| NEWS |  | | | | BUSINESS | | | | FEATURES | | | | SAINTS | | |
|
|
|
Wightlink warns of pull-out if larger ferries are blocked
FERRY operators are threatening to stop their Lymington to Yarmouth service if their plans for larger vessels are thwarted.
Wightlink plans to introduce longer and taller ferries next year that will weigh 700 tons and displace twice as much water as the current vessels.
The company's plans have already come up against stiff opposition from Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Lymington Society.
Fears of damage to the marshes and sailing in the Lymington River becoming dangerous because of the larger ferries have been raised.
But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are blocked.
He said: "We are now at a point of no return - it is these new ferries or no ferries.
"We certainly understand people's concerns and we will obviously try and deal with them but it is simply a case that they are coming and, if people do try to stop them, then there will be no ferry service and then you are looking at a lot of redundancies."
A public meeting about the plans will take place at Lymington Community Centre on October 31 at 7.30pm.
9:50am Friday 5th October 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Ian, Turkey on 9:55am Fri 5 Oct 07
Here we go. Resorting to bribery and bully boy tactics to get their way.
Play them at their game, as there must be another ferry operator would be glad of that crossing route, and will play ball with the council and locals.
Here we go. Resorting to bribery and bully boy tactics to get their way.
Play them at their game, as there must be another ferry operator would be glad of that crossing route, and will play ball with the council and locals.
Posted by: Adrian Smith on 10:51am Fri 5 Oct 07
"But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are blocked"
200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs at all.
Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a cut in services by customers.
"But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are blocked"
200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs at all.
Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a cut in services by customers.
Posted by: Derek, Dibden Purlieu on 11:14am Fri 5 Oct 07
The amount of traffic generated by these ferries has outgrown the tiny Lymington river with it's inadequate local road system.It would be a bonus if they stopped the operation entirely and pushed the traffic back to the larger ports of Southampton or Portsmouth where they are used to these volumes of movement.
The amount of traffic generated by these ferries has outgrown the tiny Lymington river with it's inadequate local road system.It would be a bonus if they stopped the operation entirely and pushed the traffic back to the larger ports of Southampton or Portsmouth where they are used to these volumes of movement.
Posted by: Maggie on 11:26am Fri 5 Oct 07
Wouldn't building a new ferry crossing at somewhere like Calshot be an option? Quicker journey time, breath new life into tired old Calshot and the roads are more accessible than Lymington is.
Wouldn't building a new ferry crossing at somewhere like Calshot be an option? Quicker journey time, breath new life into tired old Calshot and the roads are more accessible than Lymington is.
Posted by: Ian, Turkey on 12:18pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Derek[/bold] wrote:
The amount of traffic generated by these ferries has outgrown the tiny Lymington river with it\'s inadequate local road system.It would be a bonus if they stopped the operation entirely and pushed the traffic back to the larger ports of Southampton or Portsmouth where they are used to these volumes of movement.[/quote] I agree the the traffic has outgrown the Lymington roads, and who knows how many larger vehicles will travel there if the larger ferries are used.
Wightlink already run a service from POrtsmouth to the IOW, and no doubt Red Funnel would kick up at a rival operator in Southampton.
Derek wrote:
The amount of traffic generated by these ferries has outgrown the tiny Lymington river with it\'s inadequate local road system.It would be a bonus if they stopped the operation entirely and pushed the traffic back to the larger ports of Southampton or Portsmouth where they are used to these volumes of movement.
I agree the the traffic has outgrown the Lymington roads, and who knows how many larger vehicles will travel there if the larger ferries are used.
Wightlink already run a service from POrtsmouth to the IOW, and no doubt Red Funnel would kick up at a rival operator in Southampton.
Posted by: gorf, soton on 12:38pm Fri 5 Oct 07
get red funnel in then
wight link are bullys.
should be boy cotted
get red funnel in then
wight link are bullys.
should be boy cotted
Posted by: Cyrill Darlington-Smythe, Lymo on 12:52pm Fri 5 Oct 07
The 'new money' in Lymo want the river all for themselves (gin palaces etc). If the ferry had to pull out it would be a disaster for the normal people who live and work in Lymington. There are a large number of local businesses that benefit in some way or another from wightlink, and without this, the loss of jobs would be many more than just the wightlink staff. These people are ruining what little's left of the Lymington of old.
The 'new money' in Lymo want the river all for themselves (gin palaces etc). If the ferry had to pull out it would be a disaster for the normal people who live and work in Lymington. There are a large number of local businesses that benefit in some way or another from wightlink, and without this, the loss of jobs would be many more than just the wightlink staff. These people are ruining what little's left of the Lymington of old.
