lustyd
Well-Known Member
And the response was, whether the French boats are fit for THEIR purpose or not has no bearing on the value for money in the RNLI boats built for a DIFFERENT purpose.
If I were an RNLI donor I would not be happy.
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
And the response was, whether the French boats are fit for THEIR purpose or not has no bearing on the value for money in the RNLI boats built for a DIFFERENT purpose.
maxi77
Well-Known Member
Having worked for a couple of companies who designed and made equipment for aircraft I must admit the aviation industry's view of 'adequate' is slightly different to the common man's view. If your cars were made to the same standards they would cost substantially more than they currently do. All the parts are also supplied by the lowest cost supplier, but the quality and inspection processes do ensure the bits are actually what was specified
C
Chrusty 1
Guest
Let me ask you a question.......
You keep pecking away at this seemingly with total disregard to the idea that the vast majority of folk are perfectly happy with the RNLI, and the way they do things. So what exactly are you trying to achieve?
I have already suggested to you that if you want to make changes in the way that the RNLI do things, you should join at Governor level, and go along to the meetings and explain your doctrine there. You don't seem very keen on that idea?
The other thing that comes across to me from your posts, is that you seem to have the idea that the RNLI is some sort of big PLC and that it should be run in the same manner?
If you do think that, I think you are way off course, the RNLI is not some huge corporate entity with shareholders to answer to, and to pay dividends to, it is a charity, to whom people happily give their donations in the knowledge that the RNLI will continue to operate as it has always done, and with the best equipment available.
To my way of thinking, anything that would interfere with the RNLIs capability to design, build and operate the very best equipment in the world, is an absolute nonsense, but I can understand that the idea would find favour with the bean counters of this world, I would even go as far as to say that it's probably a wet dream for some of them.
mikefleetwood
Well-Known Member
I may be wrong (but I doubt it) but very few posts have decended t the level of personal attacks on Sybarite, or anyone else.
Yes, it was a valid point to discuss, and would appear to have been freely discussed on both sides.
So you didn't read the original thread title then?
Just to clear things up - on several occasions the original poster has sought to compare the costs of RNLI and SNSM boats - each time it was demonstrated that he was not actually comparing similar boats - all they had in common was similar sizes. Each time he then moved the target to something else. It has been pointed out that that it costs more to build a slipway launched boat - such as the Tamar - so a direct comparison of costs with the SNSM's latest AWB is not really valid. Similarly, where equipment has been compared it has been shown to be intended to do a different job.
I accept that the RNLI boats cost more (but not by such a percentage as the OP would have, once other factors are taken into account), but it has already been pointed out (by the OP, actually) that the SNSM is working with "cost contraints", so by implication would spend more if they could!
After that, he moves on to criticise the RNLI's perceived lack of financial forward planning - after previously complaining about the high level of their reserves.
This thread has been very informative. I don't see there has been any winner or looser - which surely has to be a good thing?
The SNSM does what it does and people are generally happy with it, similarly, the RNLI does what it does and people are happy with that too!
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Vast majority? Perhaps some of the pm's I have received might make you think otherwise.
I am French based. I simply wanted to show that there was another model.
On the contrary. I get the impression that that is what they think, given what appears to be the top-heavy structure. 42 people earning over £60k....
Will people be able - or willing to continue to support this structure? If so well and good, but long business experience has taught me that you should act voluntarily before change is forced on you.
Here is a video of a French designed pilot boat that shares the same hull and construction as the new generation of French AWB's. Do you really think that the RNLI boat is worth twice as much? Is is twice as fit for function as its price would suggest?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcsZu4qHA4&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://b-m-e.pagesperso-orange.fr/cariboost3/crbst_1.html
Last edited:
lustyd
Well-Known Member
I work in an organisation with around 250 staff. We have 60 or so people earning over £60k but we're not top heavy either. £60k is not a high wage for the level of employee we're talking about.
On this thread we've told you over and over that those paid staff are the main reason why RNLI has massive funding. We've told you they are the reason why the RNLI is not overly affected by an economic downturn. We've told you they are the reason the RNLI don't have to keep costs to the bare minimum like the French organisation does.
