Jump to content
Northy

Government charter

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, G4rth said:

 

 

1 hour ago, G4rth said:

It would be surprising if the two Bamfords weren't related, if you go back 10 generations we have over 2000 people in our direct line of ancestors. Go back 20 generations and we have over a million. If you throw in uncles and aunts it is a massive number of relatives. I'm probably related in some way to everyone on this site, good news for me but probably not quite such good news for all of you. We may be related but that doesn't mean I'd do you or indeed my probably distant cousins the Bamfords any special favours.😉

Tell you what G4rth, if you get any letters from Nigeria saying that one of your cousins, who was a chief, has died and needing financial help from you......although you are well related I`d still chuck it in the bin😂🤣

Edited by Paully
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, penguin said:

In fairness, if those guys are experienced, they would be far better placed to manage Brexit ferries over the government trying to start one from scratch. If all the  corporate structures are in place, with knowledgeable people at the helm who've already been planning the service, why reinvent the wheel?

I admire your faith in a company with a shareholding of just £66.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BobCrox said:

I admire your faith in a company with a shareholding of just £66.

It all depends on the persons involved, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, it is possible they are more qualified/prepared than a public sector attempt to build an operation from scratch.

 

Only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK is presently a member of the EU. Is the UK Government breaking any EU rules about subsidising business unfairly by bank rolling ferry companies operations.

Surely, ferry companies should stand alone and raise capital from non governmental bodies to take part in this commercial operation. Guarantee support sure but pay for it before it happens must irk other operators who could have chartered in ships and offered a competitive rate for the work. 

I would have thought this would have been a "banker" for an operator to raise capital for "wet leasing" any operator around the world. Without HM Government shelling out a penny.

I wonder if the EU is running their sticky little fingers through the fine print on this deal.

Head down.

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that it is only an arrangement that would come into force in the event of a no-ties exit from the EU, it is surely none of the EU’s business as we would no longer be subject to EU government by then?

That said, the idea of giving money to an outfit that is not even running ferry operations yet does seem to show a remarkable shortfall in good judgement.

I wouldn’t be surprised if HMG had had behind-the-scenes discussions with all the operators to explore what they would be wiling to do by way of service expansion, and that the goverment then decided to direct subsidies in the direction of offers that they liked.  The plan for BF to expand Le Havre, Cherbourg and Roscoff would surely have come from BF to HMG, not the other way.  If so, then that might explain the absence of funding to P&O - if P&O came up with no plans that the government considered worth financing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, straightfeed said:

The UK is presently a member of the EU. Is the UK Government breaking any EU rules about subsidising business unfairly by bank rolling ferry companies operations.

Surely, ferry companies should stand alone and raise capital from non governmental bodies to take part in this commercial operation. Guarantee support sure but pay for it before it happens

 

There is no subsidy. The UK government are just ordering a service or goods just like anybody else. If you or I book a crossing with BF at short notice we pay in advance. If we subsequently cancel , quite rightly, we don't get all our money back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't HMG responded to the question of Seaborne's legitimacy by stating that if there's no service then there's no money? As for the other query, P&O, you could say the same about Stena too...they do sail from Harwich into Europe's busiest and largest port.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction on the various Bamfords and my apologies for not fully checking my sources.

I am still disturbed by the short-circuiting of usual procurement procedures to award contracts. Even if Seaborne gets no money unless it actually performs the services post-no-deal-Brexit, this is not the case for the other two companies as the recent clarification states. Under what provisions is this public money being released?

==

(Does anyone really think relaxation of rules governing how the state hands out taxpayers' money to contractors would be a positive effect of Brexit?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governments will always leave themselves some scope to be able to issue such contracts despite what the rules might say. My own view, for what it is worth, is that BF have been very foolish indeed to have taken this offer of controversial work. Long term I could see it playing very badly with large sections of their traditional customer base.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Millsy said:

Governments will always leave themselves some scope to be able to issue such contracts despite what the rules might say. My own view, for what it is worth, is that BF have been very foolish indeed to have taken this offer of controversial work. Long term I could see it playing very badly with large sections of their traditional customer base.

