidy to passenger operators (as per Cheeky boys suggestion), very much depends on figures though..... Edited November 3, 2010 by b4mbi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 the UA on it's existing terms, if those terms did not provide full exclusivity for all "containerised" freight traffic through Douglas (or any other Manx port for that matter), which it is obvious that it didn't. And why should it ? Any vessel which meets international port authority and other regulatory standards in general should be allowed to operate. There should be a free market. The IOM is supposed to be all about freedom and opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 As for the SPCo it looks like Macquarrie have bought a £200 million pig in a poke and they aren't going to like it. Woodward was making noises this evening as if he was going to demand that the Govt vary the user agreement to extend SPCo exclusivity beyond the linkspan. Money for lawyers perhaps but the UA is unambiguous and I don't see how it can be made to mean something that it does not say. Most likely outcome? Macquarrie will bail out at a huge loss - they are unwinding positions in lots of their investments to rein in borrowings and this is just one more. This. Fault lies with IOMSPC BoD and/or shareholder investors that approved the UA on it's existing terms, if those terms did not provide full exclusivity for all "containerised" freight traffic through Douglas (or any other Manx port for that matter), which it is obvious that it didn't. The UA in its existing form must have been made avaiable to the investors before they invested, so it looks like a really poor investment decision paying £225m for a company with physical assets of less than 1/10th of that. Sure there is value in the UA, but it appears not £200m...... would be most interesting to see the UA and it's exact terms and who can terminate / vary it. Presumably if KW asking for variation in it, then IOMG have power to cancel it and vary so that any freight operator using linkspan pays for the privilige and then income from that is used as subsidy to passenger operators (as per Cheeky boys suggestion), very much depends on figures though..... McQuarrie required the previous owners to renegotaiate teh UA before they bought, sio they and the board knew exactly what it contained. They overlooked lift on lift off competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 McQuarrie required the previous owners to renegotaiate teh UA before they bought, sio they and the board knew exactly what it contained. They overlooked lift on lift off competition. Exactly, so they overvalued the UA, paid over the odds, and now IOMSPC and it's owners will suffer the financial conseqences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 In the year to date at September 2010, 545,385 passengers and 150,273 vehicles had travelled through Douglas harbour. I can't see anyone passing up the opportunity to make a profit on that, be it 10, 20 or 30 %. (http://www.gov.im/li...harbourtr42.xml) And this is where we see the truth start to come out. MW spits the dummy because of the freight situation. Only one of the three SPCo boats that have been running all summer carries freight. MW's rantings would therefore have you believe that passenger carrying is a loss leader. BOLLOCKS!!! In reality, freight is quite a small part of their business. The basically ignored passengers are literally taken for a ride. Of those three boats that ran all summer, one is tied up in Liverpool (they must be doing well if they can afford to leave a boat idle), one is still limping on three engines (or is it?) The other is doing two half empty runs a day to Heysham. The liverpool run is about to go to Birkenhead again so Christmas shopping day trips and football days out are off the agenda (a certain loss of revenue). The figures about equate to about 700K PAX a year and 200K vehicles. Lets just say conservatively that each passenger paid £20 for their ticket each way, and each car was £100. THese are not unrealistic figures, but woudl add up to £34,000,000 before credit card charges, on board spends, change fees, TT subsidy, etc. The company make s a fortune out of transporting passengers. This is simply a call for a handout from the tax payer to stop his bosses asking questions! OK on your own figurs you have overstated the number of passengers by 27% and the number of cars by 33%. Not a good place to start and your fares figures do not reflect that for 6 months of the year the currentl;y widely available discount fares for a car and 2 passengers return are under £150 against your £240. Then you have railsail tickets which are cheao, and other discounts. OK headline fares may be greater, much greater than you suggest but I think your average is way out. So your final figure is at least £11 million to high for passenger revenue because of your overstated passenger and car numbers and may be overstated because you have the average fare to high. Remember the pessenger service requires on line booking facilities, checkin staff, a ferry shop to sell tickets, phone lines, security before you get on and staff to see you off on arrival plus up to 40 + more onboard staff, times three, per boat as certificated life boat men, radio operators, first aiders etc, cooks and stewards The truth is there are very few pax only services left, that DFDS has stopped carrying passengers on its RoPax service Rosyth to Zeebrugge but upped its freight capacity to two ships, ie doubled it. Manx Line identified that the way to go was RoPax, that separate pax and loose or even lift on lift off was a dead end. Mezeron has just picked up cheap crews and ships and has very low overheads by comparison to SPCo. Brittany Ferries do long runs and charge a fortune to passengers. I frequently use Caen, St Malo and Santander, but they are over night and the boats are huge and carry lots of freight and the passengers have to eat, buy a cabin etc so there is a lot of value added. Not the same opportunities on a 2.5 or 3.75 hour crossing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 the UA on it's existing terms, if those terms did not provide full exclusivity for all "containerised" freight traffic through Douglas (or any other Manx port for that matter), which it is obvious that it didn't. And why should it ? Any vessel which meets international port authority and other regulatory standards in general should be allowed to operate. There should be a free market. The IOM is supposed to be all about freedom and opportunity. Yes, but of course but by agreeing to the UA the IOMG were trying to secure a minimum standard and frequency of passenger service, which they have done, but to the now apparent financial detriment of IOMSPC and its owners. Remains to be seen if the minimum requirements of the UA are sufficient for the general public and of course if IOMSPC can actually fulfill them on its reduced revenues. Of course general public will be disgruntled if costs increase, frequency of sailings decrease and demand of Government that "something be done" to put pressure on for a renegotiation. Wouldn't want to be the bank who has provided the facility to MIOM, wonder what securities they have over the borrowing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I'm already annoyed at the pitiful