|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 12, 2009 13:06:02 GMT -8
As time goes by I think you will see more problems leak out about the new ships (pun intended). I await the smelly story of sewage.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Jan 16, 2009 13:08:40 GMT -8
Despite media reports, they still continue to have these ads posted at Tsawwassen. They save 7,000,000 litres of fuel compared to what? The New West? It's too bad BCF had to shoot themselves in the foot with their marketing of these ships. They probably should have waited until they were in service before they started posting adds about fuel consumption. I'm a strong believer that they're going to work just fine for years to come with BCF. Perhaps they thought they would same millions of litres of fuel, when they noticed the "mileage" they were getting during the trans Atlantic Voyage. D'uh, of course you're going to get some good "mileage" on a nice straight trip when you don't have to stop and go so much all day just like every ferry out there does. Ferryman is right. The figures shown in the form of "Awesome" ads at Tsawwassen are slightly suspicious... perhaps "Awesome, only Dumber" would be an accurate estimation. In regards to the fuel consumption on the Trans-Atlantic trip, it's kind of like Highway mileage vs. City mileage. When you're flooring it for three days straight constantly, it's going to be better than idling your car at a red light, like in the berth at a terminal. As for the 7,000,000 litres of fuel... I denno what to say about that. I noticed it when it first came out, assuming it was compared to the V's... but when I started seeing some of these numbers ( ), I questioned that theory Perhaps it would be the alternative to building more Spirits? One can only wonder, I guess...
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 16, 2009 13:16:11 GMT -8
Re the Awesome! poster at the Tsawwassen foot passenger hallway:
It would be so much clearer if BC Ferries just came out and explained their fuel savings claim re that infamous poster.
For legal purposes, I suppose that they must have had some calculation or methodology to support the amount, whatever it was supposed to represent.
I suspect that we'll never see the answer to this possibly hyperbolic claim.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jan 16, 2009 17:34:47 GMT -8
from The Tyee, 15 Jan 2009 Another piece from The Tyee for your reading pleasure: thetyee.ca/News/2009/01/15/BCFerries/WARNING: Some may not like this piece and may see it as being 'negative'.
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Jan 16, 2009 21:34:59 GMT -8
from The Tyee, 15 Jan 2009 Another piece from The Tyee for your reading pleasure: thetyee.ca/News/2009/01/15/BCFerries/WARNING: Some may not like this piece and may see it as being 'negative'. The Tyee seems to be going with their same story over and over and over again. Can't they just give it a rest? I don't think they ever did their research in the first place and I recall Ferryman posting some fuel consumption numbers for the Coastals a while back and those numbers were greater than the C's and the V's, but still less than the Spirits. So really the Coastals are not gas guzzlers but they still use more than the older boats, but they are efficient for their size as they are almost the same size as a Spirit and they run faster than a Spirit. Before you make these allegations of gas guzzlers, you really have to think about things, and that means doing some research on basic facts. I guess you could call the Coastals gas guzzlers, but only if you are comparing them to the C's or V's. The Tyee certainly hasn't mentioned the Spirits and their fuel consumption, but I guess that's because they are trying to shove their anti-Coastal Class opinion down their reader's throats...
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Jan 17, 2009 10:37:22 GMT -8
There is indeed a culture of secrecy in BCFS. I well remember when Rhodes was CEO and all employees were required to sign an "oath of secrecy" guaranteeing we would not divulge any information of any nature to anyone about BCFC (Don't ask about the schedule...we are not allowed to tell you) . We were informed we would be diciplined if we did not sign. The unions lawyers laughed and told us to toss it in the garbage, which we did.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 17, 2009 12:24:25 GMT -8
Regarding the issue of employee gag-orders: To balance out this topic, keep in mind that an employer does have a right to direct the conduct (including speech) of the employees, while they are on the job. I'm assuming that this is true, but I suppose a CBA item could override that. But I'm coming from the old-school where the employer is the employer and the employees are the employees (with a presumption of mutual respect - don't choke on that, Kerry It gets a bit muddled regarding the off-the-job words of employees, depending on your views of civil rights, professionalism, representation, etc. For example, in my own profession, I'm always a member of my professional association, regardless of whether I'm "on the clock" at the office or on vacation. I'm always ruled by my association's rules of professional conduct. So, within the hours of on the job employment, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that an employer is able to restrict the words-spoken by the employees. Of course, how the employer goes about implementing this policy and explaining the reasons is another issue altogether. (ie. a good policy can be implemented in a poor fashion).
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jan 17, 2009 15:03:08 GMT -8
What employees say about their employers, about their product, and even off duty is definitely fair game. This is not unusual, but rather normal.
It is especially true in the service industry. Can you imagine a restaurant employee talking trash about the owner, about the food and even worse about the customer? Happens all the time but also those people get fired their buttocks fired all the time as well. I know of two recent examples.
