|
Post by Guest 101 on Jul 16, 2008 10:46:53 GMT -8
The size and scope of BC Ferries operations – would have them needing outside contractors. I have absolutely no problem with contracts been awarded. In an open and fair tendering process.
In terms of contracts – within BC Ferries there are some – which could be classified as normal run of the mill sort and some could be classified as more high profile – maybe on the nature of the services or products associated with the contract.
Some of the bidding – winning companies may even have former (BCFS) employees in them. Again there is absolutely no problem with this.
Where you and I agree on is the lack of accountability at the top…. Board of Directors – not the Executive team – but the Directors.
Yes we need the best people possible for these positions and of course that will mean that - like Tom Harris – who runs – owns a range of successful business - that he will come into contact with BC Ferries.
Where I hear of problems and of course it could just be “sour grapes” as they didn’t win the contract – that a lot of major companies in there filed are not even entering the tendering – bidding for some of these contracts – because they claim it is a fore gone conclusion as to who will get the job (Contract) You need to bear in mind that sometimes the largest – biggest company in the field may not be the best – as they will have a lot higher over head costs than a smaller more nimble one.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Jul 16, 2008 13:12:46 GMT -8
Unfortunately the Board of Directors has less to do with operations than with politics. Most directors sit on several boards and actually know little about any of the operational side of things. Anyone who thinks running a ferry system is the same as running a car rental outfit or a phone supply system or factory is nuts. The problems involved in the ferry system are marine and transportation based. Is there anyone on the board who has extensive marine or transportation experience? They continuously compare the ferry system to the airlines. In reality there is no comparison. The board of directors are an old boys club who are figureheads for Campbell. The forgoing is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by cobblehillian on Jul 16, 2008 14:27:33 GMT -8
An important element seems to be missing from this discussion. In law, in politics, in personnel policies, and in ethical business practice conflict of interest is not legal and is viewed as unethical and draws condemnation. What seems to be left out here is that in more recent times in our public culture the 'appearance' of conflict draws the same public ire and is also legally proscribed. The Federal government, the provinces, and municipalities all have laws respecting tendering processes and define the appearance of conflict of interest in this context with just as much disdain as actual conflict. There are hundreds if not thousands of judicial decisions from all levels that speak to the 'appearance of conflict of interest'.
As in this and so many other instances BCF, a publicly owned institution no matter how you cut it. does not wish to behave like a public institution in revealing tendering information when it has become a legitimate object of public interest and inquiry. Current BCF management obviously believes that the current hybrid corporate structure allows BCF to operate with less openess than a private investor owned enterprise listed on the stock exchange.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
Member is Online
|
Post by Neil on Jul 16, 2008 15:24:49 GMT -8
For there to be even the appearance of conflict of interest, there has to be some indication that the tendering process was somehow geared to being predisposed to selecting a certain bid, either by the contract specifications, or perhaps by the makeup of the body making the final decision. There has been nothing to indicate that was the case, and Mr Harris, apparently, had no role in the bidding process, either as a bidder or evaluator.
Still, given the politically charged dynamic of BC Ferries' governance structure, Tom Harris, and all the BC Ferries directors, along with BC Ferry Commission officials, should agree that as long as they are in their current positions, firms that they manage or own significant parts of should refrain from bidding on contacts tendered by BC Ferries. Since the Liberals have made BC Ferries autonomous and less than accountable to the public, it's the least they could do to allay peoples' suspicions that business is being carried on in a less than forthright manner.
kerryssi- You could make the argument that David Hahn, Doug Allen, and Maureen Macarenko have some background in shipping/transportation. The modern corporatist mindset seems to be that selling widgets is selling widgets; you don't need a good ferry person to run a ferry system- you just need someone who's got a keen eye for the bottom line, no matter what the product.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Jul 16, 2008 17:08:06 GMT -8
It is all moot. The Coastal Ferries Act removes BCFS from all public scrutiny. It also removes BCFS from compliance with any provincial legislation. Crilly need never explain his actions nor answer for them. He can never be sued. How secretive can you get.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 101 on Jul 17, 2008 10:26:42 GMT -8
Where Neil and I disagree and agree on is – I am all for “open market competitions” (market forces) and a strong believer in value for money.
As for the Board of Directors at BCFS – there isn’t anyone currently sitting there from the Canadian Coast Guard – or Canadian Navy – retired for example, or anyone which has a marine background – given that we are in the business of moving people from A to B across water.
