Mezeron & Steam Packet Master Thread

[Lost Login]

Anyway, back on thread. And again I assert that , as you've all amply proven, there is plenty of both passenger and freight business and certainly more than the SPCo can handle currently.

 

You state that there is more passenger and freight business than the SPCo can currently handle. On what do you base this assertion or are you just guessing because it accords with your view point? Are you stating that if Mezeron did not exist that freight would be not be delivered to the IoM?

 

I am sure that on occasion e.g when the airport is closed, when there is a sudden influx of additional freight e.g due to previous sailings being cancelled, during TT fortnight that the boats are full. But to extrapolate the occasional full boat to mean that there is more business than the SPCo can handle is in may view a typical example of the flawed logic you continually use.

 

I have no idea what capacity the SPCo operate to but it would appear obvious there is plenty of spare capacity in general just from the fact that when sailings are cancellled they appear to quickly catch up. In addition if there was more business than the SPCo could cope with they would not be bleating. If you are operating at 100% do you really care if somebody else is picking up the 10% you can not handle.

 

In my view time and time again it is this basic flawed logic and argument that you jump on time and time again apparently without thinking as you seem so keen to berate the SPCo. As I said twice now in respect of freight and passengers you have presumed that because on one or an odd occasion the boat may be full that it is always full. On each occasion others have chosen to correct you but you continue to ignore not because you appear to have any alternative details but purely because it appears to fit your dogma.

 

As for occasionally petty childish abuse occasionally I happily hold my hand up and admit that but I do not initiate only in direct reply to those who have already resorted to such responses. You are the one who continually refers to those who do agree wih you as being Mark Woodward. Did you want to discuss with what Megan her posts. No you simply wanted to abuse her with the result she has apparently stopped posting. Does it feel good bullying a poster off? You are the one who in response to sensible questions avoids responding by simply saying "yawn".

 

That may seem far fetched but if there are no controls the best way to make money as a ferry company is to opertae boats as full as possible as infrequently as possible. Presently there is a vast over capacity at many times of the year. If I had a free hand and I came into the market I would aim to capture and cater for say 80% to 90% of the business and operate at as near 100% capacity as I could. That would give me the best profit margins by working at capacity whilst leaving a rump of business insufficient to enable a competitor to start a rival service.

 

In this thread there is a marked reluctance to address how you protect against that without some sort of agreement which would as soon as it is put in place becomes a valuable and marketable asset.

Y A W N !

 

Basically if you want to dish it out grow up, be a big boy and learn to take it as well.

[Cambon]

Within your comment there is an issue that keeps coming into my mind. Freight wise there is zero doubt that the IOMSPC market is the Island and its businesses. When it comes to passengers MW stated in the past that his market was the 84,000 inhabitants of the IOM too. That, IMO, ignores the almost 70 million people living around the Island on the West and East rocks.

 

Exactly! SP would not run the two non-freight carrying fast craft over the spring/summer periods if they were not profitable.

[Lost Login]

Within your comment there is an issue that keeps coming into my mind. Freight wise there is zero doubt that the IOMSPC market is the Island and its businesses. When it comes to passengers MW stated in the past that his market was the 84,000 inhabitants of the IOM too. That, IMO, ignores the almost 70 million people living around the Island on the West and East rocks.

 

Of those 70 million people how many of those actualy have any interest in the Island or visiting it. I find this rather like the chicken and egg question. Whose job is it to attract those people to come to the IoM. Is it the SP's or is the SP's job to attract those who want to visit the IoM to use its services? My view it may be a little of both but I doubt if the SP have the clout or spend to persuade many of those 70 million to visit the IoM even if they wanted to. Certianly not enough to cover the costs?

[Lost Login]

Exactly! SP would not run the two non-freight carrying fast craft over the spring/summer periods if they were not profitable.

 

But the user agreement says they have to. I presume there are times they are profitable and times when they are not how it comes out overall I have no idea. Maybe they are a loss leader or where in the past to get the near monopoly on the freight. But if they want to drop then they have to break the user agreement just like they would have to break the user agreement if they wanted to drop the Irish routes.

