Brexit ferry contract awarded to company with no ships

expectationlost · 31-12-2018 5:50pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

It can take small ferries as of 2013. Not the larger freight ferries that it needs to accommodate in a post Brexit world.

it will accommodate what it can accommodate

sk8erboii · 31-12-2018 7:29pm

In this thread: People who have no idea how businesses work becoming outraged at clickbait headlines

Capt'n Midnight · 31-12-2018 8:19pm

expectationlost wrote: »

i actually think this story is really overblown, first thing on the BBC 10 news?, so a port with no current ferries might be getting a service set up by experienced ferry operators who are setting a company up to do a specific job. so ....

Not to mention it breaks EU subsidy rules.

But the UK are trying to use every loophole in the book on this one.
Like Calling Hard Brexit extreme emergency / unforeseen circumstances when they have a deal on the table and can call off the whole thing any time they want.

Small business so exempt from something or other
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1079158533193637888

And the Danes want payment in Euros

Capt'n Midnight · 31-12-2018 8:28pm

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46714984

The firm said it had originally intended to start the service in mid-February but this had now been delayed until late March for operational reasons.

Late March ? *sniggers*

He said dredging in Ramsgate Port would start on 4 January in preparation for the freight service.

OK , lets' see.

Still not sure where they will hire ferries from.

my3cents · 31-12-2018 9:29pm

As I was going to point out for a non story the BBC were very quick to pick up on it.

31-12-2018 11:20pm

my3cents wrote: »

As I was going to point out for a non story the BBC were very quick to pick up on it.

The press always look for a story like this over the Christmas period, because they know the relevant press offices will be on holiday and the story will have a few days to run before someone can quash it.

31-12-2018 11:23pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And the Danes want payment in Euros

As this is most likely with the DFDS French operation, a contract in the vendor’s local currency would be the norm.

SEPT 23 1989 · 31-12-2018 11:27pm

They have faced far worse and survived,

First Up · 31-12-2018 11:32pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

They have faced far worse and survived,

So is survival now the height of the Brexit ambition?

SEPT 23 1989 · 31-12-2018 11:38pm

First Up wrote: »

So is survival now the height of the Brexit ambition?

In the very short term yes

Berlin never makes things easy

First Up · 31-12-2018 11:43pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

In the very short term yes

Berlin never makes things easy

That's the spirit.

Harry Palmr · 31-12-2018 11:48pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They have faced far worse and survived,

They'll be bluebirds singing over the white cliffs of Dover.
"Spam Spam spam spam"
Dig for victory
Lose lips sinks ships
and
Keep calm and Carry On up the Brexit

Atlantic Dawn · 01-01-2019 12:56am

Could we start building ferries in Cork and then ripoff the buyers when the shipyard goes bust again?

somefeen · 01-01-2019 2:46am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could we start building ferries in Cork and then ripoff the buyers when the shipyard goes bust again?

Sure. I've just started a ship yard. I've got 50 quid and a welder from lidl.

anotherfinemess · 01-01-2019 7:46am

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

anotherfinemess wrote: »

Why hasn't our government made arrangements for shipping between mainland Europe and Ireland post brexit?

They have.

Did you not see in the news a few months ago the massive new ‘Brexit Buster’ ship that will be sailing from Irish to mainland EU ports, bypassing the U.K. altogether?

It’s the largest RO-RO ferry in the world. Officially christened by Leo Varadkar

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjOrILQzcnfAhXltYsKHWDjDpUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fbrexit-busting-ferry-launched-from-dublin-port-1.3468760&psig=AOvVaw3NnNMMetJVhz66LIs0Fiqh&ust=1546329823649074

No, thanks for pointing that out, I missed that, was away for a while in the spring. We could do with another one at Rosslaire, Dublin is going to get choked.

First Up · 01-01-2019 10:27am

anotherfinemess wrote:

No, thanks for pointing that out, I missed that, was away for a while in the spring. We could do with another one at Rosslaire, Dublin is going to get choked.

Stena will be operating from Rosslare to France. Irish Ferries seem to have decided to concentrate from Dublin with their new ferry. I presume that is based on commercial/logistical factors.

andrewfaulk · 02-01-2019 7:35pm

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

They have.

Did you not see in the news a few months ago the massive new ‘Brexit Buster’ ship that will be sailing from Irish to mainland EU ports, bypassing the U.K. altogether?

