|
Post by WettCoast on Jul 26, 2013 15:58:29 GMT -8
On other threads, we have touched on the change of 'crew culture', or not, at BC Ferries in light of the sinking of the Queen of the North, and I would add here in this Alaska State Ferry discussion that there is a different 'culture','attitude' inherent in different regions /cities from which employers locate crewing pools. In my opinion, there was a definite shift of 'attitude/culture when BC Ferries decided to crew the Northern vessels out of Prince Rupert and surrounding areas. I believe that you are right on your point re 'crew culture', and it did change (not necessarily for the better) when BC Ferries moved its northern crew base north to Prince Rupert from Vancouver Island. I suspect that this is an issue for AMHS, as well. One of the few disappointments that I had during my Alaska cruise earlier this month was not seeing the Malaspina (complete with her golden 50th anniversary funnel) during the day we were in Skagway. I had expected to see her first thing in the morning as we arrived in Skagway. I gather the Mal was there later in the day, but by that time I was on my WP&YR rail excursion to Carcross, Yukon. (Oh well, better luck next time...) Why AMHS changed this schedule, considering the crewing issue discussed in this thread, is curious. BTW, I don't think live aboard (or long day) crews need to have for all intents & purposes two complete crews aboard in order to operate all services. Certainly they require more deck crew, officers & engine room personnel, but not in catering (I think). For AMHS & BCF northern routes, food services do not operate 24/7. One crew working split shifts should suffice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2013 17:36:44 GMT -8
OK, I'll ask a different way: Are you completely naïve about workplace standards and of what is considered generally acceptable in the post industrial-revolution world ? Do you have any idea of what you are posting about? Yes I do. Have you ever worked a 14-hour shift?
|
|
|
Post by northwesterner on Jul 26, 2013 19:38:52 GMT -8
The LeConte, according to the AMHS website, has a crew of 24, so the difference is not quite as stark for her, but it's still there. I don't expect that AMHS would operate a domicile in Haines, I think that that is where the crews would be based. I browse the aviation forums over at airliners.net on a semi-regular basis (though I am not registered and do not post as I have very little knowledge of those things) and the posters there regularly use the term "domicile" to refer to a location where the crew are based out of. They can actually live there, or they can commute there, but as far as the company is concerned they are expected to make their shifts and call-back times as if they live there. I was not using the term expecting AMHS to open and operate employee housing there. Hopefully my use of the term domicile was not too confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 26, 2013 19:45:17 GMT -8
I browse the aviation forums over at airliners.net on a semi-regular basis (though I am not registered and do not post as I have very little knowledge of those things) and the posters there regularly use the term "domicile" to refer to a location where the crew are based out of. They can actually live there, or they can commute there, but as far as the company is concerned they are expected to make their shifts and call-back times as if they live there. I was not using the term expecting AMHS to open and operate employee housing there. Hopefully my use of the term domicile was not too confusing. Thank you for the clarification. This is one of the points where I readaly admit to being an amature without full understanding of the terms we use.
|
|
Mayne
Voyager
I come from a long line of sinners like me
Posts: 289
|
Post by Mayne on Jul 28, 2013 21:48:44 GMT -8
OK, I'll ask a different way: Are you completely naïve about workplace standards and of what is considered generally acceptable in the post industrial-revolution world ? Do you have any idea of what you are posting about? Yes I do. Really?!? You don't have a clue, I am in management and if I asked any of the 30 guys I have working for me to work what you expect I would not only no longer Have a job, they would more then likely want to burn down my house
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 28, 2013 22:43:37 GMT -8
I generally agree with what you say. I think however, that 42 members on board include the relief needed to go beyond 12 hours. I agree with you both. I think the day boat crew should be scheduled for a least 14 hours per-day. 14 hours is ridiculous! Even 12 hours is a lot of time to work each day. There's a reason why eight hours is the standard for most people to work. Anything more is generally too much.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 28, 2013 22:45:10 GMT -8
Really??? 14 hours of work for a regular ongoing shift? Are you nuts ? The crew could have 15 minutes breaks every five hours. That doesn't really make a difference. It would still feel like an extremely long day.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Jul 29, 2013 9:03:42 GMT -8
Yes I know 14 hours is a long day but I would allow the crew to finish the day after they unload, shut the down the boat when they dock in the last schedule terminal and why I said that is to help with cost saving. This would save money because the state would't have to start to pay overtime after 12 hours if the boat is behind schedule.
