Jump to content

Gareth

BFE Staff
  • Content Count

    7,374
  • Joined

Everything posted by Gareth

  1. Interesting, that new fender. Chris, do you think its primary purpose is to enable the main berth to take longer ships or to enable the port to have a lay-by berth for ships of the existing size?
  2. We need a “sticking out tongue” emoji! 🤣
  3. Thanks Chris. Was that photo taken from MSM?
  4. Getting mixed messages on this now. David says that Tarby has already said that Honfleur’s engines are dual fuel. And Jonno says they are not. Who is right?
  5. I was sure that widening the turning circle was a key part of the plan?
  6. (Which will negate any improvement in appearance facilitated by the removal if the LNG tanks).
  7. If she does not run on LNG then won’t she need scrubbers?
  8. So they’re already designed for both are they? In which case no operator that happens to pick her up is tied to a need to use LNG in any case. Including BF.
  9. Surely an engine designed to run on LNG won’t just work if you happen to pop a few hundred gallons of diesel in instead will it?!
  10. Yes, it does leave the door open doesn’t it. The phrasing of that press release does rather lend weight to the theory that the cancellation is strategic.
  11. Unless - I wonder if CF would be able to do Portsmouth-Le Havre in 4 hours or 4 hours 15 minutes? If so, I wonder whether, operating as a twin-level through-loader, whether she would be able to turn around fast enough to be able operate two round trips a day?
  12. A bit of a waste of CF’s speed isn’t it? CF replaces Kerry/Connemara at Rosslare, saving both charter fees, much more likely.
  13. Do you know if the port has now been widened Chris? I agree it needed doing, regardless of Honfleur. The ability of the port to take longer ships can only add to BF’s flexibility.
  14. I've been trawling the thread to try to find an answer to @colin's question about information on money poured into FSG to keep the yard afloat. I was sure I had read it somewhere on here. Around pages 40-55 there is a lot of talk about BF agreeing different terms, maybe foregoing penalty clauses etc as part of an agreement to get construction re-started. However, all I saw when trawling was speculation and theorising, so I may be wrong about that. It's funny, when you read these things, over time you forget what was fact and what was someone's thought process. However, while I was trawling, I noticed another key observation that I'd forgotten. At the time of the original failure of the yard, Honfleur was a mere 3 months away from her scheduled delivery (with no indication of any reason for a possible delay). Since the rescue package was put together, and the yard started functioning again, we have had that 3-month period elapse many times over. And now we still hear that the completion of the ship is nearly a year away. This has led me to wonder about another possibility. Is the only explanation for this continued delay and failure to get the ship (that was 3 months from completion over a year ago) finished that there must be something seriously wrong with her? And that, whatever this thing wrong with her is, BF has concluded that it cannot be put right?
  15. I did have a thought this morning. I wonder if BF made an offer to the yard to take the ship as she is (so they could send her somewhere else) but the offer was rejected or too high a price was demanded. And then, did BF cancel the order with the intention of forcing the yard to close so they can then acquire the unfinished ship as-is for a much lower price from the receivers? Only thing with that theory, I suppose (apart from it being morally dubious and possibly on the fringes of legality (?)), is that they probably wouldn't have announced the cancellation so publicly. The public announcement kind of conveys a finality that indicates BF has no interest in subsequently acquiring the ship. (They'd look pretty foolish if they issue a subsequent announcement saying they have recommissioned Honfleur after all).
  16. I wonder whether we will see a period where Plymouth-Roscoff and Portsmouth-St Malo are maintained in a token fashion by the same ship. And a temporary revival of Plymouth-St Malo to facilitate it. I tend to agree that the complete abandonment of either of these routes is the end, certainly in spirit if not name.
  17. Indeed. I was surprised at the recent information that came out that BF has had no support from the French government.
  18. Indeed. I still don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that BF will survive this crisis.
  19. That’s true. It could just be a bargaining move.
  20. I agree David, I suspect we may see the end of any routes where BF’s motivation for being there is “just to keep others out”. (If there are any).
  21. A point of interest will be whether this is purely a case of they can’t afford it in light of Covid losses, or whether it is the first indication of a review of fleet needs for the way they see operations going forward. Does this indicate, for example, a withdrawal from Le Havre. Or...are they just going to get another one built elsewhere? As Colin says, the details will be interesting.
  22. We do know that BF spent a lot of money trying to keep the yard solvent.
×
×
  • Create New...