Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 10:23:47 GMT -8
Posted by BCinNJ on Today at 7:28am
Today at 6:37am, pnwtraveler wrote:I wasn't going to comment Flug because I didn't want to date myself. And as well I didn't feel like explaining who Richard Nixon was .
Richard who??? ----------------------------------
also known as Tricky Dick-----"I am not a crook"
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Oct 5, 2007 11:50:09 GMT -8
All I really know about Nixon is that he was a US President who was rather strange and often made fun of in "The Simpsons"
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Oct 5, 2007 16:13:39 GMT -8
As a businessman I have been fully impressed with our German friends. I don't have the full information and never will. From the information I have and what I have seen in the whole process, I cannot fault BC Ferries one bit for the decision they have made. In a perfect world it would never have been necessary to buy from Flensburger because a BC yard would have done a better job, and delivered a better product, and supported our next door neighbours in their jobs. However, that aside, as I have said before and is my rant of late, Canada get off your big toes (a substitute body part to keep this g rated but you know exactly what I am thinking ) and do what we are capable of doing and quit living in the past, moaning and complaining. It is time we do more of what we are the best at and less of trying to be everything we are at time only capable of being second or third best at. Hear, Hear! Our ship-building industry is a thing of the past here. It's just the reality of how the world has changed in the last 3 decades thanks to yards overseas building better quality ships thus being the choice over BC shipyards. I Totally Agree. BC's Shipyards Just Can't Compete with the rest of the World, I feel BC Ferries had only two Decisions, outside of BC or nothing at all. If BC had a State of the Art Shipyard they Would be built Right at Home, No questions asked. If the Government Cared about this Issue We'd Probably Have One.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 5, 2007 17:16:56 GMT -8
Smart A**es...ah....um... oh yes apples. Smart apples all around. ;D
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,196
|
Post by Neil on Oct 5, 2007 22:00:38 GMT -8
It's really sad that people are so willing to buy the line that there is some great, unarguable, ironclad economic reality that just forces us to buy ferries elsewhere. I get the impression sometimes that people are really unwilling to consider economic factors that are more complex than a simple selling price.
Canadian shipyards have lost their competitive edge partly due to political decisions, and decisions made by the owners of those yards. International economic realities, including past support of foreign yards by governments, are only part of the story.
These days, there is always going to be someone else who can make things cheaper than we can here. We've lost our textile industry, shoemaking, many other aspects of manufacturing, and even bloody call centers, to third world countries. If we continue to throw up our hands and say, "oh, we can't compete with (fill in the blank), it's just economic reality because they can do it cheaper" we'll be left as a country that manufactures nothing, and simply sells raw materials for the rest of the world to make into finished goods that they sell back to us. Our federal governments continue to okay every sell off of Canadian companies that comes along, and we increasingly are willing to kiss off Canadian industries when any foreign manufacturer can give us better prices.
Our attitude toward shipbuilding is part of a much larger problem. We're losing control of our economic direction, and we're allowing a mindless obsession with buying at the cheapest price to completely obscure the bigger economic value of Canadians making things here.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 5, 2007 22:11:41 GMT -8
Yes, I was thinking that I need to go to Europe to take ski lessons because it is my understanding that the instructors there are both less expensive and better at what they do.
Oh well, I guess our home grown ski instructors can find work in a call centre somewhere....
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 6, 2007 8:07:06 GMT -8
Our attitude toward shipbuilding is part of a much larger problem. We're losing control of our economic direction, and we're allowing a mindless obsession with buying at the cheapest price to completely obscure the bigger economic value of Canadians making things here. re the specific instance of BC Ferries 3 Coastal newbuilds: Neil, are you suggesting that BC Ferries should have looked at the bigger-picture, for this newbuild decision? ie. do you think that the constraints of the Coastal Ferry Act (or whatever legislation) would actually allow for a multi-factor approach to the newbuild decision? Or, are you suggesting that the multi-factor decision approach (ie. not just price) is something that would first need a huge change of thinking from senior levels of Government, and that this change of decision-making would then trickle-down to organisations such as BC Ferries? Or to ask this another way: - are you saying that Hahn had a choice to use a multi-factor approach, and to consider local economic benefits? - or are you saying that if the BC Gov't had built a multi-factor approach into its various spending mandates, that then Hahn would have actually been able to make that choice? My response: - I think that the newbuild controversy is indicative of a much larger societal issue, that we the people and our governments will influence. - The 100-mile-diet is an example of a similar situation, that happens on a much more frequent and grassroots level. But there are comparisons of that food-issue to our newbuild controversy. Although the "where do we get our food from" issue is much more an everyday issue, as opposed to a big ticket gov't purchase like a ferry. (if you're looking for a conclusion to my thoughts, there isn't one. My point of posting is just to think and to realise that this really is a much bigger issue than just a ship build).
