|
Post by dasgeneral on Mar 1, 2012 9:12:00 GMT -8
With all due respect, if a ferry is built for Washington State Ferries, it should only be built in Washington State. Any suggestion they be built elsewhere is absurd. Lots of other states outsource the construction of their ferries to other states, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. Ferry construction shouldn't be considered a "shovel-ready" project to boost state employment or an industry in the state. If we were to allow a competitive bidding process on the ferries for lowest cost to the state, the benefits of a lower overall construction cost would outweigh any slight benefits to the state economy. We need boats that don't cost an arm and a leg to build, not make-work projects for the state shipyards that have been on the decline since the 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 1, 2012 9:32:04 GMT -8
There is middle ground on this topic. The lowest bid from a Washington State yard would be accepted if its cost is not greater than xx percent of the lowest bid coming from an out of state yard. 'xx percent' might be for instance five percent.
Such 'buy local' policies are fairly common, I understand. I will often choose to spend my my money at a local vendor even though their price may be higher. It just can't be unreasonably higher.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 1, 2012 13:42:00 GMT -8
With all due respect, if a ferry is built for Washington State Ferries, it should only be built in Washington State. Any suggestion they be built elsewhere is absurd. The Super class were built in San Diego. The Skagit and Kalama were built in Louisiana (N'Ola, I believe, but I won't swear to it).
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Mar 1, 2012 13:49:37 GMT -8
Wasn't the yard that built the Kalama and Skagit the same one that bid on what eventually became the Issaquah class ferries but didn't get the contract due to the bid being too far over the state estimate?
Don't forget the Hiyu (built in Portland).
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Mar 1, 2012 17:08:15 GMT -8
Such 'buy local' policies are fairly common, I understand. I will often choose to spend my my money at a local vendor even though their price may be higher. It just can't be unreasonably higher. I'd use whatever means I could to encourage development of another shipyard that can compete toe to toe with Vigor in building big vessels, that I think would benefit everyone long term... I don't think anyone's gonna touch the political hot potato of build in washington any time soon, especially with all the grumblings the last year or so about the difficulty of firms "onshoring" back to the US in finding faclities and labor.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 2, 2012 21:41:25 GMT -8
With all due respect, if a ferry is built for Washington State Ferries, it should only be built in Washington State. Any suggestion they be built elsewhere is absurd. The Super class were built in San Diego. The Skagit and Kalama were built in Louisiana (N'Ola, I believe, but I won't swear to it). Yes, but the Supers were the only large-capacity ferries built exclusively for WSF out-of-state (SE's, the Kalakala, and others prior not counted due to grandfathering). Every ferry built since then has been built here - and that's the way it should be. To be clear, I meant no harsh feelings on my above post and I apologize for it sounding like I came off in a bad way. I was posting from my cell and the web browser I use doesn't quite like the php forum software used here and I had to be quick. With respect to the "Build-in-Washington mentality" I have, it stems from the fact that these vessels are built for WSDOT/WSF using taxpayer dollars from - you guessed it - Washington citizens and businesses. Our tax dollars - in the vein of new vessel or public works projects - should be directed towards shipyards based in Washington. As a Washington resident, I view it as almost close to sacrilegious to insist a ferry built for Washington waters not be built in its home state. And with respect to the comment that other states have ferries built elsewhere... Washington State has - by far - the largest ferry fleet in the United States and the third largest in the world. WSF's vessels are not only ferries, but also a major tourist attraction in the summer months and are prominent in motion picture and television shows set within Washington. Washington State sets the national and worldwide standard in terms of ferry operation. I for one take pride when I ride a ferry built here (not to say I don't take pride in crossing on a Super - as they are indeed my favorite class of ferry).
