New route: Vancouver to Port Hardy

[Retrovision]

Nov 11, 2009 7:21:13 GMT -8 gordon said:

I would assume they would have to construct a floating berth at Tsawwassen for the Nor Ex to use the terminal? ( the QPR stopped at Tsw on he final voyage didn't she?)

I'm thinking that they would use the NorEx's bow-loading capability at Tsawwassen. If a floating berth was constructed at Tsawwassen, though, surely it would be the little-used Berth 1.

I'm almost certain that the QPR would have stopped at Tsawwassen, out of service of course, after her final journey south, as all northern vessels tend to heading to and from the north for destoring in her case and in order to unload crew not on watch and any other employees who took the ride south.

[Northern Exploration]

Nov 11, 2009 8:53:57 GMT -8 Scott said:

Nov 11, 2009 7:05:36 GMT -8 Northern Exploration said:

While Islanders could use the service to Vancouver, the main group to target for this service would be tourists. There are lots of people who would love to have an Alaskan Cruise but either don't have the time for the full blown affair, aren't really long term cruise types or simply can't afford the costs.

Don't you think BC Ferries has to be careful though? Earlier this year a friend told me that he was thinking of taking a trip on the Inside Passage from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, but the cost was prohibitive. For a grown family of 5 it would have cost well over $1,000 for a one-way trip where they would have to drive back, and still pay for food. On the other hand, an Alaska Cruise would cost maybe 3-4 times more, but last a whole week and have most of the food/entertainment taken care of for the whole trip.

Yes for sure. If they price it too high, the appeal of the trip would lessen. I never took a car so that cost was never factored in for me. I mostly was thinking of the large numbers of European visitors. The round trip and staying on board the ferry on the normal trip were my usual expenses, plus the food package they used to offer. I often split the cost of the cabin with one other person but not always.

To do a fair comparison you would have to factor in the trip to Island via one of the normal routes, gas to Port Hardy, motel or campground there, and normal Inside Passage Fare. If I was advising BCFerries as a client I would make it just slightly more than the Island.

[Low Light Mike]

Here's a new article (thanks for my colleague Leif, for spotting it)

BC Ferries floats Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert route
Friday, November 13, 2009 | 9:06 AM PT

BC Ferries is looking to open up the north coast tourism industry with a new cruise-style ferry trip connecting Tsawwassen and Prince Rupert up the Inside Passage, CBC News has learned.

"What we are proposing is every two weeks in the summertime to have the Northern Expedition come down to Tsawwassen and bring the tourists up north," said spokeswoman Deborah Marshall.

The 30-hour ocean voyage, would depart from the Tsawwassen terminal south of Vancouver, stop over in Port Hardy on the northern tip of Vancouver Island, before heading up the Inside Passage to Prince Rupert on B.C.'s North Coast.

The trip, which would be BC Ferries longest route, would follow the first leg of the same scenic route up the Inside Passage taken by dozens of cruise ships carrying thousands of international passengers from Seattle and Vancouver to Alaska each summer.

Local market targeted
Unlike the cruise industry, BC Ferries marketing would be aimed at local residents looking for a quick summer get-away up the coast.

"What we want to do is tap into the Vancouver market and the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. and bolster the number of tourists who do head up north by bringing our ship down south," said Marshall.

On Friday, BC Ferries will pitch the idea to northern officials and then later this month they'll meet with the public in Prince Rupert and Port Hardy, and if all goes well, the new route could be in place by 2011, according to Marshall.

The trip would be on the M.V. Northern Expedition, a 150-metre vessel with 55 staterooms and several restaurants and lounges, which was launched earlier this year to service the the day-long route from Port Hardy up to Prince Rupert.

www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/13/bc-ferries-tsawwassen-prince-rupert-route.html

I think that their price-point will be key.

[Retrovision]

Thank you for posting this. It's looking more and more like it will come to fruition. Back to the good old days of the extended northern routes (What ever happened to repositioning cruises anyways?), I'm thrilled.

Nov 13, 2009 11:21:44 GMT -8 Low Light Mike said:

...and the Pacific Northwest of the U.S. ...

Thank you, Deborah! This has always been a sticking point for me and in fact my family agrees whenever it's brought up; it's refreshing to hear an official spokesperson getting it correct for once. We aren't the 51st state yet. The "Pacific Northwest" ends at the 49th parallel, if we were referring to North America we'd be referring to Alaska and/or northwestern BC. >End mini rant< ;D

[Neil]

BC Ferries might regret designing the NorEx with such limited cabin accommodation. She has 55. Alaska's Kennicott and Columbia each have twice that number, and the smaller Malaspina has 73.