|
|
|
Post by shipchandler on Oct 6, 2007 9:06:24 GMT -8
It's really sad that people are so willing to buy the line that there is some great, unarguable, ironclad economic reality that just forces us to buy ferries elsewhere. I get the impression sometimes that people are really unwilling to consider economic factors that are more complex than a simple selling price. Canadian shipyards have lost their competitive edge partly due to political decisions, and decisions made by the owners of those yards. International economic realities, including past support of foreign yards by governments, are only part of the story. These days, there is always going to be someone else who can make things cheaper than we can here. We've lost our textile industry, shoemaking, many other aspects of manufacturing, and even bloody call centers, to third world countries. If we continue to throw up our hands and say, "oh, we can't compete with (fill in the blank), it's just economic reality because they can do it cheaper" we'll be left as a country that manufactures nothing, and simply sells raw materials for the rest of the world to make into finished goods that they sell back to us. Our federal governments continue to okay every sell off of Canadian companies that comes along, and we increasingly are willing to kiss off Canadian industries when any foreign manufacturer can give us better prices. Our attitude toward shipbuilding is part of a much larger problem. We're losing control of our economic direction, and we're allowing a mindless obsession with buying at the cheapest price to completely obscure the bigger economic value of Canadians making things here. perhaps what we[as a nation ]should have done 50 years ago was bring in a piece of legislation such as the u.s. jones act, but we failed to see the future consequences of not doing so and as such are in the predicament we are now.unfortunately hindsight is always 20/20 and those decisions were made at the ballot box before [most of us] were born ,so yes as a taxpayer i do want the most value for my dollar and i don`t think that is an affront to canadian unions and shipbuilders...
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Oct 6, 2007 15:10:29 GMT -8
It's really sad that people are so willing to buy the line that there is some great, unarguable, ironclad economic reality that just forces us to buy ferries elsewhere. I get the impression sometimes that people are really unwilling to consider economic factors that are more complex than a simple selling price. Canadian shipyards have lost their competitive edge partly due to political decisions, and decisions made by the owners of those yards. International economic realities, including past support of foreign yards by governments, are only part of the story. These days, there is always going to be someone else who can make things cheaper than we can here. We've lost our textile industry, shoemaking, many other aspects of manufacturing, and even bloody call centers, to third world countries. If we continue to throw up our hands and say, "oh, we can't compete with (fill in the blank), it's just economic reality because they can do it cheaper" we'll be left as a country that manufactures nothing, and simply sells raw materials for the rest of the world to make into finished goods that they sell back to us. Our federal governments continue to okay every sell off of Canadian companies that comes along, and we increasingly are willing to kiss off Canadian industries when any foreign manufacturer can give us better prices. here. Sorry, but it is its a global market, and that applies to just about everything. Anyone in any sort of manufacturing business is going to have to adjust to a new reality of a global market and forget about the imaginary lines that used to separate countries and economies. That’s simply not the way it is anymore. When a new competitor comes in to any market a company has to adapt, adjust or die. And as far as I'm concerned running to the government for assistance just because the market place has changed is the lazy way out. If the industry has changed that much then the builders will have to adapt and change with it. And that goes for any industry.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 6, 2007 15:59:16 GMT -8
Sorry, but it is its a global market, and that applies to just about everything. Anyone in any sort of manufacturing business is going to have to adjust to a new reality of a global market and forget about the imaginary lines that used to separate countries and economies. That’s simply not the way it is anymore. When a new competitor comes in to any market a company has to adapt, adjust or die. And as far as I'm concerned running to the government for assistance just because the market place has changed is the lazy way out. If the industry has changed that much then the builders will have to adapt and change with it. And that goes for any industry. .....and this would be fair & equal if all global competitors had the same level of issues affecting their business. ie. equality in issues such as: - labour laws affecting length of