Admit it takes two vessels to adequately cover route

When will the management of Condor and/or of the parent company (a large Australian conglomerate) admit that they have made a monumental mistake? They decided that there would be a huge cost saving if they could get away with running only one ferry on the UK-Channel Islands route. This, of course, would lead to considerably increased profits. They have thus followed the lead of so many other large companies – directors and remuneration first, shareholders second, and customers a very poor third.

Leaving aside the vexed question of whether the Liberation is fit for purpose for the cross-Channel route, the fact is that, however suitable the one vessel is, with the best will in the world, mechanical problems will occur on all vessels at one time or another; and especially one that is running at over 30 knots across the Channel every day.

As it is unviable to have another high speed vessel on permanent standby, there is only one solution – two vessels both working on the route. That system worked well before.

In the chaos of the last week I doubt if the Clipper alone could have coped with the extra traffic. In any case, it is a little disingenuous to call the Clipper a 'back-up vessel' as it can take up to 12 hours to do the journey compared with three hours for a high-speed vessel. Hardly comparing like with like.

So, if Condor wish to continue on this route, when will they admit to themselves and to the public that a big mistake has been made and revert to two vessels for next season – that is if they wish to continue the route?

Maybe they have had enough.

EDWARD FATTORINI,

Address withheld.