They have to hope there are lots of backpackers who don't mind sleeping on the floor, or tourists who are content with seats in public lounges. For such a big vessel, 55 staterooms seems rather on the small side if they're turning her into a part time cruise ferry.

[Low Light Mike]

Nov 13, 2009 12:24:31 GMT -8 Neil said:

They have to hope there are lots of backpackers who don't mind sleeping on the floor, or tourists who are content with seats in public lounges. For such a big vessel, 55 staterooms seems rather on the small side if they're turning her into a part time cruise ferry.

Does the NorEx have public showers, for those who don't take a stateroom on an overnight trip?

If not, maybe that would be a useful modification. Some of the Alaska ships have public-showers for those who sleep in the lounges and solariums.


I am curious to know if BC Ferries considered a 30-hour summer cruise with lots of foot-passengers, when they set the design specifics for building the new NorEx.

If the summer 30-hour cruise is too popular, BC Ferries risks having the intended high-end experience turn into a "Discovery Coast experience" for some, for the 8 hours or so of sleepy-time.

[gordon]

I wonder if B.C. Ferries envisioned this route when they put out the specs for the NorEX?

Would it be possible to add more cabins to the Nor Ex?

Do many of the Cruise ships follow the Ip Ferry Route all the way up the Grenville Channel?

[Deleted]

One would think that BC Ferries would have envisioned this route before they built the NorEx but who knows?

Some cruise ships follow the Inside Passage route up Grenville Channel and some don't. For some reason it just depends. South bound one year on the "Queen of the North" we had two cruise ships astern of us in Grenville Channel. But a few times taking the "Queen of Chilliwack" on the Discovery Coast route I have seen cruise ships coming in from the Pacific in Queen Charlotte Sound. I am not sure why some follow it all the way up and others don't?

[WettCoast]

Here is an on-air interview from this morning's Daybreak North program.

www.cbc.ca/daybreaknorth/media/2009111300005da2.ram

Some interesting items:

• The CBC has discovered this story a mere 5 months after it broke here on the WCFF
  
• Deb Marshall admits in the interview that business on the northern routes has been declining over recent years. I wonder if she or anyone else at the QoFS have linked the decline to steeply rising fares?
  
• Deb has also indicated that scheduling in Tsawwassen will be an issue with typically 8 ferries already sharing the available 5 berths. They have to work out how they can fit the Norex in there.
  
• The journey would apparently be 30 hours each way. That, I assume, means 3 days for the round trip. A portion of the journey will be overnight. Seymour Narrows at 2 am would be a big disappointment, I think.
  
• I also gather that the ship will stop at Port Hardy both north & south bound. I assume that passengers & vehicles will be able to disembark/embark at Port Hardy. When they last did Tsawwassen trips (late 1970's & early 80's) 60 or 75% of customers did not do the southern leg leaving the ship short on passengers. This could very well be the case again, especially if the trip is as pricey as I expect it to be (take advertised 2010 rates and add 60% across the board).
  
• As I said before, this idea is worth pursuing. It might work out. It also might flop. Fluge is right. It depends on price.
  

PS - I do not recall there being public showers on the NorEx. All AMHS vessels that I have travelled on have such, as do (did) the QPR, Chilliwack & QotN.

[cohocatcher]

Late this afternoon I was checking my several local news services on the web when I came across this story. It was accompanied by a picture of a ferry (I think it was the Surrey).

I can image that a person from BCFS called them and the following could have been a quote (oh to be a fly on the wall for this conversation!) ... "Look you idiots, if you're going to run a story about the Northern Expedition, at least get a picture on the actual ferry, not an old C class ferry!

The story has since gone away (for now). If it resurfaces, let's at least hope that they get the picture right.

[Ferryman]

The Norex has the capability to add a few extra cabins. When I had the opportunity to tour her just a matter of a couple of weeks after her arrival at Departure Bay in March. The fellow who gave us the tour mentioned that the Kids Play area/lounge is called the "Flex Lounge". Supposebly it's setup to be transformed into another 5 cabins if needed.