 

I find it astounding that we are nearly 80 pages into a topic and posters still appear to believe that the SP can pick and choose what services it wants to run to suit itself. It has a large element of flexibility but equally there are large restrictions.

[theambo]

I wonder if Mezeron will be sending these cards for Xmas ?

 

[Sean South]

Anyway, back on thread. And again I assert that , as you've all amply proven, there is plenty of both passenger and freight business and certainly more than the SPCo can handle currently.

 

You state that there is more passenger and freight business than the SPCo can currently handle. On what do you base this assertion or are you just guessing because it accords with your view point? Are you stating that if Mezeron did not exist that freight would be not be delivered to the IoM?

 

I am sure that on occasion e.g when the airport is closed, when there is a sudden influx of additional freight e.g due to previous sailings being cancelled, during TT fortnight that the boats are full. But to extrapolate the occasional full boat to mean that there is more business than the SPCo can handle is in may view a typical example of the flawed logic you continually use.

 

I have no idea what capacity the SPCo operate to but it would appear obvious there is plenty of spare capacity in general just from the fact that when sailings are cancellled they appear to quickly catch up. In addition if there was more business than the SPCo could cope with they would not be bleating. If you are operating at 100% do you really care if somebody else is picking up the 10% you can not handle.

 

In my view time and time again it is this basic flawed logic and argument that you jump on time and time again apparently without thinking as you seem so keen to berate the SPCo. As I said twice now in respect of freight and passengers you have presumed that because on one or an odd occasion the boat may be full that it is always full. On each occasion others have chosen to correct you but you continue to ignore not because you appear to have any alternative details but purely because it appears to fit your dogma.

 

As for occasionally petty childish abuse occasionally I happily hold my hand up and admit that but I do not initiate only in direct reply to those who have already resorted to such responses. You are the one who continually refers to those who do agree wih you as being Mark Woodward. Did you want to discuss with what Megan her posts. No you simply wanted to abuse her with the result she has apparently stopped posting. Does it feel good bullying a poster off? You are the one who in response to sensible questions avoids responding by simply saying "yawn".

When did I ever accuse anyone who agrees with me of being Mark Woodward?

 

Anyway, rising above your juvenile waffle:

Mr Woodward himself said in a statement that they didn't have spare capacity to accommodate additional freight. Several other posters here have asserted that they were unable to get on many sailings recently... Not on days that the airport was closed. As for this BS about not being able to carry above 50 people when carrying chemicals? How come they are allowed to put 50 people's lives at risk then? Why not 70 or 100? Why are they allowed to put any at all at risk?

 

"Megan" was well able to stand up for himself. He just withdrew because his cover was blown and, like yourself, couldn't justify the unjustifiable.

 

That may seem far fetched but if there are no controls the best way to make money as a ferry company is to opertae boats as full as possible as infrequently as possible. Presently there is a vast over capacity at many times of the year. If I had a free hand and I came into the market I would aim to capture and cater for say 80% to 90% of the business and operate at as near 100% capacity as I could. That would give me the best profit margins by working at capacity whilst leaving a rump of business insufficient to enable a competitor to start a rival service.

 

In this thread there is a marked reluctance to address how you protect against that without some sort of agreement which would as soon as it is put in place becomes a valuable and marketable asset.

Y A W N !

 

 

Basically if you want to dish it out grow up, be a big boy and learn to take it as well.

You just don't get it do you? The problems facing the SPCo are entirely down to poor management and lack of attention to detail:

Poor management:- In terms of the fact that they have gotten themselves into hock to the tune of £200 million and as a result have no back up for the rainy day.

 

Lack of attention to detail:- in the sense that they obviously didn't read the trems of the User Agreement closeley so that when Mezeron/Dohle took advantage of the loophole they were bunched. If I made that gaffe in my job I'd expect to be fired, quite frankly!

 

If it wasn't Mezeron that took advantage of the lack of tight protection in the UA someone else would have. And now that people realise that it's not necessarily closed shop I wouldn't be surprised at all to see, maybe, someone else arriving before next summer with a cargo/pax vessel. There's still side loaders available ya know!

