|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 23, 2015 8:20:53 GMT -8
So... BC Ferries won't buy advertising space- which they did in years past- to publicize the AGM, because it would exert further pressure on fares.
Does Mike Corrigan not see how contemptuous this line is with regard to people's intelligence?
There is zero notice on their website of the AGM, and no notice in terminals, and no mention on social media. This is indeed an exercise mandated by the governance structure for ferries in our province, and Corrigan and co. have no enthusiasm for it. I am relieved to see that I wasn't the only one insulted by Mr. Corrigan's response to the question of why no AGM public notifications.
Isn't BC Ferries legally required to publish notices of the A.G.M. as is required by public companies, strata corporations, etc.?, or does their status as a pseudo- crown corporation absolve them of doing so?
The unaccountable spending of public monies by operating entities such as BC Ferries, Translink, and possibly I.C.B.C. and the B.C. Buildings Corporation should raise the hackles of ALL taxpayers of British Columbia, who are, after all, the legitimate shareholders of all these entities.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 21, 2015 14:20:35 GMT -8
If I had been able to wiggle out of another commitment this morning, I would have gone to the AGM and added one to the number of 'public' that attended. Of the myriad of questions that one could have posed at this AGM, the questions posed by 'SC Commuter' were spot-on. I really hope that you heard Mr. Corrigan's response correctly to the question from the angry ferry user wondering why the meeting wasn't publicized to a fuller extent. " The cost of advertising in the press etc. would increase the pressure on fares"!! "Ah,... OK, Mr. Corrigan, thank-you for taking the question"...as the now fully informed public wander off in search of coffee urn from which Mr. Corrigan last filled his coffee cup.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 20, 2015 5:17:36 GMT -8
I wouldn't be to keen on being relegated to the "basement" deck. I might put my kayak on top of my truck just so I don't have to go down there. I don't like the idea that it appears that they park cars on top of the exit doors/ramps. Claustrophobia anyone? Hope the fire suppression system is top notch on the lower deck. Also wish the Remontowa website would also throw us a bone or two in terms of documenting the progress of the ships. It is unfortunate that we don't have our member 'herrbrinkmann' from Flensburger over at Remontowa giving us the fabulous coverage on the three Coastals and the Northern Expedition, as well as other goings-on at Flensburger.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 18, 2015 15:45:10 GMT -8
Part 5 of my Inside Passage video series is Grenville Channel. This narrow passage takes 2 hours to transit, and is very narrow in places. On this northbound trip, the misty weather gives a winter-like effect. Viewing goes best with a glass of Porter. Enjoy. Great videos Mike, too bad Grenville Channel was rather winter-like as the scenery is magnificent on a clear bright sunny day. The southbound 2 hour trip down always a lovely quiet time on the ship in the afternoon when back in the day we left Prince Rupert at 13:00 hours, arriving in Kelsey Bay, ( tide and current conditions were always a factor), about 09:00.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 13, 2015 10:04:29 GMT -8
Interesting...wasn't the Chinook already the Sechelt Queen by this time? The 'Sechelt Queen' had been on Route 2 until the arrival of the brand new 'Queens of Nanaimo and Burnaby'. It was at that time that the 'Sechelt Queen' was moved to the Horseshoe Bay - Langdale run. That run had the 'Langdale and Sechelt Queens' for a while until the big white elephant 'Suzie Q' arrived on the scene.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 13, 2015 9:53:35 GMT -8
It may not be obvious to all but this article makes it clear that the QPR was to have been a larger ship then what was actually built. I believe that they shortened her by about 50 feet (ahead of the mast, iirc). The funnels also ended up looking a fair bit different than shown in this concept drawing. The QPR was based on one or more vessels then in service in Europe (Viking class). One thing that is clear from this article that the name Queen of Prince Rupert was chosen well before vessel construction started. The three smaller vessels mentioned in the article became the Mayne, Bowen & Powell River queens trio. BC Premier WAC Bennett & Monty Aldous with the full-length QPR concept model - 1965 - Jim Ryan photo (from The Colonist newspaper, Victoria, BC) If my memory serves correct, a Chief Engineer told me that the overall length of the ship was shortened by 65 feet. The port side of the ship model shows more square and long vertical windows on the Promenade Deck from the Forward Lounge, aft to the end of the passenger cabins. On the Boat Deck, from the Dining Room, aft to