|
Post by Curtis on Jul 28, 2008 15:17:37 GMT -8
Nice Read, But it's a bit earlier than usual. Fresh off of looking at it, I notice that the Silhouettes of the I-Sky and Kuper are incorrect in placement and size.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Jul 29, 2008 9:52:12 GMT -8
A couple of quick observations from first perusal (though not on the pictures)...
-Minor route revenues are down. Next year's report will probably be worse, as fare increases cause more than a corresponding drop in traffic.
-Revenue from the major routes was $380 million. Reservation fees were $14 million, which is about three percent. Not quite the cash cow some maintain it is. On board revenues, gift shop/ food services brought in much more- $64 million.
-Under the terms of the Ferry Services Contract, BC Ferries didn't get the net benefit of the forgiven import duties on the Sonia; the provincial government did, by decreasing the subsidy for the northern routes.
-Looks like the only boats to be added by 2013 will be the Tenaka's replacement, and the new northern vessel.
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Nanaimo Teen on Aug 16, 2008 8:40:37 GMT -8
I agree, somewhat of a nice read. I don't like to nitpick through it all, but there was some interesting stuff. I also noticed the Island Sky's profile. It is completely wrong! If anything, she should look like the Cumberland sisters. Oh well, maybe BC Ferries will see the mistake and fix it like they did on the Kuper
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Aug 16, 2008 14:09:29 GMT -8
I agree, somewhat of a nice read. I don't like to nitpick through it all, but there was some interesting stuff. I also noticed the Island Sky's profile. It is completely wrong! If anything, she should look like the Cumberland sisters. Oh well, maybe BC Ferries will see the mistake and fix it like they did on the Kuper 'Nitpicking' usually refers to commenting on minor points that don't matter. Like, maybe, a ferry silhouette that's a small part of an annual report.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 16, 2008 15:03:19 GMT -8
Well you would think they actually had working blueprints of the vessels they had in their fleet. So a depiction of a ferry had better be accurate. Maybe that explains why some of the shipyards have such overruns on costs. Those drawings on napkins tend to wear quickly . Especially in the age of computer generated plans. A couple of clicks would generate an accurate depiction of the ferry pretty easily if you need it. However if you get an average graphic designer who may be brillant with design to redraw the ferry profiles, that explains a lot. They are graphic design orientated and therefore some license is acceptable. An engineer or technical designer would never do the same thing. You don't hire a graphic designer for advertising to do technical drawings for a ferry and the reverse. I am sure Markus would agree .
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Aug 16, 2008 22:49:41 GMT -8
Well, silly me, but I just thought that annual reports were more about the matter of the year's business and not trivialities like an incorrect illustration. How nice it would be for corporate execs everywhere if people just looked at the pictures.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 17, 2008 6:34:14 GMT -8
If Annual Reports were just business documents they would look like just another one of Flugels spread sheets. Simple charts, all numbers, no pictures, no high design, all just straightforward reporting. The numbers may be right but the average person would need a flight of triple expresso's just to keep their attention. And very few would actually look at it except accountants.
Annual reports are many companies most important marketing document. Design for well done annual reports can range from $10,000 to $50,000. That isn't including the cost of printing. Special colours, metalic inks, expensive matte and gloss varnish to make subtle differences in the way light hits the page, special binding are all employed among other printing and finishing tricks.
These days the print runs are shorter due to the advent of the web. However, setting up a press and getting it ready is the most expensive part of printing, so printing less just means those you do print actually cost more per piece. The savings of printing less is only a minor amount of press time and paper. However, now you also need to pay someone to put your document into web format.
All that effort and expense doesn't balance with not worrying about "trivialities." If this document is going to communicate your organization and going to put you on the best possible footing for your constituents, stockholders, and investors - you make sure everything is right. Lack of attention to detail communicates something about your organization as much as the pretty pictures and spreadsheets. Sure average Joe on the street may not notice. But anyone in the marine industry probably will.
Perhaps not in the case of BC Ferries, sloppy putting together of websites, annual reports and other marketing efforts can damage a company. The old addage of it takes tons of effort to build a positive reputation, and only a few short seconds to ruin it.
I have always had an issue with the fleet page on the web and it was only fixed recently. If you are going to the effort of put that page up, then do it right. With the addition of the Coastal Sisters it now been put into alphabetical order at least with the coastals at top to highlight them.
To quote Mike Holmes, "Do it right."
