|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 26, 2008 7:59:45 GMT -8
The Fall-Winter-Spring 2008-09 schedule for AMHS is now on line. This early release of the schedule is a major improvement over past years. Many complaints were received last year because schedules were so late in being released. The schedule is available at: www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/index.html
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Aug 6, 2008 8:49:04 GMT -8
WOW, things are moving quickly here in Alaska. AMHS is already asking for public comment on the proposed 2009 summer schedule. Late schedules have been a major problem with the system for years. Apparently something is being done to correct the problem. BTW: According to the recently released Fall, Winter, Spring 2008-2009 schedule, service to Prince Rupert will be VERY LIMITED during February 2009 when MV Taku is out of service for repairs/annual maintenance .
|
|
M/V LeConte
Chief Steward
~ I believe in Ferries! ~
Posts: 147
|
Post by M/V LeConte on Sept 22, 2009 23:23:19 GMT -8
Sorry this is a bit late. just getting caught up! This is from July timeframe... AMHS 2009-2010 Fall, Winter and Spring Sailing Schedule Now Available(JUNEAU, Alaska) – Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) officials released the upcoming sailing schedule for service during this coming fall, winter and the spring of 2010 (commencing October 1, 2009 and will run through April 30, 2010). The fall, winter and spring schedule is being released a week ahead of last year’s posting. “We’re absolutely excited to have the schedule released and made available to our traveling customers who’ve repeatedly asked for earlier schedule postings to help them plan vacations and other trips,” said Capt. John Falvey, AMHS General Manager. “Early schedule releasing is the course we want to keep to in the future of AMHS – a reliable schedule that’s available in a timely manner.” Today’s announcement allows travel agents and the general public to begin on-line bookings at www.ferryalaska.com . “AMHS will continue working very hard to release schedules as early as possible,” said Falvey. “We will also try to maintain the current base schedules as much as possible. AMHS and the Marine Transportation Advisory Board understand the need to build reliability back into the system.”
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 22, 2010 20:22:13 GMT -8
From the 2010 Summer Schedule booklet: - Prince Rupert is encouraged as a southern port choice, over Bellingham.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 23, 2010 18:25:18 GMT -8
Prince Rupert is definately important to AMHS. It was our original southern terminus before Seattle and eventually Bellingahm. The above add encouraging travel through Rupert has to do with AMHS dropping one of the Bellingham sailings, so instead of two departures per week, it is now only one. This change took place back around '08. To keep the ridership up, AMHS is encouraging travelers to use Prince Rupert. There is even a program called the See Alaska Pass, that gives travelers a discount for using Rupert as thier point of departure for travel through Alaska's inside passage ending in Haines or Skagway. They can also use the pass to travel southbound instead of northbound, as long as travel either begins or ends in Rupert and Haines or Skagway. I sound like a travel add. Anyway, Prince Rupert is important, the Marine Highway is very keen on keeping it around for a long while as a port of call.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 24, 2010 13:40:19 GMT -8
Many folks here in Ketchikan are still disappointed over the loss of the second Bellingham sailing by MV Malaspina during the busy summer season. Perhaps if the new Alaska Class vessel comes on line the second Bellingham run will be restored.
AMHS has been concerned for several years about the drop in traffic to and from Prince Rupert. Part of this drop was created by those who do not like the additional requirements for border crossings. Many decided to use Bellingham as an alternative. There is also the current slowdown in the economy and higher fuel costs that add to the drop in PR traffic.
I haven't taken my usual summer trip to Bellingham, so I don't know how full MV Columbia has been running. Last summer she was running full on the car deck and all staterooms were sold out months in advance.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 27, 2010 19:28:25 GMT -8
Columbia is doing pretty much the same as last year, car deck isn't sold out, but is still pretty full, and the staterooms are sold out months in advance like last year.
There are rumblings about possibly increasing the Bellingham run, maybe not two sailings a week, maybe an extra sailing every two weeks or something, nothing concrete has been heard however.