facilities and boarding/disembarkation for foot passengers. How far do SP think they can reduce the quality of their service before I and many other passengers decide to fly instead? is that not the domain of the port, not the shipping company ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twopee Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I'm already annoyed at the pitiful facilities and boarding/disembarkation for foot passengers. How far do SP think they can reduce the quality of their service before I and many other passengers decide to fly instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 This saga reminds me of the time when Emerald Airways commenced their Ronaldsway/Liverpool service when another airline had the lion's share of the market. Unfortunately, the major operators can become complacent and believe that their market share is safe, that is until an interloper arrives!! However, we need to be careful, the air and sea markets to and from the island are probably not large enough to support two major operators each. The airport currently would appear to be OK with one larger airline and a number of smaller ones. I don't know if the sea trade would support a similar mix. Finally, what is clear is that if a company finds itself in a "monolopy" situation (whatever form it may take) commercial pressures will ensure that it maximises its profits, wouldn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 "monolopy" situation (whatever form it may take) is that when you have one ear lower than the other ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 OK on your own figurs you have overstated the number of passengers by 27% and the number of cars by 33%. Not a good place to start and your fares figures do not reflect that for 6 months of the year the currentl;y widely available discount fares for a car and 2 passengers return are under £150 against your £240. Then you have railsail tickets which are cheao, and other discounts. OK headline fares may be greater, much greater than you suggest but I think your average is way out. So your final figure is at least £11 million to high for passenger revenue because of your overstated passenger and car numbers and may be overstated because you have the average fare to high. Remember the pessenger service requires on line booking facilities, checkin staff, a ferry shop to sell tickets, phone lines, security before you get on and staff to see you off on arrival plus up to 40 + more onboard staff, times three, per boat as certificated life boat men, radio operators, first aiders etc, cooks and stewards The truth is there are very few pax only services left, that DFDS has stopped carrying passengers on its RoPax service Rosyth to Zeebrugge but upped its freight capacity to two ships, ie doubled it. Manx Line identified that the way to go was RoPax, that separate pax and loose or even lift on lift off was a dead end. Mezeron has just picked up cheap crews and ships and has very low overheads by comparison to SPCo. Brittany Ferries do long runs and charge a fortune to passengers. I frequently use Caen, St Malo and Santander, but they are over night and the boats are huge and carry lots of freight and the passengers have to eat, buy a cabin etc so there is a lot of value added. Not the same opportunities on a 2.5 or 3.75 hour crossing Figures not overstated. Those given in previous post were for 9 months. I simply rounded them to a year, but reduced the foot passengers to compensate for extras in the summer. My fares are pretty accurate too. Keep in mind that for 13 weeks of the year, it is virtually impossible to get anywhere near a car and two for £240 return. In fact for 3-4 weeks they have to put on extra boats to allow for the mass influx of overcharged bikers. My figure is not £11 million too high, but actually quite conservative. The Eurotunnel has had a massive impact on passengers travelling to Europe and that is why some companies are going freight only. We don't have a tunnel (or monorial) so will have to make do. Besides, as I said earlier, only the Ben carries freight. The others do not. If it did not pay they would not do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twopee Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I'm already annoyed at the pitiful facilities and boarding/disembarkation for foot passengers. How far do SP think they can reduce the quality of their service before I and many other passengers decide to fly instead? is that not the domain of the port, not the shipping company ? Why is SP not looking for ports that aren't broken down holes like Heysham, or making it so foot pasengers don't have to climb down the far side of the fast craft and then stand in the rain on the ramp in Liverpool? I was travelling with a bunch of elderly war veterans at Heysham and they couldn't believe they had to use a cramped coach to get on or off the Ben. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Why is SP not looking for ports that aren't broken down holes like Heysham, or making it so foot pasengers don't have to climb down the far side of the fast craft and then stand in the rain on the ramp in Liverpool? I was travelling with a bunch of elderly war veterans at Heysham and they couldn't believe they had to use a cramped coach to get on or off the Ben. Such as?? I hear St Tropez is lovely this time of year!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 out of the four options realistically avaialble Fleetwood has no passenger facilities at all, not even parking Liverpool pierhead is inadequate and does not take freight and its is a struggle off the boat and up the inclines off the floating landing stage for foot passengers Birkenhead is dedicated to DFDS and we only have ability to tie up for limited period and they have to coach foot passengers on and off and it appears unpopular as it does not allow for match attendance and things like that. Heysham is actually the best (heaven help us) and they have a better coach now! If you have any complaints about port facilities at any of Pierhead, 12 Quays or Heysham maybe they should be directed to Peel Holdings, who own all three directly or indirectly, suggested address Billown Mansion Billown Ballasalla Malew Fleetwood is owned by ABP which is owned by a Jersey Company on behalf of its ultimate international infrastructure investment funds who are (see link) http://www.abports.co.uk/geninfo/admiral.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 I agree with most of the above. Anyone who gives the matter any thought at all should realise that what Mark Woodward has said is absolutely correct. Some of the comments on this thread are amazing - nonsense about monorails, insulting remarks about Mark Woodward which really are offensive and utterly childish... Some of the ill-informed critics of the IOMSPCo should look back to 1978 and look at what happened then.In the circumstances the IOMSPCo has been giving a very good service especially from the IOM (I could take issue with lack of day trips TO the IOM but that is for another day)and they have been well above the User Agreement requirements so I will echo..."Be careful what you wish for..." AJS Isn't Ships of Mann the company house magazine available on board? Did Woody tell you what to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.