Posted by: Christoff on 12:53pm Fri 5 Oct 07
what arrogance. Block them and let them withdraw and allow someone else to take over.
what arrogance. Block them and let them withdraw and allow someone else to take over.
Posted by: Cyrill Darlington-Smythe, Lymo on 1:10pm Fri 5 Oct 07
Another point to make is that it would be very likly that the Brockenhurst to Lymington branch line would most likly shut if the ferry goes.
Another point to make is that it would be very likly that the Brockenhurst to Lymington branch line would most likly shut if the ferry goes.
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 1:20pm Fri 5 Oct 07
Build a bridge
Posted by: George on 1:29pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Adrian Smith[/bold] wrote:
"But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will
withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the
new ferries are blocked"
200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps another
operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs at all.
Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic or they
plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The first
suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a cut
in services by customers.[/quote] Inefficient, eh? How many people did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?
Adrian Smith wrote:
"But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will
withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the
new ferries are blocked"
200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps another
operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs at all.
Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic or they
plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The first
suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a cut
in services by customers.
Inefficient, eh? How many people did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?
Posted by: hmm on 1:38pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]King Mush[/bold] wrote:
Build a bridge[/quote] monorail
King Mush wrote:
Build a bridge
monorail
Posted by: Inside cabin on 1:51pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Adrian Smith[/bold] wrote: "But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are blocked" 200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs at all. Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a cut in services by customers.[/quote] Inefficient, eh? How many people did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?[/quote] Employed 55, sub-contractors (catering, repairs, etc.) were all outsourced. If 200 are directly employed by Wightlink then it is very inefficient.
George wrote:
Adrian Smith wrote: "But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are blocked" 200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs at all. Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a cut in services by customers.
Inefficient, eh? How many people did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?
Employed 55, sub-contractors (catering, repairs, etc.) were all outsourced. If 200 are directly employed by Wightlink then it is very inefficient.
Posted by: Adrian Smith on 2:05pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Adrian Smith[/bold] wrote: "But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are blocked" 200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs at all. Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a cut in services by customers.[/quote] Inefficient, eh? How many people did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?[/quote] I'll be the first to admit I have never run a ferry service. But to employ 200 people in Lymington seems high. I have done some rough calculations and would not expect more than 75 people to be employed by Wightlink in Lymington. No mention of Yarmouth or their call centre you will note.
But what interests me is that the two new ferries (replacing three existing ferries) are marginally bigger, 20% faster, but carry around 30% fewer passengers per ferry.
The gross tonnage of these two new ferries is missing from Wightlinks data. If you fancy checking these figures for yourself point your browser at:-
http://wightlink.com
/aboutus/fleet/fleet
_information.htm
George wrote:
Adrian Smith wrote: "But Wightlink's chief executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service - meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are blocked" 200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs at all. Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a cut in services by customers.
Inefficient, eh? How many people did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?
I'll be the first to admit I have never run a ferry service. But to employ 200 people in Lymington seems high. I have done some rough calculations and would not expect more than 75 people to be employed by Wightlink in Lymington. No mention of Yarmouth or their call centre you will note.
But what interests me is that the two new ferries (replacing three existing ferries) are marginally bigger, 20% faster, but carry around 30% fewer passengers per ferry.
The gross tonnage of these two new ferries is missing from Wightlinks data. If you fancy checking these figures for yourself point your browser at:-
http://wightlink.com
/aboutus/fleet/fleet
_information.htm
Posted by: George on 2:48pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Inside cabin[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Adrian Smith[/bold] wrote: "But Wightlink's chief
executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service -
meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are
blocked" 200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps
another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs
at all. Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic
or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The
first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a
cut in services by customers.[/quote] Inefficient, eh? How many people
did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?[/quote] Employed
55, sub-contractors (catering, repairs, etc.) were all outsourced. If
200 are directly employed by Wightlink then it is very inefficient.[/quote] You may be right, but the story does not say that 200 direct employees will lose their jobs. If 200 people are involved full-time in the Wightlink service, they all stand to lose livelihood, regardless of whether they are actually employees or sub-contractors. I'm just pointing out that one cannot automatically assume it's inefficient
Inside cabin wrote:
George wrote:
Adrian Smith wrote: "But Wightlink's chief
executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service -
meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are
blocked" 200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps
another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs
at all. Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic
or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The
first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a
cut in services by customers.
Inefficient, eh? How many people
did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?
Employed
55, sub-contractors (catering, repairs, etc.) were all outsourced. If
200 are directly employed by Wightlink then it is very inefficient.