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 3, 2012 12:54:12 GMT -8
The Super class were built in San Diego. The Skagit and Kalama were built in Louisiana (N'Ola, I believe, but I won't swear to it). Yes, but the Supers were the only large-capacity ferries built exclusively for WSF out-of-state (SE's, the Kalakala, and others prior not counted due to grandfathering). Every ferry built since then has been built here - and that's the way it should be. To be clear, I meant no harsh feelings on my above post and I apologize for it sounding like I came off in a bad way. I was posting from my cell and the web browser I use doesn't quite like the php forum software used here and I had to be quick. With respect to the "Build-in-Washington mentality" I have, it stems from the fact that these vessels are built for WSDOT/WSF using taxpayer dollars from - you guessed it - Washington citizens and businesses. Our tax dollars - in the vein of new vessel or public works projects - should be directed towards shipyards based in Washington. As a Washington resident, I view it as almost close to sacrilegious to insist a ferry built for Washington waters not be built in its home state. And with respect to the comment that other states have ferries built elsewhere... Washington State has - by far - the largest ferry fleet in the United States and the third largest in the world. WSF's vessels are not only ferries, but also a major tourist attraction in the summer months and are prominent in motion picture and television shows set within Washington. Washington State sets the national and worldwide standard in terms of ferry operation. I for one take pride when I ride a ferry built here (not to say I don't take pride in crossing on a Super - as they are indeed my favorite class of ferry). Here in BC, we balk at things like the Jones Act that confine ship building within the country. Unbelievable legislation that is. We have had great success with building our four newest major vessels in Germany. Granted, the rest of our Built-for-BCF fleet was built in-province, however it was clear with the introduction of the Island Sky that we had made the right choice. Hopefully, our shipyards will improve their infrastructure for the Federal naval project. That being said, your vessel Puyallup underwent annual drydocking here, and one of your crew members had nothing but positive things to say about our shipyard and the way things are handled. The built-in-home-region policy is not always the best, because you restrict yourself to what kind of quality and price you receive on your product. Usually, the benefits of building away far outweigh any economic benefit it has at home.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 3, 2012 20:22:47 GMT -8
Here in BC, we balk at things like the Jones Act that confine ship building within the country. Unbelievable legislation that is. We have had great success with building our four newest major vessels in Germany. Granted, the rest of our Built-for-BCF fleet was built in-province, however it was clear with the introduction of the Island Sky that we had made the right choice. Hopefully, our shipyards will improve their infrastructure for the Federal naval project. That being said, your vessel Puyallup underwent annual drydocking here, and one of your crew members had nothing but positive things to say about our shipyard and the way things are handled. The built-in-home-region policy is not always the best, because you restrict yourself to what kind of quality and price you receive on your product. Usually, the benefits of building away far outweigh any economic benefit it has at home. First off, speak for yourself. I think parts of the Jones Act, while a little bit overzealous, are a good idea. I honestly don't believe we would have had the issues we had with the I-Sky if we had some form of protection for local shipyards, and I am not proud of the fact that we had to buy 4 new ships from Germany. I think the real problem is that there needs to be some kind of competition. Vigor/Todd has a virtual monopoly on WSF builds, because they're the only game in town. If they had to compete with another yard, I think you'd see the costs come down significantly. Perhaps a good idea would be to have a requirement for more than 1 bidder in a contest? If WSF tenders a contract, and only get one response, then open it up to all US shipyards for another competition. If they get two Washington bids, then it doesn't need to go any further and they can pick one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 4, 2012 0:23:56 GMT -8
First off, speak for yourself. I think parts of the Jones Act, while a little bit overzealous, are a good idea. I honestly don't believe we would have had the issues we had with the I-Sky if we had some form of protection for local shipyards, and I am not proud of the fact that we had to buy 4 new ships from Germany. There is definitely a need for protection, but what kind of protection do you have in mind? I think it would be best if that came federally. It is clear that financial protection is not enough - this shipyard is in need of increased resources and skilled labour. As for the boats from Germany, I hope we don't have to do it again, but it was the right decision at the time - there's no denying that. I don't think it was fair that WMG was excluded from bidding, however with the Island Sky story, that might not have ended well.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Mar 4, 2012 4:39:27 GMT -8
First off, speak for yourself. I think parts of the Jones Act, while a little bit overzealous, are a good idea. I honestly don't believe we would have had the issues we had with the I-Sky if we had some form of protection for local shipyards, and I am not proud of the fact that we had to buy 4 new ships from Germany. There is definitely a need for protection, but what kind of protection do you have in mind? I think it would be best if that came federally. It is clear that financial protection is not enough - this shipyard is in need of increased resources and skilled labour. As for the boats from Germany, I hope we don't have to do it again, but it was the right decision at the time - there's no denying that. I don't think it was fair that WMG was excluded from bidding, however with the Island Sky story, that might not have ended well. And yet you think us ugly Americans should get rid of the Jones Act. Make up your mind.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 4, 2012 8:13:03 GMT -8
The drydock maintenance of the vessel M.V. Puyallup in Canada has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of building our ferries out-of-state and everything to do with the fact our drydocks here in Washington were already full at the time.
