'No excuses' for Calmac extra sailings decision
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
CALMAC has been accused of making poor excuses after the ferry operator ruled out extra sailings between Ullapool and Lewis this summer.
Last year the ferry operator ran additional services on three Saturdays in August after "unprecedented demand" caused misery for holidaymakers travelling to and from the Outer Hebrides. The move proved popular, boosting tourist numbers passing in and out of Ullapool and opening up day-trip opportunities that were not available before.
At the time, Calmac’s director of service delivery, Robbie Drummond, described the extra late-night sailings as a "pilot service" and that they would be "closely monitored to assess [their] success" – raising hopes that they might be repeated in future summers.
But although tourist numbers are booming again this year, Calmac has ruled out any repeat for 2018 over fears the added workload will raise the chance of a disruptive engine breakdown. It warned it would put too much "strain" on the busy MV Loch Seaforth.
The move has been criticised by Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh councillor Derek Macleod who said the operator was paying the price for running services with little spare capacity.
"The need [for an extra sailing] hasn’t gone away," he said.
"Calmac are running basically on a shoestring, in terms of spare capacity, and the risk of a breakdown should not be an excuse for not providing a service. And they’re not providing a service."
He said the prime consideration should be on need and that recent issues on the network with breakdowns and congested ships were a sign of "a lack of investment in ferries for many years that is coming home to roost."
A spokesman for Calmac said: "There won’t be additional services in August. It was deemed to be too much of a strain on the vessel after last year and didn’t allow enough time for maintenance. If you don’t allow enough time for maintenance [then you risk a major breakdown]. If there’s a major breakdown the risk of disruption is too great, so on balance [it was decided it would] not be possible."
