Capacity and demand

During 2025 and 2026 Transport Scotland will be carrying out a Community Needs Assessment. This project will provide evidence and ferry service options for the future Northern Isles Ferry Services (NIFS4) contract, as well as for planned capital investments in vessels and port.

Types of accommodation

Overnight cabins

Around 1075 respondents made a comment at Question 1(a).

The most frequently made points regarding cabins were that their quality is good or adequate, but that there is not enough capacity. Perceived reasons for this lack of capacity included a reduction in the number of available berths since it is no longer an option to book a single berth in a shared cabin, and there were calls for this facility to be reinstated on grounds of both availability and cost.

Event feedback

Feedback provided from the Stromness community event included:

“Would like to bring back shared cabins - feels unfair to have a whole cabin to self while others have nowhere to sleep.”

Feedback provided by attendees at the Lerwick event included:

“Bring back shared cabins – it’s happening unofficially anyway!”

Cabin quality and size

Positive features noted with respect to cabins included that they are usually clean and comfortable, and that having a TV is appreciated. Negative aspects, referenced by smaller numbers of respondents, included that:

• cabins are too small.
• cabins are dated or in need of upgrading.
• ventilation is poor, meaning cabins can be too hot.
• noise can be an issue (including from the car deck and barking dogs).

There were also references to showers being too small or prone to flooding, and to a lack of repair and maintenance (for example relating to TVs that do not work). There were requests for more power points and better WiFi. Overall, Orkney residents were likely to see cabin quality as slightly better than Shetland residents.

In addition to calls for an increase in overall cabin capacity it was suggested that there should be:

• more two berth cabins.
• a mix of single, couple and family cabins (including some cabins for families of more than four).
• consideration of crew accommodation standards and training berths for apprentices and cadets.

Cabin availability

It was reported that cabins are seldom available at short notice and need to be booked months ahead, with lack of availability meaning that, in some cases, people do not travel at all or have to use an alternative route. Some respondents described booking a cabin as important or essential, citing reasons relating to age, health or disability, personal security, being properly rested for onward travel, or the extent to which seasickness is improved by the ability to lie down. In general, Shetland residents were rather more likely to consider a cabin essential for travel then Orkney residents.

From a business perspective, a ‘Farming or land management organisation’ respondent reported that lack of short-term availability of cabin (and vehicle) space has caused delays in getting their equipment serviced or repaired.

In addition to a general requirement for additional cabins/berths, it was suggested that there should be both more accessible cabins and more pet-friendly cabins. It was noted that, at present, anyone can book these cabins, with a related suggestion that ability to book them should be restricted to those who need these special facilities. A further restriction, proposed by a small number of respondents (all of whom identified themselves as Shetland residents), was that on Aberdeen - Lerwick services, passengers for Kirkwall should not normally be able to book a cabin as they will not be on board overnight.

While some ‘Individual’ respondents referenced the number of tourists and business passengers on sailings, a ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent argued that the real issue is not competing priorities of different groups of passengers but a lack of capacity at peak times (both at pinch points in the week and at seasonal peaks). They suggested that the NIFS4 contract must address cabins as essential core capacity that is managed in a transparent manner.

Event feedback

Feedback from Lerwick included:

“The current cabins are good but availability is a huge problem.”

“There is not enough capacity - especially if you need to travel at short notice.”

“Acute issue booking a cabin and a car on the ferry between May to September now – some months there are only a handful of days or none at all.”

Cabin price

The high cost of cabins was an issue for some respondents because the inability to book a berth in a shared cabin means that single travellers have to book a larger cabin than they need, with unused berths then wasted. The current pricing structure was also seen as contributing to the capacity problem since 4-berth cabins (all of which are inside, with no window) are cheaper than those 2-berth cabins that are outside (with a sea view).

