Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:I tort de LFDRFD PNM uses to only buy boat dat eh hah defect/deficiency/non conformance?
Oh, I see you have done the incident report already.
Care to share your findings?
Eet shut down
The End
The UNC/Kamla well wicked though, to send somebody all the way to Hobart, Australia, to sabotage the vessel.
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:I tort de LFDRFD PNM uses to only buy boat dat eh hah defect/deficiency/non conformance?
Oh, I see you have done the incident report already.
Care to share your findings?
Eet shut down
The End
The UNC/Kamla well wicked though, to send somebody all the way to Hobart, Australia, to sabotage the vessel.
Apparently, you still can't read:
At a distance of 398 nautical miles from Hobart, alarms were triggered. While the technical assessment concluded that the journey could have continued, NIDCO decided that the vessel should return to Hobart — it being the closest port of call — to investigate these occurrences and take the necessary corrective action to prevent their recurrence.
Where does it say it shut down? Is a tug towing it back to Hobart?
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Are you an arse? You feel is a Lego facking boat they built?
ALL complex projects like this have defects/deficiencies/non-conformances. What they are determine acceptance or not. The BAE boats had substantial performance deficiencies and they were rejected. The APT James' non-conformances appear to be not substantial enough to make it unsuitable for the sea bridge, but to say a multimillion dollar, multimillion part vessel doesn't have a single defect, is being an arse.
Maybe somewhere in your LFDRFD PNM addled brain, you thought I was attacking the vessel, and your knee jerk monkey glands were thus elevated?
The BAE OPVs were not delivered, the only reason we got back our money was because they already sold them to Brazil.
You are equating defects, deficiencies and non-conformance to safety standards, they are not the same. As I said before, unless you have knowledge of what the defects are with the APT James then you need to shut up. This is not your UNC friends where unsubstantiated claims could fly as truth.
If a defect is found on the ship it cannot sail. Stop peddling nonsense and lies. I really don't care what is going on your personal life that makes you so acerbic but your toxicity doesn't mean we have to accept your untruths.
Habit7 wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:Habit7 wrote:VII wrote:A service from the capital is always a must..personally I think its more important to preserve Toco and environs from the 2 legged breed of animals and all that comes with it ..a limited service maybe,but not the entire service..
We take for granted the rich concentration of biodiversity in that area,that's something we should not compromise no matter what..
And the 2 to 3 hr trips are perfect for those boats actually..running ph between toco and Scarborough up and down in more rotations maybe way worse, that's more suitable to water taxis/smaller vessels..
Govt subsidises that 3hr trip. The true price is about $1000, we only pay $100. If we could cut it down to 1hr with the same price, then it is less subsidy.
If that's the real cost then we are running a terribly inefficient service. Similar ferries in the Azores islands cost much less and are traveling similar distances (3 hours costing €45 or $400TT not subsided as there are competitors).
Subsidizing an island 'bridge' makes plenty of economic sense as it facilitates business plus does a social good by bringing opportunities to persons on both islands.
Having a port in Toco could be a good idea, but the trek to toco alone (even with better roads) is a turn off for many as well as an additional expense in gas and time. So it doesn't solve all the problems and the capex to get that project going not to mention the environmental cost probably isn't worth it.
Passing the buck the consumer does more harm in the long run by hurting the economy.
Long story short, it's best we subsidize the existing sea and airbridges and make it more efficient.
Are those Azores ferries, high speed (+35knots) catamarans? Otherwise it is not comparable.
Habit7 wrote:I passing around a cap. Let us sponsor ALTA classes for Dragon.Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Are you an arse? You feel is a Lego facking boat they built?
ALL complex projects like this have defects/deficiencies/non-conformances. What they are determine acceptance or not. The BAE boats had substantial performance deficiencies and they were rejected. The APT James' non-conformances appear to be not substantial enough to make it unsuitable for the sea bridge, but to say a multimillion dollar, multimillion part vessel doesn't have a single defect, is being an arse.
Maybe somewhere in your LFDRFD PNM addled brain, you thought I was attacking the vessel, and your knee jerk monkey glands were thus elevated?
The BAE OPVs were not delivered, the only reason we got back our money was because they already sold them to Brazil.
You are equating defects, deficiencies and non-conformance to safety standards, they are not the same. As I said before, unless you have knowledge of what the defects are with the APT James then you need to shut up. This is not your UNC friends where unsubstantiated claims could fly as truth.
If a defect is found on the ship it cannot sail. Stop peddling nonsense and lies. I really don't care what is going on your personal life that makes you so acerbic but your toxicity doesn't mean we have to accept your untruths.
Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:Habit7 wrote:De Dragon wrote:I tort de LFDRFD PNM uses to only buy boat dat eh hah defect/deficiency/non conformance?
Oh, I see you have done the incident report already.
Care to share your findings?
Eet shut down
The End
The UNC/Kamla well wicked though, to send somebody all the way to Hobart, Australia, to sabotage the vessel.
Apparently, you still can't read:
At a distance of 398 nautical miles from Hobart, alarms were triggered. While the technical assessment concluded that the journey could have continued, NIDCO decided that the vessel should return to Hobart — it being the closest port of call — to investigate these occurrences and take the necessary corrective action to prevent their recurrence.
Where does it say it shut down? Is a tug towing it back to Hobart?
sMASH wrote:how much defect they found on the CPV's that kamala ordered? how many did rowley send back to damen?
j.o.e wrote:Came down on the APT Jams last night. Boat wukking nice.
eliteauto wrote:j.o.e wrote:Came down on the APT Jams last night. Boat wukking nice.
How long did the trip take?
j.o.e wrote:eliteauto wrote:j.o.e wrote:Came down on the APT Jams last night. Boat wukking nice.
How long did the trip take?
2.5 hours
Dizzy28 wrote:j.o.e wrote:eliteauto wrote:j.o.e wrote:Came down on the APT Jams last night. Boat wukking nice.
How long did the trip take?
2.5 hours
JDLVish time
Used the JDLV 3 times in the last year and it averaged around 2hours 50 mins most time.
That 1 hour from entering the waters of PoS after the Bocas to docking is the real killer.
sMASH wrote:if the toco port comes into play, the speed limit may not be a factor.
but then, u have to factor in the drive up to toco... through the east west corridor.
save a 2 hrs sail time, to spend a 1.5hr drive time, tru pot hole, corner, traffic light, bad drive, police stop, wear and tear of ur vehicle and the extra fuel.
K74T wrote:T&T Express ferry finally sold
https://newsday.co.tt/2021/03/09/tt-express-seabridge-ferry-sold/
K74T wrote:20210424_090537.jpeg
https://ferrybalear.blogspot.com/2021/04/el-t-express-se-hunde-unas-800-millas.html?m=1
sMASH wrote:ferry go plunk!
did tnt get its money for the boat upfront?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Dohplaydat, Duane 3NE 2NR, Google [Bot] and 241 guests