At Tsawwassen, I could see the "Big Red Dock Plug" that was used at Departure Bay in the Spring, would be brought out of Deas and used at Tsawwassens Berth 1/2. It's such a simple way of adjusting the dock. BC Ferries could in theory just put the plug in the dock when it's needed every two weeks, and then pull it out when she leaves, and simply rafted along another area of the terminal so it's out of the way in the mean time.

[Retrovision]

Interesting about the "Flex Lounge", seems reminiscent of the ability to convert the Sitka Coffee Places aboard the Coastal Renaissance and Coastal Inspiration into Pacific Buffets.

When it comes to the "Big Red Dock Plug", couldn't they simply dock the NorEx at Berth 2 at Tsawwassen with it's lack of overhead superstructure and utilize her bow loading capability?

[gordon]

This new route would cause some alterations to the the main northern routes.

Would the Nor Ad do a Day Cruise While the Nor Ex is on the Southern legs of the trip( I wonder if BCF will try to deal with her fuel consumption issues )


I would also suspect That the QCI route may lose atleast i daily Round trp as well if the Nor Ad does the day cruise.

[Koastal Karl]

There was an article in the Times Colonist about the proposed new route! They said Port Hardy to Prince Rupert would be normal with a departure of 7:30am and arrival of 10:30pm. They said the trip would be split into two 15 hour cruises from Tsawwassen to Port Hardy then Port Hardy to Prince Rupert! They also mentioned passengers would have the option of overnighting on the ship in cabins in Port Hardy. But I thought that wasent allowed due to Transport Canada regulations? Also if I am correct the Queen of the North did the Tsawwassen to Port Hardy in like 13 hours. They said proposed fare of $249 for adults and $119 for children and a vehicle for $499 and outside cabins $115 and inside would be $85. Now I am wondering if passengers want cabins if you would have to pay for each leg or could you just buy a cabin for the overnight in Port Hardy or Prince Rupert or wherever. Or if you wanted a cabin for the whole trip if you would have to pay double cause of the two seperate legs of the trip. If this new route goes ahead I am definately gonna plan a trip. It's too bad though we cant get to Tsawwassen though the same day cause they would probably be departing around 7:30am. It's a pretty good idea for this route as they mentioned people would use it as an alternative to driving from Prince Rupert or flying south or north.

[Low Light Mike]

Some feedback on the proposed route from Prince Rupert area:

Something that is an addition to some, is a cut to others...

www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/thenorthernview/opinion/70250612.html

We must stop B.C. Ferries from cutting service to the North

Text By Bruce Wishart - The Northern View
Published: November 17, 2009 11:00 PM

Ever since the proposed B.C. Ferries service from Tsawwassen to Port Hardy was first publicly floated back in July, I’ve waited for a business plan to be presented at public meetings. To the best of my knowledge there’s still no business plan, and even though B.C. Ferries has called a couple of meetings it seems that there will be little meaningful consultation.

Traffic on the Inside Passage has been in decline, and to offset this B.C. Ferries wants to use the new Northern Expedition, eliminating Inside Passage sailings every time the ship sails to Tsawwassen, to tap into untested southern tourism markets.

From everything I’ve heard so far, this is a terrible idea on all fronts. They’re not saying it openly, but by my calculation this proposal removes about 20 sailings from Prince Rupert during the 2011 summer season – about a third of the peak season capacity that feeds the northern circle tours. The change in frequency will throw off circle tour patterns for tour operators and independent travelers, creating even wider losses – not to mention the damage to long-term relationships with domestic and international tour operators. And it reduces the availability of a saleable, iconic experience that is used to sell British Columbia to the world.

For years B.C. Ferries has dreamed about finding consumer demand for their northern routes in lucrative Lower Mainland markets. Now, citing research, they’ve concluded that this market will fill their northern ships – despite the obvious losses of all of those cancelled sailings. Never mind that they’ve never managed to reach this market before. They’ve even provided very imaginative load projections to back up their claims – an increase as high as a very specific 7,350 passengers and 2,100 vehicles.

When tourism professionals questioned this research at a meeting last Friday, asking how these numbers were reached, B.C. Ferries staff were unable to provide direct answers.

The truth is that their entire justification for this proposal is flawed. B.C. Ferries has never properly marketed the Inside Passage. They haven’t spent the dollars needed to get them back up to pre-sinking levels. And before 2006 they operated on a self-fulfilling prophecy that the northern runs would always be money losers, reliant upon subsidies, and thus not worth significant marketing investment.