Edited December 1, 2010 by Sean South

[Frances]

Poor management:- In terms of the fact that they have gotten themselves into hock to the tune of £200 million and as a result have no back up for the rainy day

The SP, whatever you or others may think of Mr Moodward, were not responsible but the bunch of financiers who decided that rent-racking infrastructure companies was good business (Macquarries made much money this way but as you say they hadn't fully comphrended the UA but probably the real losers, other than the Island over the short term, will be the Portugese bank(which might explain why Portugal is next in line for a bailout) + the Aussie pension fund)

 

The 'gas boat' (as its common dangerous cargo is the compressed gasses for the hospital, welders etc) is a regular feature - usually every alternate weds night crossing + indicated as such in timetable - the restricted PAX numbers probably due to very tight restrictions on lifeboats + crew/pax ratios.

 

ETA the busy sailings over that weekend were possibly also due to 3 cancelled sailing in the previous few days - I was on the Sat boat to Birkenhead having originally booked on the cancelled Thursday sailing - the boat was quite busy as many others were in a similar situation as the Friday sailings had also looked to be questionable

Edited December 1, 2010 by Frances

[manxman8180]

Mr Woodward himself said in a statement that they didn't have spare capacity to accommodate additional freight. Several other posters here have asserted that they were unable to get on many sailings recently... Not on days that the airport was closed. As for this BS about not being able to carry above 50 people when carrying chemicals? How come they are allowed to put 50 people's lives at risk then? Why not 70 or 100? Why are they allowed to put any at all at risk?

So a couple of sailings are busy and that justifies an entire second operation? You must be some kind of business guru...

 

And as for the 'BS' about dangerous goods sailings. It is all established under the relevant IMO regulations. For certain classes of goods, the vessel must be in full 'freight' mode which is 12 passengers and yet for others the vessel is permitted to cary 1 passenger for every 3 metres of vessel. Hence the 41 (IIRC) limit.

 

Hope that explains it sufficiently, although I'm sure you would rather think of it as some form of SP conspiracy.

[Sean South]

Poor management:- In terms of the fact that they have gotten themselves into hock to the tune of £200 million and as a result have no back up for the rainy day

The SP, whatever you or others may think of Mr Moodward, were not responsible but the bunch of financiers who decided that rent-racking infrastructure companies was good business (Macquarries made much money this way but as you say they hadn't fully comphrended the UA but probably the real losers, other than the Island over the short term, will be the Portugese bank(which might explain why Portugal is next in line for a bailout) + the Aussie pension fund)

The word "Management" does not just refer to one person. It refers to the entire Management/Board of the company.

 

The 'gas boat' (as its common dangerous cargo is the compressed gasses for the hospital, welders etc) is a regular feature - usually every alternate weds night crossing + indicated as such in timetable - the restricted PAX numbers probably due to very tight restrictions on lifeboats + crew/pax ratios.

 

And as for the 'BS' about dangerous goods sailings. It is all established under the relevant IMO regulations. For certain classes of goods, the vessel must be in full 'freight' mode which is 12 passengers and yet for others the vessel is permitted to cary 1 passenger for every 3 metres of vessel. Hence the 41 (IIRC) limit.

 

Hope that explains it sufficiently, although I'm sure you would rather think of it as some form of SP conspiracy.

No conspiracy... You each have your own version of the "facts", Frances and Manxman8180..

[Lost Login]

Mr Woodward himself said in a statement that they didn't have spare capacity to accommodate additional freight.

 

This is why it is so difficult to discuss with you as you intepret what is said for your own purpose and then restate them as fact. You stated that MW said the SP can not "always accomodate freight last minute". As several posters have pointed out that may be for a variety of reasons and the statement is far from the SP stating they do not have the spare capacity. Just because you repeat something over and over again does not make it anymore true.

 

I'm a bit confused by the SPCo's latest statement:

In a statement, the Packet says it has no desire to see Manx companies experiencing shortages, but that it cannot always accomodate freight last minute.

