|
Post by Scott on Apr 8, 2011 23:28:17 GMT -8
We've just passed the 8th anniversary (April 1, 2003), of the transition from the crown British Columbia Ferry Corporation to the private British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. It's common to hear (in the media, from Mr. Hahn, and from the Liberal government) the argument that BC Ferries has vastly improved its service from when it was a government-run organization. This statement is so often repeated that I think many people accept it as fact, without ever hearing any evidence to back it up.
What I would like to do in this thread is discuss the changes that have been made to BC Ferries in its organization and operations since 2003. I'd like you not only to think about the changes, but also to think about whether they would have been done differently regardless of whether the system was private or public.
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Apr 9, 2011 0:31:51 GMT -8
We've just passed the 8th anniversary (April 1, 2003), of the transition from the crown British Columbia Ferry Corporation to the private British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. It's common to hear (in the media, from Mr. Hahn, and from the Liberal government) the argument that BC Ferries has vastly improved its service from when it was a government-run organization. This statement is so often repeated that I think many people accept it as fact, without ever hearing any evidence to back it up. What I would like to do in this thread is discuss the changes that have been made to BC Ferries in its organization and operations since 2003. I'd like you not only to think about the changes, but also to think about whether they would have been done differently regardless of whether the system was private or public. Would we still be flying the dogwood logo? I wouldn't be surprised if the colours would have changed similarly to those of BC Transit (blue and green), or BC Government's new colours (Blue and yellow) If it weren't for the Hahn régime. Would the Coastals and the NorEx have been built offshore, or would the government have had them built locally, like all other previous newbuilds? Would the QPR have been retired? Might the 7 sisters' retirement have been postponed longer? Would the new Tsawwassen Quay and Nanaimo Quay been in existence, or would we still have the old buildings? Would the interiors of existing ships be remodeled to how they are today, remodeled differently, or not remodeled at all? I doubt this would have been any different whether or not the Privatization occurred or not, but would we still have the Queen of the North with us to this day? Would this ferry forum exist the way it does today without the discussions of whether or not privatization was a good change? Would BCF have been more inclined to purchase the Albion Ferries if BCF hadn't been privatized? Enough with the questions, time to speculate. ...I bet I butchered a lot of those verb tenses...
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Apr 9, 2011 10:58:20 GMT -8
:)I am trying hard to be rational about this so-called pvte. mangmt. annaversary of our ferry system, and still think if politics could have been avoided, we could have kept the traditional colours, and made the changes that wrere needed, and have made some good after bad re-configuration of the dreadfully wrong fast cat programme. That would have ment scrapping our advisarial political arena, which I fear will never happen, just look at the dreadful hate adds now being aired by all sides of the political spectrum! all we need now is the present regeme to replace the olympic adds with christy crunch ones! :'(mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 9, 2011 19:25:45 GMT -8
OK, lets think about new ships. I think one thing that people would point out about improvements since 2003 is that we have 4 brand new ships that have brought service to a new level on the major routes and on the north coast.
If BC Ferries was a crown corporation, would we have new ships? I think we would. They may have even been foreign built, knowing the Liberal government. But it's more likely that they would have been pressured to build them in BC for more money - but the money would have stayed in British Columbia. Would they have been different ships if they had been built in BC? Or is their design transferrable to wherever they're built?
The argument could be made that if the ferries were run by the government, there might be more money for new-builds, so we might have more ferries. Instead, the private corporation has to take the bottom line into consideration.
On the point of new ferries, I think it's a bit of a saw-off whether the results would have been any different whether the company was private or public.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Apr 10, 2011 10:35:15 GMT -8
I think it's probably a given that if BC Ferries had remained a crown corporation, fares wouldn't have increased so much. The Liberals wouldn't have been able to fob off responsibility for harming island economies onto a private operating model; there would have been political consequences, and contrary to the mantra preached by corporate gurus, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The operating subsidy would have to have been increased.
Chances are the four Flensburger vessels would still have been built abroad. There has been very little public opposition to that reality, perhaps because no one has of yet published a definitive comparison between outsourcing and building here, although our neighbors in Washington and Alaska seem to understand the broader benefits. I suppose there's an outside chance the government may have elected to go a cheaper route and do major refits on the old Vs, a la the 'New Westminster, assuming those boats weren't too far gone, which they might have been.
Schedules and sailing frequency would probably be pretty much what they are. Terminal improvements would probably have still been made, since the Liberals would have seen the same oppportunity to make money on Tsawwassen Quay type developments as the present BC Ferries has. I think those changes are among the most positive in recent years.
