Re: Hawaii Superferry -New York Times 3/22/09
Mahalo for that, Palolo lolo. I’m glad one of our nation’s more prominent newspapers has helped to shed light on the agenda of Lehman and Co. Some of the more telling passages from the NYT story:
Originally posted by Palolo lolo
View Post
In its 19 months of sporadic operations, the Alakai — an $85 million, 350-foot aluminum catamaran that sliced through some of the world’s roughest seas at 40 miles per hour — is widely thought to have lost money for Hawai‘i Superferry. The passenger-vehicle ferry usually operated well below the 50 percent capacity that the company had designated as its break-even point. For much of the winter, it operated at about 25 percent capacity, according to figures released by the company.
[...]
Why the company chose to risk operating without an environmental review, which would have taken the better part of a year, has been the matter of debate across the state, with Mr. Lehman’s background leading to speculation that Hawai‘i Superferry was primarily hoping to prove itself to the United States military.
Nearly two years ago, a former chief executive officer of Austal USA, an Alabama shipyard that built the Alakai, was quoted in a local weekly, Pacific Business News, as saying the ship was too big for its market of 1.3 million people.
“I just worry about getting enough business to cover costs because of the sheer size of it,” said the executive, Alan Lerchbacker.
Mr. Lerchbacker said that he had suggested Hawai‘i Superferry order a 230-foot vessel but that the company instead ordered two 350-foot models. The Alakai traveled between O‘ahu and Maui; the second ferry, the Huakai, was completed last week and had been scheduled to link Oahu and the Big Island.
State Representative Hermina M. Morita, a Democrat and chairwoman of the Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection, said she never thought either ferry would be profitable.
“You look at the players involved,” Ms. Morita said. “You have to question their motives.”
In November, Austal USA was awarded a contract to build up to 10 military versions of the ferry.
[...]
Austal USA, with a shipyard in Mobile, Ala., was created in 2001. “They have managed to become a major player in a very short time,” said Robert Button, a naval analyst with the RAND Corporation.
[...]
The contract calls for one ship for the Army, with an option for four more for the Army and five for the Navy, for a total of $1.6 billion.
[...]
Why the company chose to risk operating without an environmental review, which would have taken the better part of a year, has been the matter of debate across the state, with Mr. Lehman’s background leading to speculation that Hawai‘i Superferry was primarily hoping to prove itself to the United States military.
Nearly two years ago, a former chief executive officer of Austal USA, an Alabama shipyard that built the Alakai, was quoted in a local weekly, Pacific Business News, as saying the ship was too big for its market of 1.3 million people.
“I just worry about getting enough business to cover costs because of the sheer size of it,” said the executive, Alan Lerchbacker.
Mr. Lerchbacker said that he had suggested Hawai‘i Superferry order a 230-foot vessel but that the company instead ordered two 350-foot models. The Alakai traveled between O‘ahu and Maui; the second ferry, the Huakai, was completed last week and had been scheduled to link Oahu and the Big Island.
State Representative Hermina M. Morita, a Democrat and chairwoman of the Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection, said she never thought either ferry would be profitable.
“You look at the players involved,” Ms. Morita said. “You have to question their motives.”
In November, Austal USA was awarded a contract to build up to 10 military versions of the ferry.
[...]
Austal USA, with a shipyard in Mobile, Ala., was created in 2001. “They have managed to become a major player in a very short time,” said Robert Button, a naval analyst with the RAND Corporation.
[...]
The contract calls for one ship for the Army, with an option for four more for the Army and five for the Navy, for a total of $1.6 billion.
Comment