|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 21, 2012 19:50:17 GMT -8
Given that it is from Singapore, we are charting untested waters. Most of the cruise ships these days come from yards that have a proven reputation over multiple decades from Europe such as Fincantieri, STX Aker Yards, Meyer-Werft. They do not have questions and I believe provide guarantees of the workmanship. As a user of the system and paying into the system, there is a stakeholder element to this. I think the issue this time around is that the federal order takes precedence over the new Seabus, hence delaying the next Seabus. If it cannot be completed within the timeframe, you have to go elsewhere. I am not sure how it works there but in the United States we have laws stating that we must take the lowest bidder in a competitive bidding process. The NDP will probably spin the facts in terms of how much duty would actually have to be paid and what negotiations could possibly take place to reduce that. Building a ship in Singapore does not pass the smell test for me personally, if it was Japan at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, that would be a different story. They have a proven track record of building quality products such as the Diamond and Sapphire Princess. Doing a bit of research, there have been issues in other countries which to me raises concerns. sierraleone365.com/feature-stories/sierra-leone-nassit |
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,309
|
Post by Neil on Dec 21, 2012 20:08:58 GMT -8
I disagree with PW-A-M. I don't think there is any conflict with the federal shipbuilding contract; there is no actual shipyard work scheduled there until, theoretically, the end of next year, and even then is dubious.
There is probably no issue with the quality of construction in Singapore. The thing is, we have a government that has trumpeted its job program- whatever that is- and its support for our shipyards, and still, because public utilities are cordoned off into their own little fiefdoms and responsible for their own particular bottom lines, we have decisions being made such as sending oodles of jobs to Asia for a mere eight or nine percent difference in a shipbuilding contract. ZERO jobs here, for a two million dollar saving... where on earth is the sense of that?
And if no one ever again pats me on the head and tells me to 'have patience', it will be too soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 21, 2012 20:18:39 GMT -8
Quoted from the thread: 'Navy & CCG shipbuilding contracts awarded" Quoted from CBC News: I do hope that this means that the BC Government will put some of its own money where its mouth is and send new build work to our shipyards. I include crown (& quasi crown such as BCFS) corporations in with this. TransLink falls into the quasi crown category. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 21, 2012 21:09:08 GMT -8
Well Paul, ultimately TransLink is an agency of the Government of British Columbia, right? Here is something else to refresh memories (quoted from the thread "Coastals not built on the coast" ... (Note: The hyperlink below no longer links to the original article)Some verification for views that some of us have offered in the past... and recently. www.theprovince.com/news/Column+Hypocritical+hurrahs+from+Libs+over+shipbuilding/5583730/story.htmlHypocritical hurrahs from B.C. Libs over shipbuilding win
By Michael Smyth, The ProvinceOctober 20, 2011 7:06 PM
It’s amazing — and somewhat galling — listening to Premier Christy Clark’s Liberals going ga-ga over the federal shipbuilding contract when this is the same bunch that gave away our own shipbuilding work to Germany.
In 2004, B.C. Ferries announced they would build three new and badly-needed vessels at a cost of $500 million.
But Vancouver Shipyards was not allowed to submit a final bid on the contract, which was awarded instead to a government-subsidized shipyard in Germany.
Why was Vancouver Shipyards blackballed from building our own ferries? B.C. Ferries said the shipyard did not have the “infrastructure, technology or experience” to build the three boats.
That’s right: the same shipyard just awarded an $8-billion contract to build seven vessels — including Royal Canadian Navy support ships and a major icebreaker — was “not capable” of building three car ferries just a few years ago.
Critics pointed to the fast-ferry debacle as justification for building the new ferries in Germany — conveniently forgetting the fast ferries were experimental aluminum-hulled catamarans doomed to fail.
The fact is B.C. was always capable of building traditional, single-hulled steel ferries, like the ones eventually built in Germany. Every time you travel on one of the existing spirit-class “superferries” — built in the B.C. in 1990s — you experience proof of that.
Yet the B.C. Liberals now cheering on the federal government for spending billions in our shipyards today are the same ones who showed no faith in those same shipyards — and those same workers — just seven years ago.
With some notable exceptions, that is.