The main difference might be that the interests of coastal communities wouldn't have been as divorced as they currently are from the interests of BC Ferries and its bottom line. Whether that would have actually produced any concrete advantages, I don't know, because we are accepting the reality that it would still have been a BC Ferries under a Liberal administration.
Oh, and despite David Hahn's speculative insight, I think that the bathrooms would still be decent, and you would not find bugs in your clam chowder.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Apr 10, 2011 14:28:37 GMT -8
:)further on Neil voyager's thots, I would rather sit in one of WAC's VMD style johns, than these offshore modern marvels! I just wonder how spiffy they will be 40 years on! I won't be here to check on them, but some of our younger forum members can do that for me! :)mrdot.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Apr 10, 2011 19:48:16 GMT -8
:)further on Neil voyager's thots, I would rather sit in one of WAC's VMD style johns, than these offshore modern marvels! I just wonder how spiffy they will be 40 years on! I won't be here to check on them, but some of our younger forum members can do that for me! :)mrdot. Not that you need to put too fine a point on it, but I'm curious as to what, in a general sense, would cause one to wax nostalgic about the loos on the Vs. Taking into account that some of our readers may have delicate sensibilities, of course. Personally, I'm not too fond of some of those newfangled jobs that sound like they could devour a medium sized dog when they flush. I know you like the dogwood, the light blue stripes, the old dining rooms, and perhaps even Phil Gaglardi, but... the toilets?
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Apr 10, 2011 19:53:56 GMT -8
:)further on Neil voyager's thots, I would rather sit in one of WAC's VMD style johns, than these offshore modern marvels! I just wonder how spiffy they will be 40 years on! I won't be here to check on them, but some of our younger forum members can do that for me! :)mrdot. Not that you need to put too fine a point on it, but I'm curious as to what, in a general sense, would cause one to wax nostalgic about the loos on the Vs. Taking into account that some of our readers may have delicate sensibilities, of course. Personally, I'm not too fond of some of those newfangled jobs that sound like they could devour a medium sized dog when they flush. I know you like the dogwood, the light blue stripes, the old dining rooms, and perhaps even Phil Gaglardi, but... the toilets? There is one other faulty assumption he is making, which is to estimate a 40 year lifespan for the newer vessels. At the very least, the space age technology of the toilets may actually outlast the ships themselves, but I can vouch for one valid point, which I can agree on: The Queen of Vancouver did have perhaps one of the nicest little washrooms, on the top deck, in the passageway leading up to the bridge, there was a nice little stall that had it`s own porthole to enjoy while you were sitting there. I bet not even the Norex can boast a washroom that classy, but the Mill Bay can, and soon hers will be gone as well.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Apr 10, 2011 21:06:28 GMT -8
:)perhaps waxing nostalgic about the johns on the old V's is stretching it a bit, one thing about flying Phil, and Wacky was they rode the ferry, and talked to me on the car deck! would never get these modern day marvels to even ride the ferries, let alone talk to a lowly deckhand, even during a whistlestop campaign! well, back to the future. go Canucks go! ps. to mr.horn, Elvis's only grammy's were for 3 gospel numbers, thanks for the lighthouse! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 11, 2011 22:04:33 GMT -8
I am quite convinced that overall service has declined under this so-called 'private' model for BC Ferries.
In reality BCFS is owned lock, stock & barrel by the government of BC, and is absolutely dependant on subsidies to keep it afloat. Calling it 'private' is a bit much. The government still has control; control which they exercise rather poorly.
I would consider the following in deciding whether or not service is better now than in 2001:
- fare increases that have far outstripped inflation over the period, resulting in fares virtually doubling on some routes. This would not have happened under the crown corporation model. - reduced number of sailings such as with week night service on route 2 during fall/winter/spring - reduced level of service on route 1 during the January to March period of this year where both Spirits were pulled (one for refit, the other idle) while a Coastal and an 'old V class' substitute. The old BC ferries would have never pulled both Spirits simultaneously. - The forward lounge on the NorEx is available at an 18% surcharge on the basic passenger fare, and is closed altogether when the vessel is in use during the off-season. Never in BCF history (or with WSF or AMHS) would one have to pay a premium to use the forward lounge. - I do not believe any of our ferries have ever looked as skuzzy as the Queen of Burnaby looks today. It is not the only vessel in need of repainting. BCFS seems to put a much higher priority on gift shop upgrades then keeping the vessels looking good. Is the mechanical servicing being done to the level needed? I hope so.
