|
Post by kerryssi on Oct 27, 2008 17:10:38 GMT -8
Just one point about the Fast Cats, it was not the NDP that screwed them up, it was the ferries management. The NDP mistake was to hand over building the fast cats to the ferries. They took a proven design in use the world over and added 50 tons to the bow and 50 tons to the stern then started building before the plans were even complete. The NDP intention was to revitalize the shipbuilding industry in B.C. Something Campbell does not think worth doing.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Oct 27, 2008 17:14:00 GMT -8
I do knot lnow what happened but I posted on this thread and it came up on the 1/2 price thread...just so you know I am not realy crazy
|
|
Quatchi
Voyager
Engineering Officer - CCG
Posts: 930
|
Post by Quatchi on Oct 27, 2008 17:23:48 GMT -8
Wow kerryssi I though you were a woman. No-Offense. Therefore the rambling made sense (figured it was your time of the month all the time). Now that I know your a bloke I'm a little confused.
Ohh well, I think I'm going to have to re-read some of your earlier posts to see where I went wrong.
Back on topic, I work in the architecture business and usually we have found that its not the government jobs that are the really stingy ones its the ones where its some blokes own money going out there. And yes I agree that stunts at election time are completely inappropriate, the government is using our money for personal benefit.
THEFT.
Cheer,
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 27, 2008 18:16:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 27, 2008 19:34:35 GMT -8
The NDP intention was to revitalize the shipbuilding industry in B.C. Something Campbell does not think worth doing. I agree with most of your post, Kerry, except the above. How many years have passed since the NDP project was originally on the drawing boards, and when the Super-C contract was awarded? I know you are still pissed off and sore about this, being a good union brother and all, but it is time to let it go. The ship BUILDING industry in BC has decayed and declined to the point where it is no longer suited to the MEGA projects of days gone by. The skilled labour shortage which is rearing it's head on the IS, QoNW refit to name a few, lends credence to this, which I am sure EVEN YOU can see. Before we get into the cyclical argument of you can't have the jobs if you don't have the contracts, we have to remember that we can't fault the government for the shipbuilders losing competitiveness. Costs and regulations and other things work against our domestic newbuild industry. As I have said before, instead of pounding an endless amount of govt taxpayer money into an industry that seems to have withered on the vine, BC shipyards should just accept their role as refitters and small newbuilders and get on with it. You can't stay living in the 80's and saying what-if and pointing fingers endlessly. I for one, applaud the fact that the current government did not cave in and start shovelling money into an already ailing industry with no hope of making it competive, due to inherent mismanagement of such "over-ambitious" government-industry-propping-up maneuvers. The government should not always be looked to to bail out failing industries that have not done enough to "future-proof" themselves or plan ahead.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Oct 28, 2008 6:49:31 GMT -8
The liberals used the fast cats for political propaganda. They have attacked every union job in B.C. with the intention of destroying all unions in B.C. They could not afford to give the local builders those ships to build as it would support union jobs. The super c could have easily been built in B.C. but the local yards were excluded. Cadmunkey...no offence taken. What happened with Croftenbrook is that the job was given to the lowest bidder who skimped on materials and procedures. It was a government contract so the local building inspector was not encouraged to inspect too closely. Bottom line is that now it badly needs repair.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 28, 2008 19:28:45 GMT -8
The liberals used the fast cats for political propaganda. They have attacked every union job in B.C. with the intention of destroying all unions in B.C. They could not afford to give the local builders those ships to build as it would support union jobs. The super c could have easily been built in B.C. but the local yards were excluded.?!?! Say what?!?! I don't recall that ANYONE was excluded. I believe that the local shipyards were not competitive in their bids (or pre-bids, as I recall). The local yards also could not meet the GUARANTEES that BCFS was expressly looking for, in terms of cost-caps and finite delivery timelines. Excluded? EXCLUDED!?!?!?! Not nearly ... kerry, please stop with the ceaseless propaganda mongering on that note. I could have sworn that this was debunked; I'll go back through and search for the direct quotes/stated documentation/etc to put an end to this fable.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 28, 2008 19:39:07 GMT -8
The super c could have easily been built in B.C. but the local yards were excluded. I'm challenging the other part of Kerry's quote. re that the SuperCees could have been "easily built here in BC". Built here eventually, yes. Built here with lots of Government risk re Gov't taking on the role as consortium of various local yards, yes. But "easily built", no. Labour shortage Lack of Shipyard capacity for 1 shipyard to handle contract on its own Lack of continued, recent experience in a local yard(s) building a ferry similar to a SuperC. (the Spirits were 15 years ago. 2 ships built 15 years ago is not recent continued experience). Built here with lots of help & patience, yes. Built here easily, no Rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. The message gets lost in the rhetoric.