worker shifts, etc, and the ability or not for a workforce to unionize. - employee compensation for training, wages, benefits; both legally mandated and employer attitude. - government mandated employee taxes that employer pays (employer portions of CPP & EI, and WCB) - environmental rules re worksites, waste disposal, cleanup - taxes paid on company income - taxes paid on company land - taxes paid on company capital - subsidies received from local and senior government. But all global competitors do not have an equal treatment on the above noted issues. Some have a better situation than others. And these issues are the things that a local (ie. national or cultural) society mandates for that company. ie. "western labour standard, N.American expectations of how a company should respect the environment, and western expectations of the health, safety and welfare of the workers. ------------------- Not included in my list of potentially-unequal issues are a few items that are outside of any government's or society's control, and which I think are legitimate limiting factors that affect a company's ability to compete: ie. - access to raw materials - access to a labour force - reputation for good quality product - the business-smarts of the company's management - the work ethic of the workforce - the choice of a company's geographic location. This 2nd list of items I think is where there are legitimate differences between competing companies, on a local and on a global scale. ie. you can't legislate against incompetence or against a lack of a labour force. You also can't expect a shipyard in Switzerland to compete with a shipyard in Canada. There are just some factors which will cause 1 company to be successful, and another to be unsuccessful. -------------------- But it's my first list, in this post, which must be remembered when talking about global economy. And I suppose this is the point of separation of the different schools-of-thought on this issue: - some will see the first list as being an important consideration in deciding who to purchase from. And those people will think about where they shop..... - others will see the first list as being irrelevant re who they purchase from; and those folks will shop at Walmart......... - and I suppose others will do some sort of blending of the 2, a sort of tiered-approach to purchase decisions. ---------------------------------- I think I was just channeling Jack Layton's "quadruple bottom line" thinking. Personal disclosure re this big-issue, on a simple scale: - My household buys groceries from 1 store that we loyally shop at (ie. we don't "shop around"). We recently changed our loyalties from 1 store to another store, because of the issue of local ownership. So for us, regardless of the top list of factors (as both stores were pretty equal on that list), we made the decision based on one store having a closer-to-home ownership than the other. - And we're willing to pay a bit more, to buy our staple-items "locally". --------------------- Oh yeah, so how about that I-Vessel....
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 6, 2007 16:05:51 GMT -8
.....Seaspan has built vessels in China 10 delivered since 1998 but only when local yards were unable to deliver in the time frame required, usually because they were full of BC ferries construction. ......the only group making statements about the 3 FSG ferries is the local shipbuilding unions. Last time I checked they don't speak for the companies where their members work. ....so Captain Lovelace appears to be suggesting above that the shipyard companies don't really care about where the ferries are being built, as they have enough work to keep their yards busy, mainly on their own company's (ie. Seaspan) shipping needs. So the ferry-newbuild issue isn't too relevant to the company. That being said, it is interesting that the union was quoted as saying that " they could have matched the FSG price/terms" (in recent media interviews on CTV TV). Does Mr. McPherson own his own shipyard, and does he have the ability to negotiate ship prices? And if his members are already busy, does this mean that his media comments were just empty rhetoric?
|
|
|
Post by Deep Boat on Oct 6, 2007 20:27:03 GMT -8
Captain Lovelace? no more like Captain Libby.
All glibness aside thats not quite what I was suggesting. In fact any ship construction work is very important to maintaining a vibrant marine industry. But, and this point has not been raised in this discussion, which by the way is beginning to be quite interesting, the shipyards which are the final assemblers of these products can only function at their best when a full and healthy community of enterprises are around to provide support.
In times gone by in order to qualify for the shipbuilding subsidies and financial incentives, of which the Canadian government still offers on a lesser scale, a vessel would have to have 75 - 80% Canadian content. Thats everything from light fixtures and carpet to counter tops and refrigeration equipment. These items all had suppliers and service networks through out BC and other maritime locations.