Some brave Liberal MLAs spoke out against the German sellout back in ‘94: Dan Jarvis, Ralph Sultan and Barry Penner come to mind.
But the majority of Liberals patting themselves on the back for the federal contract today kicked B.C. shipbuilders in the keester back then.
That includes Christy Clark, who supported building our ferries in Germany. It was right to reject Vancouver Shipyards for the work, she argued, because parent company Seaspan wanted an open-ended “cost-plus” contract where they could run up the price tag at will.
That was denied at the time by Seaspan chairman Kyle Washington.
“We’re absolutely willing to bid a bonded, fixed-price cost, so there would be no financial risk to the government,” Washington said. “All we’re asking for is a chance to submit a bid.”
But Seaspan was not allowed to bid on the ferry contract, something Clark supported. So did cabinet ministers Blair Lekstrom and Pat Bell, both now so giddy about Seaspan winning the federal contract.
It’s appalling that Seaspan was prevented by the Liberals from building our ferries despite the jobs, tax revenue, economic spinoff and potential future contracts the work would have generated — the same benefits the Liberals celebrate today.
But, in 2004, B.C. Ferries officially changed the bidding rules for the three new ferries, choosing to delete domestic economic benefits as a criteria.
Happily, the federal government recognized the economic boost to B.C. from building our new ships here, and included that in the bidding criteria. And Vancouver Shipyards was independently judged on its merits to be perfectly capable of doing the work and building great ships that will make Canada proud.
And there are the Liberals cheering it all.
The hypocrisy is quite sickening.
Read more: www.theprovince.com/news/Hypocritical+hurrahs+from+Libs+over+shipbuilding/5583730/story.html#ixzz1bO7TYyJK |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 21, 2012 22:37:28 GMT -8
So we save 2 million dollars.
Who cares.
Chances are, alot of local shipyard workers or tradespeople are likely living on EI and barely making ends meet right now. With this contract being sent overseas, this promotes cheap labour, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Dutch shipyard profit majorly over this as well. This promotes Asian economies, while our own economy continues to deflate. If the work was done in BC, our workers off on EI could be given work at a fair wage and they'd then be able to re-circulate their earnings back into our local economies. Plain and simple economics that keeps being overseen by our Politicians who couldn't care about us. All that matters is the black and white. But what do we know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 21, 2012 22:40:37 GMT -8
A little quick on the firing trigger. I had since revised my commentary since I went back to an article in the Vancouver Sun that was in today's edition after reading the Singapore comment, and wanted to check it with a primary source, which I did, hence the revision. At ease with the comments. You're a little too quick on the trigger. Wait, so you can post incorrect information, but if someone calls you out on it they're "quick at the trigger"? Oh Paul.... I have a suspicion that the duty will be refunded, and further that these discussions have already taken place even if informally. A precedent was set with BCFS by governments at both federal and provincial levels which continue to be in power. Having worked with Translink in planning I do suspect the provincial government had very little to nothing to do with this contract. While I have been removed from the organization for four years people I know still there indicate, in general, nothing has really changed. When I was there the province only got engaged when the public started getting outspoken for a prolonged period, or TL called out the Province for under-funding. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Dec 21, 2012 22:50:12 GMT -8
:)my commentary here is twofold, I remember when wac Bennett was so proud that he was able to build very sucessfully in our local yards, and they were very competitive in those years. Now today is somewhat different but if we are going overseas for a 2 mill. difference when local big picture exonomic factors are factored in, notwithstanding our ability to run noxious non stop adds of how we are focused with jobs for BC! oh what tommyrott! :'(mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 21, 2012 23:21:26 GMT -8
Wait, so you can post incorrect information, but if someone calls you out on it they're "quick at the trigger"? Oh Paul.... I have a suspicion that the duty will be refunded, and further that these discussions have already taken place even if informally. A precedent was set with BCFS by governments at both federal and provincial levels which continue to be in power. Having worked with Translink in planning I do suspect the provincial government had very little to nothing to do with this contract. While I have been removed from the organization for four years people I know still there indicate, in general, nothing has really changed. When I was there the province only got engaged when the public started getting outspoken for a prolonged period, or TL called out the Province for under-funding. Oh Dane, don't sweat the small stuff. Errors do occur. Big deal he could have waited until firing off his nonsense. I had since fixed the error. He's just a little fast and he is a bit green. It would have been better for him to just simply point out the error Just politely pointing out an error would be enough. Excuse me? I found your tangent arrogant and stand-offish (you weren't so 'polite' about pointing out my error, that turned out to be fact  ). You posted incorrect information, you were called out, and have since corrected it by identifying your "sources" and now you're going off about me posting "nonsense" and being "green"? If someone disagrees with you, suck it up, and if someone calls you out for posting incorrect information, apologize, don't make up excuses. I found your above post insulting and offensive. In an effort to keep this professional, I am going to say that this should fall by the wayside. I am not interested in getting involved in a flame war over a few differences of opinion. But please, if you can't take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 21, 2012 23:42:09 GMT -8
Based off what precedence? Recent precedence has shown that the federal government will refund the duty. Why would Translink not get the duty refunded if BC Ferries was given the same treatment?
