Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Change is Here!
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Breaking news on the BBC this morning.

A Consortium has bought the Queen Eliazebeth II from Cunard. She will be taken to dubai and turned into a floating hotel like the original Queen Mary.

QE2 is the last British Built liner in service.
 

·
Rock Lord
Joined
·
12,954 Posts
when I saw the title of the thread I thought, the Queen abdicating never and what is this doing in the transport section anyway. Oops, I'll leave the room slowly in embarrasement.
 

·
Change is Here!
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
^^ :lol: Sorry. I thought of that when I posted it, but thought 'Nah, I've put it in transport, so everyone will know what I'm on about!'

QE2 set to become floating hotel

The new owner wants to recreate the QE2's original interior decor
Dubai is to buy the Queen Elizabeth 2 cruise ship for $100m (£50.5m) and turn it into a floating hotel off the Gulf emirate's man-made islands.
The 70,000-tonne vessel, launched by the Queen in 1967, is to be sold to the Dubai World firm by Carnival, the world's largest cruise operator.

Dubai government-owned real-estate developer Nakheel is building three palm-frond shaped isles off its coast.

The ship will be berthed from 2009 at a pier at the Palm Jumeirah development.
BBC News
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,712 Posts
:D
Queen Elizabeth Two, Queen Elizabeth The Second. Royalty cannot be copied, it is inherited.
 

·
Change is Here!
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
'Our special moments on QE2'

By Stephanie Busari
BBC News


As the legendary QE2 prepares to sail away on her final world cruise, one man tells of his family's extraordinary connection with the world's most famous passenger ship.

The QE2 has crossed the Atlantic more than 800 times
For Sam Warwick the QE2 will always hold treasured memories.

His grandfather William Warwick was its first captain when the ship entered service 40 years ago.

And his father, Ron, made history when he took over the helm in 1990 - the first time a father and son have commanded the same Cunard liner.

Sam's sister Rebecca got married aboard the QE2 in a ceremony performed by her father. It is thought to have been the first legal marriage carried out by a Cunard master on board any of the company's ships.

"My sister had been due to get married to her fiance aboard the QE2 in the port of New York in October 2001," Sam, 39, explains.

"They had arranged for a priest to come and perform the ceremony. Unfortunately, because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the ship was diverted to Boston and the priest was not licensed to perform weddings in the state of Massachusetts."
BBC News



After this final cruise, Cunard will not have any British Built ships in their fleet. What a sad statement of affairs!
 

·
Rock Lord
Joined
·
12,954 Posts
After this final cruise, Cunard will not have any British Built ships in their fleet. What a sad statement of affairs!
Wow that is terrible, I would make it government policy that if they want to continue using royal names then they must start building their ships here in the UK.

See how far they could go marketing their ships as President Chiraq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,198 Posts
Wow that is terrible, I would make it government policy that if they want to continue using royal names then they must start building their ships here in the UK.

See how far they could go marketing their ships as President Chiraq.
France and Italy subsidise their ship building industries. Italy to the tune of 12% of costs. I guess that's why the Italians and the French have high unemployment and Britain doesn't. Look at economic growth: Italy which built the new Cunard liner Victoria hasn't had any real growth since the early 1990s - I believe that they've been growing at about 1 to 1.5%!(that's very bad!!) Compare that with Britain which is experiencing its longest cycle of economic growth in recorded history!


Not really a sad statement of affairs after all!
 

·
Rock Lord
Joined
·
12,954 Posts
France and Italy subsidise their ship building industries. Italy to the tune of 12% of costs. I guess that's why the Italians and the French have high unemployment and Britain doesn't. Look at economic growth: Italy which built the new Cunard liner Victoria hasn't had any real growth since the early 1990s - I believe that they've been growing at about 1 to 1.5%!(that's very bad!!) Compare that with Britain which is experiencing its longest cycle of economic growth in recorded history!


Not really a sad statement of affairs after all!
yeh we are doing really well aren't we. All of our new jobs involve working at Tesco's and our economy is based on borrowing and debt, so much so now that we don't manufacture anything, it is deemed our only way out of recession is to lower interests rates causing higher inflation and borrowing more money. The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank.

I think I will stick with my original statement thank you very much.
 

·
Change is Here!
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
yeh we are doing really well aren't we. All of our new jobs involve working at Tesco's and our economy is based on borrowing and debt, so much so now that we don't manufacture anything, it is deemed our only way out of recession is to lower interests rates causing higher inflation and borrowing more money. The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank.

