|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 11, 2009 10:41:55 GMT -8
I would assume they would have to construct a floating berth at Tsawwassen for the Nor Ex to use the terminal? ( the QPR stopped at Tsw on he final voyage didn't she?) I'm thinking that they would use the NorEx's bow-loading capability at Tsawwassen. If a floating berth was constructed at Tsawwassen, though, surely it would be the little-used Berth 1. I'm almost certain that the QPR would have stopped at Tsawwassen, out of service of course, after her final journey south, as all northern vessels tend to heading to and from the north for destoring in her case and in order to unload crew not on watch and any other employees who took the ride south.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Nov 11, 2009 14:58:11 GMT -8
While Islanders could use the service to Vancouver, the main group to target for this service would be tourists. There are lots of people who would love to have an Alaskan Cruise but either don't have the time for the full blown affair, aren't really long term cruise types or simply can't afford the costs. Don't you think BC Ferries has to be careful though? Earlier this year a friend told me that he was thinking of taking a trip on the Inside Passage from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, but the cost was prohibitive. For a grown family of 5 it would have cost well over $1,000 for a one-way trip where they would have to drive back, and still pay for food. On the other hand, an Alaska Cruise would cost maybe 3-4 times more, but last a whole week and have most of the food/entertainment taken care of for the whole trip. Yes for sure. If they price it too high, the appeal of the trip would lessen. I never took a car so that cost was never factored in for me. I mostly was thinking of the large numbers of European visitors. The round trip and staying on board the ferry on the normal trip were my usual expenses, plus the food package they used to offer. I often split the cost of the cabin with one other person but not always. To do a fair comparison you would have to factor in the trip to Island via one of the normal routes, gas to Port Hardy, motel or campground there, and normal Inside Passage Fare. If I was advising BCFerries as a client I would make it just slightly more than the Island.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 13, 2009 11:21:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 13, 2009 11:39:31 GMT -8
Thank you for posting this. It's looking more and more like it will come to fruition. Back to the good old days of the extended northern routes (What ever happened to repositioning cruises anyways?), I'm thrilled. Thank you, Deborah! This has always been a sticking point for me and in fact my family agrees whenever it's brought up; it's refreshing to hear an official spokesperson getting it correct for once. We aren't the 51st state yet. The "Pacific Northwest" ends at the 49th parallel, if we were referring to North America we'd be referring to Alaska and/or northwestern BC. >End mini rant< ;D
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Nov 13, 2009 12:24:31 GMT -8
BC Ferries might regret designing the NorEx with such limited cabin accommodation. She has 55. Alaska's Kennicott and Columbia each have twice that number, and the smaller Malaspina has 73.
They have to hope there are lots of backpackers who don't mind sleeping on the floor, or tourists who are content with seats in public lounges. For such a big vessel, 55 staterooms seems rather on the small side if they're turning her into a part time cruise ferry.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 13, 2009 12:47:17 GMT -8
They have to hope there are lots of backpackers who don't mind sleeping on the floor, or tourists who are content with seats in public lounges. For such a big vessel, 55 staterooms seems rather on the small side if they're turning her into a part time cruise ferry. Does the NorEx have public showers, for those who don't take a stateroom on an overnight trip? If not, maybe that would be a useful modification. Some of the Alaska ships have public-showers for those who sleep in the lounges and solariums. I am curious to know if BC Ferries considered a 30-hour summer cruise with lots of foot-passengers, when they set the design specifics for building the new NorEx. If the summer 30-hour cruise is too popular, BC Ferries risks having the intended high-end experience turn into a "Discovery Coast experience" for some, for the 8 hours or so of sleepy-time.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Nov 13, 2009 14:39:17 GMT -8
I wonder if B.C. Ferries envisioned this route when they put out the specs for the NorEX?
Would it be possible to add more cabins to the Nor Ex?
