mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Nov 18, 2013 20:26:59 GMT -8
:)I note one of the revenue makers that the gov't head riverboat problem gambler Rich has in mind is his slot machines, maybe he should get his euro building yard to plan wider asiles for his portly gamblers on his new 'costals' :)mrdot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 20:52:07 GMT -8
After reading Flugel's "summary of last sailing changes," I have to agree with Alex. Texada seems to be hit hardest, making it impossible to make a day trip anywhere beyond Powell River, all times of year. BC Ferries is doing exactly what voters told them to, and I'm not surprised that they aren't looking past paper stats. It's a known fact that they ("they" being the company, not individual crews) don't care about the communities they serve. Their mandate from government is to make money.
As for major route changes, I'm pretty sure the gift shop makes money, at least it's still going strong on route 3. Besides, if we closed the gift shop, the crew member would likely go any polish the outside deck which isn't even necessary on the Surrey given how well crews take care of the ship. As for route 3 cuts, I will be attending the info meeting just to see what their plans are, and I'll ask about the New West doing route 3. I'd be interested to see if they've ever considered the option.
Does anyone know if BCFS has even gotten permission from gov't to have slot machines aboard the Spirits?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 18, 2013 20:54:51 GMT -8
Does anyone know if BCFS has even gotten permission from gov't to have slot machines aboard the Spirits? Keep in mind that the gaming idea (and all the rest of today's announcement) is the Province of BC's idea, not BC Ferries' idea. The Province regulates gaming in BC, so if the Province wants gaming on some ferries, it shall be done.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 18, 2013 21:01:43 GMT -8
Today's news release mentions a $200-million improvement to Horseshoe Bay, and that any service cuts or changes to Routes 3 & 2 & 30 would need to be done in connection with any planned changes to Horseshoe Bay. We'll find out what this means in a few months, but who knows if this will drastically change the status-quo, and whether Horseshoe Bay will be made to run fewer or more routes? I have no idea, at this time. But the eventual news could be significant. My guess: In the next round of cuts route 30 gets cancelled. We go back to the way things were before 1990 with all Nanaimo & 'Up Island' service provided through Horseshoe Bay.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 18, 2013 21:11:42 GMT -8
Today's news release mentions a $200-million improvement to Horseshoe Bay, and that any service cuts or changes to Routes 3 & 2 & 30 would need to be done in connection with any planned changes to Horseshoe Bay. We'll find out what this means in a few months, but who knows if this will drastically change the status-quo, and whether Horseshoe Bay will be made to run fewer or more routes? I have no idea, at this time. But the eventual news could be significant. My guess: In the next round of cuts route 30 gets cancelled. We go back to the way things were before 1990 will all Nanaimo & 'Up Island' service provided through Horseshoe Bay. Here's what today's announcement says: - So they need to find $4.9million in annual savings on the 3 cross-strait routes by 2016. And they also want to find even more savings resulting from a major investment in Horseshoe Bay (and presumably the resulting impact of that on Routes 2 & 30).
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 18, 2013 21:14:54 GMT -8
... it is nice to see that the financial sinkhole aka Discovery Coast Passage is going, FINALLY. Maybe fares can stabilize for a little while if these cuts go through. So what you are saying is so long as the cuts screw other people your fine with that? Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 18, 2013 21:36:47 GMT -8
A very sad day today indeed.
I was a little surprised by the numbers for cutbacks on the Routes. The loss of summer Route 40 was a slight shocker actually for me. It's too bad that route didn't work out. Part of me wonders if a better ship would have helped on that run, ie a vessel with cabins. But since the ridership appears to be way down on Route 10/11, it's of course hard to justify having Route 40 in the first place. I wonder if ridership was taken into account on Routes 10 and 11 with the fact that two larger ships are on those runs these days (summer), compared to the service that was in place by the two previous vessels up to 2005. Is it really necessary to have the huge Northern Expedition running year round up there, when the slightly smaller Northern Adventure could be running instead?
Once again, I question the logic with some of the ridership numbers. The Howe Sound Queen was classed as her original 70 car capacity ferry in those stats, when really she's more like a 55 car ferry at best. The stats may say she was only carrying 55 cars and was actually loaded to the brim, but would she have been only be considered to be at 78% capacity for that sailing therefore that sailing wouldn't be accounted for as an "at capacity sailing"? Salt Spring didn't really get slapped with the cutbacks I was kind of expecting though, and I'm glad it didn't. Not that I don't care about the other islands, because I really do care. I can only really relate to the way of living on Salt Spring, having lived the for over three years. But it certainly appears that gone are the days of SSI residents being able to make a quick run over to Duncan for evening shopping after work. I used to really enjoy making trips to Nanaimo for the afternoon/evening, and return on the 10:00pm sailing to SSI. But at least, Route 4 remains unaffected.
