Mezeron & Steam Packet Master Thread

[iom_cb]

How about some kind of arrangement whereby the Mannannan is transferred to a "not for profit" national shipping firm with the express purpose of running the fast-craft services; this could be funded by a "freight levy" on both companies; therefore allowing competition, allowing the steam-packet to off-load it's non-profitable services and all freight companies paying their fair share towards the passenger services?

[Lost Login]

I think that Mr Robertshaw's piece last year succinctly explained the problem the Island has with the Steam Packet and its owners. I hope that he and his colleagues stand firm.

Typical wannabe politicians rant preaching the populist message. Lots of complaints but no solutions or options.

 

Great scrap the user agreement but can somebody explain how you can ensure that the Island will have a ferry service that is also run to suit the Islands needs rather than to just make the company a profit. How are you going to ensure that there is plenty of freight capacity all year round, prices are kept in check, there is a reasonable frequency of service.

 

If I thought that Market principles would have this covered I would have no issue of it being a free for all but I do not believe that without some intervention the IoM would get the level of service I believe it requires.

[Cambon]

isn't there something in the UA about having to invest £x millions in the fleet, which means that they can't even charter the ships ?

 

hands tied behind their backs too

 

Yes, but no. It just means every few years MIOM buy a knackered second hand boat off another M entity at a vastly inflated price and pay M £1,000,000 to get it here. This total is then creamed off the profits which then are "only" 30% .

 

The whole thing is a con. As I said earlier, only one steam packet boat carries freight. The other two are passengers and cars only. If passengers were not profitable, they would not do them

[When Skies Are Grey]

If I thought that Market principles would have this covered I would have no issue of it being a free for all but I do not believe that without some intervention the IoM would get the level of service I believe it requires.

 

Indeed. The events around the world of the past few years has shown us that Governments will accept the concept of free market economics until it reaches a political tipping point. Interventionist policies then come in to play. Bank bail outs, car company bail outs in the US, quantative easing, the list goes on.

[John Wright]

How about some kind of arrangement whereby the Mannannan is transferred to a "not for profit" national shipping firm with the express purpose of running the fast-craft services; this could be funded by a "freight levy" on both companies; therefore allowing competition, allowing the steam-packet to off-load it's non-profitable services and all freight companies paying their fair share towards the passenger services?

 

Its past its useful life, unreliable can only sail in good conditions, is no faster than the conventional ferry, eats fuel and is no good for 5 months of the year.

 

How much do you want to pay for how little service

 

These types of vessels are being withdrawn by shipping companies world wide. Why do you think SPCo cannot get rid of Snaefell

 

Its a maritime equivalent of concorde

[gilf_uk]

Its a maritime equivalent of concorde

 

I don't think thats quite right - Richard Branson wanted to buy Concorde and relaunch it recognising that, soon enough, people would return to what was a very popular service. But BA refused to sell them the planes, and , alas, the end on an era.

 

ETA: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3005705.stm

Edited November 4, 2010 by gilf_uk

[NAIRB]

Although I am no fan of the Racket, I have to give thought to the employees who will inevitably be made Redundant, these will no doubt come from the front line Manx workforce not the people who should be kicked out on there arse, and to be made unemployed at any time is bad enough but coming up to Christmas it makes things that much more difficult, so while I agree with most of the comments about the steam packet going under, just spare a thought for those it will really effect

[Andy730]

 

Its a maritime equivalent of concorde

 

Bet Concorde wasn't cold and drafty...

[Frances]

Bet Concorde wasn't cold and drafty...

no but like the Mannanin it became much too expensive to service (many bits had to be made specially), as Paris proved it was a fire risk waiting to happen and nearly all landings at Heathrow were technical emergencies as it seldom had enough fuel to make a second attempt or go on to another airport - in fact on a couple of occasions so little fuel left that it couldn't taxi and in one case nose dropped causing damage - I had a friend involved with servicing who stated he would never ever fly on it. The Virgin bid was just another bit of Branson's mischief making

Edited November 4, 2010 by Frances

[Cambon]

no but like the Mannanin it became much too expensive to service (many bits had to be made specially), as Paris proved it was a fire risk waiting to happen and nearly all landings at Heathrow were technical emergencies as it seldom had enough fuel to make a second attempt or go on to another airport - in fact on a couple of occasions so little fuel left that it couldn't taxi and in one case nose dropped causing damage - I had a friend involved with servicing who stated he would never ever fly on it. The Virgin bid was just another bit of Branson's mischief making

 

Err, kind of. If it had not been for the fact that airbus industries wanted the space for development of parts for the A380, it would still be flying today. Also, Bransons bid failed as the french would not release the moulds, casts etc. for spares. Rolls Royce were happy to keep the engines going. I think the truth is tha the french said -"if we cant have it, then nobody can have it!"