So on one hand they can't manage without getting all the freight yet they're not sure if they can carry all the freight...

 

Now if MW has said what you state he has said point us in the right direction so we can all see because as at present what you originally state MW said and what you now state he said are completely different

 

You just don't get it do you? The problems facing the SPCo are entirely down to poor management and lack of attention to detail:

Poor management:- In terms of the fact that they have gotten themselves into hock to the tune of £200 million and as a result have no back up for the rainy day.

 

Sorry. The SP has not got itself into hock for £200 million the parent company has. It may seem the same to you and it may be the same result overall but it is materially different. If I buy a well or badly run company and borrow money from a bank to do so and then secure that borrowing on the company I bought there is basically nothing the company I have bought or there management can do about it. If you do not understand the difference between parent companies and subsidiaries and where the debt is your posts about the SP are meaningless.

 

 

Lack of attention to detail:- in the sense that they obviously didn't read the trems of the User Agreement closeley so that when Mezeron/Dohle took advantage of the loophole they were bunched. If I made that gaffe in my job I'd expect to be fired, quite frankly!

 

If it wasn't Mezeron that took advantage of the lack of tight protection in the UA someone else would have. And now that people realise that it's not necessarily closed shop I wouldn't be surprised at all to see, maybe, someone else arriving before next summer with a cargo/pax vessel. There's still side loaders available ya know!

 

The SP may or may not have but they did not take the debt out. It is the current owners/borrowers who may not have read it. They and the banks are the ones who have money at risk over it.

 

We also have no idea if the SP can not happily operate at a profit even with the current competition with such profit sufficient to make payments to the parent so they can pay their interest and loan repayments. As far as I am aware the SP have not said they are in danger of folding rather thay have said if the competition continues they may have to cut back on the number of services and possibly increase costs. Basically they have said the fat from what Mezeron are doing covers some of the services the SP did that were not profitable. I have no idea whether or not that is true but what I am sure is true is that you are jumping to many conclusions most of which none have us have a clue about including if the SP could remain profitable and cover the contributions to its parent even in the face of competition. Without knowing that to basically accuse the SP of being up shit creek is just guesswork.

 

You seem to assume that the SP's bleating is because they are about to go bang. It may just be because raether than make £20 million a year they might make only £10 million and are doing whatever they think they can to protect those profits

Edited December 1, 2010 by Lost Login

[manshimajin]

Of those 70 million people how many of those actualy have any interest in the Island or visiting it. I find this rather like the chicken and egg question. Whose job is it to attract those people to come to the IoM. Is it the SP's or is the SP's job to attract those who want to visit the IoM to use its services? My view it may be a little of both but I doubt if the SP have the clout or spend to persuade many of those 70 million to visit the IoM even if they wanted to. Certianly not enough to cover the costs?

LL you are right about the ships not always being full. I recall that MW said that utilisation is <40% (although he did not define his terms at the time). What was also apparent from the figures was that the whilst utilisation naturally picked up in Summer it was still well below maximum.

 

I agree on the chicken and egg analogy. We compete here with all other destinations that UK and Irish tourists can select. There seems to be a feeling quite often expressed on this Forum that Manx Tourism is a dead duck (particulalry without the bike races). Personally I think we have a lot to offer and our friends who visit love the place and find it very friendly too - and come back. But it would be wrong to pin the probem on the IOMSPC as it is part of a total promotional picture that may not be working very well. I was however intrigued at the time that MW basically wanted to kick into touch the idea that there is a passenger market outside th IOM that is worth trying hard for. It seemed a bit defeatist IMO.

 

Exactly! SP would not run the two non-freight carrying fast craft over the spring/summer periods if they were not profitable.

 

But the user agreement says they have to. I presume there are times they are profitable and times when they are not how it comes out overall I have no idea. Maybe they are a loss leader or where in the past to get the near monopoly on the freight. But if they want to drop then they have to break the user agreement just like they would have to break the user agreement if they wanted to drop the Irish routes.

Quite correct. I accept personally that to get home from Ireland with the car I have to travel through mainland UK a lot of the time and that the services are there because of the UA. That is my choice.

