Steam Packet - Oft Petition

[Amadeus]

Two more from today:

 

 

[monasqueen]

The Minister is there to represent the "people" not just business.

 

The on-line petition isn't the best tool for voicing public opinion but I think it does show that there is a lot of concern by the "people" in relation to the services offered by the IOMSP. He seems to be quite happy to "pooh pooh" these concerns in favour of the status quo; probably hoping that the grumbling masses will just go away over Christmas

 

The article in today's Examiner seems to show that he has no grasp whatsoever about shipping matters and what other types of ship are available.

 

They are now apparently saying that although we had the promise of substantial investment into a new ship in 2004, the Steam Packet can now forget that. Just what the Merchant *ankers will be looking for, as they were not party to a promise that was made before they took over.

 

The Ben is the only ship we are going to have in the winter from here on, and we have already seen that this is not necessarily reliable any more.

 

The Steam Packet, by giving no alternative sailings, and forcing people to go to/from Birkenhead, with the late running and slow discharge that this entails, is doing its best to prove to people that there is no need for them to try running to the Mersey. They will be more than happy to be given approval to run to and from Heysham only in the winter, so that they can run Ben on the service it was designed for - as a freight ship - and the passengers can go stuff themselves like the proverbial Christmas turkey.

 

What we need is for the User agreement to be scrapped, and a tendering process to be commenced, so that we get a shipping company in that actually wants to give us a service.

[The Voice of Reason]

Just to get back to the basics.

 

I used the day trip facility to Liverpool Pier Head using the Seacat on at least 25 occasions over the last 5 years in the winter. It was a very convenient and relatively inexpensive way to reach the centre of Liverpool.

Over that time I recall one trip being cancelled and a few trips being a bit rocky (as one might expect at that time of year) but apart from that it was a good service (well, not counting the catering facilities, obviously). The boat was well patronised by people availing themselves of the day trip facility (it would be obvious to anyone onboard more people used it for the day trip than the figures claimed by the SP)

The 2007 sailing schedules showed this service to be operating again this winter only for it to be pulled at short notice with the SP quoting reliabilty and lack of usage as factors (which certainly does not accord with my experiences)

 

If, as seems likely, the discontinuation of the service is down to commercial considerations why can't the SP just say so (then we can re-visit the debate as to whether they also have some form of social responsibility to the Islands populace) instead of trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

["V"]

Well said Voice of Reason.

We need transparency and honesty. If the IOMSP don't want to go to Liverpool in winter on comerical grounds then they should say so.

Mark Woodward's blog is currently gloating that last weekend was another one where the SeaCat would have been cancelled - STOP PRESS, its winter and stormy in the Irish Sea !!!

We all know that the SeaCat isn't the boat to use in the winter, its not rocket science when its operational licence is limited to a specific wave height. This isn't news, it was pointed out when the SeaCats were first brought in and it was pointed out again when the "Lady" was sold. It was the IOMSP who said the SeaCat could provide the winter service in place of the "Lady" not the travelling public

 

What exactly are the financial implications of tearing up the user agreement?

From what I've seen there are no penalties?

If the IOMSP can ask for renegotiated extension etc, can the Govt bring them in and ask for changes to service etc?

 

The big point here is not to let them (Govt /IOMSP) get away with it. They will both be hoping the story will die over Christmas. Its important to keep it in the forefront

 

I can see above that David Cannan is "on side" so thats him, Peter Karran and Bill Henderson. Any other MHK's who have expressed an opinion yet?

[Tugger]

Is there an "algorithm" involved in a petition?

 

Good old David Cannan (well, on this point at least)

[jaybs]

At least some people are starting to see the problem with The Steam Packet and the way it is being run and the service it gives to the Island, last week when I first raised some questions about the reply given by the Minister, I came under attack.

 

It asks serious questions what consideration was given when drawing up the "User Agreement" and the implications if ever problems should arise like now.

 

J

[triskelion]

Just to get back to the basics.

 

I used the day trip facility to Liverpool Pier Head using the Seacat on at least 25 occasions over the last 5 years in the winter. It was a very convenient and relatively inexpensive way to reach the centre of Liverpool.

