|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 17, 2010 7:52:01 GMT -8
Some highlights from the BCFS 2010/11 business plan document. www.bcferries.com/files/PDFs/BCFerries_BusinessPlan_Fiscal2011.pdf============= OK, so what is Mr. Hahn trying to say here? I think this is his logic: - we the citizens own the ships - they the ferry company acquired the ships for us, and have been paying down the debt on them, thereby increasing the citizens' equity in those ships. - I guess the other truth is that we the citizens who are also ferry-users are paying the fares that give the company the cash to use to pay that debt for us. --------- --------- --------- ---------
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 24, 2010 11:37:19 GMT -8
The glossy official 2009/10 annual report document is located here: www.bcferries.com/files/AboutBCF/AR/0910_Annual_Report_WebReady.pdf- those interested in the important issues will find just 1 photograph to comment on. ;D -------------- Is there anything new or of-interest in this report, that hasn't already been in the SEDAR 2009/10 MD&A report of in the annual report to Mr. Crilly? - there is a lot of overlap with these 3 sets of reports, all for the same year, plus the business-plan for the upcoming year. Here is the only item to me that was either new, or significant, or just trivially interesting to me: ------------------- - from the message from the CEO: ---------------
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,192
|
Post by Neil on Sept 24, 2010 12:16:04 GMT -8
Over the last 50 years BC Ferries has become one of the premier ferry operators in the world and our employees deserve the credit. This milestone is very important and we should also recognize the vision of W.A.C. Bennett who established this company 50 years ago.
Not to split hairs or anything (oh heck, why not), but WAC Bennett actually established the BC Ferry Authority, which was rather a different animal. I'm not a Bennett fan, but I'd be curious to know what he would think of the current operating model, him being an avowed free enterpriser with a curious penchant for nationalizing things.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 24, 2010 17:47:30 GMT -8
So apparently, they're going to be bringing in the ships for maintenance less, but when they do, they're going to do more work on them. Does this mean we're going to see more ugly rust stains on the sides of our ferries in the coming years, since they won't be brought in for maintenance as much?
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Sept 24, 2010 18:01:21 GMT -8
So apparently, they're going to be bringing in the ships for maintenance less, but when they do, they're going to do more work on them. Does this mean we're going to see more ugly rust stains on the sides of our ferries in the coming years, since they won't be brought in for maintenance as much? In an answer, yes. This is not so much BCF's decision... the problem is limited shipyard space. BCF is having a hard time booking time for the ships to go in on an annual or bi-annual basis, so they have to go to a longer maintenance schedule. I expect that BCF will be looking into upgrading DPM's capability to allow more in-house repairs as well as optimizing their on-the-run maintenance capability. I think BCF kinda saw this coming... if you look at the design spec for the Coastals, one of the requirements was that they be capable of doing design speed (21kts) on 3 of 4 engines. This enables them to do major engine repairs and maintenance while the ship is still in service, reducing costs and service interruptions. Really speaking, the only downside to this change is that the ships might not look quite so pretty. Functionally, they will get along just fine.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Sept 24, 2010 18:34:20 GMT -8
:)to the member that is not a fan of wac., I would like to say that that gentleman actually took time to talk to a lowly seaman ,as I ,on the car deck of the Q. of Saanich, all those years ago, I wonder if any of today's enlightened leaders would do the same,if they would even set foot on a cardeck, or only if we might have a deciding vote in a close election! mr.dot.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Sept 24, 2010 18:37:13 GMT -8
So apparently, they're going to be bringing in the ships for maintenance less, but when they do, they're going to do more work on them. Does this mean we're going to see more ugly rust stains on the sides of our ferries in the coming years, since they won't be brought in for maintenance as much? In an answer, yes. This is not so much BCF's decision... the problem is limited shipyard space. BCF is having a hard time booking time for the ships to go in on an annual or bi-annual basis, so they have to go to a longer maintenance schedule. I expect that BCF will be looking into upgrading DPM's capability to allow more in-house repairs as well as optimizing their on-the-run maintenance capability. I think BCF kinda saw this coming... if you look at the design spec for the Coastals, one of the requirements was that they be capable of doing design speed (21kts) on 3 of 4 engines. This enables them to do major engine repairs and maintenance while the ship is still in service, reducing costs and service interruptions. Really speaking, the only downside to this change is that the ships might not look quite so pretty. Functionally, they will get along just fine. I'm sure not looking forward to seeing 36 more Queen of Burnaby's, if you know what I mean I'm thinking it would be a good investment for someone to open up a new drydock somewhere in the area, then. Make a million or 20 while they're at it, too.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 19, 2010 10:38:09 GMT -8
BCFS's 2010/11 2nd Quarter report was released yesterday. - here are some highlights from their MD&A report: www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=00020627----------------- Traffic trends ----------------------- Northern routes: ----------------------- Comment on expenses: ----------------------- Gov't of Canada gives a subsidy against the interest costs incurred for the QQII capital project: ----------------------- More federal funding: ----------------------- Berth project at Tsawwassen terminal ----------------------- Departure Bay terminal project -----------------------
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 24, 2011 13:20:57 GMT -8
2010/11 year's 3rd Quarter results are released.