It’s the largest RO-RO ferry in the world. Officially christened by Leo Varadkar

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjOrILQzcnfAhXltYsKHWDjDpUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fbrexit-busting-ferry-launched-from-dublin-port-1.3468760&psig=AOvVaw3NnNMMetJVhz66LIs0Fiqh&ust=1546329823649074

All commercial operator, no government support or involvement.. Varadkar just showed up to the launch party, loves a good photo op our Leo

AndyBoBandy · 02-01-2019 7:45pm

andrewfaulk wrote: »

All commercial operator, no government support or involvement.. Varadkar just showed up to the launch party, loves a good photo op our Leo

So who is upgrading the ports to support these larger vessels?

‘If you don’t build it, they will not come’

And yes, who wouldn’t want maximum publicity for something that’s going to benefit the country as a whole?

Or perhaps we should have sent Lottie Ryan down to cut the ribbon?

andrewfaulk · 02-01-2019 8:08pm

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

So who is upgrading the ports to support these larger vessels?

‘If you don’t build it, they will not come’

And yes, who wouldn’t want maximum publicity for something that’s going to benefit the country as a whole?

Or perhaps we should have sent Lottie Ryan down to cut the ribbon?

The port company did with privately raised finance.. Much more credit is due to DPC than Dept of Transport, or Varadkar

First Up · 02-01-2019 8:15pm

andrewfaulk wrote:

The port company did with privately raised finance.. Much more credit is due to DPC than Dept of Transport, or Varadkar

Yep, we have a private sector economy operating within a regulatory framework overseen by government.

Government should (and does) intervene only in cases of market failure, which was not the case here.

I don't think anyone is looking for credit for something they don't deserve.

AndyBoBandy · 02-01-2019 8:16pm

andrewfaulk wrote: »

The port company did with privately raised finance.. Much more credit is due to DPC than Dept of Transport, or Varadkar

Do you believe the media (domestic & foreign) would have still turned up as they did if the leader of the country wasn’t there? You do understand the impact of positive publicity?

prinzeugen · 03-01-2019 12:51am

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Except the company in question have never chartered/ran a Channel service before.

Also the company is chaired by Mark Bamford, the brother of Anthony Bamford, who is a big donor to the Tory party, has attended many the private dinner with May before and is a staunch advocate for a hard Brexit. Indeed he is of the opinion that a no-deal is no big deal. But I'm sure that's all coincidental right.

They don't need to have run one before. I am not sure how it works today but Lloyd's of London had a daily list of ships that were available and their location. Brokers (similar to the company that got the contract) would then charter a nearby suitable empty ship or one that the owners are willing to send empty.

Its been going on for several hundred years worldwide.

A Dub in Glasgo · 03-01-2019 12:56am

prinzeugen wrote: »

They don't need to have run one before. I am not sure how it works today but Lloyd's of London had a daily list of ships that were available and their location. Brokers (similar to the company that got the contract) would then charter a nearby suitable empty ship or one that the owners are willing to send empty.

Its been going on for several hundred years worldwide.

There is no way that company would have gotten near a government awarded contract if it was done under UK government procurement rules never mind the EU procurement rules

03-01-2019 10:24am

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There is no way that company would have gotten near a government awarded contract if it was done under UK government procurement rules never mind the EU procurement rules

Can you really say that without knowing the details though?

I would guess that the tender was to increase freight capacity by opening up an existing but currently unused port, which this is doing.

threat of a new entry in to a market will drive down costs, but a market like this would have a high cost of entry, so the Government helping a fledgling company get up and running (especially one that has a highly experienced management team) makes sense, surely?

A Dub in Glasgo · 03-01-2019 9:25pm

Don't think so

https://twitter.com/OpenBritThame/status/1080921572351885312

03-01-2019 9:43pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Don't think so

https://twitter.com/OpenBritThame/status/1080921572351885312

You don’t think what?

A Dub in Glasgo · 03-01-2019 9:46pm

that the UK government has complied with their own requirement for due diligence for tendering and awarding contracts

Capt'n Midnight · 03-01-2019 9:57pm

prinzeugen wrote: »

They don't need to have run one before. I am not sure how it works today but Lloyd's of London had a daily list of ships that were available and their location. Brokers (similar to the company that got the contract) would then charter a nearby suitable empty ship or one that the owners are willing to send empty.

Its been going on for several hundred years worldwide.

But the only way a company without ships can make a profit is if they can hire ships at a good price.

Given that the people with ships didn't even tender for the route this may not be possible.

03-01-2019 9:58pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

that the UK government has complied with their own requirement for due diligence for tendering and awarding contracts

Which is what, exactly?

There was only one bidder, so they gave them an award of 14million when they get the service up and running. This gives them guaranteed revenue and allows them to secure financing for the pro to be done.

