|
Post by landlocked on Jun 27, 2009 22:06:54 GMT -8
Flugel, let me clarify.
In the orginal notes concerning the AGM and Mr. Hahn's scathing remarks about the local shipbuilders, there appear to be a couple of clarifications that need to be made.
1) In his June 2008 remarks to employees in the company newsletter, Steve Frasher of WMG goes to great lengths to talk about the Island Sky 'misadventure'. He uses statements like "In retrospect we can conclude we failed to properly assess the risk of undertaking the design and construction of a sophisticated vessel such as the Island Sky. And what were those risks; having people with the skills and expertise to execute the project the way it was proposed to our customer, BC Ferries" He was very humble in his remarks in a fashion only seen in this century repeated by the president of Maple Leaf Foods. In both cases, they screwed up, took responsibility as a company and will move on. All the while Frasher did say that the people of British Columbia will enjoy the fruits of their labour in the service the ship will provide for many years into the future. Not long after, while previously announcing that VanShip will build the new shipdocking tug for Seaspan, the boat was built at Martinac in Tacoma. In addition, Seaspan have built at least 15 barges in China. Even they know their limitations. Hahn is right. The climate and the industry is not sophisticated or well organized enough to build ships like the super C's and the NorEx as efficiently or at as an attractive a price as offshore yards. I hope for the sake of the local industry that they get their act together when building replacements for the smaller ships as the projects come along.
2) The craftsmen in BC can build anything. There is no doubt. At what price is the question. If anyone out there was told that you could buy you current automobile 'built in BC', we'd all be happy. But if we were told it would cost 50 or 100% more, we'd surely think twice. Anything can be built here, but if the industry isn't well organized or efficient, price would dictate buying decisions every time. Walmart is packed every day for a reason.
On that same note, we think about the Washington State rules concerning local build. So how competitive does a Washington State yard have to be if they know the government will never build out of state? What if they had to compete with other US yards or Japanese, or Korean for that matter? If the Jones Act would allow foreign hulls to trade in the US, there would never be another US hull built of any consequence.
Mill Bay's remarks about Hahn are correct in as much as it appears Hahn is being harsh with reference to coastal communities. What Hahn should be saying (to make people feel better) is that while he feels for the communities, he has no ability to provide discounts to spark tourism or economic development. He should suggest that the government should provide more funding to the company so it can lower fares. The ferry company has one mandate to fullfil a ferry services contract to its master, the government. What are the northern runs about? Economic development, pure and simple. Service to those communities could be delivered in for more economical means, but the government of BC has decided to stimulate those economies with the extended (and expensive) ferry runs. They could do the same all over the province if they so chose.
As far as Hahn for Premier, sorry, even a staunch right winger like me believes government should have compassion for its citizens. We're not all able to run our lives like businesses, stuff happens. Is he running the company based on the governments objectives and the company's mandate? Absolutely.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jun 27, 2009 22:55:21 GMT -8
At the last two AGMs, representatives from Ferry Advisory Committees stood up and praised David Hahn and BC Ferries for their willingness to communicate in a timely fashion when islanders had concerns. While there is anger at ferry policies and fares, I get the impression that people understand that the real driving force behind the current ferry setup is located in the legislature, and not so much on Fort Street.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 28, 2009 7:19:24 GMT -8
Flugel, let me clarify... Thanks, I appreciate your detail about WMG's perspective. Very interesting to read and to think about.
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Jun 28, 2009 8:54:02 GMT -8
It may look like I'm a huge Hahn fan, and in many ways I am, BUT....
I was never in favour of building larger and more sophisticated ships when fuel prices were rising the way they were. I spent much time and effort trying to convince the HarbourLynx investor group to dump the current boat as fast as they could and replace it with two smaller, more efficient vessels that could provide more frequent service during peak periods and have a capacity more in line with off season realities. Imagine my surprise when I first learned of the design strategies of the new super C's.
I could not believe the idea of going to diesel electric first off. When your duty cycle is such that a full 25% of your trip cycle is idling in the dock, why have engines running at full speed to create power for electric motors. I believed from the start that these ships would burn at minimum 20% more than their direct drive counterparts. The Cumberland and Capilano, not only require significantly more crew than the Skeena for example, but they burn many times the fuel of the ships they replaced. Why didn't anyone learn that?