I think I will stick with my original statement thank you very much.
And I think that I will agree with you. The UK's economy is far too reliant on Banking, Finance, and the service industry at the moment.

Shipbuilding, Aircraft Manufacture, Automotive, all things which the UK used to be world leaders in. Not anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
She looks a real beaut in that pic by blahblah! It is a shame she isn't staying in the UK, she'd be great in Liverpool or somewhere. So long as she isn't broken up tho! Any good pics of the new Victoria?

There is absolutely no point in shovelling government money into industries whose lifespan always was going to be finite. If car-manufacture and shipbuilding is to succeed it should not be because tax payers are artificially propping it up against the pressures of global markets. That same money would be much better spent improving infrastructure and training so that the industries that are meant to succeed have a better chance of doing so.

With regards to the car industry this, albeit from 2004, is quite interesting reading:

Motor industry

The car in front is British
Sep 9th 2004
From The Economist print edition

It isn't just the Mini: British car production is nearly back up to the record levels of its 1970s heyday


THE news from the car industry sounds straight out of the 1970s. At the Solihull plant of Ford's Land Rover subsidiary, some 8,000 jobs hang in the balance. The shopfloor culture at Solihull has been one of the last outposts of the confrontational style that ruined the old British car industry. A joint management-union team has drawn up proposals to give the plant one last chance to improve quality and efficiency. On September 8th, Ford bosses pronounced themselves satisfied with the revised plan, and Solihull seems to have earned a reprieve—for the moment.

Ford is fed up with Land Rover and Jaguar. Both should be money-spinners: Americans love classy British sports saloons and distinctive sport-utility off-roaders. But lousy quality has put Land Rover around the bottom of consumer reports.

Jaguar, which has swallowed over £3 billion ($5.3 billion) since Ford bought it 15 years ago, has improved quality and efficiency at its factories, but its smaller models are not selling well. By now, it was supposed to be selling 200,000 cars a year, but it manages only 120,000—not enough to sustain its three factories.

Land Rover's problems are at least confined to the factories, especially Solihull. At the Jaguar factory at Halewood, on Merseyside, trouble-makers there were eased out, and the rest of the workers signed up to Japanese-style working practices: now the place is a model of flexible working. If Solihull does not follow, it will close: already some Land Rover production is moving to Halewood.

But this 1970s-style gloom is the exception, rather than the rule, in Britain's car industry. If expansion keeps on at the lick of the past three years, within two years its output will be back to the record level of 1972, when British Leyland was the third-biggest car firm in the world and Dagenham and Luton were in full swing. This recovery is all the more surprising since it is happening while car production in other big European countries is declining (see chart), as more cars are made in central European countries such as Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Why is this happening? Mostly because Britain now has the world's most international car industry.

Britain's home-grown industry fell apart 30 years ago as feeble management and bolshy workers conspired to bring the old British Leyland to its knees. The struggling remnants of the 1970s industry are Jaguar, Land Rover and MG Rover, which BMW tried to rescue in 1994, and whose sales last month were 37% below August last year. The successful bits are Peugeot's factory in Coventry and BMW's Oxford plant: it makes the new Mini which is taking every rich-world market by storm.

But the wider revival is led by the Japanese. They arrived in the 1980s, after Thatcherism undermined the unions. First came Nissan, whose Sunderland factory is still the most efficient in Europe. Toyota and Honda soon followed. Nissan came partly because it was bribed to; Honda just because it liked the pro-business culture. Toyota ran a beauty contest and Britain came top. It has since opened a factory in France, but is now expanding further in Derby. All use Britain as their principal production base for selling across Europe.

As a result of the foreign invasion, Britain has a wider range of carmakers than anywhere else in Europe. Nine volume brands are now produced in Britain, plus Rolls-Royce, Bentley and niche producers such as Morgan and Lotus. Even Germany, with the mightiest motor industry in Europe, sports only six big brands.

Part of the reason why the British car industry is doing well is because the Japanese companies are good at what they do, and as they expand so does Britain's car industry. But inward investors also cite good industrial relations. All three Japanese manufacturers have exclusive single-union deals with Amicus, the engineering industry's trade union: its pragmatism has done much to help improve British manufacturing. That's one reason why every time Nissan bosses in Tokyo muse about putting a new model into a French factory of its sister company Renault, the team at Sunderland manages to squeeze more and more costs out of the plant.

Nor do the Japanese car companies seem to have suffered as much as some had predicted from being outside the euro zone. They have found ways to manage the difficulties. When the euro was weak, Honda switched British exports from Europe to America (and even Japan). Toyota gets suppliers to invoice in euros, and its supply chain stretches as far as South-East Asia, where costs are very low.

