Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Mar 14, 2009 22:10:21 GMT -8
The statement was made that the Coastals could not have been built here, given our local facilities at the time. I'm assuming that when BC Ferries invited expressions of interest, they did more than just say, "Hey, we're thinking of building a ferry. Anyone interested?" Chances are, WMG had at least an approximate idea of the scale of the project, and they submitted their preliminary bid, feeling that they could do the job. I don't believe that the evidence we have supports the statement that was made. With respect, I doubt a change in government will change much, since the NDP being pro-labour would not try to undertake another kind of CFI development project. What they might do is provide subsidies which isn't uncommon, but they have learned their lessons from their previous experiences as being government from 1972 to 1975 (that one was a real ride). It was a real ride, and unfortunately it only lasted three years. In any event, you might be underestimating the flexibility of Carole James. My reading is that she's much more akin to a Gary Doer than to Dave Barrett. While Jack Layton was blathering on about ripping up the softwood lumber agreement and 'getting tough' with American lumber producers, she was advocating re-negotiating the free trade agreement where possible. I think the possibility to get ships built here, however it might be done, would trump any hidebound union principles.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Mar 15, 2009 3:52:46 GMT -8
In complicated bids, companies often set up a multi-stage process. Even with the large number of them I have been involved with, the thought puts me into an immediate sweat of dread. The first stage is an empression of interest. The company looking for a product or service, puts forward a first stage of information that gives the bidder the broad scope of what will be required. Broad dates, budget, and some details are provided. If a bid company feels they can meet these broad parameters they submit an expression of interest. They often then get substantially more information. Only those bid companies see that. And it is not unusual for those bid companies to also have signed a number of agreements including confidentiality agreements. If the bids are well prepared you don't get much of a surprize at this second stage. It is not unusual for bid companies to not submit detailed proposals once they see the complete information. You look at everything and first of all see if you can fulfill the details. Then you make a guess what your competitors will do. Then the most important part is you look to see if you can make any money on the deal. Even though the first stage of expression of interest can take a lot of time and expense, the viewing of the complete bid information can be a good learning experience, even if you think you may not even end up submitting a bid. A short list if often decided by the company and a number of the bidding companies become finalists. The company scrutinizes these bid companies very carefully and often has a whole range of other hoops they as the bidders to jump through. Someone on the forum eats, drinks and sleeps bids so may have a few comments. Times change and you never want to close the door on business in the future. Saying you are too busy makes your company look good while you don't want to submit a bid. It says you are successful. So if you don't think you can make enough money on the job, if the clients are too difficult, or if you really can fulfill the requirements of the bid may all be part of the picture. lol...thanks for the segue! NE has pointed out some key realities of today's corporate bidding process. Often a decision on whether or not to bid on a project is withheld until after the project criteria have been reviewed. In most cases, getting to this point means having made preliminary commitments to purchase bid documents and sign confidentiality documents with the purchasing company. It is also often the result of months of marketing by the bidding party. Much as NE outlined, once the bid documents are in hand, and the full scope of project is seen, the final decision on whether or not to bid is often made. Sometimes not though. Many times I have put a bid out to tender with our subcontractors, only to have the decision not to bid made. I try to avoid this because it benefits no one, and adds significant cost to both my company and our subcontractors. I also don't like the fact it implies our company is unable to handle the project. In today's market, it is not wise to even hint at any potential weakness. Sometimes a proposal that has little chance of winning a project will be submitted just to avoid appearing unable to bid. I don't believe the Cs are scheduled for retirement until some time after 2020. I agree with you, in principle. The two parties need to forge the best, and most flexible relationship possible, and soon, if they're not working on it already. That could all be rendered moot by two other factors however; if BC Ferries is determined to always take the lowest bid, unlike with the Spirits, and if WMG is simply content to keep to the lower profile jobs that they have now. As I said before, a change in government might alter the first factor. Who knows about the second. I want expand on something you said here. I think there's more negotiation needed than just between the union and WMG (or some other consortium). The union and WMG need to include BCFS in the discussions, and maybe the government, too. Certain concessions made be needed by all parties to level the playing field. Maybe BCFS needs to agree to only use union shops. Maybe WMG needs to agree to a fee that is lower than they would normally take. Maybe the government needs to give tax concessions to all parties involved. Maybe the union needs to provide wage concessions, or forgo overtime rates/shift rates. Maybe both the union and WMG need to agree that a specific build target date must be met, no matter what, and they will share the costs associated with doing this. A lot of maybes and ifs.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 15, 2009 7:24:27 GMT -8