 

For us the timings of the Irish services are not bad when they are running. But if I may give an example (and one swallow does not make a Summer) - when the volcanic ash cloud was causing people to reconsider destinations the Irish radio did some coverage on places you could get to by sea for holidays from Ireand in Spring/Summer. Every ferry route was mentioned EXCEPT the one to the IOM. We are definitely not 'top of mind' even though we are close by to both UK and Ireland.

 

It will be interesting to see when the Tourism folk start promoting the Island in Ireland this time round - they usually seem to do it later rather than earier. My friends and acquaintances in the Republic are making decisions about 2011 holidays now and over Christmas.

[Chris Bowen]

Poor management:- In terms of the fact that they have gotten themselves into hock to the tune of £200 million and as a result have no back up for the rainy day

The SP, whatever you or others may think of Mr Moodward, were not responsible but the bunch of financiers who decided that rent-racking infrastructure companies was good business (Macquarries made much money this way but as you say they hadn't fully comphrended the UA but probably the real losers, other than the Island over the short term, will be the Portugese bank(which might explain why Portugal is next in line for a bailout) + the Aussie pension fund)

The word "Management" does not just refer to one person. It refers to the entire Management/Board of the company.

 

The 'gas boat' (as its common dangerous cargo is the compressed gasses for the hospital, welders etc) is a regular feature - usually every alternate weds night crossing + indicated as such in timetable - the restricted PAX numbers probably due to very tight restrictions on lifeboats + crew/pax ratios.

 

And as for the 'BS' about dangerous goods sailings. It is all established under the relevant IMO regulations. For certain classes of goods, the vessel must be in full 'freight' mode which is 12 passengers and yet for others the vessel is permitted to cary 1 passenger for every 3 metres of vessel. Hence the 41 (IIRC) limit.

 

Hope that explains it sufficiently, although I'm sure you would rather think of it as some form of SP conspiracy.

No conspiracy... You each have your own version of the "facts", Frances and Manxman8180..

You state that they each have there own version of the facts, well Im afraid they are correct and the version af the facts are correct. I think you are perhaps afraid of the facts as they will show your rants to have little grounding and your argument to be based on hearsay rather than fact.

[Lost Login]

Personally I think we have a lot to offer and our friends who visit love the place and find it very friendly too - and come back. But it would be wrong to pin the probem on the IOMSPC as it is part of a total promotional picture that may not be working very well.

 

We may have a lot to offer but we are very poor at advertising it in my opinion. If I am thinking of going somewhere with my family the first thing I think of doing is looking at the internet. Now I know the IoM is small compared to Cheshire but just look at there Visit Cheshire website and specifically the things to do section and then click on family fun or whatever http://www.visitcheshire.com/site/to-do/attractions Having seen that I would be tempted to go as there are loads of ideas of things to do.

 

Now compare that to the Isle of Man Government website http://www.gov.im/tourism/explore/ Now as I said I appreciate that we are small compared to Cheshire but does it really sell the IoM and give somebody who is weighing up thinking of visiting the IoM the push to come here rather than an alternative. Not in my view.

 

If I was in the Department of Tourism I would stop all spending for a year or so and get a decent website with basically every thing there is potentially to do on the Island, each with there own web site and then a link to it. As you said there is often loads to do in the Island but it is often hard to find out about. It is geat hiring a kayak and pottering around Port Erin bay in the summer with my eldest kid but I only actually discovered by walking past the shop. That is the sort of thing should be advertised in my opinion as presently we may be able to attract peoples attention and make them think about visiting the Island but having grabbed there attention if they can not quickly and easily be sold the IoM they will go elsehere. Unless they really want to visit the IoM they wil not spend hours researching what there is here. They have to be spoon fed and quickly.

 

I accept personally that to get home from Ireland with the car I have to travel through mainland UK a lot of the time and that the services are there because of the UA. That is my choice.

