|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 22, 2008 17:30:58 GMT -8
Gordon Campbell's provincial-address tonight announced something affecting BC Ferries (part of his 10 point plan):
For the months of December 2008 and January 2009, BC Ferries fares will be reduced by 1/3, and service levels will be restored to old levels. Gord described this as a 1-time $20million investment. That's what he said (or close to what he said) during his televised address.
We'll find out later what the fine-print actually says re this. (similar to Budget announcements, the fine-print is sometimes a bit different than the announcement sound-bite).
-------------------------------
What do you think?
Aside from the help for the 2 months affected, I'm wondering if it's just an expensive gimmick?
Also, does this erode the credibility of the BC Gov't and BC Ferries re the great lengths that they've taken to present the ferries as an arms-length company? Is this evidence that the "private company thing" is just a sham, an excuse that's used for non-action only when convenient?
While today's announcement re fare-reduction and service-level restoration is good news (albeit for a short-term of 2 months only), and while this action of the Gov't is what many were asking for (albeit for 2 months only), I'm wondering if this is just a temporary over-ride and not an indication of the Gov't having long-term plans to continue to address the concerns of those affected by ferries issues.
It is, after all, less than 6 months before a Provincial election.
So, while the news appears to be good re these 2 ferries issues (but just for 2 months), the Premier didn't announce anything to indicate that the concerns of ferry-users & communities will be considered on an ongoing basis.
The Coastal Ferry Act and the Ferry-Commission structure are still very much in place.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 22, 2008 18:11:16 GMT -8
I really wonder what the impact will be this time of year. It is already the slow season so there will be fewer people who benefit from this. I suppose it will be mostly residents who benefit personally. I don't think it will have any impact on tourism or improvements to local businesses by bringing more customers into the areas effected.
The lower fares have a direct impact on people. But also tax payer dollars are being used to run ferries that are very empty and having an impact for relatively few people. That doesn't sound like very good sense to me or good tax payer dollar stewardship.
I see it as exactly what Paul has said. Putting some goodwill in the bank for the government and MLA's to draw upon. I smell an election in the air. Put this with the Coqui toll end and you start to get the picture, what will be next.
Today the papers said that BC was poised to weather the downturn quite well. I wonder how a spending spree and lower revenues will impact that. It could go either way.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 22, 2008 18:43:06 GMT -8
Someone certainly went fast from the cave chair to the computer chair. ...... and, Paul, I think a number of us 'know our way around politics'.... This is certainly welcome news for coastal communities dependent on the ferries. But it would be a lot more welcome if there was some indication that this was more than just a politically expedient public relations move; that it signalled a re-thinking of the relationship between the peoples' representatives in government, and BC Ferries, and that it meant a real examination of the role fares play in the health of those coastal communities. It feels more like the axing of the Coquihalla toll booths after the $100,000 upgrade. A Gordian whim, after raising a wetted finger to see which way the wind blows.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 22, 2008 20:45:04 GMT -8
Flugel must have got underway and reached his hull speed quickly (faster than a Pacificat, but not as fast as a Cdn. Coast Guard Hovercraft) to get to "The Terminal" to write in. Must be some 'Black Tower' Merc he has on that boat of his.. Surprised he didn't accidentally beach himself when coming ashore.. Yeah, I was excited about the ferry-news, and wanted to post about it quickly (I was going out later, so I felt the need to post something fast). No beaching of my watercraft, but I came near to stubbing my toe on the computer-room door.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 23, 2008 2:54:30 GMT -8
The "bring back up the service levels" seems to be a little bit of a smoke and mirrors show, as with the holiday bump in travel, I would have been guessing that BCFS would have brought the service level back up again anyways to meet and keep up with the demand. I think that the gummint is just repacking "the same old shat" into a new fancy wrapper and giving us all a cool mint (the fare reduction) to leave us with a good taste in our mouth.