I also don't like the fact it implies our company is unable to handle the project. In today's market, it is not wise to even hint at any potential weakness. Sometimes a proposal that has little chance of winning a project will be submitted just to avoid appearing unable to bid. Shhhhhh don't let all the cats out of the bag. Once (I will admit to only once ) a Request for Proposal was sent out by a great potential client that would open the doors to a lot of business in the US. The reality was that the key contact person was the most disagreeable and horrid person for any agency to work with. Knowing that people seldom stay in their jobs forever and that turn over in the marketing industry is high, we prepared a bid anyways for mostly the future. We basically added a "pain in the @ss" fee to all stages from the monthly retainer to the delivery of services. A very generous one. We did this at the risk of being labeled "expensive" in the industry. We gave the staff who would be assigned an option to opt out, but once they agreed, they had to stick with the project. In turn they were given bonuses for as long as the project lasted with clear expectation that they were prepared to deal with a marketing terrorist. We joked that we were also going to hide a punching bag in the storage room to take all the tension the staff was going to face. We figured if we overbid our chances of winning were slim. We also figured that if we won, we would be handsomely rewarded. We had prepared the bid as if the Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar were at par - so basically had erased our normal advantage we had over larger US competitors. Well the result was that no bid met their expectation and that a lot of agencies hadn't even submit a bid. At an industry cocktail reception/Christmas party in NYC, I quietly told the organizations President that we had added a special handling fee. He told me 4 of the largest and most respected agencies that week had told him that they hadn't bid because of this one particular woman. She was offered a very generous severence package, the program was split up into 4 components, we were asked to do a quarter of the work for our usual fees not our "special handling" one, and all worked out amazingly. At the risk of being accused of "tag teaming" your comment about risk sharing is a good one. I know this isn't shipbuilding but the illustration of the printing industry is directly related. It is under seige from a number of factors. One being the advent of internet marketing. Another is that a lot of items are now produced in China and shipped over to Canada. And the current economy means that mail volumes have plummeted. So printers, including the once industry darlings, Trancontinental and Quebecor, are closing locations one after another. One printer I know, in order to survive has ditched the "us vs them" attitude. Workers intiated a co-operative attitude and started making proprosals to the company to improve operations. Their union wasn't cooperative and eventually were told to either get with the program or the staff would decertify them. Management ditched their usual attitude and fully embraced the workers. The result is a much healthier company with steady work. A worker initiated green strategy has been very popular with customers. The company only uses eco-certified paper at no additional cost to customers. Layoffs were avoided through job sharing. Later two facilities were combined into one and workers adopted a 24/7 work schedule where before they had insisted on huge premiums to work a night shift. The savings of shutting down the one facility has now enabled them to hire some additonal expertise and some new equipment, when there were shortages of the most skilled pressmen before. Now brace for it. The workers proposed that if a job is unsatifactory to the client and the fault is that of the company (not graphics company or client), that the workers rerun the job using overtime but and for no wages. A number of people on the floor left over this but the vast majority supported it. The company came back and said they would actually pay minimum wage rather than allow the workers to do it free. Since so many other printers have closed, the company now had the ability to hire the best people they could find to replace the workers who left. Quality has soared and reruns are much rarer. I used to hate going to that printer because the atmosphere was so poisoned, the press people were grumpy and would argue with the management right in front of me the client, clients were looked at by the press people as a necessary evil and