I never came up with the word – but I have started to see it be used a lot over the last 20 months in letters to Editors of local newspapers – that is Accountability. I would also say that we are lacking in transparencies on certain deals / contracts…but then again it appears only the “high” profile of them cause potential problems.
Going back to value for money – I do know of 3 companies – one of who was asked by a BCFS employee to enter the tendering for the contract – as this person (BCFS employee) stated there product / service was better than currently on offer. In the end they lost – and the current provider kept the contract. Nothing wrong you may say to that. Why should BCFS change suppliers – when they think they have a good working relationship? Here you can level a possible charge of favouritism….but the real problem I see is – are we getting value for money?
People are complaining about fare increases – what can they do (BCFS)? Well they can look in detail at there expenditures – Cost centres and see if they truly are getting value for money. Sometimes – companies that hold a contract for any lengthy time become to comfortable / complacent – and the service / product levels drop off.
Since David Hahn took over in 2003 – I have only heard of one Budget review – reduction and that was this year. They are looking to save $70M. So what about the last 5 years? Maybe if …..Say over the last 5 years he brought in a review that looked to save around 10% each year…we might be a bit leaner and fit?
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Jul 17, 2008 10:43:20 GMT -8
Neil, you are exactly right and that is exactly what is wrong. A ferry system is not a car rental agency. Because you ran the former successfully noes not mean you can run the latter successfully. Case in point....The management decided that in the event of a strike they would man the engine room. A group of them came to the Nanaimo and tried to start the engine. It takes the engineers 20 minutes to start up the engines. Two hours later the managers gave up. The point here is that these were managers of the ferry system and they thought that because they could start a car they could start a ferry. Working at McDonalds does not a Haute Cuisine Chef make, no matter how badly people like Campbell want it to be so.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 101 on Jul 17, 2008 10:58:39 GMT -8
How did a guy with a teaching degree – then work for a car rental business (Marketing) and finally on to an airline supply business ever get to work in the Marine world?
Who actually hired him on?
He doesn’t even list sailing as a hobby
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 17, 2008 11:09:21 GMT -8
What would you expect a retired naval or coast guard person would bring to a board of directors with oversight for a organization? The Board doesn't need navigation experience. If you wanted someone to be in charge of purchasing new ships you hire someone with that expertise. BC Ferries has that. Not a board member. You have a Senior or Master Captain that is in charge of fleet issues.
A retired Admiral or a very senior person from the Coast Guard may make a good executive or even a replacement for Hahn if they had a keen business mind. But all my experience with boards says you need people who have oversight skills and a good business accumen.
Board members with direct experience can be total pains because they sometimes think they are still doing the job and don't leave the people in charge of areas to do theirs. You look for personal qualities, areas of expertise (law, accounting etc.) and the ability to ask good questions and look for answers.
A good board has broad representation, often has detailed job descriptions/expectations and individual board members get evaluated as to their effectiveness in their portfolio. That would be private and wouldn't be shared with the public. If your organization or company has a particular weakness you may beef up your board in that area until things are level again.
If the board is calling all the shots and actively managing and running things and the CEO is just someone who does their bidding that is different. Those types of boards can be very effective or totally screw things up. You often only see that when someone very powerful and skilled is on the board and tends to own very large chunks of that company. Jimmy Pattison and others often buy portions of companies with the requirement that x number of board members can be appointed by them. This is done to ensure control and protect their investment.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Jul 18, 2008 6:50:59 GMT -8
I don't know why BCFS has a board of directors. Crilly makes all the decisions and they cannot override or question him. If the board of directors is so good how come the costs for management have risen exponentially in the past few years? How come the size of management has increased at the rate of a very virulent cancer. Do they really need a manager of newspapers? a manager of menus? The board of directors at BCFS seems not to be in control of anything.
|
|
|
Post by cobblehillian on Jul 18, 2008 8:36:53 GMT -8
I must respectfully disagree with Neil's response concerning conflict of interest and the 'appearance' of conflict of interest. The use of specifications unique to one product, brand or make, the designing of a selection process or the selection of personnel involved in a purchase decision process so as to prejudice the outcome in favour of a particular supplier is 'actual' conflict of interest. The 'appearance' of conflict is not quite so clear but may include, among other things, the selection of a supplier that is not perceived to be at arms length from the purchaser due to a person being involved with each enterprise on each side (buyer/seller) of a transaction. This is the situation that, I believe, applies here. We have the appearance of conflict which may be remedied by BCF internal policies and procedures such as the board member in question reclusing himself from this decision. This in all likelihood is what happened. It's just a shame that BCF did not, as far as I know, state in the public interest that this is what actually happened.