The other issue was about 'right sizing' equipment. Why do you have 360 vehicle ferries going back and forth all year long, save and except long weekends, with between 20 and 30% utilization? It simply doesn't make sense, unless you are building for those peak weekends only. It appears the business case for the boats that I have read calls for capacity that will reduce waits during peak times only. It's the same type of question that transit companies have. Build big enough buses to handle peak hours and then the rest of the day, night, and weekends, they run around empty.
My question is, why weren't 4 or 5 smaller ships considered? You can bet than during off peak and slower shoulder seasons that they would have been out working unlike the super C's that sit tied to the dock because the older ships are more economical to operate. Again, I just couldn't figure the company's logic on the super C's in light of the impending high fuel prices, a situtation that will not get any better.
Oh my goodness, imagine if the government cut the free seniors travel days what that would do to traffic?
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jun 28, 2009 12:06:37 GMT -8
Flugel, let me clarify... Thanks, I appreciate your detail about WMG's perspective. Very interesting to read and to think about. I agree about the WMG comments. Hopefully they have learnt enough in the process to do some things to strengthen the business at WMG. I would like to see them continue and even expand their business. Upgrading the facilities and their expertise to at least to be able to handle small and mid-size ferries would be nice to see. I am just not sure the business case exists for that level of investment even. I just don't think it is practical, and definitely not a strong business case to expect WMG (that is having trouble with ships of the Island Sky complexity) to be able to upgrade to build large ferries. Sadly I think that chapter is closed. Now that the Olympic venues have been built and construction has cooled slightly, maybe there will be less of a shortage of trades in the lower mainland. I know here some buildings are taking longer to sell. But the Ritz, Shangrila and Trump towers are all above ground. One 80 storey condo tower seems to be in a holding pattern and I am not sure whether just delayed or in danger. But another smaller one launched recently had long line-ups for the opening of sales and sold out quickly. Certainly there are a lot of manufacturing people out of work and looking for jobs but I am not sure about their skill level.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jun 28, 2009 15:08:00 GMT -8
The other issue was about 'right sizing' equipment. Why do you have 360 vehicle ferries going back and forth all year long, save and except long weekends, with between 20 and 30% utilization? It simply doesn't make sense, unless you are building for those peak weekends only. It appears the business case for the boats that I have read calls for capacity that will reduce waits during peak times only. It's the same type of question that transit companies have. Build big enough buses to handle peak hours and then the rest of the day, night, and weekends, they run around empty. Not correct. The average loads on route 1, year round, are 81%. Route 2- 65%, route 30- 55%, and route 3- 58%. There are enough peaks, even on a daily basis, that the boats need to have the capacity they do, especially if we take future growth into account.
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Jun 28, 2009 20:05:15 GMT -8
Neil,
Can you help me with where you got those figures from?
Cheers!
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jun 28, 2009 21:59:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Jun 29, 2009 21:10:39 GMT -8
Thank you. I stand corrected. I still believe there is a better way, otherwise, you wouldn't have brand new boats sitting at the dock.
When reviewing passenger counts, the figures are much worse. On route 2, for example, with C class, utilization goes down below 40%, while with the Supers, it would drop to about 35%. No wonder deck 5 never opens.
21,000 HP vs 11,000 will certainly account for significant fuel usage as many predicted from the beginning.
Also, don't be fooled by AEQ ratings. A motorcycle counts for .5 AEQ. Having said that, while working with the BC Coalition of Motorcycle Clubs, we conducted an experiment with the Kulleet to see how many motorcycles could get on one boat. I believe it was 125 bikes and 180 passengers. How does that skew AEQ numbers?