treated as an interruption to their work, and when something wasn't good enough would be uncooperative. Today the atmosphere has done a complete 180. There are new faces, a new attitude and if I was still working with print, would look forward to going to press checks. (except of course at 4am ) I know someone may still say that this is printing (a part of the dreaded marketing community ) and bears no relation to the shipbuilding/marine industry. But it is an example of the new reality for business to survive. When an industry is facing what the shipbuilding industry, creative solutions have to result. The status quo won't work unless a miracle happens. If the shipyards here want the work in the future, they have to work now to ensure it, not wait until a bid is immanent. To continue to say no one can afford marketing, to dismiss other solutions, to expect the government to do something when there doesn't seem the will to divert funds, and the public pressure is absent, means in my opinion that the industry is past saving because it is frozen in place. A lot of things have to change in the industry now to get ready for the next builds and that means the public, the politicos, the companies and the workers. As long as everyone continues to point fingers somewhere else rather than doing something, nothing is going to change. Do nothing and then the next builds should go somewhere like Flensburger. And most importantly, IF the industry doesn't want big new builds, then those that continue to say ships should be all built here should either open a shipyard and make it happen or mourn the loss of the past but realize it just isn't going to happen. The above illustration of the recession actually forcing a company to be better, may also have a silver lining for the shipbuilding industry and present an opportunity. As buildings such as the Ritz Carlton in Vancouver get shelved, and as the Olympic building finishes and subsides, all of a sudden welders and steelworkers will be looking for work. How about a marine industry incentive program to return workers, if the shortage of skilled staff is really a problem? How about a new incentive program for education/recertification? Or work for 5 years in the industry and have your student loans guaranteed and paid for? How about specialized training and apprentice programs with incentives to stay in the industry? Again all assumes the companies aren't satisfied with the status quo and workers are willing to try an industry that is viewed generally as a dead end or dying.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Mar 15, 2009 13:50:24 GMT -8
But there will be a next time, since the Jumbo Ferries (Oak bay, Coquitlam, etc. are reaching the end of their service lives soon. I don't believe the Cs are scheduled for retirement until some time after 2020. If 2020 is indeed the expected retirement date of the C-class vessels, then NOW is when the active planning for that should be on the drawing board. We know it takes 5-8 years to get things approved and finalized, and then about another 2 years of lead time ... so you do the math and let me know when we should start planning for a 2020 replacement ...
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Mar 15, 2009 15:44:04 GMT -8
Niel you've got to be kidding "unfortunately it only lasted three years". Actually, I'm not joking, but I can't imagine anything more futile than having a discussion about the Barrett government with a guy who admits to having been "involved heavily in Social Credit", and who often accompanies his political views with a reference to having inside insight into the Liberal party. Best to agree to disagree on that one. As for Carole James and I'll leave most of the impending election topic where it belongs, off the dock ... which you follow with some comments on same. Do nothing and then the next builds should go somewhere like Flensburger. And most importantly, IF the industry doesn't want big new builds, then those that continue to say ships should be all built here should either open a shipyard and make it happen or mourn the loss of the past but realize it just isn't going to happen. David Hahn has expressed his cynicism about the local industry on more than one occasion. The provincial Liberals couldn't care less about the votes of a few shipyard workers, and the business model they've fitted BC Ferries into requires the company to disregard local economic factors in awarding contracts. WMG's commitment to winning major newbuild contracts remains questionable at best. Only the union is steadfast in it's desire to expand shipbuilding opportunities. Even though it's important to recognize where the blame belongs in the contraction of the industry, I don't disagree entirely with Northern Exploration. Maybe it's time for the union to attempt the industry equivalent of a 'hail mary pass'. Go to the company and present a comprehensive proposal for a working agreement on major newbuilds. Attempt compromises without losing the essential dignity of the contract, and hope for a change in government, or, at the very least, some indication that WMG is interested in rejuvenating their position in the industry beyond it's current modest success. (We've had some perspective from BC Ferries employees on this forum, but none, I don't think, from the shipyard workers. Any lurkers out there on the union side, your input sure would be interesting...)
