Jump to content

Deepwater for Cruise Ships


Manx Bean

Recommended Posts

Potential benefits:

more tourists

more economic activity

more resilience

cheaper ferry

Cost worst case £5m p.a. over 15 years - then 85 years further usage. 

For comparison, Gov't are paying £14m p.a. in interest costs on the MEA loans until 2030.

Not worth it?  It's infrastructure. It will pay itself back over it's lifetime just a question of how long, even if it's 30 or 40 years - I don't envisage a future for the Island without ferry services!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Potential benefits:

more tourists

more economic activity

more resilience

cheaper ferry

Cost worst case £5m p.a. over 15 years - then 85 years further usage. 

For comparison, Gov't are paying £14m p.a. in interest costs on the MEA loans until 2030.

Not worth it?  It's infrastructure. It will pay itself back over it's lifetime just a question of how long, even if it's 30 or 40 years - I don't envisage a future for the Island without ferry services!

white elephant.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Potential benefits:

more tourists

more economic activity

more resilience

cheaper ferry

Cost worst case £5m p.a. over 15 years - then 85 years further usage. 

For comparison, Gov't are paying £14m p.a. in interest costs on the MEA loans until 2030.

Not worth it?  It's infrastructure. It will pay itself back over it's lifetime just a question of how long, even if it's 30 or 40 years - I don't envisage a future for the Island without ferry services!

Nor do I.

Long live the SPCo. Stick your cruises, look after the locals and their daily ferries. Never mind these crooked business folk just out to pillage our funds.

This whole idea is, in my view more than stupid and I hope upon hope that our elected MHKs have the sense and balls to bin it before it rapes us of another massive number of millions.

How people like B4mbi can spew all these figures and fantasies out is beyond me. The word "chancers" springs to mind.

Please listen to people like "Homarus", he knows what he is talking about and isn't claiming any fee, unlike the rest.

Somebody has already said about the ferries being bigger and sailing 3 or 4 times per week, whereas now it is twice daily.

I and many others are happy the way things are. 

Edited by dilligaf
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

Potential benefits:

more tourists

I have to say I can understand why cruise ships visit places like Venice.

However every time I'm on a ferry berthing at Douglas I'm struck by just how dissimilar the two places are. Maybe it's just me I suppose.....

Creating an expensive deep water berth IN THE HOPE that it will attract folks TO SPEND THEIR MONEY in Douglas seems to me to be sheer folly based on vapourware.

However if there is real data showing it's a worthwhile investment then fair shout.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

I have to say I can understand why cruise ships visit places like Venice.

However every time I'm on a ferry berthing at Douglas I'm struck by just how dissimilar the two places are. Maybe it's just me I suppose.....

Creating an expensive deep water berth IN THE HOPE that it will attract folks TO SPEND THEIR MONEY in Douglas seems to me to be sheer folly based on vapourware.

However if there is real data showing it's a worthwhile investment then fair shout.

I'll bet that you will not be holding your breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, b4mbi said:

 

To expect a private investor to fully fund the expansion of Douglas Port would mean that the private operator would want control of the revenues and operations for the entire port. I seriously doubt that it's in IOMG interests to sell/give up the operational responsibility for the port, so there has to be some element of Government/ hence taxpayer involvement.

 

I don't get this.

If the proposal is to redevelop the whole port complex then it's not a cruise terminal, it's a port redevelopment and I would agree that Gov't funding should be involved. 

If it's a cruise terminal then, like the  SPCo linkspan, it's just an add-on part of the overall port which can be owned by and exclusively used by its private owners without Gov't funding.

Which is it? The addition of a cruise berth capability to our existing port, or redevelopment of the whole port? If the proposal is for the latter I have missed that emphasis in the reporting. If it is the former then I don't see any basis for the claim that the operator would want or be justified in wanting control of the revenues and operations of the rest of the port - their interest would be limited to the operations and revenues of the deep-water berth / cruise terminal.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, b4mbi said:

Potential benefits:

more tourists

more economic activity

more resilience

cheaper ferry

Cost worst case £5m p.a. over 15 years - then 85 years further usage. 

For comparison, Gov't are paying £14m p.a. in interest costs on the MEA loans until 2030.

Not worth it?  It's infrastructure. It will pay itself back over it's lifetime just a question of how long, even if it's 30 or 40 years - I don't envisage a future for the Island without ferry services!

There can be no business case for this “investment” at all. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dilligaf said:

Long live the SPCo.

How people like B4mbi can spew all these figures and fantasies out is beyond me.

I and many others are happy the way things are. 

Here's a figure for you. How about £15m per annum ebitda for your beloved iomspc on average since 2012. Where does that money go? Not back into the local economy, it goes to pay interest on their debt.

Why else would they propose an agreement out to 2040's? Because they can't afford to invest in new tonnage without it.

If you're happy with the way things are, then you're one of those rare people that don't complain about ferry prices and are happy that the majority of their profit goes to Portugal rather than stays on the Island.

@craggy It's a port redevelopment that is being proposed, incorporating a deep water berth that can take cruise ships and potentially bigger ro-pax vessels.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, b4mbi said:

Here's a figure for you. How about £15m per annum ebitda for your beloved iomspc on average since 2012. Where does that money go? Not back into the local economy, it goes to pay interest on their debt.

Why else would they propose an agreement out to 2040's? Because they can't afford to invest in new tonnage without it.

If you're happy with the way things are, then you're one of those rare people that don't complain about ferry prices and are happy that the majority of their profit goes to Portugal rather than stays on the Island.

@craggy It's a port redevelopment that is being proposed, incorporating a deep water berth that can take cruise ships and potentially bigger ro-pax vessels.

 

 

See my next post, as I guessed you would say something stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, b4mbi said:
9 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

I'm not convinced that B4mbi is on the same planet as us and does not appear to be the full shilling, as we used to say.

Oh come on! At least I'm not saying the earth is flat!! :lol:

Seriously though,  PGW's madcap ideas and yours are not that different. Both mental.

Edited by dilligaf
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...