the funnels, mid-ship also shows more square and vertical windows. The Bridge Deck, from the Officer's quarters, aft, along the Bridge Deck passenger cabins had several more windows (perhaps more cabins) as well. There would have been more crew cabin space on the 'Tween Deck' level and more passenger cabin space on the Lower Deck under the Tween Deck. Shortening the 'QPR' by some 65 feet created a stubbier, somewhat top-heavy ship which created greater 'roll' and 'pitch' characteristics in heavy seas seas than had been forecast for the ship of original design. Case in point, crossing Queen Charlotte Sound meant that the 'QPR' ran across the sea swell and the pitch became more pronounced any time a westerly wind kicked up the sea. In heavier seas, the 'pitch', (up and down motion) was more noticeable but the 'roll', (side to side motion) was always more pronounced. In 1967, our 13:00 hours departure from Kelsey Bay, and dining room opening at 18:00 hours always tested the seaworthiness limits of our dinner guests. The tables at the front of the dining room always filled quickly, the entire room at capacity not long after. Depending on the days' sea conditions, more than a few pale faced dinner guests would be wobbly exiting, heading for the nearest WC's in the companionway between the dining room and the cafeteria. Crew would always know which Busboys weren't, at the time, in the good graces of the Chief Steward, as they were called upon to report with mop and bucket to the 'accident' scene. Ah, those were the days.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 8, 2015 6:50:52 GMT -8
Hopefully, company policy allows an employee to use discretion when and where an employee is faced with 'emergency' requests such as this situation. There are sadly some folks who will use an 'excuse' of any nature to get to the head of the line as it were, however I've always believed that there is someone "taking notes" of folks of that ilk and place an 'X' in the payback column next to their names'. Hopefully our human relationships can avoid the pitfalls of cynicism, but rather whenever one is faced with making a critical decision, a "voice" should tell one: ' Do unto others.......'
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 5, 2015 12:44:59 GMT -8
Nice to see that the State of Maine's 'Department of Transportation' is responsible for operating the ferry service, unlike the BCF situation we have here.
The 'WABANAKI' looks like a bit of a re-build somewhere along the way. The wheelhouse and deck aft seem like a new design whereas the middle passenger deck and lower passenger deck, with the square windows and pointed bow, look like something from an older vintage.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 3, 2015 8:11:30 GMT -8
Neil, My intentions are pretty obvious. Now that we have met, what do you think of BC Ferries pet project? Pete, you can articulate the safety and operational concerns around this project far better than me. My primary objection is to the fundamental dishonesty around 'savings' that this sales job has depended on... a projected $80 million over forty years- completely ignoring the now wasted cost of the new conventional dock at Buckley Bay, as well as the total project cost of the BS Con. The $80 million is also an absolutely best case scenario, with TC agreeing to a crew of three, and no glitches in implementation, and no need to build dolphins to hold a straying barge in rough weather. It's a continuation of the lies around BC Ferries financing that have gone on since 2003 and 'privatization', a shell game, and an assumption as to public gullibility, which unfortunately has not been altogether inaccurate.
My secondary concerns are job losses on Denman, the reality of being locked into the same sized vessel for the last twenty five years and the next forty, and of course, all the technical and safety aspects you have voiced so persistently.
There are probably some folks on Denman and Hornby who are tired of hearing the opposition to something that's a foregone conclusion. But with your persistence, you've removed the opportunity for BC Ferries and the government to possibly hide behind the dodge of 'well, it's a new project... we couldn't possibly foresee every little thing'. And it seems that you're getting some legal guidance as to how to make the cautionary narrative more effective.
There will be no excuses if there are problems with this project. Maybe what we need now is Stephen Hume pointing out the phoniness of the numbers, as he did so effectively with the cancellation of route 40.
This project would appear to be heading into some very turbulent weather and subsequent rough seas. The information put forth by several of our learned members with regard to 'fallacy financing', serious technical flaws, safety issues, as well as the fractious relationship between BC Ferries and Christy's Liberal provincial government, MUST by now be causing some, dare I venture, a great deal, of concern and angst in both respective halls of business and power.