You may be right, but the story does not say that 200 direct employees will lose their jobs. If 200 people are involved full-time in the Wightlink service, they all stand to lose livelihood, regardless of whether they are actually employees or sub-contractors. I'm just pointing out that one cannot automatically assume it's inefficient
Posted by: George on 2:53pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Adrian Smith[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Adrian Smith[/bold] wrote: "But Wightlink's chief
executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service -
meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are
blocked" 200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps
another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs
at all. Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic
or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The
first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a
cut in services by customers.[/quote] Inefficient, eh? How many people
did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?[/quote] I'll be
the first to admit I have never run a ferry service. But to employ 200
people in Lymington seems high. I have done some rough calculations and
would not expect more than 75 people to be employed by Wightlink in
Lymington. No mention of Yarmouth or their call centre you will note.
But what interests me is that the two new ferries (replacing three
existing ferries) are marginally bigger, 20% faster, but carry around
30% fewer passengers per ferry.
The gross tonnage of these two new ferries is missing from Wightlinks
data. If you fancy checking these figures for yourself point your
browser at:-
http://wightlink.com
/aboutus/fleet/fleet
_information.htm
[/quote] I suspect the usual Echo sloppy journalism at play here. It does explicitly state 200 jobs [bold]in Lymington[/bold], but I wouldn't be surprised if the figure was actually derived from the total number of people involved in the organisation.
Either way, of course, it's nonsense. It's out of the question that the ferry service will simply cease to be: the number of people needing to make that journey will not be affected by the decision of one enterprise, and should anyone else step in in Wightlink's place, presumably they will still need to employ a similar number of people to get the job done
Thanks for the link, Adrian, I'll peruse that shortly
Adrian Smith wrote:
George wrote:
Adrian Smith wrote: "But Wightlink's chief
executive Andrew Willson has now warned he will withdraw the service -
meaning a loss of 200 jobs in Lymington - if the new ferries are
blocked" 200 jobs - sounds like an inefficient operation to me. Perhaps
another operator ought to be sought? There may be no net loss of jobs
at all. Either they need larger ferries to deal with increased traffic
or they plan to reduce the frequency with these larger vessels. The
first suggests others would step in. The second might be perceived as a
cut in services by customers.
Inefficient, eh? How many people
did you employ when you ran a similar ferry service?
I'll be
the first to admit I have never run a ferry service. But to employ 200
people in Lymington seems high. I have done some rough calculations and
would not expect more than 75 people to be employed by Wightlink in
Lymington. No mention of Yarmouth or their call centre you will note.
But what interests me is that the two new ferries (replacing three
existing ferries) are marginally bigger, 20% faster, but carry around
30% fewer passengers per ferry.
The gross tonnage of these two new ferries is missing from Wightlinks
data. If you fancy checking these figures for yourself point your
browser at:-
http://wightlink.com
/aboutus/fleet/fleet
_information.htm
I suspect the usual Echo sloppy journalism at play here. It does explicitly state 200 jobs
in Lymington, but I wouldn't be surprised if the figure was actually derived from the total number of people involved in the organisation.
Either way, of course, it's nonsense. It's out of the question that the ferry service will simply cease to be: the number of people needing to make that journey will not be affected by the decision of one enterprise, and should anyone else step in in Wightlink's place, presumably they will still need to employ a similar number of people to get the job done
Thanks for the link, Adrian, I'll peruse that shortly
Posted by: mr.southampton, Southampton on 5:11pm Fri 5 Oct 07
Wightlink and Andrew Willson look like theyve shot themselves in the foot PR-wise with this one. Reading the article it seems like typical bully-boy tactics to me, I would think twice about using them next time I go to the island.
Wightlink and Andrew Willson look like theyve shot themselves in the foot PR-wise with this one. Reading the article it seems like typical bully-boy tactics to me, I would think twice about using them next time I go to the island.
Posted by: Andrew Willson on 5:53pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]mr.southampton[/bold] wrote:
Wightlink and Andrew Willson look like theyve shot themselves in the foot PR-wise with this one. Reading the article it seems like typical bully-boy tactics to me, I would think twice about using them next time I go to the island.[/quote] You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
mr.southampton wrote:
Wightlink and Andrew Willson look like theyve shot themselves in the foot PR-wise with this one. Reading the article it seems like typical bully-boy tactics to me, I would think twice about using them next time I go to the island.
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Posted by: George Burley on 6:31pm Fri 5 Oct 07
I love getting píssed on ferries.
I love getting píssed on ferries.
