|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 6, 2012 13:05:08 GMT -8
So I was reading an article in the famous Tyee.. and one of the comments had Cristy Clark talking ferries on the radio, and how the Fast Cats are all the trouble with the fleet and why we have the large borrowing costs...
So I had to think.. where would we be now if the fast cats were running and doing ok on the horseshoe bay to departure bay run?
What ships would be on RTE 1?
what fleet replacement would have been needed?
Would we need the new super C(s)
The Old V class had to be retired would the extra capacity have been made up with the (C) class?
Northern ships??
Minor ships?
Would we be in the same mess we are now?
Or would we be in an entirely different mess?
What does the board think?
Or has this been discussed and i missed it somewhere else?
Oceaneer77
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 7, 2012 23:37:48 GMT -8
You could probably make the argument that if the Fastcats were either a success or never built, BC Ferries might still be a crown corporation, without the mandate of financial sustainability and with a higher level of provincial subsidy.
I don't really know anything about the borrowing costs. But the BC Ferries of then and the BC Ferries of today are sort of different entities, so I don't really know why mistakes made by the crown corporation then would affect the borrowing costs of the non-crown corporation of today. But someone with more financial wisdom than me could probably enlighten us more.
If we look at it just from a money standpoint and ingnore all the changes in management and mandates, you would think that there wouldn't be the need for 3 new Super C-class vessels. I think they still would have needed at least one new major vessel, if not two to replace the V's, but there would still be a bit more money left on the table for smaller vessels.
I wonder too, if the FastCats had been a success, would subsequent ferries have been built in BC? People sometimes used the fast ferries fiasco as an excuse to say that we couldn't build new ferries, at least on budget. So maybe the new ferries would have been built-in-BC Super Spirit Class vessels.
By bringing up the fastcats, I think Cristy Clark is trying to scare voters away from the NDP more than anything. The Fastcats have cast their shadow over the past 15 years, but the current "mess" was largely created by the Liberals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 8, 2012 8:19:59 GMT -8
I'll leave it there, as I can see more politics on this one coming, and will stick to the ferries and operations elsewhere here. Regarding your last-sentence: What's the point of your last sentence, if you've already said all the political stuff in your post previous to it? - That part of your posting-style has always puzzled me.  As for me, I make a point of not commenting on these types of puzzling posts, so I won't comment on your last sentence. (that's an attempt at irony, to show you what I mean....in fun  ). |
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,188
|
Post by Neil on Feb 8, 2012 12:00:22 GMT -8
I can't believe Christy Clark is still hauling the boogeyman fast ferries story out of the closet. No, wait... of course I can. Her numbers are tanking, and it probably won't be long before Glen Clark's sundeck is back on the agenda. Ah, the good old days. It's hard to visualize what might have been if the fast ferries had been successful, or had been re-engined to run as conventional boats, as one engineering firm proposed. Chances are the Vs might have been around longer, or perhaps there would not have been the impetus to send a construction project overseas, without the stigma of the cat project. Might the ' Burnaby or ' Nanaimo have been raised and refurbished? We certainly wouldn't have had three Coastals, either built here or elsewhere, but surely at least one new boat would have been built, since the 'cats were not truck ferries. I'll leave it there, as I can see more politics on this one coming, and will stick to the ferries and operations elsewhere here. A familiar pattern: making political comments, and then closing with a snide remark about other people being political. The fast ferries story was and is rife with politics, and you've never shown yourself to be any better than anyone else at separating the two, so let's just show a little intellectual honesty and admit that our opinions are our opinions, and that we're all coming at this from a certain point of view. And if you're so against injecting politics into this forum, why do you always show up in threads that promise a bit of controversy? |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Feb 8, 2012 13:17:21 GMT -8
:)taking this non nautical/shipwatching theme one step farther, how come Jimmy P. has seen fit to make Glen C. his deputy, thought he was bright! :omrdot.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,188
|
Post by Neil on Feb 8, 2012 13:23:18 GMT -8
:)taking this non nautical/shipwatching theme one step farther, how come Jimmy P. has seen fit to make Glen C. his deputy, thought he was bright! :omrdot. Back when Glen Clark was in government, Pattison said that he was a very bright guy, and that he could make him a millionaire. He just might, and perhaps people will view Clark's legacy a bit differently. If you want someone who actually can separate politics from substance, perhaps Pattison's your man. |
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Feb 8, 2012 13:39:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Feb 9, 2012 9:05:47 GMT -8