From what I have heard, there have been some suggestions about increasing the Bellingham run, but the concern is that an additional ship would take away from the Columbia's cardeck load.
What this fails to recognize is that many people do not travel the Bellingham run when they cannot get a stateroom, people find alternate means of travel. With the Bellingham run you are on the boat for at least two nights, while some are fine without a room, many are not.
Columbia usually doesn't sell out on her car deck, mainly because the amount of new reservations drop off once the staterooms fill up. If another ship were put on the run, I bet you would probably see an increase in Bellingham traffic from those who want a cabin when they travel.
Maybe there isn't enough traffic for two boats a week, but maybe every other week might work. At least having a second Bellingham boat would benifit local residents who want to sail to Bellingham, but didn't know back in March when the sailings sold out of cabins.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jul 28, 2010 7:27:12 GMT -8
This is the game that airlines face all the time. If the plane is not entirely sold out, but First or Business Class is, when is it cost effective to add another flight. Now the benefit to airlines like Air Canada, is when the back isn't full, it means they can cram more cargo into the belly.
For example the flight from Toronto (YYZ) to Tel Aviv (TLV) almost always takes off at its maximum weight for the range. The Boeing 767-300 seldom fills the economy section. However, they do fill up with cargo. The same thing with flights on any of the heavy cargo routes. So Air Canada sold off their Airbus A340's and replaced them with 777's that both carry more passengers but also carry a huge amount more cargo farther. Their lift now to Chinese destinations has expanded greatly and enabled AC to stop the lease of a dedicated freighter, because the aircraft fly loaded to the gills with cargo.
This process is indeed what BCFC is trying with its drop trailer business. Gain incremental income from an underutilized asset on a sailing that travels anyways.
Still rolling around in my head is a similar idea for the Northern Routes. Easy to load and unload containers similar to aircraft pallets, left on trailers, and then pulled off by tug/tractor similar to the airport ones. The lower unused bow section of the NorAd, lower deck, or the excess space not used on the NorEx. Rather than set it up as a compete business, BC Ferries could partner with a shipping company or railroad. 24 or so hours out from a sailing BCFC would be able to estimate what space it had and the shipping company could fill it. Make it slightly cheaper than existing routes and still make incremental income vs. sailing with a half full car deck. It also might work for AMHS.
It would be interesting to see the cost comparison spread sheets to see what a third sailing every two weeks would do for the profit factors for AMHS. Also some research done with people who call for reservations, and when they find no staterooms, abandon the process. An exit interview would be very telling. Finding out if they are simply delaying, flying or how they are then getting to Alaska would be key.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 28, 2010 18:03:49 GMT -8
Also - its not as if AMHS doesn't have the data on stateroom and car deck occupancy with two sailings a week...
IIRC, the second sailing was dropped, not because it was a "loser" but because political forces pulled the Fairweather off the JNU-Haines-Skagway run and onto the Sitka run, requiring the Malaspina to run as the Lynn Canal Dayboat - which is a major waste of resources.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Jul 28, 2010 20:52:48 GMT -8
IIRC, the second sailing was dropped, not because it was a "loser" but because political forces pulled the Fairweather off the JNU-Haines-Skagway run and onto the Sitka run, requiring the Malaspina to run as the Lynn Canal Dayboat - which is a major waste of resources. This pretty well sums it up. There is still some effort from various camps within AMHS to get another Bellingham boat, but these proposals get blocked by other camps. Having an "exit interview" as suggested by "Northern Exploration" would be a good way to track possible ridership loss from lack of staterooms or due to schedules or whatever. Of course right now there is nothing done to track this. As far as the data from when there was two boats a week, it's there for all to see. Personally, from what I've seen, both boats did rather well on the Bellingham run. It's amazing how people can twist the same numbers to draw different conclusions, the art of politics I guess.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 29, 2010 9:45:09 GMT -8
