Jump to content

Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings


Amadeus

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Yes, that stuck me about their statement as well.  If they're not resilient enough to cope with a single officer being off for whatever reason, then it doesn't say much for their organisational abilities.  And if you're relying on the goodwill of existing staff to get you through even minor crises, then it's probably not a good idea to put them on notice.

Of course there's an argument that they don't really need to to provide an evening/overnight passenger service in January and the Arrow will be covering freight.  And this gets out of the Agreement's requirements for twice daily returns.   But it will be still inconvenient for a number of individuals and businesses, particularly those for travelling for work.

Of course they could have some officers on annual leave, which will also exacerbate the issue of cover.

And I'm pretty sure that Brian Thompson said (in one of his MR interviews) there will almost certainly be service disruptions. So it's not unexpected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

And this gets out of the Agreement's requirements for twice daily returns.   But it will be still inconvenient for a number of individuals and businesses, particularly those for travelling for work.

Indeed. I did wonder if, a bit like the Hollywood screenwriters strike has reportedly saved the studios a large amount of money over its duration, this industrial action might actually be to the Packet's financial benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kevster said:

It's going to be available for them to charter - it doesn't mean that it's off down there tomorrow

I understand that.

Of course the UA states that Ben is to be retained as back up, Arrow disposed of. At time of latest UA SPCo only chartered Arrow. The purchase wasn’t in the plan.

Arrow was bought because of two things, her owner wanted to sell, ongoing charter to SPCo wasn’t guaranteed, and SPCo made a profit on sub chartering.

Ben can be operated freight only. Many fewer crew. And Arrow can be chartered out at profit.

Just one correction.

The charter isn’t to Condor, it’s to the States of JSY & GSY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

That means Ben as freight only back up?

Definitely not.

The Ben will not covering any freights runs, or acting as passenger back up anytime soon, as she is currently under a temporary extension to her IOPP certification.

This means she has a power restriction placed on her (except for manoeuvring in port) until full certification is granted. 

New rules started to come into force 2 years ago after a long notice period of statuary obligations that were to be met for her to continue in service. 

Steam Packet have dragged their heels on implementation, perhaps they thought they could sell the Ben and it would be someone else’s problem.

Maybe that sheds a different light on purchase of Arrow and wish to amend UA to sell the Ben.

Maybe it’s why the management are so determined to impose the LoB and won’t go to arbitration. They’re deflecting?

Straitsmann had to comply with the same obligations before she could operate as Condor Islander.

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kipper99 said:

Definitely not.

The Ben will not covering any freights runs, or acting as passenger back up anytime soon, as she is currently under a temporary extension to her IOPP certification.

This means she has a power restriction placed on her (except for manoeuvring in port) until full certification is granted. 

New rules started to come into force 2 years ago after a long notice period of statuary obligations that were to be met for her to continue in service. 

Steam Packet have dragged their heels on implementation, perhaps they thought they could sell the Ben and it would be someone else’s problem.

Maybe that sheds a different light on purchase of Arrow and wish to amend UA to sell the Ben.

Maybe it’s why the management are so determined to impose the LoB and won’t go to arbitration. They’re deflecting?

Straitsmann had to comply with the same obligations before she could operate as Condor Islander.

I'm waiting for the Manx Care advertorial on the benefits of intermittent fasting courtesy of an IOMSPC sponsorship.

 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

I dunno man, you might be. I can remember being on the King Orry overnight boat when I was in school, and that was a long time ago now.

She did some overnight sailings of course, but not year round twice a day to Heysham as claimed by others. Peveril did the freight runs throughout that period, so there was no rationale for a nightly overnight passenger service at low season. Freight subsidises empty passenger accommodation on the combined service. No freight = no service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

She did some overnight sailings of course, but not year round twice a day to Heysham as claimed by others. Peveril did the freight runs throughout that period, so there was no rationale for a nightly overnight passenger service at low season. Freight subsidises empty passenger accommodation on the combined service. No freight = no service.

But it wasn't just some, it was a regular thing, for 3 or 4 years I'd often be away for the weekend and get back at 6am Monday and be expected to go to school. 

Edited by TheTeapot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

But it wasn't just some, it was a regular thing, for 3 or 4 years I'd often be away for the weekend and get back at 6am Monday and be expected to go to school. 

That's right. If you look at my earlier longer post, I mentioned that they did an overnight on Sunday returning Monday morning. I used the outbound leg for business travel. It wasn't nightly through the week all year though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not heard much from the union or demands from them. Beginning to think the statement that someone wants a strike on their CV is true. 
 

also both unions apparently has a say in the design of the crew cabins and accommodation, so did the penny not drop then that this was for LOB ? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

I'm waiting for the Manx Care advertorial on the benefits of intermittent fasting courtesy of an IOMSPC sponsorship.

 

you would have thought this work prior to re certification  could have been carried out while she was in Cammel lairds so she met Marpol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Manxman1234 said:

Not heard much from the union or demands from them. Beginning to think the statement that someone wants a strike on their CV is true. 
 

also both unions apparently has a say in the design of the crew cabins and accommodation, so did the penny not drop then that this was for LOB ? 

100% the union knew about the LOB plan from the very beginning. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...