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Mar 15, 2009 18:50:38 GMT -8
. Don't blame the BC Liberals (as much as McPherson did), nor blame Hahn. Niether is responsible for building the ship building industry. That has to come from the industry itself. To ask the government to restart an industry with heavy taxpayer subsidies is just asking for trouble ahead. From MarineLog.com, nine or ten years ago: At least the maritime sector has found a strong supporter in German chancellor Gerhard Schröder. In June, Schröder initiated the first National Maritime Conference to demonstrate his support for the creation of strong shipping, shipbuilding and seaports and encourage their development. That came after his government reversed previous policies on shipbuilding subsidies and earmarked millions to help yards combat "ruinous" Korean price dumping. Schröder has also pledged to seek an extension of EU shipbuilding subsidies beyond this year and has said he will fight for a relaxation of crippling quotas on east German shipyards. He demonstrated his leadership again this Fall by becoming Patron of SMM 2000 -the first Chancellor ever to accept the title. "I am pleased," said Dirk Rathjens, head of Germany's biggest shipyard, HDW in Kiel, "that after such a long time the German Government has finally recognized the problems the shipbuilding industry here has to face and how important that industry is for this country."One of many, many pieces I've read, a few of which I've posted, which indicate that Canada might be unique in the conviction that government cannot play a positive role in developing industries such as ship building. Otherwise this whining and complaining by them will just keep going around and around like a three bladed propeller on a Merc outboard. Whining and complaining, and Merc outboards. Got it. Again.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 15, 2009 20:51:20 GMT -8
You mention the lack of a shipbuilding subsidy in the US. While I don't know for sure whether there is a federal financial subsidy, there is another form of subsidy that essentially kills all foreign competition for building domestic vessels - the Jones Act.
Washington State has a completely different way of looking at their ferry system than what we do. They view it as a highway system, that should be funded accordingly. They see the value in spending money locally, even if it will cost a little bit more. So much so, that WSDOT exceeded the requirements of the Jones Act by allowing only bidders from Washington State to participate in the bidding for the new Keystone vessels.
Comparing our shipyards to those of our southern neighbours isn't really valid because of the protectionist legislation the US has of their heavy industries. On second thought, maybe it is valid because it illustrates why we should have some protective legislation as well.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 15, 2009 21:12:28 GMT -8
Washington State has a completely different way of looking at their ferry system than what we do. They view it as a highway system, that should be funded accordingly. Hey, would you mind coming down to Washington and explain to the legislators in Olympia that the ferries really are part of the highway system? That seems to be something our politicians have forgotten in recent years; at least it sure seems like they have forgotten it
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 15, 2009 21:34:34 GMT -8
Washington State has a completely different way of looking at their ferry system than what we do. They view it as a highway system, that should be funded accordingly. Hey, would you mind coming down to Washington and explain to the legislators in Olympia that the ferries really are part of the highway system? That seems to be something our politicians have forgotten in recent years; at least it sure seems like they have forgotten it LOL yes, I'm aware you guys have been experiencing some severe budgetary issues as of late. However, that ugly proposition of "user pay" doesn't seem to have reared it's head yet, which is what we're starting to face here. (yes, I know there's a 150 million subsidy, but really that's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of running the system.)
|
|
rt1commuter
Chief Steward
JP - Overworked grad student
Posts: 167
|
Post by rt1commuter on Mar 15, 2009 22:13:46 GMT -8
Actually, as far as I know there are no exceptions. Instead, cruises originating in Seattle pull into Victoria, Nanaimo, or Prince Rupert on their way back from Seattle. So long as passengers aren't picked up or dropped off in Alaska, I believe they aren't in contravention of the Jones act. They only violate it if they leave Seattle and pull into Seattle without stopping in a foreign port.