- I'll post my usual MD&A report highlights, sometime in the next few days.
Here's a news-release quote from the CEO:
(queen of Burnaby ?)
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 24, 2011 17:54:49 GMT -8
Here are my highlights from the 12/31/2010 Q3 MD&A report: ====================
- I wonder if the $20 upgrade of "key assets in ship repair" means that BCFS will be spending it on Deas Pacific Marine, and not an arms-length shipyard ?
----------
- the exclusions issue
----------
----------
- no extraordinary fare increased between now and the end of the term (3/31/2012).
----------
Cumberland's 2017 upgrade: - quite a gap between Phase 1 & Phase 2....
----------
Chilliwack:
----------
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Feb 24, 2011 19:51:25 GMT -8
The first phase of this $15 million project includes new car deck watertight doors, propeller seals, new instrumentation and control systems, and new lifesaving systems. The Queen of Chilliwack is expected to return to service by the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2012.
Just to get this straight, when they say 'new car deck'. Does this mean they're lifting the Chilli, or just resurfacing the car deck that she already has?
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Feb 24, 2011 20:19:50 GMT -8
The first phase of this $15 million project includes new car deck watertight doors, propeller seals, new instrumentation and control systems, and new lifesaving systems. The Queen of Chilliwack is expected to return to service by the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2012.
Just to get this straight, when they say 'new car deck'. Does this mean they're lifting the Chilli, or just resurfacing the car deck that she already has? Neither. The spacing of the sentance throws you off, which really says "New Car deck watertight doors". This sounds like to me that this is going to be done Queen of the North style, with removeable thwart bulkheads. As I can recall from photos, they were about half the height of the car deck itself. It would be more of a precaution used in case the bow door was to fail and allow water to ingress on to the car deck with every big wave, thus the watertight bulkheads would minimize the free surface effect. I could be wrong though, but that's just my theory.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 24, 2011 20:51:31 GMT -8
I took this to mean that they are installing a second water tight door at the vessel's other end, i.e. opposite end to the existing WT door.
Perhaps though Ferryman is correct and she is to get MacGregor doors such as the QotN had. Those doors did their job in that they did give the QotN 'more time'.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 24, 2011 21:41:24 GMT -8
Just to get this straight, when they say 'new car deck'. Does this mean they're lifting the Chilli, or just resurfacing the car deck that she already has? Neither. The spacing of the sentance throws you off, which really says "New Car deck watertight doors". The PDF reports don't cut/paste very nicely into a forum post. - I try to catch all the spacing problems, and I do fix most of them, but I can't get them all. If in doubt, look for the comma, or lack thereof.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,192
|
Post by Neil on Feb 28, 2011 22:13:15 GMT -8
$15 million for a revamp to the Queen of Chilliwack. What a waste of money- definitely qualifies as penny wise and pound foolish.
That's basically one third of the shipyard cost of one of the Coastals, and BC Ferries says it's to keep the old tub in service until 2016 - a mere five years from now- or, if we're lucky, later. For that, we get afflicted with a vessel that's completely unsuitable for the two southern runs that she sees service on, and lacks accommodation for the central coast, as well as the speed to offer more options in scheduling on that run.
Anyone perusing the ship broker sites knows that there are a ton of ferries for sale right now, and if none of them are acceptable, it seems to me that it would be wiser over the long run to allow BC Ferries the money to invest in building a suitable vessel, rather than dumping $15 million into the 'Chilliwack with the expectation to get five more years out of her.
Although, with the way the expected vessel retirements have been pushed back or even dropped, that five years might turn out to be twenty. Yikes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2011 23:41:57 GMT -8
The Canadian gov't made some parts for the Chilliwack even more expensive because of some stupid inspectors. The parts are coming from China, lets put it this way the parts will spend more time going from China to Deas back to China then eventually back to Deas.
Spending 15 million on the Wack is a poor decision the old tub is only good on the Northern Route.