 

For us the timings of the Irish services are not bad when they are running. But if I may give an example (and one swallow does not make a Summer) - when the volcanic ash cloud was causing people to reconsider destinations the Irish radio did some coverage on places you could get to by sea for holidays from Ireand in Spring/Summer. Every ferry route was mentioned EXCEPT the one to the IOM. We are definitely not 'top of mind' even though we are close by to both UK and Ireland.

 

It will be interesting to see when the Tourism folk start promoting the Island in Ireland this time round - they usually seem to do it later rather than earier. My friends and acquaintances in the Republic are making decisions about 2011 holidays now and over Christmas.

 

Much of this is covered in my points above and that having grabbed there attention you have to sell it. The other "problem" with regard to Ireland from a ferry companies point of view is whether the market is big enough considering you have to take a vessel of a bread and butter route to service or you really either need an additional boat which is an expensive option.

[manshimajin]

Much of this is covered in my points above and that having grabbed there attention you have to sell it. The other "problem" with regard to Ireland from a ferry companies point of view is whether the market is big enough considering you have to take a vessel of a bread and butter route to service or you really either need an additional boat which is an expensive option.

I agree with your comments on tourism. Some time back there was a suggestion that we should outsource our tourism promotion to one of the successful tourist bodies in the UK - I still think that (unfortunately as we should be able to do it ourselves) that is a very good idea. Get folk in a tourism board who have done a good job and have a good track record with the wheel they have developed to stop us trying to reinvent a poor copy! There are some wonderful examples of good local promotions in the UK - this simple one for the Ribble Valley is one of my favourites in terms of something that is not complex but promotes business and tourism very well.

 

On the taking a boat off bread and butter routes - quite often last summer the Manannan was doing the run without apparently adversely affecting its other services - TBH the SNAEFELL is getting past it and is awful in anything above a non-flat sea. I acept we all pontificate here and don't have to run the business...but...I am far from convinced that the IOMSPC operates the Irish services as effectively as it might. They will say I don't know what I am talking about - and quite possibly they are right - and possibly they are not. But they have the keys to the ship!

[b4mbi]

Sorry. The SP has not got itself into hock for £200 million the parent company has. It may seem the same to you and it may be the same result overall but it is materially different. If I buy a well or badly run company and borrow money from a bank to do so and then secure that borrowing on the company I bought there is basically nothing the company I have bought or there management can do about it. If you do not understand the difference between parent companies and subsidiaries and where the debt is your posts about the SP are meaningless.

 

Is is different in the sense of whose balance sheet the debt sits on, but importantly, the directors of the parent company were/are directors of IOMSPC. Therefore the same management and control for both companies, which means your analogy is flawed.

 

 

The SP may or may not have but they did not take the debt out. It is the current owners/borrowers who may not have read it. They and the banks are the ones who have money at risk over it.

 

I've not seen either document but would hazard an educated guess that the IOMSPC directors who signed the UA were the same as the ones who also signed the loan agreement for the parent.

 

As posted before, it is the shareholders, management of group and bankers that must take blame for misinterpreting the UA, falsly believing it to give the group exclusivity of containerised and ro-ro freight transportation to the Island.

 

So I agree that the bank and the owners are the ones facing losses.

 

 

We also have no idea if the SP can not happily operate at a profit even with the current competition with such profit sufficient to make payments to the parent so they can pay their interest and loan repayments.

....

You seem to assume that the SP's bleating is because they are about to go bang. It may just be because raether than make £20 million a year they might make only £10 million and are doing whatever they think they can to protect those profits

 

As you say, without knowing the figures everything is just speculation, but £200m @5% = £10m p.a. in interest costs alone.... not even a suggestion of capital repayment of the loans.

 

IOMSPC profit (with no loss of freight contracts) for y/e 31/12/2008 was £9.8m (2007: £14.8m)

 

 

Alternatives:

 

1) further injection of capital from shareholders to enable partial / full debt repayment to give company opportunity to compete on prices.

2) write off of part of loan from bankers in conjunction with sale of business.

 

Can't really see shareholders (professional investors just looking for returns) injecting more capital, so most likely outcome within the medium term in my view is a sale.

Edited December 1, 2010 by b4mbi