Sebrof Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Is this an example of the growth in visitors he's talking about? To be fair, figures prior to September were better than last year (though for some reason June's figures aren't given). In my view, the Racket is a much better operation than Flybe. Woodward makes some good points about the cost of running the service - it isn't subsidised, and many sailings are not economic. They have to be paid for by higher fares at peak periods. My beef with the Racket is that they only have one all-weather boat. And frankly, I am not convinced that the fast craft are really a great benefit. They're certainly not built for the conditions frequently encountered in the Irish Sea, and as a result are extremely unreliable. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Interesting comment on iomyesterday: Fuel Surcharge aside - has the Steam Packet reduced its on board prices yet in light of the reduction in the VAT rate? I travelled with the Steam Packet in December and noticed that the cost of a cooked breakfast was £7.99. Although the receipt showed VAT at 15%, I believe the cost of a cooked breakfast before 1st December 2008 was also £7.99, so what happened to the 2.5% (overall reduction in price of 2.1%) - oh yes the Steam Packet are profiting. I thought Alistair Darling had implemented the cut with a view to it being enjoyed by the consumer. Does the Steam Packet have an excuse for not passing this on? If other smaller retailers were able to cope with the change why hasn't the Steam Packet. Any comments Mr Woodward? AB - Douglas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The Racket are subsidised by the exclusion of all other operators from the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The Racket are subsidised by the exclusion of all other operators from the market. They benefit from a lack of competition, but that is not a subsidy. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's a benefit conferred on the Racket by the government that has a monetary value. So why isn't it a subsidy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's possible that the SPC completely mis-read the market and hedged 12 months fuel supply or whatever at what looks now like a ridiculously high price. If correct this means you now have to pay for their stupidity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's a benefit conferred on the Racket by the government that has a monetary value. So why isn't it a subsidy? : a grant or gift of money: as a: a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b: money granted by one state to another c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 it's money's worth, rather than money. It's still a subsidy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 it's money's worth, rather than money. It's still a subsidy Tugger, it's a benefit. The more you blur the definitions, the more imprecise language becomes. Incidentally, you claimed the benefit had a monetary value. What is that value? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Two private equity companies arrived at a value for that "benefit". Ask them It's a subsidy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyrotten Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's possible that the SPC completely mis-read the market and hedged 12 months fuel supply or whatever at what looks now like a ridiculously high price. If correct this means you now have to pay for their stupidity... What it means is we ARE paying for their stupidity. But if they are simply passing on the cost of their own gamble going wrong, then they should be honest and simply incorporate it into the ticket prices, not try to pretend it's due to some mysterious circumstance outside their control, like the price of oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's possible that the SPC completely mis-read the market and hedged 12 months fuel supply or whatever at what looks now like a ridiculously high price. If correct this means you now have to pay for their stupidity... What it means is we ARE paying for their stupidity. But if they are simply passing on the cost of their own gamble going wrong, then they should be honest and simply incorporate it into the ticket prices, not try to pretend it's due to some mysterious circumstance outside their control, like the price of oil. If the financial crisis hadn't turned out to be much worse than people expected when they supposedly did their hedging, oil prices would now be over $200 a barrel and we'd all be very grateful. You can't win every time. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Two private equity companies arrived at a value for that "benefit". Ask them It's a subsidy. "When I use a word", said Alice, "it means exactly what I want it to mean............." S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 It's possible that the SPC completely mis-read the market and hedged 12 months fuel supply or whatever at what looks now like a ridiculously high price. If correct this means you now have to pay for their stupidity... What it means is we ARE paying for their stupidity. But if they are simply passing on the cost of their own gamble going wrong, then they should be honest and simply incorporate it into the ticket prices, not try to pretend it's due to some mysterious circumstance outside their control, like the price of oil. If the financial crisis hadn't turned out to be much worse than people expected when they supposedly did their hedging, oil prices would now be over $200 a barrel and we'd all be very grateful. You can't win every time. Errrr... I'm guessing guys. Wait and see mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 "When I use a word", said Alice, "it means exactly what I want it to mean............." Finally, some self-awareness on your part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.