Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

They'll have to go through with it now whatever the cost. Otherwise they will look stupid.

 

24 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

They don’t need this to look stupid...

Indeed. This ship sailed long ago, terminal or no terminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

1. Walk away from this waste of our money.  As mentioned above, if it such a fantastic deal the private sector will fund it.  The fact (to date) that it isn't shows that his will be more money down the drain.

2. Who needs Liverpool anyway?  Holyhead - 2 and a bit hours sailing even at the decrepit Ben's 'cruising speed' (and even faster on the Cat) and just over an hour to the motorway system from there. And whilst Holyhead might not be the Mecca of North Wales, at least there are plenty of opportunities in the area to park up and get a meal before sailing rather than sit at Pier Head for hours after running the gauntlet of navigating through Liverpool's less desirous residential areas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that there is some sort of business case in play for this, such as charging the SPCo to use the facility? If we were putting freight through the terminal it may make more economic sense? We do need a thoroughly reliable and cost efficient sea service as it seems we can't force our wealthy farmers to produce enough food to keep us going for a few days. Is this the first step in taking control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will it be under the same management as Ronaldsway Airport and Douglas Sea Terminal? Imagine a combination of that and Liverpool shop stewards running rings round them. It will make the cost of construction look like tea money. Let's duck out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, woolley said:

Will it be under the same management as Ronaldsway Airport and Douglas Sea Terminal? Imagine a combination of that and Liverpool shop stewards running rings round them. It will make the cost of construction look like tea money. Let's duck out now.

 

5 hours ago, Max Power said:

I assume that there is some sort of business case in play for this, such as charging the SPCo to use the facility? If we were putting freight through the terminal it may make more economic sense? We do need a thoroughly reliable and cost efficient sea service as it seems we can't force our wealthy farmers to produce enough food to keep us going for a few days. Is this the first step in taking control?

...............if we are going to pay for it why would we pay to use it?...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the govt being clever. They use our money to build it then charge us via charging the service operator to use it. You can't say they don't need the money. Trouble is, they are so incompetent that even though we pay to build it and pay to use it, they are still likely to make a loss running it so we'll pay a third time to make up the shortfall. Every one's a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, woolley said:

That's the govt being clever. They use our money to build it then charge us via charging the service operator to use it. You can't say they don't need the money. Trouble is, they are so incompetent that even though we pay to build it and pay to use it, they are still likely to make a loss running it so we'll pay a third time to make up the shortfall. Every one's a winner.

+1 that's exactly what will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...