IIRC, the second sailing was dropped, not because it was a "loser" but because political forces pulled the Fairweather off the JNU-Haines-Skagway run and onto the Sitka run, requiring the Malaspina to run as the Lynn Canal Dayboat - which is a major waste of resources. This pretty well sums it up. There is still some effort from various camps within AMHS to get another Bellingham boat, but these proposals get blocked by other camps. Having an "exit interview" as suggested by "Northern Exploration" would be a good way to track possible ridership loss from lack of staterooms or due to schedules or whatever. Of course right now there is nothing done to track this. As far as the data from when there was two boats a week, it's there for all to see. Personally, from what I've seen, both boats did rather well on the Bellingham run. It's amazing how people can twist the same numbers to draw different conclusions, the art of politics I guess. Yes, politics determined this move. There were also a few other issues that had an impact. During the last year or two of 2 vessel summer operations, the MV Columbia suffered several mechanical breakdowns and electrical fires resulting in voyage cancellations and many angry passengers who had planned their trips many months in advance. MV Columbia has a history of being a "hard luck ship" with many breakdowns. Even this year after 8 months of layup in Ketchikan, she was late coming out of the yard; for several of her voyages she was replaced by MV Malaspina. In addition, AHMS has also had a record of releasing vessel schedules very late with little time for passengers to plan their trips. Advertising the Bellingham run has also been very scant at best. Cabin reservations have always been a problem, expecially during the busy summer season. My "golden rule" about riding with AMHS has always been, "no cabin, no trip!"
|
|
|
Post by novabus9228 on Jul 29, 2010 14:41:19 GMT -8
Why can't they run the Columbia Year round instead of laying her up over the Winter? If she was running full time maybe she would not have so much Mechanical problems. She is a newer ship than the Mat and Malispina. It seems so stupid to only have the ship running for 4 months out of 12. Maybe BC Ferries and AMH should work together to promote thier scheduals.
I do not see why the Northern Expedition can't do a weekly sailing to and from Tsawwassen in the south with some AMH passengers and vehicles and transfer to a AMH ship at Prince Rupert. All They would need to do is drive off the BC Ship, and on to the Alaska ship.
The 2 companies should run a promotion, Such as BC Ferries and Via Rail. This Would Promote and boast ridership for both companies.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jul 29, 2010 15:04:23 GMT -8
Why can't they run the Columbia Year round instead of laying her up over the Winter? If she was running full time maybe she would not have so much Mechanical problems. She is a newer ship than the Mat and Malispina. It seems so stupid to only have the ship running for 4 months out of 12. Maybe BC Ferries and AMH should work together to promote thier scheduals. I do not see why the Northern Expedition can't do a weekly sailing to and from Tsawwassen in the south with some AMH passengers and vehicles and transfer to a AMH ship at Prince Rupert. All They would need to do is drive off the BC Ship, and on to the Alaska ship. The 2 companies should run a promotion, Such as BC Ferries and Via Rail. This Would Promote and boast ridership for both companies. Cost is a major reason. MV Columbia is much more expensive to operate than the Blue Canoe Class vessels. She is also too large for the fall-winter-spring traffic load on the route. To some degree, her overcapacity on the car deck was developed so she could have a higher capacity of van traffic than is currently needed. Most of the van traffic comes via barge instead of AMHS vessels.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Aug 3, 2010 20:27:40 GMT -8
Columbia is overcapacity for the winter like "Shasta" said, however it wouldn't hurt to have her run a few extra weeks in September and start a few weeks earlier in May.
Late September and into October are usually a strain on the Malaspina who takes over on the Bellingham run. By strain I mean the Mal is usually completely sold out except for walk on passenger space during this time.
She also fills up fast. We have sailings southbound to Bellingham in September sold out now where the weeks previous we still have room. The main noticable difference is the change from the Columbia to the Mal.
That time of year we see an increase in southbound trafic as people head out for the winter. If Columbia were on to the end of September, I think she could do quite well on her southbound trips.