One was for a national chain with nonunion staff. The individual got a number of warnings and eventually was fired. He took the issue to court and lost. His first time he was stupid enough to mouth off to "secret shoppers." Companies, who are hired by the restaurants, send undercover "eaters" into the restaurant to test the operation and in the case of retail buy a product. They are generically called "secret shoppers".
The second time was for a union restaurant. The individual of course had many more chances, despite a near revolt by her fellow servers to get her fired. Since it was a union store those chances get multiplied upteen times. Eventually she was fired and of course the union grieved it and eventually took it to court. They lost. There is a real strong push on the part of many staff to decertify the union now. Business is down and the whole exercise cost a lot of money. One of the owners has said that if there is one more out of line case like this the restaurant will just be closed.
With the shortage (up til now) of workers, managers have been reticent to take any actions that would end up losing them a body. However, with the downturn the first people now being laid off are those who are either under-performers or those who are seen as not being team members.
As long as it is done up front and explained clearly to the employee and is not overly instrusive into their personal life then such requirements are totally legal. The more senior role the more stringent the requirements tend to be. And those who belong to accrediting societies have another layer of policies and requirements for their members as Flug points out.
I see no reason why BC Ferries employees would think that they would be excempt from such a basic business practice.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jan 18, 2009 8:11:37 GMT -8
I will say though, that I was not as impressed as I had hoped with the ships - they feel too compartmentalized for my liking. I believe, from previous ferry disasters abroad plus our own local QotN incident, that the compartmentalization and the resultant feel were actually designed INTO the vessel. It does have a downside, but looking at survivability, I will tolerate the unappealing aesthetics!
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jan 18, 2009 8:32:16 GMT -8
i must say that they are very well built and will last a long time. the steel work and welds are much better than the spirits. (the spirit are very good) The wiring/ electrical and pipework was all excellent. This was one of the first thing I noticed too, when I first rode the CI and wandered around the car decks looking up and down at the welds. The difference between the welds and panel fit is incredible even when compared to the Spirits, and holds no comparison to the C-class and V-class vessels. It tends to be a comparison between a "Shop-12" class project and a master craftsman... I will still argue with hardy about the fuel burn... You are not arguing with me on this because I am not denying these things! Using the truck analogy, if I am doing in-town deliveries or moving, would I want the bare-bones base model truck? Let's say, comparing new trucks, that I had the opportunity to cheap out. Compare a standard 24-26' "box" truck. Baseline model: 175HP, plain plastic/vinyl interior, spring seats, no options. Light duty 6 speed manual, light duty clutch. Cargo area is a standard 24' cargo box, no walkboard or power tailgate. Minimal cargo securement options, no frills. Typical cost about $78,000 Midline model: upgrade to 210HP, better interior with "suspended" drivers seat, storage compartments, additional cab lighting and amenities. Airbrakes, 10-speed split tranny, heavy duty clutch. 26' movers box with lots of lights and tie downs, power tailgate. Typical cost around $98,000 Top-of-the-line overkill. 250HP, 10-speed automatic upgrade everything else. Cost: north of $120,000 Which would I chose? Probably somewhere between mid and top. Why? I spend 8+ hours every day in the truck. The baseline will get the job done, but is not ideal. Sometimes you want luxury and don't want austere. Red map-reading lights in the cab, power inverters and additional power ports, storage compartments and map holders, cup holders etc are all creature comforts that are nice to have. Back to TV's, fridges, La-Z-Boys etc, if I were a long distance trucker living in my tractor, I would consider all these. Yes, my cost per mile would be higher in initial investment, but then again, I would be a lot more comfortable making all those miles. I would also be more likely to keep the truck for a longer period of time than to just resell it and buy a new one. So yes, there are intangibles for figuring AEQ costs. We could have ordered "railway" ferries with very limited pax accomodations, not a lot of thought to "interior/exterior design". Single-end them, run bare-bones engines, etc ... but do we want just pure efficiency or a blend with some luxury thrown in?
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Jan 18, 2009 16:20:48 GMT -8
The managements concern was not "talking trash" but rather that information about the operation was getting out to the public. Citizens committees were getting information on exactly what questions to ask in meetings. Management did not like being questioned.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jun 27, 2009 18:38:14 GMT -8
Here's an interesting quote that I found on a transportation blog, about the new Super-C ferries. The context of the quote is the story of the new ferries being underutilized and being gas guzzlers. Remember that one? www.tetracom.ca/transtalk/?p=2018I'd say that the above quote is untrue. Very untrue. I wonder where the writer got his premise?
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Jun 27, 2009 19:39:27 GMT -8
Has BCF released any recent fuel efficiency info since all 3 Coastals are seeing much more use these days?
In General how are the 4 Fensberger Vessels performing?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Jun 28, 2009 10:44:03 GMT -8
Gordon,
BCFS has up to the present been less than forthcoming in providing that sort of information to the public. I do not expect this to change any time soon. Ultimately the people of BC own BCFS and are entitled to such info.
|
|