I think the definition of Route 9 reschedule means that no more "double runs" across the Strait to Tsawwassen from the Islands during the AM or PM on weekends. So I'm thinking it will be the usual SSI-Pender-Mayne-Galiano-Tsa-Galiano-Mayne-Pender-SSI. That is going to suck on Friday nights and Sunday nights since the Tsa-Galiano-Mayne-Pender-Tsa runs would usually be quite full, but the direct SSI-Tsawwassen runs would usually be empty.
Time's have changed. It's sad to see the bridge/lifelines of the islands be treated so badly. I'm glad that the people of Whistler get to have their nice wide highway, free of charge, and open 24/7. I'm also glad that the bridges in Metro Vancouver remain open 24/7. I'm also glad that the Coquilhalla remains open 24/7 while alternatives like the Fraser Canyon also stay open 24/7, despite the fact that traffic fluctuates throughout the time of day. Funny how that works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 21:38:52 GMT -8
... it is nice to see that the financial sinkhole aka Discovery Coast Passage is going, FINALLY. Maybe fares can stabilize for a little while if these cuts go through. So what you are saying is so long as the cuts screw other people your fine with that? Please explain. I apologize for writing an inflammatory sentence. I do not understand how this is going to change net service levels to communities up north over the summer. Yes, they will have to make a half hour transfer in Bella Bella and crossing times will be lengthened slightly as a result of this cut. As for the winter, yes it sucks for them. Maybe the NorEx is overbuilt for the fare they charge. My point there was that it's good to get rid of financial sinkholes in some cases (like this one). Route 40 lost in excess of $1 million last year, according to their stats. Chris, the NorEx is cheaper to run than the NorAd.
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Nov 18, 2013 21:49:34 GMT -8
Today's news release mentions a $200-million improvement to Horseshoe Bay, and that any service cuts or changes to Routes 3 & 2 & 30 would need to be done in connection with any planned changes to Horseshoe Bay. We'll find out what this means in a few months, but who knows if this will drastically change the status-quo, and whether Horseshoe Bay will be made to run fewer or more routes? I have no idea, at this time. But the eventual news could be significant. My guess: In the next round of cuts route 30 gets cancelled. We go back to the way things were before 1990 with all Nanaimo & 'Up Island' service provided through Horseshoe Bay. With the way they have been cutting sailings on route 30 so far I would tend to agree with this in the form of closing Duke point and running everything out of Departure Bay or as commented eliminating the route all together. Even the service cut backs that have been done on route 2 show how all this corporation is only looking at stats. Everything that was released today just proves how the only thing that matters to the BC Ferries is the bottom line based on what the government mandates they do. This just shows the Liberal government does not care about the coastal community's because they don't need there vote.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 18, 2013 21:55:48 GMT -8
Routes 10, 11 & 40 have been shedding summer customers like crazy over the last few years. Friends of mine were aboard the NorEx for a south bound trip in late July this past summer. Less than one third of the car deck was in use. Apparently there were ~125 passengers aboard. From what I understand this has become typical on this route, even in high summer. Back in the 1980's & 90's those trips (on the QotN) were always full in mid-summer. Another acquaintance told me much the same story with regard to travel over to Haida Gwaii aboard the NorAd. In a few years time summer service on the North Coast will be with just one boat serving both Haida Gwaii & the Inside Passage in a manner similar to the current winter service.
BC Ferries obviously should have built a QPR-sized vessel rather than buying/building what they have now (i.e. two over-sized fuel-guzzling fast-becoming white floating elephants).