I agree Neil, generally, that board members and the BCF (a publicly owned enterprise) should refrain from this sort of close dealing. Such activity may occasionally be unavoidable in which case BCF has an obligation to inform the public that the purchase process was completed in such a way as to insure integrity and objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 18, 2008 12:31:37 GMT -8
I am not defending BCFC Board when I am making comments related to boards. I have been simply responding to comments I thought weren't reflective of the majority of boards. I simply don't know enough about BCFC board members, their roles on the board, and their performance. If I was a major shareholder I would be all over it.
I also don't have enough information to evaluate whether BCFC is "manager" heavy. You simply can't judge that by a person's title. People are often "promoted" within a company by giving them a sexy sounding title to reflect their longevity and/or keep them at them at the company. If you are having trouble filling all your positions, making them sound more important is a big help.
Similarly, when people hit the top of their pay level, often the only way to give them a raise is to "promote" them and reclassify the job. Calling someone a manager can be just that. If they are doing a good job that is cheaper than losing that employee and having to hire someone new and train them. Those costs are often hidden but add up huge.
In some companies you promote people to managers to get them out of a union. People who dislike unions often ask for this.
If you take any of the sites that "rate" companies the majority of posters are disgruntled. The minority are defenders. However, people that go to those sites are always in the minority of total employees and the silent majority are usually satisfied. If you just listen to disgruntled employees opinions you get a very distorted view of a company. A true survey will give you the real picture. The majority will agree with some of the points of the disgruntled employees but don't think they are as high a priority. You will find that the vocality of disgruntled people increases with the militancy of the union and with bad union relations.
We seem to get more posters here that give more of one side of the coin. On one hand I wish we had more BC Ferries workers posting. On the other I am kind of glad. I wouldn't want the forum to degrade into an A vs. B discussion about everything. BC Ferries employees are great to have because they are a source of inside information and a great perspective to hear. However, if all you ever hear from an individual is sour grapes and all that is wrong with BCFC, that gets tiresome. If the majority of people are like me, they are members because they are invested in ferries and BCFC/WSF in particular. It is meant to be fun and enjoyable. So employees should remember that and not just subject us to a diatribe of negativity. I know for myself when all I hear is that from a particular person I tune them out and tend to discount much of what they have to say.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
Member is Online
|
Post by Neil on Jul 18, 2008 13:14:23 GMT -8
I also don't have enough information to evaluate whether BCFC is "manager" heavy. You simply can't judge that by a person's title. People are often "promoted" within a company by giving them a sexy sounding title to reflect their longevity and/or keep them at them at the company. If you are having trouble filling all your positions, making them sound more important is a big help. I wonder about that, too. Perhaps searching one of the BC Ferries 'governance' type documents might provide some answers as to how the employees break down between union and management. In some companies you promote people to managers to get them out of a union. People who dislike unions often ask for this. This can create some delicious situations. I recall one time at the Press, when we were heading into a strike situation. An advertising sales rep in a supervisory position was given the option to switch to management, and avoid the shutdown. He did. A few years later, his management position was eliminated, and he actually had the gall to apply to the union for reinstatement to gain his old position back. No need to mention how well that one flew. If you take any of the sites that "rate" companies the majority of posters are disgruntled. The minority are defenders. However, people that go to those sites are always in the minority of total employees and the silent majority are usually satisfied. If you just listen to disgruntled employees opinions you get a very distorted view of a company. A true survey will give you the real picture. The majority will agree with some of the points of the disgruntled employees but don't think they are as high a priority. You will find that the vocality of disgruntled people increases with the militancy of the union and with bad union relations. There's another site called "rate my teacher" with similar outcomes. I agree. Sites like these are basically an invitation to people who are disgruntled and cannot be seen as valid polling. We seem to get more posters here that give more of one side of the coin. On one hand I wish we had more BC Ferries workers posting. On the other I am kind of glad. I wouldn't want the forum to degrade into an A vs. B discussion about everything. BC Ferries employees are great to have because they are a source of inside information and a great perspective to hear. However, if all you ever hear from an individual is sour grapes and all that is wrong with BCFC, that gets tiresome. Can't agree with you there. Out of the three hundred or so members on this forum, less than a handful are BC Ferries employees, past or present. We've got enough 'fan' input; I like reading the inside perspectives, pro or con. And if I get riled enough, I can respond. If the majority of people are like me, they are members because they are invested in ferries and BCFC/WSF in particular. It is meant to be fun and enjoyable. Fun and enjoyable? Then what are we doing discussing "Business-Truth" & BCFS?
