Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Feb 11, 2011 15:21:19 GMT -8
I would cynically say, this is most likely a purely political decision because we're dealing with a federal government that does not have quite as dead a lock on power as the rulers in BC, so they want to make a greater effort to look like they are doing something that will help the country. I'm not quite clear on what you mean by this. If you're suggesting that shortlisting WMG is just a political move to make it appear the feds are considering west coast interests, I disagree. It would gain them nothing to simply pay lip service to a west coast bid, and it would be far more profitable politically to award part of the contract to Davie in Quebec, since the Tories stand to gain far more seats in that province than in BC, especially if they were to bail out a currently insolvent shipyard. The current situation in BC puts the lie to the oft repeated notion that our yards are just as well off with repair work as they are with major newbuilds. Company finances might be fine, and schedules reasonably full, but unemployment is high among shipyard workers here. There is no substitute for actual shipbuilding. And that's ships, as opposed to private pleasure craft.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Feb 11, 2011 15:26:26 GMT -8
:'(further on this not built on the coast point, We have bent over backwards to establish an orderbook to an offshore builder that was known previously for roro boxboats, not hi- end passenger tonnage. And in the process punish our domestic industry for the horrendis mistakes of the last government and also the burden left to BC ferries, which factors into the huge toll increases. Also this has contributed to the rush to flush away any references to our dogwood heritage! :'(mrdot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2011 22:01:26 GMT -8
This province has a problem with loosing shipwrights to retirement. As there was no ships being built for years so there is no incentive to train younger people to learn the trade or any work to provide them. I know one of the guys that works as a welder in the ship yards he works on the ferries, works long hours. There is very few guys like him left that have the experience. Most companies can't afford to build new tug boats or fishboats etc anymore. You look at most tugboats working this coast were built in the 1960s to 1970s. There is the odd tug that is less than 10 years old. Just the way things are in this Province we live in and it is not good
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 12, 2011 17:49:55 GMT -8
The magazine I was talking about that discussed the ship order was the Canadian Defence Review. A coverage of the shipyards was included as I mentioned. Not exactly a journalistic examination but rather more marketing coverage. I believe it was Vol 16, Issue 4.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Feb 18, 2011 22:50:30 GMT -8
I don't know if it bodes well for the WMG bid on the navy ships, but the feds have sent out the word that any shipyard bidding must have its financial house in order at the time they submit- I believe the deadline is July. Davie of Quebec is currently insolvent but are in talks with investors, one being Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri. You have to wonder who would ever invest in an insolvent and aging Canadian shipbuilder, unless, somehow, word could be passed to the right people that Davie stood to win the contract. Of course, that would never happen, even though the Tories could really use those Quebec votes. We shall see.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on May 18, 2011 9:26:02 GMT -8
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on May 18, 2011 13:31:18 GMT -8
:)perhaps mr. hahn would do well to reflect back to when wac bennett and the first ferry mgr. monte aldous looked at clydebank, and elsewhere, and then decided to build there entire fleet rite here in BC. that period of time ensured all the spinoff benefits stayed here, and we had considerable skills, that now are long gone, thanks to people like mr hahn, who himself is from other jurisdictions. I am afraid that we may now have to go to other shores for upscale tonnage, from now on! regretfullly the skills of clydebank are now history as well! :'(mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by paulvanb on May 18, 2011 20:59:07 GMT -8
Aren't most Hondas and Toyotas buit in Canada these days?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on May 18, 2011 21:50:15 GMT -8
:)perhaps mr. hahn would do well to reflect back to when wac bennett and the first ferry mgr. monte aldous looked at clydebank, and elsewhere, and then decided to build there entire fleet rite here in BC. that period of time ensured all the spinoff benefits stayed here, and we had considerable skills, that now are long gone, thanks to people like mr hahn, who himself is from other jurisdictions. I am afraid that we may now have to go to other shores for upscale tonnage, from now on! regretfullly the skills of clydebank are now history as well! :'(mrdot. Let's not throw in the towel quite yet. There's still the decision on the navy ships, and if WMG wins that, it's a complete game changer.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jun 4, 2011 11:39:02 GMT -8
It was mentioned on the Bill Good Show Yesterday that when the Coastals went out to bid B.C. Ferries wanted Fixed price bids but the local shipyards bid them as Cost Plus therefore the local bids did not proceed.
