Jetfour Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 3 hours ago, Roger Ram said: Say what now? Spring tides happen twice every month. A major spring (just after full moon) and a minor spring (just after new moon]. Bigger tides occur around the equinoxes and when low pressure systems are over the Irish Sea basin. Neap tides, (small range) occur between the springs. Springs are when high tide is around 12 noon and 12 midnight. Neaps when high tide is around 9am and 9pm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetfour Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 Here’s the tides:- https://ntslf.org/tides/tidepred?port=Liverpool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 1 hour ago, Banker said: Not to do with new terminal but report showing freight charges are highest in world apparently https://manx.news/report-slams-steam-packet-high-freight-costs/?feed_id=12638&_unique_id=667edb8f6a4a0&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1CtKDemtvbrxDnlVwjVmqAPeOYdSS2Igc-79w4eRFgShkZmIkOKA2Lgh8_aem_Cm7zZpZO__FCRtfbxtY39Q And this would come as a surprise to whom. The cookie monster maybe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 28 Author Share Posted June 28 52 minutes ago, Two-lane said: That is Part 1 of the story. Part 2 is an analysis of where the differences in costs are. Part 3 requires little analysis. Where the money is going and why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ram Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 56 minutes ago, Jetfour said: Spring tides happen twice every month. A major spring (just after full moon) and a minor spring (just after new moon]. Bigger tides occur around the equinoxes and when low pressure systems are over the Irish Sea basin. Neap tides, (small range) occur between the springs. Springs are when high tide is around 12 noon and 12 midnight. Neaps when high tide is around 9am and 9pm. Yes I know. That is why I was asking why @A fool and his money.....was asking if we have low tides at this time of year, and saying that March was the spring tide. Maybe he didn’t finish primary school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 1 hour ago, Roger Ram said: Yes I know. That is why I was asking why @A fool and his money.....was asking if we have low tides at this time of year, and saying that March was the spring tide. Maybe he didn’t finish primary school. Yeah whatever Dave, I've already acknowledged that mistake. We all make them, although not all of us are man enough to own them. The CM still hasn't resigned, yet you're still here 😉, just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 The problem with the report is that it just presents raw data. So, when it compares Fishguard Rosslare with Douglas Heysham it fails to factor in that Stena Nórdica is 40 m longer than Manxman and takes fewer cars and passengers, and more freight in its mix, with trailer capacity nearly 50% more. Operating costs won’t be hugely different. So they get a return at a lower unit price. It’s the same with the Scots routes, but the variables are different. We know that the Scottish Executive subsidise the cost of operating by at least 50-60% of the passenger fare, and by the ownership and operating structure whereby they own the assets, the boats, which are paid for by tax payers, and the boats are operated by another executive owned company which has tendered for the lowest subsidy over the franchise period. Then, on top of that the Scottish Executive pegs freight fares to road equivalent pricing. Of course, someone pays, whether it’s the tax payer or the commercial concern or the consumer. To. Compare Scottish Island route freight fares with Manx ones is intellectually dishonest if you don’t take the tax payer subsidy into account. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 15 hours ago, John Wright said: The problem with the report is that it just presents raw data. So, when it compares Fishguard Rosslare with Douglas Heysham it fails to factor in that Stena Nórdica is 40 m longer than Manxman and takes fewer cars and passengers, and more freight in its mix, with trailer capacity nearly 50% more. Operating costs won’t be hugely different. So they get a return at a lower unit price. It’s the same with the Scots routes, but the variables are different. We know that the Scottish Executive subsidise the cost of operating by at least 50-60% of the passenger fare, and by the ownership and operating structure whereby they own the assets, the boats, which are paid for by tax payers, and the boats are operated by another executive owned company which has tendered for the lowest subsidy over the franchise period. Then, on top of that the Scottish Executive pegs freight fares to road equivalent pricing. Of course, someone pays, whether it’s the tax payer or the commercial concern or the consumer. To. Compare Scottish Island route freight fares with Manx ones is intellectually dishonest if you don’t take the tax payer subsidy into account. It doesn't take much to understand that ferries to small islands with small populations are going to be expensive to operate. Particularly when we want, or demand, a regular and premium type service. I wonder what effect a government subvention of say £5m pa would have on fares? (There's no doubt that at present, we are paying a lot of money to get off and on the island, comments around TT, S100 and MGP fares are a bit worrying for example). Then we have to ask, are we in some way already subsidising the SPCo financially at present? As I have said many times, if we are serious about tourism, one of the first things to sort out is the cost of getting here. The carriers dictate the success, or failure, of every enterprise that the island, and its citizens enter into! 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 7 minutes ago, Max Power said: It doesn't take much to understand that ferries to small islands with small populations are going to be expensive to operate. Particularly when we want, or demand, a regular and premium type service. I wonder what effect a government subvention of say £5m pa would have on fares? (There's no doubt that at present, we are paying a lot of money to get off and on the island, comments around TT, S100 and MGP fares are a bit worrying for example). Then we have to ask, are we in some way already subsidising the SPCo financially at present? As I have said many times, if we are serious about tourism, one of the first things to sort out is the cost of getting here. The carriers dictate the success, or failure, of every enterprise that the island, and its citizens enter into! With a turnover of £71 million, and a profit of about £11 million, in the latest reported financial period, you could, if you stripped out profit, and gave a £5 million subsidy, cut fares by about 15%. However, there’s the Manannan to replace. We are paying the price of asset stripping and the borrowing secured against intangibles to monetise things like the User Agreement, by McQuarrie. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 29 Author Share Posted June 29 (edited) Do we not have to look at the cost of running the Mannanan, in particular with its eye-watering fuel consumption? Is it an essential or a nice to have? Could it be replaced with a slower but more economical conventional craft? At the present moment the SPCo is being used as an unavoidable form of taxation for travellers, businesses and consumers alike, to the degree that it may be damaging the Island's economy and prospects. Govt short term revenue is taking priority. Edited June 29 by Non-Believer Extra bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 25 minutes ago, John Wright said: With a turnover of £71 million, and a profit of about £11 million, in the latest reported financial period, you could, if you stripped out profit, and gave a £5 million subsidy, cut fares by about 15%. However, there’s the Manannan to replace. We are paying the price of asset stripping and the borrowing secured against intangibles to monetise things like the User Agreement, by McQuarrie. Yes, 15% is almost negligible in the scheme of things, to be left with a millstone of an organisation, unable to support itself, or pay back the government loans and purchase costs. It's a decision for government really, I'm certain that any subvention would have to be able to be repaid with increased travellers, increased tax receipts and a definite island growth plan. Almost impossible to calculate, even more impossible to guarantee! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 hour ago, Max Power said: As I have said many times, if we are serious about tourism, one of the first things to sort out is the cost of getting here. The carriers dictate the success, or failure, of every enterprise that the island, and its citizens enter into! This. Totally this. It seems to be lost on government that it is the Golden Egg. 15 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Do we not have to look at the cost of running the Mannanan, in particular with its eye-watering fuel consumption? Is it an essential or a nice to have? Could it be replaced with a slower but more economical conventional craft? Elsewhere someone pointed out that the buyout of the Packet was ultimately for two old vessels. The question for comparison is what would have happened if they had let the user agreement end as per contract then have an alternative ready to go from scratch? Would they just have had the cost of new vessels to buy? I know there's a bit more to it than that, but other than a bit of short term pain to suck up from the dying Packet, I wonder what it might have looked like? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 4 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: This. Totally this. It seems to be lost on government that it is the Golden Egg. Elsewhere someone pointed out that the buyout of the Packet was ultimately for two old vessels. The question for comparison is what would have happened if they had let the user agreement end as per contract then have an alternative ready to go from scratch? Would they just have had the cost of new vessels to buy? I know there's a bit more to it than that, but other than a bit of short term pain to suck up from the dying Packet, I wonder what it might have looked like? I did wonder about this myself, JW may know better, but I thought that this may have been legally challenged? It could have been negotiated up front perhaps, and a proper transitional agreement worked out. I'd bet that we would have still rolled over if things got sticky, and incurred billions in legal fees or something! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 20 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: This. Totally this. It seems to be lost on government that it is the Golden Egg. Elsewhere someone pointed out that the buyout of the Packet was ultimately for two old vessels. The question for comparison is what would have happened if they had let the user agreement end as per contract then have an alternative ready to go from scratch? Would they just have had the cost of new vessels to buy? I know there's a bit more to it than that, but other than a bit of short term pain to suck up from the dying Packet, I wonder what it might have looked like? 10 minutes ago, Max Power said: I did wonder about this myself, JW may know better, but I thought that this may have been legally challenged? It could have been negotiated up front perhaps, and a proper transitional agreement worked out. I'd bet that we would have still rolled over if things got sticky, and incurred billions in legal fees or something! We actually only really paid market value for the fixed assets. What we paid above that was calculated as profits anticipated over the 6 or 7 years to the end of the user agreement, discounted for advanced payment. Yes we could have waited, and lined up new tonnage so we could have had a new shipping line to launch on day zero. That’s risky, training, crewing, delivery. Look what happened to Manxman delivery and then going into full service, what would have happened for that 10 months? And as the Banco Spirito Santo owned SPCo always significantly outperformed the service minima in the User Agreement they could just have reduced sailings. What we got was a smooth transition. Of course, if we had had a crystal ball we would have known about Covid, losses and a huge drop in value. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sign in Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 21 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said: And this would come as a surprise to whom. The cookie monster maybe I just knew it! Prime suspect once again and maybe its his shifty walk or not being able to look at someone due to wobbly eyes! Yeah - we're on to you cookie monster! 🤣 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.