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Jul 18, 2008 20:54:29 GMT -8
There is a company phone book. It is on the bridge of every ferry and at each terminal. It lists all the management, their titles and office phones.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 101 on Jul 21, 2008 12:18:22 GMT -8
What I was trying to get across – maybe not to well, was the “value for money” view. As for the 3 companies who bid – entered into the tendering circuses – I know all 3 of them – so do have an indirect interest. What I put down to pure sour grapes – lost the possible business and it cost me ect….but when I started asking more question on how they failed and the company who won – what was the difference? Was it in price or level of service?
I was surprised to hear that they were the lowest bid – and could still make a profit on the contract. So why didn’t they get any further – was it the service / product not up to the standard that BCFS required? Here it is very hard – near impossible to quantify what is good - better or bad. It is mostly someone’s view against another person.
All 3 companies said that it was wasted time & money – as it appeared to them that the current holder of the contract – “had it in the bag” - and this tendering / bid was just to keep people happy. Maybe BCFS could save money…but that didn’t appear to be part of the bid / tendering, according to them. They also mention the level of management who were reviewing the bid – they though it was pretty poor.
I have heard a lot of gossip and rumours about – what I would call the different views between the “Blue Collar” workers and the “White Collar” workers. You get this all the time and more so with former State departments been moved over to the private sector…so I put the whole thing down to sour grapes…. Now listening to Kerryssi – some of the stuff he has mention, I just though was so wide of the mark – that how could a business this size still function. At a family reunion – I brought subject back up on the bid/tendering for the BCFS contracts….I wish I didn’t – ended up getting a 4 hour lecture on how bad the management was – and Kerryssi rant is low key compared to what these business people had to say & they aren’t even BCFS employees.
So are we really getting value for money on these contracts been handed out? Can they save money? I don’t know – but some of the figures flying around – in the millions – that I wonder if there could be savings made.
So why should we care? Well if they can make savings on the contracts – then these can be passed on down, and in theory the customer should benefit. With fare increases – they (BCFS) claim they need the additional funds to run the service. The increases can be controlled better – if savings are made on some of the support services that BCFS buy in.
I also agree with Neil – that while a Director is serving his / her term on the Board – that they are excluded & there companies from tendering for contracts. I also would go further and make sure that all the Executives currently working within the business, that they also stop tendering for contracts – through there own private companies - while still employed by the company. This should bring back in a high level of impartially to contracts and we should – again in theory – get value for money, without any sort of favouritism been played into the bid.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
Member is Online
|
Post by Neil on Nov 28, 2008 23:51:00 GMT -8
Kerryssi has on a number of occasions raised the question of BC Ferries being accurate in it's assertions as to the costs involved in it's 'minor' ( hate that term) routes. He brought up these points in the thread about fuel costs... Neil...you are taking BCFS reports at face value. What you are seeing is what they allow the public to see. I'm looking at audited figures. We have to go by something, and I'm afraid that sometimes your posts don't provide a lot of verifiable numbers, even though I'd like to be able to agree with some of what you're saying. According to BCFS own figures the HSQ will cover all its costs with an average load of 22 to 24 cars. It will carry 60 and is frequently overloaded even in the winter. It makes a profit but then the costs for 10 managers, all their offices, staff etc is charged to it. Now there would be even more managent costs. Those figures are from years ago and since then traffic on the route has grown considerably. Costs have remained about the same except for fuel. Wages have not increased by much in the past 10 years, unlike the size of management and their costs. Management costs used to be available but are now hidden in other areas such as operational costs which includes the ships. The last real management cost figures I saw are now out of date but they were about $100,000,000.00. Divide that out among the ships and you can claim any route is not making a profit. The formula for assigning management costs to the routes was ( I don't know if it still is) Length of run x number of passengers carried in the month of august x times the number of trips. That was explained to me by management. 