|
Post by Dane on Mar 30, 2006 14:27:13 GMT -8
I agree with the principle, there is room to open up the major routes to competition, and I believe everyone would benefit if there is still BCFS as an option to travel on, but even calling that public is a stretch. The vessels and terminals are still public, but beyond that not much?
The issue I do see is that WMG can come in and operate the service, loose a ton of money everyday, but if they offer more service at a lower fair they recieve subsidies, or whatever the heck the government is calling the free money, and BCFS looses it. When that happens, it's imperative that WMG maintain the service in a manner that's accessible to the public. WMG doesn't scare me that much - they are a good company, which is why I support their entry into BC waters. I hope they do it, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Mar 31, 2006 12:59:03 GMT -8
Although a different mode of transport, do we really want an outcome similar to what happened when BritishRail was deregulated?
cascade, I'm truly a layman when it comes to the BritishRail situation; can you see any potential similarities to deregulating B.C.s coastal ferries?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 3, 2006 10:25:10 GMT -8
"The terminals only fit a BC Ferry vessel". Wow. The nerve of those BC Ferries people. Designing terminals so that only their vessels fit! I know that Cascade's crusade for private ferry competition has been refuted quite ably previously, but I'll weigh in with my own two cents worth anyway. It's a bit ridiculous to compare the European market to ours, with the vast difference in population. Economy of scale means everything when determining the viability of competition, and even then, Brits and Europeans quite often end up paying outrageous fares for services similar in length to some of ours. And it wasn't the "nanny state" mentality that created BC Ferries- it was the inabilty of the private market to make money off public transportation on our coast fifty years ago- and nothing has changed since. The only places the private sector can make money on are the niche markets, such as Victoria-Seattle fast ferry service. The idea that BC Ferries is some gigantic, lazy, subsidy gobbling albatross around the public's neck is just silly- and 'competition' for the right to transport people around Georgia Strait and beyond will likely not lead to any conclusion other than what was reached at the end of the 1950s. We should just concentrate on making BC Ferries as efficient as it can be, and forget about the 'need' for free enterprise to ride in on its white horse and save us all from the evil state. If Dennis Washington wants to start a service to Vancouver Island with the cats, let him- but since private enterprise is so wonderfully efficient, he should be able to do it on his own- with his own docks, and no subsidy.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 3, 2006 12:27:30 GMT -8
Cascade: First of all, your point about ICBC was well taken- that enterprise was developed from a good business model, and it has indeed been very successful, despite the feelings of some of our younger members who might not remember how delightful it was to try to get Allstate to settle with Prudential when you had an accident. However, on your ferry competition argument- I have to reiterate.... its already been tried here, and it DIDN'T WORK. Remember... pre 1960- 'level playing field'.... 'free market forces', and all that- it ended in inefficient ferry companies, with old boats, creaking to a halt, and being replaced by an efficient, well run public enterprise, where the customer, most would agree, 'won'. Ferry terminals are NOT like airports- if PanAm had built O"Hare Field, chances are its competition would be landing elsewhere, or else paying a huge fee to land there- and its rare to find the ferry equivalent of a 'union station', open to all. Again, we have already seen that "money spent by private operators (can't) do any better than BC Ferries". Do we need to learn that lesson all over again? How could the public purse possibly gain by allowing private operators use public facilities to compete with BC Ferries on the more lucrative runs, while the public continues to pay the full cost for the more 'uneconomic' services? I respect your right to your 'free enterprise' bias, but I really think you're ignoring history, and comparing apples and oranges, when you equate the European ferry situation to ours. People here should also be aware, as I said before, of what Europeans pay for many of their services- it can be extremely high. Those subsidies that you dislike are not to keep a bloated, wasteful service afloat, they're there to provide a service within reach of the commuting public. Finally the 'slice and dice' method of fleet expansion is not at all unheard of in the marine industry, and has actually provided a pretty economical way of extending the useful life of a lot of vessels; again, a pretty sound use of public funds, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 3, 2006 16:20:32 GMT -8