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 18, 2013 21:59:13 GMT -8
A very sad day today indeed. I was a little surprised by the numbers for cutbacks on the Routes. The loss of summer Route 40 was a slight shocker actually for me. It's too bad that route didn't work out. Part of me wonders if a better ship would have helped on that run, ie a vessel with cabins. But since the ridership appears to be way down on Route 10/11, it's of course hard to justify having Route 40 in the first place. I wonder if ridership was taken into account on Routes 10 and 11 with the fact that two larger ships are on those runs these days (summer), compared to the service that was in place by the two previous vessels up to 2005. Is it really necessary to have the huge Northern Expedition running year round up there, when the slightly smaller Northern Adventure could be running instead? I think it comes down to the NorEx being more fuel efficient and less expensive to operate than the NorAd. From an exterior logistical perspective, the smaller vessel makes way more sense, and I think this skews the ridership utilization a bit as you mentioned in other parts of your post.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Nov 18, 2013 22:07:16 GMT -8
:)as for the selective cuts to the mid coast and north coast being fine for some folk not affected by these routes, this is the thing about gov't services in general, people have always favoured the things they themselves use themselves, if they have never been sick and needed the hospital, then that could be cut too! people have never been in favour of gov't services they think they have no need of untill they do, then their view changes quickly! from my perspective, the first frugally run ferries in the early ferry days would be my suggestion, with none of this hi-end office staff! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 18, 2013 22:12:12 GMT -8
I wonder if ridership was taken into account on Routes 10 and 11 with the fact that two larger ships are on those runs these days (summer), compared to the service that was in place by the two previous vessels up to 2005. Is it really necessary to have the huge Northern Expedition running year round up there, when the slightly smaller Northern Adventure could be running instead? Chris, I thought you knew why the NorEx is now being used in the slow season rather than the smaller NorAd. It is my understanding that despite being smaller the NorAd uses more fuel than the NorEx. Both vessels require a crew size that is about the same (parts of the NorEx are closed to passenger use in the off-season meaning less crew needed). The biggest advantage though is that the NorEx is much better at handling winter weather & sea conditions up in this part of the world meaning fewer delays & cancellations, and far fewer customer complaints.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Nov 18, 2013 22:25:52 GMT -8
Probably because it's so expensive to travel on that route you could take a 7 night Alaska Cruise for the same price when you add like 4 people and a car!
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Nov 18, 2013 22:28:20 GMT -8
Another thing that blew my mind in the opening summary of possible further cuts was the notion of placing more 'no frills' vessels on the lifeline routes.
Can anyone point out the 'frills' on the existing 'minor' vessels to me? What amenities does the Howe Sound Queen offer? Is it those cute little mushroom seats? How about the gorgeous lounge in the Kahloke and Quinitsa? Oh, I guess the new carpet in the Quadra Queen II is far more than those peasants from Sointula deserve.
This is a transportation company which, at the urging of the Liberal government, regards it's customers as over-entitled burdens on the public purse, and not communities which have a legitimate claim on a reasonable connection with the rest of the province. I like Ferryman's cheeky references to the highway system, because in coming back to the mainland this time, I've been amazed at the money being spent on helping drivers save some time on connecting to and from highway one in Delta. Gazillions, I suspect.
Clearly, I am not living in the right place.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 18, 2013 23:01:33 GMT -8
Something that stood out for me through all of this was the suggestion of adding passenger-only sailings to certain routes.
I see this as a potential solution to mitigating impacts and costs - if there is adequate transit on the (for lack of a better term) 'civilization' side (i.e. Campbell River, Crofton, Chemainus, etc), this could be a win-win. Sailings would likely be faster, and therefore could be more frequent, and cost less to operate. As well, instead of running routes to the 'middle of nowhere', this opens up opportunities to alter routes to better serve customers (e.g. Hornby-Denman-Comox Harbour gov't wharf).
The initial capital cost for implementation would be high (likely a deal-breaker) but would ultimately provide a good cost-benefit overall. I imagine costs could be mitigated by utilizing existing infrastructure (e.g. gov't floats, marinas, etc), and purchasing passenger only ferries used.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Nov 18, 2013 23:12:41 GMT -8
Another thing that blew my mind in the opening summary of possible further cuts was the notion of placing more 'no frills' vessels on the lifeline routes. Can anyone point out the 'frills' on the existing 'minor' vessels to me? What amenities does the Howe Sound Queen offer? Is it those cute little mushroom seats? How about the gorgeous lounge in the Kahloke and Quinitsa? Oh, I guess the new carpet in the Quadra Queen II is far more than those peasants from Sointula deserve. This is a transportation company which, at the urging of the Liberal government, regards it's customers as over-entitled burdens on the public purse, and not communities which have a legitimate claim on a reasonable connection with the rest of the province. I like Ferryman's cheeky references to the highway system, because in coming back to the mainland this time, I've been amazed at the money being spent on helping drivers save some time on connecting to and from highway one in Delta. Gazillions, I suspect. Clearly, I am not living in the right place. This stood out to me as well. I don't think you can get more barebones than most of the BCFerries Minor Vessel fleet. I'm more concerned about the new 145-145-125 replacements which reportedly will not have any food service. I've always admired BCFerries for their food service, not just because its pretty good, but because they manage to make money doing it and use crew that they are required to carry to meet lifesaving requirements. Would the crewing level on newer vessels be so much lower than the vessels they are replacing that they can ditch the entire catering staff without having to bring on more deckhands? This crossed my mind when the Chilliwack went to route 7 operating with only a barebones cafeteria. Pre Island Sky, she had a full galley (and staff). The staff count into the license requirement. Food service is profitable. Does this mean the Chilliwack is sailing with extra deckhands (doing what?) while not operating her galley (and not collecting the associated revenue)?