'According to BCFS's own figures', route 6 does come close to breaking even, even before the subsidy is applied. In the previous fiscal year (figures for the most recent one are distorted by the Howe Sound Queen's refit), route 6 had expenses of $3.72 milion, and revenues of $3.58 million.Recently published figures on fuel consumption show that the HSQ's costs over the whole year might be in the neighborhood of $500,000, if the June figures were representative. I believe the boat has two crews of six each shift, plus there is the manned Crofton terminal. I have no idea what the average wage would be, but, for the sake of argument, let's put it at $100,000, including benefits. That gives us in the neighborhood of $1.6 million. Now we're at $2.1 million, fuel and labour- admittedly wild ballpark estimate- which leaves us $1.62 million shy of BC Ferries' stated total of $3.72 million in costs.There is an annual refit, plus other costs in running the ship. Any fair minded person would agree that a percentage of the parent company's overhead has to be included in the cost of each route to determine the true cost of operating that route. I have no idea of how much that might be, and the 'formula' you claim they use makes no sense to me numerically. The last real management cost figures I saw are now out of date but they were about $100,000,000.00. Divide that out among the ships and you can claim any route is not making a profit. $100,000,000? That's a suspiciously round figure. I believe BC Ferries has between three and four thousand employees- let's say 3500. $100,000,000 in management wages might mean that there are 1000 people each earning $100,000. Are you really trying to tell us that nearly one out of every three BC Ferries employees is management, earning, on average, that kind of money? An example of how the company can manipulate this formula is when the company was trying to eliminate rt9. It makes 2 round trips per day of about 56 miles. The company claimed it was 8 routes which gave 16 trips per day. Saltspring to Pender, Pender to Maine, Maine to Galiano, Galiano to mainland and return. This meant that a passenger getting on at LH for TSA was counted 4 times before he got there. This greatly increased the management costs assigned to the ship. I've looked at a lot of documents BC Ferries has published- annual reports and the like- and I have never seen one instance where route 9's traffic figures were calculated on the basis of it being multiple runs. A round trip is always defined as to the islands, and from the islands. Not saying they've never done it, but it's clearly not the norm. The whole system needs to be revised with head office and management overhead shown as such instead of added to the ships costs. The company will never allow that, it would be too embarassing. I'm not disagreeing entirely with what you say. There is in fact no way for the public to know exactly what is included in the expenses for each run, at least not from the audited financial statements. We don't know what formula they're using, and the press just regurgitates company pronouncements about what each run loses, and we don't seem to know just what is spent in management, or if it's justified. The 'minor' routes get gouged every time there is a round of fare increases- I've noticed that they're not even getting the full 33% reduction that the major routes are getting in the winter fare 'sales', and I share your skepticism that these essential routes are the tremendous sinkhole BC Ferries claims they are. I want more information in the accounts. A couple of points. These 'minor' routes were at one time all run by small, private concerns. The reasons they came under government operation was because none of them were profitable. Yes, times have changed, and population on the islands has grown- but so has the expense of servicing them. If the routes were financially viable, as you claim, where is the lineup of private operators clamoring for BC Ferries to open up the ASP process? Route 6 might be the closest to being independently viable thanks to the Howe Sound Queen's low fuel consumption, modest crewing levels, and minimal terminal costs- where is Graham Clarke or others who might want to take advantage of the opportunity to run it, if it were actually an attractive proposition? Looking at the route financial statements is actually pretty fascinating. The amount of subsidy varies wildly per route. The thing that's consistent is, as Kerryssi points out, the lack of insight into what each route actually costs.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Nov 29, 2008 7:52:45 GMT -8
Is there any information as to how close Route#3 is to being break even?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
Member is Online
|
Post by Neil on Nov 29, 2008 11:29:36 GMT -8
Is there any information as to how close Route#3 is to being break even? Yes there is. Check the latest annual report.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 29, 2008 13:28:43 GMT -8