Posted by: Ivor Bigone, southampton on 10:14pm Fri 5 Oct 07
[quote][bold]George Burley[/bold] wrote:
I love getting píssed on ferries. [/quote] I once got drunk while listening to Elton John, is this the same?
George Burley wrote:
I love getting píssed on ferries.
I once got drunk while listening to Elton John, is this the same?
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 1:09am Sat 6 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Ivor Bigone[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]George Burley[/bold] wrote: I love getting píssed on ferries. [/quote] I once got drunk while listening to Elton John, is this the same?[/quote] No - he said 'ferries' not 'fairies.
Ivor Bigone wrote:
George Burley wrote: I love getting píssed on ferries.
I once got drunk while listening to Elton John, is this the same?
No - he said 'ferries' not 'fairies.
Posted by: Robert on 3:45am Sat 6 Oct 07
Will the bigger boats fit in the channels? It's sometimes a struggle even for the current ones.
Will the bigger boats fit in the channels? It's sometimes a struggle even for the current ones.
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 4:33pm Sat 6 Oct 07
[quote][bold]hmm[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]King Mush[/bold] wrote: Build a bridge[/quote] monorail[/quote] I gottit!
High speed crossing:
A giant catapult!
(Trebuchet for the purists)
hmm wrote:
King Mush wrote: Build a bridge
monorail
I gottit!
High speed crossing:
A giant catapult!
(Trebuchet for the purists)
Posted by: paul grant, isle of wight on 10:37am Mon 8 Oct 07
You must understand that all ferry companies have to replace old tonnage over the years. Its re-equip or go out of business; it is retrograde to build a vessel the same size or smaller. New vessels create less maintainance and easier surveys. If you are unable to navigated the Lymington river safely passing a large vessel, should you be on the water. Lets move on. Tescos is a great British achievemnt created by good managers and hard work, but the Brits never miss an opportunity to have a dig. Grow up. Rather confused about where Elton features in this unless he is interested in ferrets[bold]bold[/bold]
You must understand that all ferry companies have to replace old tonnage over the years. Its re-equip or go out of business; it is retrograde to build a vessel the same size or smaller. New vessels create less maintainance and easier surveys. If you are unable to navigated the Lymington river safely passing a large vessel, should you be on the water. Lets move on. Tescos is a great British achievemnt created by good managers and hard work, but the Brits never miss an opportunity to have a dig. Grow up. Rather confused about where Elton features in this unless he is interested in ferrets
Posted by: tony, Hampshire on 11:14pm Thu 11 Oct 07
[quote][bold]paul grant[/bold] wrote:
You must understand that all ferry companies have to replace old tonnage over the years. Its re-equip or go out of business; it is retrograde to build a vessel the same size or smaller. New vessels create less maintainance and easier surveys. If you are unable to navigated the Lymington river safely passing a large vessel, should you be on the water. Lets move on. Tescos is a great British achievemnt created by good managers and hard work, but the Brits never miss an opportunity to have a dig. Grow up. Rather confused about where Elton features in this unless he is interested in ferrets[bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] There is barely enough water for the present vessels in places. Pushing bigger ships up the river will cause more wash. Damaging riverbank and endangering river users.
I navigate a ship that can leave a 3 foot braking wash, in coastal waters we slow down. If we see a small vessel even in open waters we will slowdown, we have a legal and moral obligation to allow safe navigation of other vessels.
Wightlink are no different, they have the same obligations.
paul grant wrote:
You must understand that all ferry companies have to replace old tonnage over the years. Its re-equip or go out of business; it is retrograde to build a vessel the same size or smaller. New vessels create less maintainance and easier surveys. If you are unable to navigated the Lymington river safely passing a large vessel, should you be on the water. Lets move on. Tescos is a great British achievemnt created by good managers and hard work, but the Brits never miss an opportunity to have a dig. Grow up. Rather confused about where Elton features in this unless he is interested in ferrets
There is barely enough water for the present vessels in places. Pushing bigger ships up the river will cause more wash. Damaging riverbank and endangering river users.
I navigate a ship that can leave a 3 foot braking wash, in coastal waters we slow down. If we see a small vessel even in open waters we will slowdown, we have a legal and moral obligation to allow safe navigation of other vessels.
Wightlink are no different, they have the same obligations.
Posted by: Barry Dunning, Boldre on 2:38pm Wed 17 Oct 07
The river is just to small for these proposed new ferries. Smaller ones for foot passengers and cars are needed. The lorries should go via Portsmouth or Southampton, not through the New Forest.
The river is just to small for these proposed new ferries. Smaller ones for foot passengers and cars are needed. The lorries should go via Portsmouth or Southampton, not through the New Forest.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