The Japanese companies have had their problems, and may have more coming their way. Honda, for instance, has only recently been able to rein in heavy losses, and both Nissan and Toyota have stacked up losses as they built up production and endured a then-strong pound.

But these losses may not be quite what they seem. An investigation by the Financial Times earlier this summer revealed that the taxman is poring over Honda's and Nissan's books to see if losses are a result of transfer-pricing dodges. These occur when companies deliberately make a loss in a high-tax country (such as Britain) so that the profit pops up in a low-tax country (such as Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands or Luxembourg). Britain's tax-collectors are not the only grey-suited men looking into these Japanese losses. The Economist understands that the European Commission is also reviewing tax losses as part of a wider study of car manufacturing across the European Union. Perhaps the continentals are jealous of Britain's automotive renaissance.
 

·
Rock Lord
Joined
·
12,954 Posts
There is absolutely no point in shovelling government money into industries whose lifespan always was going to be finite. If car-manufacture and shipbuilding is to succeed it should not be because tax payers are artificially propping it up against the pressures of global markets. That same money would be much better spent improving infrastructure and training so that the industries that are meant to succeed have a better chance of doing so.
It's better that we subsidize people to work as skilled labour rather than stay at home unemployed or worst still become politicians or public sector bureuacrats.

If we are subsidizing ship building in this country for the royal navy, then why can't we do the same for luxuary liners that sell themselves as "royal liners" and create jobs which are actually meaningful and beneficial to the person employed and the wider community amongst where they live.

Lets be honest would you rather your tax money goes to subsize an apprentice ship builder or electrician at a ship builder or on some of the public sector jobs we see advertised each week in the Guardian. For example, last week I had a CV on my desk of someone earning 30K as a racial equalities advicer to a shire fire brigade. :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
The issue of overpaid and pointless public sector beaurocrats is another example of the inefficiency that tends to manifest iteself when the public sector gets involved! You can keep them away from our industry, they spend taxpayers money badly enough as it is and have ruined several fine companies in the past. Subsidising a few jobs in a sector we cannot possibly compete in is just a short term solution. The money would be much better spent on education and infrastructure so that private companies will have the confidence to provide the jobs.

I personally believe that if we invest enough in engineering and design skills then there is every reason to believe a manufacturing resurgence is possible in Britain, albeit in the production of higer value added manufactures and not mass production/heavy industry. Britain is a great brand and manufacturers really could use that. We fail because we are badly trained and have poor infrastructure that increases our costs further. You need to focus on these actual problems and not try and subsidise them away. At least IMO!

Besides, a lot of the jobs that have gone people wouldn't want to do now anyway!
 

·
Change is Here!
Joined
·
4,082 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Motor industry

The car in front is British
Sep 9th 2004
From The Economist print edition

It isn't just the Mini: British car production is nearly back up to the record levels of its 1970s heyday


THE news from the car industry sounds straight out of the 1970s. At the Solihull plant of Ford's Land Rover subsidiary, some 8,000 jobs hang in the balance. The shopfloor culture at Solihull has been one of the last outposts of the confrontational style that ruined the old British car industry. A joint management-union team has drawn up proposals to give the plant one last chance to improve quality and efficiency. On September 8th, Ford bosses pronounced themselves satisfied with the revised plan, and Solihull seems to have earned a reprieve—for the moment.

Ford is fed up with Land Rover and Jaguar. Both should be money-spinners: Americans love classy British sports saloons and distinctive sport-utility off-roaders. But lousy quality has put Land Rover around the bottom of consumer reports.

Jaguar, which has swallowed over £3 billion ($5.3 billion) since Ford bought it 15 years ago, has improved quality and efficiency at its factories, but its smaller models are not selling well. By now, it was supposed to be selling 200,000 cars a year, but it manages only 120,000—not enough to sustain its three factories.

Land Rover's problems are at least confined to the factories, especially Solihull. At the Jaguar factory at Halewood, on Merseyside, trouble-makers there were eased out, and the rest of the workers signed up to Japanese-style working practices: now the place is a model of flexible working. If Solihull does not follow, it will close: already some Land Rover production is moving to Halewood.

But this 1970s-style gloom is the exception, rather than the rule, in Britain's car industry. If expansion keeps on at the lick of the past three years, within two years its output will be back to the record level of 1972, when British Leyland was the third-biggest car firm in the world and Dagenham and Luton were in full swing. This recovery is all the more surprising since it is happening while car production in other big European countries is declining (see chart), as more cars are made in central European countries such as Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

Why is this happening? Mostly because Britain now has the world's most international car industry.