Two ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondents were among those making points with respect to cabin pricing including that:

• since these are lifeline services, islander discounts should apply on vehicles and cabins, with no ‘peak’ season rates.
• for single, older passengers the value of concessionary travel (i.e. four free, single journeys per year, inclusive of a cabin) is being reduced as they are either required to surrender two vouchers for sole use of a 2-berth cabin, or pay a supplement for the unused berth.

It was suggested that, going forward, single older travellers should not be required to surrender additional vouchers or pay for unused berths, so that the concession provides equal benefit to all over-60s, regardless of whether they travel alone or with others.

Cabin booking procedures

In addition to bringing back the ability to book a single berth in a shared cabin it was suggested that in future:

• booking windows should be extended to give all users scope to plan ahead.
• the current reserved space for travel relating to healthcare should be maintained or extended.
• block/group bookings should be capped and monitored.
• a transparent, sequential waiting list system should ensure that cancelled cabins are allocated fairly.

Overnight pods

Around 975 respondents made a comment at Question 1(b).

The most frequently made points about overnight pods were negative, with descriptions including that they are ‘awful’, ‘terrible’ or not fit-for purpose. Specific issues are discussed below. While expressing a view that pods may be suitable for some travellers, a ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent noted that they have not been ‘universally welcomed’. Although some respondents reported that having tried a pod they would not do so again, others observed that they have not, and would not try the pods, based either on their appearance or on feedback from others. Shetland residents were rather more likely to express the latter view than those from Orkney.

In contrast, a much smaller number of respondents described overnight pods as ‘acceptable’ or ‘OK’, and a very small number reported liking pods or considering them to be ‘good’. Price relative to cabins was one of the positive reasons given for choosing a pod and a ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent saw pods as a good mid-price option, providing improved passenger comfort while using space efficiently. It should be noted, however, that some of the respondents who found pods acceptable also raised similar problems to those cited by passengers who strongly disliked the pods.

Comfort and ability to sleep

A frequent view was that pods are uncomfortable, particularly for taller passengers. Not allowing the user to lie flat was also a frequently cited problem (particularly by Shetland residents) and some respondents reported finding pods impossible to sleep in. Indeed, there was a view that it is preferable to sleep on the floor.

In addition to the design of the pods themselves, issues with several aspects of the pod lounges were raised, most frequently in relation to noise. Sources of noise included both fellow passengers (including when under the influence of alcohol, being sick and using mobile phones) and heavy doors opening and closing. Overly bright lighting and being cold were also referenced as making sleep difficult.

The lack of space between pods was also highlighted, and it was suggested that this contributes to a feeling of being over-crowded. It was also reported that the passenger in a pod next to the wall is required to climb over the person next to them in order to get in and out.

Safety and security

As well as a lack of privacy and the absence of anywhere secure to leave belongings, there were concerns that female passengers are not, or do not feel safe in mixed sex pod lounges, particularly in the absence of oversight by staff. A ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent noted that although the operator says that lounges are monitored, passenger experience suggests that visible staff presence and better design are needed to provide reassurance. A small number of respondents reported that they, personally, had felt unsafe or intimidated in the pod lounge. While some respondents cited inebriated male passengers as a matter for concern, others said they were uncomfortable sleeping next to a male passenger that they do not know.

Event feedback

Feedback provided by attendees at the Kirkwall community event included:

“Using Aberdeen route to go for holidays, travelling as family with 3 children, pods don't feel safe, people drunk, loud!”

Views from the Stromness event included:

“Pod experience sharing with drunk people, staff not proactive to help resolve. Should divide men/women/couples.”

Comments from the event in Lerwick included:

“Pods are not fit for purpose – lay flat options with some privacy essential – not safe for single females (seen harassment first hand).”

Suitability

In light of all the above factors, it was argued that, in addition to taller people and (particularly single) female passengers, pods are also unsuitable for families with children, for groups of under 18s, or for elderly people and people with disabilities. It was also suggested that pods are also not suitable for people needing to drive or work the next day, or for those travelling to compete in sports competitions.

