|
Post by Mike C on Apr 26, 2007 19:03:06 GMT -8
With the recent debate between forces here, I decided it was best to start a new thread.
Post your thoughts on the matter, whether you think the Super-C's should have been built in BC or not.
I think there's no reason why not, personally, I think it does better for our ferry system.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 26, 2007 19:14:23 GMT -8
JST, I have to disagree with your most recent comment since if you look into recent history, there is currently a need for work so two shipyard will even sue just to get a contract. Now I doubt it would be that extreme in B.C. but there could be a walkout. I do not understand how you can argue out the speed of building.
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Vancouver on Apr 26, 2007 19:17:06 GMT -8
Well I agree with JST.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Apr 26, 2007 19:17:42 GMT -8
Well the money that went into the super C's you and I and the rest of BC will never see it. To me, it is money well spent, replacing old ferries (I don't like them, but I know some people on here do, so I won't criticize them), going towards quality product (the main focus of building the boats outside BC), benifiting people halfway around the world. That's the way I see it.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 26, 2007 19:24:42 GMT -8
Have you read anything on the Spirits yet??? Certainly no fighting between shipyards! Are you saying that these are not quality ships? You seem to be saying that built in BC means poor quality?
I will grant you the speed argument though.
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Vancouver on Apr 26, 2007 19:28:07 GMT -8
JST you said it, the Spirits are one of my fave and are of great quality.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 26, 2007 20:22:48 GMT -8
JST, what i have heard is that the spirits were made in sections due to their sheer size. I find that somewhat is a downgrade of the quality of the hull. My point is is that BCFS wanted an investment that was guaranteed and not a risky investment. As they say "the money is where the mouth is"
You do not have evidence to support the no fighting between shipyards. To build the Super Cs wern't there many local yards bidding if I recall?
|
|
|
Post by Ferry Rider 42 on Apr 26, 2007 20:29:58 GMT -8
Spirits are quality? A welder friend of mine once commented on the welds of the Spirits. He said there was nothing structuraly wrong with them, but they appeared to have been done fast and sloppy. I'll bet the care and attention FSG's computer welders do is significantly nicer then any human could.
Now, that may not be needed to make a solid boat, but it is an example of getting something more for your money. FSG just seems to give more return for the money.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Apr 26, 2007 20:49:24 GMT -8
What's wrong with a Ship being built in sections? The Fastcats were built the same way. The Super C's are being built in sections, and two major sections are being hauled out from Poland to Germany, for each of the 3 Ferries. This isn't strange as far as I see it. When you say lots of local shipyards bidding, you mean? I can only think of Washington Marine being able to bid?
I'd love to see all of the Newbuilds built in B.C., and I'm proud of every ship built here. But it's been a while since a Shipyard here has been given a major contract to work on. Take the New I-Class for example. We won't see that Ferry in the water until next year, which is nearly 2 years after construction began. For the past 7 months, we've watched a Super C Ferry be constructed and Launched. Outfitting of it will last until the end of the summer, and we will see it here in our waters almost a year to the date of steel cutting. Everything so far is on schedule and under budget. That's pretty hard to compete with. I'm not saying we couldn't do it in that time, but I'm sure the costs would have gone through the roof.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 26, 2007 20:56:21 GMT -8
So then if I follow your argument the Super C's would also be suspect due to being built in pre-fabricated modules and then being tacked together like Lego, very much like the Queens of Lego (Spirits). Dan did you forget that deck houses on the Super C's are being built in Poland. Are you saying that this makes them suspect? Think about it.
The Spirits were built by a co-operative of BC shipyards called Integrated Ferry Constrictors. Pieces were prefabricated in competing company's yards and then put together in Surrey. The results were and remain impressive today. New ships could have been constructed here in the same manner, but the Campbell government and BCFS's apparently consider our yards and workers to be inferior.