Neil I don't expect anyone to take my posts at face value. I handed over all my documentation (6 boxes full) to the union when I retired. I was involved with the Southern Gulf Islands Advisory committee, Scheduling committee, Concerned ferry workers group and Union. I was very involved with stopping the companies attempts to shut down rte 9. The figures for management overhead includes the costs of the office buildings, managers and their staff, supplies, property taxes etc, not just wages. To my mind any good business would want to know exactly where their costs are rather than trying to hide them. The figures I have seen for management varied from a high of about $110,000,000 (Rhodes) to about $95,000,000 (Lingwood) The size of management is constantly increasing while the work force is decreasing. The figures for the HSQ were supplied to me a few years ago by management. The formula for costing out head office expenses makes no sense whatsoever but that is what one of the financial managers explained to us in a meeting we had with them. It is obvious the operational side is cut to the bone while the management side keeps increasing. PM me and I can explain how the company claimed that rte 9 was loosing $26,000,000 per year and after we cleared out the smoke and mirrors it came down to loosing less than $2,000,000 which just matched the amount they lost through shutting the gift shop and instigating the throughfares. I can also tell you how then CFO Glen Brown claimed it would cost about $150,000 to out port a ship at Saturna. His report was about 2 1/2 pages, ours was well over 200 and proved that it would cost over $6,000,000. Do you wonder why I am jaded? The claim that rte 9 was 8 routes was part of trying to shut it down.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 29, 2008 15:03:04 GMT -8
re the question of allocating overhead to the various routes, there is a new accounting-rule upcoming (I think effective 2009), but it's just for not-for-profit organizations. It addresses Kerry & Neil's concerns:
My opinion on the BCFS matter is that overhead costs need to be allocated to the routes. For any business, some level of admin-support is needed for each department to be able to operate. So naturally you'd expect the costs for that admin-support to be allocated to the benefiting departments. But full-disclosure of the amounts and methods is helpful to the reader of the statements.
What I hear Kerry saying is that the admin-costs aren't being allocated fairly, and there are far-too-many costs to be allocated.
I don't think Kerry would be arguing that each route can survive without management of some sort. I think he's just saying that there's way too much management.
Re the various departments (routes) of a typical company (in this case BC Ferries): "Management is necessary. Good management is beneficial. Bad management is detrimental."
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 30, 2008 10:39:57 GMT -8
Neil, one reason you don't see anyone bidding on the routes is that they have been "bundled". If you want to buy one route in the southern gulf islands you must buy them all. If you want rte 4 and 6 you must also take the highly unprofitable rtes 5 and 5a. A very strong deterrent. Flugel Horn, correct that is exactly my point, it is management costs which are killing the service. E.G. Lets say some person owns a fleet of taxis. He has 35 taxis and drivers and an office. He is getting by quite well. He knows exactly how much each cab and driver costs and how much the office costs and sets his rates accordingly. Then that person decides that as the owner he should have a fancier office and a secretary. His brother in law needs a job so he makes him 1st VP with and office and secretary. His nephew needs a job so he makes him 2nd VP with an office and secretary. He then decides that his office expenses are getting embarrassing and he wants to hide them so he adds all the costs together, cabs, drivers,and management then divides these total costs among the cabs. Suddenly the cabs are no longer profitable. They can not provide the needed revenue to support such costs so he raises the rates and people quit using his cabs. Any normally intelligent business man would know that the real answer is to get rid of the unneeded management costs. The cabs would then be profitable again.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
Member is Online
|
Post by Neil on Nov 30, 2008 13:13:37 GMT -8
Neil, one reason you don't see anyone bidding on the routes is that they have been "bundled". If you want to buy one route in the southern gulf islands you must buy them all. If you want rte 4 and 6 you must also take the highly unprofitable rtes 5 and 5a. A very strong deterrent. That's not quite the case. Under the current ASP structure, the southern Gulf Islands runs have not yet been put out to tender. The Mill Bay- Brentwood run was offered on it's own, and a proposal was also looked at for the Denman/Hornby runs on their own. There is nothing in the Coastal Ferries Act that says runs are 'bundled' in the ASP process. With regard to the story about the supposed $26 million loss on route 9..... I'd be happy to exchange pm's with you, but why not just post the information here, as I would think there are others who would be interested as well. The current total operating expenses for that run, before a penny of revenue is counted, are listed at about $16.2 million, so I'm at a loss to imagine how such a loss would ever have been claimed. I would certainly be interested in any information you have on that, as well as any particulars as to how your taxi scenario is analogous to nepotism at BC Ferries' head office. It would be great to get some real, tangible insights into aspects of BC Ferries' operations that aren't described in the reports, and of which we usually hear just generalities.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 30, 2008 16:39:01 GMT -8