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Oct 28, 2008 20:09:37 GMT -8
The super c could have easily been built in B.C. but the local yards were excluded. Labour shortage Lack of Shipyard capacity for 1 shipyard to handle contract on its own Lack of continued, recent experience in a local yard(s) building a ferry similar to a SuperC. (the Spirits were 15 years ago. 2 ships built 15 years ago is not recent continued experience). Built here with lots of help & patience, yes. Built here easily, no Rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric. The message gets lost in the rhetoric. Maybe help and patience is what should have been applied. If the government wanted to show that they cared, that they are willing to take on a risk like that for the building up of our so-called red hot economy which they think is working perfectly. After all, where do the majority of government monies come from but through tax revenue... this is our money, why not risk it and spend it on worthwile ventures that would lead to ongoing experience in shipbuilding here? Although in a roundabout way, Kerry is right... though not directly in connection with the building of the Coastals, the recent history of provincial governments has been to asphyxiate local industry to the point where it can't afford to compete effectively. Not directly related to the Coastals, but the result would easily lead one to believe in conspiracies. I know that the model of Flensburger was funding by the government to help the shipyard get on its feet and establish itself: a grant to be paid back once the shipyard was able to hold its own on the world stage... Again, why not a worthwile investment like that here?
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 28, 2008 20:16:29 GMT -8
Excluded? EXCLUDED!?!?!?! Not nearly ... kerry, please stop with the ceaseless propaganda mongering on that note. I could have sworn that this was debunked; I'll go back through and search for the direct quotes/stated documentation/etc to put an end to this fable. I second that motion. One shipyard I believe declined to submit a orebid if I remember correctly. You are a good man if you can find it Hardy. I think it cropped up a couple of times since the Super C contract was signed.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Oct 29, 2008 0:07:51 GMT -8
Maybe help and patience is what should have been applied. If the government wanted to show that they cared, that they are willing to take on a risk like that for the building up of our so-called red hot economy which they think is working perfectly. After all, where do the majority of government monies come from but through tax revenue... this is our money, why not risk it and spend it on worthwile ventures that would lead to ongoing experience in shipbuilding here? Forgotten the FastCats? Forgotten just about every other boondoggle that the government has tried to get involved in? They only make political hay here when the government thinks that it can get some presstime. There is no real strength of will or testicular fortitude to follow through and make all the tough decisions. The government just does what is politically expedient, not what is good in the LONG RUN. Politicians, by their very nature, seem to think in 4-year cycles. Revitalizing the shipbuilding industry into a major newbuilding powerhouse is NOT a 4-year project. Go back and read the stuff you vaunt about regarding FSG. How many years did it take for the local and territorial and federal government there to pump it up and support it? Plus, if you are comparing the WEST COAST OF CANADA to FSG, don't overlook the two small differences -- Vancouver/Victoria is NOT Halifax/Charlottetown (or any other big-city fished-out fisher-on-income-replacement-for-8-months East Coast town) nor is it located ANYWHERE in Quebec. This is where ALL the major FEDERAL government support for the so-called shipbuilding industry goes, because that is where the federal government traditionally wants to BUY the votes in. Please make all counter-points to this in a clear and concise manner AND state where I have missed the boat on this. You cannot just close your eyes, extend your arms out, fold them over each other, twiggle your nose a bit as if to sneeze and NOD really hard -- wish a shipbuilding industry -- and have it magically appear ... genie powers don't make it so. How much propping-up has actually worked long term in this province, or in the whole of Canada in general? Vito Shipyards in Delta (and the other ones that built the Queens of Lego) have mostly downsized or folded entirely since the "OVERLY VAUNTED" supposedly successful shipbuilding of the 80's. Bombardier and their "SkyTrain" manufacturing site in Burnaby has closed down and packed up shop and moved overseas. Do you want me to cite more instances where the federal and provincial governments tried to pump money into primary manufacturing here on the West Coast? Why did these two (and many others) fail? OUR COST OF LABOUR AND COST OF LIVING