[BBC News] Ferry repairs to speed up service

[monasqueen]

Quote "The agreement with government requires that a minimum speed for fastcraft is maintained."

 

This seems a strange statement, and I find it incredible that such a requirement is actually included within the User Agreement. The agreement does require a fast craft to be operated, but does not specify what type of fast craft, nor does it, I believe, demand that the fast craft must be capable of going at a specific minimum speed.

 

At the enquiry hearings, the specialist brought in by the Committee was asked for his opinion on what a fast craft was, and he replied that it was a vessel that could sail at at least (I think the figure was) 23 knots. This meant that in his terms a fast conventional vessel was a fast craft, and would fall within the fast craft requirement.

 

Using this logic, a crossing to Liverpool in 3 1/4 hours or less (Lady of Mann was scheduled to take 4 hours, though she was capable of doing it in 3 1/2 in good conditions) would be a fast crossing, and fall within the requirements. This means that Viking on 3 engines (and presumably saving fuel at this time) operating the crossing in a scheduled 3 hours, is still acceptable as a fast craft.

 

As said by someone in another posting, there does not appear to have been any public consultation about what their idea of an acceptable fast crossing is - just an implied preference for fast craft.

 

It is quite clear from the way fuel prices are going that we will have to pay dearly for our gas guzzling trips to Liverpool. Would it not be better for all of us (and the planet) to have a slighly longer journey time for a bit cheaper?

[Tempus Fugit]

I wonder if marine engineers have tried adding HHO to the air intakes as people are doing with car and truck engines and achieving good increase in mpg (or is it banned by the elfin safety people ?)

[manshimajin]

Triskelion (my apologies I do not know how to 'multiquote)

 

What on Earth are talking about?

 

Running rough-shod over the population? huh?

 

It wasn't so long ago that people were complaining that the SPC didn't sail fast enough. Government can't just conduct an onboard survey of a private operator. I think you need to examine the context in which the User Agreement was first conceived, and bear in might that you can't describe fuel price rises as 'unprecedented' and then accuse the IoMG/DoT of 'crass insight.'

 

No doubt people did complain that the IOMSPC did not sail fast enough. But not so long ago people were not buying diesel cars, were not fitting solar water heaters, not insulating lofts etc etc... You may not agree but I sense that there is something of a change in public attitudes that did not occur at $50 per barrel for oil but is occurring at $150 appox. I would be genuinely surprised if the IOM Government really expects a 40knot service irrespective of oil consumption or that they would oppose the IOMSPC reducing speed by say15-20% rather than having to hike prices (particularly as the IOMSPC says oil is one of its major costs ). From what I have been able to ascertain the User Agreement is not specific about the time of crossings but is specific about the number of crossings. It does not look as if a sensible speed reduction would impact on the number of crossings per day.

 

------------------------------

As for the questions in the SPC's market research, bear in mind the questions have to give useful answers. Passengers saying they prioritise speedy travel might seem like a no-brainer, but if they are putting that ahead of comfort, keeping costs down etc., it appears in a somewhat different light.

 

Furthermore if they were to ask questions such as 'In light of increasing fuel costs, would you accept slower crossing times in order to minimise increases in fares?' the answers they would get would be of dubious value because there are too many variables. What I mean is, people might accept slower crossing times in order to maintain lower fares, but only to a certain extent. At say, 3.5 hours crossing to Liverpool, people might think an extra £5/£10 was worth it, but see how it becomes increasingly complicated? And of course you can really ask those kind of questions in the abstract, because until people have experienced that kind of situation, how can they usefully comment?

 

It is complicated to ask this type of question but market research companies (from my business experience) have the professional tools to deal with this sort of multi-variable issue. A simple example is when people are asked to rate a number of factors in order of priority. It is sometimes difficult to avoid being seen as a 'knocker' but I do wonder how people would choose between say a 30 minute longer crossing and having to pay higher fuel surcharges for a fast crossing. Incidentally I get the impression from MW's answer that the IOMSPC are not passing on all the increases in fuel cost at the moment - will this continue to be the case or in future will shareholders say the pricing should reflect the commercial cost? In which case people may really want to see what the options are.