Do many of the Cruise ships follow the Ip Ferry Route all the way up the Grenville Channel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2009 16:12:44 GMT -8
One would think that BC Ferries would have envisioned this route before they built the NorEx but who knows?
Some cruise ships follow the Inside Passage route up Grenville Channel and some don't. For some reason it just depends. South bound one year on the "Queen of the North" we had two cruise ships astern of us in Grenville Channel. But a few times taking the "Queen of Chilliwack" on the Discovery Coast route I have seen cruise ships coming in from the Pacific in Queen Charlotte Sound. I am not sure why some follow it all the way up and others don't?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 13, 2009 19:33:46 GMT -8
Here is an on-air interview from this morning's Daybreak North program. www.cbc.ca/daybreaknorth/media/2009111300005da2.ramSome interesting items: - The CBC has discovered this story a mere 5 months after it broke here on the WCFF
- Deb Marshall admits in the interview that business on the northern routes has been declining over recent years. I wonder if she or anyone else at the QoFS have linked the decline to steeply rising fares?
- Deb has also indicated that scheduling in Tsawwassen will be an issue with typically 8 ferries already sharing the available 5 berths. They have to work out how they can fit the Norex in there.
- The journey would apparently be 30 hours each way. That, I assume, means 3 days for the round trip. A portion of the journey will be overnight. Seymour Narrows at 2 am would be a big disappointment, I think.
- I also gather that the ship will stop at Port Hardy both north & south bound. I assume that passengers & vehicles will be able to disembark/embark at Port Hardy. When they last did Tsawwassen trips (late 1970's & early 80's) 60 or 75% of customers did not do the southern leg leaving the ship short on passengers. This could very well be the case again, especially if the trip is as pricey as I expect it to be (take advertised 2010 rates and add 60% across the board).
- As I said before, this idea is worth pursuing. It might work out. It also might flop. Fluge is right. It depends on price.
PS - I do not recall there being public showers on the NorEx. All AMHS vessels that I have travelled on have such, as do (did) the QPR, Chilliwack & QotN.
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on Nov 13, 2009 19:49:32 GMT -8
Late this afternoon I was checking my several local news services on the web when I came across this story. It was accompanied by a picture of a ferry (I think it was the Surrey). I can image that a person from BCFS called them and the following could have been a quote (oh to be a fly on the wall for this conversation!) ... "Look you idiots, if you're going to run a story about the Northern Expedition, at least get a picture on the actual ferry, not an old C class ferry! The story has since gone away (for now). If it resurfaces, let's at least hope that they get the picture right.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 13, 2009 23:26:34 GMT -8
The Norex has the capability to add a few extra cabins. When I had the opportunity to tour her just a matter of a couple of weeks after her arrival at Departure Bay in March. The fellow who gave us the tour mentioned that the Kids Play area/lounge is called the "Flex Lounge". Supposebly it's setup to be transformed into another 5 cabins if needed. At Tsawwassen, I could see the "Big Red Dock Plug" that was used at Departure Bay in the Spring, would be brought out of Deas and used at Tsawwassens Berth 1/2. It's such a simple way of adjusting the dock. BC Ferries could in theory just put the plug in the dock when it's needed every two weeks, and then pull it out when she leaves, and simply rafted along another area of the terminal so it's out of the way in the mean time.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Nov 14, 2009 0:27:13 GMT -8
Interesting about the "Flex Lounge", seems reminiscent of the ability to convert the Sitka Coffee Places aboard the Coastal Renaissance and Coastal Inspiration into Pacific Buffets.
When it comes to the "Big Red Dock Plug", couldn't they simply dock the NorEx at Berth 2 at Tsawwassen with it's lack of overhead superstructure and utilize her bow loading capability?
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Nov 14, 2009 7:26:20 GMT -8
This new route would cause some alterations to the the main northern routes.