If one might be afforded a 'fast forward' gaze into a crystal ball, and this project goes ahead, (and as BCF CEO Mr. Corrigan has stated, he has staked his job to this project), and in the course of an operational sailing in less than favourable weather and sea conditions, all hell breaks loose and the 'BS Connector' incurs a major incident which produces either loss of life or major damage to vehicles or the vessel itself. What then? If upon investigation of a major incident, fault is found and is directly linked to facts that BC Ferries knew, or ought to have known existed if the vessel was operated in unfavourable conditions, wouldn't the probability exist that we are now entering into the realm of criminal law and its possible penalties?
Coming to one's senses after witnessing a potential 'crystal ball' disaster, wouldn't the propitious course of action preclude that all parties privy to this project's clearly identified shortcomings, STOP with the corporate and political rhetoric and seriously consider taking an honourable course of action. Clearly, some corporate and government heads may roll, the current provincial government might even find itself on the Opposition side of the legislature next time around, but surely those possibilities are far less traumatic than residing in 6 X 8 long term co-op housing?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Aug 2, 2015 8:01:21 GMT -8
Thanks for posting. That's quite a nice looking ship.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 31, 2015 9:30:35 GMT -8
Here's a link to a series of comments on a ferry photo, on one of those ferry protest FaceBook groups: I think it illustrates the niche that we have here at WCFF. In general terms, we care about ferry system sustainability issues, coastal communities issues, Government transportation policy issues, ship operational issues, and we also simply like the ships which include their history and the experience of riding them. HERE 'Amen', Mr. Horn. I would just add a wee addition to your list. For those WCFF members who have worked on any of the ships over the course of BC Ferries history, some, perhaps many of the issues we discuss on this forum take on somewhat of a 'personal' note because these ships were our work place and in some cases our workplace and our home for periods of time many crew members becoming 'family'. Witnessing the state of BCF operations and mismanagement by the present government, the negative fallout does take on a more personal touch. That said, I am continually impressed by the insightful knowledge, the willingness to share passionate opinions, create civil debate(s) on the wide variety of topics that interest us in this forum in a manner above and beyond the quality witnessed on other screens of social media.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 31, 2015 9:02:36 GMT -8
Minister Stone's 'to-do' list today: Buy: an 81/2 X 11 size Thank-you card : 24 Red Roses : a $ 250.00 pre-paid Visa gift card : a $250.00 gift card to one of Vancouver or Victoria's best restaurants. Delivery by expedited Courier service. To: The Honourable Christie Clark, Premier of British Columbia Message: Luv Ya, enjoy the gifts,
Todd.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 31, 2015 6:30:29 GMT -8
With the Summer season now in full swing, the 'traffic famine' for BC Ferries would appear to be over. The BCF bean counters must be in seventh heaven watching the line on the traffic and income chart rocket upwards! Outrageous fares, notwithstanding, traffic volumes are now pressing BCF's capacity to the limit on most routes, even routes 10 and 11. There could be strong volume growth on route 40 as well but alas, that is another discussion for another day. Historically, the month of August has not been kind to BC Ferries as it is this crazy Summer month when the system becomes accident prone, With ZERO back-up vessels in the fleet, and the For Sale sign hanging on the 'Wack', Mr. Corrigan's anatomy must appear strange as he navigates the halls of head office with all his toes and fingers crossed hoping that no misfortune befalls his fleet.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 30, 2015 6:36:49 GMT -8
Those 'Cat's Meow' beautiful ferries were a tribute to the excellent ship building capabilities we once had in British Columbia. Now..? Back in the day, BC Ferries worked hand in hand with the Department of Travel Industry, (another now defunct ministry), by having green jacketed Travel Councillors who had their own travel booths on all the ships. The travel gals were employed on major routes including route 10, and were often put through their paces as the agents had to 'council' the overnight captive American tourist passengers who often had a wide and wacky list of geographical questions. Ah, those were the days.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 28, 2015 7:25:23 GMT -8
A very nice looking ship, with passenger amenities best suited for her service area/ route. What is the rationale for using a stern door, elevator and turntable for moving vehicles rather than having a bow door or at least a side loading door? Doesn't it take a considerable amount of time to move vehicles, cars, vans, RV's and larger trucks onto and off of the two vehicle decks? Having only one entry/exit door also seems run counter to most vehicle ferry designs. Other than the entry/exit design, I rather like the overall size and design of the ship. It is of a size that might be well suited for a re-opened BCF route 40 or as a permanent route 11 vessel providing DAILY service, not the inane schedule that exists at present.