Sure $2 million might seem like no big deal, but then where do you cut service in an already overburdened system? The province is currently expecting Translink to be self sufficient and the result of that is every dollar spent will be utilized to the fullest potential and money will be a major factor in decision making.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 22, 2012 1:04:39 GMT -8
Oh Dane, don't sweat the small stuff. Errors do occur. Big deal he could have waited until firing off his nonsense. I had since fixed the error.
He's just a little fast and he is a bit green. It would have been better for him to just simply point out the error Just politely pointing out an error would be enough. Wow, that's a brutal quote. The kind that gets tiresome here really quick. ps: I waited 2 hours after the post, to post this. So this should make me safe from the Green Trigger rule. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,309
|
Post by Neil on Dec 22, 2012 9:34:19 GMT -8
Even the topic of the local shipyards not winning the bid is getting now a bit thin, since almost everything to do with it has been successfully debated on all sides. There are ongoing discussions involving renewal of ferry fleets in BC, Washington, and Alaska. The question of the benefits to building locally and providing jobs as opposed to going out of province or state to save a bit on construction cost is a vital topic. I can't imagine how anyone thinks it's been 'successfully debated', or put to bed. It's certainly easy enough not to take part in a discussion of the issue, if one finds it tiresome. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 22, 2012 10:37:17 GMT -8
I've removed all postings from 17:00h yesterday. Fair enough? though this post apologize to Mr. Photo for any distress... Thank you for your apology and the deletion of those posts. ...but will not accept his opinion in what he thinks/predicts my position is in regards to the Seabus issue or any other. That was a very big irritation with his responding commentary. it gets tiresome very very quickly when people do that. It's a bad habit. I do not know what this means. Are you talking about my interpretation of your posts pre-modification, or post-modification?  Even the topic of the local shipyards not winning the bid is getting now a bit thin, since almost everything to do with it has been successfully debated on all sides. There are ongoing discussions involving renewal of ferry fleets in BC, Washington, and Alaska. The question of the benefits to building locally and providing jobs as opposed to going out of province or state to save a bit on construction cost is a vital topic. I can't imagine how anyone thinks it's been 'successfully debated', or put to bed. It's certainly easy enough not to take part in a discussion of the issue, if one finds it tiresome. Absolutely. Although, Paul, I see you have since modified your latest post to include this quote out, so I suppose Neil is "green" and "quick to the trigger" here. But I do want to weigh in because I think this is an important issue. Everyone has a right to know where their tax dollars are being invested, including geographically. They also have a right to know how their government considers investing confidence here at home, or abroad. Don't get me wrong, I am OK with building offshore when it makes sense, but this topic has to be debated on a case-by-case basis, in order to determine what provides the largest benefit to the province as a whole. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2012 15:00:49 GMT -8
So we save 2 million dollars. Who cares. Most people do care about saving money. Oh wait would you want taxes to go up and make more people homeless and BC the most taxed province in Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 22, 2012 15:05:51 GMT -8
So we save 2 million dollars. Who cares. Most people do care about saving money. Oh wait would you want taxes to go up and make more people homeless and BC the most taxed province in Canada. Mr. Cheese, you need to consider the loss of the economic benefit of building at-home. I think you should think about that before launching into your assumption comment about people wanting tax increases and homelessness. What is your economics education background ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2012 15:13:52 GMT -8
Most people do care about saving money. Oh wait would you want taxes to go up and make more people homeless and BC the most taxed province in Canada. Mr. Cheese, you need to consider the loss of the economic benefit of building at-home. I think you should think about that before launching into your assumption comment about people wanting tax increases and homelessness. What is your economics education background ? Yeah their will be benefits. But probably not enough to spend an extra 2 million dollars to build. People would probably complain about more taxes. If Metro Vancouver is only part of British Columbia who pays for the New SeaBus, Translink would need to increase property taxes or fares. For more property taxes all Mayors in Metro Vancouver said "No to increase the property taxes." |
