Mezeron & Steam Packet Master Thread

[manxman8180]

I really don't see what the SP flubber is all about. They simply go to Manx Indies (Mr Quaye has seemingly backed them so far), give them sizeable discounts on their freight charges and 'encourage' them to go and tout for Tesco / Shoprite etc business.

 

At the same time, either refuse to ship anything for Graylaw if and when the other service doesn't operate or charge them a substantially higher rate and drive them out of business.

 

We all want competition eh?

[P.K.]

My concern is that everywhere just at the moment there is a lot of panicky Hype. This includes some comments here as well as the comments from MW. Both can be characterised by their absence of fact and in MW's case by their attempt ot create fear without specificity.

 

My point exactly. It's all down to the £numbers of which to date I haven't seen any! Until then speculation is rife as they say.

 

There are some other interesting facets to this. For example, are Tesco and Shoprite now contractually bound to Mezeron? And if so for how long? After the SP have done their sums (presumably their activity right now) will they try and ride out the storm (sorry) with their current service levels? Or will they cut back in an attempt to stay profitable until they are in a position to win back their lost freight business? Of course, if they cut back on service levels do they then risk losing more freight to Mezeron?

 

The only knee-jerk reaction from the SP I have seen to date is a verbal one (I love that mangled MBA bollocks-speak but alas I can't claim the credit for a "verbal knee-jerk" - it originally came from a US colleague!) for which Mr Woodward now seems to realise probably wasn't his finest hour.

 

Interesting times.

[Sean South]

 

Yeah. So they should tear up the user agreement. Allow Mezeron to use the Linkspan. Then the Steampacket can have the highground again in that they can increase their passenger fares and blame it on Mezeron. They can then use, said increase to lower the freight fares to see off Mezeron. You see? That's business as it should be... Comeptitive...

 

I would Reduce the unneccessary sailings immediately.

 

Yes. And I use the SP several times a year to travel home. I, like a lot of potential Irish based customers, would use them more if their sailings were user friendly ie weekend sailings to/from Dublin or Dun Laoire on a Friday and a Sunday/Monday instead of Thursday to Tuesday as it is too long.

 

Bingo. You would do exactlty what those of us concerned about the current position are worried about. You would cut services and raise fares. As I have said previously I do not care about who runs the routes I care about the level of service and cost.

 

It seems odd that you then go on to complain about the lack of or unfriendly sailing times to Ireland at present as these would be the first to go I expect if the SP could do what it wanted.

To cover your points: There's no point in continuing a service to Ireland if it's going to be empty/not nearly viable. The reason it is so is because they have effectively killed it off by their timetable. Were they to make it more user friendly then it would be worth working at to try and increase numbers. As it is now it is a waste and if stuff like that is threatening the overall viability of the company then it's better off terminated for now.

 

The winter sailings were up on the Summer sailings because the Lady came back from charter early October and they launched the Liverpool thursday to Sunday sailings prior to Orry's annual face lift.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I was purely point out that the lack of a Sea Cat or Lady of Man might skew the summer figures as that is when the extra boats are used as per now. It would not affect the number of winter sailings though as then as now only 1 boat is used.

The point I'm trying to make is that the guff peddled by the Unions/ SPCo is not comparing like with like and is skewing the actual facts. Comprendez?

 

So you can say for certain what the SP will do with regard to frequency of sailing etc. Seems to be that if and the word is If the SP cut back sailing to only that required by the User agreement it could have a negative impact on Tourism etc. If the SP sell the Snaefell that is potentially three round trips a day not operating during TT which is a few visitors not coming.

Lost Login, as I posted above the IOMSPC does not seem to have actually established from the public the frequency of sailings that its passengers/clients believe to be appropriate. Would the changes MW talks about bring down the frequency down to the UA level? If that was the case then the IOMG must believe that this is a reasonable level (and 'appropriate' probably includes a bit of adjusing upwards within the UA targets to get what it wanted).

 

I assume that given the current <40% utilisation figures fewer ships would be good for the IOMSPC - particularly if they could get some capital back for the SNAEFELL. AT TT times don't they already hire tonnage - in which case would the 'potentially 3 round trips a day' at TT time for the SNAEFELL be replaced by a hired vessel which might make better sense than holding on to the S for the whole year to cater for a very short time peridos? Frequencies and the management of frequencies may not be the big ogre that the IOMSPC management are trying to make out?

 

My concern is that everywhere just at the moment there is a lot of panicky Hype (except from Mezeron who have kept quiet). This includes some comments here as well as the comments from MW. Both can be characterised by their abscence of fact and in MW's case by their attempt ot create fear without specificity.