The biggest reason Todd (now Vigor) has a near monopoly on the construction of our ferries is rather simple: They're the only vessel builder with the yard capacity and experience to build ferries of that size in Washington and our ferries built by them are top-notch in quality. And the last time we had ferries built in-state by another builder, nearly all of them left the lot with problems and one of them sat idle for a few years before the State even took delivery of it. (M.V. Sealth)
Vigor simply has the best facility in this state, and that's where our ferries should be built.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Mar 4, 2012 9:11:51 GMT -8
As for the boats from Germany, I hope we don't have to do it again, but it was the right decision at the time - there's no denying that. There is denying that. You are passing off an opinion as a statement of fact. Hopefully Americans have sent enough of their manufacturing sector to China & elsewhere without doing the same to what is left of their ship building.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 4, 2012 9:34:53 GMT -8
There is denying that. You are passing off an opinion as a statement of fact. Hopefully Americans have sent enough of their manufacturing sector to China & elsewhere without doing the same to what is left of their ship building. Which is exactly the point I was making. We do not need to be outsourcing our ferry construction. Anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by dasgeneral on Mar 4, 2012 10:14:53 GMT -8
There is denying that. You are passing off an opinion as a statement of fact. Hopefully Americans have sent enough of their manufacturing sector to China & elsewhere without doing the same to what is left of their ship building. Which is exactly the point I was making. We do not need to be outsourcing our ferry construction. Anywhere. If some shipyard in California or BC can do it better, then we need to start making some smart fiscal choices about where WSF does business. The state is not exactly in good fiscal shape and if more ferries are needed after the Evergreen-State Class are retired, then they need to find the best and cheapest alternative to Washington yards. Keep the business in the Pacific Northwest if possible, but don't be afraid to send the job to a yard back on the east coast if they can do it better and for cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 4, 2012 12:44:42 GMT -8
Which is exactly the point I was making. We do not need to be outsourcing our ferry construction. Anywhere. If some shipyard in California or BC can do it better, then we need to start making some smart fiscal choices about where WSF does business. The state is not exactly in good fiscal shape and if more ferries are needed after the Evergreen-State Class are retired, then they need to find the best and cheapest alternative to Washington yards. Keep the business in the Pacific Northwest if possible, but don't be afraid to send the job to a yard back on the east coast if they can do it better and for cheaper. I have to disagree. Vigor has by far more experience building ferries for WSF and as far as building cheaper, that usually results in a trade-off in build quality. Teething issues notwithstanding, the KDT class are remarkably well-built.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Mar 4, 2012 18:58:39 GMT -8
:)further to this, I note that the yard that we have sub-let our once capable domestic work has been getting large boosts from their gov't, and are getting attention for their great ro-pax wonderful replacements for other jurisdictions which are prepared to see their own domestic industries go to museum sites, as have happened clydebank, and elsewhere. I guess the youth in these once busy sites, will be happy to be wall-mart greeters! :omrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 5, 2012 9:19:57 GMT -8
There is definitely a need for protection, but what kind of protection do you have in mind? I think it would be best if that came federally. It is clear that financial protection is not enough - this shipyard is in need of increased resources and skilled labour. As for the boats from Germany, I hope we don't have to do it again, but it was the right decision at the time - there's no denying that. I don't think it was fair that WMG was excluded from bidding, however with the Island Sky story, that might not have ended well. And yet you think us ugly Americans should get rid of the Jones Act. Make up your mind. Here's the distinction that I guess I didn't make clear. If you add protection to shipyards (like additional skilled labour and resources), you are giving customers an incentive to go locally, rather than outsourcing, by allowing them to provide a higher quality product for a lower cost. The protections I was referring to would allow the local shipyards to compete in an international economy. The Jones Act effectively prevents you from going out-of-country. Instead of actually providing anything for the shipyards besides scattered monopolies, it forces the customer to stay within the limitations of the US, which in most instances would result in a lower quality product. It does nothing to allow the shipyards to compete.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 5, 2012 12:49:10 GMT -8
I have to say your views do not fall in favor with most Americans, and the assumption that Americans build inferior products is asinine. We here n America are slowly regaining our "Made in USA" pride we lost at the beginning of the 1980s. As a testament to that fact, I own a 1996 Ford Taurus built with American components in Chicago, Illinois last well past 321,000 miles on its original engine/transmission. Most imports don't even make it half that far. With respect to WSF vessels their construction needs to and should stay locally.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 5, 2012 13:02:04 GMT -8
I have to say your views do not fall in favor with most Americans, and the assumption that Americans build inferior products is asinine. We here n America are slowly regaining our "Made in USA" pride we lost at the beginning of the 1980s. As a testament to that fact, I own a 1996 Ford Taurus built with American components in Chicago, Illinois last well past 321,000 miles on its original engine/transmission. Most imports don't even make it half that far. With respect to WSF vessels their construction needs to and should stay locally. It may not be the popular viewpoint, but I am sure that if you compared the results of a product built by a shipyard who specializes in RoRo ferries (e.g. FSG in Germany), versus a smaller local operation, I am sure you would find far fewer build issues with the ferry-specific operation. It just so happens that FSG is located in Germany, and not in Seattle. If you are going to use a car metaphor, fine. We have had three American cars in the past fifteen years (1990 Dodge Aries, 1995 Dodge Caravan and 1999 Ford Explorer), none of which made it past 150,000 km, and two of them had major issues within one year of purchase (bought new). To get that far, two of them required at least one transmission replacement. Ships, like cars - they just don't build 'em like they used to.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 5, 2012 14:04:13 GMT -8
Vigor Shipyards in Seattle isn't exactly a "small" operation.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Mar 5, 2012 14:22:28 GMT -8
:)I guess my retirement world is giving me time to refocus on this issue, but my north american ford focus is a great vechicle for this, and church life in Pt.Roberts, where my wife keeps up her music, is also helpful, but I still can't come to grips with the fact that we are deemed unable to build major vessels, anymore but have to sublet this to an overseas ro-pax yard! I guess the world of a viable Victoria Machinery Depot, Yarrows, and Burard Drydock, are history in my reflections! :)mrdot.