Would the Nor Ad do a Day Cruise While the Nor Ex is on the Southern legs of the trip( I wonder if BCF will try to deal with her fuel consumption issues )
I would also suspect That the QCI route may lose atleast i daily Round trp as well if the Nor Ad does the day cruise.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Nov 17, 2009 9:49:44 GMT -8
There was an article in the Times Colonist about the proposed new route! They said Port Hardy to Prince Rupert would be normal with a departure of 7:30am and arrival of 10:30pm. They said the trip would be split into two 15 hour cruises from Tsawwassen to Port Hardy then Port Hardy to Prince Rupert! They also mentioned passengers would have the option of overnighting on the ship in cabins in Port Hardy. But I thought that wasent allowed due to Transport Canada regulations? Also if I am correct the Queen of the North did the Tsawwassen to Port Hardy in like 13 hours. They said proposed fare of $249 for adults and $119 for children and a vehicle for $499 and outside cabins $115 and inside would be $85. Now I am wondering if passengers want cabins if you would have to pay for each leg or could you just buy a cabin for the overnight in Port Hardy or Prince Rupert or wherever. Or if you wanted a cabin for the whole trip if you would have to pay double cause of the two seperate legs of the trip. If this new route goes ahead I am definately gonna plan a trip. It's too bad though we cant get to Tsawwassen though the same day cause they would probably be departing around 7:30am. It's a pretty good idea for this route as they mentioned people would use it as an alternative to driving from Prince Rupert or flying south or north.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 18, 2009 6:43:51 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Nov 18, 2009 12:02:19 GMT -8
One person's opinion and conjecture. Are you referring to the previous post, or to yours? Has there been any specific indication that BC Ferries will in fact cut sailings if the Northern Expedition is used on some cruises starting in Tsawwassen? This wasn't the case when there was for a short period of time, cruises starting in Tsawwassen. In attempting to sell this idea at the first meeting in Prince Rupert, don't you think BC Ferries would have mentioned it if they were planning on having the NorAd make up any lost sailings by the NorEx? Also, I'm sure you remember that the only time BC Ferries sailed from Tsawwassen previously, it was on the winter schedule, and both Queen of The North and Queen of Prince Rupert were in service, so cutting frequency was not an issue. It's easy to whine and complain, but much more challenging to ctually get things done, and with that more challenging to come p with something positive. Sure seems to be alot of complaining about BC Ferries. What's next? The shade of white on the hulls isn't correct? Ah, yes. All these people whining and complaining and snorting. I guess when you say David Hahn's salary should be cut 60%, that's constructive criticism. Bruce Wishart's concerns are justified. If BC Ferries replaces the sailings lost to the Tsawwassen extension with bi-weekly sailings by the NorAd, great, nobody will have reason to complain. But they're doing this to better utilize the Northern Expedition, not necessarily to serve the north coast. They are required by contract to provide 3.5 round trips per week in peak season on route 10. However, Martin Crilly, that stalwart watchdog of the public interest, has not turned BC Ferries down on one request they've ever made, and I suspect he will be just as receptive if they come requesting a variance on this issue as well. BC Ferries got the money for the NorEx on the understanding that it was to provide service to the north coast. It's disingenuous for them to claim that's what they're doing here, if they cut frequency of departures from Prince Rupert to focus more on a Georgia Strait mini-cruise. We shall see.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Nov 18, 2009 12:43:01 GMT -8
Maybe it is marketed as a mini-cruise, but is that the worst thing ever. Maybe it does take away from the transit capacity of route 10. Maybe it is some sort of evil plan.
But, the mini-cruise would hopefully attract more people to the north coast. Also, maybe some residents of the north coast would like to be able to go straight through to Vancouver. I don't see it as being all evil, to me it looks like north coast residents are given more options. Sure there's one less round trip every two weeks, but really cant those cars and passengers just be placed on a different sailing. Its not like the ship is PACKED to the limits every sailing. They say they want to better utilize the ship, meaning it is underutilized right now, so its not like loosing one sailing is going to leave everyone behind.