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Nov 19, 2013 7:58:41 GMT -8
Will they be making any changes to Salt Spring Island service? It seems that they could rationalize some some of the services to the island with out havinga great affect on users.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 19, 2013 8:13:47 GMT -8
A bit of a refresher on the structure, to keep yesterday's announcement in context:
There are 2 main entities here: - the Province of BC (ie Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation) - BC Ferry Services (ie. Mike Corrigan's BC Ferries)
The Province contracts with BC Ferries, for BC Ferries to provide ferry services to various routes, at specified numbers of sailings. This is set by a contract, and the Province can change it from time to time.
BC Ferries is told by the Province to operate those routes & sailings, and the Province tells them how much a subsidy will be paid for that. - So BC Ferries knows what service levels they must provide, and they know the subsidy revenue. The rest of the equation is that BC Ferries determines their costs to run those sailings, and the other types of revenues that can be generated (ie. Coastal Cafe). The remaining financial shortfall is covered by fares. - The BC Ferry Commissioner (a 3rd party) ensures that the cost and other-revenue items reported by BC Ferries are reasonable and that the resulting fares are reasonable within some set parameters.
So, the Province says to BC Ferries: - "Run these routes and sailings, and we'll give you $xxx to do that. The remaining shortfall needs to be made up in fares, but try your best to keep that shortfall as low as possible by trying to be as efficient as possible and to milk every possible revenue source."
----------------
Yesterday's announcement was the Province saying to BC Ferries: - "OK, so it's obvious that fares are too high, given the # of sailings that we're asking you to do, and given the level of costs that it takes to run your operation. So we have a choice, we can increase our subsidy to you, or we can cut the number of required sailings that you need to do. Here's what we've chosen: We will greatly cut back on the number of sailings that you're required to do, and we'll also increase our subsidy a bit."
BC Ferries then says to the Province: - "OK, thanks for letting us know. We'll implement those sailing cut-backs in April 2014. We'll try to survive with this lower level of operating costs."
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 19, 2013 8:42:27 GMT -8
Will they be making any changes to Salt Spring Island service? It seems that they could rationalize some some of the services to the island with out havinga great affect on users. Here's your source This document includes a separate page for each affected route, showing the specific sailings which will be cut in 2014. HERE
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 19, 2013 13:55:10 GMT -8
I've had a bit of time today to start looking at more of the details in this plan. coastalferriesengagement.uberflip.com/h/i/1903296-discussion-guideOn Page 2 of the Discussion Guide, it gives a comparison of what BC Ferries costs are in 2013 compared to 2004. Total costs have gone from $479 million to $742 million in 9 years. Interesting, though, is the change in percentages of what's costing them more. Wages has gone down from 42% of expenditures to 35%; Fuel has gone up from 10% to 16%; but Net Financing & Amortization has gone from 14% to 28%. BC Ferries is always blaming the fuel prices (which is obvious), but the biggest increase is in this Financing & Amortization which I'm not 100% sure is about, but must be borrowing costs etc.. A question for the more financially minded, but would these costs be there if BC Ferries was a crown corporation? I suppose it would just be the government borrowing money instead in that case. Interesting that on Page 5, when they discuss increased costs, they only talk about wages and fuel. Page 5, they're still blaming the 2008 recession for low ridership figures (the lowest being this most recent fiscal year). Interesting that they say that the toll-free inland ferries are also seeing a similar decline in ridership. Page 6; Savings from the seniors discount will be returned to BC Ferries by the government, which they expect will be $6 million per year. I expect seniors just won't travel as much if they can't ride for free, this declining ridership even more. My Dad suggested to me today that it might be more acceptable to people if they cut the free days to just Tuesday or Wednesday instead of the 50% discount all week. As for the gaming proposal, I wonder if that's a nice little distraction for the media. I saw the front page of the two freebie newspapers in Vancouver today and they were both headlining the "gambling on the ferries" instead of the more important details in this proposal that are going to directly impact coastal communities. I really doubt a few slot machines are going to have any impact on BC Ferries bottom line. Page 7; Improving the reservation system, having time-of-day pricing, and loyalty programs is one improvement that I think could be beneficial on some routes. Not sure how much money they'll save, but it could encourage ridership instead of kicking it away. On Page 8 they have a list of 6 considerations taken into consideration to make service adjustment decisions. Interesting what order they have them in... 1.Significant Annual Shortfalls; 2. Low Annual Utilization; 3. Low Round-Trip Utilization; 4. Basic Levels of Ferry Service; 5. Routes Requiring Vessel