Chris Thomas and the sea services agreement

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

If the Sea Services Agreement has turned out, in practice, to be lacking in some areas than altering it to be more in line with the actual operational requirements makes perfect sense. Although I'm not sure the word "reset" is appropriate...

I keep hearing the term "allowed to run as a business" but you have to acknowledge there has been a massive sea change (sorry...) in the business model. As a publicly owned enterprise it essentially no longer has a bottom line to be concerned about. Of course, "funding the future of the business" is essential but I don't want to see too much profit meaning folks are being taxed twice.

Of course, it's a balance that gov are bound to get badly wrong as per...

It still has the bottom line to worry about, although owned by IOMG it is still a private commercial enterprise, just happens to be in public ownership.  It still has loans and shareholders dividends to service.

 

[cissolt]

Interesting exchange in the keys.  The Manxman is restricted in winter and bad weather, to 658 passengers due to lack of safety equipment.  They do have 1400 lifejackets though, which is noce

[newaccount]

56 minutes ago, cissolt said:

 They do have 1400 lifejackets though, which is noce

Do some passengers put two on?

Capacity 958 isn't it ?

[John Wright]

3 hours ago, cissolt said:

Interesting exchange in the keys.  The Manxman is restricted in winter and bad weather, to 658 passengers due to lack of safety equipment.  They do have 1400 lifejackets though, which is noce

 

2 hours ago, newaccount said:

Do some passengers put two on?

Capacity 958 isn't it ?

There are 4 muster stations. You can’t guarantee the passengers will divide equally between then. So you have to over provide. Plus babies and young persons. So instead of 240 per muster station they’ve got 350. Not a biggie.

[Omobono]

there is a limit to the number of survivors you can cram into a rescue helicopter , and if the ship lists you will be down to 2 muster stations , I wouldn't like to be sliding down one of those chutes from the upper deck into a life raft ,

[Two-lane]

9 hours ago, cissolt said:

The Manxman is restricted in winter and bad weather, to 658 passengers due to lack of safety equipment

I wonder which safety equipment is lacking, and why is it ok for the ship to sink in summer with more than 658 passengers on board but not in winter.

[Mercenary]

22 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

I wonder which safety equipment is lacking, and why is it ok for the ship to sink in summer with more than 658 passengers on board but not in winter.

Plenty of logical explanations (perhaps evacuation time is quicker in daylight than in darkness), is it so far fetched to assume that IOMSPCo & Shipping Registry know what they're doing and to leave it to them?

[A fool and his money.....]

11 hours ago, Gladys said:

It still has the bottom line to worry about, although owned by IOMG it is still a private commercial enterprise, just happens to be in public ownership.  It still has loans and shareholders dividends to service.

 

And that's the nonsense of it. We're many millions into it but it's still to all intents and purposes a private company. Madness.

[Fred the shred]

Surely, oh surely, you would not want the Government to go within a million miles of trying to run a business that we are dependent on ?     They have proved time and time again that their expertise is turning anything they are associated with into a total money losing enterprise.     They could not be trusted to run a race or organise a piss up in a Brewery.   Don’t let them near a costly venture which happens to be our lifeline it would end in failure that is a certainty.

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

22 hours ago, cissolt said:

Interesting exchange in the keys.  The Manxman is restricted in winter and bad weather, to 658 passengers due to lack of safety equipment.  They do have 1400 lifejackets though, which is noce

Remember when everyone pointing out how few lifeboats was told they didn’t know what they were talking about? 

[Frances]

Isn't the 658 figure that of the Ben and under which safety regs the Manxman with its totally different layout + safety system are operating - I wonder if they could do an evacuation in a force 6 let alone a force 8/9 - to me it's looking much too like a summer season cruise boat not a lifeline (or even a reliable link). My guess is that Arrow will soon take over the freight.

[Mercenary]

2 hours ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

Remember when everyone pointing out how few lifeboats was told they didn’t know what they were talking about? 

How do you know it has anything to do with number of lifeboats?

[Gladys]

19 minutes ago, Mercenary said:

How do you know it has anything to do with number of lifeboats?

Wouldn't the amount of these mandatory safety items be determined by max pax and crew numbers rather than sailing conditions?  So the always have to equip for the max no. of people on board they can carry? 

So, they wouldn't reduce the number of life jackets when sailing in calm seas,  for example. 

[The Phantom]

16 hours ago, Two-lane said:

I wonder which safety equipment is lacking, and why is it ok for the ship to sink in summer with more than 658 passengers on board but not in winter.

You'd survive for quite a while bobbing about in the sea with just a life jacket in the Summer. 

Middle of winter, you'd be lucky to last an hour. 

[Mercenary]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Wouldn't the amount of these mandatory safety items be determined by max pax and crew numbers rather than sailing conditions?  So the always have to equip for the max no. of people on board they can carry? 

So, they wouldn't reduce the number of life jackets when sailing in calm seas,  for example. 

Would agree. Would imagine reduction more to do with either reduced staffing or slower egress times in dark. Really it's a non-issue anyway as the winter sailings are not going to be filling 650+ pax.