Regarding the older ferries built here in BC such as the V's. We need to remember that these vessels are now 40+ years old. They have served well over those years and have, as we all know, been sliced and diced on top of that. They are now ready for retirement. Do you expect the Super C's to be of such quality that they will not be considered ready for the bone yard at age 40+?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 26, 2007 21:11:40 GMT -8
I am more concerned with the hull being built in floating sections like with the Spirits, of course every ship these days is now built in modules from the top of the hull up which I really do not mind. However, I believe there needs to be some uniqueness and this just provides it. Until the rasinsauce comes, we will have to see how an import handles but from what I have seen, stuff made here has done better when it was designed well. When it is not designed well is where the problem lies, when you do not have guarantees and time budgets, it is a problem since the aging fleet needs replacement in a very short time.
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Vancouver on Apr 26, 2007 21:40:50 GMT -8
Spirits are quality? A welder friend of mine once commented on the welds of the Spirits. He said there was nothing structuraly wrong with them, but they appeared to have been done fast and sloppy. I'll bet the care and attention FSG's computer welders do is significantly nicer then any human could. Now, that may not be needed to make a solid boat, but it is an example of getting something more for your money. FSG just seems to give more return for the money. The Spirits were built in the early 90's so I doint think computer welders were around at that time.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 26, 2007 21:48:25 GMT -8
Some reading material for Dan and others who may be unaware... Mark Wilson, The Province, 1992 Feb 18
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 26, 2007 22:08:24 GMT -8
More Spirit history, this time from the Nov/Dec 1989 issue of the Dolphin. The finished product was quite different than what was envisioned in this drawing.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 26, 2007 22:17:54 GMT -8
Thanks to WetCoastkid for his points and the posting of that article.
This topic has been done to death on this forum, and nobody's going to change their minds. I would just ask that people who disagree about the value of a ship building industry here would do a bit of research and look into the importance that other governments place on it. Think those super efficient overseas yards operate all on their own, without government aid, subsidies, and tax breaks? Think again. A lot of profitable, high employment ship building industries have been built because governments made political decisions to do so; here, we made a political decision not to do so. A combination of political, corporate, and labour will could have built all the boats BC needs. But that's all irrelevant now, and this whole topic is moot.
For some insight into what a thriving ship building industry has done for us in the past, see "Launching History: The saga of Burrard Dry Dock", by Frances Mansbridge.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 26, 2007 22:23:24 GMT -8
And another...
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Apr 27, 2007 3:05:54 GMT -8
I've read the *very* passionate posts in this and the other threads and have thus far resisted weighing in .... just because I have been biting my tongue so that I don't add to the flame factor. ;D
I am a HOMER too. It would be IDEAL if we could do more close to our shores and keep our dollars here. Why do we truck in lettuce from California? Why is most of our "Made in Canada" furniture coming from Ontario and Quebec? Organic milk coming in from Idaho?
We have the time and space and "ingredients" to build/make/grow all this here. We don't. It is a matter of economics.
Look at beer (a topic near to all hearts, yes?) We just recently decommissioned and demolished the old Labatts brewery in New Westminster. Our closest beer factory for Labatts products is now on the Prairies - we truck our beer into Vancouver (3rd largest city in Canada) from 12 hours away. Why? Cheap transportation and cheaper labour costs in our Prairie paradise.
The ferry question is not so much a matter of "Could we do it better here?" as it is "How can we get the best value for our dollar?". The trouble with the latter question (and it is the question that is posed, have no doubt - it is ALL about bottom line!), is what criteria are being applied to interpretting the answer.
FSG was the choice for the C+ class based on return for investment and meeting the contract terms. This does not help the local ship building industry. We all agree on this.
There is nothing per se wrong with the shipbuilding industry on the West Coast. However, historical experience and previous decisions made by various levels of government have conspired against it. Look at the CF Navy (and in general, most Federal Govt contracts): they either go to Quebec or Ontario, or some economic development program in the Maritimes. How much of the Federal pie does BC ever get? How come there is no SHIPBUILDING industry in Alberta or Manitoba? Votes and population. Political payback, payola, favouritism etc.
