Overcharging catamarans and other wickeded prices etc. in Croatia

[wcapital]

Personally, I prefer not to go most places where paying for a mooring OR a slip is required.

For a mooring rate it seems to me more appropriate to charge by the ton, not length, beam, square feet, people aboard or even draft!

Given what I read about this, and license requirements, there....I suspect that I may never cruise in Croatia.... (though I am happy to see them in the World Cup finals).

[meirriba]

Originally Posted by cuffy

Absolutely outrageous on mooring buoys. Completely understand in a Marina, unless of course alongside where no more room taken up.

This was my argument in Kos marina (Greece) when we were charged 50% more than similar length monohull and still given an alongside berth.
But - the office lady told me with a smile that a monohull that is moored alongside pays the same surcharge of 50% for the 'privilege'...

[2big2small]

Only 50% more? Well I for one am shocked! It should be at least dubbel the price!

But seriously, a case can be made for my statement above. Since cats have about twice the windage as a mono, they need mooring balls that are twice as strong/heavy.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by MartinR

This is not overcharging. Size wise and cost wise a catamaran is 50% bigger and more expensive than a mono of the same length. So I understand the reasoning completely. Charging catamarans by length would be about the same as charging rent by the length of the apartment

I think the fairest practise is to charge by the square foot.

For a mooring?

[atoll]

what will be really annoying is when you get charged for anchoring,and cats get charged 50% more.......

[mikedefieslife]

Area is probably the most fair system.

Then older cats aren't penalised for their modern brethren.

A Lagoon 380 (which these days is considered a small cat), has almost 2m more beam than an old Prout 37, more windage and higher weight.

Speaking of windage though, most modern monos will present more windage than an old cat. I know almost every mono I'm next to has a much higher freeboard then my cat, plus all kinds of appendages, like bimini's, solar arches etc..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by 2big2small

But seriously, a case can be made for my statement above. Since cats have about twice the windage as a mono, they need mooring balls that are twice as strong/heavy.

Of course, the bulk of the charge is for the space not the mooring gear.

If we assume an up-sized mooring costs and extra $500 to install and is in use 250days per year...if the mooring has a 6yr lifespan...that works out to $0.33/day of use. Even if it's a $1500 up charge, that's only $1/day.

So unless the mooring is $2/day to start, the heavier mooing gear doesn't hold up as justification for a 50% surcharge.

[wcapital]

Originally Posted by 2big2small

Only 50% more? Well I for one am shocked! It should be at least dubbel the price!

But seriously, a case can be made for my statement above. Since cats have about twice the windage as a mono, they need mooring balls that are twice as strong/heavy.

Twice the windage? Maybe....but half the displacement as well. Which is more important?

Here’s a relevant question - what size ground tackle is typically carried by a 45' cat, or 45' monohull (of similar levels of relative performance vs. cruising comfort etc., of course)?

[GTom]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Of course, the bulk of the charge is for the space not the mooring gear.

If we assume an up-sized mooring costs and extra $500 to install and is in use 250days per year...if the mooring has a 6yr lifespan...that works out to $0.33/day of use. Even if it's a $1500 up charge, that's only $1/day.

So unless the mooring is $2/day to start, the heavier mooing gear doesn't hold up as justification for a 50% surcharge.

If a mooring is used 60days/year in Croatia, it's an optimistic guess. Season is about two months there.

As for Croatia being expensive: yes, it is. The major income source of the country is (marine) tourism, no other real industries there. No wonder that they try to squeeze the last buck possible...

Back to the original question: I am not sure that a cat would need a significantly heavier mooring gear. AFAIK, the displacement of the boat defines the type of mooring she can use and cats don't have heavy keels, thus won't be heavier than similar length mono's.

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

Area is probably the most fair system.

For marinas absolutely agreed. Modern mono's tend to be very beamy, a wide-beam boat may carry more crew (using the marina facilities) than a narrow beam classic boat. For mooring balls without any further service, it's a taxing attitude to differentiate between vessels using the same mooring gear. All in all, the marinas/communities/etc. have to make their living and create a business model that scares away the least boaters. If they expect a certain revenue from a mooring ball (let's say 500€/year), they will neither chase away the frequent cheapo 9.99m boat with high charges nor bargain the ball to a millionaire with a FP47.

[cuffy]

Originally Posted by ferrailleur

a catamaran is equal the width of two monos…. right?

No
My catamaran is 11m x 6m FP Mahe, let's take a look at modern monohulls;
Bavaria 36 3.75 beam
Hanse 385. 3.88 beam
Jeanneau 379. 3.76 beam
Beneteau 35.1 3.71 beam

By the time you add a fender between then Catamaran is pretty much 1.5 times bigger

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GTom

If a mooring is used 60days/year in Croatia, it's an optimistic guess. Season is about two months there.

Even if we assume 60 days/yr. At $2/day and a 6yr lifespan, they are making more than a $500 upgrade costs.

My point was the cost of the mooring gear is insignificant in trying to justify a 50% surcharge.

[GTom]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Even if we assume 60 days/yr. At $2/day and a 6yr lifespan, they are making more than a $500 upgrade costs.

My point was the cost of the mooring gear is insignificant in trying to justify a 50% surcharge.

You are right, and a sensible owner would use a strong gear anyway. Simple market segmentation then, same as a museum or transport company giving student/young age/senior discounts, etc.

[peter57]

It is most likely the "I Sore" That adds to the cost.

[danielamartindm]

Originally Posted by MartinR

This is not overcharging. Size wise and cost wise a catamaran is 50% bigger and more expensive than a mono of the same length. So I understand the reasoning completely. Charging catamarans by length would be about the same as charging rent by the length of the apartment

I think the fairest practise is to charge by the square foot.

That would be like charging a van more for a parking place than a car because the van has a bigger footprint, but still only occupies one parking place. We're talking moorings here, not dock space.

[KC375]

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

That would be like charging a van more for a parking place than a car because the van has a bigger footprint, but still only occupies one parking place. We're talking moorings here, not dock space.

It's very common in large crowded cities (NYC, London, Paris) for parking garages to charge more for larger vehicles (minivans, vans, SUVs).


If you charge by "consumption" of resource the question is what is being used? Is it length (mooring), area (slip) or volume - i.e. draft - costs a lot if dredging is needed.


IF you believe in a market economy why should you expect marinas to charge based on consumption (cost) rather than what the market will allow.