Interestingly enough, this is also why the ever popular LA-Hawaii cruises stop in Mexico on the way there and on the way back.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Mar 16, 2009 3:25:48 GMT -8
The companies have to bare the costs of developing and building and yielding a profit for the finished vessel, the union as an organisation does not. But if the project is profitable, then the opportunity will come for another one and the jobs are kept on the floor. Paul, I have to pick on you for the unfortunate mischance of words above. The bearing of costs is usually the purview of the company making the bid, but it is not a requirement. Often, we will seek concessions from the unions involved in our projects to increase our competitive edge, and for that the unions bear the costs on a per hour basis. If the production of their members is high, the union pays less in concessions, if it is low, they pay more. In addition, as NE pointed out, the business models are changing, and unions are taking other approaches to bear some of the costs of projects. Now, the baring of costs by a bidding company is a fact of business today. Gone are the days of the lump sum bid. Every trade has to be accounted for; often labour and materials need separate line items. The unions must also bare their payroll breakdowns. We, as the employing company, know exactly where the moneys remitted to the union are supposed to be going. The books have to be open for review. I just had to play on that typo....
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Mar 16, 2009 12:00:45 GMT -8
Paul, I have to pick on you for the unfortunate mischance of words above. The bearing of costs is usually the purview of the company making the bid, but it is not a requirement. Often, we will seek concessions from the unions involved in our projects to increase our competitive edge, and for that the unions bear the costs on a per hour basis. If the production of their members is high, the union pays less in concessions, if it is low, they pay more. In addition, as NE pointed out, the business models are changing, and unions are taking other approaches to bear some of the costs of projects. Now, the baring of costs by a bidding company is a fact of business today. Gone are the days of the lump sum bid. Every trade has to be accounted for; often labour and materials need separate line items. The unions must also bare their payroll breakdowns. We, as the employing company, know exactly where the moneys remitted to the union are supposed to be going. The books have to be open for review. I just had to play on that typo.... Well yes, bu there is more than that. The companies themselves bare the costs of the project (profit or loss), not the employees. Part of the bid of course is project costs, of which labour plays a significant part, and it is only within that the unions can negotiate a level of renumeration that would assist with the procurement of the bid. The environment in B.C. is much different than that in the United States. Some unions are steadfast and will not yield to adjust labour rates, while others will. But that in itself does not always work. An example was the IWA (Steelworkers local) on the Island that voted on a lower rate in order to assist a logging business to remain active. It was not a 100% vote. The basic premise is to have the unions work with the company, in partnership in order for the company to remain competitive, with reasonable grounds. The union has a duty to protect the interests of its membership by offering good wages for the membership in balance to what the company will be able to budget. Getting back to the BC Shipbuilding industry, the shipworkers union will simply have to work with in partnership with WMG and Allied/Point Hope to set labour costs that will in contribution to other costs, yield a competitive bid that would be acceptable to BC Ferries. Alright - Bare - Without anything to cover up or conceal one's thoughts or actions; open to view; exposedBear - To support and remove or carry; to conveyToday, I am the grammar Nazi. Paul, Labour makes up about 70 to 80% of most union bid costs, and about 50 to 60% of open shop bids. All overhead and profits increase the cost line items directly, so typically hidden costs are accurately depicted in those percentages. Union labour bids are usually about 20% higher than their non union counterparts. Therefore, concessions from the union with respect to wage rates, benefits, and training costs all very directly impact the bottom line of a competitive/noncompetitive bid. I know this, I swing these numbers around everyday; this is my job. I also negotiate directly with the unions to secure sufficient concessions to give us a competitive edge given the labour differential I noted above. Above that, we reach out to the developers and purchasing companies to create relationships that are friendly to union labour. In addition, I would strongly disagree about the Canadian and US unions being completely different. I find some unions very amicable to providing concessions to keep their members working. Others would rather fall on their sword. And that is from chapter to chapter of the same union. It really depends on the mindset of the upper echelons of the organization for each area, not the fact that they are American or Canadian. I agree that the unions and the employing companies need to negotiate a labour rate that is competitive, but like my company, and the union we are affiliated with, the unions in BC must target the purchasers with marketing. Otherwise you lose an opportunity to create a competitive edge. And it is this creation of a competitive edge, however it is accomplished, which is the basic premise behind a successful bid, not simply seeing the unions and bid companies get along...
