Slower Ferries or Fuel Surcharge??

[Koastal Karl]

I know there was a previous thread on this but I thought I would put it into a poll too? What do you guys think they should do, run the ferries at a slower speed or add a fuel surcharge to the fare???

[Koastal Karl]

Personally I can go either way! It wouldent bother me if the ferries were running at a slower speed depending on how longer the trip would be. We have nicer ferries now so I wouldent mind spending longer on them. Depending on how much the fuel surcharge would be I could go that way too.

[Ferryman]

I don't mind being on the ferries for a long time, I mind when I have to be on them longer than I have to. So I'll go with the Fuel Surcharge I hate to say.

[Curtis]

Might as well go with the Surcharge a slower speed would screw up current scheduales and take longer

[Balfour]

A slower speed would mean more sailing waits and impatient customers.

[Political Incorrectness]

slower speed is a waste of fuel

[Koastal Karl]

Yeah I guess that is true and the best way would probably be the fuel surchage added to the fare! With the price of gas now and people who drive filling up their cars would probably understand why BC Ferries would need to do that!

[cascade]

I think we are all missing the point here.

Point 1. If they put on a fuel surcharge - what happens when the price of oil drops - do they reduce the fare that they have increased it by to cover this fuel increase?

Point 2. The fleet per say is old - yes you can reduce speed - hence save a little in the cost of fuel they consume - but it also works to the advantage of the Ferry - less wear and tear on the engines - running at a slower speed - therefore they can prolong the life cycle - and refit. Yes maybe over a period of time there could be savings - but when.

Point 3. Going slower - increase in crews wages - this part of the debate from David Hahn I just can't really follow. If going slower is by say 20 minutes - no - But if going slower by 35 minutes then yes I can see a small problem in increase wage demands for the extra hour the crew work.

I firmly believe that the fuel surcharge will add to the cost of the fare no matter what happens in the world oil market. I think that the BCFS senior management have played a good hand in increasing the revenue stream via the fuel problem. They could have hedged the fuel contract - but no they haven't so why not. We know from History that the price of oil goes up and also down - supply & demand. Never has a fuel surcharge been reduced are dropped. It is a back door tax - revenue increase.

[Engineer]

running slower does save fuel, but then gets everyone bent out of shape.
current scheduales could not handle slower speeds.
years ago we figured out running at a slower speed and loosing 1 to 2 mins per crossing would save enough fuel to pay the skipper wage. But at that time the ferries told us to mind our own buisness.
LOL pedal to the metal who cares the pubic will pay in the end...

[cascade]

Engineer,

What is approx amount of "Cash" saving they would make over the fleet - if they reduce speed by 15%.

Are the vessel running at 85 to 90% over the length of the trip? Where is the critical speed on the vessel you work on? Below you get no saving above you burn.

Our view is that they hedge the fuel stock for 6 months and reduce speed by about 5% to get back the over spend - which would mean around a delay of what to the schedule ?
Interested to hear your comments. I know a little about the engine your running - so would like to hear from the floor as to what they think.

[NMcKay]

they were experimenting with the lynx engines when she was having problems. and found that the optimal speed was 26 - 32 Knots, Keeps the time the same, and yet 26 knots burns about 15% less an hour (600L vs 510L)