|
|
|
Post by Starsteward on Jul 29, 2013 9:16:37 GMT -8
People who are currently, or have been part of a ships' crew understand what it tkaes to put in a particular 'watch' period. Some crew positions are more sensitive to fatigue factors such as the Master however whatever the crew position might be, the last thing needed on a ship is a handful of 'tired' or unattentive crew members. I remember the first time I encountered a cafeteria attendant on a H.B.Bay - Departure Bay trip I was doing, tell me that he was going on a break, 10 minutes after we had departed Horseshoe Bay! How civilized as in yonder years prior to the union, yes kids, eons ago, breaks were to coin the convenience section of Chevron gas stations: "On the Run". Out on the "flats" behind the galley, having a nicotine fix or gulping down a hot coffee, or 3 mouthfuls of clam chowwder,(for which we were supposed to pay 1/2 price), whilst keeping one ear peeled to hear your next order-up being called by the cooks and one eye peeled for the wandering Chief Steward, epitomized early BC Ferry 'break periods' Break period ratings ran a range from totally satisfying /successful to trying to hit the middle of the garbage chute with the crockery so as not to produce a thunderous 'clank'that meant only one thing: "breakus interruptus"! Now, about those 15 hour watch periods??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 9:33:57 GMT -8
Yes I know 14 hours is a long day but I would allow the crew to finish the day after they unload, shut the down the boat when they dock in the last schedule terminal and why I said that is to help with cost saving. This would save money because the state would't have to start to pay overtime after 12 hours if the boat is behind schedule. You're obviously completely unaware of employment standards... I don't know about the State of Alaska, but here in BC, after 8 hours an employee is entitled to 1 1/2 time pay. After 12 hours he/she is entitled to double time. After 5 hours of work one is entitled to a half hour break. I have a part-time job which includes a commute aboard a ferry each way. I often do 12 hour days, and if I do any overtime it often turns into a 14-15 hour day. It's a long day, and when I get home I want to hit the hay as soon as I walk in the door. Fifteen minute breaks every five hours? I'm sorry, Cheese, but you really have no idea what it's like to have a job.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Jul 29, 2013 9:59:53 GMT -8
Yes I know 14 hours is a long day but I would allow the crew to finish the day after they unload, shut the down the boat when they dock in the last schedule terminal and why I said that is to help with cost saving. This would save money because the state would't have to start to pay overtime after 12 hours if the boat is behind schedule. So what that it saves money? Nobody will want to work fourteen hours! Think about it: a 14-hour day would be working from 6am to 8pm. You'd probably have to get up at 4:30 or 5 am to get ready for work and to commute, and then you'd probably be going to bed at 9:30-10pm after an extremely long day of work. And you'd be sleeping for about 7 hours. You aren't even getting enough sleep, because adults are supposed to be getting at least eight hours of sleep each night. Now, do you want to work for 14 hours? Oh, and most people have families that they want to spend time with each day and they don't want to be spending so little time with their families by working for 14 hours, even 12 hours is a lot. 14 hours is one heck of a long time to work, and thank God for unions that fought to only have an eight hour workday back in the Industrial Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jul 29, 2013 11:13:47 GMT -8
Folks, I'm pretty sure that Awesome Cheese is messing with you all. 15 minutes every 5 hours?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 22, 2013 17:23:05 GMT -8
Just FYI, the public comment period is open until the 30th of this month, if you have any thoughts on the Alaska Class Ferry, you can email the DOT here.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Apr 18, 2014 17:02:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Apr 30, 2014 5:38:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 30, 2014 10:01:08 GMT -8
Its good to see that the Elliot Bay design is back in favour for the proposed ACF's. They look quite pleasing to my eyes, and they do show a Spaulding heritage.