 

I do agree with you that a third party, the Manx Government, could not (without permission) conduct surveys on board the ferries. But they are already conducting tourism surveys in the Terminal area (for foot passengers and motorists) so could do a survey on crossing times versus crossing price there - or on the street.

 

If he does reply to that last point, I would be fairly confident it would be something along the lines of 'individual circumstances'/'Up to them' etc.

 

Obviously it is a good idea if you want to save fuel, but if you can afford not to do it, why bother? Are the emissions of the SPC really that significant?

 

Regardless of what the IoMG should be encouraging the SPC to do, the User Agreement is a legally binding contract, which presents difficulties when you want to operate differently to what is specified.

 

If you can afford not to do it why bother actually means 'we can pass on our costs to the customers as they have to pay'. The IOMPC is not a charity (and shouldn't be) so it is their clients who pay for the costs of fuel consumption. As (according to the Tynwald records) more than 60% of the income is freight traffic the Manx public ultimately end up picking up the cost. Does this matter?

 

On the emissions front I was conscious of the number of times when I have been on board this year that I have listened to announcements (and I paraphrase) that the IOMSPC 'cares for the environment' - so this is another way they can show how they do care. In broad terms fuel consumption is a good surrogate measure for CO2 emissions - this is why bodies such as the UN and the EU are increasingly commenting on ship speed reduction as a way of reducing the negative effect of shipping on the environment.

 

MW would be quite right in saying 'it's up to them' of other shipping companies that have reduced fuel costs by 25% by slowing speed by 10%. I guess if I was one of his shareholders I would be asking him if he could manage similar efficiency improvements himself - that is up to them. Mind you it could be impressive for the IOMSPC to be proactive on this issue.

[monasqueen]

I seem to recall, having been thinking ( ), going back a good few years to when the Steam Packet was the REAL Steam Packet (long before Sea Containers came along) captains were required a) to keep to the schedules, but b) to save fuel wherever possible - this was to be done by running slower when conditions were favourable. Early arrivals were not appreciated by management, as this meant that extra fuel had been burnt. Therefore although the Lady could run between Liverpool and Douglas in less than 3 1/2 hours, she rarely did so.

[manshimajin]

Are the emissions of the SPC really that significant?

 

A bit more information. Research carried out in 2000 by:

 

• MARINTEK, Norway,

• Carnegie Mellon University, United States,

• Det Norske Veritas, Norway, and

• ECON, Center for Economic Analysis, Norway,

 

identified that a 10% reduction in speed results in an average 23.3% reduction in CO2 emissions. For a company such as the IOMSPC that cares for the environment this must be a significant factor (apart from any cost savings entailed). Hopefully the Manx Government would also be supportive of such reductions?

[triskelion]

You make good points, and I do not outright disagree with anything you have said. However, my point was more to do with the fact that the SPC's carbon emission mean little in the grand scheme of things, and that making changes on this basis alone is perhaps not such a good idea, especially if it has an adverse effect on passengers. I believe the same is true for the Isle of Man in general, to be honest.

 

Of course, I do accept that there are fuel savings that could be made, with cost benefits for both the SPC and, by extension, the travelling public. Ultimately though, it is the management of the Steam Packet that are going to be able to best judge when those kind of operational decisions can be made and am sure they are at least aware of what other operators are doing to reduce costs.

[oldmanxfella]

On the emissions front I was conscious of the number of times when I have been on board this year that I have listened to announcements (and I paraphrase) that the IOMSPC 'cares for the environment' -

 

I think you've bought into the whole 'environmentally caring' bullshit that many businesses spout these days. Such announcements don't really mean that they actually care about the environment, rather that they have found a way to save money by pretending they care about the environment.

 

Going slower saves fuel. But you can't say that you are going slower to save fuel (and increase operating profits) so you pretend that its socially responsible for you to be going slower. That way idiots believe your doing it for all the right reasons and if you complain about slower times they can suggest that your an environmentally uncaring bastard

 

If they 'care' that much about the environment you might want to ask where they empty the bogs when they cross the Irish Sea?

[manshimajin]

Triskelion

Ultimately though, it is the management of the Steam Packet that are going to be able to best judge when those kind of operational decisions can be made and am sure they are at least aware of what other operators are doing to reduce costs.

