Newsbot Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 The Isle of Man steam packet company announces a price hike due to soaring fuel costs. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7573010.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 It was only a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 It was only a matter of time. I can't understand why they want to run that mega Seacat in this climate. They burn about 3 times as much fuel as a normal boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I don't understand why they add a fuel surcharge as a separate item when you book a ticket. It's not as if you can opt out, and row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I can't understand why they want to run that mega Seacat in this climate. They burn about 3 times as much fuel as a normal boat. Firstly it is a requirement of the user agreement. Secondly I would gladly pay a bit extra to cross to Liverpool in 2.5hrs by fast craft rather than 3.75 by conventional. Just as I drive at 70mph or so if across on Motorways rather than at 50mph on A Roads to save fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Just in time for fuel prices going down - and the SR can only change the price twice in a year can't they, with the agreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsmurf Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I wonder if this increase will apply to those who have booked and paid in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Smokers are taxed to oblivion - so the obese should be bearing most of these fuel surcharges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Just in time for fuel prices going down - and the SR can only change the price twice in a year can't they, with the agreement? I'm sure you're right, and by the time the next price adjustment comes around and fuel prices have dropped, this hike will have been forgotten!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 But surely the annual price hike takes into account the increasing (or otherwise ) cost of fuel, so the surcharge should disappear when the new timetable comes into force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I can't understand why they want to run that mega Seacat in this climate. They burn about 3 times as much fuel as a normal boat. I would gladly pay a bit extra to cross to Liverpool in 2.5hrs by fast craft rather than 3.75 by conventional. Just as I drive at 70mph or so if across on Motorways rather than at 50mph on A Roads to save fuel. The only difference is that you don't save fuel by going faster in a ship... Still we should express our very sincere thanks and gratitude to the IOMSPC for absorbing all those additional costs for us. Macquarie Bank must be after Mark Woodward's blood! I wonder whether the IOMSPC have been more successful than Manx motorists in securing full benefit from the 25% drop in oil prices? If they have it would now be costing them about £484 per tonne compared with his quote of £322 last year - up 50%. MW says fuel for a roundtrip can be as much as £15,000 (presumably at the highest price they have paid) - but assume they are now getting the 25% reduction in oil cost that would come down to £11,250. Based on his figures in 2007 it was then costing up to about £7,500 for the return trip. I can't remember how much ticket prices increased without surcharges this year but that price rise would presumably have contributed to offsetting this £3,750 return trip cost rise. Assuming 200 passengers per trip the £5.00 surcharge will be raising £2,000 for a roundtrip. The additional freight surcharges need to be added to that. So I just wonder how generous they have actually been when 2008 fare increases, passenger surcharges and freight surcharges are all taken into account. On my old hobby horse if they dropped speed by 10% they would save about 20% in fuel costs so they would be back down to £9,000 on fuel per return crossing if they have managed to get the 25% reduction in oil prices....and the INCAT is presumably significantly more fuel efficient than the Viking so further savings there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 I can't understand why they want to run that mega Seacat in this climate. They burn about 3 times as much fuel as a normal boat. I would gladly pay a bit extra to cross to Liverpool in 2.5hrs by fast craft rather than 3.75 by conventional. Just as I drive at 70mph or so if across on Motorways rather than at 50mph on A Roads to save fuel. The only difference is that you don't save fuel by going faster in a ship... Still we should express our very sincere thanks and gratitude to the IOMSPC for absorbing all those additional costs for us. Macquarie Bank must be after Mark Woodward's blood! I wonder whether the IOMSPC have been more successful than Manx motorists in securing full benefit from the 25% drop in oil prices? If they have it would now be costing them about £484 per tonne compared with his quote of £322 last year - up 50%. MW says fuel for a roundtrip can be as much as £15,000 (presumably at the highest price they have paid) - but assume they are now getting the 25% reduction in oil cost that would come down to £11,250. Based on his figures in 2007 it was then costing up to about £7,500 for the return trip. I can't remember how much ticket prices increased without surcharges this year but that price rise would presumably have contributed to offsetting this £3,750 return trip cost rise. Assuming 200 passengers per trip the £5.00 surcharge will be raising £2,000 for a roundtrip. The additional freight surcharges need to be added to that. So I just wonder how generous they have actually been when 2008 fare increases, passenger surcharges and freight surcharges are all taken into account. On my old hobby horse if they dropped speed by 10% they would save about 20% in fuel costs so they would be back down to £9,000 on fuel per return crossing if they have managed to get the 25% reduction in oil prices....and the INCAT is presumably significantly more fuel efficient than the Viking so further savings there... Er, Login's point was that he would rather get there faster by boat and pay more for fuel... Oil prices may have dropped 25%, but nothing actually runs on crude oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Oil prices may have dropped 25%, but nothing actually runs on crude oil. Your point? With respect, everything runs on crude oil. Petrol, diesel, fuel oil, kerosene, avgas, LPG are all made from crude oil, so when crude prices drop, so do the prices of products derived from it. I should imagine that crude oil probably accounts for over 75% of the refinery gate cost of all the above. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Er, Login's point was that he would rather get there faster by boat and pay more for fuel... Oil prices may have dropped 25%, but nothing actually runs on crude oil. I misread what login wrote - but in part I was confused by the reference to Motorways and A roads. Motorways save fuel compared with A roads particularly if you are light on the accelerator. So by using the motorway login is probably getting there faster and using less fuel if he/she is a good driver. Unfortunately the same beneficial outcome does not apply at sea... I of course accept that some people would prefer to pay more and get there quicker, whilst others would like to pay less even if it takes a bit longer. That was why Concorde attracted some passengers and gave quicker travel times - but the jumbo jet brought down the cost of travel. What would be ironic is if the IOMSPC increased surcharges and 2009 costs because of 'increased fuel costs' and then reduced speed to save money for itself....of course it might also help if they priced the travel in a way that attracted higher passenger volumes and was really competitive with airlines - which is happening on the (less expensive) longer Irish Sea crossings. Triskelion you probably know more than me about this but I assume that a significant drop in the price of the raw material should have a significant downwards impact on the price of fuel - it certainly seems to do so when the price of crude is rising! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosieposie82 Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 the price hike is all well and good but its not been that long since the last hike in price. about a year or so? And to be honest, in some cases, its ending up cheaper to fly now rather than by sea. Has been so for me to go to belfast. Was going to cost the same or less to go by air and tbh i would rather go by air in that case! And now with another rise in cost, im guessing it will def be cheaper in some cases! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.