|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2012 12:16:47 GMT -8
Thanks very much for that link, Paul. Everyone, here's your chance to make your opinion known for this report.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2012 12:21:03 GMT -8
A new thread for this process that is starting soon.
- I've moved a link for the consultation website, to this here thread. (thanks to Paul for finding the website and posting it).
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 29, 2012 12:25:39 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 17:43:56 GMT -8
Is only on the schedule, vessel or both switches? Because I could have an idea to save money on route 30!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 20:13:57 GMT -8
I don't think this one will be good submit to BC ferries about route 30 services. I just want to know what guys think about my idea. Here it is, move the Coastal Inspiration home port to Tsawwassen switch its route to route 1 and put the Queen of New Westminster on route route 30 from October 9 to April 1 every year. The Queen of Alberni home port will be Duke Point agian. It, also, would be good for route two because the Coastal Renaissance will be on the route all year. So do you guys think I cousumitromit to BC ferries?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 29, 2012 21:08:17 GMT -8
I don't think this one will be good summit to BC ferries about route 30 services. I just want to know what guys think about my idea. Here it is, move the Coastal Inspiration home port to Tsawwassen switch its route to route 1 and put the Queen of New Westminster on route route 30 from October 9 to April 1 every year. The Queen of Alberni home port will be Duke Point agian. It, also, would be good for route two because the Coastal Renaissance will be on the route all year. So do you guys think I could summit to BC ferries? I think the word you are looking for is 'submit', not summit. 'Summit' means the top of a mountain, highest point on a road, meeting of high level political leaders, etc. BTW, I don't understand what it is about your main routes vessel swaps that would help BC Ferries bottom line. Please explain why you think these are good ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2012 21:29:45 GMT -8
I don't think this one will be good summit to BC ferries about route 30 services. I just want to know what guys think about my idea. Here it is, move the Coastal Inspiration home port to Tsawwassen switch its route to route 1 and put the Queen of New Westminster on route route 30 from October 9 to April 1 every year. The Queen of Alberni home port will be Duke Point again. It, also, would be good for route two because the Coastal Renaissance will be on the route all year. So do you guys think I could summit to BC ferries? I think the word you are looking for is 'submit', not summit. 'Summit' means the top of a mountain, highest point on a road, meeting of high level political leaders, etc. BTW, I don't understand what it is about your main routes vessel swaps that would help BC Ferries bottom line. Please explain why you think these are good ideas. It would make route 30 vessel be filled up with cars for every sailing because their smaller vessel. Witch would make more cost effervesce.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 30, 2012 11:20:02 GMT -8
This subject is currently being discussed on CBC Radio 1's noon hour program Almanac.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 30, 2012 11:21:28 GMT -8
This subject is currently being discussed on CBC Radio 1's noon hour program Almanac. - I'm listening to the same thing, right now. Tony Law is doing a fine job, in this interview.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 30, 2012 11:46:14 GMT -8
Interesting discussion about inland vs coastal ferries. Mary Pollack said that the philosophy is different re the two systems... Why so? Why is it free to cross Francois Lake, but rather expensive to cross Skidegate Inlet, journeys of similar distances?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 30, 2012 14:58:55 GMT -8
Anyone know in what format the "Webinar" will take place? There will be 2 of them in December - you have to sign up by e-mail.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Oct 30, 2012 15:59:00 GMT -8
Mary Polak has stated that it's unlikely that these 'consultations' will lead to any service changes before the next election, which makes you wonder if this exercise has any value at all, given that the NDP may have different criteria for looking at the ferry system.
Still, service cuts in some areas may be necessary, so it may be worthwhile to see what aspects are most important to people in ferry dependent communities.
There are a few things, looking at the schedules, that stand out. Two of the least populated islands in the BC Ferries system are Thetis and Penelakut, yet their ferry runs six days a week until after 11:00, and one day until after midnight. Does Texada need a ferry from Powell River every night of the week at 11? And Scott took a picture of a ridiculously empty car deck on the NorEx. Other islands, including Hornby, could perhaps have one or two days during the week where the ferry runs for perhaps an eight hour period.
I don't think that service anywhere can be cut in peak season. But there are probably adjustments that can be made for nine months a year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2012 16:06:27 GMT -8
The NorEx is overbuilt now but she may very well be a good ship in the long term. She's more fuel efficient than the NorAd, and will last longer. Plus they take the same amount of crew to operate.