The Northern B.C. Tourism Association, Tourism Prince Rupert, and others, have worked for years on partnership building with B.C. Ferries. Since 2006 they’ve finally shown some interest in marketing the Inside Passage. But it’s just a small beginning, and will be an uphill struggle after years of marketing neglect.

I’d argue that working to market the Inside Passage, increasing customer yield through on-board revenue streams, makes a lot more business sense than slashing the existing service to gamble on an untested market.

We’re told that feedback for this proposal has been good so far. I can’t imagine that being true. Any stakeholder I’ve spoken to – from Vancouver Island to the northern interior – is horrified by this proposed devastation to service on the Inside Passage.

And don’t ask me how this is supposed to get past the B.C. Ferry Commission. B.C. Ferries has a contractual obligation to provide core services through the current performance term fixed by the Coastal Ferry Act (PT2, effective through to March 31, 2012).

I think that there’s even more to this. The timing of the Tsawwassen runs even makes me suspicious about the potential impact this might have on crewing the northern ships from Prince Rupert, and what this might mean in terms of northern jobs. Call me paranoid, but this is a battle we’ve fought before.

In next week’s column I’ll talk about the federal subsidy being used to parallel an existing highway system. Unless I’m missing something in their proposed pricing schedule this must be their intent, and that’s not the way that this subsidy was meant to be applied.

I don’t believe that the projected business will be there for B.C. Ferries. I don’t believe that there is any possible benefit to Vancouver Island and the North to offset the sweeping damage this will cause. B.C. Ferries has clearly forgotten the great lesson of 2006 – that any disruption on the Inside Passage wreaks havoc everywhere from the gate at Buchart Gardens to the hotel reservation desks of Saskatchewan.

One of only two public meetings regarding this will be held in Prince Rupert on November 30. It is vital for northern residents, especially those with livelihoods tied to tourism, to attend this meeting in force and do everything in our power to stop B.C. Ferries from cutting service to the North.

[Neil]

Nov 18, 2009 8:17:25 GMT -8 @4roads said:

One person's opinion and conjecture.

Are you referring to the previous post, or to yours?

Nov 18, 2009 8:17:25 GMT -8 @4roads said:

Has there been any specific indication that BC Ferries will in fact cut sailings if the Northern Expedition is used on some cruises starting in Tsawwassen? This wasn't the case when there was for a short period of time, cruises starting in Tsawwassen.

In attempting to sell this idea at the first meeting in Prince Rupert, don't you think BC Ferries would have mentioned it if they were planning on having the NorAd make up any lost sailings by the NorEx? Also, I'm sure you remember that the only time BC Ferries sailed from Tsawwassen previously, it was on the winter schedule, and both Queen of The North and Queen of Prince Rupert were in service, so cutting frequency was not an issue.

Nov 18, 2009 8:17:25 GMT -8 @4roads said:

It's easy to whine and complain, but much more challenging to ctually get things done, and with that more challenging to come p with something positive.
Sure seems to be alot of complaining about BC Ferries.
What's next? The shade of white on the hulls isn't correct?

Ah, yes. All these people whining and complaining and snorting. I guess when you say David Hahn's salary should be cut 60%, that's constructive criticism.

Bruce Wishart's concerns are justified. If BC Ferries replaces the sailings lost to the Tsawwassen extension with bi-weekly sailings by the NorAd, great, nobody will have reason to complain. But they're doing this to better utilize the Northern Expedition, not necessarily to serve the north coast. They are required by contract to provide 3.5 round trips per week in peak season on route 10. However, Martin Crilly, that stalwart watchdog of the public interest, has not turned BC Ferries down on one request they've ever made, and I suspect he will be just as receptive if they come requesting a variance on this issue as well.

BC Ferries got the money for the NorEx on the understanding that it was to provide service to the north coast. It's disingenuous for them to claim that's what they're doing here, if they cut frequency of departures from Prince Rupert to focus more on a Georgia Strait mini-cruise. We shall see.

[Quatchi]

Maybe it is marketed as a mini-cruise, but is that the worst thing ever. Maybe it does take away from the transit capacity of route 10. Maybe it is some sort of evil plan.