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 22, 2012 16:20:51 GMT -8
Mr. Cheese, you need to consider the loss of the economic benefit of building at-home. I think you should think about that before launching into your assumption comment about people wanting tax increases and homelessness. What is your economics education background ? Yeah their will be benefits. But probably not enough to spend an extra 2 million dollars to build. People would probably complain about more taxes. If Metro Vancouver is only part of British Columbia who pays for the New SeaBus, Translink would need to increase property taxes or fares. For more property taxes all Mayors in Metro Vancouver said "No to increase the property taxes." Potentially yes, but the point is that our tax dollars are being spent overseas to promote economic growth overseas, not here. No economic growth here=higher taxes and unemployment. I rather see my tax dollars be spent here to built a ship with our people, our resources, than see all sorts of people unemployed and taking in EI cheques to support themselves. Translink will also get some of that money back too, since people who would have built the vessel would likely commute on the Seabus/Transit to the shipyard. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 22, 2012 16:35:59 GMT -8
Yeah their will be benefits. But probably not enough to spend an extra 2 million dollars to build. People would probably complain about more taxes. If Metro Vancouver is only part of British Columbia who pays for the New SeaBus, Translink would need to increase property taxes or fares. For more property taxes all Mayors in Metro Vancouver said "No to increase the property taxes." Potentially yes, but the point is that our tax dollars are being spent overseas to promote economic growth overseas, not here. No economic growth here=higher taxes and unemployment. I rather see my tax dollars be spent here to built a ship with our people, our resources, than see all sorts of people unemployed and taking in EI cheques to support themselves. Translink will also get some of that money back too, since people who would have built the vessel would likely commute on the Seabus/Transit to the shipyard. My thoughts on this: I don't think TransLink should be spending any more money than they have to. $2 million in the perspective of a bankrupt transit agency is the sacrifice of about six essential bus routes (I found the cost per year per route, but if someone has an average cost for system wide, let me know), which in turn would cost the jobs of transit employees. That's the kind of budgetary crisis TransLink is in, unfortunately. However, my opinion is that the onus is on the province to be taking advantage of every opportunity to bring jobs home (as per the 'jobs plan') and cover the difference, if it is a nominal cost like $2 million. This was a good chance for them to put their money where their mouth is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 13:55:14 GMT -8
Most people do care about saving money. Oh wait would you want taxes to go up and make more people homeless and BC the most taxed province in Canada. Mr Cheese, you are flat-out incorrect about BC being the most taxed province in Canada. The more socialist province of Quebec has higher taxes: 10% more income tax - 50% of your salary is taxed, compared to 40% here - and 14.975 sales tax (5% GST and 9.974 PST). We have 12% HST here which is soon going back to 5% GST and 7% PST. Now back to the SeaBus... I didn't care to read much about the shipbuilding contract, so I jumped to the assumption that it was being built in Europe as well, and that we were getting a ship that would be FSG-like quality. I agree with Chris here on every point. Having the ship built in Signapore could potentially mean the use of cheap labour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 15:23:58 GMT -8
Most people do care about saving money. Oh wait would you want taxes to go up and make more people homeless and BC the most taxed province in Canada. Mr Cheese, you are flat-out incorrect about BC being the most taxed province in Canada. The more socialist province of Quebec has higher taxes: 10% more income tax - 50% of your salary is taxed, compared to 40% here - and 14.975 sales tax (5% GST and 9.974 PST). We have 12% HST here which is soon going back to 5% GST and 7% PST. I already know that fact. I do not understand how "cheap labour" would effect the boat. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Dec 23, 2012 15:28:31 GMT -8
:)I think my friend has been listening to the endless adds on how we are the least taxed and, by the way, that guick end of the GST is like the 2010 supernatural graphics on our ferries, still with us! but never fear, we have saved 2 mill, on our latest offshore purchase! we truly are the greatest give-away place on earth, it Christmas!  mrdot. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 23, 2012 17:11:44 GMT -8
