Post by Retrovision on Aug 13, 2007 15:08:44 GMT -8
I disagree with a number of you. BCF management has made the correct decision not to invest a dime into the Esquimalt. The plan for the future was plotted long ago, and it didn’t include this particular boat. Once that decision was made, it only makes sense to reduce maintenance to only the essentials. I’m sure a cost / benefit analysis was done to see if there where any other practical uses for the old girl, the results of which we can assume pointed to ‘no’. BCF doesn’t seem to be throwing money around, and I suspect they wouldn’t be sending a boat to the scrap heap just for the hell of it.
As mentioned, dream of expansion will have to wait just a few months longer. But common guys, let the old girl sleep, she’s looking mighty tired.
This does seem to make the most sense to me, sort of triage in a way, as happens in many aspects of life when it comes to cost restraints. My biggest question, though, is about clauses in contracts, etc.
If a company wished to purchace the Esquimalt, for example, and run her locally for whatever revenue use, might there be a clause in the purchase contract that precludes use of her in B.C. waters? After all, we know how willing BCFS is to put exclusivity contracts in food services, etc., so would it be that big of a leap to include a similar clause in the potential sale of their retiring ships to avoid any kind of competition or bad press?