Kam
Voyager 
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Mar 20, 2007 15:07:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Mar 20, 2007 17:20:27 GMT -8
That explains how they would get a new engine down there. So the Harbourlynx is now the Island Sealink?
|
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Mar 20, 2007 17:23:42 GMT -8
no offense to anyone who still works at Sealink, but Ed Life, I hope you rot in He|| (Double Hockey Sticks)
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 20, 2007 18:01:42 GMT -8
I am implying that your opinion Klatawa is that Ed Life is an idiot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Mar 20, 2007 18:10:52 GMT -8
Great photos, Kam. I can see the plume coming from near Duke Point in the last photo in the gallery in that seemingly symbolic and beauty last shot but don't know Nanaimo marine facilities that well; where did this take place?
Graham
|
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Mar 20, 2007 18:23:10 GMT -8
it took place at the visitor wharf to the right of nanaimo harbour
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 20, 2007 18:36:41 GMT -8
no offense to anyone who still works at Sealink, but Ed Life, I hope you rot in He|| (Double Hockey Sticks) In the interests of keeping this an informative place, would you care to elaborate, in a non-slanderous way? Or would you prefer this be deleted, now that you've let off your steam? |
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Mar 20, 2007 19:10:20 GMT -8
He had a chance to save Harbourlynx when it was dying, insted, he let it die, and then picked up the pieces, he said something about not enough money, when he has that much money, he wipes with 100$ bills
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 20, 2007 20:40:45 GMT -8
It was probably a good business decision - HL seemed like it had A LOT of problems at the end and letting the company crash has probably kept him away from a huge amount of liability.
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Mar 21, 2007 8:43:34 GMT -8
it took place at the visitor wharf to the right of nanaimo harbour Thats the assembaly wharf behind the Seaspan terminal. |
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Mar 21, 2007 8:45:34 GMT -8
Great photos, Kam. I can see the plume coming from near Duke Point in the last photo in the gallery in that seemingly symbolic and beauty last shot but don't know Nanaimo marine facilities that well; where did this take place? Graham I got a bit of a giggle out of the whole symbolic representation of that sunken boat just down the dock from the ISL.. lol. |
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 21, 2007 10:56:45 GMT -8
Klatawa Teen,
Hold it in check big guy! The company had a lot of challenges right out of the gate. After two years of a bunch of folks 'standing on their heads to make a go of it' including yourself, a business decision was made. All the shareholders were simply 'tired' of the challenges and all the additional funds required on an initial and on-going basis.
I know there are a number of folks that will say a project such as this requires deep pockets and that is true, but far more important than that is a viable business plan. There are a lot of investors who have been interested in the business, but it simply didn't make sound business sense, based on the experience of Royal Sealink and HarbourLynx. I personally believe there is a business here, but the challenges need to be knocked down first before one commits to it, ie port fees, terminal rents, operating costs of the the vessel(s), and unfair competition supported by a government who claim they are private business friendly, but act otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Mar 21, 2007 14:37:45 GMT -8
He had a chance to save Harbourlynx when it was dying, insted, he let it die, and then picked up the pieces, he said something about not enough money, when he has that much money, he wipes with 100$ bills you will notice that with a number of businesses and companies around. they go bankrupt as one business and come back under another name. prime example i can think of in the mission maple ridge area is queenship yachts. went broke as cooper yachts, came back as queenship yachts and have now come back under another version of queenship yachts. i guess you can be sour about the guy when you were an employee and related to an employee |
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 22, 2007 9:52:06 GMT -8
Cascade, you are right. There appears to be some 'games' being played vs common sense. Let's see if I've got this right. HL rebuilt two engines. One failed. It appears the reason for the failure is due to a counterweight failure due to the fact that proper procedures were not followed according to the W6 requirements of MTU. I emphasize the word 'appears'.
Now, if the the failure truly is attributed to the 'shortcuts' taken, then what would prevent you as an owner from being leary of your other engine, and truly, how reliable do you predict it to be? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows. So, why would you tell the world that you intend to run a 'safe, efficient, and reliable' service, starting out with one suspect engine and a your replacement sitting on the work table half a world away. Makes no sense.
Now, as far as the hull is concerned, the vessel, although built in 1997, I have never seen any decernable difference between the hull of the 1992 version and the 1997. That tells me that Fjellstrand probably put the design on paper in about 1990. How many advances in high speed hulls have been made in 17 years, quite a few I'd say.