There is very little risk to the government and helps to get a business up and running and open a port, bringing jobs to an an area.

Seth Brundle · 03-01-2019 10:05pm

Aegir wrote: »

There is very little risk to the government and helps to get a business up and running and open a port, bringing jobs to an an area.

There is a big risk. Rather than revisit the tender and see why experienced operators are not applying they have given it to a company with no experience who may balls up the operation creating additional costs for the users or customers.
It remains to be seen what the punishment clauses are.

Capt'n Midnight · 03-01-2019 10:14pm

So far the only nautical thing this company has done is possibly a bit of piracy.

Reproducing someone else's terms and conditions, including the do not copy bit :rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight · 03-01-2019 10:17pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There is a big risk. Rather than revisit the tender and see why experienced operators are not applying they have given it to a company with no experience who may balls up the operation creating additional costs for the users or customers.
It remains to be seen what the punishment clauses are.

At present there is nothing to say it's anything other than Bait and Switch.

The company is risking £66 ,
while the government may have to pay good money after bad to keep the wheels turning.

I'd be surprised if the contract was given to another company, that this company wouldn't sue over it. There is literally no downside for them as they have next to nothing at risk.

03-01-2019 10:19pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There is a big risk. Rather than revisit the tender and see why experienced operators are not applying they have given it to a company with no experience who may balls up the operation creating additional costs for the users or customers.
It remains to be seen what the punishment clauses are.

I would hazard a guess and say the existing operators don’t want to see increased capacity, for obvious reasons.

To me, this looks like a classic example of a buyer using Porter’s five forces to good effect.

AndyBoBandy · 03-01-2019 11:30pm

The login portal.... (never mind the fast food delivery T’s & C’s)

...is just a photo of a log in box. And when you click it, just brings you to google.

My guess is the toff who owns the company (is getting richer) hadn’t lifted a finger, and when the deal was made public, needed a website asap so got his 8 year old son to knock something together.

https://seabornefreight.com/timetable

Capt'n Midnight · 04-01-2019 2:06am

Hmmm

https://www.ferryshippingnews.com/ports-of-ostend-and-ramsgate-welcome-new-cross-channel-freight-ferry-operator/

One of the ships is the former ro-pax trainferry SEAFRANCE NORD PAS-DE-CALAIS. She has been operating as FRS-owned AL ANDALUS EXPRESS between Motril and Tanger-Med, and is now at anchor near Cadiz.

APRN looks to be down in the Canaries
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:172734/mmsi:209011000/imo:8512152/vessel:AL_ANDALUS_EXPRESS

And the reason it's down there is that it's in service down there
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87102

With the ship currently operating as a ferry in the Canaries, between Las Palmas and Puerto del Rosario, the only ship that can be named as suitable for the Ramsgate-Ostend route is clearly not available for hire elsewhere.

Even then, with a capacity only of 90 vehicles and single-deck loading, it is not an optimum vessel for a high density route requiring fast turnovers. But then, as a vessel originally designed as a specialist rail ferry, that was never its function. Even were it available, it would hardly make a dent in the traffic which might be displaced from the Dover route.

Background of the ship http://www.hhvferry.com/NPDC.html

expectationlost · 04-01-2019 10:45pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Hmmm

https://www.ferryshippingnews.com/ports-of-ostend-and-ramsgate-welcome-new-cross-channel-freight-ferry-operator/ APRN looks to be down in the Canaries
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:172734/mmsi:209011000/imo:8512152/vessel:AL_ANDALUS_EXPRESS

And the reason it's down there is that it's in service down there
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87102

Background of the ship http://www.hhvferry.com/NPDC.html

Pauline Bastidon, head of European policy at the Freight Transport Association, said the port could not replace Dover in the short term. "Like a lot of the other ideas it is not realistic to see a massive shift from Dover to Ramsgate in the next four months. It takes time to launch new services", she said.

who the heck is suggesting Ramsgate is meant to replace Dover?

Capt'n Midnight · 04-01-2019 11:14pm

expectationlost wrote: »

who the heck is suggesting Ramsgate is meant to replace Dover?

Not replace, just take the pressure off.

Right now a truck from Switzerland can take hours to get through UK customs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46739895

But any lorries arriving from a non-EU country, such as Switzerland, are subject to longer delays.

"If customs don't want to check anything, that would [still] delay the vehicle by about an hour or an hour and a half [while the driver waits for a decision]," Andrew Baxter, the managing director of the freight logistics company Europa Worldwide, told a House of Commons Committee last year.

"If customs wanted to do a documentary check, that could delay it by up to three hours, and if there was an inspection of the goods, that could delay it by up to five hours," he added.