In respect to the subsidy, I don't see a problem with this. The ship leaves the north coast to provide a link into the south coast, if it were to stop at multiple south coast terminals that would be different. In that case its not being used for its original intent.
The way BCF is set up to operate at the moment can we really expect anything less than them trying to make more money, so I think this is a good idea at the moment. We will see when we get more information as to weather it is going to work out or if the loss in capacity on route 10 will be too much.
My opinion, SO FAR.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Nov 18, 2009 19:59:44 GMT -8
But, the mini-cruise would hopefully attract more people to the north coast. Also, maybe some residents of the north coast would like to be able to go straight through to Vancouver. I don't see it as being all evil, to me it looks like north coast residents are given more options. Sure there's one less round trip every two weeks, but really cant those cars and passengers just be placed on a different sailing. Its not like the ship is PACKED to the limits every sailing. They say they want to better utilize the ship, meaning it is underutilized right now, so its not like loosing one sailing is going to leave everyone behind. I don't think anybody sees any evil here. I think this is an excellent idea, if it can be accomplished without cutting existing service. Eliminating one sailing every two weeks from Prince Rupert represents a 14% reduction in service- pretty considerable. We're not talking about winter midweek evening sailings on route 2 here, with a boat sailing next to empty. BC Ferries has not demonstrated that one of the NorEx's sailings would not be missed, as they did with route 2. They have contracted to provide 3.5 round trips every week; should they be allowed to break their contract every time they think they can make more money out of one of their vessels? I don't know how Paul came to his assumption that the NorEx can add a trip to Tsawwassen and still do the 3.5 round trips. We are talking about a minimum 12 hours down, 12 hours back, and at the very least, a two hour turn around at Tsawwassen. It would be exceedingly difficult to add, at the very minimum, 26 hours of service to one week's schedule, unless they were sailing around the clock, with tight turn arounds. It could be done over two weeks, at the cost of some of their daytime sailing schedule, and again, with tighter turn arounds. But with the cuts to south coast service, it's understandable that people are concerned that they'll simply drop a sailing. In respect to the subsidy, I don't see a problem with this. The ship leaves the north coast to provide a link into the south coast, if it were to stop at multiple south coast terminals that would be different. In that case its not being used for its original intent. The contract with BC Ferries for route 10 is specifically to provide service between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert. This use of the NorEx seems to alter that. We've been speculating that people might like the opportunity to sail directly to Tsawwassen, or that tourism to Prince Rupert might increase because of this. Possibly, but that's not really for us on the south coast to decide. This route exists to serve the north coast, and supposedly, residents there will have some input in public meetings, although I'm very skeptical about that. The 'consultation' with Denman and Hornby residents over the cable ferry turned out to be an exercise of "Here's what we're going to do, and we're telling you about it." At the last AGM, David Hahn spoke of the north coast as being something of an unexploited opportunity for BC Ferries; an area where they felt they could grow their business. If they do this Tsawwassen venture by adding a NorAd sailing or conjuring a tight NorEx schedule without applying to cut trips, we'll know he was also thinking about what should be the company's mandate- to serve the coast. If they add Tsawwassen and cut a sailing, then they'll simply be using public resources in an attempt to fatten their bottom line and possibly help some exec achieve his bonus with a more clever use of one of 'their' vessels.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 18, 2009 21:50:20 GMT -8
I estimate that the full summer one way trip from Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert will cost a family of 2 adults and two children somewhere between $2000 & $2500. This assumes they are taking an under height vehicle, and one of the children gets on at half price, and the other is full fare. My estimate assumes fares for the Prince Rupert - Tsawwassen through trip will be 70% higher than the published rates for summer 2010 between Port Hardy and Rupert. (They may in fact be double!)