Yes we do have new vessels. I believe that new vessels would have been built regardless of the governance model at BCF. I am not certain that what BCFS has had built are what should have been built. We needed reliable transportation - not wanna be cruise ships. Examples: - The Coastals carry just ten more vehicles than the C class vessels, yet they are 60% heavier, have twice the horsepower, and are less fuel efficient. Are these really better vessels than the old ones? - The NorEx really is a scaled down cruise boat and what we needed was an improved and somewhat larger version of the QPR. The NorEx, last summer, sailed half empty routinely, in part because the fare structure set by BCFS is out of line with what the market is willing to pay.
Lastly, it is my observation that the wash rooms today are as clean today as they were in the past, but not better as maintained by some.
Now its over to others to argue for the view that service is actually better today than it was in 2001.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Apr 12, 2011 19:41:26 GMT -8
- reduced level of service on route 1 during the January to March period of this year where both Spirits were pulled (one for refit, the other idle) while a Coastal and an 'old V class' substitute. The old BC ferries would have never pulled both Spirits simultaneously. I think this is a sign of the times. Next year, we're likely going to see 2 Coastals and One Spirit Idle. It's likely the only time you'll see 2 Spirits next Off-Season is at Peak Times - The Coastals carry just ten more vehicles than the C class vessels, yet they are 60% heavier, have twice the horsepower, and are less fuel efficient. Are these really better vessels than the old ones? Have we actually proved that the vehicle capacity of the Coastals and 'C's are this close? If you take into account the 'C's have Gallery Decks whereas the Coastals do not, the gap would increase quite a bit. Really though, you have to remember the Coastals were brought in to replace the 'V's and in a way they were more-so built for Route 1. Yes, they are less efficient than the 'V's or the 'C's but the reason for this might be to save the cost of running the Spirits. Hence the reason for what I said above.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Apr 12, 2011 20:51:28 GMT -8
:)maybe I am a child of the past, but my three times on the new Coastal made me instantly go back to the classsic Spaulding deck layout which was truely more coastal and suited to this Pacific northwest coast! the cluttered European deck design, is more akin to the disasterous fast cat design, and man, has the tried and true Spaulding deck layout has sure stood the test of time, in both this area, and Alaska as well! as for fuel economy, wasn't it susoposed to be no contest? ???mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 12, 2011 22:03:38 GMT -8
I'm not certain, but pretty sure I've heard the argument that we don't have the sailing waits we used to have under the old structure. It's because of a combination of factors, some of which were introduced by the current management, and some of which were before.
The "new" BC Ferries deserves some credit for trying the spread out the traffic to non-peak times by implementing discounted sailings on certain days of the week. Perhaps, for a crown corporation, the pressure wouldn't be there to spread out traffic flow and lower wait times.
However, I think the main reason for lower wait times is just the lower demand due to high fares. So I don't think this is a "positive" that BC Ferries can point to as an improvement in service.
I've also heard people say that the menu choices are better now. But the Triple-O deal which resulted in much higher revenue from the cafeteria was implemented while BC Ferries was a crown corporation, so I think that shows that improving food options was something that would have been done regardless.
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Apr 13, 2011 12:26:41 GMT -8
as for fuel economy, wasn't it susoposed to be no contest? ???mrdot. Fuel consumption is lower, per ton. This has bee hashed out a few times now, but I'll say it again. The Coastals have a lower fuel consumption rate than the C class per ton. Do the Coastals use more fuel overall than the C class? Of course they do, they are much bigger and heavier! But lets remember that much of this bulk and weight is due to current safety requirements, multi compartment hulls, more stair cases (inside and out), heavier bulkheads, the list goes on and on. If you went to the TSB with the blueprints for the Oak Bay and said “we want to build this” you would get laughed out on to the street. When you go back to the drawing board and build to current standards you get what we have today in the Coastals.
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Apr 13, 2011 13:34:05 GMT -8
Fuel consumption is lower, per ton. This has bee hashed out a few times now, but I'll say it again. The Coastals have a lower fuel consumption rate than the C class per ton. Do the Coastals use more fuel overall than the C class? Of course they do, they are much bigger and heavier! But lets remember that much of this bulk and weight is due to current safety requirements, multi compartment hulls, more stair cases (inside and out), heavier bulkheads, the list goes on and on. If you went to the TSB with the blueprints for the Oak Bay and said “we want to build this” you would get laughed out on to the street. When you go back to the drawing board and build to current standards you get what we have today in the Coastals. I couldn't say this better myself. If only the media and general public could understand you cannot build ships with 30 year old specifications...
|
|
|
Post by gordon on Apr 13, 2011 14:12:03 GMT -8
Even NDP Ferries critic Gary Coons makes the case that the Coastals use more fuel than the CS do, But than he dislikes any shp that isn't built in B.C. isn't acceptable to him. He has access to allthe inf is he wants it.