They are not top heavy, they are well managed and pay the going rate (or slightly under the going rate). Repeatedly insisting that people are overpaid doesn't make your argument any more valid, just makes it look like you can't read our responses.
C
Chrusty 1
Guest
Well there is obviously no moving you and I guess you will keep banging on about it until we all give up and concede defeat. Your allusion to PMs is meaningless, if folk were so supportive of your complaints, they would have said so on here.
I for one give up, You are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong, will that do for you?
lustyd
Well-Known Member
- They are both fit for the purpose they were designed for.
- They were designed for different funtions.
- They were both within budget for their intended funtion.
- Each organisation can afford their boat and think they have value for money.
Bru
Well-Known Member
Firstly, nobody has attached Sybarite personally as far as I can see. Over 300 posts into the thread and the discussion has not descended into the dreaded "ad hominem" scenario nor, to any significant extent, has the evil "straw man" made an appearance
Next, back to the Shannon because it demonstrates the case in point
Sybarite keeps going back to the idea that all weather lifeboats based on pilot boat designs are fit for purpose and substantially cheaper than the RNLI custom lifeboats. Now, they certainly are not as expensive although the latest generation of SNSM boats are not THAT much cheaper
What nobody seems to be aware of (and I grant I've only just discovered after a lot of perusal of the RNLI web site) is that a standard pilot boat hull was seriously considered for the new Fast Carriage Launch lifeboat
In order to trial water jets, the RNLI engineers commissioned a hull using a stock pilot boat design widely used in British and other ports. In trials, the boat proved so sucessful in normal weather conditions that it was nearly adopted as the prototype for the new design. However, and here is the very crux of the matter, in heavy weather the boat was found to slam into head seas and to roll severely. Neither of these characteristics rendered it unseaworthy. Neither rendered it unsuitable for use as a pilot boat. Neither made it useless as a lifeboat BUT ... neither of these characteristics was desirable either
THAT is why the RNLI engineers went back to the drawing board and developed the hull design for the Shannon from scratch. The SNSM would, likely as not, have had to compromise on the pilot boat hull accepting its limitations. The RNLI does not have to compromise. And that is why the RNLI will continue to get my modest contribution, so that they never have to compromise
http://rnli.org/newlifeboatappeal/design/Pages/design-and-evolution.aspx?link=mainNavigation refers
Next, back to the Shannon because it demonstrates the case in point
Sybarite keeps going back to the idea that all weather lifeboats based on pilot boat designs are fit for purpose and substantially cheaper than the RNLI custom lifeboats. Now, they certainly are not as expensive although the latest generation of SNSM boats are not THAT much cheaper
What nobody seems to be aware of (and I grant I've only just discovered after a lot of perusal of the RNLI web site) is that a standard pilot boat hull was seriously considered for the new Fast Carriage Launch lifeboat
In order to trial water jets, the RNLI engineers commissioned a hull using a stock pilot boat design widely used in British and other ports. In trials, the boat proved so sucessful in normal weather conditions that it was nearly adopted as the prototype for the new design. However, and here is the very crux of the matter, in heavy weather the boat was found to slam into head seas and to roll severely. Neither of these characteristics rendered it unseaworthy. Neither rendered it unsuitable for use as a pilot boat. Neither made it useless as a lifeboat BUT ... neither of these characteristics was desirable either
THAT is why the RNLI engineers went back to the drawing board and developed the hull design for the Shannon from scratch. The SNSM would, likely as not, have had to compromise on the pilot boat hull accepting its limitations. The RNLI does not have to compromise. And that is why the RNLI will continue to get my modest contribution, so that they never have to compromise
http://rnli.org/newlifeboatappeal/design/Pages/design-and-evolution.aspx?link=mainNavigation refers
glashen
Well-Known Member
How can a management structure that accounts for just over 2% of the total expenditure be described as top heavy, what you surely mean is you believe they are over paid, but then the whole of this thread as been about the perceived poor management decisions made by the RNLI hasn't it, so presumably unpaid volunteers would do a better job. This is a similar argument to how much the PM should be paid, lots of people would no doubt do it for nothing, but that would mean only the rich could do it, not necessarily the best person for the job.