:)taking this non nautical/shipwatching theme one step farther, how come Jimmy P. has seen fit to make Glen C. his deputy, thought he was bright! :omrdot. Back when Glen Clark was in government, Pattison said that he was a very bright guy, and that he could make him a millionaire. He just might, and perhaps people will view Clark's legacy a bit differently. If you want someone who actually can separate politics from substance, perhaps Pattison's your man. If you know anything about Jimmy Pattison's business style, he knows how to hold someone's feet to the fire, focus them, and get them to perform. If not, he can fire people faster than Trump on the Apprentice. Glen won't have time to make funny money backroom deals. He will have clear expectations and it is do or die for him. In Pattison's early days at his GM dealership the bottom salesman each month got fired. He always said he was doing them a favour because there was a job out there they would be better at. He has continued that approach in all his businesses. Nothing focuses employees more than knowing you have to perform and do your job or you get shown the door. So if Mr. Clark strays we will know about it quickly. |
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Feb 9, 2012 11:45:02 GMT -8
:)yes, you are rite about Jimmy P.s business style, but I just visited his new heart valve hosp,tl living legacy up in surrey, and I am afraid we are going to reliy more and more on these injections into our health care, as gov 'ts can not afford to fund our ferries, hospitals, and much of what we have expected all gov'ts to provide. our world is changing fast, and I am just thankful to be on the rite side of the grass! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 9, 2012 11:50:06 GMT -8
Hmmmm
all good points but the politics are as ever a hot topic
If we separate the politics out and go on the totally fictional story of the fastcats are working OK, and then factor in all of the other events that have happened.
What would the fleet look like now
My thoughts..
1) The V(s) had to go as they were old and also did not meet the current regulation.. what would have replaced them?
Would they have tried to run the C(s) on Rte 1?... I thought that this was impossible?
2) The Northern boats? The QTN was great as was the Rupert but they also did not meet the new regulations.. So would the Sonia and the NorEX exist today? (( The QTN still hits Gill island and sinks) and the reporters still have no idea what a single compartment ship is)
3) I think that no matter what with the cost overrun on the Island Sky, and the union control of Vancouver shipyards no new vessels would be built on the coast... Wow this one is going to get a BIG reaction!
But the truth is that the Island Sky was late and lost the shipyard money. The new contracts are under a new union agreement so do not point to the military shipbuilding as proof that it could have been done here because it could not have. ( I hate this as much or more than anyone else)
4) Queen of New West Refit? Would it have happened?
Thats about all to throw into the pot that I have.
But I know that you all have allot of knowledge on this to contribute.
The point of the exercise is to look at the fleet and the needs then try to figure out how much it all would have cost to be here today.
Thanks
Oceaneer
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,188
|
Post by Neil on Feb 9, 2012 12:10:58 GMT -8
But the truth is that the Island Sky was late and lost the shipyard money. The new contracts are under a new union agreement so do not point to the military shipbuilding as proof that it could have been done here because it could not have. Oh yes, it could have. When you compare the Island Sky contract to the recent WSF threesome, it's proof positive that building in BC is no more expensive than building in Washington; perhaps less so when you look at those numbers. New contract or no, WMG bid on the Coastals, and the decision could have been made to build here, if paying a certain premium to create jobs was seen to be acceptable, as it is to the north and south of us. Maybe a hundred years from now, when all the principals on either side of this argument are long gone and the axes have all been ground to nubs, we'll finally get some real perspective on this seemingly eternal argument. |
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 9, 2012 12:19:33 GMT -8
Sorry but i wish it were true...
It just is not... we needed time and the Island Sky to make the unions hurt enough to change the contracts.
I am a Die Hard Build in BC guy.. I think we could have done it and I think we should have done it.
But the problems that were around at that time were insurmountable for a new build program.
The Best boats we have are built in BC, the Best boats we will EVER have will be built in BC.
But my point on that is that we had a perfect storm of factors that made it impossible.
Shoot if i was running BC Ferries at that point I would have not built here... and that is just sad beyond belief.
The unions needed to see that they were not the only game in town.
NOW we can build ships again. And with the money that is being invested in Van ship and Vic ship we will be able to do it in a cost effective (not cheaper) manor.
But at any event its a bit off topic from what the post is about.
oceaneer
|
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 9, 2012 12:21:45 GMT -8
I also do not remember WMG bidding on the coastal s.. from my memory they passed on the whole affair.
If I am incorrect I would love to be show the errors of my way.