I am not complaining about the fare-rollback, but touting the "service-level" thing seems like smoke and broken mirrors to me.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 23, 2008 10:27:36 GMT -8
Check this out: Campbell didn't even consult with BC Ferries before he announced the drop in fares, and the re-instatement of cancelled runs. Remember this, next time we're told that BC Ferries is an autonomous, private company, in which only nasty NDP type governments would interfere or 'play politics'. --------------------------------------
BC Ferries rate cut a surprise, says corporation
Last Updated: Thursday, October 23, 2008 | 12:13 PM ET CBC News
BC Ferries said it did not learn about the plans to cut fares until Premier Gordon Campbell announced them Wednesday evening. (CBC)Premier Gordon Campbell didn't share the details of his plan to cut fares with BC Ferries, even though the company will have to make major changes following the surprise announcement.
Campbell said Wednesday evening that BC Ferries fares will be cut 33 per cent in December and January. He also ordered the restoration of three cancelled off-peak sailings on the Horseshoe Bay-Langdale and Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo routes.
A one-third cut in rates would drop the current fare for a car and driver on the main routes from $60, including the fuel surcharge, to about $40.
BC Ferries spokeswoman Debra Marshall said the company did not learn about the plans until it heard them on television with the rest of province.
Marshall called the announcement "great news for the travelling public" but noted BC Ferries is waiting for government instruction on how it should implement the changes.
Campbell made the announcement during a live broadcast in which he laid out his plans to fight an expected slowdown in B.C.'s economy caused by the world economic crisis.
The ferry rate cuts are a temporary measure intended to reduce fares over the holiday season after rising fuel prices led to steep increases over the summer, said Campbell.
"It will require $20 million in one-time funding. This will reduce cost for passengers and will act as a bridge until lower fuel prices work their way through to lower ferry fares," Campbell said Wednesday evening.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Oct 23, 2008 10:28:38 GMT -8
I generally don't trust the Liberals, but lately they have been doing some things that make me hate them less. This is included in that list. I know we are all looking for some sort of hidden agenda or think this is somehow bad for BC Ferries in 2008/2009 even though for the last 49 years it has not been an issue for a public service to ...ghasp... operate at some form of loss, but I really think the intention behind this were pure. There is a bit of a Liberal tradition in some Provinces (Ontario, for example) and at the Federal level to come in very fiscally conservative, and then swing back to centre or even left of centre. Perhaps we are finally seeing this in BC, although I had totally given up all hope. Here are some points I would like to bring up that I don't think have been mentioned. 1. I believe the political pressure of rising ferry fares while simultaneously now seeing a reduction in service hit the ever-present "breaking point" for some communities. The recent event on the Sunshine Coast is an example of that resistance, and I know there has been considerable pressure from other levels of Government due to the recent service reductions. The cuts made to Route 3 were unacceptable. The fares also were another unnecessary added expense to the citizens of BC. The reduction of the fuel surcharge was a wise move, and if fuel prices stay where they are I expect BC Ferries (in a I expect it morally, not that I actually expect them too) to fully remove it by summer 2009. 2. Unfortunately for me, the membership of this forum didn't seem particularly opposed to the sailing reductions BC Ferries announced recently. Although, as a group, we generally are opposed to the private model we don't seem to expect public service levels to be maintained? Perhaps the selling of the BC Ferries experience has finally got to some people? Nonetheless these sailing reductions were an idiotic idea to begin with, and continue to be now. The restoration of service is critical for one, creating a positive public perception of the financial position of the province, and two for restoring what I would define as minimum service levels. How any one could think a four-hour turn around was acceptable for an extension of Highway 1 is beyond me. The logic of the service cut seemed to work like this: a. we don't pay for fuel (likely about a $7500 savings) b. we bring the crew in, because we have to, but probably on a C license c. we require less terminal staff for a period d. we require less food items (which they likely take a loss on for some sailings) The flaw here is a critical one, although I agree BC Ferries is saving a small amount of money, the lack of revenue even on an almost empty sailing can bring at least Rte 2 to a break even point. It takes about 125 cars with a driver to pay for the fuel of a round trip. I doubt very strongly, being a frequent 630am traveler on the route, that many sailings drop below 60 cars. (or at least 40 cars and several commercial). Add walk ons, and you're still at a loss but it isn't too substantial considering the crew is on the ship, anyways. The only reason sailing cancellations work on Rte 30, in my opinion, is because they actually get sailings regularly with like 10 or 15 cars on board, and they need to travel faster and further. An argument has also been made, albeit on an MSN discussion, that by canceling a sailing you make the next one fuller, and have a chance at operating at a profit; operating profitably on the major routes is not difficult. This logic is flawed as it assumes there are no alternatives to BC Ferries. A personal example I can provide is my particular federal department which recently boosted its contracts for flights to Nanaimo and Comox as BC Ferries canceled a number of critical sailings for us. Moreover there is now an agreement between my department and Seaspan, the first time they've moved away from BC Ferries since the mid-1970s when we still had our own capacity to move things across the Straight. 