Early May we see a similar increase in traffic as people start moving back to Alaska for the summer.
|
|
|
Post by alaskanmohican on Aug 9, 2010 18:20:50 GMT -8
AMHS has released their proposed schedule plan for summer 2011. It can be found at the following link: www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/share/schedule/considerations.pdfI should point out that this is not an actual schedule for summer 2011, but a proposed fleet deployment for that time period. When the final schedule does come out, it will probably have some changes, but overall will be what you see in the announcement at the link. Pretty much most sailing patterns are the same as these past few years. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the announcement: Proposed Vessel Deployment • Kennicott to operate Bellingham cross the Gulf to Southwest • Columbia to remain on the Friday Bellingham Route • Matanuska to sail from Prince Rupert to Skagway and from Prince Rupert to Juneau once per week • Malaspina to sail in North Lynn Canal on a daily schedule • Taku to sail from Prince Rupert to Juneau twice per week • Lituya to sail 5 days per week between Metlakatla and Ketchikan • LeConte to sail a Northern Panhandle Route • Tustumena to sail the Southwest Route with two Aleutian chain trips per month • Aurora to sail in Prince William Sound • Fairweather to sail: May 1-26, Sitka 2 days/Lynn Canal 2days. May 27-June 30: Sitka 3 days, Petersburg 1 day. July 1-Sept 30: Sitka 5 days, Petersburg 2 days • Chenega to sail in Prince William Sound Adjustments to the schedule: • Kennicott to sail Bellingham cross gulf vs Prince Rupert • LeConte to service Gustavus on Mondays and Wednesdays every other week ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So the biggest change for next summer will be the Kennicott no longer sailing to Prince Rupert, but sailing from Bellingham to start her cross gulf run. The Kennicott would not serve Bellingham weekly, but would be about every other week, it looks to be on Saturdays. Just to compare the two Bellingham runs: Columbia Northbound would sail Bellingham to Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau, Haines, then Skagway. Columbia Southbound would sail from Skagway to Haines, Juneau, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Ketchikan, then Bellingham. Kennicott Northbound would sail from Bellingham to Ketchikan, Juneau, then cross gulf to Yakutat and Whittier. Kennicott would then do several Homer/ Kodiak round trips as usual, then sail Southbound from Whittier to Yakutat, Juneau, Ketchikan, then Bellingham. I think this pattern could work for the Kennicottt, most of the cross gulf passengers come from Bellingham and currently have to change ships in Juneau or Ketchikan, this would eliminate this. Also as has been pointed out in another thread, much of the Bellingham traffic travels to Ketchikan, Juneau or Haines, so the Kennicott serving as a sort of "express boat" between Bellingham and Juneau may work out as well.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 9, 2010 19:33:58 GMT -8
Kennicott Northbound would sail from Bellingham to Ketchikan, Juneau, then cross gulf to Yakutat and Whittier. Kennicott would then do several Homer/ Kodiak round trips as usual, then sail Southbound from Whittier to Yakutat, Juneau, Ketchikan, then Bellingham. Thanks for this info. For me, this means more Kennicott photo opportunities in my area of the world on the Strait of Georgia. I foresee some Kennicott chasing by me, next summer.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Aug 9, 2010 20:41:32 GMT -8
Still massively wasting resources with the Malaspina on North Lynn Canal.
Though, she looks great all lit up every night at the dock in Skagway... Always a highlight of my evening walks.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Aug 10, 2010 13:24:44 GMT -8
2nd ferry proposed for Bellingham-to-Alaska route
By Associated Press (posted on KOMOnews.comm) JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - After two years of having just one boat on the route, the Alaska Marine Highway System wants to again have a second ferry running between southeast Alaska and Bellingham, Wash.
System officials decided to have just the M/V Columbia on the popular route in 2008, citing money problems and the need to perform more maintenance on the state's 11 aging boats.
However, the Juneau Empire reports that officials have changed their minds because the Columbia is running at near capacity. In response, the system wants to add the M/V Kennicott to the schedule for summer 2011.
Ferry system spokesman Roger Wetherell said the vehicle deck on the Columbia has been 96.8 percent full so far this summer, with passenger capacity at 73 percent.