Dane, The problem to where BCFS is losing money is very simple to see. There fuel consumption is to high - Whilst I can't disagree on fuel consumption, I don't know what it is I'm sure it's not the only reason BCFS looses money. I'd have to say the number 1 reason it looses money is because it's designed too. but that is down to the age of the fleet - yes it is old and therefore the engine consume much more than a newer vessel would. Many of the minor vessels have been re-engined in recent years to address this very concern. Also Hull design / shape is a key factor in fuel consumption - and these hulls have been diced and sliced - over the last 20 plus years - where fuel was not such an issue. 7 ships have been sliced/diced, one of them would have benefited in terms of fuel consumption (NIP). So, while it's a valid point it's minor. The next major cost - is the repair / maintenance. These costs have gone up over the years - which eats into any possible profit. In a 10 year period they spend over a $1 Billion dollars on "pure" maintenance - and not on major upgrades - but on simple running repairs. Just about everyone agreed this is to much. Agreed old ships, high costs. If they have started in the 1980's a vessel replacement problem - BC Ferries would have the biggest and newest fleet in the world - plus there general maintenance cost would be around 30 to 50% less than what there are now. They would be using from 126 million liters - some where around 90 Million liters - you can work out for yourself the savings. Also agreed. BC Ferries has been poorly managed since the early 80s. Politics aside, no one can deny it. Would WMG - run a route at a lost - deep pockets. I don't think they would - nor do I think they would even start a route - they are testing the general public reactions to a "proposed" service. But what they are doing is laying the ground work for another Ferry operator - as they can see the response to the WMG idea - and yes it look favorable - so is workable. It even has David Hahn a little worried - as he mentioned in a radio phone in that he might have to ask the Ferry Commissioner if a route next to WMG proposed route - that it be de-regulated so he can compete on it - against the incoming operator. So BC Ferries are a little worried about other Ferry operators. My argument was more philosophical in nature, that the Coastl Ferry Act is flawed in that it doesn't promote fiscal accountability or service to be based on sustainability, but rather as a mechanism to get BCFS out of running a route. I'll expand later.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 4, 2006 6:50:28 GMT -8
I seem to get the impression that no one agrees with anything I say or debate - oh well.... For me, it's not that I don't agree with you....it's just that I don't care as much about those issues. My reason for participating on this forum is mainly because I like ferries, because I think "they're neat" and ferry-spotting is a hobby that I enjoy. While I dive into the economics & politics once in a while, it's not my area of expertise or interest. I don't want to jump into this debate, because I don't know the issues well enough, nor do I care to. Cascade has a few people here who are willing to debate those issues, but I'm not one of them: because of limited interest & knowledge in those areas.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 4, 2006 9:08:53 GMT -8
Cascade- When I mentioned failed ferry companies I was referring mainly to firms which had operated around 1960- Gulf Islands Ferries, Coast Ferries, Union Steamships, Black Ball, Canadian Pacific- all companies which either shrivelled up, went bankrupt, or were bought out. They may have had different types of vessels, and different operating models, but in the end, none succeeded at serving the changing needs of British Columbians. I don't believe that anything has really changed since then. Vancouver Island is still the same distance away from the mainland, and we still have nowhere near the same population density found in Great Britain and Europe where you make your service comparisons. There is no substantial ferry competition anywhere in North America. None to Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island had none. What services there are in Quebec or the Great Lakes are mainly unopposed. Same in New England. South Carolina is state run, as are other east coast services. No competition in Washington State. Ditto for Alaska. These are not examples of an overbearing state stifling private competition. They are simply reflections of the reality that, in this part of the world, there is usually not the density or business to make ferry competition viable. As you suggest, blind adherence to the notion of public or private run systems is not the most productive way to defining our marine transportation needs, and indeed, the easiest thing in the world is to find fault, as many are able to do with our existing system. I just feel that, with regard to history, and to present conditions, the best answer to our ferry needs is found in improving the infrastructure of a publicly (now quasi) run ferry system which by and large has served us quite well, and quite efficiently, for over 45 years. Again, if Dennis Washington wants to have a go at it, best of luck to him, but as far as I'm concerned, he already got his 'subsidy' when Gordon Campbell gave him the 'cats for pennies.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 4, 2006 9:19:32 GMT -8
There is no substantial ferry competition anywhere in North America. None to Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island had none. What services there are in Quebec or the Great Lakes are mainly unopposed. Same in New England. South Carolina is state run, as are other east coast services. No competition in Washington State. Ditto for Alaska. These are not examples of an overbearing state stifling private competition. They are simply reflections of the reality that, in this part of the world, there is usually not the density or business to make ferry competition viable. As you suggest, blind adherence to the notion of public or private run systems is not the most productive way to defining our marine transportation needs, and indeed, the easiest thing in the world is to find fault, as many are able to do with our existing system. I just feel that, with regard to history, and to present conditions, the best answer to our ferry needs is found in improving the infrastructure of a publicly (now quasi) run ferry system which by and large has served us quite well, and quite efficiently, for over 45 years. Again, if Dennis Washington wants to have a go at it, best of luck to him, but as far as I'm concerned, he already got his 'subsidy' when Gordon Campbell gave him the 'cats for pennies. hear, hear
