The Sick Moon Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 There really should not be a need to continually bodge up a 'lame duck'. There is some truth in that, but an extension to the user agreement should sort that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 There really should not be a need to continually bodge up a 'lame duck'. There is some truth in that, but an extension to the user agreement should sort that out. Doing away with the monopoly that the ferry company is exploiting and has been for far too long would allow things to be sorted out. Markets should determine how businesses are run, not monopolies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 There really should not be a need to continually bodge up a 'lame duck'. There is some truth in that, but an extension to the user agreement should sort that out. Doing away with the monopoly that the ferry company is exploiting and has been for far too long would allow things to be sorted out. Markets should determine how businesses are run, not monopolies. What if the market isn't anywhere near big enough for a business to operate in the way their customers expect them to and remain profitable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 There really should not be a need to continually bodge up a 'lame duck'. There is some truth in that, but an extension to the user agreement should sort that out. Doing away with the monopoly that the ferry company is exploiting and has been for far too long would allow things to be sorted out. Markets should determine how businesses are run, not monopolies. What if the market isn't anywhere near big enough for a business to operate in the way their customers expect them to and remain profitable? Then the market supplier tailors his product to meet his needs and the customer pays for what he wants. If the customer wants more than the supplier is offering he will demand it and will pay more to get it. If the provider is charging more than the custom is prepared to pay then the customer will look for another provider who might buy into the market by loss leading which will bring prices down. Good grief, these are basic Adam Smith tried, proven, and trusted economic principles. Allowing a monopoly to enter the free market economy NEVER works to the customer's advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) Perhaps we should allow the operator to run a commercially sustainable service. Scrap the UA, but put a requirement out to tender that allows the bidders flexibility in how they meet the requirement. What's the point in insisting on twice daily NW England passenger crossings year-round? The operator should be able to run a winter PAX service 3 weekdays and Saturday, but a daily freight crossing. Edited May 3, 2015 by guzzi 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Perhaps we should allow the operator to run a commercially sustainable service. Scrap the UA, but put a requirement out to tender that allows the bidders flexibility in how they meet the requirement. What's the point in insisting on twice daily NW England passenger crossings year-round? The operator should be able to run a winter PAX service 3 weekdays and Saturday, but a daily freight crossing. Now that is a GOOD suggestion. At least something along those lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 There really should not be a need to continually bodge up a 'lame duck'. There is some truth in that, but an extension to the user agreement should sort that out. Doing away with the monopoly that the ferry company is exploiting and has been for far too long would allow things to be sorted out. Markets should determine how businesses are run, not monopolies. What if the market isn't anywhere near big enough for a business to operate in the way their customers expect them to and remain profitable? Then the market supplier tailors his product to meet his needs and the customer pays for what he wants. If the customer wants more than the supplier is offering he will demand it and will pay more to get it. If the provider is charging more than the custom is prepared to pay then the customer will look for another provider who might buy into the market by loss leading which will bring prices down. Good grief, these are basic Adam Smith tried, proven, and trusted economic principles. Allowing a monopoly to enter the free market economy NEVER works to the customer's advantage. Yep, all standard stuff. Shame the user agreement is there to stop the SP doing it. do you think that given your own post, they would choose to run a fast craft/sail to Ireland/sail as frequently as they do in the winter. Ditch the UA and let them run it as they see fit and see if any competitors come forward. Be prepared for all the whining about reduced services though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Perhaps we should allow the operator to run a commercially sustainable service. Scrap the UA, but put a requirement out to tender that allows the bidders flexibility in how they meet the requirement. What's the point in insisting on twice daily NW England passenger crossings year-round? The operator should be able to run a winter PAX service 3 weekdays and Saturday, but a daily freight crossing. Now that is a GOOD suggestion. At least something along those lines. Only GOOD if you have no need to use the service. Where was it you live? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Well done to the SPC for getting the Ben back in service. It's all too easy to forget what a wonderful job they do until something goes wrong. Don't praise them too soon. There has been nothing to suggest that the bow thrust unit has been fixed. The wind dropped, and she no longer needed full bow thrust power to get into Heysham. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Perhaps we should allow the operator to run a commercially sustainable service. Scrap the UA, but put a requirement out to tender that allows the bidders flexibility in how they meet the requirement. What's the point in insisting on twice daily NW England passenger crossings year-round? The operator should be able to run a winter PAX service 3 weekdays and Saturday, but a daily freight crossing. Now that is a GOOD suggestion. At least something along those lines. Only GOOD if you have no need to use the service. Where was it you live? Somewhere that I don't need to rely on a pissant inadequate unfit for purpose ferry! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Well done to the SPC for getting the Ben back in service. It's all too easy to forget what a wonderful job they do until something goes wrong. Don't praise them too soon. There has been nothing to suggest that the bow thrust unit has been fixed. The wind dropped, and she no longer needed full bow thrust power to get into Heysham. Oh. Well done to God then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Yep, all standard stuff. Shame the user agreement is there to stop the SP doing it. do you think that given your own post, they would choose to run a fast craft/sail to Ireland/sail as frequently as they do in the winter. Ditch the UA and let them run it as they see fit and see if any competitors come forward. Be prepared for all the whining about reduced services though. Hey Spook. Maybe you missed the question in my most, possibly because I didn't bother to put a question mark at the end? Do you think the UA is there for the SPs benefit? In reality it is there to make sure that whoever operates the UA is forced to run the non profitable parts of the service that we as a population desire. Of course, in return there needs to be bits in there to protect their investment as a business but no business running it purely as a commercial operation would retain some of the elements they are forced into by the UA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Yep, all standard stuff. Shame the user agreement is there to stop the SP doing it. do you think that given your own post, they would choose to run a fast craft/sail to Ireland/sail as frequently as they do in the winter. Ditch the UA and let them run it as they see fit and see if any competitors come forward. Be prepared for all the whining about reduced services though. Hey Spook. Maybe you missed the question in my most, possibly because I didn't bother to put a question mark at the end? Do you think the UA is there for the SPs benefit? In reality it is there to make sure that whoever operates the UA is forced to run the non profitable parts of the service that we as a population desire. Of course, in return there needs to be bits in there to protect their investment as a business but no business running it purely as a commercial operation would retain some of the elements they are forced into by the UA. I do believe that the UA is being used by the ferry company to their advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Yep, all standard stuff. Shame the user agreement is there to stop the SP doing it. do you think that given your own post, they would choose to run a fast craft/sail to Ireland/sail as frequently as they do in the winter. Ditch the UA and let them run it as they see fit and see if any competitors come forward. Be prepared for all the whining about reduced services though. Hey Spook. Maybe you missed the question in my most, possibly because I didn't bother to put a question mark at the end?Do you think the UA is there for the SPs benefit? In reality it is there to make sure that whoever operates the UA is forced to run the non profitable parts of the service that we as a population desire. Of course, in return there needs to be bits in there to protect their investment as a business but no business running it purely as a commercial operation would retain some of the elements they are forced into by the UA. I do believe that the UA is being used by the ferry company to their advantage. How's that then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) Anybody with any business acumen whatsoever would suggest that the UA actually cripples the SP. The UA expects the SP to be like local buses. Running around only 1/3 full for 1/3 of the time. The difference is that the buses are funded by the bottomless pit of Govt. One freight sailing a day and one passenger sailing every 2 days would be nearer the mark. And the fast craft is the luxury sports car that we can't justify or afford to run any more. Edited May 3, 2015 by Non-Believer 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.