One question though... With these ships, and the two Alaska fast ferries, it appears that AMHS is moving away from side loading. I gather that this is being done at least in part to reduce the time required to unload/load the vessel in each port along its route. I assume that this means berth reconfiguration (& $$$'s) in each port that these vessels will operate into?
Also, they will use 'clam shell' type bow doors, which are apparently considered the modern standard for car deck access through the bow of ferries today (other than those operating in sheltered waters, such as most BCF & WSF vessels). I asked this question once already but there were no responses: Why did BCF not opt for clam shell doors on the bow of the Northern Expedition?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on May 1, 2014 18:06:43 GMT -8
With these ships, and the two Alaska fast ferries, it appears that AMHS is moving away from side loading. I gather that this is being done at least in part to reduce the time required to unload/load the vessel in each port along its route. I assume that this means berth reconfiguration (& $$$'s) in each port that these vessels will operate into? The Fast Ferries can load from the Starboard Fore, and the ACF will load from the aft port as well as the aft. Those doors will be compatible with current docks. The state is planning on building two nose in berths in Haines, with the idea that the ACF would use the aft door in Juneau, the forward clamshell in Haines, and the aft port door in Skagway.
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Aug 7, 2014 5:25:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 22, 2014 16:39:20 GMT -8
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on Sept 22, 2014 19:07:35 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Sept 22, 2014 19:34:41 GMT -8
“These vessels will be the largest ships ever built in Alaska,’ Governor Parnell said. “Building these ferries in state will be a major boost for Alaska’s economy. This has been our intent during the entire process and will help create hundreds of new year-round jobs at the Ketchikan shipyard, while helping Ketchikan develop a highly capable workforce, not only for the growing marine economy of Southeast Alaska, but with skills that can translate into work across the state.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaskans are just as selfish as their brethren south of the 49th. They just don't want to help out the economies of Poland and Germany by sharing some shipbuilding opportunities with them. And they have this weird tendency to think that their ferry system is actually an integral part of the state economy, rather than a company whose bottom line is paramount.
Congrats to Alaskans for making a decision that is not necessarily the 'cheapest', but probably the most intelligent, in the broader view.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Sept 22, 2014 20:18:55 GMT -8
:)at least the people of Alaska are not like our short sited local crew, who go offshore for our major newbuilds, and now we have lost these skills to former Uboot yards! mrdot
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Sept 23, 2014 16:01:24 GMT -8
Do remember that we HAVE to buy American. For goods to be picked up in a US port for delivery to a US port, the ship must be a US flagged vessel. This is why so many cruise ships pick up in Vancouver to drop of in Anchorage. If they wanted to go from Seattle to Anchorage, they would not be able to use a flag of convenience. Hop on over to the Wikersham thread to see what happens when we try and re-flag and use a European hull. In this case, we did some very fancy accounting. We had some Federal money set aside for a new ferry, but that would have required opening the bidding to all US shipyards. We "returned" that money, by which I mean we re-appropriated it to road construction, and then took State money from the road system to put to the ferry replacement fund with no strings attached. Then, when it started to become obvious that the ships were going to be built in Alaska, Vigor purchased AS&D, and the long term lease on the State owned shipyard. With Vigor came connections with the ship building industry in the Portland region, and presumably economies of scale for bidding on future work. Meanwhile, we get new ferries, the yards get a lot of experience and some pretty impressive portfolio stuffers, and as an added benefit, Elliot Bay Design opened an office across from the yards, which may prove a beneficial partnership for contracts beyond the AMHS. Not a bad trick, considering we got to keep the federal money by shifting it to a different project.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Sept 23, 2014 19:59:37 GMT -8
There is a few exceptions under the Passenger Vessel Services Act...like Canadian vessels CAN operate between ports in SE Alaska...so if BC Ferries ever wants to take over the Prince Rupert Service, it could legally.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,172
|
Post by Neil on Sept 24, 2014 22:19:39 GMT -8
There is a few exceptions under the Passenger Vessel Services Act...like Canadian vessels CAN operate between ports in SE Alaska...so if BC Ferries ever wants to take over the Prince Rupert Service, it could legally. Huh? A BC Ferries vessel could leave Prince Rupert, pick up a car in Ketchikan and let them off in Wrangell? I don't think so...
|
|