There was support for:

• continued research into lie-flat pod options, including Japanese-style pods/ couchette type bunk beds, with workable options taken forward.
• improved design and management of pod lounges to ensure dignity, safety and security with specific requests for single sex lounges, lounges specifically for pet owners, and more space between pods.
• pods as an affordable alternative, but not as a substitute for adequate cabin provision.

Overnight reclining or standard seats

Around 910 respondents made a comment at Question 1(c), with the most frequent view being that these seats are not suitable for overnight use. Often reflecting comments on overnight pods, respondents reported that reclining seats are uncomfortable, and do not allow the user to lie flat or to sleep. Also as with overnight pods, some respondents noted that they would prefer to sleep on the floor. The importance of lying down to avoid being seasick was highlighted by respondents who said they could not use reclining or standard seats.

Location was also viewed as a problem since reclining and standard seats are in open-access areas, with some respondents arguing that for this reason they are not suitable for children or safeguarding under 18s. The position towards the bow was also referenced as adding to discomfort in bad weather.

Respondents reported their ability to sleep being reduced by:

• bright lights that are not dimmed overnight.
• noise and disturbance caused by people moving about in public areas, by proximity to the bar or games machines and by other people being sick.
• the cold temperature.

The absence of any safe storage area was also noted.

Some respondents saw reclining or standard seats as an acceptable budget option with a view that they are preferable to pods. There were also suggestions with respect to potential improvements, both to the design of reclining seats themselves (including the ability to recline and providing better foot/leg support) and their environment (addressing the issues relating to lighting, noise and temperature and providing access to charging points). A ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent also suggested creating designated seating zones (quiet, family, general) and providing accessible seating close to toilets and facilities designed for passengers with reduced mobility.

A late cancellation fee

The consultation paper noted that, on occasion, vessels showing as fully booked sail with empty spaces because some booked cars, lorries and/or cabin users do not show or fail to cancel.

Responses to Question 2 by respondent type are set out in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Responses to Question 2 by respondent type

Type	Respondent group	Yes	No	No opinion	Total
Individuals	NIFS network resident - Orkney	159	83	12	254
Individuals	% of NIFS network resident - Orkney	63%	33%	5%	100%
Individuals	NIFS network resident - Shetland	427	231	70	728
Individuals	% of NIFS network resident - Shetland	59%	32%	10%	100%
Individuals	All other individual respondents	64	23	8	95
Individuals	% of all other individual respondents	67%	24%	8%	100%
Individuals	Total individuals answering	650	337	90	1077
Individuals	% of individuals answering	60%	31%	8%	100%
Organisations	Farming or land management organisation	0	1	0	1
Organisations	Freight company or representative body	1	1	0	2
Organisations	Local authority or transport partnership	2	0	0	2
Organisations	Other business or representative body	2	0	1	3
Organisations	Port/harbour authority	2	0	0	2
Organisations	Public body	1	0	0	1
Organisations	Trade union	1	0	0	1
Organisations	Voluntary sector organisation	0	2	1	3
Organisations	Total organisations answering	9	4	2	15
Organisations	% of organisations answering	60%	27%	13%	100%
Total	Total respondents answering	659	341	92	1092
Total	% of all respondents answering	60%	31%	8%	100%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority of all respondents – 60% of those who answered the question – agreed, with the idea to implement a late cancellation fee for pre-booked tickets, while 31% did not agree and 8% had no opinion. Orkney based respondents were slightly more likely to agree than those from Shetland, at 63% and 59% respectively.

Around 850 respondents explained their answer.

Reasons for supporting a late cancellation fee

The most frequent position was support for a late cancellation fee which was seen as being fair and justified in view of limited availability, albeit with various safeguards in place to avoid people being penalised for events beyond their control. Encouraging people to cancel bookings they do not intend to use was seen as necessary to free up capacity and it was noted that it is difficult to book vehicle space as well as cabins making it very challenging to find both on the same sailing.

