|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 19, 2009 16:46:24 GMT -8
The smaller runs generally need fewer passengers to pay for the run due to being far less expensive and the ships having mostly been paid for. On the HSQ a 35% load pays all expenses for the run, except the huge amounts of management overhead which are levied against it. In a real business one of the first things management looks at is overhead costs. Usually these can be reduced without affecting quality or service. I don't think BCFS is a real business.
|
|
|
Post by ferrytraveller on Feb 19, 2009 17:33:48 GMT -8
Kerry, you keep saying that all the minor routes have such high overhead costs, what does bc ferries include in their overhead costs in general for these routes.
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Feb 19, 2009 22:19:29 GMT -8
Seeing as we've got folks from both sides of the border, why don't we get a comparison chart going. I think we'll all be surprised. Let's take an example - Queen of Surrey licence vs the Tacoma, one of the Super Jumbo Mark II's.
On the smaller routes, the Charles Hall used to run with a crew of two, three when it got really busy in the summer. She has five on her now and TC originally wanted many more.
Don't blame BCFS, blame TC.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,180
|
Post by Neil on Feb 24, 2009 10:08:17 GMT -8
Kwuna squeeze over www.qciobserver.com/Article.aspx?Id=3727 Transport Canada has given BC Ferries permission to continue carrying up to 80 passengers on the Kwuna's afternoon sailings, says Ferries spokesperson Deborah Marshall, alleviating worries that plane passengers would be left behind. According to new Transport Canada regulations which came into effect Jan. 1, the Kwuna can carry only 36 passengers and 18 vehicles - a sharp reduction from the 150 passengers and 26 vehicles it was previously allowed. Transport Canada gave BC Ferries a two-month exemption allowing it to carry up to 80 passengers between 1 pm and 6 pm. Last week, that exemption was extended indefinitely, Ms Marshall said. BC Ferries asked for the extension because it was concerned that passengers travelling to Sandspit to catch the daily flight to Vancouver would be left behind on Graham Island if the Kwuna was limited to carrying only 36 people, she said. "We wanted to make sure it wasn't a problem for our customers," Ms Marshall said. Meanwhile, BC Ferries is asking Transport Canada to review how the new regulations are applied to the Kwuna. Ms Marshall said the Kwuna is classified as a "class A" vessel under the new regulations, which limits it to carrying 36 passengers with four crew members. If the Kwuna were just 1.6 metres shorter, it would be classified as a "class B" vessel and could carry up to 145 passengers with four crew members, she said. Other ships in the BC Ferries fleet have also had their passenger and vehicle capacities reduced by the new regulations, but none as severely as the Kwuna. MLA Gary Coons and MP Nathan Cullen sent joint letters last week complaining about the Kwuna situation to the federal and provincial governments, and to BC Ferries chief executive David Hahn. Mr. Coons and Mr. Cullen said that BC Ferries did not consult with its local advisory committee about how the regulations would affect islanders, despite having more than 18 months notice. "Route 26, Skidegate Landing-Alliford Bay, is a perfect example of how this lack of consultation has resulted in hindered access to essential services such as school, medical services, grocery and supplies, air travel and postal services," they wrote.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 24, 2009 11:47:42 GMT -8
BCF routinely gets many exemptions from TC but that time may be coming to an end.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Feb 28, 2009 14:41:55 GMT -8
I'm just curious as to whether this just applies to BC Ferries, or if it applies to every ferry in the country. I know if I still worked on the ferry I was on in northern Alberta, the response would be "Yeah, whatever." because with the exception of one day in the year, we were never anywhere near the maximum passenger capacity.
The whole thing stinks. I'm not wondering if this is somehow connected to various proposals to link Vancouver Island to the mainland with a fixed link.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Feb 28, 2009 15:42:09 GMT -8
The whole thing stinks. I'm not wondering if this is somehow connected to various proposals to link Vancouver Island to the mainland with a fixed link. No... it's the consolidated effects of two things. 1. Years of exemptions coming to an end progressively, but rapidly in the last couple years, 2. BC Ferries being included into previously in effect Safe Manning Regulations. BC Ferries has known this was coming for literally years, with the now seemingly distant Queen of Coquitlam MLU taking SMR into consideration to maintain the vessel's license.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Mar 1, 2009 16:02:17 GMT -8
Fargowolf...Dane has it right. I can add that there are different rules and requirements for inland waters (lakes,etc), protected waters (Washington state) coastal waters(most of B.C.) and deep sea. The rules for inland are more relaxed. For many years BCFC has been trying to get the straight re classified as protected waters.
