Jump to content

Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings


Amadeus

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, woolley said:

[...] For the rest, as I said, I just cannot see the advantage to anyone of perpetuating such a falsehood - i.e, that the Ben is on standby, ready to sail at 12 hours notice if it isn't true. It's fraught with risk.

The advantage is that anything else would mean admitting that they had made a mistake and we know that would rather spend vast amounts of public money than say that.  And they can simply get get round the problem by not cancelling Manxman sailings before the 12 hour deadline.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, John Wright said:

But Liverpool is nothing to do with Steam Packet purchase, ownership or anything else.

Separate and very stupid unwise decision, but totally independent of purchase and you can’t lump together. Would have been spent come what may.

 

If it is a requirement of the Steam Packet to operate a service to Liverpool, the cost of a terminal there should be part of the cost/value of the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

The advantage is that anything else would mean admitting that they had made a mistake and we know that would rather spend vast amounts of public money than say that.  And they can simply get get round the problem by not cancelling Manxman sailings before the 12 hour deadline.

But shit happens. Manxman could go tech for days or longer, and perhaps even have to be taken away for attention. I know what you are saying about the track record, but there just seems too much reputational risk to this particular lie, if it is a lie.

It's very hard to believe that there is this ship sitting in the harbour, crewed and ready for action in 12 hours, but in fact it isn't. It might as well be a cardboard cutout. It's all just a lie somewhere between the Steamie and the Govt, and they're doing it at whatever cost simply because they won't admit they cocked up on the regulations/upgrade requirements. And they're all sitting there with fingers crossed, praying to God that Manxman keeps trucking. Too farfetched. Implausible, no?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Two-lane said:

If it is a requirement of the Steam Packet to operate a service to Liverpool, the cost of a terminal there should be part of the cost/value of the company.

Not really.  Because if it became possible that no one was allowed to operate a sea service to Liverpool due to the lack of a terminal, then the requirement would have to change.  In actual fact the Steam Packet were happy with the original Peel proposal and unhappy with the alternative the DoI insisted upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, woolley said:

But shit happens. Manxman could go tech for days or longer, and perhaps even have to be taken away for attention. I know what you are saying about the track record, but there just seems too much reputational risk to this particular lie, if it is a lie.

Oh quite.  I'm not saying it's rational, just that's how they seem to think.  As far as they are concerned the only 'reputational risk' is to their infallibility and if reality undermines that, they will simply come out with more ridiculous excuses and blame everyone else.  If it all goes completely wrong, they'll just hire a KC to produce a long report and cherry-pick a few phrases to claim it exonerates them.  And most of the politicians will support them all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, woolley said:

 

It's very hard to believe that there is this ship sitting in the harbour, crewed and ready for action in 12 hours, but in fact it isn't. It might as well be a cardboard cutout. It's all just a lie somewhere between the Steamie and the Govt, and they're doing it at whatever cost simply because they won't admit they cocked up on the regulations/upgrade requirements. And they're all sitting there with fingers crossed, praying to God that Manxman keeps trucking. Too farfetched. Implausible, no?

What exactly is the situation with the Ben? I've heard it mentioned there was a paperwork issue...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

The inspection/certification was described in a link above. There are no grandfather rights I’m aware of. Think exemptions are 12 months at a time. But I’d have to research. She either has an exemption and 7kts doesn’t apply, or she doesn’t and 7kts does apply.

Inspection and recertification won’t be done at the drop of a hat or at no expense.

The only way out of this is to get the Ben compliant.

Or to run her on MGO rather than LSHFO, assuming engine capable. Higher fuel costs, but still could run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sailing cancelled. 
 

I was at the sea terminal just as it arrived into port and a few ambulances came flying into the area. 
 

the boy on a school trip supposedly leaving tonight. Another waste of money no doubt. 
shambles

  • Like 2
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...