off topic: why has it taken B.C. Ferries so long to get Tsawwassen crews trained on the Coastals, allowing the CR to be used on Route#1?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 13, 2011 17:30:09 GMT -8
Fuel consumption is lower, per ton. This has bee hashed out a few times now, but I'll say it again. The Coastals have a lower fuel consumption rate than the C class per ton. Do the Coastals use more fuel overall than the C class? Of course they do, they are much bigger and heavier! But lets remember that much of this bulk and weight is due to current safety requirements, multi compartment hulls, more stair cases (inside and out), heavier bulkheads, the list goes on and on. If you went to the TSB with the blueprints for the Oak Bay and said “we want to build this” you would get laughed out on to the street. When you go back to the drawing board and build to current standards you get what we have today in the Coastals. I couldn't say this better myself. If only the media and general public could understand you cannot build ships with 30 year old specifications... Sorry guys but I won't buy this. What matters is fuel efficiency per car/passenger moved, and on that front the 35 year old C's come out ahead. If fuel efficiency per tonne of ship's weight was what mattered maybe the Queen Mary II would be the most suitable vessel. The decision by BCFS to park the CRen in favour of the Cow for most of the year is no doubt driven by fuel efficiency & overall cost to operate. Now if BCFS really was delivering a better service today then what we had in the bad old crown corp days they would be sailing the Renaissance year round because it is a more comfy ship to travel on. The Cowichan would sail only as a third ship during peak periods. Furthermore, the decision to park a Spirit in favour of the QoNWM is more evidence of them offering inferior service, this time on route 1. Another point - cars today are safer than cars built 35 years ago. Not only that, they must meet much tougher safety & environmental standards. Does that mean that they are heavier? No! Does that mean that on average they are less fuel efficient? Again, no! But you are telling me that the reverse applies with marine transportation? The reality is that the Coastal class are blessed with an extra, largely unneeded, deck (deck 5). It is only really needed with the sort of passenger loads typical when route 1 gets busy. The Inspiration goes back and fouth daily on route 30 carrying more than twice as much passenger cabin as is needed. The result is that far more weight is being pushed through the water than is really justified.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Apr 13, 2011 18:05:47 GMT -8
Another point - cars today are safer than cars built 35 years ago. Not only that, they must meet much tougher safety & environmental standards. Does that mean that they are heavier? No! Does that mean that on average they are less fuel efficient? Again, no! But you are telling me that the reverse applies with marine transportation? Sorry Jim, this is not true. Apples to apples, newer vehicles are most definitely heavier than older vehicles, and often burn more fuel (although they may have less pollutants due to better exhaust systems). I'll use the Ford Ranger as an example because it's something I'm familiar with. The exterior dimensions and overall design haven't changed since 1988. It has gone through "refreshes" and "modernizations", but the guts of the truck remain the same. The 1991 4WD with Automatic transmission weighs in at 3506 lbs, and the 2004 4WD with Automatic weighs in at 3901lbs. That is 400 lbs in extra weight. Both trucks have 4.0L V6 engines with cast iron blocks, however the 2004 has aluminum heads. So, why the extra weight? Well, governing bodies have demanded extra safety systems over time that have all been added. The 2004 has two air bags, ABS brakes, expanded crumple zones and bigger brakes. All features that weren't offered on the 1991. It also has more fancy features like keyless entry, power locks, power windows, power mirrors and the mother of all, A/C. All of these features at best just add weight, at worst (A/C) add a significant parasitic draw to the engine. To bring it back to ships, we the public have demanded increased safety and comfort. In response, regulations have been updated to require new ships be built to higher standards. These higher standards require more steel, more equipment and higher energy usage. While the engines have gotten more efficient at producing energy, the fact is that our new standards require even more energy to be used. BTW my vehicle numbers came from the following links: autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?year=1991&make=Ford&model=Ranger&trimid=4773autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?year=2004&make=Ford&model=Ranger&trimid=97462
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Apr 13, 2011 18:35:15 GMT -8
The decision by BCFS to park the CRen in favour of the Cow for most of the year is no doubt driven by fuel efficiency & overall cost to operate. With the current traffic levels on Route 2, yes, it makes sense to run the Cowichan over the Renaissance. Another point - cars today are safer than cars built 35 years ago. Not only that, they must meet much tougher safety & environmental standards. Does that mean that they are heavier? No! Does that mean that on average they are less fuel efficient? Again, no! But you are telling me that the reverse applies with marine transportation? To compare cars to ships is not accurate. The use of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and thermoplastic in large quantities is not applicable in shipbuilding. Ships must withstand totally different conditions than what vehicles are designed for. Ships of today must be designed and made up of multiple compartments, which unfortunately will lead to more weight. Additionally, the Coastal's were built to ice class standards. They were also specified to a forty year life span. The reality is that the Coastal class are blessed with an extra, largely unneeded, deck (deck 5). It is only really needed with the sort of passenger loads typical when route 1 gets busy. The Inspiration goes back and fouth daily on route 30 carrying more than twice as much passenger cabin as is needed. The result is that far more weight is being pushed through the water than is really justified. These ships are built for the future. While they might be somewhat underutlized now, why would BC Ferries want anything smaller when they had to order new mainline vessels?