Mary Polak said that nothing will happen before the election, but other than the BC Liberal party loyals, who takes those guys seriously nowadays? I realize it's a short time frame to make changes, but honestly, I don't trust that party one bit anymore.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 30, 2012 16:30:19 GMT -8
:)with regard to the gulf between coastal and inland ferries, I think it's a question of 'grandfathering' of the inland ferries to the so-called time honoured continued highway access when these were highways ferries, and the coastal ferries were viewed as user pay's but it remains a quagmire as to how the highway between the different islands is any different to crossing Kootenay lake as a good example! the early days of our BC ferries where rapid expansion of the 1960's boom times when wac. moved in biblical fashon, when we could afford it, but now the chickens are coming home to roost, perhaps coastal and gulf islands folk were given false and unsistainable expetations! I do not envy any of the political paths we may have to take! :)mrdot.
|
|
|
Post by glasseye on Oct 30, 2012 18:06:09 GMT -8
Seakeeping and rough water safety are directly related to size. Even though the NorEx sails mostly empty in the winter, it would not necessarily be possible to operate a ship small enough to have lower operating costs during the winter. A 65 AEQ ferry through Hecate would be very uncomfortable to ride and might have a hard time keeping speed in normal winter weather.
The only other alternative to reduce capacity is to reduce the number of sailings. Fewer sailings means reduced costs for fuel and maintenance but will do nothing for fixed costs, including crew salaries, interest on debt, and administrative costs. Fuel and maintenance combined sum to BCFS' second largest single expenditure but still amount to less than half of BCFS' costs. As a result, even extreme reductions in variable expenses will have little impact on overall expenditures because fixed costs (costs incurred whether the ships sail or not) predominate.
BCFS is between a rock and a hard place as far as the main northern route is concerned. There's little to nothing they can do to cut costs there short of canceling the route entirely. Very similar constraints apply to the rest of the ferry system, with the exception that smaller ferries are potentially usable in the southern region due to less demanding sea conditions.
Ultimately, the both the province and the federal government need to decide if preserving smaller island communities is in the public interest or not. If the answer to that question is 'yes,' then there is no alternative but for both levels of government to adequately fund the ferry service at a level that--unlike current subsidies--not only keeps up with inflation but allows for replacement of functionally obsolete equipment and the procurement of additional ferries to make the service more robust. Absent that help, there is nothing BCFS itself can realistically do to provide service at a level and price that will allow island communities to remain economically viable. That is the reality of the marine and accounting environments.
If both levels of government decide, as they have seemingly done by starving the ferry system of funding, that it is no longer in the public interest for BC small island communities to exist, then they have a moral obligation to not only state their position but also relocate or buy out existing residents. To do any less is an abandonment of responsibility to small island residents as Canadians.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Oct 30, 2012 22:01:24 GMT -8
Is the Liberal government out and out lying about their losses in the data they've put out in this 'consultation' document... or at the very least, massaging the data to catastrophize the situation? that's a question that needs to be asked after looking at this story in The Tyee... thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2012/10/30/DropCompetition/Figures BC Ferries produced in the document do show a 'shortfall' of $29.86 million on route 30. www.coastalferriesengagement.ca/documents/DiscussionGuideFeedback.pdfBut when you look at the latest yearly report to the ferry commissioner, you see that the operating shortfall, that is, the difference between revenue and expenses, is actually only $2.58 million. The uglier sum is gained by adding in the 'cost of capital'. Mr Horn, I'll defer to you for an accountancy viewpoint. How much weight should we be giving to capital costs in determining the true deficit on route 30?
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Oct 30, 2012 22:22:22 GMT -8
Neil, I suspect route 30 users must pay annual amortization charges for the C Inspiration.. But then similar charges should be going against routes 1 & 2 for the other Coastal class vessels.
Just wait until they do similar arithmetic once the Queen of Burnaby's replacement goes into service on route 17.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 30, 2012 22:48:53 GMT -8
Figures BC Ferries produced in the document do show a 'shortfall' of $29.86 million on route 30. But when you look at the latest yearly report to the ferry commissioner, you see that the operating shortfall, that is, the difference between revenue and expenses, is actually only $2.58 million. The uglier sum is gained by adding in the 'cost of capital'. Mr Horn, I'll defer to you for an accountancy viewpoint. How much weight should we be giving to capital costs in determining the true deficit on route 30? You can see both of the above-mentioned amounts, in the following report - page 25: www.bcferrycommission.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/BCFS-FY2012-Annual-Report-to-BCFC.pdfThe $29.86million loss: This is after amortization of the assets (cost of the ships & terminals divided by useful life) and after the interest expense for the year on the debt (debt to do the recent new-builds). The $2.58million is net Income (revenues higher than operating expenses), BEFORE amortization of the cost of the assets, and Before interest expense on the debt. Both amounts are for the 2011/12 fiscal year. For Neil's question on which is the truer figure: - Well, if you were engaged to run a ferry service, but someone else was responsible to give you the ships and terminals and to upgrade them when necessary, then the $2.58million income would be your relevant number. - But if you are also responsible to acquire ships & terminals and to upgrade them (upgrading terminal berths are huge projects), then the $29.86million loss is your relevant number, because that's what it costs you to provide the service. If BC Ferries is responsible for the ongoing capital costs (ie to buy the ships and to upgrade the terminals), then that larger loss (including amortization and interest) is very relevant and is the appropriate amount for analysing the finances. --------------- For WCK's comment on comparing to Routes 1 & 2, that same page (#25) of the above noted PDF shows all 3 routes on 1 page, so that you can compare. - Route 1 & 2's higher traffic volume makes all the difference on those 2 routes, so that there is a profit even after their amortization and interest. In comparing the amortization expense & interest expense between these 3 routes (1, 2, 30), we see that routes 2 & 30 are pretty comparable. - But route 1's costs for amortization & interest are far higher, and yet route-1 still makes money even with a huge amount of interest and amortization allocated against it.
