That fuel burning comparison is something of a generalisation KD 191. There's little doubt that a craft that
can travel at the speed achieved by the HSS will burn more fuel than a conventional ferry, although we are not comparing like with like.

I would say that the day the the HSS into DL was reduced to one round voyage per day, the writing was on the wall without the added
problem of the massive fuel price hike that would have tilted the balance in favour of the conventional ferry.

The problem with the HSS is that the vessel and the supporting infrastructure, which I think is unique to the HSS, makes the
craft very inflexible.
Given that ships in general are written off over 20 years and the industry norm is to convert that to a cost per day. If the vessel is only performing for
about 5 hours per day instead of 10 or perhaps 15 then that entire daily capital cost has to be recovered in just that one voyage.

It is operating in the premium end of the market, but I dont think passenger numbers are such that they get enough additional return on that aspect.

I suspect that Stena would be comparing their finacial position on the options available to them :

1 ] Stop HSS service to DL now and write off balance of unrecovered capital costs, added to which there would be extra costs of pulling the plug, or

2 ] Soldiering on, keeping costs to very minimum and hoping that the sun will shine on the ferry industry sometime in the next few years.

The other factor would the higher residual value of the HSS if it were sold now versus selling it for further use or scrap in a few years time.

It's hard to imagine that either option represents a happy position to be in.

E N





Edited 1 time by Eastern Nat 15/10/2009 16:35:48.