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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

get red funnel in then

wight link are bullys.

should be boy cotted

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.

what arrogance. Block them and let them withdraw and allow someone else to take over.

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.

Build a bridge

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?

King Mush wrote:
Build a bridge

monorail

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

I love getting píssed on ferries.

George Burley wrote:
I love getting píssed on ferries.

I once got drunk while listening to Elton John, is this the same?

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.

Will the bigger boats fit in the channels? It's sometimes a struggle even for the current ones.

hmm wrote:

King Mush wrote: Build a bridge

monorail

I gottit!

High speed crossing:

A giant catapult!


(Trebuchet for the purists)

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

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.

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 can accommodate ferries that are '0.8' m wider. that's 40 cm each side more.... about the same amount of empty space as some here have between each ear...

So where would these Other ferries run from? any one got any smart comment on that? Because i am sure if Wightlink were to suspend the service, they sure as hell wouldnt just hand over the keys to the terminal to someone else, would they?? it's their land!!