It is a pretty nice looking design. Shocking, these days, in an era where seemingly all naval architects have lost any sense of style. Of course, making that elevator look good in the stern will be hard. The Tustumena replacement has to have an elevator because many of the ports called on in southwest Alaska / the Aleutian Islands do not have a terminal facility. The ferry pulls up alongside a wooden wharf, and the elevator is used to unload the cars, cargo. With some of these ports only seeing service twice a month for half the year, it would be pretty expensive to install a proper ferry dock. Thanks for the speedy response to my query. Given the infrastructure or lack thereof at many of her ports of call, the 'elevator' system makes terrific sense.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 28, 2015 7:21:48 GMT -8
Thanks for correcting my error to which I plead having a 'senior moment'
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 28, 2015 7:17:37 GMT -8
Her last refit was 3 years ago! Statendam is on her last few cruises ever in the Pacific Northwest. On September7 she sails by way of Hawaii and some of the lesser known Marshall Islands and Guam on her way to Singapore. At near the same time Ryndam will sail her last Holland America voyage from Italy to Singapore via the Suez. Upon arrival the 2 sisters leave the Holland America fleet and are transferred to the P & O Australia fleet with new names and a much altered interior all done during a 2 month drydock and refit; thus all the growth on the hull at present. They were up for sale, but no potential buyers would spring for the big money being asked for, and thus the hand me down transfer to the down under fleet. Word in the industry is that both ships are in excellent shape having had very good maintenance over the years. Statendam did have an engine room fire a number of years ago as she passed under Lions Gate Bridge. She had to drift to anchor in English Bay and missed several cruises. The other two sisters Veendam and Maasdam must be close to leaving too; but Maasdam is here next summer replacing Statendam on the 14 day Alaskan sailings from Seattle, followed by a 23 day transpacific sailing to Sydney-one that I am booked on!! I had forgotten about the transfer of those two Holland America ships to the P & O Australian fleet. The 'Statendam' and the 'Ryndam' are examples of cruise ships that are to my liking in terms of size, passenger capacity etc. It's refreshing to know that there are still ships out there that look and feel like 'ships' and not a glorified tourist resort at sea. Are we to see the 'Maasdam' and 'Volendam' sent off to the P & O Australia fleet as well? One thing about Holland America, even though they are sadly part of the Carnival group, is that the H.A. ships are still registered in The Netherlands, and not some third world banana republic used by so many other cruise ship operators.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 28, 2015 7:04:18 GMT -8
For the first time I looked closely at the drawings for the Tustumena replacement, and I have to say that it looks like a really nice ship! It has a great layout and looks very pleasing to the eye. (Are you listening WSF?) Personally, I'd like to see the ship named "Tustumena II" as the name has become quite iconic around the area that she will work. At any rate, well done AMHS, I can't wait to see this enter service! A very nice looking ship, with passenger amenities best suited for her service area/ route. What is the rationale for using a stern door, elevator and turntable for moving vehicles rather than having a bow door or at least a side loading door? Doesn't it take a considerable amount of time to move vehicles, cars, vans, RV's and larger trucks onto and off of the two vehicle decks? Having only one entry/exit door also seems run counter to most vehicle ferry designs. Other than the entry/exit design, I rather like the overall size and design of the ship. It is of a size that might be well suited for a re-opened BCF route 40 or as a permanent route 11 vessel providing DAILY service, not the inane schedule that exists at present.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 28, 2015 6:27:06 GMT -8
Just looking at this thread, especially the features of the 'Osprey 2000', would it or a vessel somewhat similar in design be a more appropriate vessel for the Hornby Island folk rather than the 'BS Connector'?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 24, 2015 9:57:44 GMT -8
Are you surprised with the redaction? This farce is another example to which I responded to Deck Cadet's posting on the General News BCF thread.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 24, 2015 7:56:18 GMT -8
Here's an article that shines a light on BC Ferries-Ministry of Transportation relations:
BC Ferries accused of hiding email to Transport Minister Todd Stone The B.C. NDP want the privacy commissioner to investigate what it says is a skirting of the rules.