3. This announcement is also tremendous for those of us hoping that at some point in the future BC Ferries will revert to strictly public hands, or at least have the company reeled in from its illogical, uncontrolled practices. The article I am pasting below demonstrates that government power can still be unilaterally exercised against BCFS, which is awesome, only better. From cbc.ca/bc BC Ferries rate cut a surprise, says corporationPremier Gordon Campbell didn't share the details of his plan to cut fares with BC Ferries, even though the company will have to make major changes following the surprise announcement. Campbell said Wednesday evening that BC Ferries fares will be cut 33 per cent in December and January. He also ordered the restoration of three cancelled off-peak sailings on the Horseshoe Bay-Langdale and Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo routes. A one-third cut in rates would drop the current fare for a car and driver on the main routes from $60, including the fuel surcharge, to about $40. BC Ferries spokeswoman Debra Marshall said the company did not learn about the plans until it heard them on television with the rest of province. Marshall called the announcement "great news for the travelling public" but noted BC Ferries is waiting for government instruction on how it should implement the changes. Campbell made the announcement during a live broadcast in which he laid out his plans to fight an expected slowdown in B.C.'s economy caused by the world economic crisis. The ferry rate cuts are a temporary measure intended to reduce fares over the holiday season after rising fuel prices led to steep increases over the summer, said Campbell. "It will require $20 million in one-time funding. This will reduce cost for passengers and will act as a bridge until lower fuel prices work their way through to lower ferry fares," Campbell said Wednesday evening. www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/10/23/bc-ferries-premiers-rate-cuts.html
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 23, 2008 11:24:28 GMT -8
Federally Canadians consistantly vote more often for a just left of centre government than any other. That is a generalization I know but historically the "average". With this last election a Liberal party that swung too far left with an ineffectual leader left that position, and we got the result we did. On a regional government basis there are more differences with some more left and some more right. Whether Conservative or Liberal it has become ingrained to budget with very conservative figures so that deficits are avoided and surpluses are generated. This allows some debt to be lowered but also are an election aimed goody basket that politicians can use throughout their term. A smart government is fighting the next election from the moment they take power. If you need to take hits - do it early in your term and hope that the populace either has a short attention span, conditions change to swing in your favour, or you can buy your way out of it. If those don't work you are gonna get punished. When a populace decides to punish a politician the results can be surprising. However BC is known for wild swings as are a few other provinces. BC is also known on a provincial basis to swing further left than many others. Ignoring Alberta, whoever occupies the just left of centre position the best, has a credible leader, and isn't being punished, usually has the best chance of being elected. The current economic situation that BC if being forecast to weather nicely (no comment on the economic spin off of the olympics helping ) will either work in the favour of the government or against it. Whoever has the clearest crystal ball will know that answer. Since the economy is good, enough BC voters may be content to stay the course and return the Liberals to power. However, often when things are good it empowers BC voters to take a chance and dabble further left, so the positive economy may give the voters the oomph to vote NDP again. However, since my genetics, opinions and even right to express them apparently have changed because of where I live, I won't comment directly further on BC politics of this particular government and upcoming yet to be announced election. ;D
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on Oct 23, 2008 12:45:09 GMT -8
I won't comment directly further on BC politics of this particular government and upcoming yet to be announced election. ;D The next BC provincial election will be May 12, 2009. There will be several changes in different ridings due to redistribution because of census figures.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 23, 2008 14:11:21 GMT -8