|
|
lifc
Voyager
Posts: 471
|
Post by lifc on Mar 5, 2012 14:29:47 GMT -8
We still need competition in bidding if we want to get good value for the Taxpayers. The current monopoly of construction is costing us dearly. I propose that all WSF bids go nationwide and we give a percentage overbid handicap to the local yards to compensate for costs that would be incurred by out-of-state bidding. This would go along way to making the bids reasonable and keeping the local yards honest, something they have no incentive to do now. Vigor builds ships for private entity's who would obviously go elsewhere if their bids were too high, let's eliminate the crony bids and extreme pricing of mandated in-state bidding.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Mar 5, 2012 16:59:28 GMT -8
It may not be the popular viewpoint, but I am sure that if you compared the results of a product built by a shipyard who specializes in RoRo ferries (e.g. FSG in Germany), versus a smaller local operation, I am sure you would find far fewer build issues with the ferry-specific operation. It just so happens that FSG is located in Germany, and not in Seattle. If you are going to use a car metaphor, fine. We have had three American cars in the past fifteen years (1990 Dodge Aries, 1995 Dodge Caravan and 1999 Ford Explorer), none of which made it past 150,000 km, and two of them had major issues within one year of purchase (bought new). To get that far, two of them required at least one transmission replacement. Ships, like cars - they just don't build 'em like they used to. Ships and cars are VERY different animals and cannot really be compared. One is mass produced in many different locations and finally assembled on a high capacity assembly line. The other is designed, built and tested for the needs and wishes of a particular customer. MileagePhoto... I still don't really understand the point you are trying to make. First you say that the Jones Act is "unbelievable", and then you say that shipyards should have some protection... I'm still not seeing it. I think there should be a happy medium. As some other people have suggested, some kind of "handicap" so that local yards will still get a preference, but allow other jurisdictions to compete and keep the local yards from having a monopoly. The "Build In Washington" law is a good idea on paper, but in today's reality I don't think it's financially prudent, but I'm not a Washington taxpayer, so my opinion really doesn't count for much ;D. What I do know... is the 70-80 million paid per KdT seems extremely steep for the product received, ESPECIALLY considering half the design was already done. I'm sure the workmanship is great... but I think the workmanship would be good anywhere on the west coast.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Mar 5, 2012 18:12:49 GMT -8
I still don't really understand the point you are trying to make. First you say that the Jones Act is "unbelievable", and then you say that shipyards should have some protection... I'm still not seeing it. The point I am trying to make is that the Jones Act is not the appropriate way to deal with a declining shipbuilding industry. The Jones Act effectively prevents shipbuilders from building out-of-country and allowing the shipyards within the country to compete in a global market of shipbuilding. The kind of protection (perhaps protection is the wrong word, maybe that's throwing my point off) that I was trying to portray, was that of skilled labour and resources - a part of reinvesting in North American manufacturing, to allow them to compete internationally. Being forced to "buy local" is ridiculous and unreasonable, but there should be incentives for doing so. I hope that makes sense...
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rosenow on Mar 5, 2012 18:36:23 GMT -8
I may not be speaking for a majority of Washington taxpayers, but being one anyways I hold the firm conviction that my taxpayer dollars better be used to keep jobs in Washington in terms of new vessel construction. And the notion Todd builds inferior ferries is absurd. Todd, Vigor builds exceptionally well-built and very reliable ferries for Washington. The KDT "teething issues" right now are just that.
|
|