ARE FAR TOO HIGH TO BE GLOBALLY COMPETITIVE. Not to mention that like most government "start-up" projects, they've been half-baked, ill-conceived, mismanaged boondoggles that just piss away insane amounts of money but have no staying power. How long did each of these last? 4-6 years, right? Sounds like an election cycle to me. Can we drop the myopic and misguided view that the government can fix everything? Can we get it through out heads that the West Coast of Canada is not really a great manufacturing mecca? Oh, and let me save the best for last -- why have these failed? CUZ THERE IS NO VIABLE MARKET FOR THE GOODS THEY ARE AUSPICIOUSLY PRODUCING!! No takers or consumers nearby willing to pay the prices that these manufacturers are forced to charge for their products (see costs above). Wanna examine FSG? Lots of shipping companies in Europe and the Middle East. 200 or so year old company with established trade partners. BC? Not so much. Oh yeah, Asia -- well, they have their OWN LOWER COST shipbuilders, also well established. Yeah, let's try to compete with them, smart like stump. Let's open our eyes and use some intelligence in our comments, and not just live in "I WISH"-land when we make these fairy-dust wishes and comments.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2008 6:23:47 GMT -8
re this new build side-bar discussion on this thread:
I made the point, a few posts ago, that the Super-C's couldn't be "easily built here". And Hardy's now made points re why these large ships can't be easily built here in competitive costs.
All that being said, the Super-C's probably could have been built here. Just not easily and not for a competitive cost compared to what they got at FSG.
Obviously then the decision to build here would be a political one, where the desire to employ & revitalize the local shipbuilding industry in a short-term way would be traded-off against the longer construction time and higher costs of the new ships.
However, given the number of new-builds required over the next 10 years, I am interested in thinking of whether the local shipyards could have been given the opportunity to build them all and start-slow and build-up their speed & experience & efficiency as they went along the process with subsequent ships. I think that would be comparable to the 1960's run of new-builds in the local yards. At least the potential current run of new-builds would have offered the local shipyards a longer-than-short-term time to experience some revitalization........and then to die-out again after the last ship in the series is launched.
So it's all about political intervention and the short-term fix that it can give. But then when you stop watering the plant, it dies.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 29, 2008 7:58:21 GMT -8
If I understand you Flugel, you are suggesting that if all the ferries needed for the BC Ferries rebuild push were funded and built in BC, there would be sufficient volume to keep a shipyard(s) busy. The magic ten ferries figure. I agree that is a chunk of business.
Since there is a shortage of workers, you would have to dramatically raise salaries to pay better than the construction jobs etc. currently on offer.
You would have to invest dramatically in infrastructure. Already it appears that most of the current facilities are pretty maxed out. To keep up with the refit work and new builds. Are we talking a extremely large covered slip, or assembling lego style quayside like the spirits? I don't know what the shed that was used for the cats is being used for, perhaps there is space there.
Unless we are talking a totally bottomless pocket of funding, stealing and importing already seasoned and trained workers, there is no way that the facilities whatever is built or used, would match the output of FSG. Perhaps one ferry would be out and in service now. Unless major concessions were made by Transport Canada there would be huge gaps between when the V's would be retired and new ferries online.
So we can't take back history and what got us to where we are now in the industry. But even if we could back track to the ordering of the Super C's and the NorEx, I still just don't see it.
So the governments would have spent this massive amount of money for infrastructure, offset the differential in wages, imported high tech experienced workers. For ten ferries? What are the sales potential for ships for other companies/countries? To compete with the Asian shipyards for bigger builds I just don't see it possible unless large ongoing subsidies were provided.
In the end therefore I see a captive shipbuilding industry being built. Unless we talk a Canadian version of the Jones Act driving orders where all ships needed for Canadian waters are built here. That would drive up prices, cost shippers and boat owners more for their ships, because we just don't have the volume of the US with enough builders and capacity to drive significant competition. Shippers would pass those extra costs onto manufactures and eventually consumers.