In terms of current practices that might be reduced by a late cancelation fee respondents highlighted:

• people who plan to fly to but also book a ferry crossing as a back-up, only cancelling the ferry once the flight is confirmed.
• businesses and tour companies that fail to cancel unused block bookings.

Event feedback

Feedback provided by attendees at the Lerwick community event included:

“Group bookings for workers also take up valuable cabin spaces – no use for us trying to get away – spaces do become available last minute if flights go – but that’s no use if we need hotel /Air BnB places!”

Reasons for opposing a late cancellation fee

Reasons that a late cancellation fee was not supported included that flexibility is an important aspect of the current booking system and that a lifeline service should allow such flexibility as people’s plans will change. Additional issues affecting travel for those living on the smaller/outer islands were also highlighted.

Some respondents, predominantly Shetland residents, argued that it is necessary to book a back-up ferry place in case flights do not operate (for example because of fog or unreliability on the part of the air service operator). This included a small number of respondents who reported doing this themselves.

It was also argued that:

• there is a waiting list for late availability, so space does get used.
• tickets are already expensive.
• it is limited capacity that means it is necessary to book well ahead and it is this capacity that should be improved.

A ‘Farming or land management organisation’ respondent reported that as a business dealing with uncertainty on dates and inadequate capacity, their only option is to make advance bookings that they may have to cancel. Similarly, a ‘Freight company or representative body’ respondent reported that their reasons for withdrawing a pre-booked vehicle could include factors outside their control, such as poor weather impeding fishing and aquaculture operations and internal ferry disruptions.

Features of any late cancellation system

Some respondents argued that, if a late cancellation charge is introduced, the system must be designed carefully, with a focus on maximising effective capacity rather than penalising users. It must be fair, with appropriate exemptions in place.

Who would pay?

Expectations varied with respect to who might be required to pay a late cancellation fee, with businesses being the most frequent suggestion followed by tourists/non islanders and block bookings. Other suggestions related to tour buses, freight bookings and ‘repeat offenders’.

Some respondents were clear that they would not support a late cancellation fee for islanders, with reasons tending to reflect those for opposing a late cancellation fee at all, including the importance of flexibility on a lifeline service and the unreliable or unpredictable nature of air services.

Appropriate exemptions

It was also argued that islanders should not be penalised when there are late changes of plan beyond their control. Examples included:

• in case of illness or changes to medical appointments.
• if a sailing is missed due to late flights, delayed connections, vehicle breakdown or being stuck in traffic.
• weather-related travel issues.
• cancellation of a sports club’s fixture.

What is ‘reasonable notice’?

There were differing views with respect to what might constitute reasonable notice after which a charge might apply, with suggestions including:

• a relatively long period – for example less than 7 days, 14 days or less than a month.
• a shorter period – for example the day of travel, less than 12 hrs or less than 48 hrs.
• no show or failure to cancel before the ship departs.

A ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ and a ‘Public body’ respondent argued that a late cancellation fee should only apply within 24 hours of the sailing time, seeing this as the point from which there would be little opportunity to reallocate space.

Scale of charge

The small number of respondents who made specific suggestions on the potential scale of a late cancellation fee envisaged very variable charges, ranging from the whole cost of the booking to only a nominal amount, including a sliding scale depending on the time that the booking is cancelled.

Other requirements of a late cancellation fee system

If the idea of a late cancellation fee is taken forward it was argued that there must be:

• an easy way to cancel at any time and by a variety of routes (online, phone, or app channels) to encourage timely release of space.
• regular publication of data on cancellations, reallocations and recovered capacity to demonstrate impact.
• reallocation of cancellations through a transparent, sequential waiting list system to demonstrate fairness and encourage trust.
• consultation with recognised trade unions representing the operator’s ticket sales and inspection staff over the design and advertising of a fee system, to avoid any increase in aggression towards staff from passengers dissatisfied by the policy.