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 4, 2006 13:40:26 GMT -8
I seem to get the impression that no one agrees with anything I say or debate - oh well.... I don't believe anyone disagreed about the effects of slice and dice. You post as if BC Ferries really had much of a choice at the time. Their options: 1. Buy more, bigger ships (and at this point the average age of the fleet is LESS than 5 years) 2. Rely on private operators to fill the need for more capacity. They weren't interested in doing this 3. Slice and dice. It had to be done... no one's saying it should be done again. And it does happen in other parts of the world, you're just banking on us being ignorant. Even in Washington, albeit it to a far reduced extent a lot of their older fleet (Steel Electrics and other vessels since retired) has been hacked to pieces and reassembled. Egypt has some fantastic, borderline unsafe sliced and diced vessel. The Canadian Navy looked at it with the Halifix Class, but has since decided it would be determiental to the vessels. They were actually designed intitally with the idea in mind.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 4, 2006 14:14:56 GMT -8
Right on, Dane. Its been done on east coast ferries, European ferries, and even cruise ships. Look at the use they've got out of the North Island Princess, after cutting it in quarters, and the Bowen, Mayne, and Powell River Queens, along with the major ones.... increased capacity, much longer useful life, for a fraction of the cost of new boats.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 4, 2006 21:03:18 GMT -8
It had to be done... no one's saying it should be done again. And it does happen in other parts of the world, you're just banking on us being ignorant. Even in Washington, albeit it to a far reduced extent a lot of their older fleet (Steel Electrics and other vessels since retired) has been hacked to pieces and reassembled. Egypt has some fantastic, borderline unsafe sliced and diced vessel. What do you think my first thought was, upon seeing a photo similar to this one of the ferry that sank recently while crossing the Red Sea? ___________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________ _______________________________________________________________ ...Before hearing what had actually happened, I thought, that if a critical-emergency occurred aboard this ship, for either environmental, mechanical or human "reasons ", this thing doesn't stand a chance, it'll capsize...Of course I realize that the hull would have been stabalized, but that's what my gut reaction was, which 'speaks' to the appearance of the design
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Apr 4, 2006 21:20:16 GMT -8
Ahh. We have Cascade over here too now trying to get people to believe Europe is SO much better...as if he isn't mentioning something negative about BC Ferries and positive about European ferries and how BC Ferries should be more like European ferries in every one of his posts. The North sunk today. Cascade: "it's because BC Ferries have a lack of skilled crew - something you'd never see in Europe - so why doesn't BC Ferries smarten up and let the European ferry companies take over?" European operators would treat us like a game, trying to make the big buck competing with others on the coast, coming up with luxurious interiors on our hour and a half routes, raising fares through the roof, etc. The pathetic idea of the flying car would have more chance of survival than ferries on this coast after the greedy European operators are "done their business". This has been summed up short as I must go now.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Apr 4, 2006 21:46:11 GMT -8
Ahh. We have Cascade over here too now trying to get people to believe Europe is SO much better...as if he isn't mentioning something negative about BC Ferries and positive about European ferries and how BC Ferries should be more like European ferries in every one of his posts. I wonder just how good it is over there. www.greekislandhopping.com/Updates/updatepages/u_disaster.htmlSome highlights "Her captain and mate have been arrested and charged with manslaughter amid allegations that at the time of the collision the crew had left the bridge to watch the replay on one of the ship's TVs of a goal in an important local soccer match. " "All on board were then left in the dark, scrambling for life jackets and life-rafts, as the ship began sinking by the bow. The Express Samina took 45 minutes to sink. During this period most of the crew seem to have left the passengers to their own devices; survivor accounts suggest that they provided little in the way of help in either finding life-jackets or launching the boats"
|
|
|
Post by ed on Apr 4, 2006 21:59:49 GMT -8
Ahh. We have Cascade over here too now trying to get people to believe Europe is SO much better...as if he isn't mentioning something negative about BC Ferries and positive about European ferries and how BC Ferries should be more like European ferries in every one of his posts. Remember the Herald of Free Enterprise incident? This is how the Euros handle issues: "P&O offered ferry services from the early seventies to 1985, when the ferries division was sold to Townsend Thoresen. This was all part of a master plan though as in 1986 P&O actually bought Townsend Thoresen out. Things remained as usual on the surface, the ships keeping their Orange and green-funnelled liveries until March 1987, when the Herald of Free Enterprise sunk. After this, the Townsend Thoresen brand name disappeared and vessels were re-painted into a dark blue, P&O livery. In an attempt to eradicate all memories of the Herald, any vessels with Free Enterprise in the name were re-named to the 'Pride of..' prefix (E.g. Pride of Dover). The company re-braded itself as P&O European Ferries"