The difference between a deep sea sailor and a coastal sailor? The coastal sailor panics when he looses sight of land. The deep sea sailor panics when he sees land.
|
|
|
Post by fargowolf on Mar 1, 2009 20:05:30 GMT -8
I was just curious as to whether this reduced passenger thing applies ONLY to BC Ferries, or every ferry in the country. So far as i know, BC Ferries seems to have been "singled out".
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 1, 2009 20:13:55 GMT -8
It's sort of the opposite I suppose, they were long singled out in a "you don't have to do this" sort of way, rather than complying to pre-existing regulation.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 2, 2009 0:44:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Mar 2, 2009 8:50:29 GMT -8
Dane has it right again.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 8, 2009 8:59:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 8, 2009 11:36:11 GMT -8
But what experience does she have in regards to ferries? I saw quite a few posing in front of the QPR on Sunday who have far more apperication (although rabid) and fundamental knowledge than she has. Her column has alot of potential but currently seems to have alot to be desired. She follows the ferries quite closely, attends their AGM's, etc. I've seen lots of evidence of maritime knowledge in her columns, new-stories, blogs.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,180
|
Post by Neil on May 8, 2009 12:24:18 GMT -8
This isn't your typical joe blow mouthing off type blog- it's a legitimate reporter with some resources behind her. She's hardly new at it, as she's been covering BC Ferries for several years now. People often find other people's opinions 'rhetorical' and uninformed when they disagree with them.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,180
|
Post by Neil on May 13, 2009 21:24:07 GMT -8
I've been having a hard time making up my mind about this one. Ms Montgomery was pretty scathing in her blog entry regarding the local Ferry Advisory committees advocating that the higher manning levels be waived, and I suppose I see her point that increased safety levels, especially if they are designed to bring Canada into line with international standards, cannot be a bad thing. Still... I look at a route like Buckley Bay to Denman; the shortest and most sheltered in the entire system. Mechanical safety systems, including warnings, have no doubt improved considerably over the years. There has never been anything even approaching an emergency, that I know of, on that route. The vessel is never more than four minutes from shore, and if there was some sort of leak, or a complete steering failure, the shores on either side of Baynes Sound provide a relatively safe opportunity for beaching. Other than a terrorist attack, or some sort of catastrophic explosion, it's hard to imagine a scenario of imminent doom on that route which would require a larger crew than they now have. Other 'minor' routes are not so cut and dried with regard to dangers, but does the service history not establish the precedent of 'reasonable risk', that might allow TC to give waivers on crewing levels? Ferry advisory committees must be wondering if perhaps a plague of locusts on the islands is next up, following the never ending spiral of fare increases, and now, periodic capacity cut-offs due to newly implemented crewing changes that seem arbitrary. The ideal solution would be for the government to acknowledge TC's dictates on safety and increase BC Ferries' subsidy to cover the increase in crewing, but that won't happen. Kevin Falcon has made his contempt for the concerns of islanders quite clear. So, the committees are left to make representations based on the experience of ferry service and safety, and admittedly, the optics aren't good. I think Ms Montgomery was a bit harsh, but I understand what both viewpoints are based on.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on May 14, 2009 8:47:58 GMT -8
The crewing levels are set so that the crew can safely evacuate all passengers in the event of a catastrophic event. That would be something like an explosion or fire in the engine room. If you lost the engines you could not beach the boat but must rely on shipboard equipment and crew. Ferries management operates on the theory that because it hasn't happened it wont happen. A false hope as proved by the Queen of the North.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,180
|
Post by Neil on May 14, 2009 10:26:19 GMT -8
The crewing levels are set so that the crew can safely evacuate all passengers in the event of a catastrophic event. That would be something like an explosion or fire in the engine room. If you lost the engines you could not beach the boat but must rely on shipboard equipment and crew. Ferries management operates on the theory that because it hasn't happened it wont happen. A false hope as proved by the Queen of the North. What happened to the Queen of The North could not happen in Baynes Sound. Many public transport systems operate on the assumption that historical safety records determine acceptable risks. We have buses rocketing along highways with passengers standing, let alone the rest who are sitting in seats that have no seat belts. When it comes to our marine systems, the standards are vastly different. Transport Canada is now insisting that if the Kwuna is to carry more than three dozen passengers, it needs five crew. I'm not sure that's warranted.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on May 14, 2009 10:59:58 GMT -8