I haven't even touched the need for follow on workers.
I just can't see the economic realities of this. The cost for the jobs produced would be extremely high. As I have said before, some kind of large investment in other areas such as R & D and innovation would yield more for the country through better and higher paying jobs, and have a longer spin off, and provide a much better pay off for the money invested.
My taxes personal taxes are already too high, my small companies pays too much as well. We just can't afford governments dumping money any more into big open pits, when our heathcare costs are spiraling higher with our aging population and while our infrastructure is crumbling in so many parts of the country. As much as I feel the tug of emotion and romance of keeping a large scale shipbuilding industry going, in my opinion it just isn't supported with good rational support.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2008 9:04:13 GMT -8
Hi NE:
re my comments, I was mainly arguing that it would have been "possible" to build the new ships here in BC. (possible means that a ship would eventually be built, for a who-knows-what cost). (that was mainly my re-framing of KerrySSI's comment that they could have been "easily built here". I rejected the "easily" part, but agreed that a longer more complicated & expensive building process was possible.......but it would take a lot of work and changes to happen.
You've correctly pointed out the factors that make it unwise or impractical. No argument from me against your points.
So maybe the issue is: How far should political-will push back the economical realities. And beyond that, we're approaching the gulf of division re people's different core beliefs re gov't intervention in economy and industry.
I don't desire to get into a debate about those key beliefs, because people like Neil can articulate circles around me on those issues that I'm still pondering.
But I am confident in my ability to speak out against silly rhetoric such as "These ships could easily have been built here".
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 29, 2008 9:29:45 GMT -8
All been said before, but again, a couple of points...
European governments chose to support their faltering shipyards because they saw it, not as a financial sinkhole, but as a long term investment with benefits to the country and workforce. It was a huge investment, and took time. Washington State continues to insist that all their ferries be built at home.
Canada had an active ship building industry through the 1960s, with federal support. BC built a ferry fleet efficiently, and with far more net benefit to the economy than sending half a billion dollars to Germany, even if those BC jobs were subsidized.
We've made a political decision, federally and provincially, not to embark on a long term rejuvenation of the ship building industry. It could be done, given the program of renewal BC ferries is or will be on, as well as the needs of Canada's marine defence system. It cannot be done on the basis of awarding the occasional contract, as with the Island Sky, as you just don't build the workforce , infrastructure, or expertise to really get the job done efficiently.
I think that people on one side of the argument need to give others credit for being motivated by more than 'emotion and romance', and I also don't think it's necessary to be yelling at people with cap letters, as if they're too stupid to see your point in lower case. I don't disagree that the shipbuilding industry has gone through a contraction that is probably permanent, but I reserve my right to disagree as to why that came to be.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Oct 29, 2008 16:05:58 GMT -8
Remember the S class? They were built by a consortium of shipyards in B.C. with different sections built in different yards then joined together. The C's could have been built the same way. They are realy not that much bigger. Unfounded derision of the local builders and yards is counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Oct 29, 2008 16:08:08 GMT -8
Neil makes a good point...I don't think there is an unsubsidized shipyard in Europe. It is a long term investment which pays definite returns.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2008 17:18:35 GMT -8
Remember the S class? They were built by a consortium of shipyards in B.C. with different sections built in different yards then joined together. The C's could have been built the same way. They are realy not that much bigger. Oh yeah, I remember the S-Class. Most of us are aware of how they were built. Are you suggesting that it would have been easy for some group or entity to have put together a similar consortium for a 2006 new-build project for a Super-C? I'm thinking that it would have been difficult to find someone to step up and form such a consortium in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 29, 2008 17:32:48 GMT -8
Flug I got you and maybe my post sounded more like I was disagreeing with you, rather than adding my opinion on it, but I agree.
The old addage of slow and steady wins the race I think would have meant that our Shipyards would have been in a much different place today than they are today. Had there been steady and slow orders, there would be much better infrastructure today. Beyond the examples of the orders for the City Class Frigates for the navy followed by a drought and cutbacks are another example. It isn't confined to BC. Davie across from Quebec City has been in and out of business and trouble more often than anyone can count. The result is now that we have a void in shipbuilding expertise and capacity, that coupled with the market forces and economics, puts it in "a little too late" category. If we can't even find a shipyard capable or interested in building our new supply ships for the navy that is very telling.