Thanks
Oceaneer
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Feb 9, 2012 12:43:52 GMT -8
I also do not remember WMG bidding on the coastal s.. from my memory they passed on the whole affair. If I am incorrect I would love to be show the errors of my way. Thanks Oceaneer Instead of me taking the time to find the thread where we've talked about this before, I'll just say that "I think we've talked about this issue before". - if you want to bring these issues up again (as you've been doing for the past few days), then please follow them through. Thanks. |
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,188
|
Post by Neil on Feb 9, 2012 14:58:22 GMT -8
I also do not remember WMG bidding on the coastal s.. from my memory they passed on the whole affair. If I am incorrect I would love to be show the errors of my way. Thanks Oceaneer Not so. They responded to calls for expressions of interest, and I believe submitted a starting bid. From Michael Smyth's Province column of Oct. 20, last year: 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some more reading for you: www.bcshipyardworkers.com/news/april21_04.htmlwww.strategicthoughts.com/record2004/ferrycommission.htmlMr Horn is right; we've been over this six ways to Sunday, but while there's no new information that any of us can add right now, it's worthwhile to keep some basic facts in view, and one of those is that WMG certainly did not express disinterest in the contract that eventually went to Germany. And, hey, we're ferry fans. We should have a high tolerance level for repetition. |
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 10, 2012 9:06:39 GMT -8
I stand corrected... Thanks
oceaneer
|
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Feb 10, 2012 12:31:46 GMT -8
There is always a desire to look back and ask "what if this had worked?" At the risk of hearsay, perhaps the question should be "what if the previous management/political had a procurement system in place that better predicted the future needs of BC Ferries and did not try this in the first place?"
I don't have the historical background to have an answer. I also admit that I am looking at this through the lens of Alaska's current Mat-Su Ferry, where the procurement process was done backwards (we have a cool ship, how can we use it, as opposed to we have a demand, what should we acquire to fill it).
I have two questions, than. First, was this a purely political build? Beforehand, was there good evidence that the cats would work that turned out to be incorrect, or was there a political case made using convenient evidence that matched the political desire?
If the answer to the first was yes, and there is a group supposition that that is in part what lead to privatization, did the management of BC Ferries prove itself to be ultimately unsuitable for operating a public utility, and therefore deserve to be changed?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,188
|
Post by Neil on Feb 10, 2012 14:47:17 GMT -8
I have two questions, than. First, was this a purely political build? Beforehand, was there good evidence that the cats would work that turned out to be incorrect, or was there a political case made using convenient evidence that matched the political desire? If the answer to the first was yes, and there is a group supposition that that is in part what lead to privatization, did the management of BC Ferries prove itself to be ultimately unsuitable for operating a public utility, and therefore deserve to be changed? The decision to proceed with the fast ferry project was made by the province, not BC Ferries. BC Ferries had suggested leasing a fast vessel to see how it would work out. The decision was based on a desire to revitalize BC shipyards, and also on the belief that high speed aluminum catamarans were the wave of the future, and that BC could, for a change, be an innovator in actually building things, as opposed to our traditional role as hewer of wood and drawer of water. Unfortunately, the market didn't turn out to be as big as they thought, and Australian and New Zealand firms had the lion's share of it. CFI, the company set up to build the ferries, had challenges with the new technology, and the project was poorly managed by the province. George Morfitt did an analysis of the whole project, which might be available somewhere. I believe he concluded that the government had not quite done their due diligence regarding the potential for sales or operations. On the whole, I would say that the fastcat project was a reflection on the province, and not on the management structure of BC Ferries. A terrible shame, because if it had been conceptualized and managed better, it could have been a boon both to shipbuilders and the province as a whole. It was, I think, a good idea, poorly executed. Was it pure politics, as you ask? Well, I suppose one man's politics is another man's common sense, and a third man's folly. Your point of view, and maybe history, will determine that. |
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Feb 14, 2012 6:58:16 GMT -8
I would like to think if the cats were operated longer, perhaps a second generation could of been built with all the kinks worked out. The whole thing to me while was expensive, it was a learning experience for everyone in trying to push the province foward. I wish they just built one cat first to use as an giant experiment.
As for the later German vessel acquisition, I've heard Flensburger has also a strong sales lobby when bids are up.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Feb 14, 2012 11:58:49 GMT -8
:)who remembers the huge sit down dinner put on by Hahn for the wonderwork done for the folks at FSG! I don't think wacky ever put on this extravganza for the folks at VMD or any other BC industry! and I am sorry, but that was a much larger block of new builds than the new age collection! ::)mrdot.
|
|
).
