General

Priorities for the next NIFS contract

If ‘other’, please provide details

Respondents were invited to select (up to) three ranked priorities for the next NIFS contract. The choices offered in the consultation paper were:

• reliability
• punctuality
• quality of on-board catering
• quality of on-board accommodation
• ease of changing a booking
• ease of booking a ticket
• customer service by staff on board
• customer service by staff in ferry terminals
• signage at and enroute to ferry terminals
• other

The number of respondents allocating their first second and third priorities to each criterion are shown in Chart 5 below, with a full numerical breakdown by respondent type set out in Annex 2. The chart shows the priorities of Orkney and Shetland respondents separately and then the totals for all respondents (including all individual respondents and those organisations who answered this question).

Please note that to make the priorities of Orkney and Shetland easier to compare, the scale of vertical axis on the Orkney chart has been increased so that the highest priority bar is of equivalent size to that for Shetland.

Taking all respondents together, reliability and quality of accommodation were identified as the top priorities for the next NIFS contract, albeit with slightly more respondents ranking reliability as the top priority.

When the priorities of Orkney and Shetland residents are considered separately, reliability was the top priority for those on Orkney with quality of on-board accommodation in second place. These priorities were reversed for Shetland residents, who ranked quality of accommodation as most important. Ease of booking a ticket was the third most frequent choice for Shetland residents, while those from Orkney placed a greater emphasis on punctuality.

With respect to ‘other’ priorities identified by respondents, (A total of 331 respondents selected ‘other’ as one of their three priorities. Details are set out in Annex 2), those suggested most often were:

• quantity of accommodation – more capacity in general, and specifically more cabin space, more space to lie flat, bringing back shared cabins, more vehicle space and the ability to book both a car and a cabin on the same service.
• price in general and the price of cabins in particular, with a view that affordability should be a priority in its own right.
• prioritising the needs of islanders and pricing specifically for islanders.

Capacity issues tended to be raised more often by Shetland based respondents than those from Orkney. A ‘Local authority or transport partnership respondent’ argued that, as overnight travel is unavoidable for Shetland residents, fair access to the available accommodation is important to maintain community confidence.

There was also a view that all the priorities listed in the consultation paper are important.

Other priorities suggested by fewer respondents included:

• additional freight capacity
• improved integration with mainland transport networks
• more pet-friendly cabins
• more sailings and specifically daytime sailings
• improved booking and communication systems

Other suggestions for improving NIFS services

Around 710 respondents answered Question 18, although most frequently to reiterate points made at earlier questions concerning the type of accommodation that should (or should not) be provided, a desire for more cabin space and calls to bring back shared cabins. These comments were more likely to be made by Shetland residents than those from Orkney. Other suggestions included that NIFS services could be improved by:

• increasing capacity by using larger vessels or having more sailings and, specifically, scheduling additional services at peak times.
• offering more affordable fares.
• having better or less expensive on-board catering.
• giving islanders priority in the booking process, including priority access to cabins.

A general point with respect to the booking system was that it should be possible to make bookings further in advance than has been possible recently.

Onboard facilities

Comments related to on-board catering included requests for: better food and coffee; more vegetarian food and options for those with special dietary requirements; more seating and tables in the restaurant; longer café opening hours; more use of local produce; and bringing back the islander discount for on-board catering. It was also suggested that there should be a larger bar area, that both bars should be opened, or in contrast, that one bar should be closed and the additional space used to provide horizontal sleeping options.

Other suggestions relating to on-board facilities included calls for:

• improved internet/Wi-Fi connectivity.
• more pet-friendly cabins and other pet-friendly spaces on vessels and improved kennel facilities.
• more things to do, particularly in terms of activities for children.

However, it was also reported that the cinema is too far forward in the boat (and hence subject to too much motion when sailing) and is little used.

Event Feedback

Feedback provided by attendees at the Lerwick event included:

“Food options – little for gluten free – and very pricey – more options please for gluten intolerance.”

“Dining area cordoned off for tour trips – I have not been able to find a table when ones are free but cordoned off for tourists.”

“The 30% islander discount in the restaurant bar has been removed, so I have stopped using them.”

Routes and timetables

A small number of ‘Individual’ respondents made points concerning the Aberdeen-Lerwick services calling at Kirkwall. Some – all residents of Shetland – suggested that fewer or no boats should call at Kirkwall. They noted that Orkney has alternative ferry routes to the mainland whereas Shetland only has one, and that not calling at Kirkwall would both reduce sailing time and improve capacity issues for those travelling to Lerwick.

In contrast a small number of others (largely although not exclusively Orkney residents) suggested that more or all Aberdeen-Lerwick services should call at Kirkwall.

Other proposals included:

• a separate Kirkwall-Lerwick service.
• earlier arrival and departure times at Kirkwall.
• additional routes, for example Lerwick-Scrabster or Stromness-Scrabster-Aberdeen.

With respect to the Scrabster-Stromness route it was suggested that later departures from both Stromness and Scrabster would be welcome, as would running an 11a.m. service from Stromness-Scrabster throughout the year and not just in the summer.

An ‘Other business or representative body’ respondent highlighted the importance of this route as lifeline service for mainland communities, arguing that it must also be shaped for these communities and not just those of the islands.

While there were calls for more sailings on some routes and additional services on others, a ‘Trade union’ respondent observed that the next NIFS contract must ensure that schedules, turnaround times, and crewing levels are determined primarily by safety and fatigue-management principles rather than commercial pressures.

Event Feedback

Feedback provided by attendees at the Lerwick event included:

“If the ferries did not sail into Orkney so many times, this would free up cabin space and car space. Orkney is well served for routes to the mainland. It seems to us that Orkney is prioritised.”

“Don’t call at Orkney when sailing from Shetland – they have other services.”

Feedback from the event in Kirkwall included:

“Boarding and disembarking times in Orkney (on Aberdeen route) not good for families with young children. Also doesn’t work well with connections to other islands in Orkney.”

Feedback from Stromness included:

“Reinstate the 1100 Stromness-Scrabster sailing and the 1315 Scrabster sailing in the winter.”

“1100 sailing is really missed and has negative impact for islanders and harder for accessibility to get to ferry.”

Reliability / Resilience

As indicated by responses at Question 17, reliability was seen as an important issue by many respondents, with one ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent describing reliability as under pinning all the other aspects of a lifeline service.

While there were relatively few comments on current reliability levels, some respondents did highlight issues relating to resilience and future-proofing including calls for:

• planning for fleet and infrastructure renewal, environmental responsibility, and long-term sustainability.
• a commitment to regular stakeholder engagement and joint planning sessions, particularly when planning new vessels.
• improved consultation with the recognised trade unions, including over vessel design and commercial crewing levels.

Appreciation for current service

Finally, it should be noted that some respondents expressed a view that, apart from capacity issues, the service currently provided is good and, in particular, that the current operator’s staff do a great job. There was also appreciation of the sponsorship that the operator provides – for example to local charities and sports groups.