Years and decades of "wink wink" deals with governments (now talking Provincial mainly but also Federal) where shipyards went over budget and had all these pork-barrel deals effectively shot ourselves in the foot as far as shipbuilding goes. We got fat and lazy and suckled at the government trough, milked the cash cow for all we could and now we have the result. Past experiences lead to trends and reputations are damaged. An entire barrel of apples can be spoiled by one rotten one (insert other cliches here).
So then other than porky deals, a local industry does nothing big. They have a rep for being overbudget, late, non-spec'd large units. Hmmm, so how many chances are given to foul things up? Fairly or unfairly, local shipyards ended up with a reputation. Certainly government boondoggling played a large part in this, and not all of the blame goes to the shipyards. Some goes to union higherups who obviously lined their pockets. I won't even debate this with anyone, because if there is denial of execs, managers and consultants SKIMMING money off lucrative government/crown deals in the past, then open your friggin eyes.
The industry is tarnished on the coast. And because of economics and other decisions, it has withered on the vine. We don't get any bulkers placing orders here for ships to be built -- why? Reputation and cost. Other places do it cheaper, on budget, produce what is asked for.
Remember - I am not trying to say that we CAN'T do it here. I am sure that we CAN. We cannot do it CHEAPER though ... our standard of living, unions, location of resources and other factors make us NON COMPETITIVE in the global shipbuilding industry. We will NEVER get a major maritime carrier calling up WMG and saying "Build me 40 container ships".
Could we build some submarines or destroyers or something (specialty ships....) for the right contract at a decent price? Sure. Can we build some ferries here for coastal use? Perhaps.
Look at FSG though -- how many years have they been doing this now, and what kind of throughput do they have? What is their reputation? Is this first boat on time, on budget and of expected quality? Is it up to spec?
Would I rather have had the Super-C's built here employing people I know? Sure. Could we have done a better job on it here than the Germans are doing now? Doubt it - fairly even in terms of skill and competance. Could we have done it cheaper? Not a chance. It is economy of scale as well as cost of labour and materials. Could we have done it on time? Sure, as long as the shipyard is run by shipbuilders and not politicians and the design as spec'd stays that way without modification once construction has begun! (Duh, could we add an Olympic sized pool on the hoistable car deck level for use when we have no trucks on board? Just re-work the plumbing and don't worry about the weight distribution of the 40 tons of fresh water! No, I don't care that we already have the superstructure on and the seating installed, just modify it and do it..... Oh and make sure we can still fold those things up when we need to load more trucks........)
Okay, I've said enough. It's 4am and I need to go to work now.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 27, 2007 9:28:47 GMT -8
This is just one little snippet of info; with a bit of effort you can find a ton of evidence that the reason we lose out on shipbulding is not because union people are 'lining their pockets', or that we're too inefficient here- it's largely that foreign governments recognize the value of the industry, and help their firms be competitive with subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives.
DAILY SHIPPING NEWSLETTER 2003 – 201 PSi-Daily Shipping News Page 5 10/26/2003 SHIPYARD NEWS Subsidy boost for German yards THE German government says it is confident the EU will prolong its newbuilding subsidy policy, which amount to six per cent of the contract price, until spring 2004. The government’s new maritime coordinator, Georg Wilhelm Adamowitsch, said a decision is expected at the end of the year. Subsidies are provided by local governments, which have consistently refused to grant them in full by arguing that their budgets will not allow it. However, after a long battle, Schleswig-Holstein has now promised to give the full amount for a total of eleven newbuildings to be delivered until 2005. This includes four container vessels at HDW, four product tankers at Lindenau and newbuildings for Flensburger Schiffbau. The city of Kiel will pay €9M ($10.5M) in 2004 and will also back date full subsidies to earlier delivered Lindenau tankers. Meanwhile, Hamburg finance minister Gunnar Uldall has announced that the city will increase its subsidies, which have been limited to €2M and are to be supplemented by €1M from the Berlin government.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 27, 2007 10:07:09 GMT -8
Good points made by all.