Portsmouth will also be used to take pressure off Dover

"The distance between the freight check-in desk at Portsmouth International Port and the beginning of the motorway is just 13 lorry lengths," said a statement issued on Thursday by council leaders in Hampshire, "so a queue of 14 lorries or more would mean queuing traffic on the motorway."

A Dub in Glasgo · 04-01-2019 11:30pm

Surely it is the customs processing of vehicles that takes time so unless the UK are going to increase the manpower / facilities of the Border Force, having a smaller terminal dock some ships is not going to be useful. Considering the UK wants to have open borders, why would they be checking lorries anyway?

expectationlost · 05-01-2019 1:10am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not replace, just take the pressure off.

Right now a truck from Switzerland can take hours to get through UK customs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46739895

Portsmouth will also be used to take pressure off Dover

but look at the silly claims being made, the trucking spokesperson in the UK is as bad as the one here.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-01-2019 11:54pm

we already knew that the getting the UK port up and running was unlikely

Well guess what ?
The mayor of Ostend has told the BBC the Belgian port will not be ready for a new ferry line in time for Brexit. :rolleyes:

MaryBrosnan · 09-01-2019 12:02am

Invalid links ^

09-01-2019 12:10am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

we already knew that the getting the UK port up and running was unlikely

Well guess what ?
The mayor of Ostend has told the BBC the Belgian port will not be ready for a new ferry line in time for Brexit. :rolleyes:

Has anyone actually claimed otherwise?

Interesting article you may want to read here https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjnrNjbpt_fAhXfSxUIHbg2AWUQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fgulliver%2F2019%2F01%2F07%2Fseaborne-freight-is-the-ferry-startup-that-journalists-love-to-hate&psig=AOvVaw0vxutAmABdtox1PLxMH2o7&ust=1547075293386613

Apologies for it not fitting the narrative though.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-01-2019 12:21am

Aegir wrote: »

Has anyone actually claimed otherwise?

The company and the UK govt have claimed that the company is viable.

UK law has the concept of Wrongful Trading, once the liabilities exceed the assets and there is no prospect of turning the company around it's game over.

At present this company has no way of providing the contracted service.
Today's vote in Westminster means it's harder to slush funds to them or accept price increases.

And yes it's a distraction from the complete car crash that Brexit has become.

bigar · 09-01-2019 1:11am

katiek102010 wrote: »

Ramsgate doesn’t have the appropriate infrastructure.

Neither has Ostend. I was only there over Christmas visiting family who happen to live near the harbour.

They used to have a daily ferry to Dover, and later Ramsgate, and that stopped many years ago. The docks and space used for embarkation has now been taken over by the huge installation ships for installing windmills at sea. The rest has been transformed into a large bus station and a parking lot. Changing all that back, even partly, will never be possible by March.

09-01-2019 10:27am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The company and the UK govt have claimed that the company is viable.

that isn't what i asked.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK law has the concept of Wrongful Trading, once the liabilities exceed the assets and there is no prospect of turning the company around it's game over.

what has that got to do with anything?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At present this company has no way of providing the contracted service.
Today's vote in Westminster means it's harder to slush funds to them or accept price increases.

what service are they contracted to provide?

Gadgetman496 · 09-02-2019 11:41am

UK cancels contract for extra ferries in no-deal Brexit.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0209/1028504-seaborne-freight-britain/

Gadgetman496 · 12-02-2019 3:12pm

Govt was warned that Brexit ferry firm with no ships was 'high risk'.

https://news.sky.com/story/seaborne-freight-brexit-ferry-firm-was-identified-as-high-risk-nao-report-says-11635137

AndyBoBandy · 12-02-2019 3:20pm

Watching Channel 4 news the other day, Seabourne had claimed Arklow Shipping was a backer, whereas in reality, Arklow Shipping had merely only shown an interest in coming on board (pardon the pun), but that was as far as their involvement went.. nothing was signed or negotiated.

You couldn't make it up!!

12-02-2019 3:48pm

its a shame sensationalist journalism has meant ferry services won't be running from Ramsgate for the foreseeable future.

end of the road · 12-02-2019 4:24pm

Aegir wrote: »

its a shame sensationalist journalism has meant ferry services won't be running from Ramsgate for the foreseeable future.

no, it is the company being unable to deliver on the contract, and the government not being more careful as to who they awarded the contract to, which has meant there won't be ferry services. supposed sensationalist journalism would make no difference and no amount of it would have stopped the services if the company actually had been able to deliver. the british government screwed up again, just like they always do.

Brexit ferry contract awarded to company with no ships

Comments