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Apr 13, 2011 20:08:09 GMT -8
:)traffic is a little lite tonite as most of us are nervously watching the Cannucks on the side monotur, but perhaps we are going to the east coast model and laying up the regular westcoast design and charter in some ill-designed Germanic wonderships that might do on the cheap! Most other jurisdictions protect their domestic builders and industry, but these jurisdictions seem to be going a different route than our neighbours to the south, and saying goodbye to old patterns, and wave goodbye to the traditional industry! with that ramble, I will go back to the Canuck game! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 13, 2011 20:27:34 GMT -8
In regard to vehicle fuel efficiency changes over the years, I think, maybe, it depends on what source you quote from. The question is 'on average, are new cars today more, less, or about the same in terms of fuel efficiency when compared with the average of vehicles from 1980? This source says that in US, during the period between 1970 & 1995, average vehicle fuel economy improved from 13 to 21 mpg. Here is another source. Do I believe that that our railways move freight more efficiently (i.e. less fuel consumed per ton per distance) today then they did thirty years ago? Yep! I also believe that modern ships moving bulk commodities, containers, etc., do it more efficiently than 30 years ago. Same goes with modern airliners. BC Ferries deserves some credit for trying the spread out the traffic to non-peak times by implementing discounted sailings on certain days of the week. Perhaps, for a crown corporation, the pressure wouldn't be there to spread out traffic flow and lower wait times. Using fare structure to spread out traffic is nothing new. It has been around since the 1970's. (Perhaps Neil has an old schedule with fares listed?) I recall rates differing based on time of the year (high, shoulder & peak) and time of the week (you pay more on Friday afternoon than you do on Tuesday afternoon). I believe there has even been differential pricing based on time of day.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 13, 2011 20:50:03 GMT -8
BC Ferries deserves some credit for trying the spread out the traffic to non-peak times by implementing discounted sailings on certain days of the week. Perhaps, for a crown corporation, the pressure wouldn't be there to spread out traffic flow and lower wait times. Using fare structure to spread out traffic is nothing new. It has been around since the 1970's. (Perhaps Neil has an old schedule with fares listed?) I recall rates differing based on time of the year (high, shoulder & peak) and time of the week (you pay more on Friday afternoon than you do on Tuesday afternoon). I believe there has even been differential pricing based on time of day. You're right. I've got some old schedules myself. In the 60s, 70s, and 80s there was a Monday-Thursday and Saturday discount for passenger fares only. And in the 90s there were the Peak, Shoulder, and Low seasons as well as Weekend and Weeday rates. Although thr savings were not as substantial as the discounts now during Coast Saver sailings, it seems that it is not a new idea after all.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 12, 2011 17:14:26 GMT -8
In their recent news release defending the $315,000.00 per year pension for Mr. Hahn, BC Ferries conveniently answered this question for us: From: www.bcferries.com/bcferries/faces/attachments?id=477419Gotta love it. And of course it's worth tens of millions in executives salaries and bonuses and pensions, because people paid even half of that much would never be able to do it. I'm sure the union would love to know how Mr. Hahn was involved in the "nine year collective agreement."
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jul 12, 2011 17:52:34 GMT -8
Does anyone know what BC Ferries current debt is? I'm not an accountant, but from the following link, I would surmise that the current amount of money that BC Ferries "owes" banks and through bonds is well in excess of $1.1 billion. www.bcferries.com/investors/debt_info.html
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 12, 2011 20:26:08 GMT -8
Does anyone know what BC Ferries current debt is? I'm not an accountant, but from the following link, I would surmise that the current amount of money that BC Ferries "owes" banks and through bonds is well in excess of $1.1 billion. As at March 31, 2011, total debt is $1,360,000,000. - That's 1.36 Billion. Mostly bonds, plus some Deutch debt.
|
|