Could our local shipyards build the northern vessels?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jun 4, 2011 13:03:10 GMT -8
It was mentioned on the Bill Good Show Yesterday that when the Coastals went out to bid B.C. Ferries wanted Fixed price bids but the local shipyards bid them as Cost Plus therefore the local bids did not proceed. What you heard Christy Clark tell Bill Good does not exactly square with what Stephen Frasher of WMG once said, which was that he did not know why WMG was excluded from the final bidding. Could our local shipyards build the northern vessels? I think most forum members who care to have already weighed in on that. How about your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jun 4, 2011 14:28:35 GMT -8
The QPR was was built here in 1964, so there is no reason why the northern Vessels could not be built here with the proper equipment & Shipbuilding talent to do it?
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Jun 4, 2011 20:30:03 GMT -8
:)as I have already noted, we did build on the coast, and nothing could have been built in europe, or anywhere else, that was any more suited to the north coast than QPR of 1966! the greek piece of crap or the super ship from the fatherland, are both out of line on what was needed for northern routes. Gearld Rushton, in his work on the north coast pointed out that the Union ss co. made a grave mistake when they did not build another Cardena. but brought in something not suitable for northern routes, and that led to the demise of that original coastal concern! Well the game is over! :)mrdot. .
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 7, 2011 16:01:30 GMT -8
mrdot has correctly and sadly hit the nail on the head! 'Back in the day' when the Queen of Prince Rupert sailed out of Kelsey Bay, the service met the 'ferry- boat' needs of the travelling public on the West Coast as well as providing a very splendid 'tourist-marketable' sea voyage experience for thousands and thousands travellers from all parts of North America and beyond. That said, even 'back in the day', BC Ferries has never had a precise and clear vision of exactly what the purpose of that route was or how to market it! Now,we have, as mrdot so realistically points out, two ships that are unsuited, both for different reasons, to operate on route 30. Risking rebuttals of all description, as well as accolades that would also be appreciated, here's my pipe dream for at least a six-month Summer season on route 30: Move the southern terminal to Campbell River or a point between Campbell River and Sayward. Using West-Coast ship yards, design and build a double hulled vessel sixty feet longer than the QPR, vehicle/trailer capacity 75% of the Northern Expedition, 50 - 90 staterooms, along with most of the passenger amenities of the NorEx., A "Dining Room" placed forward as it was on the QPR, a cruising speed of at least 24 knots and of course have the necessary foot passenger and vehicle/trailer doors, ramps, etc. to accomodate all existing ports of call. Tell me this makes some sense, whack me senseless and tell me to get back to the real world and stop missing the Queen of Prince Rupert or have should I be aboard the Queen of Esquimalt heading to the scrapheap?
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Jun 7, 2011 16:11:13 GMT -8
Now,we have, as mrdot so realistically points out, two ships that are unsuited, both for different reasons, to operate on route 30. Risking rebuttals of all description, as well as accolades that would also be appreciated, here's my pipe dream for at least a six-month Summer season on route 30: Uh, Route 30 is Tsawwassen-Duke Point. You didn't mean that, right?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jun 7, 2011 16:15:23 GMT -8
Either too much coffee today or not enough but no, the Northern Route would be the one I meant.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 7, 2011 16:17:25 GMT -8
here's my pipe dream for at least a six-month Summer season on route 30: Move the southern terminal to Campbell River or a point between Campbell River and Sayward. First the technicality: - route 30 is Tsawwassen - Duke Point. - I think you are intending to refer to the inside-passage route, whatever # that is. Second, the land geography: - take a look at your Highway map, and tell me where the terminal site between Campbell River & Sayward should be. - I'm thinking that Campbell River or Sayward would be ok (technically Kelsey Bay), but not anywhere in between, for land geography obvious reasons. ...and unless you're willing to fund a boom of hotel construction at Sayward, I'd say that Campbell River is a better choice. But it's already set up at Port Hardy, so this part of the discussion (the terminal location) is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Jun 7, 2011 18:42:22 GMT -8
- route 30 is Tsawwassen - Duke Point. - I think you are intending to refer to the inside-passage route, whatever # that is. Just for the record, route 10 is the Inside Passage; route 40 is the Discovery Coast Passage; Route 30 is the Mid-Island Express.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 20, 2011 20:41:58 GMT -8