I'd see that as a small risk. You'd have to be pretty fanatical about brexit to change your normal plans because of a UK Government contract. Consider the reverse - if the disaster scenario brexit does occur and BF refuse to help for image reasons, I'd imagine that's a far worse PR disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, penguin said:

I'd see that as a small risk. You'd have to be pretty fanatical about brexit to change your normal plans because of a UK Government contract. Consider the reverse - if the disaster scenario brexit does occur and BF refuse to help for image reasons, I'd imagine that's a far worse PR disaster.

But if the company radically changes the times of sailings then it's the company which would be changing my travel plans - not me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think they need to make sure they do that as little as possible.  This is the problem with the “just run Armorique and Normandie more intensively” solution.  That can’t be done without disrupting existing sailings for which bookings will have been made and holiday arrangements dependent upon them.  The extra sailings should really be additional to what is already advertised (but that will need additional tonnage).  Messing around existing sailings could be a big own goal from a PR point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve booked my sailings on Armorique and with onward and pre travel plans involving hotel stays with the long drive I would be very annoyed if they changed my travel plans due to wanting Brexit business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might have to also reorganise NEX, and run extra rotations on weekdays, to offer alternative crossings for those who do have their plans disrupted. Perhaps they can leave the crossings from Friday evenings to Monday mornings intact to minimise the problems and do as many extra crossings as possible during the week. That would also tie in with restrictions on French roads preventing trucks getting to Le Havre, Cherbourg and Roscoff at weekends. Ed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those worried about the possible changes, this Twitter message (in answer to a question about when customers will know more) might be of interest :

this will be discussed in the next few weeks and customers will be informed of the potential changes as soon as possible.

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gareth said:

Yes, I think they need to make sure they do that as little as possible.  This is the problem with the “just run Armorique and Normandie more intensively” solution.  That can’t be done without disrupting existing sailings for which bookings will have been made and holiday arrangements dependent upon them.  The extra sailings should really be additional to what is already advertised (but that will need additional tonnage).  Messing around existing sailings could be a big own goal from a PR point of view.

They can fill in additional sailings where the respective ship sits in port all day as that doesn't affect existing sailings. (Pont-Aven on Fridays in Roscoff, Baie de Seine on Fridays in Le Havre, Etretat/Normandie on Thursdays in Le Havre). Unfortunately, that's only 3 extra return sailings. 

Another thought though, much less freight is carried during the summer holidays, so does the contract apply to this period? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that in all of this no-one has mentioned new (or reopened) north sea routes or Newhaven-Dieppe (which is limited by vessel size but not turnaround capacity). Of course I'm actually quite happy about that because as things stand it means I can keep pottering to and from France and avoid most of the chaos, but does anyone know why the focus on southern routes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LordDevereux said:

It's interesting that in all of this no-one has mentioned new (or reopened) north sea routes or Newhaven-Dieppe (which is limited by vessel size but not turnaround capacity). Of course I'm actually quite happy about that because as things stand it means I can keep pottering to and from France and avoid most of the chaos, but does anyone know why the focus on southern routes?

In a word Dover, congestion in Kent due to delays at the Chunnel and Dover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, colin said:

It all sounds very fishy. Lots of directorships of non-existent companies (and T&C's copied from just eat!).

 

I'd read somewhere that Ramsgate needs dredging before it can be used. If that is the case I would imagine the chances are almost exactly 0% of this thing getting off the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, penguin said:

It all sounds very fishy. Lots of directorships of non-existent companies (and T&C's copied from just eat!).

 

I'd read somewhere that Ramsgate needs dredging before it can be used. If that is the case I would imagine the chances are almost exactly 0% of this thing getting off the ground.

According to the Telegraph dredging was due to start this morning. Here's the link.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/03/dredging-ramsgate-harbour-begins-amid-plans-reopen-ferry-services/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjo_--KotLfAhUwyYUKHTR7Dc8QFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3GgEm3CQT2AuusWHUMVRFO&ampcf=1

Ed. 

Edited by Cabin-boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×