I'm certainly not trying to provoke an argument, but I still wonder, why bigger boats that end up sitting at the dock because they cost too much to operate? Does anyone believe fuel is going down in price, so when would the practice of tying new boats to the dock while 30-40 year old boats run? Is it just me, or does it make sense to anyone?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Jun 29, 2009 22:39:44 GMT -8
I'm certainly not trying to provoke an argument... Landlocked, no one would ever accuse a mild mannered chap like yourself of trying such a thing. ... but I still wonder, why bigger boats that end up sitting at the dock because they cost too much to operate? Does anyone believe fuel is going down in price, so when would the practice of tying new boats to the dock while 30-40 year old boats run? Is it just me, or does it make sense to anyone? At the AGM, David Hahn claimed that fuel consumption on the Coastals was down, as crews get more used to operating them. Whether that's nonsense or not, I don't know. I forgot about his remark until your post, or I would have asked him for specifics. Personally, I don't know why people have a problem with the new boats using more fuel, as long as it's not an astronomical amount. I accept the explanation that, because of modern international structural and safety standards, as well as factors such as sewage treatment plants, there is more steel and more tonnage to move. As well, the allegation that a parsimonious operation like BC Ferries would blithely accept a power plant that squandered fuel when a much better option existed makes no sense to me. What I have a problem with is the dishonesty with which BC Ferries implied that these boats would be saving fuel, when they knew perfectly well they wouldn't.
|
|
rt1commuter
Chief Steward
JP - Overworked grad student
Posts: 167
|
Post by rt1commuter on Jun 30, 2009 9:02:37 GMT -8
Also, don't be fooled by AEQ ratings. A motorcycle counts for .5 AEQ. Having said that, while working with the BC Coalition of Motorcycle Clubs, we conducted an experiment with the Kulleet to see how many motorcycles could get on one boat. I believe it was 125 bikes and 180 passengers. How does that skew AEQ numbers? Please tell me there are some photos of this event.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jun 30, 2009 9:04:44 GMT -8
Thank you. I stand corrected. I still believe there is a better way, otherwise, you wouldn't have brand new boats sitting at the dock. I noticed you pluralized "boat." The Kuper, Coastal Renaissance, Coastal Inspiration, Island Sky and Northern Expedition are all in full time service. The Coastal Celebration, one individual boat, is not.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 1, 2009 7:48:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Jul 1, 2009 8:15:25 GMT -8
"Please tell me there are some photos of this event."
I went looking on the BCCOM website to no avail. I will make an enquiry of them to see if there are any posted anywhere, but failing that, I know Dave Miller over at the Albion Ferry has some hard copies somewhere. I'd best get at that request pretty quick though...
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Jul 1, 2009 8:34:51 GMT -8
On the aspect of bigger boats and bigger fuel, I submit that there has been a movement within BCFS that goes back to the early 90's concerning the sophistication of the new construction projects.
If we go back in time pre Spirits we will see the largest ferry company in the world with what could be described as a pretty utilitarian fleet, the the largest in the fleet being the C class. The corporation executive were very jealous of their counterparts around the world, the likes of Stena, who operated beautiful ships, very sophisticated, and full of amenities. Do we remember the days of the V class with the exposed deckheads? Then the Spirits came along, with the beautiful appointments and the couches on the bridge. Oh, and my goodness, the only thing topping that were the fastcats. Wow, neon lights, a bridge that looked like the bridge of a Star Trek ship. They were now part of the elite group. Status, pure and simple. Meanwhile WSF, though building ships along the same lines as our C class, were very spartan in comparison.
I remember talking at great length to a naval architect, who in fact designed the hull for the Skeena and what was to be the whole Century class boats, when he attended a meeting at Bowen Island with the islanders. He was absolutely disgusted with the lack of courage on the part of ferries management to put things into perspective. The company wanted to build a Century class boat. The islanders wanted a larger version of the Capilano. In the end, the extremely sophisticated, fuel guzzling, and larger crew vessel, the Island Sky concept was born. My point is, the Century class was originally designed to carry 100 cars at 13.5 knots with less than 2,000 hp. That from an operating standpoint is outstanding. The original concept also called for four right angle drives in compartments fore and aft, with engines direct coupled. She would be a modern Q class. By the time BCFC got finished with her she had a single engine room with 100 foot long shafting going out to the legs, which ultimately destroyed the original sets of engines.
My point is that, while the citizens of the islands want to go back and forth in Cadillacs, they want to pay a Chevy fare. The two don't equate. Build the ships simple, do it in an efficient manner, and keep the capital costs down. They don't have to be fancy to work.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Jul 1, 2009 9:25:03 GMT -8
The Island Sky does not have a larger crew than a vessel of the same pax license in the fleet. In fact she's slightly more efficient per crew member (as a function of # of pax carried) than several other vessels, including the less sophisticated-less fuel burning Bowen & Mayne Queen. The Skeena Queen is still a better performer on the crew to pax ratio.