Over that time I recall one trip being cancelled and a few trips being a bit rocky (as one might expect at that time of year) but apart from that it was a good service (well, not counting the catering facilities, obviously). The boat was well patronised by people availing themselves of the day trip facility (it would be obvious to anyone onboard more people used it for the day trip than the figures claimed by the SP)

The 2007 sailing schedules showed this service to be operating again this winter only for it to be pulled at short notice with the SP quoting reliabilty and lack of usage as factors (which certainly does not accord with my experiences)

 

If, as seems likely, the discontinuation of the service is down to commercial considerations why can't the SP just say so (then we can re-visit the debate as to whether they also have some form of social responsibility to the Islands populace) instead of trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

 

When we looked at the passenger figures some pages back (from the Harbours Division, not the Steam Packet) the monthly figures had halved last winter compared to those the winter before. Both winters were covered solely by fast-craft. The Steam Packet do not have a say in the kind of weather considered 'too rough,' it is decided by a body called something like 'The Marine and Coastguard Association.' At the minute, fast craft are not permitted to sail in weather in which the average wave height is 3.5m and above. Perhaps this limit was higher in the past, which has led to increased cancellations in more recent times. Regardless, passenger figures on the Liverpool sailing have decreased dramatically over the past few years.

 

It seems likely that the decision not to run fast craft services to Liverpool over the winter is based on relability, whereas the decision not to purchase a more suitable craft for the winter crossings is commercial.

 

V: Thanks. Since you posted I looked it up on iomtoday.co.im and it was the size of the runway that was the problem, like I thought. The same search led me to an article about how EasyJet's interest prompted the SP to put plans for a new fast craft on hold, rather than the conventional ferry everyone hear seems to think they need.

[The Voice of Reason]

[When we looked at the passenger figures some pages back (from the Harbours Division, not the Steam Packet) the monthly figures had halved last winter compared to those the winter before. Both winters were covered solely by fast-craft. The Steam Packet do not have a say in the kind of weather considered 'too rough,' it is decided by a body called something like 'The Marine and Coastguard Association.' At the minute, fast craft are not permitted to sail in weather in which the average wave height is 3.5m and above. Perhaps this limit was higher in the past, which has led to increased cancellations in more recent times. Regardless, passenger figures on the Liverpool sailing have decreased dramatically over the past few years.

 

Well if they're the figures then I suppose one must accept them. Maybe the method of counting passenger figures was amended in the same way as the definition of a "rough sea" was . Regardless, surely any business that loses half of it's custom in one period compared to the previous year under the same operating conditions would try and identify the causes and consider how they could perhaps entice the customsers back?. Was any such research undertaken or are we to believe that the SP just said "we've lost half our customers on this route let's just shut it down"

[monasqueen]

Was any such research undertaken or are we to believe that the SP just said "we've lost half our customers on this route let's just shut it down"

 

They're probably not too bothered - they can't operate freight through Liverpool, although they can take business vans. There's not enough money in the service now they've killed it off over the years, so why keep it. They haven't got the wit to realise that there is still a market, and it can be built on, if only it is catered for properly.

 

There's a few more passengers in the summer than a freighter with a bit of passenger accommodation can cope with, so let them go via Liverpool in the calmer months - just patch up an ancient old insurance write-off wreck of a seacat for the summer, paint it up and rename it, and they can then make out it's new.

 

New ship? Who said anything about one of those? Oh, was it agreed when the User Agreement was updated in 2004? That wasn't us, McBank didn't have anything to do with that alleged promise - we're a bank, we take money in, we don't pay it out.

 

The money is in freight, that's all they care about - and they are starting to upset people there, too, with recent late running.

 

They need to be kept aware that people are very upset - the petition should not be allowed to be an end to the complaints if complaints are still due, otherwise it will have achieved nothing.

["V"]

Here Here,

There is another problem with freight that has already been mentioned here, the Port of Heysham is silting up.

I have been on IOM for 25 years and have never known boats to be held up by low water but this autumn/winter the "Ben" has had to amend times on at least 4 occassions.

[manxman8180]

They're probably not too bothered - they can't operate freight through Liverpool, although they can take business vans.

