woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 hours ago, Non-Believer said: +1, this is what it's all about. IoMG might well have bought the Steamie to secure the service from the clutches of assorted vultures but big part of the appeal was revenue to pay Govt's own cast-iron entitlements to itself. Unfortunately, so far they are turning what was a very profitable operation into a shambles. We can see similar with Cube and the TT merchandise - The Reverse Midas Touch, driven by greed. Better to be kind and say the Reverse Midas Touch is driven by incompetence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 minutes ago, woolley said: Better to be kind and say the Reverse Midas Touch is driven by incompetence. Going on previous business involving a proposed 5% cut of revenue for an involved individual, I think greed plays more than a small part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, John Wright said: That’s an intransigent attitude. I’ve not suggested binding arbitration. Just arbitration to get them in the room and talking. Going to arbitration isn’t government racing in and telling anyone to settle. It’s the responsible thing for government to encourage between employer and employee when a nationally vital service is endangered. The legislation actually provides for it. It was you that said government should send the message "arbitrate now". So with the weight of government behind the process it would be difficult to reject the outcome, and therefore somewhat disingenuous to call it non-binding. I still think it will be settled financially. They'll tweak a few inducements and the vast majority will settle. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, Fred the shred said: The Board of the IOM Steam Packet has a duty to the public to provide a secure and viable service. Viable means making a profit at best and not making a loss at worse, breaking even would be acceptable. If this means that some crew members lose some privileges that they have previously enjoyed that is the tough decision that has to be taken. If you choose to go to sea as a career surely going home at night is not a given. I do feel for the crew that are affected it is hard to get the conditions you work under changed but they , like the Unions, have known about it for two years now it was hardly a surprise move like some of the public seem to think. As for the Government getting involved I really do not think that would help matters. Of course the usual attention seeking MHK s are band standing as per usual, pathetic. I don't believe that break even is acceptable for such a large investment in a previously highly profitable undertaking, unless it could be proven that lower charges would enconomically benefit the Island to a greater extent than the revenue foregone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, John Wright said: The LoB not on duty crew don’t count towards the complement required to operate the evacuation system. The clue is that they aren’t on duty. Great stuff. "We're sinking. Abandon ship. Get your arse to the muster station now!" "Er.. I don't think so. I'm off duty." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 45 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: The honest answer is I don't know, however, if it is like many maritime organisations you are looking at a very complex web of organisations being involved. The Senior Officers are often employed directly by the organisation and would probably be paid from the Isle of Man. Your catering/retail staff are probably employed via a different company and paid from wherever that business is based. The other crew are probably paid via another company and again could be paid from a variety of countries depending where that business is based. I would find it unlikely that everyone on board is employed directly by SPCo. If you look at the letter that was sent before Christmas giving notice it came from Manx Sea Transport Guernsey Ltd. I think all of the seagoing crew are employed by that wholly owned subsidiary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, woolley said: If you look at the letter that was sent before Christmas giving notice it came from Manx Sea Transport Guernsey Ltd. I think all of the seagoing crew are employed by that wholly owned subsidiary. and is that why they don't pay any NI contributions in the isle of man or tax if they don't reside here ? anyone know whats happening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 8 hours ago, CrazyDave said: Arrow can’t dock until after Manxman leaves in the morning. So stuff is much later getting u loaded. Hence the impact to businesses and hence my post. Why? There are two link spans. Manage it in the summer with manannan and Arrow at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, Omobono said: and is that why they don't pay any NI contributions in the isle of man or tax if they don't reside here ? anyone know whats happening I can't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure that was the reason it was set up when the Steam Packet was a private company. Some difference in Guernsey law perhaps that makes it cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, Cambon said: Why? There are two link spans. Manage it in the summer with manannan and Arrow at times. I must admit that this was my first thought. Manxman could surely use Victoria Pier again as it did a few weeks ago, at least at most states of the tide. I assume there is a reason why Arrow can't discharge there. Perhaps incompatible with the very heavies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 10 minutes ago, woolley said: Great stuff. "We're sinking. Abandon ship. Get your arse to the muster station now!" "Er.. I don't think so. I'm off duty." That’s not what I said. I said they don’t count to the complement required. In other words the on duty crew must have a full complement of persons qualified to deploy the MES before she can sail. Clearly the off duty crew will pitch in, but they don’t count towards the required number. I was answering Frances who suggested that LoB was necessary to get qualified crew numbers up to the correct number for the Maritime Evacuation System. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Just now, John Wright said: That’s not what I said. I said they don’t count to the complement required. In other words the on duty crew must have a full complement of persons qualified to deploy the MES before she can sail. Clearly the off duty crew will pitch in, but they don’t count towards the required number. I was answering Frances who suggested that LoB was necessary to get qualified crew numbers up to the correct number for the Maritime Evacuation System. I know, but the logical conclusion of what you said was amusing. "Go away. I'm watching a film!!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 31 minutes ago, woolley said: I don't believe that break even is acceptable for such a large investment in a previously highly profitable undertaking, unless it could be proven that lower charges would enconomically benefit the Island to a greater extent than the revenue foregone. Fully agree. Anyway, there won’t be much in distributable profit available for dividends after repaying the Mx shipbuilding loan, the Manannan replacement shipbuilding loan, the 6 years purchase on the goodwill and the balance of the Banco Spirito Santo loan that was taken over and refinanced 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, John Wright said: Fully agree. Anyway, there won’t be much in distributable profit available for dividends after repaying the Mx shipbuilding loan, the Manannan replacement shipbuilding loan, the 6 years purchase on the goodwill and the balance of the Banco Spirito Santo loan that was taken over and refinanced Indeed, and knowing our luck and the record of our indomitable rulers, it will probably never turn a profit again. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, Cambon said: Why? There are two link spans. Manage it in the summer with manannan and Arrow at times. No idea. I don’t drive big boats or arrange their docking 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.