[Sean South]

I would let the Racket go bust then write a new UA.

 

That's a little harsh on the staff and the pension holders.....sack the board maybe?!?!?!

What's the pension holders got to do with anything? Their pension fund has to be guaranteed so what's the problem. If you're talking about the investors in the pension funds? Well, you must've heard the warning that investments can go down as well as up and that past performance is not a sign of future performance.

 

I would let the Racket go bust then write a new UA.

Hmm.

Whilst I have little sympathy for their current situation which is largely of their own making, whatever you think of the company, 180 years of continuous service to the Island should not be overlooked so easily.

Unfortunately history is just that: History. People need to look to the future, and the Island would be far better off sorting this out now so that the future of shipping is secure. The IoM needs to free itself of silly user agreements that shackle it to one company. This goes for every service not just the boats. As someone else said there has to be a profitable element in the passenger transport side of it or else the SP wouldn't have signed an agreement tying themselves to it so all Woodwards bleating is just rubbish... Unless he'd like to publish his accounts and prove us wrong!

[When Skies Are Grey]

What's the pension holders got to do with anything? Their pension fund has to be guaranteed so what's the problem. If you're talking about the investors in the pension funds? Well, you must've heard the warning that investments can go down as well as up and that past performance is not a sign of future performance.

 

Slow down yessir......who is the pension fund guaranteed by???

[Sean South]

I think that Mr Robertshaw's piece last year succinctly explained the problem the Island has with the Steam Packet and its owners. I hope that he and his colleagues stand firm.

Typical wannabe politicians rant preaching the populist message. Lots of complaints but no solutions or options.

 

Great scrap the user agreement but can somebody explain how you can ensure that the Island will have a ferry service that is also run to suit the Islands needs rather than to just make the company a profit. How are you going to ensure that there is plenty of freight capacity all year round, prices are kept in check, there is a reasonable frequency of service.

 

If I thought that Market principles would have this covered I would have no issue of it being a free for all but I do not believe that without some intervention the IoM would get the level of service I believe it requires.

So you believe the best solution is to be held to ransom by the Steam Packet with their policy of trying to scare everyone by telling them that "it's us or nobody" in their Mafia style missives? Don't be silly man! There's a lot of profit to be made from both the cargo and the passenger traffic and if the SP aren't willing to do it properly without whinging about fairness all the time they should take their bat and ball and f*** off and there will be other operators who will gladly step into the breach. Remember there is a captive audience for a shipping company and a steady almost guaranteed trade until such time as the Govt build a bridge or a tunnel....

[P.K.]

The real culprit here is the banks and debt financing of purchase and the over inflated value put on the company because it was perceived it had a monopoly under the UA

 

It used to be the case that you could not use the money and assets of a company to purchase its own shares, even to provide security.

 

That got changed and now, like the Glazers and MU and Gillete and LFC, any one who can persuade a bank to loan the money short term to buy the shares can then use the assets as security and re borrow the purchase money via the Company once they are in control so as to repay the original purchase loan, so the new owner does not owe the monmey but the purchased company does.

 

Another flawed Thatcherite deregulatory move, with potentially serious consequences when it goes wrong.

 

Hang on a minute here. Any loans Macquarie have taken out based on the profitability of operations like the SP have nothing whatever to do with the charge levels. As I posted previously they would have tried to leverage the maximum out of the service anyway, irrespective of any debts. And guess what? SO WOULD ANY OTHER SERVICE PROVIDER. The difference is that over-reaching makes you more vulnerable to market forces as you have to add the debt maintenance to the SAG.

 

With the loss of turnover the obvious thing to do is cut the number of crossings, and therefore costs, to match the amount of their remaining freight business. Thus maximising their profitability in line with the decrease in turnover. Unfortunately the debt maintenance stays a constant irrespective of the running costs - and that may be a burden that's too heavy to bear under the latest service levels. Mind you, where's the loan gone? It could be really raking it in elsewhere in the group thank you very much indeedy. And depending on their company structure it might be a better option for them to leave those who loaned the money left holding some not very valuable assets for their pains.

 

As ever, it's all down to the £numbers - which seem elusive...

[Chris Bowen]

isn't there something in the UA about having to invest £x millions in the fleet, which means that they can't even charter the ships ?

 

hands tied behind their backs too

 

Yes, but no. It just means every few years MIOM buy a knackered second hand boat off another M entity at a vastly inflated price and pay M £1,000,000 to get it here. This total is then creamed off the profits which then are "only" 30% .

 

The whole thing is a con. As I said earlier, only one steam packet boat carries freight. The other two are passengers and cars only. If passengers were not profitable, they would not do them

I think you will find that the Steam Packet are bound by the user agreement to carry passengers, also the user agreement allows them to subsidise the passenger service with the profits from the frieght charges.