Europe supported the industry and the result is strong and healthy shipyards that are able to kick out amazing vessels at great to premium prices. Most are now operating strongly with healthy order books and are a strong part of the industrial base. The only hick-up may be oil prices and/or the economies effect on the Cruise Ship industry. Large cargo ships are done in Asia. Specialty ships and cruise ships are done still in Europe. Canada? Refits and smaller vessels? I just don't know if we can recover and am falling down on we are too far gone and the market conditions are working against us.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 29, 2008 18:27:16 GMT -8
Neil makes a good point...I don't think there is an unsubsidized shipyard in Europe. It is a long term investment which pays definite returns. Europe's shipyards benefited from various subsidy/ taxation arrangements for many years, but since about 2001 EEC trade law now forbids subsidies... at least in overt forms. I believe there was a partial exemption won for a while to do battle with Asian yards, but Europe's shipyards are now, officially, subsidy free.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 29, 2008 21:02:15 GMT -8
This topic of to build or not to build in BC shipyards has been flogged to death - inside and out - on several threads on this here forum. It is time for us to agree to disagree and move on.
For me personally I am just happy that WAC Bennett had the strength of character and vision to believe in building this province for the future, something which our current politicians and many of our citizens consider to be no longer worthwhile.
I also note that Americans by and large still support building their ships at home and supporting their own workers. Don't expect the Jones Act to disappear anytime soon.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 29, 2008 21:40:55 GMT -8
This topic of to build or not to build in BC shipyards has been flogged to death - inside and out - on several threads on this here forum. It is time for us to agree to disagree and move on. I agree and disagree. As tiresome as this topic can be, it's still a part of our current politics, and every time a newbuild contract is awarded to a BC yard, or overseas, it will generate discussion, both here and in the general public. The Pacificats, another well chewed over bone, is moving from the realm of current affairs into history, which means it will still be capable of being looked at from more than one perspective as time goes on. And, WCK, though you want us to move on, your remark on Washington's newbuild program, and the Jones Act, can be seen as a valid part of the issue. So perhaps you're adding fuel to the fire you want to squelch. If I don't feel a need to look at the 9,476th photo of the Queen of Saanich, relief is just a click away, and I guess that goes for any topic that seems redundant to some. The ship building argument can get stale, but after all, how much is really new or unexplored in the world of ferry discussion?
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Oct 30, 2008 8:04:54 GMT -8
How much effort would it take for the senior levels of government to bring our ship building industry to a point where are once again able to execute large ship building projects such as the New Build Program(super cs)
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Oct 30, 2008 14:49:44 GMT -8
Before you ask that question, you have to ask if there are even any yards who's owners would be interested in such an investment. I'm not sure that there are, at least not here.
WMG bid on the Super-C project, but didn't make it through to the final round. I've always believed it's quite possible that the contract parameters were structured so as to effectively disqualify local bidders. Everyone was so impressed that Flensburger delivered all three vessels in the time frame they did, but, in hindsight, we see that really wasn't so important.
There is no political will for such an investment, federally or provincially, so the dollar requirement is a moot point.
I'm amazed at the cost and the time frame that is involved in the building of the Anchorage- Port MacKenzie ferry, being built in Ketchikan, posted in the American ferries section. What a difference in attitude and priorities between our two countries, when it comes to ship building.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Oct 30, 2008 15:56:56 GMT -8
Someone correct me if I am wrong but WMG was asked to bid and didn't respond. If we went wayyyy back this was all discussed when the order was placed. And again when the Coastal Renaissance was delivered. I don't recall which thread it was. They obviously felt that either the order was beyond them, or they were making enough profit on their existing scheduled business or someone's yacht needed the dry dock space . Jumping to the conclusion that the bid was rigged is as much as a leap as my last suggested possibility above. We simply don't know. The union used the delivery as an opportunity to make all sorts of noise but never said that the bid was rigged or set up in such a way to ensure FSG won. If it had been, I believe it would have been front and centre rather than just go after the fact the ferries were foreign built.
|
|