I know we are all looking for some sort of hidden agenda or think this is somehow bad for BC Ferries in 2008/2009 even though for the last 49 years it has not been an issue for a public service to ...ghasp... operate at some form of loss, but I really think the intention behind this were pure. There is a bit of a Liberal tradition in some Provinces (Ontario, for example) and at the Federal level to come in very fiscally conservative, and then swing back to centre or even left of centre. Perhaps we are finally seeing this in BC, although I had totally given up all hope. Dane, I think the only 'pure' aspect of this move was the level of political expediency behind it. For ages now, affected groups in coastal communities have briefed, petitioned, written letters, phoned, and e-mailed BC Ferries and government, documenting the effect skyrocketing ferry fares are having. In every instance, BC Ferries has turned a deaf ear, as have Kevin Falcon and Gordon Campbell, with the latter two always reiterating that the government will not interfere politically with the private, autonomous BC Ferries. Falcon has often told people that they are in fact, getting a darned good deal from their ferries and that they should stop complaining. Now, we're eight months away from an election, the economy is worrisome, and all of a sudden, Iron Gord, staunch guardian of the public purse, becomes kindly Uncle Gord, worried about the neighbors. He didn't care a flying rat's ass about ferry fares until he grew concerned that the economy was getting rough just this side of an election, and was worried that voters might not think he was on their side. He didn't even consult with BC Ferries, so presumably, he doesn't actually know what this fare reduction will cost. How opportunistic is that? This has nothing to do with a re-think of the relationship between the province and BC Ferries; it's just some early, seat of the pants electioneering. Of course, travellers and residents will welcome the reduction and the schedule revision, but when you compare this move to the process of fare re-evaluation in Scotland that Flugel Horn posted for us, the contrast is pretty stark. On under utilized sailings: The flaw here is a critical one, although I agree BC Ferries is saving a small amount of money, the lack of revenue even on an almost empty sailing can bring at least Rte 2 to a break even point. It takes about 125 cars with a driver to pay for the fuel of a round trip. I doubt very strongly, being a frequent 630am traveler on the route, that many sailings drop below 60 cars. (or at least 40 cars and several commercial). Add walk ons, and you're still at a loss but it isn't too substantial considering the crew is on the ship, anyways. The only reason sailing cancellations work on Rte 30, in my opinion, is because they actually get sailings regularly with like 10 or 15 cars on board, and they need to travel faster and further. The average, year round vehicle capacity utilization on route 30 is 55%; on route 2, 65%. In the most recent fiscal year, route two had expenses of $73.5 million and revenues of $109.6 million. Route 30 had expenses of $58.8 million and revenues of $59.6 million. Route 30 had 6% growth, route 2, none to speak of. Clearly, when route 30 barely makes money on 55% capacity, route 2 could not come close to breaking even on the light loads you suggest they sometimes have. These cancelled sailings, despite the inconvenience they caused to some people, were probably fair game for BC Ferries. If the government had any sincerity about helping coastal residents with fares over the long term, they would have addressed the issue of the subsidy in a comprehensive manner, instead of blindly throwing a bucket of money on board.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 23, 2008 15:51:27 GMT -8
And here we have the BCFS version of events: www.bcferries.com/bcferries/faces/attachments?id=70755BC FERRIES TO REINSTATE CANCELLED SAILINGSVICTORIA – On October 1, 2008, BC Ferries announced that due to a reduction in traffic, the company would be reducing sailings on the Tsawwassen – Swartz Bay, Horseshoe Bay – Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay – Langdale routes at off-peak times in an effort to reduce operating costs. The reductions would be in effect from mid-October through March 31, 2009. Yesterday, the British Columbia government announced that as part of a provincial economic strategy, it would provide funding that will enable BC Ferries to reinstate the cancelled sailings. Therefore, starting this Saturday, October 25, the cancelled sailings will be reinstated. Customers are encouraged to visit BC Ferries’ website at www.bcferries.com to ensure they receive up to date schedule information. The provincial government also announced it would provide funding that will enable BC Ferries to offer a 33 per cent reduction of fares on all routes for the months of December 2008 and January 2009.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 23, 2008 15:59:54 GMT -8
re the news story that Neil posted:
Like I said yesterday, this makes the whole "arms length setup" of BC Ferries look like a sham.
What if BC Ferries has to now re-arrange vessel scheduled maintenance in order to comply with the Gov't's order? I think this means that the BC Gov't still has the hammer to manage BC Ferries, but only when they want to.
What if BC Ferries said "No", they can't and won't add-back the cancelled sailings?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Oct 23, 2008 16:25:26 GMT -8
I guess the maintenance schedule isn't much of a factor when there are votes to be bought.