But, the mini-cruise would hopefully attract more people to the north coast. Also, maybe some residents of the north coast would like to be able to go straight through to Vancouver. I don't see it as being all evil, to me it looks like north coast residents are given more options. Sure there's one less round trip every two weeks, but really cant those cars and passengers just be placed on a different sailing. Its not like the ship is PACKED to the limits every sailing. They say they want to better utilize the ship, meaning it is underutilized right now, so its not like loosing one sailing is going to leave everyone behind.

In respect to the subsidy, I don't see a problem with this. The ship leaves the north coast to provide a link into the south coast, if it were to stop at multiple south coast terminals that would be different. In that case its not being used for its original intent.

The way BCF is set up to operate at the moment can we really expect anything less than them trying to make more money, so I think this is a good idea at the moment. We will see when we get more information as to weather it is going to work out or if the loss in capacity on route 10 will be too much.

My opinion, SO FAR.

[Neil]

Nov 18, 2009 12:43:01 GMT -8 Quatchi said:

But, the mini-cruise would hopefully attract more people to the north coast. Also, maybe some residents of the north coast would like to be able to go straight through to Vancouver. I don't see it as being all evil, to me it looks like north coast residents are given more options. Sure there's one less round trip every two weeks, but really cant those cars and passengers just be placed on a different sailing. Its not like the ship is PACKED to the limits every sailing. They say they want to better utilize the ship, meaning it is underutilized right now, so its not like loosing one sailing is going to leave everyone behind.

I don't think anybody sees any evil here. I think this is an excellent idea, if it can be accomplished without cutting existing service. Eliminating one sailing every two weeks from Prince Rupert represents a 14% reduction in service- pretty considerable. We're not talking about winter midweek evening sailings on route 2 here, with a boat sailing next to empty. BC Ferries has not demonstrated that one of the NorEx's sailings would not be missed, as they did with route 2. They have contracted to provide 3.5 round trips every week; should they be allowed to break their contract every time they think they can make more money out of one of their vessels?

I don't know how Paul came to his assumption that the NorEx can add a trip to Tsawwassen and still do the 3.5 round trips. We are talking about a minimum 12 hours down, 12 hours back, and at the very least, a two hour turn around at Tsawwassen. It would be exceedingly difficult to add, at the very minimum, 26 hours of service to one week's schedule, unless they were sailing around the clock, with tight turn arounds. It could be done over two weeks, at the cost of some of their daytime sailing schedule, and again, with tighter turn arounds. But with the cuts to south coast service, it's understandable that people are concerned that they'll simply drop a sailing.

Nov 18, 2009 12:43:01 GMT -8 Quatchi said:

In respect to the subsidy, I don't see a problem with this. The ship leaves the north coast to provide a link into the south coast, if it were to stop at multiple south coast terminals that would be different. In that case its not being used for its original intent.

The contract with BC Ferries for route 10 is specifically to provide service between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert. This use of the NorEx seems to alter that. We've been speculating that people might like the opportunity to sail directly to Tsawwassen, or that tourism to Prince Rupert might increase because of this. Possibly, but that's not really for us on the south coast to decide. This route exists to serve the north coast, and supposedly, residents there will have some input in public meetings, although I'm very skeptical about that. The 'consultation' with Denman and Hornby residents over the cable ferry turned out to be an exercise of "Here's what we're going to do, and we're telling you about it."

At the last AGM, David Hahn spoke of the north coast as being something of an unexploited opportunity for BC Ferries; an area where they felt they could grow their business. If they do this Tsawwassen venture by adding a NorAd sailing or conjuring a tight NorEx schedule without applying to cut trips, we'll know he was also thinking about what should be the company's mandate- to serve the coast. If they add Tsawwassen and cut a sailing, then they'll simply be using public resources in an attempt to fatten their bottom line and possibly help some exec achieve his bonus with a more clever use of one of 'their' vessels.

[WettCoast]

I estimate that the full summer one way trip from Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert will cost a family of 2 adults and two children somewhere between $2000 & $2500. This assumes they are taking an under height vehicle, and one of the children gets on at half price, and the other is full fare. My estimate assumes fares for the Prince Rupert - Tsawwassen through trip will be 70% higher than the published rates for summer 2010 between Port Hardy and Rupert. (They may in fact be double!)

To do it for about $2000 would mean no cabin, no reserved seating, and eating mostly out of the cooler in the back of your car. For this family of four costs could easily approach $3000 if they get cabin space for four, reserved seating and eat three full meals per day in the ship's cafeteria/buffet. Add another $450+ if the vehicle they drive is over 7 feet in height.

