Deepwater for Cruise Ships

[LightBulb]

On 1/17/2017 at 2:45 PM, rmanx said:

 

Will cost a lot more after Brexit mind

After Brexit ( if it ever happens ) how many of the finacial sector compaines will move off island ?, and we need to look at other options, and this option of a "cruise terminal" may well save our bacon. 

[LightBulb]

On 1/17/2017 at 1:43 PM, mannin1 said:

Why would we ? we cant even run our hospital ffs

That could well be down to the expansion of our medical tourism / medical residents so to speak, they come here because they can get an hospital / dental appointment within a day  ?

[LightBulb]

On 1/17/2017 at 11:22 PM, Manx Bean said:

For one, I suspect £50m was just plucked out of the air. Two, if Government fund this they really are stupid. Three, anyone who thinks cruise ships justify keeping the horse trams they are deluded and in need of a happy slap.

There seems little point in trying to attract cruise ships here if there is next to feck all for the poor souls to do when they land. More than once last summer I saw gangs of bedraggled, cagoule-clad passengers desperately trying to find something to do having walked Strand Street in the pissing rain. i even once witnessed a coach load of passengers being dropped outside Jurby Junk. I kid you not!!

 

As much as i love the isle of Man, it is what it is. It is not a dream cruise ship excursion destination.

Just out of interest, Has Jurby Junk now closed, or is it on its second / third / 4th/  closing down sale ?

Edited August 10, 2019 by LightBulb

[Ham_N_Eggs]

21 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

That could well be down to the expansion of our medical tourism / medical residents so to speak, they come here because they can get an hospital / dental appointment within a day  ?

No one can get a dentist appointment within a day on the NHS.

[Roger Mexico]

4 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

After Brexit ( if it ever happens ) how many of the finacial sector compaines will move off island ?, and we need to look at other options, and this option of a "cruise terminal" may well save our bacon. 

No it won't.  You're in danger of falling for the Politician's Syllogism:

We must do something
This is something
Therefore, we must do this.

Unfortunately so are some of our politicians.  But anyone who knows anything about tourism knows that the cruise market is not one that produces much in the way of earnings (as @mollag pointed out) and nothing that justifies putting in much in way of capital investment.  Most places that do have a lot of cruise visitors (such as Venice or Barcelona) regard them as a curse.

Apart from the fairly small specialist market that we already get (and that MNH could probably deal with) all that is driving this call for cruise ships is a small number of well-paid civil servants at the DfE who desperately want to justify their jobs.

[Roger Mexico]

21 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

Just out of interest, Has Jurby Junk now closed, or is it on its second / third / 4th/  closing down sale ?

Closed last September and the remaining stock was auctioned off in November.  There's no Chrystals catalogues online before this Feb, so I'm unable to tell you what fabulous sums Stella's merchandise ended up fetching.

[LightBulb]

On 1/19/2017 at 1:15 PM, Tarne said:

That's more sensible at 25-30 years, though starting off at 60,000 cruise ship passengers is daft, as is the £7 m per annum to the Orkney Islands used as a bench mark, as it's only recently hit that. In 2014 it was only £3 million. Orkney looks good at the minute because it's grown substantially as a cruise ship destination in the past 5 years so bear that in mind - it can easily disappear in that short span of time too.

 

Thanks for posting however, cleared up a lot.

Would the draft of a cruise liner be enough to enable it to dock on the queens pier in Ramsey, when it is finnished ?

[Non-Believer]

5 minutes ago, LightBulb said:

Would the draft of a cruise liner be enough to enable it to dock on the queens pier in Ramsey, when it is finnished ?

A cruise liner would flatten the Queen's Pier with only a slight nudge.

[kevster]

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

A cruise liner would flatten the Queen's Pier with only a slight nudge.

A draft of one wouldn't  

Edited August 10, 2019 by kevster

[LightBulb]

On 1/19/2017 at 6:09 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

So what would they spend their money on here?

 

Hotels? No they brought one with them?

Nightlife? No, they'll have fooked off toward their next destination by then and tucking into...

...Food? No, they have an all in luxury food package on board.

Booze? Unlikely in the daytime.

 

So it's a £50m gamble on getting a few bus loads to MNH sites. Like what happens already with the 20 ships that visit here each year over 3 months, compared to a 10 month season in sunny Gibraltar that gets 20 a month visiting.

 

This stupid idea needs nipping in the bud now and firmly fooked off to La La Land where it belongs. It will take 50 years before it even breaks even, not counting the time value of money and what £50m invested would be worth by then.

Albert, You could have said that about our very sucessfull film industry, which has made ??

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, LightBulb said:

Albert, You could have said that about our very sucessfull film industry, which has made ??

Has made the Island a lot skinter after HMRC figured the scam and pulled the plug.

[LightBulb]

On 1/19/2017 at 7:42 PM, Manx Bean said:

Fine, if you must do it - the private sector MUST fund it.

 

I find it hilarious and also irritating that almost everyone (no matter how tenuously) connected to Tourism seems to think the taxpayer and Government should be responsible for doing everything for them! If I were to be running a hairdressers or say florist, would I be expecting Government to support me financially, advertise my business, produce websites and brochures for me, have MHKs discussing me in the House of Keys?

 

No - they wouldn't give a flying shit about me.

 

Quite frankly, when the Health Minister needs to come to Tynwald with her begging bowl (lets's face it, having to sort out her predecessors clusterfuck) to beg for another £11.1m to keep the hospital afloat, I think we have more significant things to focus our very limited resources on..

That only because of the health tourism,  manx people don`t need it, they are very very healthy.

[LightBulb]

On 1/19/2017 at 7:49 PM, Lxxx said:

So where does the estimated £50m cost come into it? FIFTY MILLION POUNDS.

VAT, reclaiming,  but just keep that under your belt, ( mums the word ) we don`t want another VAT scene with the UK government.

[Bobbie Bobster]

1 hour ago, LightBulb said:

Like what ?

Which bit of this post of mine from January 2017 are you interested in, the possible second order spinoff benefits of a cruise berth or the many other more economically beneficial ways of spending the same amount of money?

[P.K.]

This is concerning. From Roger Mexico previously:

It's worth looking at the full answer they gave:

  Quote

Upon review the Department accepts that no public harm will result in providing this information and considers that it should be released. Therefore we are disclosing the following information relating to the value of a cruise passenger when visiting the Isle of Man.

The Deloitte report on development of an Isle of Man cruise ship deep water berth, submitted to the Department in July 2017, states “We have calculated an average of £44.48 as the average passenger gross spend in the economy per head”.

In terms of the methodology, the report states that “We have obtained the average passenger gross spends from a number of reports, including historic Isle of Man figures , other comparable islands and Rest of World (ROW) from 2012-2015, resulting in a calculated average gross spend of £44.48”.

So they paid Deloittes to basically come up with a vague guess - and are still trying to hide the way it was calculated. if it was based on anything at all."

The only reason I can think of as to why they went to Deloitte to tell them what's actually happening on their own doorstep is the usual IOMG justification to wit:

"Not my fault. I hired the best people (public) money could buy. I knew they were the best because they were the most expensive..."

Presumably the mothership keeps a record of the numbers going ashore so they don't leave anyone behind? So there's the footfall.

Then hire a gaggle of pretty girlies with clipboards to ask the returning passegers what they did, what they spent, what they would like etc etc and most importantly does using a shuttle make any difference?  Incidentally that's not sexist that's simply going with what's known to work.

At the very least those keen on this idea should be made to stand and watch the whole embarkation exercise so they can see for themselves just how little these people have purchased.

Then they might get some REAL data to make properly informed decisions.

Just to make a change....