The decision to have one boat on the route has been heavily criticized by Alaska's tourism industry. The trip through the Inside Passage has long been a favorite with visitors to Alaska as well as state residents.
The ferry system has released what it calls draft "patterns" for its spring and summer 2011 schedule. It will hold public meetings on the proposals next week.
The summer schedule was released by Oct. 1 last year, in time for summertime planning purposes, and Wetherell said he expects the same to happen this year.
"We previously received criticism for not getting the schedules out soon enough and a lot of those criticisms were justly deserved," he said.
Wetherell said few additional schedule changes are planned. The proposal includes maintaining added service to the Aleutians.
Overall, passenger traffic is up 4.4 percent and vehicle traffic up 3 percent compared to 2009, he said.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Aug 11, 2010 11:35:23 GMT -8
This new through trip from Bellingham to Whittier would certainly rank as one of the longest ferry routes in the world. Looking at the current AMH cross-gulf and southeast schedules, it will have to be in excess of four days. The Norwegian coastal route would be longer, but I can't think of any others off hand that are. It certainly surpasses the Tustumena's Aleutian run, especially when you take into account how slow the Tustumena is.
Very tempting, but very expensive when you add food and stateroom. You might be better off on a cruise ship for a week.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Aug 15, 2010 22:13:22 GMT -8
Further to the above post, comparing AMH fares to a cruise...
Bellingham to Ketchikan, transferring at Ketchikan cross-gulf to Whittier, for two people and an inside stateroom with facilities, is $1857 American, if I've done the figuring correctly. That's five nights, and of course you're adding food to that, which might put the total more around $2500.
Taking advantage of bargains, two people could indeed do a seven day cruise cheaper than the five night trip on AMH, and the food just might be a tad better.
AMH also gets an annual subsidy in the range of $135 million American, which the cruise lines don't. Interesting.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Aug 15, 2010 22:25:15 GMT -8
Further to the above post, comparing AMH fares to a cruise... Bellingham to Ketchikan, transferring at Ketchikan cross-gulf to Whittier, for two people and an inside stateroom with facilities, is $1857 American, if I've done the figuring correctly. That's five nights, and of course you're adding food to that, which might put the total more around $2500. Taking advantage of bargains, two people could indeed do a seven day cruise cheaper than the five night trip on AMH, and the food just might be a tad better. AMH also gets an annual subsidy in the range of $135 million American, which the cruise lines don't. Interesting. Neil's post got me thinking, why is it that AMHS is so much more expensive? Cruise lines also pay their crews "global market" wages, which, depending on the job, can be much less than North American wages. Also, the ships are usually registered in "flag of convenience" countries, where regulatory costs are probably much less than the US and Canada. There's also probably some economies of scale at work too, where a ship with 3000 passengers is probably easier to make money with than a ship with 500 pax. Interesting topic to ponder though.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Aug 16, 2010 7:28:40 GMT -8
Further to the above post, comparing AMH fares to a cruise... Bellingham to Ketchikan, transferring at Ketchikan cross-gulf to Whittier, for two people and an inside stateroom with facilities, is $1857 American, if I've done the figuring correctly. That's five nights, and of course you're adding food to that, which might put the total more around $2500. Taking advantage of bargains, two people could indeed do a seven day cruise cheaper than the five night trip on AMH, and the food just might be a tad better. AMH also gets an annual subsidy in the range of $135 million American, which the cruise lines don't. Interesting. Neil's post got me thinking, why is it that AMHS is so much more expensive? Cruise lines also pay their crews "global market" wages, which, depending on the job, can be much less than North American wages. Also, the ships are usually registered in "flag of convenience" countries, where regulatory costs are probably much less than the US and Canada. There's also probably some economies of scale at work too, where a ship with 3000 passengers is probably easier to make money with than a ship with 500 pax. Interesting topic to ponder though. For the casual traveler there isn't much of a difference if you can buy a cruise fare on a selloff. To compare profitability though is different. Cruise ships are loaded with passengers. You can't use just the cheapest fare if you are looking at how much each cruise ship earns for a trip. A large portion of the suites are sold at much higher rates. Similar to an airline the bulk of profits are made on higher end customers and the rest is simply incremental income with a more minor profit margin. And as well while you pay for your suite, think of all the extras people pay for when on a cruise. Liquor, casinos, shopping, shore excusions, hair salon, spa etc. all give incremental profits or break even. And you have to add your tips onto the fare. The average cruiser pays a significant more than just their stateroom. 