ac(ifi 'Only freight operators
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
are apparently being penalised'
4 nce again the cross-Channel ferry operators have shown that although they apparently do not (heaven forbid) collude on matters of commercial self interest they still subscribe to the same financial advisers and script writers.
Almost without exception the surcharge requirements and calculations of all the major ferry operators are similar as is the wording of their "we have no choice" letters.
This is despite the fact that they must all have varying abilities in their cost control, different levels of actual cost and in a proper competitive market, differing commercial reasons for the level of increase to be applied.
It is always difficult to prove collusion conclusively and, despite the efforts of the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and Transfrigoroute, the mandarins at Whitehall are unlikely to take effective action. However, the international hauliers that serve this country so well will make up their minds and those that survive this additional financial burden will long remember these events.
A Sealink spokesman has apparently hit back at freight operators, implying that we would act as they have (CM5-11 November). This in itself highlights how divorced from reality and their customers' position they are. The spokesman says that high increases in fuel costs would be passed on by the hauliers. Does the spokesman know fuel prices are currently very near to the peak hit during the Gulf War, yet I know of no haulier who has secured an increase from its customers to cover this. We are mostly aware of our clients' ability to pay, and the choice hauliers' clients have in other suppliers A matter of equal concern, but more sickening, is the fact that only freight operators are apparently being penalised with this surcharge. The excuses for this vary: one major company suggests that all its current passenger traffic is subject to special promotion deals anyway, and so it would be inappropriate. No doubt we can all look forward to special promotions for freight operators in the New Year.
Another major player stated quite clearly that it decided it would be more appropriate to surcharge passengers by increases in their on-board prices of food, drink and duty-free. Needless to say this action, if it is true, has not been published.
The most disturbing fact is that coach operators are not to bear their share of the cost increases. This means that freight operators are either bearing the full cost alone or being singularly unfairly treated. Surely someone in Brussels or the Hague would have something to say about that!
Why should the ferry companies see coach operators as different to freight? Their commercial methods and interests are similar, but they do not provide the ferries with a loyal year-round level of business. Perhaps it's the fact that coaches provide the means for the ferries to "milk" greater numbers of passengers once on board.
Whatever the reasons, the situation stinks! Either the ferries have a justifiable case for a surcharge which should fairly, equally and openly be recovered from all their customers, or they should scrap their scheme entirely.
Whatever route they choose much damage has been done both in financial terms and the all important confidence and trust needed between trading partners.
If the ferry operators persist in this totally unfair situation, then one can only assume they will collect the higher level of bad debts they deserve./ CI If you want to sound off about a road transport issue write to features editor Patric Cunnane