Steam-Packet New Ferry survey

[John Wright]

18 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

In which case, tell em to FRO!

Tell them we want a 21st century service not a 19th century one.

Tell them them we don't want to be half asleep in vehicles on a shitty dockside for a 2:15am departure.

Tell em we would like to arrive in the UK at a time to enable a same day meeting.

Or tell em, to listen to JW and keep up with the back.

Tell em, as long as we have 'A boat in the morning' - then that's good enough. 

Actually, in real world measurements, it's shite, which ever way you look at it. Total, utter, amateur, condescending shite.

But if you're happy with it ..............

 

There’s always going to be an 02.15 departure to the island to tie in with logistics of distribution from U.K. depots and getting stuff on the shelves that day. You don’t have to travel on it.

I agree that departure times in either direction  could be improved. More would be better. Departures from the Island timed to allow same day meetings, realistically, means an overnight sailing  from Douglas. They are limited by journey time, which, with loading/unloading, fuelling, crew working hours, etc, mean a maximum of two complete rotations daily. Faster boats are much more expensive to operate. It’s possible to design a Ben that could do 3 rotations, but each trip would cost twice as much in fuel. There are crew hours issues as well. 

My solution is two Ben type ferries operating a reverse timetabling  Boat A as now and Boat B operating the same times but in the opposite direction. Sailing in each direction every 6 hours, at least in summer.

Its all well criticising, but how about making some concrete suggestions. Then you can critique mine and we can critique yours.

[Kopek]

Should not the Govt/Steam Pakt be honest about the scope for price reductions???

There seems to be a belief, that now in Govt hands, massive reductions are only to be called for and they will appear?

I do believe that any reductions should, in the first instance, be for outward journeys ,it is sold to us as a Manx operation and, therefore, we should be the first benefactors. Accepting again, that the reductions will not be significant or substantial?

The ongoing finances of the SP will not allow for the slashing of fares that many people expect, or have been led to expect???

[Numbnuts]

The IOMSP is a revenue stream and nothing else to IOMG . That's it in a nutshell. The 10 million a year is a handy sum to put towards CS pensions and the rest is just cosmetic . If they were really up to speed they were offer so many lower fares to encourage more people over which would benefit local businesses and give hotels and the likes more incentive to upgrade and open longer . Treasury would be the winner long term but there taking the easy option of a guaranteed income which is incredibly short sighted .   

[foxdaleliberationfront]

2 hours ago, Kopek said:

Should not the Govt/Steam Pakt be honest about the scope for price reductions???

There seems to be a belief, that now in Govt hands, massive reductions are only to be called for and they will appear?

I do believe that any reductions should, in the first instance, be for outward journeys ,it is sold to us as a Manx operation and, therefore, we should be the first benefactors. Accepting again, that the reductions will not be significant or substantial?

The ongoing finances of the SP will not allow for the slashing of fares that many people expect, or have been led to expect???

I don't remember any MHK saying there would be massive price cuts, only that they would take the opportunity to review fares which they have done - removing weekend supplements in winter and a few other bits. 

The talk of price cuts raised its head when people started talking about the SPC as some kind of "People's Ferry" - very Corbynite!  I guess they'd even throw in free broadband for everyone too?

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, Numbnuts said:

The IOMSP is a revenue stream and nothing else to IOMG . That's it in a nutshell. The 10 million a year is a handy sum to put towards CS pensions and the rest is just cosmetic . If they were really up to speed they were offer so many lower fares to encourage more people over which would benefit local businesses and give hotels and the likes more incentive to upgrade and open longer . Treasury would be the winner long term but there taking the easy option of a guaranteed income which is incredibly short sighted .   

One of the very few Govt operations to be provenly able to operate profitably - at least until Govt got involved. As to where such opportunity will now be diverted - sage and experienced guesses welcome?

[display name]

15 hours ago, foxdaleliberationfront said:

You could make the ferry free and still people would complain about it. 

So true.

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, MrPB said:

Two new boats, a £40M new ferry terminal. That’s £100M straight off. It was certainly operating profitably right up until government bought it. 