Replacement; 6. Complexity of Multiple-Stop Routes. Maybe I'm reading too much into the order they're placed on the page, but at #4 "Basic Levels of Ferry Service" seems to me to put it at a low priority. And if you go back to page 4 where they list the results of their Public Consultation and ask people to rank these 6 "considerations", 45% of respondents put "Basic Levels of Ferry Service" as #1. So I don't think the government is really listening. On the topic of cutting Route #40. They put Coast Ferries out of business when they started this up in 1997. Sad commentary on how BC Ferries has managed things. All in all, like most of you, I'm very disappointed in what has become of BC Ferries. No longer a service but a business. Not something to be promoted, but to be cut back. Not trying to increase ridership, but making it more difficult to plan a trip. Why are we paying executives $100 of millions of dollars when the province is basically in control of what goes on? I wonder how the BC Ferries and Marine Workers Union will respond to this? Seems like a lot of hours are going to be lost, and probably jobs will be lost on the northern routes. So far I can't see anything on their website. Coastal communities could vote NDP in the next election - oh wait, they already did. The timing of this isn't great for any opposition within the legislature with the NDP in the sad shape it's in currently with a lame-duck leader for another year. We'll see I guess. - John H
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 19, 2013 14:38:43 GMT -8
One thing that I think badly needs clarification are the employee travel passes.
The Ferry "Pass" that employees have is a 100% taxable benefit. This means that everytime an employee uses their "pass" to ride the ferry, the cost of riding the ferry gets added to their gross income. However, the rate is similar to Experience Card rates. Employees who live on the Islands will ride the ferry a lot by using their pass, and are very much paying into the system. This is no different to other companies who give their employees little perks for the job, such as discounts which is essentially what the pass is. The only time it is free for the employee, is when the employee is traveling on the ferry for business reasons, such as crew members needing to catch a ferry to the other side in order to meet their ship that's in refit, etc, or if employees are traveling for more job specific training. There is also a family pass, only available to immediate family members, such as their spouse and their children. However, they get an annual limit of trips, and the same goes for Retired employees. All of which are also 100% taxable benefits. The pass usage is very closely watched by the company, and should one be caught abusing the pass, it can mean pass privileges taken away or even job termination.
Long gone are the days of the pass being free for the employees. There was such a time a very long time ago when it was free, but the taxman disagreed with that idea.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 19, 2013 14:46:13 GMT -8
One thing that I think badly needs clarification are the employee travel passes. The Ferry "Pass" that employees have is a 100% taxable benefit. This means that everytime an employee uses their "pass" to ride the ferry, the cost of riding the ferry gets added to their gross income. Long gone are the days of the pass being free for the employees. There was such a time a very long time ago when it was free, but the taxman disagreed with that idea. It's still "Mostly Free" Employer gives employee $100 worth of free travel Employee pays $30 tax on that gift
Employee is are $70 ahead.And for someone in a higher tax bracket (say 50% tax): - he gets $100 worth of free travel - he pays $50 tax on it = he is $50 better off for it. That's a great perk.
|
|
|
Post by Taxman on Nov 19, 2013 15:01:20 GMT -8
One thing that I think badly needs clarification are the employee travel passes. The Ferry "Pass" that employees have is a 100% taxable benefit. This means that everytime an employee uses their "pass" to ride the ferry, the cost of riding the ferry gets added to their gross income. Long gone are the days of the pass being free for the employees. There was such a time a very long time ago when it was free, but the taxman disagreed with that idea. It's still "Mostly Free" Employer gives you $100 worth of free travel You pay $30 tax on that gift
You are $70 ahead.And for someone in a higher tax bracket (say 50% tax): - he gets $100 worth of free travel - he pays $50 tax on it = he is $50 better off for it. That's a great perk. I believe CRA's administrative position is that rail, bus and plane tickets are a non-taxable benefit unless travelling on a space confimed basis. Ferries, it is passenger transport only, not automobile transport. Retired employees will not be taxed on any benefits. See IT-470R (Now Archived, but available on the CRA Website). I found this in the footnotes to my Act. Presumably CRA has not changed its administrative position. A $50 perk is great, a $100 perk is better This should not be considered as tax advice, please consult a professional.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 19, 2013 19:25:21 GMT -8
With respect to loss of hours - how long notice does BCFS have to give on reductions to avoid a crew being called?
I seem to recall when there were first reductions on the major routes, notably Rte 2 a few years ago, a crew still showed up to work due to the collective agreement. The ship just did not sail. Wondering if that may happen again?
|
|