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 16, 2009 17:23:20 GMT -8
My example is from a Canadian company (printer). I recognize that unions are more militant and strongly entrenched in BC. However, the way forward in industries facing decline is the same.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Mar 16, 2009 23:06:18 GMT -8
It might be worthwhile to point out that German shipyard workers are among the highest paid in the world. Doesn't seem to have put their yards at a competitive disadvantage, and it calls into question the assertion that the burden is on our workers to make the sacrifices necessary to win contracts for their employers.
In Europe, 40-50% of the cost of a vessel is labour. One way to lower labour costs is to demand concessions, which seems to be the prevailing wisdom in this thread. Another way is for shipyard owners to invest in their plant, renew infrastructure, and make their operation viable against competitors, whether at home or abroad. Since German labour costs are high, it seems apparent that that is the route yards like Flensburger took, and we've seen from the general European experience that a fair bit of government aid was involved, along with investment from the yard owners. Direct subsidies have largely disappeared in Europe, although with the recent economic downturn, the Community of European Shipyards Association is questioning whether the EU should have a fund to ease credit for major newbuild projects, particularly when bank crises result in the withdrawal of credit during construction. There is also the suggestion that emergency funding be available to yards in danger of going under because of the drying up of new orders and cancellation of existing ones. While direct subsidies are rare, there is a half billion euro 'Marco Polo' program that gives grants to various projects designed to get freight off roadways and onto trains and boats, which has an indirect subsidization effect.
But of course, the Europeans don't call that sort of thing a subsidy. Paul doesn't call the Jones Act a subsidy either, but the fearsome name of Flensburger is not haunting the shipyards of Puget Sound in the question of WSF's fleet renewal. A rose by any other name...
India, until recently, had a subsidy on newbuilds of 30%, and shipyards there are agitating for it's re-instatement. Direct and indirect subsidies in Korea have led on occasion, to 'loss leader' contracts, where the first ship of an order is delivered below cost. China is funnelling massive sums through banking concerns to expand and modernize their industry, not calling it a direct subsidy to try and circumvent European concerns about predatory marketing.
Many European yards owe part of their present efficiency to government investment, and while Paul likes to dismiss this as old news, we're actually talking pretty recent news, as in prior to 2002. And, as Chris Montgomery points out in her blog, Flensburger was very much helped in it's successful bid for the Coastal contact by the fact that one of it's major shareholders, a large German bank, was able to offer BC Ferries very advantageous financing. Yes, Flensburger is an excellent yard, with efficiencies of production the BC yards can only dream about, but the reason for the difference is very hard to lay at the feet of our local workers, despite the assertions of people on this forum.
Canadian politicians have denied the reality of an international industry that has been, and in ways official and unofficial, still is, supported by governments the world over. To insist that the industry plug along on it's own ignores the experience of the international market. WMG deserves a fair bit of blame for taking a good living out of this country and not investing enough to even make us a good bet to build our own ferries.