Sham is right. BC Ferries can't win for losing. Hahn and the rest of management are constantly being slammed for doing exactly what the government has ordered them to do. Campbell scores brownie points with the right wing-free enterprise crowd for morphing BC Ferries into a bottom line hugging 'private' firm, and absolves himself of any responsibility for the corporation's business decisions, but he still gets to ride to the rescue and do a bad cop/good cop routine when the optics are right. Nope, ain't no politics in BC Ferries now.
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Oct 23, 2008 16:32:28 GMT -8
From what I understand the Government is not instructing BCF to reinstate the sailings they are going to provide the funding for the sailings. Its a win-win situation for BCF, they get fully subsidized sailings and probably still get to collect all the profits and keep it for themselves.
I almost wonder if this is an experiment to see what would happen if the fares were much cheaper and there were more sailings.
I personally still don't believe the government has any direct control over BCf. This may be true or it might just be my ignorance to the corporations managed. I think the government can only give or take away subsidies, but I do not think they have anymore power than that.
Maybe we should start a new thread for some of the more knowledgeable people to explain to us dummies how this all works.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 23, 2008 16:45:20 GMT -8
How is it that this "White Knight to the Rescue" story can be seen as anything other than what it is? The plain optics of it show that the so-called Private structure that BCFS supposed to be, and has been harped by both Victoria and Fort Street, is, to quote Neil, a SHAM. I think deep down most of us have always seen through the smoke and mirrors that have been spun on this. Gordo and Davey are NOT David Copperfield/David Blaine/Etc ... who among us cannot see the marionette strings? I mean HONESTLY?!?!
Find me a completely private entity that the government would ride to the rescue of, with a multi-million peso subsidy (as this one is), WITHOUT SITTING DOWN AND DISCUSSING IT?!?!?
It's like your long-lost school-chum showing up at your door un-announced with 10 friends saying "We're here to help you out with THAT!" without you knowing what THAT is, or having asked for any help with ANYTHING, let alone THAT!! Don't you think that your friend would have had the decency to CALL first, and ASK if there was ANYTHING that you NEEDED help with, before just randomly showing up?? How do you know if THAT is even something beneficial?
Wow ... if Captain-Let's-Just-Throw-Taxpayer-Money-Willy-Nilly-At-A-Problem-And-Hope-That-It-Helps manages to snow the entire population of BC with this dog and pony show, then I hold very little faith in the intelligence of BC voters.......................................
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 23, 2008 16:57:11 GMT -8
Fortunately or unfortunately government money often comes with strings. The money probably isn't just a blank cheque. It is quite likely conditional and quite likely to be in the form of either a rebate after the fact or funds transfered in smaller amounts over the period. I deal with lots of charities and groups who get government funding. Lots of CIDA funding for example only comes after a charity raises the first batch of money and then CIDA matches it. Other times it comes in the form of a grant that the group can draw on as they reach certain milestones and conditions. A group often competes for the money with other groups and the one who puts forward the best proposal or has the strongest ability to deliver are the recipients. Now in this case BC Ferries only knew after the fact so the application process doesn't apply . * should add of course that none of this may apply in this case, cause they can set it up anyway they want.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 23, 2008 19:01:35 GMT -8
The problem that I see is that voters who can easily be 'bought' tend to have short memories. Giving them a break in December & January just might not have the desired effect in May. Might we expect Mr. Campbell to order BC Ferry Services Inc (private corporation ) to implement the summer schedule on April 1st, and to lower the fares to zero, with the arrangement to end the day after the vote. This is worse than a sham!
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 24, 2008 6:56:10 GMT -8
I wasn't sure where to post this as there is both a Sailing Reduction thread and this one. Since it is no longer a reduction at least temporarily I thought here was best.
The interesting part now will be how does BC Ferries actually respond now with ship deployments. I guess the details depend on how the actual dispersal of funds happens and how the agreement gets written. Depending on that this could be either revenue neutral for BCFC or depending on wiggle room could actually put them ahead.
Do they respond to the frequency issue with smaller ships and perhaps delay the retirement of the V's? This lets them restore sailings but at a lower cost of labour etc. in order to satisfy the government requirements not necessarily in terms of capacity?