To do it for about $2000 would mean no cabin, no reserved seating, and eating mostly out of the cooler in the back of your car. For this family of four costs could easily approach $3000 if they get cabin space for four, reserved seating and eat three full meals per day in the ship's cafeteria/buffet. Add another $450+ if the vehicle they drive is over 7 feet in height.
The Port Hardy to Rupert trip is already very pricey. The through trip to Tsawwassen will be 'ouch' expensive. I do not expect many north coast families will be choosing this option when they could drive around for maybe one fifth as much money. This family would be better off to book an Alaska cruise that lasts seven days and will cost them less.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Nov 18, 2009 22:16:29 GMT -8
I did not know the subsidy was specifically for the PH-PR run, in that case, yes I feel it is an incorrect use of the subsidy to make the run down to Tsawwassen.
BCF states that the ship is underutilized, I took this to mean half full sailings and such, I didn't think that maybe it just means they think they can make more money with it doing other things.
Really, I don't see this taking off, like WCK said its going to be expensive. AMHS list their run from Ketchikan to Bellingham at 239 per passenger and 617 for a 19' car. That is about another 8 or more hours than what BCF is suggesting, but it is USD, and that run is heavily subsidized as well.
Cheers,
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Nov 19, 2009 11:20:55 GMT -8
An example of how four runs could be made one week to make up for the loss of one in the other. In '84 they also had the ' Rupert do two runs on route 10, for a total of six round trips every week. Staggered sailing times, a departure at 1:00am, and turnarounds as short as two hours made this schedule something of a logistical problem, and it only lasted a couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 1, 2009 18:52:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 1, 2009 23:05:30 GMT -8
It is interesting that on another thread (Dream Ferry Routes) we are fantasizing about routes that almost certainly will never exist (example: Vancouver - Comox). Why - usually because these routes are already served by existing highways and/or shorter ferry routes.
In general terms ferry routes are viable where there is no other reasonable means to get from Point A to Point B.
Here on this thread we are discussing what appears to be David Hahn's "dream ferry route" which appears to me to have no better likelihood of viability then Vancouver to Comox does.
I wonder if the polling being done by Mustel on behalf of BCFS is informing potential clients of what a passage on this dream route is likely to cost?
Potential passengers are taking fewer ferry today then they did in the past due mainly to steeply rising fares - they have all but doubled since the new and improved BC Ferries came into existance in 2003. Vacationers can get better value for their money by making other choices, such as Alaska cruises, or doing inland tours that do not involve ferries.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 2, 2009 6:45:18 GMT -8
You can spend a heap of money on an Alaskan cruise aboard one of the fancy cruise ships to Skagway, or you can sail the same route aboard the State of Alaska Ferry and our own BC Ferries. Argument point: - You will spend a heap of money by taking BC Ferries and/or Alaska Ferry as an alternative to the cruise (taking roughly the same route). - You will get better value by taking the cruise. The cruise is Not more expense, from a cost-and-value point of view. I invite you to compare the costs on a cost-per-day basis.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,190
|
Post by Neil on Dec 2, 2009 10:17:44 GMT -8
Monday's Prince Rupert meeting was another example of how BC Ferries, under David Hahn, considers itself answerable to absolutely no one. Hahn & company didn't go there to consult; they went to inform the local yokels How It Will Be. Only the time frame is in question, and that as well will be decided by BC Ferries.
Hahn says BC Ferries is altering route ten because "the numbers aren't working". Aren't working for whom? The expenditure on the northern route might be quite reasonable given the role it plays on the north coast. But while route ten was started to serve the north coast, now it serves BC Ferries, and if it 'loses' money, it will be altered to meet their needs.
At every turn, Hahn has expressed his contempt for any public governance over BC Ferries. He made it clear he had little time for the comptroller general's findings about company operations. The public is invited to meetings simply to hear what BC Ferries has decided to do.
We are the one shareholder; we own the boats, the terminals, the system as a whole. Watching this bunch in action, though, you'd never know it. Such is Gord's creation.
|
|