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 17, 2008 7:19:27 GMT -8
Well, silly me, but I just thought that annual reports were more about the matter of the year's business and not trivialities like an incorrect illustration. How nice it would be for corporate execs everywhere if people just looked at the pictures. Neil, I think you're suffering from withdrawal from Cascadian-analysis. What you need is some talk of fuel hedge accounts, etc. ;D But seriously, I'm wondering how much of the end-of-July release is just a regurgitation of the items released on SEDAR.com in mid-June. I've just checked this thread re June 13 & 16, and I posted re BCFS's release of 3/31/2008 annual results and it's management's discussion & analysis of those results. This annual report released in late July happened when I was away on vacation, and I haven't looked at it yet. I'm assuming that this is the pretty, glossy book version of the same annual reports that they released in mid June. ie. Instead of just being a document that they release for regulatory purposes on SEDAR, they take that same document and add pictures and propaganda quotes, and make it their showpiece for use in their Annual General Meeting. I'll try to remember to check out the annual report later today, but I'm expecting the key data/information to be similar to what we've already seen.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 17, 2008 13:43:12 GMT -8
I'll try to remember to check out the annual report later today, but I'm expecting the key data/information to be similar to what we've already seen. Now I've finally had a chance to peruse the Annual Report doc. Of the 96 pages, 53 are taken up by the BCFS annual financial statement and the related MD&A. So that leaves 43 pages for new info, corporate stuff that we already knew, pictures & feel-good-quotes, and the Ferry Authority's own financial statements. So here's what I thought about the 43 other pages that are new to me: Page 5: (for KerrySSI): EmployeesAlways deal from a position of honesty, integrity and mutual respect, and ensure that our employees develop to their full potential.- good intentions, but every single manager needs to believe it and practice it consistently, otherwise it's not worth anything (even if it is printed on glossy paper). That comment goes for any organization, not just the ferry company. Page 6 looks like $140,000... All the items on Page 29 re "new business" were in the MD&A report, previously released in June 08. I'm interested in what might eventually be the "other management services opportunities" and "enhanced services for our commercial customers". Maybe some of these generalities will become specifics during one of the upcoming Quarterly reports that we're all eagerly awaiting. ==================
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Aug 17, 2008 15:44:41 GMT -8
If Annual Reports were just business documents they would look like just another one of Flugels spread sheets. Simple charts, all numbers, no pictures, no high design, all just straightforward reporting. The numbers may be right but the average person would need a flight of triple expresso's just to keep their attention. And very few would actually look at it except accountants. Annual reports are many companies most important marketing document. Design for well done annual reports can range from $10,000 to $50,000. That isn't including the cost of printing. Special colours, metalic inks, expensive matte and gloss varnish to make subtle differences in the way light hits the page, special binding are all employed among other printing and finishing tricks. These days the print runs are shorter due to the advent of the web. However, setting up a press and getting it ready is the most expensive part of printing, so printing less just means those you do print actually cost more per piece. The savings of printing less is only a minor amount of press time and paper. However, now you also need to pay someone to put your document into web format. All that effort and expense doesn't balance with not worrying about "trivialities." If this document is going to communicate your organization and going to put you on the best possible footing for your constituents, stockholders, and investors - you make sure everything is right. Lack of attention to detail communicates something about your organization as much as the pretty pictures and spreadsheets. Sure average Joe on the street may not notice. But anyone in the marine industry probably will. Perhaps not in the case of BC Ferries, sloppy putting together of websites, annual reports and other marketing efforts can damage a company. The old addage of it takes tons of effort to build a positive reputation, and only a few short seconds to ruin it. I have always had an issue with the fleet page on the web and it was only fixed recently. If you are going to the effort of put that page up, then do it right. With the addition of the Coastal Sisters it now been put into alphabetical order at least with the coastals at top to highlight them. To quote Mike Holmes, "Do it right." NE, aren't you attaching an awful lot of significance to one little illustration? One of my pet peeves (I have many, and I keep them all well fed and groomed) is when a thread topic devolves into inconsequentiality because people pick out little fan type details to focus on, perhaps because they don't have the energy or inclination to consider the actual topic being discussed. I know, topics can change direction, but this one is about BC Ferries quarterly and annual reports, and one little incorrect picture just doesn't matter. If a person was pointing out a mistake as being an indication of a generally shoddy document, then there would be a story, but that's not the case. And, Mr Horn, your assumptions about my missing Cascade were way off base. I'm quite capable of maintaining a decent level of grumpiness whether he's around or not. So there.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 17, 2008 16:59:09 GMT -8
So if General Motors had an incorrect profile of a one of their cars in an annual report, that would be trivial? Or if Air Canada or West Jet had a profile of one of their aircraft that was incorrect, what would that say?