At one time, over 20,000 British Columbians made their living building boats. Yesterday, Paul posted an article where local management expressed their delight in full order books that employ a tiny fraction of that number. Perhaps that's enough for some people. Looking at the recent history of world ship building, I don't blame the local workers for 'whining and complaining' that it could be so much more.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 17, 2009 7:00:57 GMT -8
All my posts have been about how do we change the status quo and what would need to happen to give it a chance. Allow me to join the over generalization bandwagon for a moment. Marketing has been dismissed by some as nonsense and unaffordable. Workers can't do anything, they are too much under seige. The unions are never at blame. The companies are only interested in lousy refits. And government doesn't see the viability of the industry, nor the political benefit of investing. Innovative ways of encouraging change between management and unions is dismissed as not applicable in BC. Hmmm. Comparing shipyard workers now to a country that has a booming industry isn't helpful. Maybe if Canadian companies had a five year order backlog and our workers were underpaid that would be a fair comparison point. That in my mind is comparing apples and oranges. My point with marketing has never been to directly influence sales. Rather to energize the industry so that the support for sales would happen. Public opinion influencing to put the industry on the radar screen for government, attracting good workers, and singing the praises of quality would go a long way to lay the groundwork to improve the industry. Not sales directly! All that some are willing to consider is that the only course is government intervention and wishful thinking, if you take the comments to their logical conclusion. Putting your eggs all in one basket is in my opinion is what got us to this point in the industry. If shipbuilding was looked at by the BC public as a vital industry that should be a high priority, you could watch the politicos line policy up to support it. Federal, provincial and municipal. Some people want that but dismiss all the ways of getting government there. It is if just wishful thinking will cause government to out of their overflowing largese give the gift of huge subsidies to revitalize the industry. I am sorry but that is idealistic and rarely happens. My clients day in and day out work to influence public opinion and government policy. Smoking and its impact on children in enclosed spaces is one example. Hence banning smoking in a car legislation, is being adopted in many provinces. Some will say that has nothing to do with shipbuilding. However, my point is that the process is proven and works. Is there a guarantee it will? No. But not doing anything has in my opinion a guranteed result. I think I have said enough on this issue, and feel like there is a circular discussion going on and the same points made over and over. My own conclusion is that as long as no solutions are to be considered except the public purse, then my opinion is the industry is beyond saving. Refits and smaller ship work should be incented and supported but then it is time to move on to a new reality with big builds. A broad and nonclinical definition of insanity comes to mind: "expecting different results while changing nothing or accepting responsibility for anything." If the industry was a person, then I think that would be a very good diagnosis.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Mar 17, 2009 8:23:31 GMT -8
Paul doesn't call the Jones Act a subsidy either, but the fearsome name of Flensburger is not haunting the shipyards of Puget Sound in the question of WSF's fleet renewal. A rose by any other name... This may be partly due to the size and type of vessels WSF requires. WSF vessels are much smaller than what we typically see FSG building. I mean, our largest boats are the Jumbo Mark II's, which are only 460ft long, and only carry 202 cars. That's not too much bigger than BC Ferries B-Class vessels, Burnaby and Nanaimo, and is significantly smaller than the new Coastal vessels. Also, WSF boats are open ended and not suited for open ocean travelling. I know you could load one up onto a large ocean-going transport vessel if one were to be built overseas somewhere, but I suspect the cost-benefit analysis of an off-shore build for what is essentially an "intermediate" size ferry, does not look favorable. And, as others have mentioned, we have Todd Shipyards right here in Seattle who have broad experience in building ferries for WSF. Having said that, I do wonder about the "made in Washington" clause which prohibits ferries being constructed in other parts of the United States, especially in light of the recent bid for the new Port Townsend ferry. Perhaps it's time we allow shipyards from other states to compete.
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Mar 17, 2009 9:09:33 GMT -8
I wonder if the shipyards in Puget Sound were involved in the bidding process for the Coastals and The Northern Expedition?
I would think some of them would have the expertise to do the job?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Mar 17, 2009 9:23:34 GMT -8
9 All that some are willing to consider is that the only course is government intervention and wishful thinking, if you take the comments to their logical conclusion. Putting your eggs all in one basket is in my opinion is what got us to this point in the industry. If you're refering to my input here, you're misrepresenting what I've been saying. A few posts back, I said it would be good for the union to take the initiative and work with management on a comprehensive plan to facilitate major newbuild bids. I've also said that WMG has lacked initiative to expand the base of their projects. And, I've tried to point out how government involvement has been a major factor in countries our yards are competing with. I've emphasized that because I've felt that there has been an aggravatingly repetitive focus on our shipyard workers 'whining and complaining'. No one's going to change their minds, and we can't even seem to sum up each other's positions properly. Perhaps this round of discussion on this topic has about run out of gas. (as a p.s. - In the interest of not misrepresenting other people's positions: earlier in this thread I refered to a remark Northern Exploration made as a 'canard', and said the remark was worthy of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. With regard to NE's motivation for saying what he did, I withdraw the words that I used. They were inappropriate, and didn't help the discussion.)