But intriguingly Mark Woodward says that the Government requires them to maintain a minimum speed via the User Agreement. If that is correct he may be saying that the IOMSPC cannot best judge those kind of operational decisions as the Manx Government has made the decision for them. Seems a weak commercial argument to me, but then why does he raise the Agreement here (and on the radio)?

 

I think you've bought into the whole 'environmentally caring' bullshit that many businesses spout these days. Such announcements don't really mean that they actually care about the environment, rather that they have found a way to save money by pretending they care about the environment.

No, I haven't 'bought into the whole environmental caring bullshit' but I am one of those old fashioned grumpy old men who believe that if you say something you live up to it and are willing to be measured against it. So if the IOMSPC says that it cares about the environment it naturally invites comments and suggestions about where possibly it might be able to improve. I also give them credit for trying.

 

At the end of the day I am commenting on this issue because if the Government does not allow the IOMSPC to take action to reduce its fuel consumption we can all guess what will happen to ticket prices in 2009 - bullshit or no bullshit.

[WilDDog]

Just been on the Steam Packet Site and it isn't bringing anything at all up for the 30th of September is this because the boat is full?

[oldmanxfella]

But intriguingly Mark Woodward says that the Government requires them to maintain a minimum speed via the User Agreement. If that is correct he may be saying that the IOMSPC cannot best judge those kind of operational decisions as the Manx Government has made the decision for them. Seems a weak commercial argument to me, but then why does he raise the Agreement here (and on the radio)?

 

And intriguingly you believe him? Of course you have a user agreement that guarantees minimum standards of service (ie, minimum crossing times) otherwise they can do what the heck they like. Once again you've bought into that pseudo environmentally caring bullshit - "No the government is the big bad man here for making us go too fast and burn too much fuel". That is pure cobblers.

 

No, I haven't 'bought into the whole environmental caring bullshit' but I am one of those old fashioned grumpy old men who believe that if you say something you live up to it and are willing to be measured against it. So if the IOMSPC says that it cares about the environment it naturally invites comments and suggestions about where possibly it might be able to improve. I also give them credit for trying.

 

At the end of the day I am commenting on this issue because if the Government does not allow the IOMSPC to take action to reduce its fuel consumption we can all guess what will happen to ticket prices in 2009 - bullshit or no bullshit.

 

That stands you out as an idiot then. Have you ever considered that they do not mean what they tell you? Mostly its a ploy to get you to accept worse levels of service based on the perception of lower costs (Ryanair do it every living breathing second, and they claim to be environmentally concerned too). Most people with an ounce of sense and good judgement accept that this is all it is.

 

If you are stupid enough to believe that they won't ramp fares through the roof for next year whether they travel at 5mph or 30mph across the Irish Sea then you go and believe it. I know which side the odds are on.

[manshimajin]

If you are stupid enough to believe that they won't ramp fares through the roof for next year whether they travel at 5mph or 30mph across the Irish Sea then you go and believe it. I know which side the odds are on.

So Oldmanxfella you just roll over on your back and let them rub your tummy and tell you that you are a good dog eh?

[gazza]

i say up the fuel surcharge and go faster,

 

if it cost me more to cut the time i sail on the ben then i be happy with it,

4hours of nowt, so any saveing in time im happy to pay for

[triskelion]

They can't 'ramp up prices throught the roof' because they are limited as to how high they can raise them vs inflation (unlike most UK operators). They could up the fuel surcharge, but that would leave them open to scrutiny by Hendo's OFT.

[Billsmurf]

When increasing prices because of fuel price rises, by just how much more will the public pay to travel to the Island.Too big an increase and people will stay away. Speaking for myself as a mainlander, yes i would accept an additional half hour in travelling time if it enables prices to be held down.

[silverfoxie]

seems like the engine or gearbox problems are not over yet....was on the 7pm sailing last night - well it left at 8 something.... and nearing Douglas the darn thing stopped! Then it went backwards for a bit!

 

Got going up to full speed again eventually but we didnt get in to Douglas till after 11.

 

Couldn't hear what the captain said it was down to over the tannoy in the bar due to the noise,