Mezeron & Steam Packet Master Thread

[manxman8180]

Everyone appears to believe that this new operation will be around for 'ever' as a competitor to the SP. The new route and entire operation is in it's infancy, so let's just sit back and wait a while before we start making any predictions about the 'future'.

 

For instance, a couple of days of bad weather when the BMC sails and the others don't, may just get Tesco et al reconsidering.

 

I don't know the limits of each vessel, however, my past experience of these types of freight vessels is that the BMC would be capable of handling higher seas.

 

I thinl the SP can genuinely cope / compete in the revised market place, but if the other operation continues, you will see a reduction in services in line with the UA. Even making the BMC pure freight on all (or most) overnight crossings would save a decent wedge in staffing / operation costs. Of course, that would lead to redundancies etc, or at lease a reduction in seasonal employment and different contracts for staff.

[Lost Login]

 

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....

 

I do not believe the best solution is to be held to Ransom by the SP. I do not think that is any solution.

 

However neither do I believe that free market forces will provide broadly what the requirement requires. You apparently do and that some fairy godmother will magically step in if the SP goes tits up. That is OK for you as you live in Ireland and will not be affected by what happens.

 

I accept that it may be profitable to run both cargo and traffic but that is only part of the point. Ignoring prices, to be profitable you basically want to do as few as crossings as possible as full as possible. That means cutting down big time on sailings. If mid week boats to Liverpool are on average only quarter full cut from two a day or one every couple of days.

 

What the Island want's though in terms of frequency of service for what is also a transport link is not necessarily compatable with the business model of making the best profit. How to do square that circle without some level of intervention? If you have a solution that would work I am sure 1,000s of other would love to hear it as it will allay our fees that in years time we will have a services that will be sufficient to bring the majority of goods and services into the Island but that is an awful transport link. A link that is essentail to the Island

[Andy730]

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

They should have given them to Branson, but lets not start another thread within this one, please.

 

But in answer to you comments, I didn't mention the Manannan; it was the Snaefell that I was referring to as being cold and drafty. They should have written it off when it 1/2 sank a while back.

 

Also, on another note. I'm quite sure that the on going 3 engine issue on the Manannan has to be a cost saving exercise. The reported crankshaft problem can be fixed 'in situ' and wouldn't take that long, and could be carried out while the ship remained in service.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Andy730

[ThankU]

The IOMSP could always get rid of all UK and Manx staff and recruit some cheap Polish crew like all the rest, may even start a trend here.

[Jimcalagon]

The IOMSP could always get rid of all UK and Manx staff and recruit some cheap Polish crew like all the rest, may even start a trend here.

 

They're halfway there on that already, aren't they?

[cheeky boy]

I was thinking along the lines of charging per metre of freight for the use of the liknspans, that money would then be allocated on a per passenger basis back to the operator

The DHPP or whatever they are now could then insist that only bulk cargo is loaded non ro-ro ensuring that all road freight used the linkspans

 

Thank you for your input

 

PS, the papers have been late every morning this week. Is this the SPC turning the screw?

 

So basically compulsory use and a levy on all freight being introduced to the IoM to subsidise passenger services. I can see that going down well with those who ship freight bbyand craine on and off i.e. Mezzeron. I can see the first that will happen is wwholesallers and retailers will put their prices up and blame the compulsory freight charge you introduced. I can not see that being a popular measure!

 

 

Scrapping the UA in favour of a freight levy/passenger subsidy would allow competition on a level playing field as long as road freight was obliged to use ro-ro

Competition would keep a check on freight fares and the availability of a passenger subsidy would ensure continuation of that service

If the SPC were making 30% profit as suggested even whilst repaying a £200 mil loan, it looks like there may well be room for two operators

[gazza]

Why should there be a freight levy to pay peoples trips away.

 

There should be no levy on any of it.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Steam Packet to investigate potential response to Mezeron threat.....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJcJVxxAFvY&feature=player_embedded#

[GD4ELI]

Why should there be a freight levy to pay peoples trips away.

 

There should be no levy on any of it.

 

I agree - I was thinking exactly the same. If the boat's too expensive stay home or move to the mainland.

[manshimajin]

You have already seen in the gentle warnings about cut backs they have started to ensure MHk's and Government are being fed the message.

Lost Login I don't doubt that the IOMSPC may have to consider some new ways of running its business if faced with more competition than they are used to. This may either produce more effective operations and/or may increase costs. That is a commercial decision. Phil Gawne does not seem to believe that they should be offered special support.

 

However I do not agree with you that Mark Woodward's response has been 'gentle' - I would characterise it more as a 'panicked' response. IMO he has struck a more threatening/bullying tone than is needed if he is confident in his business. Irrespective of what MAY happen, the current situation seems to have highlighted problems with both the lack of anticipation of competition and possibly, from comments, the quality of service at the IOMSPC.

 

The overall utilisation of the IOMSPC fleet has been less than 40%. This might have offered opportunities before now for the IOMSPC to attract more passengers and, if comments on this thread are correct, possibly to use some spare capacity to attract existing container traffic over from Mezeron through pricing. So instead of being on the back foot the IOMSPC might have been able to be on the front foot.

[mannin1]

The IOMSP could always get rid of all UK and Manx staff and recruit some cheap Polish crew like all the rest, may even start a trend here.

 

 

I think they have had a head start on you there!

[Lost Login]

he has struck a more threatening/bullying tone than is needed if he is confident in his business.

 

He may be confident he may be not I have no idea. For all I know they may just be seeing it as as a way to squeeze a bit more out of the Government. Either way they have been given a card to play and they are playing it.

[Sean South]

You have already seen in the gentle warnings about cut backs they have started to ensure MHk's and Government are being fed the message.

Lost Login I don't doubt that the IOMSPC may have to consider some new ways of running its business if faced with more competition than they are used to. This may either produce more effective operations and/or may increase costs. That is a commercial decision. Phil Gawne does not seem to believe that they should be offered special support.

 

However I do not agree with you that Mark Woodward's response has been 'gentle' - I would characterise it more as a 'panicked' response. IMO he has struck a more threatening/bullying tone than is needed if he is confident in his business. Irrespective of what MAY happen, the current situation seems to have highlighted problems with both the lack of anticipation of competition and possibly, from comments, the quality of service at the IOMSPC.

 

The overall utilisation of the IOMSPC fleet has been less than 40%. This might have offered opportunities before now for the IOMSPC to attract more passengers and, if comments on this thread are correct, possibly to use some spare capacity to attract existing container traffic over from Mezeron through pricing. So instead of being on the back foot the IOMSPC might have been able to be on the front foot.

I think you've summed it up perfectly there.

[Jam_Sandwich]

Bring it on

 

Too long have they been complacent, not responding to complaints, severely lacking in customer care etc etc. Give them a stiff run for there money...

 

Can they ship people by containers

[pongo]

Why should there be a freight levy to pay peoples trips away.

 

There should be no levy on any of it.

 

Agreed. It's as if road haulage were expected to fund coach travel.