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Mar 17, 2009 11:51:21 GMT -8
No one's going to change their minds, and we can't even seem to sum up each other's positions properly. Perhaps this round of discussion on this topic has about run out of gas. (as a p.s. - In the interest of not misrepresenting other people's positions: earlier in this thread I refered to a remark Northern Exploration made as a 'canard', and said the remark was worthy of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. With regard to NE's motivation for saying what he did, I withdraw the words that I used. They were inappropriate, and didn't help the discussion.)Actually Neil, I think that I actually saw you and NE agree on something for once! Yes, I would agree with you that the argument has reached its futile point, though I think that at least some good ideas/information has been put out there. Now if the parties actually embroiled in the issues would take the time to look at some of what was said! ;D Oh, p.s. ...that was me screaming blue murder about comments made about something I said...but I think we made our peace on that earlier...
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,150
|
Post by Neil on Mar 17, 2009 12:43:08 GMT -8
Oh, p.s. ...that was me screaming blue murder about comments made about something I said...but I think we made our peace on that earlier... You're right, it wasn't NE. Mea culpa on the mea culpa.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 17, 2009 18:21:22 GMT -8
I suspect that we are not going to see a new build 'major' vessel for at least a few years. We do however need to replace numerous smaller inter island vessels, examples being the Bowen Q class.
The current economy along with lower steel and general construction costs suggests that we do this asap. This is another way to provide some stimulus to our economy. As such we should get on with it. Our BC yards should be able to construct 75 to 100 car vessels perhaps two at a time.
BCFS may not want to do this now or do it locally. They just might need some direction from their owners.
Another project that might be worthwhile is MLU's on the Spirits. They could possibly improve their fuel efficiency by upgrading engines & drive train, rebuild the main car deck ramps, etc. These vessels are expected to last another 25 years so such work would no doubt be worthwhile.
PS: 'Gordon' - I am pretty sure that Puget Sound shipyards are not large enough to build Coastal size ferries. One of our Washington State members should be able to confirm/refute this.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 17, 2009 19:03:25 GMT -8
I'm not from Washington, but Todd Pacific Shipyard's website states that they can do newbuilds up to 500 feet. I don't have the link handy, but that's what I remember reading earlier today. The Coastals are 525 feet long, so they are a little beyond Todd's capabilities.
As far as I know, Todd is the largest shipyard in the US PNW.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Mar 17, 2009 19:55:53 GMT -8
Oh, p.s. ...that was me screaming blue murder about comments made about something I said...but I think we made our peace on that earlier... You're right, it wasn't NE. Mea culpa on the mea culpa. My ears were burning this afternoon in the meeting I was in and I had no idea why. I just thought it was ear strain from listening to things drone on. Neil I started that paragraph by saying I was generalizing. The comment about blaming government and waiting for them to do all the work, was an extreme representation of what many seem to believe or natural outcome of some peoples position. I actually didn't have you in mind specifically when I made that statement. So all is good. And I did notice when we agreed re the need for innovation.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on May 10, 2009 20:54:15 GMT -8
As of May 9th, the 'Built by Flensberger' is still there on the side of the hull
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on May 10, 2009 21:51:23 GMT -8
As of May 9th, the 'Built by Flensberger' is still there on the side of the hull Something tells me it might not be removed for awhile. Maybe FSG caught on to BCF removing them so quickly and decided to place it in a more strategic place.
|
|