|
|
mrdot
Voyager
Mr. DOT
Posts: 1,252
|
Post by mrdot on Oct 31, 2012 10:31:17 GMT -8
:)in reflection on the subsidy costs per vehicle, on the different routes, it's looking very large for the new northern wondership, and I'am not surprised, as this oversized ro-pax to the north sails half empty even in peak season, as it's often cheaper to get an alaska cruise deal, and there's no pay per view lounges on these hi-end cruiseships! the northern service needed a more compact purpose built ship similar to QPR,with no cruise industry bells and whistles, but even that would need a major subsidy as well. In reality only routes one and two, would be economic in a true pvte. ent. model! mrdot
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Oct 31, 2012 11:47:27 GMT -8
Mr Horn: Thank you for your input on the figures. That definitely is the longer and more complete view.
My concern is that when most people look at the term 'shortfall', they are not going to be thinking of capital costs. I suspect that most will think that the figure describes the cost of regular operations. I would also guess that people pretty much see the cost of terminals, ship construction, and debt servicing as a given; it's the operating costs and utilization that concerns them.
This is also how BC Ferries and the government have framed their argument for the unsustainability of ferry operations. They constantly talk of labour and fuel costs, and their claim that many sailings are empty, or are carrying more crew than passengers. Capital costs are not mentioned nearly as often.
But now we have an exercise that is designed to soften the public up for major cuts, and the emphasis has shifted a bit. Consider that in the latest report to the ferry commissioner, route 30 is listed as having 'Total Operating Revenues' of $75.5 million, and 'Total Operating Expenses' of $73.0 million. Yet in this consultation document, 'Total Operating Revenues' stays at $75.5 million, while 'Total Operating Expenses' has ballooned to $105.4 million, because capital costs are folded in. Same terms, different numbers. One document is a proper accounting picture, while the second, while not dishonest, per se, has a much different purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 31, 2012 21:06:27 GMT -8
Neil, you raise another interesting question. How much is BC Ferries paying in interest on debt? This is, of course, being passed on to the customer. Prior to "privatization" I'm guessing debt was assumed by the province - would they have a lower rate of interest?
Also, is BC Ferries paying more in taxes now that it is "private" than it was before? I seem to recall that one of the issued with privatization was that BC Ferries would have to pay taxes on things they didn't have to before - but I can't find numbers to back this up, so I'll see what others have to say on this. I know a "tax cut" is basically the same as an increase in subsidization by the government - but it's something to consider when talking about the finances of BC Ferries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2012 22:10:02 GMT -8
I find it upsetting and frustrating that a lot of well meaning people are being dragged into this futile exercise which already has a predetermined outcome ..... service reductions and higher costs. The BC Ferries were created to service the taxpayers of BC. Through many years , we've gone from the original intent to a board game being played by politicians ... with our money. The company is top heavy with management, saddled with a huge debt load,overseen by an expensive and needless ferry commission office, operating too many different ships requiring too many specialized and unique berths as well as crew qualifications for each type. Real people on Coastal BC are being treated as some kind of lower class ..... What can we take away from them and charge more for the privilege? Meanwhile the Government can spend billions on new roads and bridges and not put tolls or reduce them at a whim. This expensive exercise should be discontinued and the Government should make the very bold step of returning BC Ferries to the citizens of BC and start operating as a service to all as are the highways of BC.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 14, 2012 22:24:05 GMT -8
The BC Coastal Transportation Society has released their 100 questions, which are intended to stimulate thought for the BC Ferries public consultation exercise. Here it is: bccoastaltransportation.ca/
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Nov 16, 2012 0:20:54 GMT -8
Here's an Article from this Week's Powell River Peak relating to the Consultation Meetings for Powell River and Texada. It includes a graph with statistics for Route 7, 17 and 18 for 2011-2012 and there's also one showing how Ferry Fares have changed on the routes since 1987. www.prpeak.com/articles/2012/11/15/news/doc50a2ec9edf7b4509861796.txtInteresting to note $10 would get You and a Car to Texada and back in 87, $10 barely gets you there and back as a Footie Today.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Nov 21, 2012 19:49:06 GMT -8
A statement from BC Ferry and Marine Worker's Union President, Chris Abbott regarding the public consultation. This can be found at the homepage of the BCFMWU website. www.bcfmwu.com/
|
|