Quite likely you have never seen a client rip apart a graphic designer for similar "inconsequential errors." Or refuse to pay a bill for graphics if an incorrect car model or product is used. Or ask for the compete job to be rerun on the presses. That is why you have the client sign off on every page, and every change three ways through the middle.
Now perhaps BCFerries didn't care about the silouette, and felt it was close enough. Perhaps it would have taken a few extra days to get a correct and the annual report was behind schedule. Maybe no one really noticed. But when you are in a public business, preparing public documents and marketing, accuracy matters.
And perhaps you don't like it Neil when people who are passionate about a subject enjoy and notice (to use the condescending words already used) "little fan type details". My observations are that a lot of postings here are just that, knowing a lot of details about the topic at hand, and enjoying those details. Now I don't have the time or patience for it myself, but am always quite amazed at some of the knowledge and recall of these details. You may not like the discussion but it is in the BC Ferries Annual Report.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 17, 2008 18:20:29 GMT -8
re the Annual report discussion:
Let me jump-in, and say that perhaps Neil's point is that the discussion about silhouette-images seems trivial when in comparison people on this forum are not discussing issues arising from the written-word content of this report.
ie. if perhaps more of us had commented on the words/figures/assertions in the report, as well as the photography & images, then we wouldn't be having this side-discussion (not that there's anything wrong with this side-discussion, as it's interesting in its own right).
As for me, I think I've neglected to pay attention to the photos/images of the reports in my commentaries....although I did notice the nice photo of the Quinitsa's car deck, with Vancouver Island mountains in the background.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Aug 17, 2008 22:02:26 GMT -8
. And perhaps you don't like it Neil when people who are passionate about a subject enjoy and notice (to use the condescending words already used) "little fan type details". Actually, I often find "little fan type details' quite interesting. In their place. Some threads deserve a different focus. I've made my point, condescending though you think it is, and you've made yours. We can probably only agree to disagree. With regard to the "terminal management" opportunities refered to in the MD&A, I wonder if Pacific Marine Ventures was formed just to manage the Sidney terminal, or if it is actually pursuing other business. I don't know of any other ferry terminals in BC it could manage; maybe they're looking at non-ferry harbours? And what services for their commercial traffic could they be looking at? Hahn had mused at one time about keeping a V, but that's obviously not on now. They will have extra capacity next winter, but there is no sign of any schedule expansion. Maybe they'll be installing showers on more boats, or designated truckers lounges, as on European boats. A bit of a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 18, 2008 8:00:32 GMT -8
Under new business the following stands out for me. To quote from the same page "PMV is managing and developing the town’s ferry terminal with a focus on developing new business opportunities." That is in reference to the Sidney Terminal specifically. So whether that be additional services on site to drive revenue or additional "users", isn't defined. It gives reference to WSF being the primary user. So maybe international drop trailer service could be one possibility to make use of the customs capability. We also discussed previously the possible relocation of the Coho if the downtown redevelopment of their terminal area goes ahead. Their management of the terminal isn't restricted to, nor precludes BCFC actually using the terminal. So it could be any of the above plus other options. "Additionally, our commercial sales team is continuing to actively pursue new business and is implementing new integrated sales solutions and enhanced services for our commercial customers." This could mean just a more aggressive sales push. Perhaps an enhanced reservation system or better communications regarding schedules (online or PDA updates etc.) Fuel costs are noted. "As fuel costs continue to escalate, our annual costs could potentially reach $140 million in 2008/09." That is a 300% increase over 2003. While general fuel costs haven't risen as much as feared and have fallen back someone, I am not sure how Marine Fuel has responded. It is interesting to see that BCFC is still investigating biofuel. *BCFC had a decrease of $3.1 million in administration expenses, not likely to be noticed or commented on by those who beat the anti BCFC drum . The notes state that part of that reduction is lower telecommunications costs. Could that be part of that much commented on Telecommunications contract? Some people may want to take notice of page 66 and read the Directors conflict of interest guidelines etc. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 28, 2008 13:12:49 GMT -8
Wow, the 3/31/2008 annual meeting was this week, and now the current year's 1st quarter results are announced today.