"An email sent by BC Ferries CEO Mike Corrigan to Transportation Minister Todd Stone has become a political hot potato after the Opposition NDP accused the ferry service of trying to hide the embarrassing exchange.
The B.C. NDP filed a freedom of information request for any emails between Corrigan and Stone sent between January 1 and March 31 this year, receiving a "no records" response.
At the time, Corrigan told CBC Radio 1 that his exchanges with the minister were always by phone or face-to-face.
But the subsequent emergence of an email from the CEO to Stone produced from the same request to the Ministry of Transportation suggests otherwise, the NDP said today.
In the February email, Corrigan told Stone that his comments on a BC Ferries policy were, "not helpful or productive," and that the minister should "take this into consideration when commenting" in the future.
"This newly-released email from that same time period shows that Mr. Corrigan's comments weren't exactly true, and that BC Ferries skirted British Columbia's freedom of information laws," the NDP's Doug Routley said in a statement Thursday.
"The B.C. Liberals are already tied up in a controversy around deleted emails and skirting information laws. Now it seems publicly owned agencies are doing the same."
Routley has written to the Privacy Officer, Elizabeth Denham, to ask her to include this example in her ongoing investigation sparked by the furor over the alleged deleting of emails related to the stretch of B.C. road known as the Highway of Tears."
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-ferries-accused-of-hiding-email-to-transport-minister-todd-stone-1.3165685
Good work Deck Cadet for bringing forth this little gem. Sadly this news item is but another sad example of what happens when governments and corporate entities believe that they are entitled to conduct and communicate "the peoples' affairs" in ultra-spin mode. The truth be dammed, just keep a finger on that 'spin cycle' knob and maybe, just maybe the great unwashed will begin to believe that 'spin' is the new normal. But, on the brighter side of things, this little episode of 'whose got whose mail' pales in comparison with the 'spin' this present provincial administration put on the case of the six health care workers who were allegedly fired....or? Within the purview of the new inquiry into the health care mess, some folks are going to be very hard pressed to put 'spin' on their involvement(s) when the 's' in 'splainin' is removed, all the while trying to stand upright on one of those darn mounds of hidden 'spin' under their feet.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 23, 2015 8:33:40 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? I am too cynical for a list. I think that any question would be answered with fluffy corporate-speak. But if I had one question, it would be to ask if the cable-ferry delays have harmed the relationship between Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyards and BC Ferries. Undoubtedly the meeting room will be awash with the 'fluff' of corporate-speak, and I doubt that answers given to any questions will be pointedly direct and honest. Your relationship question if posed as a yes or no question might prove interesting.
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 18, 2015 2:17:56 GMT -8
Thanks Scott for a great photo tour of the 'Northern Expedition'. The interior spaces are big and bright, some almost too bright for my liking but I admit that comes from a jaded old 'QPR' steward. There is one feature of the 'NorEx' however that makes me crazy every time I see it! Some folks may think I'm being nit-picky about this but I'd really love to have a 'word' or two with the brainiac that designed the height of the stern flag pole and the location more to port of midship than not. The flag pole's height and position, appear out of scale with the size of the vessel and negates the ability to proudly fly an appropriately larger Maple Leaf, the symbol of our great country. The "more to the left of center" placing of the current flag pole was not a nasty prank of one of the 2 current opposition parties as an attempt to embarrass the folks who sit more 'a-starboard' in the peoples' house.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 17, 2015 13:32:30 GMT -8
Have you read any of the accounts, well reported by the Vancouver Sun's Stephen Hume, of the loss in tourist business on the central coast because of this completely inadequate service? I have indeed. I agree that from a practical perspective the Nimpkish is a terrible choice for that service. I am continually offended by the choices made by BC ferries and the provincial government, not just in this situation but in many others, but from a purely aesthetic perspective I think she looks great up there. Tour operators, hotel, motel, bed & breakfast, and resort, operators chambers of commerce have been horribly cast adrift by the cancellation of Route 40 and the fallout has been well documented and reported by Stephen Hume and others. Instead of building upon a promising/developing tourism market for the province, the province and BCF have made a mockery of the entire "vacations with BC Ferries" program. I suppose the only jobs Christie wants in British Columbia are one associated with the development and transport of fossil fuel products. No chance more use of fossil fuels will add to our global warming concerns...will they?
|
|