 

Plus one has to say that MW may be over-egging it when he grumbles about foreign crews whilst employing the same himself. 'Not 100% foreign crews' I could agree with but when I have contact with the Baltic State (etc...) employees of the IOMSPC I recognise that the company is happy to employ 'foreigners' when it suits their purse and I personally find these 'foreigners' to be very considerate and courteous - so why try to fear build when you do it yourself?

Manshijamin. You've summed it up pretty succinctly there.

 

Let's face it, the propaganda leaflet from the Unions/Steam Packet is simply that: Propaganda. They have become lethargic because of a lack of meaningful competition for decades so when a little comes their way they're panicking and trying to scare the bejaysus out of everyone else as well.

 

As I stated before they need to rationalise their current operation and make it lean again and fit for purpose. They need to treat the business like a body with some cancerous growths that are dragging it down annd these need to be eradicated and the company needs to concentrate on recovery rather than wallowing in self pity. It's not rocket science. Many many businesses are doing just the same about now so they will emerge a stronger, fitter company and ready to provide a better service. All this sentimental shite about the SPCo being around since God was a Carpenter is just that: sentimental shite. It's a name now nothing more. And, one could argue that the brand is not worth much now, certainly in comparison to, say, ten years ago...

 

I would love to hear the views of some of our esteemed MHK's here on this... Un;ess they've been muzzled?

[Amadeus]

I bet they regret not having Geoff "The Voice of the Packet" Corkish anymore

 

Packet boss says 'sorry' to supermarket chain

 

The Steam Packet has issued an apology to Shoprite over comments made by the ferry company's chief executive, Mark Woodward.

 

In statement, Mr Woodward describes the supermarket chain as 'a valuable and committed customer of the Steam Packet Company'.

 

And he apologises for any misleading impression given that Shoprite was not committed to supporting the Island's economy.

 

The apology follows a comment in the local press in which Mr Woodward quoted Shoprite's motto and questioned whether the firm was really 'Manx to the Max', which the supermarket chain objected to strongly.

Shoprite says it is doing business with both the Packet and its freight competitor Mezeron, using seven different hauliers to bring goods to the Island.

 

The statement concludes by saying the Steam Packet recognises 'the significant contribution Shoprite makes to the Island's economy', by employing around 600 Manx workers and supporting Manx domiciled businesses.

 

 

If they had a competent PR department (which they obviously haven't), then stuff like that should have been caught before it went out. Nice little "But we are the island's lifeline" strategy, proper briefing, bob's your uncle...

 

Stupid comments about "foreign crews and flags" to make themselves appear "more manx" also don't help. As has been pointed out before - plenty of foreigners working on the boats and on those low levels of pay, that's no surprise. This kind of verbal diarrhoea doesn't help anyone.

 

Story on the side: one little foreigner once applied for a job there outside the advertised time frame, got an interview and ended up working on the boats. That little foreigner was me. Reason given from HR later on: 'You speak German and it's before TT - we wanted you for all those tourists'. Ended up being the only German speaker in the company

 

Fact is: the directors should have planned for this. Simple leadership failure. Now they're caught with their pants down, arse on fire, and flapping about with their arms waving in a panic attempt to sort out a mess they should have seen coming. In German, we have a term for this: Nieten in Nadelstreifen.

[Lost Login]

Lost Login as I posted above the IOMSPC does not seem to have actually established from the public the frequency of sailings that its passengers/clients believe to be appropriate. Would the changes MW talks about bring down the frequency down to the UA level? If that was the case then the IOMG must believe that this is a reasonable level (and 'appropriate' probably includes a bit of adjusing upwards within the UA targets to get what it wanted).

I expect if you ask 10 different people you might get different answers. I like fast craft to Liverpool, a regular user at the office would prefer it on the Heysham route. Some on here would prefer not to have it at all. Sean South would like on Fridays and Sundays the "2nd vesssel" sailing to Ireland. I want on the Liverpool route. Basically we will all argue for the sailings that suit us.

 

I assume that given the current <40% utilisation figures fewer ships would be good for the IOMSPC - particularly if they could get some capital back for the SNAEFELL. AT TT times don't they already hire tonnage - in which case would the 'potentially 3 round trips a day' at TT time for the SNAEFELL be replaced by a hired vessel which might make better sense than holding on to the S for the whole year to cater for a very short time peridos? Frequencies and the management of frequencies may not be the big ogre that the IOMSPC management are trying to make out?

I basically agree but if the SP want it to become the big ogre in the short term they could make it. e.g. not hiring in a vessel during TT might hit them in the short term in terms of income but it might be a move that puts pressure on the government.

 

My concern is that everywhere just at the moment there is a lot of panicky Hype (except from Mezeron who have kept quiet). This includes some comments here as well as the comments from MW. Both can be characterised by their abscence of fact and in MW's case by their attempt ot create fear without specificity.