The much awaited (by me) MD&A report will be available on SEDAR.com in a couple of days. I'll be watching for this, and posting highlights / comments here in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 28, 2008 21:17:57 GMT -8
Here's a link to BCFS's 2008-09 Business-Plan document. This is re the goals that they hope to achieve in the current year, and how they hope to achieve them. www.bcferries.com/files/PDFs/BCFV_BizPlan_FinalPDF.pdfMost of the items are things that we already know about. Here are some new items: - So I wonder if this will affect the permanence of Route-40, and maybe even enhance, or at least solidify the service-levels. - I wonder what that means? Is this re required upgrades in equipment on vessels?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 29, 2008 21:31:43 GMT -8
Here's the link to the June 30, 2008 MD&A report, on Sedar.com: ....It's a document released August 28, 2008. www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=00020627Here are some highlights, for your viewing pleasure. I can't cut/paste charts, so see above link, if you're interested in the charts/tables/chairs.... ================================ Major Routes: Northern Routes: Other Routes: Flugel Note: "gain from the sale" is defined as sales-price, less the remaining undepreciated book-value of the ship at the time. This means that the sales-price for Esquie was > $1.2Million.Flugel Note: ...and that's why there were so many coast-saver days in June...because they had to. Tariff revenue in excess of price-caps gets put into a liability account. They owe it back to "other future customers", and then it's repaid to those "other future customers" by way of Coast-Savers. Hey Neil, I think that I got your Route-30 over-charge refund, when I took a coast-saver last June. I'll send you a cheque... ;Dflugel: just kidding, here it is:=================
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 30, 2008 6:29:48 GMT -8
I find it interesting that in this report there is no mention of the Northern Discovery. If the decision is due shortly then there should be some mention in this time frame of up to 2013. Maybe they have indeed decided to refit the Wack in a major way instead?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 30, 2008 7:37:30 GMT -8
I find it interesting that in this report there is no mention of the Northern Discovery. If the decision is due shortly then there should be some mention in this time frame of up to 2013. Maybe they have indeed decided to refit the Wack in a major way instead? I've seen in previous reports that the Nor-Disc is to be a Term-3 decision, meaning that it will be a decision made during the next term (starting after - not before - 2013).
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Sept 1, 2008 20:13:44 GMT -8
Yes Paul that is true about the C's being used on Route 1 except Miss Alberni ruined that when she went wild and tried to become an overland ferry and ran aground. So that is why the C's are now not used on Route 1. * This is now an alteration to my orginal post just because I am following in the footsteps of someone I admire. What Flug has to say is usually interesting. And to my amazement is when he asks and answers his own questions is still interesting .
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 1, 2008 20:28:00 GMT -8
... And to my amazement is when he asks and answers his own questions is still interesting . I'm my own imaginary-friend, and foe. You should see all the user-accounts that I created, just so that I could ban them..... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Sept 1, 2008 20:32:25 GMT -8
Now that is funny! A lot of things make sense now ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 1, 2008 20:49:28 GMT -8
Hey there, Flug you are the monarch of this forum. We all bow to you. Hello again, Kyle. Please be aware we are recording all of these posts along with your IP information. If this continues, we will be getting in touch with all of the internet providers your internet access to this forum has originated from...
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Sept 1, 2008 20:56:36 GMT -8
Fluge, you are my hero. When I get old I want to be like you. I am almost there. Already fat, just need to grow a beard and get a tilly hat. Love you long time You never cease to amaze us, Kyle... Thanks for the laugh..! ;D
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Sept 1, 2008 21:00:02 GMT -8
Re C's on route 1... The details above are not correct.
The C's have not seen a great deal of service on Route 1 except for the Alberni when she was new, and also the Oak Bay, when she was new. Once all for V's had been lifted (1982) the C's were gone.
From 1976 to about 1980 the Alberni was the fifth ferry on route 1, providing a dedicated truck & overheight service which allowed the unlifted V's to focus on underheights. She made the crossing in 75 minutes. Once the Oak Bay was available it worked route 1 for one year, joining the lifted Q's of Victoria & Vancouver, and the unlifted Esq & Saanich. By the following year the Esq & Saanich had also been lifted and there was no longer a need for the C's. A spare 'B class' was sometimes used as a fifth vessel on route 1 during pre-Spirit summers.
The Coquitlam and Cowichan (along with the Alberni) entered service in 1976, and were assigned to route 2. They remained on route 2 until the Surrey and Oak Bay joined the fleet in 1981. The Surrey was assigned to route 2 freeing up one of the older C's for use on route 3. As stated above, the Oak Bay spent one year on route 1, and then in 1982 it was re-assigned to route 2.
The Cowichan, Coquitlam & Surrey have seen little if any service on route 1, though one of the older ones I believe has seen some summer 5th boat duty on route 1 before the Spirits came along.
|
|