Chris Thomas and the sea services agreement

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

The ship will have been specified by the SPCo's advisors. This will have been discussed and agreed with the builder before work started. 

I am struggling to understand what 'approve' even means in this context. 

Approval is when you pay the deposit.

The ship will have been technically specified by SPCO's advisers, of course, but that would have been specified to a brief approved by the SPCO board. The adviser's would have referred questions on the technical spec through the process back to the client, SPCO.  

Once happy with the spec, the client would then be asked to 'sign it off' ie approve it.  

Then there will be the build contract, which again would be approved by the SPCO but negotiated by advisers, again against a brief from the SPCO.   

Paying the deposit comes a long way down the process. 

The advisers are acting on behalf of their client, they will do all the design and spec but to meet the client's requirements, who will sign off that what is proposed meets their needs. 

The SPCO won't have said we want a boat and have no further say or right to change the design.  

 So the question is fair and clear to me.  The likely answer is professionals designed the boat to the brief of the SPCO who ultimately approved it. 

[Two-lane]

The figures shown on the Steam Packet website are:

50% increase in passengers from 630 to 949 (although this decreases to 0% in winter and bad weather)

100% increase in cabins from 20 to 40

an increase in vehicle area of 495 square meters - but the percentage difference is not shown (although somewhere it is stated that there is a 10% increase in freight capacity).

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

The ship will have been technically specified by SPCO's advisers, of course, but that would have been specified to a brief approved by the SPCO board. The adviser's would have referred questions on the technical spec through the process back to the client, SPCO.  

Once happy with the spec, the client would then be asked to 'sign it off' ie approve it.  

Then there will be the build contract, which again would be approved by the SPCO but negotiated by advisers, again against a brief from the SPCO.   

Paying the deposit comes a long way down the process. 

The advisers are acting on behalf of their client, they will do all the design and spec but to meet the client's requirements, who will sign off that what is proposed meets their needs. 

The SPCO won't have said we want a boat and have no further say or right to change the design.  

 So the question is fair and clear to me.  The likely answer is professionals designed the boat to the brief of the SPCO who ultimately approved it. 

I agree. But not sure what the point is.🥳

[Gladys]

12 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I agree. But not sure what the point is.🥳

The point is it was a reasonable question that could have been answered easily with out any belittling.  You profess some experience of large construction contracts, but seem unable to recognise the difference between designing something and approving the design. Or the different roles, responsibilities and authority of advisors, contractors and the client. 

[Happier diner]

44 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The point is it was a reasonable question that could have been answered easily with out any belittling.  You profess some experience of large construction contracts, but seem unable to recognise the difference between designing something and approving the design. Or the different roles, responsibilities and authority of advisors, contractors and the client. 

Hi Gladys. There was no intention to belittle and if I have done that I apologise.

I know the difference between design and specifications and roles. It's a bit late to start lecturing on it. All I will say is that pretty much everyone on the planet apart from actual designers misunderstand what it is. It's not a sexy thing, it's a long laborious and detailed process.  It's every single steel panel, every nut and bolt.....

 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

Hi Gladys. There was no intention to belittle and if I have done that I apologise.

I know the difference between design and specifications and roles. It's a bit late to start lecturing on it. All I will say is that pretty much everyone on the planet apart from actual designers misunderstand what it is. It's not a sexy thing, it's a long laborious and detailed process.  It's every single steel panel, every nut and bolt.....

 

Thanks HD, but it is not me who deserves an apology. 

Fred's question was who approved the design, not who did the design. That's why he was confused, I guess. 

 

[Kopek]

... but having appraised the builders of our situation here in the Irish Sea, can the builders claim, nothing to do with me bro???

My original question was that could  the problems be overcome with training and experience?

No one seems to have answered that question?

Obviously, is it a crew problem or a design problem? Will they eventually sort it out???

[Happier diner]

7 hours ago, Kopek said:

... but having appraised the builders of our situation here in the Irish Sea, can the builders claim, nothing to do with me bro???

My original question was that could  the problems be overcome with training and experience?

No one seems to have answered that question?

Obviously, is it a crew problem or a design problem? Will they eventually sort it out???

It's possible that it's a combination of all these things.

Perhaps design features on a ship tht pertain to it's performance at sea are different to the features provided for manoeuvrability in a harbour.  The latter may be able to be improved.

Confidence will be something that will improve.....hopefully😬

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

Apparently Alf doesn't think it's appropriate for the Steam Packet to have to follow FOI rules at this time, but does think this should be reviewed in the future.

I wonder what they're trying to hide?

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

Apparently Alf doesn't think it's appropriate for the Steam Packet to have to follow FOI rules at this time, but does think this should be reviewed in the future.

I wonder what they're trying to hide?

It is a private commercial operation, albeit in public ownership.  It is not an authority for the purposes of FOI.  Treasury is, however, so any FOI requests can be directed there. 

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

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It is a private commercial operation, albeit in public ownership.  It is not an authority for the purposes of FOI.  Treasury is, however, so any FOI requests can be directed there. 

Yes, as I have said before, the worst of both worlds. We get to pay for it but have little or no democratic control over it. Just nationalise the bloody thing properly - then at least we'd be able to know what our millions have been spent on.

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

Yes, as I have said before, the worst of both worlds. We get to pay for it but have little or no democratic control over it. Just nationalise the bloody thing properly - then at least we'd be able to know what our millions have been spent on.

That's the Treasury's job. 

[monasqueen]

I sometimes wonder whether the people who design, and fit out, modern ships actually travel by ship, and whether they have experienced a bit of wind out at sea.

The safety video on this one seems to suggest that if evacuation is necessary, everyone will need to slide down the slippery slope of the MES (Marine Evacuation System), and into rubber floatation devices. Nice.

[Happier diner]

40 minutes ago, monasqueen said:

I sometimes wonder whether the people who design, and fit out, modern ships actually travel by ship, and whether they have experienced a bit of wind out at sea.

I am absolutely sure they do. What would you do differently to them.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

It is a private commercial operation, albeit in public ownership.  It is not an authority for the purposes of FOI.  Treasury is, however, so any FOI requests can be directed there. 

But as Chris Thomas pointed out in a question to Cannan in this week's Keys:

https://www.tynwald.org.im/playaudio?file=/business/listen/AgainFiles/O-202301-1004a.mp3

According to the FoI Act, the Steam Packet is included in the organisations that FoI covers because the Government owns a majority of the shares.

It's worth listening to the clip above - we'll be waiting weeks for the Hansard anyway - to hear the sulky little boy tones of Cannan complaining that someone has asked him a difficult question when he has to do anything but read the vague generalities off the piece of paper in front of him.  I think he's even worse at thinking on his feet than Quayle was.  It also shows the incompetence of those briefing him that they didn't realise what Thomas's obvious follow-up question would be.