The crewing levels are set so that the crew can safely evacuate all passengers in the event of a catastrophic event. That would be something like an explosion or fire in the engine room. If you lost the engines you could not beach the boat but must rely on shipboard equipment and crew. Ferries management operates on the theory that because it hasn't happened it wont happen. A false hope as proved by the Queen of the North. What happened to the Queen of The North could not happen in Baynes Sound. Many public transport systems operate on the assumption that historical safety records determine acceptable risks. We have buses rocketing along highways with passengers standing, let alone the rest who are sitting in seats that have no seat belts. When it comes to our marine systems, the standards are vastly different. Transport Canada is now insisting that if the Kwuna is to carry more than three dozen passengers, it needs five crew. I'm not sure that's warranted. The whole airline industry operates this way worldwide. Called managed risk. Until an accident happens some safety features are not applied. Airline fuel tanks could be made much less flamable/explosive similar to the what the military uses. NASA demonstrated this long long ago. Kapton wiring that contributed to the Swiss Air disaster was taken out of military aircraft long before due to flamability. There could be more flight attendants, more doors on aircraft, stronger seats, X shaped seat belts like the flight attendants use, etc. etc. All the above costs money through higher construction costs, higher labour costs, greater aircraft weight burning more fuel, and additional operating costs. You have to weigh the risks, against the threat, against the cost. Some balance has to be struck or we would be back to only the very elite affording to travel. At some point some reasonableness has to come to play. While to me personally, I think seat belts on a bus is a good idea, especially school buses. If a bus goes on highway no one should be standing. Those seem like no brainers to me. But someone I am sure could make the point that the number of deaths on the TTC last year attributed not having seatbelts I would bet is nil despite the millions and millions of trips. I don't have the necessary knowledge to comment whether 4, 5 or 6 levels of manning is necessary. But BC Ferries are in a pretty huge group of transportation companies who choose to operate this way. Perhaps someone could argue, need to operate this way. The very people who propose keeping the fares low would be the first to slam BC Ferries is something went wrong. Of course to some BC Ferries doesn't do anything right . Should we err on the side of safety over less safe, absolutely. But lets be balanced.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 27, 2009 16:33:12 GMT -8
The Queen of Burnaby had overloads on the first 2 sailings of the day today, from Westview. I was on the Noon sailing from Westview, and people and cars were left behind on my sailing. There was unused room on the car decks, and so I'm assuming that the 433 B-License passenger count was reached. The crew member that I talked with mentioned that the A-Licence is rarely used anymore (presumably because the crew-requirement is now too high because of costs and/or availability). Here's a photo of the car-deck, from the stern. The platform decks (including side-flaps) were used, but not all the way to the articulating end. And there is unused space underneath the ends of the platform decks, and at the tapered end of the stern. Here's the license paper: Apparently it used to be easier to crew an A-license, but the "new" regulations have raised the crew-to-passenger ratio to something that seems excessive.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 27, 2009 17:49:33 GMT -8
The Queen of Burnaby was one of a few ships that saw her capacity actually increase with the installation of the new(ish) life saving equipment.
Three years ago her license was:
A – 659 / 25, B – 324 / 18, C – 0 /11
Currently (about six month old data) the Nanaimo had the following license:
A – 973 / 27, B – 750 / 22, C – 584 / 20, D 450 / 19, E – 0 / 11
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Dec 27, 2009 19:05:27 GMT -8
The difference between the A license and B license is absolutely absurd! Why is there not a license for around 600-700 passengers using 21 crew?
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Dec 28, 2009 0:45:06 GMT -8
The sailing waits out of PR made the news this evening, apparently the RCMP was called in after a few passengers who were left behind on the 8:10 got irritated.
Ironically, the next news story was about how (on the major routes) the 27th and 28th are the busiest travel days of the holidays. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 28, 2009 7:34:33 GMT -8
The sailing waits out of PR made the news this evening, apparently the RCMP was called in after a few passengers who were left behind on the 8:10 got irritated. Here's the precautionary police presence at cut-off time for the noon sailing: And a zoom-out to see the cars still in the pre-holding area: The full holding compound, before the noon sailing: And the pre-holding compound, a few minutes before cut-off: (The worker from the 2nd toll-booth was working the entrance area, directing and advising traffic in the pre-holding area. From what I saw & heard at my vantage point, BCFS workers gave good communication about the overload for the noon sailing).
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Dec 28, 2009 9:09:13 GMT -8
I think that is pretty stupid actually! It is the Christmas season and people are travelling and to have BC Ferries on reduced passenger license on that route is pretty unacceptable to me! I would be pissed off too! They know the holiday season is a busy time so why by on a reduced license? That makes no sense. Typical BC Ferries! Maybe they should of done an extra roundtrip if they still had waits for the last sailings.
|
|