Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings

[GD4ELI]

41 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Rather than thinking 'oh the steam packet makes £xmillions so we can borrow tons' how about going 'let's lower our profit expectations for once and do something useful like lowering the cost of putting a trailer on the boat'. 

Because two new boats are required, they will not be cheap.

[b4mbi]

27 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

agreed, now that "we" own it, the emphasis should shift from "making vast profits" to "cover running costs"

and not have any money left for replacement tonnage? Or is the Ben going to operate reliably until she's 50?

30 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Rather than thinking 'oh the steam packet makes £xmillions so we can borrow tons' how about going 'let's lower our profit expectations for once and do something useful like lowering the cost of putting a trailer on the boat'. 

Then wonder why everywhere else had a modern, efficient, comfortable, reliable ferry and we don't?

Fuel efficiencies and reduced maintenance costs of a new vessel could potentially be used to reduce trailer costs on boat.

It's always a balancing act, but in theory, now the company is not working for the benefit of shareholders of a Portuguese bank, in the medium term, fares should stabilise/ become more reasonable for commercial traffic.

As has been proven in the past, there is insufficient volume of business to the Island to sustain 2 competitive ferry operations.

[asitis]

13 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

It's always a balancing act, but in theory, now the company is not working for the benefit of shareholders of a Portuguese bank, in the medium term, fares should stabilise/ become more reasonable for commercial traffic.

No its worse its working for the salaries and pension obligations of government !

[b4mbi]

4 minutes ago, asitis said:

No its worse its working for the salaries and pension obligations of government !

Hence my comments on ringfencing returns for port infrastructure investment

[Neil Down]

1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

and not have any money left for replacement tonnage? Or is the Ben going to operate reliably until she's 50?

Then wonder why everywhere else had a modern, efficient, comfortable, reliable ferry and we don't?

Fuel efficiencies and reduced maintenance costs of a new vessel could potentially be used to reduce trailer costs on boat.

It's always a balancing act, but in theory, now the company is not working for the benefit of shareholders of a Portuguese bank, in the medium term, fares should stabilise/ become more reasonable for commercial traffic.

As has been proven in the past, there is insufficient volume of business to the Island to sustain 2 competitive ferry operations.

Running costs to include replacements

[John Wright]

In the interim fuel costs are going up as the latest sulphur burning restrictions bite. That's why the next boats will be LNG.

There's a huge difference between IOMG owning and the Portuguese bank. The bank was shafted by its own greed and the McQuarrie structure where infrastructure assets had been bought (from McQuarrie) by a fund (run by McQuarrie) at inflated prices using a bank loan from Spirito Santo bank and secured on the Steam Packet shares. If you'll recall Steam Packet wasn't performing well enough to generate sufficient dividends to allow the fund to pay back its obligations to Spirito Santo. Spirito Santo foreclosed on its non performing loan and got the Steam Packet shares which it had charged as security. Spirito Santo lost a packet (pun intended) on write downs of its lending.

IoMG has not paid a stupid price and now it has had Steam packet refinance the balance of the ex Spirito Santo loan it just needs to get repaid out of income for the actual purchase price of the assets. So profits are still necessary to achieve that for the next 5 years.

If that is achieved then the purchase of the Steam Packet will stand  IoMG at nothing on its books as all the cost will have been paid for out of Steam Packet revenue.

Its the next step that's important, borrowing to acquire two new vessels, say £140-£150 million, realistically by end 2027, and with them having a life span of 25-30 years that borrowing has to be repaid, with interest, and some reserves built up for the next round of acquisitions.

I'm all in favour of the Steam packet being responsible for terminals and berthing facilities at any port it sails in and out of, including IoM and Heysham. Given the non availability of Birkenhead between November 2019 and May 2021 at least, and possibly permanently, and the fact we may not have the new Liverpool Terminal and berth available before spring 2022 and there are questions as to whether Peel will allow us to continue using the existing landing stage as they are keen to dismantle and start on their cruise berth extension, I think its about time that the new Liverpool folly is abandoned.

If we continue with a fast craft, currently taking about 3 hours between Douglas and Pierhead, you could run it to Heysham, 90 minutes, and lay on a coach to from Liverpool for foot passengers (included in ticket price) for the seasonal day trips and take less time.

The purchase guarantees our sea routes. We are in a much better position than the CI and Condor, where a similar McQuarrie non performing fund mess means they cannot even start looking for new vessels and the BF approach seems mired down.

I don't expect lower fares, I expect guaranteed routes. I don't expect dividend profits distributed to IoMG I hope for fare pricing structures that pay off loans for boats and a reserve and operating costs, in other words, effectively no distributable profit, as the means of controlling fares

 

[Frances]

I suspect this may well come to pass - IoMSPCo tarting up Heysham suggests to me that they plan a Heysham only service in very near future, but that port also belongs to Peel Holdings so I suspect it too could come under threat from a company whose boss exploits the Manx tax structure - the improved road out of Heysham does make a coach trip feasible and with 3 day returns during the summer season the Ben could be 'rested' for half the time (or run even slower on the overnight trip. Getting the rail link improved might well be an option

[Neil Down]

14 minutes ago, John Wright said:

In the interim fuel costs are going up as the latest sulphur burning restrictions bite. That's why the next boats will be LNG.