And as I said on a previous post I am proponent of buying close to home. Supporting local farmers, trades people and industries makes a lot of sense. I also don't choose to shop at some stores due to their policies and what they do to local economies. The W place comes to mind. I probably could save some money by shopping there but my conscience bothers me. I recently had a discussion with my dad about it when he asked me why I pay more by shopping at a national drug store chain.
However, I don't drive a North American built car anymore. Take a look at Consumer Reports reliability records and you will know why.
I have been very impressed with Flensburger. We will see how their final products measure up but from what I hear BC Ferries will be getting a very high quality ship for a very competitive price.
Do we have the stomach in Canada to properly support the shipbuilding industry. Or are we being better stewards of our limited resources by letting the industry do work where it makes more sense. (Victoria no longer builds ships but is very busy refitting and doing repairs.)
The East Coast shipyards have been subsidized out the wahzoo for economic reasons in an area with a very battered economy, lowest per capita income, and high unemployment etc. etc. Especially since at some points the shipyards were owned by some of Canada's wealthiest families. I think Hardy has it on the head that perhaps they got used to being held up by subsidies rather than being agressive and building the best in a certain area of the industry.
The European yards are specializing having lost much of the supership business to Korea because they can't compete. They seem to be doing well with the specialized ships however.
There is no simple answer and no doubt this will continue to be debated for a long period of time. However as tax payers we need to ensure we are getting bang for our tax payer dollar and not continue to see big pots of money thrown willy nilly into bottomless pits for political purposes. It is time we invest that money into areas that will yield the best results for the country. I don't know enough about the financials of the shipping industry to know about it specifically but have my suspicions that it may not be the best place to invest.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 27, 2007 11:47:02 GMT -8
pnw: It's been many, many years since Canadian shipbuilding has been subsidized to the extent overseas competitors have been, either here or on the east coast. We've been trying to compete with firms in Europe, and more importantly, Asia, and we can't do it when even giants like Samsung and Hyundai receive massive aid from their governments, overtly and covertly.
Now that the western world is moving away from direct subsidies, it probably is too late to revive west coast ship building on a major scale. That would take what I feel would be an intelligent political decision to put greater, long term economic concerns ahead of strict, bottom line, single project cost analysis, and that just isn't going to happen.
I've just wanted people to look overseas and recognize that the reason we lost a viable industry was much more than a matter of union contracts or inherent inefficiency. It was like we were playing our three down game against a team that gave themselves four.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 27, 2007 13:27:22 GMT -8
I'm actually in a rush to get out of here but something to ponder wrt west coast ship building is that the Navy has a 1 billion dollar contract for three vessels coming down the pipe and it sounds like it's coming towards our end - so the infastructure must be out there, even if the people are not (currently).
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 27, 2007 19:27:06 GMT -8
A chance for me to chip in on this fine thread:
Assuming that a BC Shipyard had won the Super-C contract for the 3 ships, how would the current BC labour shortage impact the ability to construct the ship on time, etc?
I'm not making any kind of political statement, and I'm certainly not trying to say "that's why it wouldn't work"......I'm simply wondering that IF we had gotten the contracts to build in BC, would "we" have been able to deliver, because of a labour shortage?
Would the Olympics have gotten in the way, re a competition for skilled workers?
Would the lure of Ft. MacMurray (yeah, that does sound funny) have also had an impact on the labour pool?