Do they only put the Celebration on during busy periods like the Rennaissance?
How do refits now fit into the picture?
Since this took them all by surprize you can bet fleet planning is burning the midnight oil trying to reschedule everything.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 24, 2008 8:28:51 GMT -8
I don't think that it causes all that much problem whatsoever in terms of ship deployment AT THIS POINT. The only thing it does is uncancels the skipped trips -- those vessels were all still in place, just sitting tied up longer during the day; we are only talking about restoring the full scheduled WINTER sailings, not bringing things up to summer levels.
Restoring the service levels does NOT require any additional vessels, and does not impact the refit schedule.
It WILL be interesting, however, to see if BCFS does indeed chose to operate lower-capacity vessels during lower demand times. Sitting out the Coastals in deference to C's (on Rte-2) or sailing a V in place of a Spook/Coastal (Rte-1) are valid options. Subbing a V over to Rte-3 is not-so-much of an option. I don't think that there is much that you can do on Rte-30 due to the required OH capacity.
Before we start to play the whole "subbing" vessels game, I would be most interested in seeing the actual operating costs of the Coastals ... I mean real hard figures, as I am not sold on the fact that they are that much more costly to operate than the C's.
And this is also where I am a little confused -- I understand about A/B/C licenses and how many crew you need to operate the vessel with a certain number of passengers -- what I don't get, is HOW are the PASSENGER numbers arrived at?
To clear this up, so you understand what I am asking, let's say that on a non-specific vessel, you wanted to carry 1000 passengers. How many crew do you need for that? If it is a TC thing, then why would a Coastal need more crew to carry 1000 pax than a C-class? Are the systems onboard the vessels really so different that the "core" of the ship needs more "attendants"?
I hope that I have explained what I am asking in a format that makes sense and communicates what I am after --- I'm not an idiot, and I know that the Coastals are more complex than the C's, but if we are saying that the Coastals are more expensive to operate because of their crewing levels, then I want to delve into how the crewing levels are set, and why it is that it appears on the surface that the Coastals are so much more expensive to operate then the vessels that they are replacing. It seems counter-intuitive to me to replace something old with something new that is less cost-efficient!
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 24, 2008 9:40:28 GMT -8
I am under the impression it is a matter of negotiation with Transport Canada so there is a some discretion. I think there may be some back and forth. I know two factors are vessel size and people capacity. They get a range from the plans and then when the inspections take place the final number is agreed to. I also was told the more food service with potential for fires the more crew are needed. So it maybe that the extra income potential for the Coastals in the expanded food services the more crew are needed? But I would love to see it more formally quantified so we know how the decision is made and numbers come about.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Oct 24, 2008 11:03:35 GMT -8
The crewing levels are dependent on a whole lot of different aspects of the ship. Just because you're carrying 1000 passengers, doesn't mean you need 25 crew, for example. It is dependent on the ship's layout (where the galley is on the ship and it's proximity to life saving equipment, for example), the amount of passenger space, number of passenger accessible decks and the type of lifesaving equipment on board (ie LSA Slide, DBC Chute, davit launched liferafts, etc).
One reason that the Cs require less crew than the Coastals is that they have less passenger space, so less crew is necessary to "corral" the passengers to the designated assembly areas in the event of an emergency.