Comparing the Island Sky to the Skeena Queen in itself is somewhat illogical. Although they share similar sailing times (much as the Skeena Queen and Queen of Surrey do) the purpose the vessels are intended to serve is quite different. Designed as the Bowen Island/Jervis Inlet boat much as the Queens of Capilano and Cumberland it was essentially a necessity to have a larger enclosed passenger area, and for Rte 7 food services were also needed (albeit perhaps not required). Considering she replaced the Queen of Tsawwassen (7 more crew and 13 less pax on a C License and the Queen of Chilliwack (1 more crew member and 144 less pax on an A License - the only one she has) that's a great deal on the crew front. That's also a more realistic comparison.
We can go way back, too, and look at the Powell River Queen. She carries a bit above half the pax as the Island Sky with 2/3rd the crew. Or the short lived Queen of Capilano, with 50 less pax and the same crew.
I do agree with your sentiment, build simple & build smart. Interference with design is also a very bad idea in many cases - but nonetheless we need to compare apples with apples. Like Neill once pointed out if we always had a vessel that was the perfect fit for every sailing the Mill Bay would be required on Route 2.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Aug 26, 2010 12:22:37 GMT -8
This year's AGM was on August 18th. As usual it was advertised with the absolute minimum publicity, and on BC Ferries' website tucked safely away in their public consultation section so as not to attract too much notice.
I read the small ad when I was up on Hornby, and then forgot about it. I have to admit, though, there really weren't any pressing issues I wanted to ask about.
Christina Montgomery mentioned the meeting the day before, but she didn't report on it, and I've not read a word about it since.
Anyone have any information?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Aug 19, 2012 10:04:20 GMT -8
As usual, BC Ferries is doing as little as they can to publicize the annual general meeting. No mention at all on their website that I can see. Apparently it's this upcoming week, according to a Thetis Island website. I won't be around for it... anyone know when and where it is?
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Aug 21, 2012 9:20:04 GMT -8
I e-mailed BC Ferries Investor Relations:
Good Morning Mr. Nicholson,
Here are the details of our Annual General Meeting:
The Annual General Meeting of B.C. Ferry Authority and the Annual Public Meeting of British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. will be held at 10 a.m. on August 24, 2012 at the Fletcher Challenge Canada Theatre, Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C.
The public is invited to attend and an opportunity will be provided to ask questions and express views.
If you have any further questions or require more information, please email.
Thank you.
|
|
bargain
Oiler (New Member)
Posts: 44
|
Post by bargain on Aug 24, 2012 10:17:33 GMT -8
News 1130's Dan Burritt is live tweeting from the event. twitter.com/DanBurritt As is (...maybe...) BCFerrys BCFerrys @bcferrys
AGM… voting on which routes to cut. Discussion as to Gulf Islands current existence, due to Enbridge.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Aug 24, 2012 18:35:54 GMT -8
Marcella Bernardo on CKNW remarked on the sparse attendance at the AGM, despite it being "widely publicized". I don't know where she gets that from. Any publicity the meeting got was from parties who found out about it despite the complete lack of promotion from BC Ferries.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 25, 2012 3:23:34 GMT -8
Paul's 2nd link shows that the news story on CKNW happened exactly 1 day before the AGM date. - That's BCF's style of promoting their AGM date. ;D And there's no date on the BCFerries website item, but I think that it also appeared at the last-minute (or last couple of days).
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Aug 25, 2012 10:43:56 GMT -8
I could not find any information on the meeting anywhere, except here and @bcferries on Twitter, two days prior to the event. I know I could not have taken the time off work to attend, as the information was not available in time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2015 16:19:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 21, 2015 8:27:46 GMT -8
This public meeting should provide, to even the most casual observer of BC Ferries operations, some very interesting questions. There is usually a limited amount of time allotted to 'question period' during annual general meetings. Given the wide range of topics covered by our learned members on this forum, what might be the priority of questions on an attendee's 'must ask' list? I have several questions, but would be interested in what our members might have on their lists?
|
|