What happens when you stop building is what we have watched since the early eighties when the then in power PC government consciously decided to actively reduce Canada's shipbuilding capacity. With little or no new significant vessels being built in Canada companies that used to support the marine industries begin to shift their product lines to those that support their ability to stay in business and eventually the companies that did stay in the marine supply sector enjoy a bigger market share of a shrinking market. Problem is when these firms which traditionally are entrepreneurial or family run get to the retirement age of the principal they close and there is no other local supplier.
Now while you and I can go to the local big box store and buy from the latest shipment of made in wherever carpet and wall coverings, a shipyard can't. That is because the items that go aboard vessels have to be Transport Canada approved for marine and passenger vessels. These approvals for the most part are proof that the product has passed standard Canadian fire tests and meet standards for smoke, noxious gasses and flame spread. This goes for other shipboard goodies as well things like insulation, electrical fixtures, windows, doors, lifesaving equipment. In a shrinking market with more and more ships being built elsewhere the extra costs and time, Transport Canada was so slow at getting approvals completed it could take over a year, that just this year TC has agreed to allow USCG approvals because Canadian approved products have largely disappeared and for the manufacturers the cost of specific Canadian testing outweighed the possible sales.
So what does that all mean, to me it means that shipyards either close or stop new building and focus on repair work only. They stop hiring new people and ride with their loyal workers who have been around since the boom in the 70's and repair the ships that were made and all grow old together. Nice but the boats can't go on forever and those workers one day go home and don't come back.
Now all those ship's and its more than just ferries it's fishing boats, Coast Guard vessels, navy support and combatant vessels, tug boats and barges. In fact a very large portion of the Canadian marine fleets are nearing the end of their economic lives and only a handful of Local yards remain to supply the replacements and equally a few surviving suppliers.
Every player in the marine industry supports the other, and all have been guilty of allowing the construction side of the industry to decay.
It was reported that FSG had to have 100% EU content in the new ferries they have built to qualify for the financing programs. I don't doubt that all are quality products as the vessels surely are as well. I hope BCFS new construction and maintenance departments have considered this and are soliciting local firms to become supply agents for the 1000's of parts that over the years on such large vessels require replacing and repair. Of course I wouldn't doubt that a few local firms won't want to support products they did not even make any commission on on the original sale. Time will tell on that one.
So from my point of view thats how it works while it could be possible to build vessels of S and super C size in BC right now or 5 years ago when the Super C were announced, every year we don't, every year the government delays ordering a significant shipbuilding program like those announced Arctic patrol vessels, the more firms, talented skilled trades people, experienced designers and managers, and even shipyards disappear. Soon what the pundits say will truly be true and you won't be able to build such vessels here, might not be able to repair them either.
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Vancouver on Oct 6, 2007 21:00:10 GMT -8
Well said deep boat well said.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 6, 2007 21:11:43 GMT -8
Thanks Deep-boat, for that super post. Very informative, and I appreciate your insight.
Please continue to follow and contribute to this discussion.
And who knows, we might actually talk about the specific I-Class ferry....some day.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 6, 2007 22:13:39 GMT -8
BC Ferries seems to want their new ships in bunches, which does nothing to help sustain a local industry. For a privately-owned company, it might be a cheaper way to go, who knows. But if it was government controlled and they built one new ferry every year or two, I think it would have helped sustain at least one shipyard. But when you order 3-5 large vessels every 10 years but within a 2-3 year span, there are 7 years of no-building new vessels, and obviously our industry can't compete on a global scale to fill in that kind of gap. I don't know if it would work, but I've heard the idea tossed around a few times. Personal disclosure re this big-issue, on a simple scale: - My household buys groceries from 1 store that we loyally shop at (ie. we don't "shop around"). We recently changed our loyalties from 1 store to another store, because of the issue of local ownership. So for us, regardless of the top list of factors (as both stores were pretty equal on that list), we made the decision based on one store having a closer-to-home ownership than the other. - And we're willing to pay a bit more, to buy our staple-items "locally". Quality Foods or Save-On-Foods? P.S. Isn't that I-class vessel going to be a nice looking boat?