Interestingly, however, they could quite easily take a full freight service from 12 Quays..........

 

have been on IOM for 25 years and have never known boats to be held up by low water but this autumn/winter the "Ben" has had to amend times on at least 4 occassions.

Both low and high water have caused headaches for SP masters for many years. Particularly around the Fylde coast.

 

In Morecambe for instance the Lady would have to be accurate to the minute sometimes, otherwise they would flood the quayside when they came alongside.

 

Many SP ships have had problems with silt / sandbanks in the past.

[triskelion]

Was any such research undertaken or are we to believe that the SP just said "we've lost half our customers on this route let's just shut it down"

 

They're probably not too bothered - they can't operate freight through Liverpool, although they can take business vans. There's not enough money in the service now they've killed it off over the years, so why keep it. They haven't got the wit to realise that there is still a market, and it can be built on, if only it is catered for properly.

 

There's a few more passengers in the summer than a freighter with a bit of passenger accommodation can cope with, so let them go via Liverpool in the calmer months - just patch up an ancient old insurance write-off wreck of a seacat for the summer, paint it up and rename it, and they can then make out it's new.

 

New ship? Who said anything about one of those? Oh, was it agreed when the User Agreement was updated in 2004? That wasn't us, McBank didn't have anything to do with that alleged promise - we're a bank, we take money in, we don't pay it out.

 

The money is in freight, that's all they care about - and they are starting to upset people there, too, with recent late running.

 

They need to be kept aware that people are very upset - the petition should not be allowed to be an end to the complaints if complaints are still due, otherwise it will have achieved nothing.

 

They hadn't 'lost half their customers' on the Liverpool route. The figures only go back a few years, but the falls have been attributed to firstly, the decision to end the running of mid-week services in the winter. The next two winters, the passenger numbers were half they were when the weekday services were running, but were about the same (a 2% drop I think). The Lady of Mann only operated on the first of these two years.

 

However, last winter, the numbers plummeted again, which the Harbour Master attributed to problems with the reliability of sailings. They were running the exact same service as they had been the previous year.

 

The idea that the SP deliberately 'killed off' the Liverpool winter service is vindictive and speculative. Many more people now fly rather than use the boat for a number of reasons: much faster, more destinations, better onward connections from those destinations, better disabled access, better parking, better facilties etc etc.

 

According to the ongoing Tynwald Select Committee minutes, both TravelWatch and the Committee were in agreement that the service now is much better than the one we were faced with when the User Agreement was first introduced.

 

Where is anyone's evidence that there is great demand for a winter sailing to Liverpool? The passenger numbers were unspectacular, and to maintain such a service with sufficient reliability the Company would have to purchase a new craft; a substantial investment to run a service that was not heavily-used and then do the Irish routes in the summer. Yes, 2225 people may have signed a petition saying they are unhappy with the Steam Packet's level of service, but this does not equate to the kind of demand required to run a service. Indeed, 2 years ago about 4 times as many passengers arrived from Liverpool in December.

[monasqueen]

they could quite easily take a full freight service from 12 Quays..........

 

There are problems here - if the weather turns nasty, the main operators of 12 Quays run late, as we saw last Sunday, when Ben (allegedly held up by the weather, although there was hardly any wind) was unable to berth until very late due to the fact that both pontoons were occupied by ships that were still suffering knock-on delays from Saturday.

 

This had a knock-on effect, so the next few sailings, including Douglas-Heysham and back were late, and the freight and newspapers were about 2 hours late in Douglas on Monday morning. (And who suggested in his Blog that no-one was inconvenienced this weekend?)

 

There is also the problem that there is probably not enough space at 12 Quays for another operator to store freight.

 

But anyway, why use Birkenhead for freight that will take 4 1/2 hours to get to Douglas (with reduced turn-round times) when you can use Heysham with a much quicker crossing.

["V"]

Been said more than once, freight via Heysham, passengers via Liverpool

[Lost Login]

Been said more than once, freight via Heysham, passengers via Liverpool

That is Eutopia, which unfortunately presently seems a long way off until somebody squares the circle of making the Liverpool route viable to run over the winter.