 

Again I agree although I am not sure what Mezeron have to gain by saying anything. The SP have a lot to potentially gain by raising concerns. SP may be over egging it but it is logical to assume that if they have lost a fair bit of business the SP will cut back sailings and review prices.

 

The only question in my mind is whether having cut back the SP continue on the routes or pull out. In my opinion they will continue but frequency of sailings will reduce and prices will increase by cancelling special offers, holding freight charges but increasing passenger rates. I presume prices on the boats are tiered so that depending on when you book and how many have booked affects what you pay. If there are less sailings boats are likely to be fuller so the average price may increase as more are paying top whack

[wideload]

anyone else think its funny that IOM today have disabled comments on all story's they posted about this subject?

[P.K.]

Now they're caught with their pants down, arse on fire, and flapping about with their arms waving in a panic attempt to sort out a mess they should have seen coming. In German, we have a term for this: Nieten in Nadelstreifen.

 

In the UK we have a term for this as well: Fuck-Up.

[Frances]

I would love to hear the views of some of our esteemed MHK's here on this... Un;ess they've been muzzled?

I've heard reports about the Travel Watch meeting in Villa Marina on Saturday morning in which one stated bluntly that he would oppose any attempt to subsidize the SP - are the minutes/report of what sounded like a very interesting meeting available ?

[Lost Login]

 

As I stated before they need to rationalise their current operation and make it lean again and fit for purpose. They need to treat the business like a body with some cancerous growths that are dragging it down annd these need to be eradicated and the company needs to concentrate on recovery rather than wallowing in self pity. It's not rocket science. Many many businesses are doing just the same about now so they will emerge a stronger, fitter company and ready to provide a better service. All this sentimental shite about the SPCo being around since God was a Carpenter is just that: sentimental shite. It's a name now nothing more. And, one could argue that the brand is not worth much now, certainly in comparison to, say, ten years ago...

 

 

You want to make it lean and fit for purpose, but what is fit for purpose. Is the purpose of the ferry operator to just make a profit or is it to also provide a deemed "essential" tansport link.

 

I have no sentimentality about the SP. As I have said numerous times I do not care really who operates the service. But I also recognise that whoever operates the routes running it to maximise profits conflicts to running it as an "essential" transport link. I am still waiting to hear from you one suggestion on how you can marry both together without some sort of intervention to ensure the public transport service remit is met

[Sean South]

Lost Login as I posted above the IOMSPC does not seem to have actually established from the public the frequency of sailings that its passengers/clients believe to be appropriate. Would the changes MW talks about bring down the frequency down to the UA level? If that was the case then the IOMG must believe that this is a reasonable level (and 'appropriate' probably includes a bit of adjusing upwards within the UA targets to get what it wanted).

I expect if you ask 10 different people you might get different answers. I like fast craft to Liverpool, a regular user at the office would prefer it on the Heysham route. Some on here would prefer not to have it at all. Sean South would like on Fridays and Sundays the "2nd vesssel" sailing to Ireland. I want on the Liverpool route. Basically we will all argue for the sailings that suit us.

True enough. I wouldn't be fussed whether it was a fast or ordinary craft from Dublin at weekends - there's only an hour or so in the difference anyway. I would prefer that if it comes down to a matter of survival, they ditched the expensive, troublesome fast craft and replaced with a multipurpose, more "all weather" vessel that would pay it's way and ensure a stable useable service for all. Hell, I would be more than content if they brought back The Lady of Man and I could cruise to Douglas and enjoy a few sociable beers in convivial surroundings to start my weekend enjoyably!

 

Realistically, the days of the fast craft are over now until someone develops one that is economically viable and more stable in poor weather. Unfortunately due to the lack of foresight by the SPCo they are now lumbered with an unreliable one taht cost a fortune and has no chance of achieving a realistic return on investment through either use or sale.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Sean South

[oldmanxfella]

Again I agree although I am not sure what Mezeron have to gain by saying anything. The SP have a lot to potentially gain by raising concerns. SP may be over egging it but it is logical to assume that if they have lost a fair bit of business the SP will cut back sailings and review prices.

 

The main problem Woodward seems to be having is the belief, that only exists inside his own head, that the Manx people still hold the SP in high esteem. He still does not seem to 'get it' with all this arrogant bullshit he trots out. Historically over its 150 year plus history it is certainly true that there is a lot of affinity for the SP amongst the Manx; but we all know that the current SP is not actually the SP of old. Its a venture fund run by a bunch of tightfisted Australian bandits for bunch of their high risk private clients. They are just private bankers running the business for their clients and that's about it. Screw them. There should be no government money thrown into any of this. If the investors behind this no longer like the risk / reward profile then its up to them to decide what to do.