Britain's home-grown industry fell apart 30 years ago as feeble management and bolshy workers conspired to bring the old British Leyland to its knees. The struggling remnants of the 1970s industry are Jaguar, Land Rover and MG Rover, which BMW tried to rescue in 1994, and whose sales last month were 37% below August last year. The successful bits are Peugeot's factory in Coventry and BMW's Oxford plant: it makes the new Mini which is taking every rich-world market by storm.

But the wider revival is led by the Japanese. They arrived in the 1980s, after Thatcherism undermined the unions. First came Nissan, whose Sunderland factory is still the most efficient in Europe. Toyota and Honda soon followed. Nissan came partly because it was bribed to; Honda just because it liked the pro-business culture. Toyota ran a beauty contest and Britain came top. It has since opened a factory in France, but is now expanding further in Derby. All use Britain as their principal production base for selling across Europe.

As a result of the foreign invasion, Britain has a wider range of carmakers than anywhere else in Europe. Nine volume brands are now produced in Britain, plus Rolls-Royce, Bentley and niche producers such as Morgan and Lotus. Even Germany, with the mightiest motor industry in Europe, sports only six big brands.

Part of the reason why the British car industry is doing well is because the Japanese companies are good at what they do, and as they expand so does Britain's car industry. But inward investors also cite good industrial relations. All three Japanese manufacturers have exclusive single-union deals with Amicus, the engineering industry's trade union: its pragmatism has done much to help improve British manufacturing. That's one reason why every time Nissan bosses in Tokyo muse about putting a new model into a French factory of its sister company Renault, the team at Sunderland manages to squeeze more and more costs out of the plant.

Nor do the Japanese car companies seem to have suffered as much as some had predicted from being outside the euro zone. They have found ways to manage the difficulties. When the euro was weak, Honda switched British exports from Europe to America (and even Japan). Toyota gets suppliers to invoice in euros, and its supply chain stretches as far as South-East Asia, where costs are very low.

The Japanese companies have had their problems, and may have more coming their way. Honda, for instance, has only recently been able to rein in heavy losses, and both Nissan and Toyota have stacked up losses as they built up production and endured a then-strong pound.

But these losses may not be quite what they seem. An investigation by the Financial Times earlier this summer revealed that the taxman is poring over Honda's and Nissan's books to see if losses are a result of transfer-pricing dodges. These occur when companies deliberately make a loss in a high-tax country (such as Britain) so that the profit pops up in a low-tax country (such as Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands or Luxembourg). Britain's tax-collectors are not the only grey-suited men looking into these Japanese losses. The Economist understands that the European Commission is also reviewing tax losses as part of a wider study of car manufacturing across the European Union. Perhaps the continentals are jealous of Britain's automotive renaissance.
Unfortunately, out of all of that, I've highlighted the only one which is in British Ownership.

If any of those companies start to / continue to suffer heavy losses then those factories will be at risk of closure before those in their native countries. Look at Peugeot in Coventry.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,759 Posts
UK automobile production has risen massively this year, when all the factory increases come online the "magic" 2 million mark is possible in 2008 or 2009. Not even touching the theme of engine production which is set to rise to 4 million by 2009.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,783 Posts
Of course, the public sector wastes its money.

And yeah,the private sector doesnt ??

The market has some impact in managing costs,But thats not that effective and can actually encourage waste.

So its not a private/public split, but a question of how bureaucracies operate, how senior managers exploit the system for selfish reasons and how greed and stupidity leads to waste.
 

·
Rock Lord
Joined
·
12,954 Posts
And yeah,the private sector doesnt ??

The market has some impact in managing costs,But thats not that effective and can actually encourage waste.

So its not a private/public split, but a question of how bureaucracies operate, how senior managers exploit the system for selfish reasons and how greed and stupidity leads to waste.
The difference is the private sector doesn't create useless jobs like racial equality advisers on 30K a year and a whole host of pointless jobs as seen in the Guardian job's paper.

I'm not saying the private sector doesn't waste money but when it does it's not my money. My point is I would rather my tax pounds are spent on subdizing a ship worker then a pointless desk jockey telling us all how to live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
The difference is the private sector doesn't create useless jobs like racial equality advisers on 30K a year and a whole host of pointless jobs as seen in the Guardian job's paper.

I'm not saying the private sector doesn't waste money but when it does it's not my money. My point is I would rather my tax pounds are spent on subdizing a ship worker then a pointless desk jockey telling us all how to live.
I would prefer the tax not be spent so they can give it back to me
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top