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Vancouver on Oct 6, 2007 22:43:26 GMT -8
BC Ferries seems to want their new ships in bunches, which does nothing to help sustain a local industry. For a privately-owned company, it might be a cheaper way to go, who knows. But if it was government controlled and they built one new ferry every year or two, I think it would have helped sustain at least one shipyard. But when you order 3-5 large vessels every 10 years but within a 2-3 year span, there are 7 years of no-building new vessels, and obviously our industry can't compete on a global scale to fill in that kind of gap. I don't know if it would work, but I've heard the idea tossed around a few times. Personal disclosure re this big-issue, on a simple scale: - My household buys groceries from 1 store that we loyally shop at (ie. we don't "shop around"). We recently changed our loyalties from 1 store to another store, because of the issue of local ownership. So for us, regardless of the top list of factors (as both stores were pretty equal on that list), we made the decision based on one store having a closer-to-home ownership than the other. - And we're willing to pay a bit more, to buy our staple-items "locally". Quality Foods or Save-On-Foods? P.S. Isn't that I-class vessel going to be a nice looking boat? Good point.
|
|
|
Post by Queen of Vancouver on Oct 6, 2007 22:46:01 GMT -8
So what is her progress, any new pics of her.
|
|
|
Post by herrbrinkmann on Oct 7, 2007 0:01:07 GMT -8
A little off-topic: Before FSG ordered all the "1000+" parts for the Coastals, they had to make sure, there are local / Canadian manufactures and/or resellers, so that maintencance and repair can be done directly.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 7, 2007 7:33:46 GMT -8
Great commentary and information "Deep" . I spoke to a friend yesterday who was in town for Thanksgiving. He works in Ottawa (yes I know an oxymoron ) about the lack of subsidies in industry in general. Very interesting discussion as he had a lot of the inside view of some of these issues. He is not an elected official so his viewpoint tends to be less political and more practical. When it came to the shipping discussions I asked if the Jones Act was actually a violation of the Free Trade Agreement. He was very intrigued and didn't know the answer. We had an interesting discussion regarding Canada Steamship Lines (Paul Martin's sons now control it) and how it competes globally for business etc. You will recall the controversy where the ships were flagged. I mentioned BC Ferries and Flensburger and how impressed I was with their work. He actually knew all about it. His answer was simple. There are only so much funds the government has to dispurse. Some are politically motivated. You can dislike how one party doles them out but they all do this. He said even the politically motivated funding in the majority of cases goes to worthwhile places. There simply isn't enough money to go around. So he said they look at projects which are a must. Having some shipbuilding in Canada is important. He said having world class shipyards was simply too expensive for the impact on Canada as a whole. If it had been kept up over the years, or if there was a Canadian Jones Act, it may have been a different story. To do it now would be akin to crippling Canadian companies and make them uncompetitive in the global marketplace. Canadian ships would simply be too expensive or require massive government subsidies to compete with Korea and the other new ship building countries where wages etc. are substantially lower. He did say he there are Canadian shipyards that are capable of producing high quality ships. However they could not produce them as quickly as we have seen recently and certainly not at the same cost. While he has no say over it, he says Canada needs both the Artic patrol vessels and a very large icebreaker in the north. And he would like to see all of them built in Canada. We built the latest class of frigates and fisheries vessels here in Canada. He said we paid a considerably higher cost for those ships than if we had bought an off the shelf design from another country. He also said the construction would have cost a lot less if we say had the hulls build in Europe or the US (without factoring in the exchange rates at the time) and fitted them out in Canada. However, it simply wasn't going to happen and it was important to make that investment. His retorical question how much more can we do unless we are willing to rob Peter to pay Paul. We covered a lot of ground over two starbucks hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 7, 2007 11:19:41 GMT -8
In my opinion, I think the shipyards and the shipbuilder unions seem to have a "Go big or go home" mentality. They aren't sweating small things like barges, but they're getting all pissed off about the Super C situation. I think it might have to do with how BC Ferries have always been a "Political Hot Potato." Personally, I will take small stuff in high multiples rather than large stuff one off. Profit margin may not be as large, and the challenge may not be there, but consistency is sometimes better. Example: would you rather have meatloaf and potatoes for every meal, or just have one meal a week of surf and turf? Obviously the steak and lobster is much more tasty and satisfying, but you are starving the other 6 days. Or you can have the bland but filling staple 7 days a week. In my business, I LOVE having big 14 hour 3 or 4 man moves (ie a 4 or 5 bedroom house, complete with packing and unpacking). However, it is the small 1-2 bedroom apartment moves, or basement suite moves that make up most of my business. Should I pass these by to get the bigger jobs, or keep my guys working a steady diet of 5-6 hour jobs? No brainer for me. I know it is not the same thing, but there are parallels. I guess perhaps I am just a wiser businessPERSON than some of the people that are in charge of the shipyards or unions .....