Having the ship built in Signapore could potentially mean the use of cheap labour. I do not understand how "cheap labour" would effect the boat. It would effect the ship by way of the quality of the workmanship. Cheap labour prices often result in poor quality work being done. Same as with any thing where you have a choice between cheap-price and higher-quality. More importantly (or maybe less importantly, depending on your viewpoints) is the effect on the world. Encouraging cheap labour in other parts of the world helps to encourage working-poverty. Decent levels of wages and benefits (and of workplace safety) for skilled workers is something that us North Americans should be preserving, not throwing away. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Dec 23, 2012 20:59:32 GMT -8
I do not understand how "cheap labour" would effect the boat. It would effect the ship by way of the quality of the workmanship. Cheap labour prices often result in poor quality work being done. Same as with any thing where you have a choice between cheap-price and higher-quality. That is exactly what I meant about potential quality-related defects on the boats arrival - cheap labour means cheap parts, and could potentially affect how long certain parts of the ship last, or even how they operate. Just since privatization, we have seen what happens when shipyards are at fault for a low-quality product, like with the power failure of the Oak Bay or when it requires a new component from a foreign land like the Inspiration. That is downtime that the SeaBus operation absolutely cannot afford, due to the lack of relief vessels (if one boat is out of service or a three-boat operation is in effect). |
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Dec 24, 2012 20:22:41 GMT -8
A few random thoughts in no particular order:
- I just recalled Translink's second to last major procurement of equipment was from outside of Canada; the Canada Line cars. Additionally there are strong rumours the next Sky Train cars will be from out of country. The Canada Line was very strongly driven by the BC Government vice Translink, but nonetheless the SeaBus doesn't represent new behavior. This isn't a justification, just an observation.
- I just has an excellent Facebook chat with a friend from University. I forgot her family was deeply involved in the shipbuilding industry of Singapore. She told me a few interesting things after she read this thread... labor in Singapore isn't actually that cheap, apparently. Particularly skilled labor. While it certainly exists, and there are no wage controls in the country, reputable companies are apparently well behaved. Based on my own casual observations it seems Damen has a solid track record of reputable clients, including (Wikipedia tells me) the Government of Canada for design work. She also added, while somewhat unsure of specifics, that Singapore is a hub for a lot of the higher quality work done in Asia. I asked to get in touch with her dad as I would love to have more on this.
- I didn't answer a question Jim asked reference "is CNG actually a new technology?" while far from knowledgeable in this field it seems that there is not a lot of commuter ferries that the Google machine can find me with the technology. And as I said earlier, I continue to believe the SeaBus should be designed and executed very conservatively. Reliability and simplicity are key to successful service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2012 21:31:13 GMT -8
I just recalled Translink's second to last major procurement of equipment was from outside of Canada; the Canada Line cars. Additionally there are strong rumours the next Sky Train cars will be from out of country. The Canada Line was very strongly driven by the BC Government vice Translink, but nonetheless the SeaBus doesn't represent new behavior. This isn't a justification, just an observation. I think Translink will need to go with Bombardier for the next Skytrain cars. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 25, 2012 9:36:24 GMT -8
I think Translink will need to go with Bombardier for the next Skytrain cars. What do you mean by "will need"? Legislative requirement? Legal / contractual requirement? Lack of any other available suppliers? Why " the Bomber" ? - haha, back when I had some of the Bomber in my stock portfolio, I'd have been happy to see this comment, to push up the stock price.... |
|
). You posted incorrect information, you were called out, and have since corrected it by identifying your "sources" and now you're going off about me posting "nonsense" and being "green"? If someone disagrees with you, suck it up, and if someone calls you out for posting incorrect information, apologize, don't make up excuses. I found your above post insulting and offensive.
mrdot.