There's a huge difference between IOMG owning and the Portuguese bank. The bank was shafted by its own greed and the McQuarrie structure where infrastructure assets had been bought (from McQuarrie) by a fund (run by McQuarrie) at inflated prices using a bank loan from Spirito Santo bank and secured on the Steam Packet shares. If you'll recall Steam Packet wasn't performing well enough to generate sufficient dividends to allow the fund to pay back its obligations to Spirito Santo. Spirito Santo foreclosed on its non performing loan and got the Steam Packet shares which it had charged as security. Spirito Santo lost a packet (pun intended) on write downs of its lending.

IoMG has not paid a stupid price and now it has had Steam packet refinance the balance of the ex Spirito Santo loan it just needs to get repaid out of income for the actual purchase price of the assets. So profits are still necessary to achieve that for the next 5 years.

If that is achieved then the purchase of the Steam Packet will stand  IoMG at nothing on its books as all the cost will have been paid for out of Steam Packet revenue.

Its the next step that's important, borrowing to acquire two new vessels, say £140-£150 million, realistically by end 2027, and with them having a life span of 25-30 years that borrowing has to be repaid, with interest, and some reserves built up for the next round of acquisitions.

I'm all in favour of the Steam packet being responsible for terminals and berthing facilities at any port it sails in and out of, including IoM and Heysham. Given the non availability of Birkenhead between November 2019 and May 2021 at least, and possibly permanently, and the fact we may not have the new Liverpool Terminal and berth available before spring 2022 and there are questions as to whether Peel will allow us to continue using the existing landing stage as they are keen to dismantle and start on their cruise berth extension, I think its about time that the new Liverpool folly is abandoned.

If we continue with a fast craft, currently taking about 3 hours between Douglas and Pierhead, you could run it to Heysham, 90 minutes, and lay on a coach to from Liverpool for foot passengers (included in ticket price) for the seasonal day trips and take less time.

The purchase guarantees our sea routes. We are in a much better position than the CI and Condor, where a similar McQuarrie non performing fund mess means they cannot even start looking for new vessels and the BF approach seems mired down.

I don't expect lower fares, I expect guaranteed routes. I don't expect dividend profits distributed to IoMG I hope for fare pricing structures that pay off loans for boats and a reserve and operating costs, in other words, effectively no distributable profit, as the means of controlling fares

 

I think everybody agrees that a certain profit is required but as long as the huge profit margins (if indeed they existed) were reduced to nominal profit margins then nobody can complain. Follow the Jewish sales pitch "earn a little, make a lot"

[Andy Onchan]

26 minutes ago, Frances said:

I suspect this may well come to pass - IoMSPCo tarting up Heysham suggests to me that they plan a Heysham only service in very near future, but that port also belongs to Peel Holdings so I suspect it too could come under threat from a company whose boss exploits the Manx tax structure - the improved road out of Heysham does make a coach trip feasible and with 3 day returns during the summer season the Ben could be 'rested' for half the time (or run even slower on the overnight trip. Getting the rail link improved might well be an option

I understand that Stenna and Peel Ports are sharing the costs of the berth upgrades across t'other side of the Mersey. Whereas IOMG are forking out full whack for the new (IOMSPCo) terminal.

Something not right.

 

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, Grounds Keeper Willy said:

Wouldn’t that be the worst? The end result of us “taking control” of our sea routes for £125M being us having no actual ports to operate our aging craft from other than possibly the worst commercial port in the whole north of the UK right next to a nuclear power station. Hopefully they’ll at least upgrade the vending machine! 

Worst commercial port? Really. Tell that to Seatruck. They have doubled freight throughput in last few years.

Its got a railway line to/from terminal, parking at the terminal, dual carriageway link to a motorway. Name another with such facilities?

Yes, the passenger terminal is crap. But that’s because of sailing times. 4 departures a day, if all sailings were from there, would see enough usage for cafe, shop, open 10.00 to 02.00

[woolley]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Yes, the passenger terminal is crap.  

It's like I would picture a bus station in 1955.

[John Wright]

Just now, woolley said:

It's like I would picture a bus station in 1955.

And with only two buses a day, at 02.15 and 14.15, and a handful of passengers on each, for most departures, is it any wonder it’s not kitted out for thousands.

[quilp]

25 minutes ago, woolley said:

It's like I would picture a bus station in 1955.

 

[woolley]

It's the some dump it was 30 years ago and more. Absolute disgrace. If the owners just spent a little each year on their asset at least it wouldn't look totally neglected. I suppose at least we are not required to walk through a 100 yard maze of perfume and junk food peddlers, so I should be thankful for small mercies.  At least we don't use it often. 

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, woolley said:

It's the some dump it was 30 years ago and more. Absolute disgrace. If the owners just spent a little each year on their asset at least it wouldn't look totally neglected. I suppose at least we are not required to walk through a 100 yard maze of perfume and junk food peddlers, so I should be thankful for small mercies.  At least we don't use it often. 

And has Liverpool ever been any better in that period, or the 30 years before that? And Fleetwood when it operated?