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 7, 2007 11:40:56 GMT -8
Our attitude toward shipbuilding is part of a much larger problem. We're losing control of our economic direction, and we're allowing a mindless obsession with buying at the cheapest price to completely obscure the bigger economic value of Canadians making things here. Not all of the blame can fall on the end consumers of the products. The manufacturing community has to be willing to push it's agenda also, and if that means making noise and making some sacrifices to to ensure that they get the work, then that is something that they have to consider. Also, and you mentioned this - POLITICAL will power and glad-handing. There has to be the determination and concentrated effort to support manufacturing (or even service industries). While I am not advocating a PROTECTIONIST stance (we know that this does not work in a worldwide economy anymore), but there can be incentives, loan guarantees and other SUPPORTIVE measures. Not punitive, or adversarial, but SUPPORTIVE. It means a great deal of political intestinal fortitude, as it will not be the popular course of action. It will also definately not be the cheapest. But as you have correctly stated, sticker price is not always the best determining factor. Sometimes you have to be willing to swallow a higher sticker price for the non-intrinsic benefits (those which are not usually highly visible, or even apparent in the short term). One of the biggest problems in politics is that everyone thinks in 4-year chunks. Do something now so that I can get re-elected. The best plans are often the 10-20 year (or even longer) plans. Nothing established or worth doing was ever done in the short term. The shipbuilding industry in specific was not grown overnight. It was killed off in short order, but it took decades to establish. History has proven this over and over, but yet political vision seems to be notoriously short sighted.... the longer view, often unpopular, is usually the best, as borne out in the end. But you have to stick to the plan and stay the course, no matter how hot the heat gets. Once you have the facts, and the plan is in place, and the infrastructure committed, it is foolish to not see the plan through and support it as much as you have to. Can't switch horses mid stream when the media critisism gets too hot. So many points to make regarding this, and I have just scratched the surface. I am sure that those that understand know where I am coming from on this.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 7, 2007 11:53:43 GMT -8
A little off-topic: Before FSG ordered all the "1000+" parts for the Coastals, they had to make sure, there are local / Canadian manufactures and/or resellers, so that maintencance and repair can be done directly. Ah, the German voice of reason steps in. Yes, I had found this information elsewhere prior to you pointing it out again, some news story buried somewhere ... one of the lines was something along: "... we will not have to send the ferries back to Germany for an oil change..." Thank you, Herr Brinkman, for refreshing my memory on this and bringing this point forward. As has already been covered in other threads, the local shipyards (Canadian) seem to be doing more refit/repair work than newbuild. But then again, look at what is operating on our coasts. Perhaps we should be concentrating more on this aspect of things, seeing as there are all kinds of vessels operating here, or based here which require refit and repair. If we cannot compete in the building aspect of things, then there is nothing wrong with specializing in the "after delivery" side of things. And, as Herr Brinkmann points out, we would want to service/repair/refit these new boats here locally, rather than sending them back "home" or importing the technicians....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2007 18:04:45 GMT -8
Does anyone know if the hull is finished yet? A couple of months ago, I heard that they were behind schedule with the hull.
I have heard from a number of sources that both the hull and superstructure will be put together sometime in November.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 30, 2007 16:51:13 GMT -8
Well, here are the current webcam photos from the shipyard. North South looks like the hull is getting close!
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Oct 30, 2007 21:01:12 GMT -8
Built in British Columbia (150 years old next year), she's looking great.
|
|