Some verification for views that some of us have offered in the past... and recently. www.theprovince.com/news/Column+Hypocritical+hurrahs+from+Libs+over+shipbuilding/5583730/story.htmlHypocritical hurrahs from B.C. Libs over shipbuilding winBy Michael Smyth, The ProvinceOctober 20, 2011 7:06 PM It’s amazing — and somewhat galling — listening to Premier Christy Clark’s Liberals going ga-ga over the federal shipbuilding contract when this is the same bunch that gave away our own shipbuilding work to Germany. In 2004, B.C. Ferries announced they would build three new and badly-needed vessels at a cost of $500 million. But Vancouver Shipyards was not allowed to submit a final bid on the contract, which was awarded instead to a government-subsidized shipyard in Germany. Why was Vancouver Shipyards blackballed from building our own ferries? B.C. Ferries said the shipyard did not have the “infrastructure, technology or experience” to build the three boats. That’s right: the same shipyard just awarded an $8-billion contract to build seven vessels — including Royal Canadian Navy support ships and a major icebreaker — was “not capable” of building three car ferries just a few years ago. Critics pointed to the fast-ferry debacle as justification for building the new ferries in Germany — conveniently forgetting the fast ferries were experimental aluminum-hulled catamarans doomed to fail. The fact is B.C. was always capable of building traditional, single-hulled steel ferries, like the ones eventually built in Germany. Every time you travel on one of the existing spirit-class “superferries” — built in the B.C. in 1990s — you experience proof of that. Yet the B.C. Liberals now cheering on the federal government for spending billions in our shipyards today are the same ones who showed no faith in those same shipyards — and those same workers — just seven years ago. With some notable exceptions, that is. Some brave Liberal MLAs spoke out against the German sellout back in ‘94: Dan Jarvis, Ralph Sultan and Barry Penner come to mind. But the majority of Liberals patting themselves on the back for the federal contract today kicked B.C. shipbuilders in the keester back then. That includes Christy Clark, who supported building our ferries in Germany. It was right to reject Vancouver Shipyards for the work, she argued, because parent company Seaspan wanted an open-ended “cost-plus” contract where they could run up the price tag at will. That was denied at the time by Seaspan chairman Kyle Washington. “We’re absolutely willing to bid a bonded, fixed-price cost, so there would be no financial risk to the government,” Washington said. “All we’re asking for is a chance to submit a bid.” But Seaspan was not allowed to bid on the ferry contract, something Clark supported. So did cabinet ministers Blair Lekstrom and Pat Bell, both now so giddy about Seaspan winning the federal contract. It’s appalling that Seaspan was prevented by the Liberals from building our ferries despite the jobs, tax revenue, economic spinoff and potential future contracts the work would have generated — the same benefits the Liberals celebrate today. But, in 2004, B.C. Ferries officially changed the bidding rules for the three new ferries, choosing to delete domestic economic benefits as a criteria. Happily, the federal government recognized the economic boost to B.C. from building our new ships here, and included that in the bidding criteria. And Vancouver Shipyards was independently judged on its merits to be perfectly capable of doing the work and building great ships that will make Canada proud. And there are the Liberals cheering it all. The hypocrisy is quite sickening. Read more: www.theprovince.com/news/Hypocritical+hurrahs+from+Libs+over+shipbuilding/5583730/story.html#ixzz1bO7TYyJK
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Oct 20, 2011 21:30:14 GMT -8
What's also rather hypocritical is blaming Christy Clark for Gordo's actions.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 20, 2011 21:45:59 GMT -8
What's also rather hypocritical is blaming Christy Clark for Gordo's actions. The article only mentions she was in favor of building the ferries in Germany, and preventing Seaspan from bidding. Where exactly is she blamed for Gordon Cambell's actions?
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 20, 2011 21:46:06 GMT -8
:)the Province editorial is rite on, and echos all I have said about our recent liberal betrayal of our own industry, those wonderships from the fatherland, could have been built here, and been more suitable to our west coast conditions, as all of the BC built tonnage has been! there would have been a higher cost up front, but the advantages of building at home would have more than made up for this. lets see if these ,less suited to our coast vessels, will stand up to the record of service that Bennett's fleet of vessels gave us! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 20, 2011 23:08:12 GMT -8
Mr. Smyth's Province piece is right on the money. It is not often that you see such stuff actually worth reading in that tabloid. For the record, we sent the money overseas to Germany for four new-builds.
Perhaps if those new-builds had gone to WMG they would have had the infrastructural to win the big contract, the one that the Irving shipyard won yesterday.
Christie Clark was a senior cabinet member at the time of the decision to send new-build work to Germany. She very much deserves to take a good share of the 'credit' for that decision.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 21, 2011 11:27:58 GMT -8
:)yes mr. smyth's editorial is a very good read, and I think crusty is confeniently divorcing herself from recent decisions which she had a part in! but maybe she is like hank williams, and seen the light! :)mrdot.
|
|