The need for a replacement ship(s) for the Burnaby and the Naniamo should be more important than spending millions on the Chilliwack.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 6, 2011 8:58:51 GMT -8
The Canadian gov't made some parts for the Chilliwack even more expensive because of some stupid inspectors. The parts are coming from China, lets put it this way the parts will spend more time going from China to Deas back to China then eventually back to Deas. Spending 15 million on the Wack is a poor decision the old tub is only good on the Northern Route. The need for a replacement ship(s) for the Burnaby and the Naniamo should be more important than spending millions on the Chilliwack. I'll blame the 'Chilliwack situation on the BC Government: - the Province dictates that Discovery-Coast route-40 exists. - the Province refuses to authorize funding for a new northern vessel to service that Route-40 - So it's the Province to blame for spending money on a short-term solution, which still doesn't address the Comox and Jervis route relief-ship problem. Next election: May 2013, or sooner.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Mar 7, 2011 15:29:17 GMT -8
Would a ship like the Estonian ferry( different confighuration) that was discussed in another thread work?
I would think a second hand ferry might be a good bet , likely a fair bit cheaper than a new build
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 8, 2011 12:05:45 GMT -8
BCFS released their full-year MD&A (Management's Discussion & Analysis) report for the year-ending 3/31/2011, yesterday. This is an official document, covered by SEDAR & reporting-company regulations, so this is a good source of real news. The report is found here: www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=00020627================= Here's what I found that interested me: ----------------------- -------------------- Northern routes revenue (overpriced ?) ;D ----------------------- -------------------- Here's the spending, but where's the evidence of work done? -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 25, 2011 17:49:05 GMT -8
The BCFS 1st quarter, fiscal year 2011/12 Management's Discussion & Analysis report has now been released. - it covers events & results for the period of April 1 - June 30, 2011
My highlights are as follows: -------------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 29, 2011 6:52:36 GMT -8
Here's a theory that I'll post, and maybe someone has the real story:
- BCFS had their Annual General Meeting last week.
The event was not well publicized beforehand, and there was no information given on the company website regarding the time & place of the meeting.
The meeting was originally scheduled for the afternoon, and then was changed last-minute to the morning, without notice.
Is this an example of secrecy and a company avoiding it's shareholder? (we, the people of BC are the shareholder).
Any thoughts?
I'm wondering if any of the newsies and serious-bloggers who view this here ferry-forum were able to attend the Ferries AGM, and whether you found the notice-of-meeting to be lacking.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,192
|
Post by Neil on Aug 29, 2011 9:20:02 GMT -8
Here's a theory that I'll post, and maybe someone has the real story: - BCFS had their Annual General Meeting last week. The event was not well publicized beforehand, and there was no information given on the company website regarding the time & place of the meeting. The meeting was originally scheduled for the afternoon, and then was changed last-minute to the morning, without notice. Is this an example of secrecy and a company avoiding it's shareholder? (we, the people of BC are the shareholder). Any thoughts? I'm wondering if any of the newsies and serious-bloggers who view this here ferry-forum were able to attend the Ferries AGM, and whether you found the notice-of-meeting to be lacking. BC Ferries has always given their AGMs the absolute minimum publicity. I've never been able to find any mention on their website, which is a bit ironic considering they've dumped their printed schedule because, they say, the internet is a better way of getting up to date information out to people. They seem to publish the minimum legally required notices in one or two newspapers. This year, I guess they knew there would be more scrutiny than usual, so they took the extra step of changing the time.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Aug 29, 2011 9:32:00 GMT -8
Keep in mind that there was only one mention of the time being at 4pm on that day. That mention was not an official mention, either. We're not on the Voyager Board, so I won't say names, but x-person (I believe he is employed by BCF) told x-forum member that it was going to be at 4pm. No official announcements were given.
BC Ferries did not necessarily 'change the time' at the last minute. It has been scheduled for 4pm for the past few years, but there's no mandate for them to keep that time. They obviously had to book the facility well in advance for 10am, so it couldn't have been last minute.
Unless there's something I missed, we're all making an assumption with the last-minute change of meeting time.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,192
|
Post by Neil on Aug 29, 2011 11:24:03 GMT -8
Keep in mind that there was only one mention of the time being at 4pm on that day. That mention was not an official mention, either. We're not on the Voyager Board, so I won't say names, but x-person (I believe he is employed by BCF) told x-forum member that it was going to be at 4pm. No official announcements were given. There most certainly would have been an official announcement of the time, although that may not have been the source of the time given here. All publicly held companies have to announce the date, place, and time of their AGM in publications commonly available. BC Ferries has in the past announced theirs in a small ad in the Vancouver Sun and or Province, and perhaps others.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 18, 2011 13:04:06 GMT -8
BCFS has released their 2011/12 2nd-Quarter reports. - this covers April-September 2011, and in particular the events in July-September 2011.
Here are my highlights from this. -------------
Cable ferry recap
---------------------------
The next item means that although they've paid-down some of the Coastal & Norex debt, they have deferred some principal payments for the next 3 years. - Interest-only just makes the long-term situation worse, but is a short-term cash-crunch fix.
--------------------------- Training item
---------------------------
|
|