2,000 passengers at $100 profit a head is just a measly $200,000. At $200 profit a head it is just $400,000. If by selling enough high end suites at full price and sell enough extras, and you can boost your proft per head to $500. $1,000,000 profit wouldn't be anything to sneeze at. The figures start to show why the head of Carnival Cruise lines had an absolutely amazing private yacht long before the Paul Allens and Russian Oligarchs started supersizing them. Ferry's space is eaten up with a lot of cars. Imagine if all that space was subdivided into passenger accomodation.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Aug 16, 2010 14:25:01 GMT -8
I suspect AMH labour costs are pretty high in relation to revenue, probably due to requirements from not always serving sheltered waters, as well as longer runs. The long haul Aleutians ferry Tustumena is listed as having a crew capacity of 37 and a passenger capacity of 174; if she was actually carrying that many crew it would give a crew/passenger ratio of more than 1 to 6, very high for ferries of any size on our coast. A full Spirit would have a ratio of about 1 to 40. As well, even though Tustumena is only a few feet shorter than the Queen of Prince Rupert, she only carries 36 cars, where the 'Rupert took 85 or so.
Same with other AMH vessels. Lots of crew, good sized vessels, yet relatively small vehicle and passenger capacities. They have no high volume, quick turnaround routes such as BC Ferries' major southern runs. I suppose it all contributes to making it a very expensive system to operate.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Aug 16, 2010 15:43:13 GMT -8
I’ve though about this before, there are some obvious reasons and some more subtle ones I think.
First off There are probably very few runs in the AMHS that actually have enough usage to come anywhere near balancing the books. Then you make them service through the winter, say goodbye to any profits you might have made during the summer.
Cruise lines reposition ships to where the demand is, there’s no such luxury in AMHS, if demand is low ships get mothballed, they still have to maintain them, pay off the loans and have somewhere to store them until demand rises in the summer.
For example Oasis of the Seas has a maximum capacity of 6296 passengers and 2164 crew, that’s pretty much 3 to 1. Most of that crew is probably stewards, cooks, cleaners, and entertainers. They probably don’t get paid anywhere near what AMHS crews do.
Also, you can get really good deals on cruise ships because of a loop-hole. If a cruise ship has 2000 rooms and they only sell out 1800 they have to sail, so they sell rooms at discounted rates. Seeing as they have nothing too loose because they have to sail anyways, as long as the price covers the cost of food and changing the linens, they can make minimal profit from the room that otherwise would have been empty. They also keep the ship full which helps with the atmosphere and makes them look successful. Wouldn’t you be a little concerned if the ship was half empty?
Also, as was stated earlier, all that space taken up by cars is inefficiently used, rooms, casinos, bar, lounges, pools and such all draw in more money than the one time fee of loading a car into a 15’ x 8’ x 16’ tall space.
Also, people on a cruise tend to spend more on luxuries, that’s sort of the nature of the beast isn’t it? The cruise lines can make so much more off of a passenger once they are on board than AMHS could ever hope to.
I find it quite logical that it cost more to take the ferry to Skagway from Bellingham verses a cruise from Vancouver to Skagway and back, it sucks but its logical.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Aug 17, 2010 9:53:07 GMT -8
Just a added comment.......... I believe that very few of the passenger cabins on MV Kennicott have full facilities. All of the cabins on the Blue Canoes and MV Columbia are fully equipped. A longer voyage from Bellingham to Whittier would likely be uncomfortable at best. For this reason, I have never been on MV Kennicott and I do not know about the quality level of her dining facilities and public rooms.
|
|