You won't find anything about the bundling in any public documents. I asked management how they would get rid of the unprofitable routes as it only makes sense that people would only want to buy the profitable ones. That is when they explained about bundling the routes. To explain the whole story about rte 9 would fill several pages here and is so outre that few outside of BCFS would believe it. The Mill bay rte was not considered part of the southern gulf islands so could be offered on its own. If you want to look up documents here is one for you. When I was part of the Southern Gulf Islands Committee the company came out with a report called the Southern Gulf Islands Report and I believe it was Phase II. While going through what we laughingly called the book of lies one item in particular caught my eye. According to this official report put out by BCFC the average ferry worker in the SGI made $50,000 per year plus benefits. Wow! Was I ever being ripped off! As a deck hand in SGI I figured my wages were just slightly above average. I showed up at the next meeting with my T4 slip and a handful of cash. I dared anyone in management to match the cash and I would match my T4 against what they said I made. There was a resounding silence on the part of management. My T4 showed that I made about $34,000 including overtime, shift premium and benefits. When I cornered a couple of the managers responsible for this report they hemmed and hawed but finally admitted that they had taken the wages for the Captain and Chief Engineer on the super ferry ( the two highest paid shipboard jobs in the fleet at that time) and had done some strange financial juggling which gave them the figure of $50,000. I asked how they could consider the super ferry as part of the southern gulf islands fleet and they replied that since it passed through the gulf islands on its way to SWB they figured they could count it as part of the costs for the SGI. Weird enough for you? And you wonder why I view any figures put out by BCFS with a jaundiced eye.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 30, 2008 17:01:23 GMT -8
The taxi scenario was simply an example of what I think. It was not meant to indicate nepotism in BCFC. That being said I can give you a lovely example of just that but I don't think this is the place for it.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
Member is Online
|
Post by Neil on Nov 30, 2008 19:58:13 GMT -8
You won't find anything about the bundling in any public documents. I asked management how they would get rid of the unprofitable routes as it only makes sense that people would only want to buy the profitable ones. That is when they explained about bundling the routes. The southern Gulf Islands routes have not been put out to tender, either singularly or as a group. In Norway, routes tendered to the private sector are often bundled, and it's not a deterrent to their being bid on, as the subsidy offered on the money losing or 'lifeline' routes covers the successful bidder's costs. To explain the whole story about rte 9 would fill several pages here and is so outre that few outside of BCFS would believe it. Try me. I love tall tales, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Give us the 'Reader's Digest' version if you don't want to spend all day writing. If you want to look up documents here is one for you. When I was part of the Southern Gulf Islands Committee the company came out with a report called the Southern Gulf Islands Report and I believe it was Phase II. While going through what we laughingly called the book of lies one item in particular caught my eye. According to this official report put out by BCFC the average ferry worker in the SGI made $50,000 per year plus benefits. Wow! Was I ever being ripped off! As a deck hand in SGI I figured my wages were just slightly above average. I showed up at the next meeting with my T4 slip and a handful of cash. I dared anyone in management to match the cash and I would match my T4 against what they said I made. There was a resounding silence on the part of management. My T4 showed that I made about $34,000 including overtime, shift premium and benefits. When I cornered a couple of the managers responsible for this report they hemmed and hawed but finally admitted that they had taken the wages for the Captain and Chief Engineer on the super ferry ( the two highest paid shipboard jobs in the fleet at that time) and had done some strange financial juggling which gave them the figure of $50,000. I asked how they could consider the super ferry as part of the southern gulf islands fleet and they replied that since it passed through the gulf islands on its way to SWB they figured they could count it as part of the costs for the SGI. Weird enough for you? And you wonder why I view any figures put out by BCFS with a jaundiced eye. I recall you mentioning that before. Management can be pathetically out of touch with the rank and file. You said I could look that Gulf Islands plan up... whereabouts? The taxi scenario was simply an example of what I think. It was not meant to indicate nepotism in BCFC. That being said I can give you a lovely example of just that but I don't think this is the place for it. But this is exactly the place. Mr Horn kindly created this thread for us to look at aspects of BC Ferries operations that maybe aren't what they seem. Just omit names if that seems safer. This is a forum where people talk about the number of windows on the cardeck of the Queen of Saanich. We like details, and you're just tantalizing us with hints.
|
|