The Port Hardy to Rupert trip is already very pricey. The through trip to Tsawwassen will be 'ouch' expensive. I do not expect many north coast families will be choosing this option when they could drive around for maybe one fifth as much money. This family would be better off to book an Alaska cruise that lasts seven days and will cost them less.

[Quatchi]

I did not know the subsidy was specifically for the PH-PR run, in that case, yes I feel it is an incorrect use of the subsidy to make the run down to Tsawwassen.

BCF states that the ship is underutilized, I took this to mean half full sailings and such, I didn't think that maybe it just means they think they can make more money with it doing other things.

Really, I don't see this taking off, like WCK said its going to be expensive. AMHS list their run from Ketchikan to Bellingham at 239 per passenger and 617 for a 19' car. That is about another 8 or more hours than what BCF is suggesting, but it is USD, and that run is heavily subsidized as well.

Cheers,

[Neil]

An example of how four runs could be made one week to make up for the loss of one in the other. In '84 they also had the 'Rupert do two runs on route 10, for a total of six round trips every week. Staggered sailing times, a departure at 1:00am, and turnarounds as short as two hours made this schedule something of a logistical problem, and it only lasted a couple of years.

[Low Light Mike]

News story re the Nov.30th meeting in Prince Rupert

BC Ferries held a public consultation in Prince Rupert today and even the company's President and CEO was on hand to answer the public's questions. While David Hahn acknowledged that many people might not like change, it may be the only way to increase ridership on BC Ferries and positively impact northern tourism. BC Ferries is proposing a new route from Tsawwassen to Prince Rupert with a stop in Port Hardy. While many local residents at the meeting were skepticle, Hahn says he sees no other option.

"I just don't see the up-side of just staying with the status-quo" said Hahn when asked why BC Ferries doesn't just market the North better rather than install a new route.

The new route would mean 20less sailings for the North Coast but it will not be effective until the Spring of 2011 if it's added to BC ferry's schedule. Hahn says BC Ferries will make a decision in the next few months.

from:
www.cftktv.com/node/1030682

[WettCoast]

It is interesting that on another thread (Dream Ferry Routes) we are fantasizing about routes that almost certainly will never exist (example: Vancouver - Comox). Why - usually because these routes are already served by existing highways and/or shorter ferry routes.

In general terms ferry routes are viable where there is no other reasonable means to get from Point A to Point B.

Here on this thread we are discussing what appears to be David Hahn's "dream ferry route" which appears to me to have no better likelihood of viability then Vancouver to Comox does.

I wonder if the polling being done by Mustel on behalf of BCFS is informing potential clients of what a passage on this dream route is likely to cost?

Potential passengers are taking fewer ferry today then they did in the past due mainly to steeply rising fares - they have all but doubled since the new and improved BC Ferries came into existance in 2003. Vacationers can get better value for their money by making other choices, such as Alaska cruises, or doing inland tours that do not involve ferries.

[Low Light Mike]

Dec 1, 2009 23:52:22 GMT -8 @4roads said:

You can spend a heap of money on an Alaskan cruise aboard one of the fancy cruise ships to Skagway, or you can sail the same route aboard the State of Alaska Ferry and our own BC Ferries.

Argument point:
- You will spend a heap of money by taking BC Ferries and/or Alaska Ferry as an alternative to the cruise (taking roughly the same route).
- You will get better value by taking the cruise.

The cruise is Not more expense, from a cost-and-value point of view.

I invite you to compare the costs on a cost-per-day basis.

[Neil]

Monday's Prince Rupert meeting was another example of how BC Ferries, under David Hahn, considers itself answerable to absolutely no one. Hahn & company didn't go there to consult; they went to inform the local yokels How It Will Be. Only the time frame is in question, and that as well will be decided by BC Ferries.

Hahn says BC Ferries is altering route ten because "the numbers aren't working". Aren't working for whom? The expenditure on the northern route might be quite reasonable given the role it plays on the north coast. But while route ten was started to serve the north coast, now it serves BC Ferries, and if it 'loses' money, it will be altered to meet their needs.

At every turn, Hahn has expressed his contempt for any public governance over BC Ferries. He made it clear he had little time for the comptroller general's findings about company operations. The public is invited to meetings simply to hear what BC Ferries has decided to do.

We are the one shareholder; we own the boats, the terminals, the system as a whole. Watching this bunch in action, though, you'd never know it. Such is Gord's creation.