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 5, 2006 10:12:36 GMT -8
Cascade- Thanks for laying down the ground rules for us laymen. We'll try to do our best to follow them, although since most of us don't have relatives who worked for some such company way back when, and we don't ourselves work on the 'floor', we probably don't have much to contribute to the discussion. We'll try to do our best not to bother you with too much 'spin'.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 5, 2006 12:17:01 GMT -8
Cascade- I think I'll check out of this discussion now. You're wierding me out with your conspiracies and your bizarre take on BC's shipping history. (Yah, like Sparky New was to ferries what Bill Gates is to computers). I'll just say that one of the things I like about this forum is it's inclusive nature; whether someone's showing their lego ferry pictures, or discussing technical aspects of propulsion, there seems to be room and respect for everyone. Therefore, I find it a bit jarring when someone presumes to lay down 'groundrules' for discussion, or perhaps unwittingly diminishes the validity of other people's opinions by pointing to supposed insider 'connections' and his access to 'government reports', and suggests that other people in the discussion aren't able to correctly peruse websites or analyze information that they have come up with. And no, Cascade, I don't need my reading material to be illustrated to be able to understand it. From your vantage point overseas you certainly have valuable insights to offer on a number of (perhaps not all) marine transportation tpoics, but you'll perhaps forgive me if I say I haven't noticed an inherent superiority to your posts over all others, despite your claim to impeccable research. Most of us come upon our opinions through an often subjective and selective interpretation of information and observation- and your opinions don't seem to be any more or less valuable than the rest of ours. I just ask that you acknowledge that the inabilty of others to agree with your opinion isn't necessarily a matter of their lacking your superior analytical skill and grasp of history. If indeed you can "debate point by point on any ferry subject", in future, instead of taking issue, I'll just bow respectfully to my computer screen and try to take it all in as best I can. Hornbyguy, out.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 5, 2006 17:46:44 GMT -8
What was twisted about ferry companies on the coast (BC)?
They provided: ...a low level of service ...more expensive service, but still lost money ...fragmented service ...lower wages for crew ...less reliable service b/c of labour disputes ...archaic service delivery.
BC Ferries was a huge step into the future for this province.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Apr 5, 2006 18:57:54 GMT -8
My family had a financial interest in two of the companies you talked about - plus a Uncle worked for another. I hope none of your family were in a management position at Townsend Thoresen / P&O that would have had anything to do with the Zeebrugge to Dover run during the mid 1980's. That would be downright shameful, in the full sense of the word.
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Apr 5, 2006 21:25:11 GMT -8
LOL. How many people died in that incident?
|
|
|
Post by ed on Apr 6, 2006 5:52:27 GMT -8
LOL. How many people died in that incident? It was the worst peace time shipping accident for the Brits since the Titanic.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 6, 2006 6:52:27 GMT -8
Sorry to sound preachy again in the morning, but the Herald of Free Enterprise was some serious tragedy for sure.
Yeah, you could focus on the errors made, but bottom-line is that many people died, on a modern ferry, not too far from shore.
In my opinion, it's not a LOL matter......but I understand the context that this matter was used in...in this wacky discussion/oneupsmanship here.....but it's still nonetheless a tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 6, 2006 11:39:48 GMT -8
Very sorry to inform you - but are family interest - unless you had fallen asleep - stop in the 1960's when the BC Government - reneged on a number of deals / contracts. I should also add - that not only our family - but 6 other families on the Island also lost out. Given that they had put in over 40 plus years of work into the different business. Am I bitter - no - that's old water under the bridge....but people like my father and Grandmothers family are still very pissed off at the Government - even today... So it was not due to a change in government at the Ledge, then?
|
|
Doug
Voyager
Lurking within...the car deck.
Posts: 2,213
|
Post by Doug on Apr 6, 2006 20:17:32 GMT -8
It seems as though you are pissed off as well Cascade...it's like you have some sort of conspiracy because your family lost.
You of all people should know the harsh business world.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 7, 2006 11:49:16 GMT -8
Those companies desevered to lose their contracts.
Glorious times for the majority of British Columbians.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 7, 2006 12:47:04 GMT -8
Cascade, I know I said I wasn't going to get into this again, but I continue to be puzzled by your references to families and small companies who were gouged in the setting up of BC Ferries. Could you perhaps be specific as to what operations you're refering to here? I understand that it wouldn't be proper to name families, but for the sake of clarity, it would be helpful to have it a bit more specific for those of us who are interested in BC Ferries' early days. You needn't direct me to sources of information- I can manage. I just need something more tangible to go on. Thanks.
|
|