What about capacity? The HL ran, on average 30% capacity. How many airlines do you know running on 30% capacity and surviving??? Not many. That's one heck of a lot of mt seats going back and forth. Yes the ship was full at times, but you can't make a go of things based on your equipment running full 1% of the time. Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 22, 2007 11:51:39 GMT -8
The whole harbour fee issue is very confusing. Twenty years ago the Port of Nanaimo built new infrastructure for a couple of small float plane operators. The parties agreed that the airline would pay a moorage fee, plus a passenger based 'fee in contract', which became known as the 'passenger fee'. This is the same type of arrangement one would expect when renting space in a shopping mall, a base rent plus a percentage of sales. When a second airline came to town about 8 years ago, the same formula was applied. Make sense? Then came the ferry. A small float was built, the small boat harbour was re-arranged to accomodate the ferry and all was good, EXCEPT, if one examines the value of the services received. If you examine what a fisherman can use the dock for vs the ferry, the ferry will pay many, many times the rate of the fisherman to use the same float. Doesn't seem right. In 2005, after multiple year losses, the Port decided they needed to increase funding, so they realized under the Canada Marine Act that they could charge a user fee to operators to cover their own operating costs, patrol boats, navigation aids, harbour clearing etc. Effective April 1, 2006, ALL passenger companies were subject to a passenger fee. Airlines $1.50 / pax, fast ferry $1.00 / pax, and big ferries $.15/.10 per pax. In 2006, the Canadian Transportation Agency found that these fees were unjust and discriminatory. The port authority appealed and it is at that stage right now. A very interesting decision available at www.cta-otc.gc.ca/rulings-decisions/decisions/2006/W/370-W-2006_e.html |
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 23, 2007 7:37:23 GMT -8
A couple of date corrections last post...
The NPA was looking for new sources of revenue in mid-2004. In December 2004, they notified parties within the harbour that, effective Mar. 1/2005, all passenger carriers would be paying a passenger fee as described by Sec 49 of the Canada Marine Act.
During the summer of 2005 complaints were filed by Amigo Airways, and Kenmore Air, with HarbourLynx requesting intervenor status in the complaints. In addition, there were a number of complaints filed by individuals on the basis of discrimination, however, the CTA found that under the definition of a 'user' within the Canada Marine Act, they could not be considered users, but rather the operators were considered to be the 'user'.
The issue is currently in front of the Federal Court of Appeal.
|
|
Kam
Voyager
Posts: 926
|
Post by Kam on Mar 23, 2007 15:22:38 GMT -8
Personal view - I don't think the new Victoria - Vancouver service at the speed he is proposing will work - but I do challenge him to prove me wrong. It does sound like Mr. Life has acquired a second engine? His words at the media event where "we have placed an order to the manufacturer but have no idea what the delivery date would be yet". |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 23, 2007 19:53:08 GMT -8
A very interesting read, in that Business-Examiner story re the 2 possible ferry-operators. Thanks for posting that, Mr. Cascade.
It certainly sheds some light on who Mr. Life is, and his personality........which likely spills over into how he runs a business.
|
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Mar 23, 2007 20:52:47 GMT -8
yep. another sailor who thinks he can run a ferry buisness?
|
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Mar 24, 2007 6:38:05 GMT -8
mods please remove spam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 24, 2007 7:32:29 GMT -8
oh, so that's what that strange post was. I was wondering about that. Thanks for letting me know it was spam. |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 24, 2007 7:33:38 GMT -8
yep. another sailor who thinks he can run a ferry buisness? Are you calling Mr. Billy McLandlocked a sailor ? |
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Mar 24, 2007 9:15:29 GMT -8
no, im calling ed life a sailor  |
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 24, 2007 13:25:15 GMT -8
Mr. Horn,
Was that a slap in the face? And here, I thought you were a voice of reason.
I didn't start HL...
If you fellas don't want to hear a wide range of thoughts and opinions, perhaps I'll just butt out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 24, 2007 16:12:07 GMT -8
Mr. Horn, Was that a slap in the face? And here, I thought you were a voice of reason. I didn't start HL... If you fellas don't want to hear a wide range of thoughts and opinions, perhaps I'll just butt out. no malice intended to Mr. Landlocked. I enjoy your "I've been there" info and experiences. However, I was perturbed by Klatawa-Teen's posts that seem to be nothing more than Life-bashing. His (Klatawa Teen's) post was vague and wasn't clear who or what he referred to. I assumed that he was referring to Life, but I was feeling a bit feisty re the generality of his comment, and so I sarcastically wondered if he was perhaps referring to you (knowing full well that he wasn't). I assumed that my satire / sarcasm / whatever-it-is was obvious. I never said anything critical of Landlock's ability to run a business. I was just wondering what Klatawa Teen's comment was referring to, and was trying to poke fun at his recent short-snappers against Life. To sum up: I used your posting-name in order to make a point with K-Teen, and I'm sorry that this seemed to you like an attack on you. It was not intended to impact on you. |
|