Or would North Vancouver have become a Fort Mac of sorts, luring workers from across Canada to come and do shipbuilding in BC for a few years?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 28, 2007 16:00:18 GMT -8
Finally, just a little example of how we have to compete: FSG is owned by Oldendorff carriers, they mainly own container and bulker. As we are his shipyard, it would make sense that we build his vessels. But we are in this field of shipbuilding much too expensive so he goes to China and Korea. We don´t complain about this. We found our fields. Shouldn´t everybody do so? aha, the man is speaking of the theory of "Comparative Advantage". My purpose in bring this up is not to convert (or try to) anyone to a different mindset, but instead illustrate that the issues that we're raising (from different sides of the fence) are that of a fundamental economic concept that have had oodles of term-papers written on them. Like anything else, one person's "common sense" or "common problem" is another person's "theory of .......". We've heard all the arguments here (and in media too) already re the various local and global issues at play, re the option of building these ships in BC or globally. Regardless of what you strongly (or weakly) believe re this particular BC Ferry Newbuild issue, you might find this economic theory interesting: ======================= the source of the following cut/paste: internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch40/T40-0.php===================== The Theory of Comparative Advantage - Overview Historical Overview The theory of comparative advantage is perhaps the most important concept in international trade theory. It is also one of the most commonly misunderstood principles. There is a popular story told amongst economists that once when an economics skeptic asked Paul Samuelson (a Nobel laureate in economics) to provide a meaningful and non-trivial result from the economics discipline, Samuelson quickly responded with, "comparative advantage." The sources of the misunderstandings are easy to identify. First, the principle of comparative advantage is clearly counter-intuitive. Many results from the formal model are contrary to simple logic. Secondly, the theory is easy to confuse with another notion about advantageous trade, known in trade theory as the theory of absolute advantage. The logic behind absolute advantage is quite intuitive. This confusion between these two concepts leads many people to think that they understand comparative advantage when in fact, what they understand is absolute advantage. Finally, the theory of comparative advantage is all too often presented only in its mathematical form. Using numerical examples or diagrammatic representations are extremely useful in demonstrating the basic results and the deeper implications of the theory. However, it is also easy to see the results mathematically, without ever understanding the basic intuition of the theory. The early logic that free trade could be advantageous for countries was based on the concept of absolute advantages in production. Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, "If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. " The idea here is simple and intuitive. If our country can produce some set of goods at lower cost than a foreign country, and if the foreign country can produce some other set of goods at a lower cost than we can produce them, then clearly it would be best for us to trade our relatively cheaper goods for their relatively cheaper goods. In this way both countries may gain from trade. ------- Because the idea of comparative advantage is not immediately intuitive, the best way of presenting it seems to be with an explicit numerical example as provided by David Ricardo. In his example Ricardo imagined two countries, England and Portugal, producing two goods, cloth and wine, using labor as the sole input in production. He assumed that the productivity of labor (i.e., the quantity of output produced per worker) varied between industries and across countries. However, instead of assuming, as Adam Smith did, that England is more productive in producing one good and Portugal is more productive in the other; Ricardo assumed that Portugal was more productive in both goods. Based on Smith's intuition, then, it would seem that trade could not be advantageous, at least for England. However, Ricardo demonstrated numerically that if England specialized in producing one of the two goods, and if Portugal produced the other, then total world output of both goods could rise! If an appropriate terms of trade (i.e., amount of one good traded for another) were then chosen, both countries could end up with more of both goods after specialization and free trade then they each had before trade. This means that England may nevertheless benefit from free trade even though it is assumed to be technologically inferior to Portugal in the production of everything. As it turned out, specialization in any good would not suffice to guarantee the improvement in world output. Only one of the goods would work. Ricardo showed that the specialization good in each country should be that good in which the country had a comparative advantage in production. To identify a country's comparative advantage good requires a comparison of production costs across countries. However, one does not compare the monetary costs of production or even the resource costs (labor needed per unit of output) of production. Instead one must compare the opportunity costs of producing goods across countries. A country is said to have a comparative advantage in the production of a good (say cloth) if it can produce cloth at a lower opportunity cost than another country. The opportunity cost of cloth production is defined as the amount of wine that must be given up in order to produce one more unit of cloth. Thus England would have the comparative advantage in cloth production relative to Portugal if it must give up less wine to produce another unit of cloth than the amount of wine that Portugal would have to give up to produce