Boats are at least £60 million, each, so my maths makes it £160m straight off. Plus the balance of the loan on its books to pay off. £200m+

[John Wright]

Nothing has been dropped in. Privately owned the Steam Packet would still have had to replace tonnage. And repay its loans.  Don’t forget, that’s what started it all off. Steamie wanted guaranteed user agreement extension before it would invest. Agreement wasn’t reached. Steamie said it wouldn’t invest and just milk the then current user agreement to 2026. The only difference was that Steamie was negotiating to have Peel Ports pay for the new Liverpool terminal. Once they didn’t have a long term future that came off the table.

[monasqueen]

Peel Ports won't pay for much - that's their business model - that's why Heysham didn't get dredged for years, and the infrastructure is crumbling.

The good thing about Heysham now is the road out of it. Far better than trying to weave your way throught the streets of Liverpool.

And if the train is running, that is on site, rather than 1/2 mile down the road.

[Roger Mexico]

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

Nothing has been dropped in. Privately owned the Steam Packet would still have had to replace tonnage. And repay its loans.  Don’t forget, that’s what started it all off. Steamie wanted guaranteed user agreement extension before it would invest. Agreement wasn’t reached. Steamie said it wouldn’t invest and just milk the then current user agreement to 2026. The only difference was that Steamie was negotiating to have Peel Ports pay for the new Liverpool terminal. Once they didn’t have a long term future that came off the table.

I'm aware this is all water under the bridge, but surely the old user agreement had stipulations in it about investment by certain dates.  So if the Steam Packet didn't fulfil its side of the contract, the IOMG would have been entitled to go elsewhere and render the rest of the agreement worthless to them.  Now that would require a lot of qualities that IOMG haven't shown much of recently: willingness to stand up to blackmail; bravery; forward planning; legal nous; energy.  But the possibility was surely there.

[Max Power]

22 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I'm aware this is all water under the bridge, but surely the old user agreement had stipulations in it about investment by certain dates.  So if the Steam Packet didn't fulfil its side of the contract, the IOMG would have been entitled to go elsewhere and render the rest of the agreement worthless to them.  Now that would require a lot of qualities that IOMG haven't shown much of recently: willingness to stand up to blackmail; bravery; forward planning; legal nous; energy.  But the possibility was surely there.

I don't think that there was any stipulation on replacement of vessels Roger, only that they had to be of a certain type?

[John Wright]

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I'm aware this is all water under the bridge, but surely the old user agreement had stipulations in it about investment by certain dates.  So if the Steam Packet didn't fulfil its side of the contract, the IOMG would have been entitled to go elsewhere and render the rest of the agreement worthless to them.  Now that would require a lot of qualities that IOMG haven't shown much of recently: willingness to stand up to blackmail; bravery; forward planning; legal nous; energy.  But the possibility was surely there.

I haven’t got it to hand, but i think it did provide and we got, Ben & Mannanan. Wasn’t expiry 2021 with an extension up to 2026? Don’t think there was anything during that 5 years.
 

Lets say it did, and Steamie built nothing, and Notice was given. Steamie have two options. Give up and stop operating leaving no boats and no service and us, and IOMG screwed, or it fights, gets an injunction and carries on until 2026, squeezing every last penny it can.

Theres no alternative shipping line standing by and it'd take 3-4 years minimum to set one up and commission tonnage.

Inevitably IoMG and Steamie would have to negotiate a deal. But it’s IoM over the barrel.

The current agreement isn’t like the railway franchises, where cancellation gives rise to running stock purchase options, nor is it like CalMac - where the tonnage is government owned. 
 

If you want to read up about the mess having a private monopoly, without adequate franchising and regulation, can cause, and the brinksmanship and cost, then go look at Sark Electricity.  

[Non-Believer]

I think the provision of the/a fast craft was a stipulation of the previous User Agreement? (Reply to MP)

[John Wright]

Just now, Non-Believer said:

I think the provision of the/a fast craft was a stipulation of the previous User Agreement?

Yep. And we got one.

[Non-Believer]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Yep. And we got one.

Vanity object too, IMHO John. Seasonal, expensive to run in both engineering terms and fuel, questionable reliability over the years. We need two plodders.