[Sean South]

 

As I stated before they need to rationalise their current operation and make it lean again and fit for purpose. They need to treat the business like a body with some cancerous growths that are dragging it down annd these need to be eradicated and the company needs to concentrate on recovery rather than wallowing in self pity. It's not rocket science. Many many businesses are doing just the same about now so they will emerge a stronger, fitter company and ready to provide a better service. All this sentimental shite about the SPCo being around since God was a Carpenter is just that: sentimental shite. It's a name now nothing more. And, one could argue that the brand is not worth much now, certainly in comparison to, say, ten years ago...

 

 

You want to make it lean and fit for purpose, but what is fit for purpose. Is the purpose of the ferry operator to just make a profit or is it to also provide a deemed "essential" tansport link.

 

I have no sentimentality about the SP. As I have said numerous times I do not care really who operates the service. But I also recognise that whoever operates the routes running it to maximise profits conflicts to running it as an "essential" transport link. I am still waiting to hear from you one suggestion on how you can marry both together without some sort of intervention to ensure the public transport service remit is met

The purpose is to provide a service and generate a profit. You can't have one without the other. More people are travelling now than ever so the potential is there for a well managed operation to fulfil it's remit on both fronts. Also we, as consumers, purchase more producst now thane ever before and so there is huge scope for the cargo side also. If I was in Government now, I would creat a licencing/franchise for the Islands Ports and invite tenders for suitable operators to provide passenger and freight services. There is nothing to lose. The Government should not be called no to provide a subvention to them.

[The Old Git]

For example, are Tesco and Shoprite now contractually bound to Mezeron?

 

I think their contract is with Graylaw and it's Graylaw that is dealing with Mezeron

[manshimajin]

Lost Login as I posted above the IOMSPC does not seem to have actually established from the public the frequency of sailings that its passengers/clients believe to be appropriate. Would the changes MW talks about bring down the frequency down to the UA level? If that was the case then the IOMG must believe that this is a reasonable level (and 'appropriate' probably includes a bit of adjusing upwards within the UA targets to get what it wanted).

I expect if you ask 10 different people you might get different answers. I like fast craft to Liverpool, a regular user at the office would prefer it on the Heysham route. Some on here would prefer not to have it at all. Sean South would like on Fridays and Sundays the "2nd vesssel" sailing to Ireland. I want on the Liverpool route. Basically we will all argue for the sailings that suit us.

 

My concern is that everywhere just at the moment there is a lot of panicky Hype (except from Mezeron who have kept quiet). This includes some comments here as well as the comments from MW. Both can be characterised by their abscence of fact and in MW's case by their attempt ot create fear without specificity.

 

Again I agree although I am not sure what Mezeron have to gain by saying anything. The SP have a lot to potentially gain by raising concerns. SP may be over egging it but it is logical to assume that if they have lost a fair bit of business the SP will cut back sailings and review prices.

 

The only question in my mind is whether having cut back the SP continue on the routes or pull out. In my opinion they will continue but frequency of sailings will reduce and prices will increase by cancelling special offers, holding freight charges but increasing passenger rates. I presume prices on the boats are tiered so that depending on when you book and how many have booked affects what you pay. If there are less sailings boats are likely to be fuller so the average price may increase as more are paying top whack

Lost Login thanks for your reply.

 

On the first point I wouldn't disagree that we all will have different ideas about sailing levels, timetabling etc etc. My point is that whilst I use the IOMSPC reasonably often each year there has never been any attempt to find out what my preferences or those of other passengers might actually be. It is fairly standard good business practice to know your customer. I wonder if ciustomers were asked to choose between retaining the current schedule and having higher prices OR running two ships only with a reduced schedule but more effective use of resources to keep prices down, what they would prefer? MW is using reduced sailings as a threat but it might equally be an opportunity if people would buy into the compromise of fewer sailings with prices kept to current levels. After all a redesigned schedule and less ships could boost that <40% utilisation, reduce staffing needs and make more sailings profitable. Spikes such as the TT could be covered by chartring as we discussed above. I am just not convinced that MW using it as a threat is actually very smart.

 

I personally think that Mezeron are 100% right in not getting dragged into the communication 'war' by the SP. They are in the box seat at present and don't actually need to respond to anything MW is saying. It does tend to make the SP statements appear to be knee-jerk and panicky not 'statesman like'. IMO MW would have been better to take a bit more time to respond and to have has a clearer, better set-out, case before he did so. As it is his words are tending to direct comments onto diversionary issues not the core issue - can the IOM live with competition on its sea routes and what would this look like?

[Tempus Fugit]

Whatever it is there's still no papers in yet

 

dies that say more about the reliability of air services