another unit of cloth. All in all, this condition is rather confusing. Suffice it to say, that it is quite possible, indeed likely, that although England may be less productive in producing both goods relative to Portugal, it will nonetheless have a comparative advantage in the production of one of the two goods. Indeed there is only one circumstance in which England would not have a comparative advantage in either good, and in this case Portugal also would not have a comparative advantage in either good. In other words, either each country has the comparative advantage in one of the two goods or neither country has a comparative advantage in anything. Another way to define comparative advantage is by comparing productivities across industries and countries. Thus suppose, as before, that Portugal is more productive than England in the production of both cloth and wine. If Portugal is twice as productive in cloth production relative to England but three times as productive in wine, then Portugal's comparative advantage is in wine, the good in which its productivity advantage is greatest. Similarly, England's comparative advantage good is cloth, the good in which its productivity disadvantage is least. This implies that to benefit from specialization and free trade, Portugal should specialize and trade the good in which it is "most best" at producing, while England should specialize and trade the good in which it is "least worse" at producing. Note that trade based on comparative advantage does not contradict Adam Smith's notion of advantageous trade based on absolute advantage. If as in Smith's example, England were more productive in cloth production and Portugal were more productive in wine, then we would say that England has an absolute advantage in cloth production while Portugal has an absolute advantage in wine. If we calculated comparative advantages, then England would also have the comparative advantage in cloth and Portugal would have the comparative advantage in wine. In this case, gains from trade could be realized if both countries specialized in their comparative, and absolute, advantage goods. Advantageous trade based on comparative advantage, then, covers a larger set of circumstances while still including the case of absolute advantage and hence is a more general theory. -------------------------- Defending Against Skeptics: The True Meaning and Intuition of the Theory of Comparative Advantage Many people who learn about the theory of comparative advantage quickly convince themselves that its ability to describe the real world is extremely limited, if not non-existent. Although the results follow logically from the assumptions, the assumptions are easily assailed as unrealistic. For example, the model assumes only two countries producing two goods using just one factor of production. There is no capital or land or other resources needed for production. The real world, on the other hand, consists of many countries producing many goods using many factors of production. In the model, each market is assumed to be perfectly competitive, when in reality there are many industries in which firms have market power. Labor productivity is assumed fixed, when in actuality it changes over time, perhaps based on past production levels. Full employment is assumed, when clearly workers cannot immediately and costlessly move to other industries. Also, all workers are assumed identical. This means that when a worker is moved from one industry to another, he or she is immediately as productive as every other worker who was previously employed there. Finally, the model assumes that technology differences are the only differences that exist between the countries. With so many unrealistic assumptions it is difficult for some people to accept the conclusions of the model with any confidence, especially when so many of the results are counterintuitive. Indeed one of the most difficult aspects of economic analysis is how to interpret the conclusions of models. Models are, by their nature, simplifications of the real world and thus all economic models contain unrealistic assumptions. Therefore, to dismiss the results of economic analysis on the basis of unrealistic assumptions means that one must dismiss all insights contained within the entire economics discipline. Surely, this is not practical or realistic. Economic models in general and the Ricardian model in particular do contain insights that most likely carry over to the more complex real world. --------------------------
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 28, 2007 16:19:01 GMT -8
A chance for me to chip in on this fine thread: Assuming that a BC Shipyard had won the Super-C contract for the 3 ships, how would the current BC labour shortage impact the ability to construct the ship on time, etc? I'd have to say the construction time would still be the same since it is the same process being used and the same equipment I do not think so, again for the reasons with the same equipment, same type of labour, same way to build it. I do not think so since there are plenty of jobs open it is the labour contract problem where better work can be found. someone fill in this blank [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 28, 2007 16:31:30 GMT -8
P-rebel:
You are missing my point, on the first 2 items. Regardless of same process and same equipment between BC & Germany (and that itself is not true), there IS a labour shortage in BC right now, and my point was re how that BC labour shortage would have impacted our ability to have built the ships in a BC shipyard today.
Same with the 3rd point: There is not an endless supply of skilled workers in Western Canada that would be available to build these ships. The Olympic-games construction projects would already be taking some of the available workers away from possible ferry-construction work too. That might leave few workers available to construct the ferries in BC.
4th Point: I'm sure that someone on this board is familiar with the Fort MacMurray phenomena, and what it's done to the Canadian labour pool......
|
|