There are a number of other factors that I can't remember right now, but this is a start. Setting crewing levels is a difficult and time consuming event, as every circumstance has to be weighed with it's likelyhood of occurring. I'm also told that the present crewing requirements on the Coastals is a temporary number, that TC will be revising in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Oct 24, 2008 11:24:59 GMT -8
The average, year round vehicle capacity utilization on route 30 is 55%; on route 2, 65%. In the most recent fiscal year, route two had expenses of $73.5 million and revenues of $109.6 million. Route 30 had expenses of $58.8 million and revenues of $59.6 million. Route 30 had 6% growth, route 2, none to speak of. Clearly, when route 30 barely makes money on 55% capacity, route 2 could not come close to breaking even on the light loads you suggest they sometimes have. These canceled sailings, despite the inconvenience they caused to some people, were probably fair game for BC Ferries. If the government had any sincerity about helping coastal residents with fares over the long term, they would have addressed the issue of the subsidy in a comprehensive manner, instead of blindly throwing a bucket of money on board. I am having a little bit of trouble seeing where we disagree here, but I'll respond with where perhaps I should clarify. While I do think it's difficult to achieve profitability on Rte 2's early morning sailings, I don't think it's easy to loose very substantial amounts of money as BC Ferries implies. While I have no idea what license they operate on, I would guess it's a B. A B license is 29 crew, which likely costs about $1000 an hour or so, or $4000 for a round trip. On Rte 2 the C's have surprisingly high differences in the amount of fuel, but given the mean the cost of $7500-8000 for fuel given current prices would be, in my opinion, a good and likely high estimate for a round trip. I realize there are many many more costs associated with running the vessel from stores, terminal employees etc, but these are the two that are generally presented as the "big ticket items." I imagine given the union contract that most of the terminal staff still work despite the sailing cancellations, and we already know that the vessel's regular watch works as well. So, there is no direct savings there. Fuel, and stores, however, would represent direct savings. A comparison of Rte 30 to Rte 2 is very difficult to make given the limited information we have. Some factors that make Route 30 much more expensive to run than Rte 2: - Crews get something like 2 hours of OT every shift, as opposed to Rte 2's 30 minutes during off peak and an hour in the summer. - Fuel consumption on Rte 30 is quite a bit higher than Rte 2, I have the raw data from 2003 thanks to an FOI request if you'd like some specific numbers. Given the coast of fuel in fiscal '07 this would be a very important in considerations. - Rte 30 I understand has regular watches based on a C License. I have no idea about Rte 2, but I would presume they operate on a B. So, BC Ferries is paying more staff to run Rte 2, plus there is a fourth semi-regular Nanaimo watch which doesn't exist for Rte 30. So even with higher wages Rte 2 is still considerably more profitable. Unrelated to the comparison, all the growth in Rte 30 as far as I am concerned is "artificial." Assuming the specific numbers you posted are from BCFS's last report than I, for example, would be included as traveling Route 30 8 times as opposed to my usual 0. This was a direct result of either being a ferry nerd (2 trips) and Coast Savers (6 trips). Coast Savers must have gotten a lot of people over to Rte 30, and is a variable I didn't discuss in relation to Rte 30. It's nice to see even with discounts for more than half the fiscal year it can still come out on top - and they were substantial discounts. BC Ferries spends a lot of money and effort into advertising for Rte 30. Go to a BC Lions or Vancouver Canucks game and you will see tents telling you how awesome the Inside Passage and Tsawassen-Duke Point runs are. Then you can take a survey that asks questions about how awesome route 30 is, and why you should take it. Similar stands can also be found at Tsawwassen. Then, when you sail on Rte 2 you can see posters telling you about Rte 30 and it's great new Coastal vessel - why take Rte 2 when you can sail on a Coastal if you take Rte 30? Oh wait, never mind, they both have them (most of the time). Ultimately, what matters to me is that the three major runs are all profitable, RTe 1 and 2 quite considerably. Given the my clear political stance that BC Ferries should not be a profit driven operation this tells me that : 1. current service levels can be maintained without extreme damage to BCFs' financials 2. They are overcharging substantially on Rte 1 and 2 and lastly... if you removed funding from the Canadian Cadet Organizations (Royal Canadian Sea, Army, and Air Cadets) for one year, you wouldn't need to charge fares on any major routes and you could maintain existing service levels and still have some money left over. Random comparison of the day
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 25, 2008 12:44:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 25, 2008 13:16:22 GMT -8
I think the nonpolitical direction given to BC Ferries by politicians, will be a second cousin relation to the No Deficit Deficit the Conservatives will soon employ so that they follow the philosophy of not having a deficit.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Oct 26, 2008 18:16:23 GMT -8
I am not impressed by publicity stunts at election time. Perhaps it is because my wife is chairman of the board at Croftonbrook which is low cost housing on Saltspring. It was built by the government the cheapest way possible and to the lowest standards. Now, 25 years later all 36 units are falling apart. For the past year my wife has been hammering her head against a wall of government bureaucracy trying to save these homes. It would take about $20,000.00 to re build them and they would be good for another 25 years. The government stonewalls her and puts $20,000,000.00 into a publicity stunt instead. Did I mention I am not impressed?
|
|