P.K. Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: In reality nothing has yet been published for any of the March sessions, while the most recent Committee available is from early December. Again the more people they employ, the longer it takes them to do even the most basic stuff. That's because more layers of management have to sign it off! The curse of small businesses being sub-contracted by a massive pyramid structure - late payment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 6 hours ago, cissolt said: For anyone not listening: They want to get rid of the Ben and have the arrow as backup. No passenger backup. Liverpool cannot take freight as the terminal wasn't designed for it. Live onboard is required so the ship can shelter at sea. Although every other boat has sheltered in Douglas? I thought live aboard was not principally to do with sheltering out at sea but more about not having to pay overtime/hotels if the boat is stuck in Heysham or Liverpool. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) the more interesting comments besides the admission that the boat was too big for Douglas harbour in extreme weather, and that winter passenger sailings would cease if the boat was out of service but also that 'to cut carbon emissions sailings would be reduced - since the boat is considerably more expensive to run than the Ben I suspect all this is shorthand for a daily freight service by Arrow and 2 or 3 sailings by Manxman per week in the winter except possibly for half term extras. Who specified the boat has not been admitted - but being unsuitable for both harbours takes some beating extra thoughts - if the twice weekly sailings were to Liverpool then this might account for the need for 2 crews on board as to allow some shopping time in Liverpool a 7.30 departure and a 6pm return would need two crews Edited March 25 by Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: I thought live aboard was not principally to do with sheltering out at sea but more about not having to pay overtime/hotels if the boat is stuck in Heysham or Liverpool. Brian the steampacket chap stated that it was solely to allow boats to shelter at see in stormy weather. He also offered/threatened that reduced service is on the cards to meet climate nonsense plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 49 minutes ago, cissolt said: Brian the steampacket chap stated that it was solely to allow boats to shelter at sea in stormy weather. Is it standard practice for a ship to leave harbour and shelter at sea during a storm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 2 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Is it standard practice for a ship to leave harbour and shelter at sea during a storm? It's a poor back door attempt to wasting £millions on a cruise terminal IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 13 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Is it standard practice for a ship to leave harbour and shelter at sea during a storm? It hasn't been for the last 60 years on the island. The phrase 'any port in a storm' still holds true.... Unless they are hiding the real reason for live onboard and using this as an excuse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 I think there's some dots that need to be joined up here. Boats don't shelter at sea when their home ports are available nearby, unless there is a problem with those ports accommodating those specific ships. I've been on MXN, it's comfortable and well appointed, a quantum leap forward from the Ben. But it was/seemed to be almost empty during my (daytime) crossing, I was wondering, How are they making money like this? If it's heavier on fuel too then the economics may not be stacking up, which would explain why there are "proposals" to reduce sailings. We were repeatedly told that MXN is emissions compliant during the procurement spiel so I think emissions reasons are bollocks. Either this has been planned all along or there have been a number of fuck ups and people are desperately now trying to cover their arses; and as usual, it ends up as a reduction in services to the users. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 56 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Either this has been planned all along or there have been a number of fuck ups and people are desperately now trying to cover their arses; and as usual, it ends up as a reduction in services to the users. I think I would go with part B, the fuck ups ! Either way the taxpayer pays and there are too few of those ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: Either this has been planned all along or there have been a number of fuck ups It's all planned and full of fuck ups both at the same time!! The 'Ben sold to Scotland' story that came out the other year was true, and accidently published, and they've been lying about it all the whole time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: I think there's some dots that need to be joined up here. a quantum leap forward from the Ben. But it was/seemed to be almost empty during my (daytime) crossing, I was wondering, How are they making money like this? ... the PAX loading figures for the Ben were obviously known to the SPCo though not publicised - from 15 years of regular sailings mid week in winter the Ben was seldom even half full - many times less than 100 passengers - maybe weekends were better used. The Manxman is very comfortable but considerably too large for over half the year 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 15 hours ago, Two-lane said: Is it standard practice for a ship to leave harbour and shelter at sea during a storm? I thought harbours were intended as a safe haven from the depradations of a stormy sea? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 6 hours ago, Non-Believer said: I think there's some dots that need to be joined up here. Boats don't shelter at sea when their home ports are available nearby, unless there is a problem with those ports accommodating those specific ships. I've been on MXN, it's comfortable and well appointed, a quantum leap forward from the Ben. But it was/seemed to be almost empty during my (daytime) crossing, I was wondering, How are they making money like this? If it's heavier on fuel too then the economics may not be stacking up, which would explain why there are "proposals" to reduce sailings. We were repeatedly told that MXN is emissions compliant during the procurement spiel so I think emissions reasons are bollocks. Either this has been planned all along or there have been a number of fuck ups and people are desperately now trying to cover their arses; and as usual, it ends up as a reduction in services to the users. Emissions is the new word for fuel use. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 7 minutes ago, doc.fixit said: I thought harbours were intended as a safe haven from the depradations of a stormy sea? Of course not. We have recently re-written millenia of maritime doctrine. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 1 hour ago, The Phantom said: Of course not. We have recently re-written millenia of maritime doctrine. What's surprising is that the committee just accept what they are told and don't question this kind of nonsense. 2 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.