ballaughbiker Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 You were lucky Albert. On the balance of probabilities, the price is more likely to rise even if its just by adding the 'fine' for not booking on the net. The present set up at Birkenhead is laughable. A bus arrives from Pierhead causing 60 or so passengers to try to book in for their boarding cards. Then, a 20 minutes wait until 'security' opens their doors for all the passengers and their bags to make a run for it. They then sort of search every 4th passenger but no bag scanning before letting you onto the 2nd coach to the boat. What a shite service and what a rip off price, but that's monopolies for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"V" Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 You might say the govt and the IOMSP are working together on this to spin the story, but I couldn't possibly comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 If the choice that we have become used to was still available, i.e. sailings to both ports at weekends, then the figures to both ports would probably increase - after all, we do have an increasing population, and the increase is mostly come-overs who want to maintain their family links across, and take a car. You have absolutely no evidence to back that up though. In fact, since the numbers of passengers arriving from Liverpool has declined massively in the past few years, it seems likely that you are instead very, very wrong. Indeed, given the number of sailing that would have had to have been cancelled due to poor weather (the definition of which is not in the hands of the Steam Packet) it seems probable that fewer passengers than have done so would have reached Merseyside. I do agree that these numbers have been blatantly spun though. As V said in the Petition thread, this should probably be merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 it seems likely that you are instead very, very wrong. Bizarre statement, after you just piled in with "You have absolutely no evidence to back that up though". Because you don't, either, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 it seems likely that you are instead very, very wrong. Bizarre statement, after you just piled in with "You have absolutely no evidence to back that up though". Because you don't, either, do you? Not at all bizarre if you'd been following the SP Petition thread. The passenger numbers for the Liverpool service have been posted there a couple of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Please post the evidence showing that monasqueen is wrong. Actual evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Please post the evidence showing that monasqueen is wrong. Actual evidence. I've already done so. Twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ste1205 Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 Attached is the press release from Department of Transport issued this morning. Although it does have a typo (referring to October and not November) it does seem to confirm that there 440 less Steam Packet pax to Heysham and 936 more to Liverpool/Birkenhead when compared to November 2006. 11_November_2007.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted December 17, 2007 Share Posted December 17, 2007 it is possible that these are compatible with average Pax loadings for Ben of around 200-250/voyage + Sea cat about 150 Pax with seacat only running 50% of Fri +Sat with forced transfer to Heysham on the other 50% - it may also be compatible with a loss of about 50 day return Pax to Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 In November 2006, the Seacat cancelled 3 round trips to Liverpool. On 2 days, the passengers were transferred to the Heysham sailings. These would therefore have been counted as Heysham passengers for the stats. On 19 November 2006, the seacat's passengers could not be transferred to Ben, because Ben was also cancelled! There would have been quite a few ticket cancellations as a result of this double whammy. This November, there were no cancellations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Just found out this morning that the 'fine' imposed by this lot for a customer having the temerity to actually turn at the sea terminal to book is £6 (£12 if its a vehicle booking). So that's £6 for not having a credit card, which was the only reason for not booking online. Hang on though, don't they charge you £3 for using a card to pay online? A fool and his money are soon parted.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 As indeed, are a customer of a monopoly and his money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Why is the increase in numbers so "pleasing" to the Director of Harbours, "[a]t a time when the winter schedule has been the subject of some adverse comment"? Why should his mood be affected one way or the other? From personal experience ! Probably because he's a spineless jobsworth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Just found out this morning that the 'fine' imposed by this lot for a customer having the temerity to actually turn at the sea terminal to book is £6 (£12 if its a vehicle booking). So that's £6 for not having a credit card, which was the only reason for not booking online. Hang on though, don't they charge you £3 for using a card to pay online? A fool and his money are soon parted.. It is a standard practice across many businesses to offer cheaper prices online. It is also far from uncommon for companies to levy a fee for using a credit card, as they are charged a merchant's fee by the credit card company. This is why at some tills there is a sign informing you that part of your payment (in whatever format) will contribute to paying a credit card fee. The easy way around this is to use a debit card instead. I hate how I seem to be defending the Steam Packet at every turn, but grievances like this are a bit ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.