As many have said fair criticism is welcome, but a lot of what has been posted on here smacks of knocking the RNLI with anything that is handy. For instance there have been a number of comments on the plush HQ in Poole, however unless I am mistaken the new smart building is the RNLI college whose facilities are available to rent and whose main purpose is to train RNLI personnel, the RNLI HQ is the rather dowdy 1970s block.
Last edited:
Keen_Ed
Well-Known Member
Personally, as a contributor, I don't begrudge anybody who works under the ethos of "We don't have to come back, but we HAVE to go out" the best kit they can get.
jordanbasset
Well-Known Member
I am still confused as to what the actual problem is. Due to the skill and expertise of it's staff (both paid and volunteers) the RNLI manages to get 150m in donations. It provides it's volunteers state of the art equipment and pays reasonable wages to it's paid staff. By doing so it is injecting money into manufacturing industry and to the local economy when it's staff spend their money.
The French struggle to achieve 13m in donations and have to rely on Government hand outs of about 5m, which is from general taxation, where people have no choice but to pay. Further more you will be required to hand over a substantial sum of money of your boat does need rescuing. They would appear from statements they have made prefer to buy better/more equipment, but cannot due to budget restraints.
Why on earth are we talking about needing to solve a problem with the RNLI when it is blatantly obvious it is the French system that needs help.
Again if some one has a specific, constructive proposal let's hear it. But suggestions seem to be on the line reducing the pay of the RNLI staff, how that will help I have no idea. Can some one suggesting that some staff are paid too much, tell me how it will help to reduce their wages. May not such staff, who have been very successful at managing the RNLI and raising money, go elsewhere.
The French struggle to achieve 13m in donations and have to rely on Government hand outs of about 5m, which is from general taxation, where people have no choice but to pay. Further more you will be required to hand over a substantial sum of money of your boat does need rescuing. They would appear from statements they have made prefer to buy better/more equipment, but cannot due to budget restraints.
Why on earth are we talking about needing to solve a problem with the RNLI when it is blatantly obvious it is the French system that needs help.
Again if some one has a specific, constructive proposal let's hear it. But suggestions seem to be on the line reducing the pay of the RNLI staff, how that will help I have no idea. Can some one suggesting that some staff are paid too much, tell me how it will help to reduce their wages. May not such staff, who have been very successful at managing the RNLI and raising money, go elsewhere.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
OH? I thought the purpose of both was to save lives at sea?
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
You're along the right lines, but also mildly mistaken, if it helps!
The HQ does house the College, Hotel and Restaurant. Parts of these are the corporate side of the RNLI as oppose the the charity side. But the HQ building is part of, and houses, the charity.
I have mixed feelings personally, but generally support the RNLI. I have experience of where they do appear to waste money, as well as hearing of and reading of events or instances where their claims to constantly require donations or they will collapse become farcical. I fervently disagree with their having commissioned a La-di-da artist at great expense to fashion a memorial outside their new HQ, which could have easily been produced by a ship-builder or similar - (It isn't that arty!)
On the whole, they seem to be getting it right - they do work to economy and seek to get best value from suppliers - I have direct experience of that. They use the best technology to provide the best service.
I donate sporadically to donation boxes and at stations when I visit. if I used the water more often, I would donate a little more, I can't afford to support any charity via direct debit regardless.
I don't feel the RNLI are as broke as they like to make out, and that occasionally they do squander funds in daft ways, I don't feel that hiring PR representatives is a good use of donated funds, but I also feel that they are as worthy a charity as any other...
The grass roots operations side are fantastic, and in my opinion, could never and should never be questioned in any fashion..
Last edited:
ditchcrawler
Well-Known Member
Looking at the rest of your replies recently I have come to the conclusion that you like to wind people up.You are very articulate and erudite but to me the give away is that when people respond to your points logically you switch to a different emphasis or introduce a new facet.It is obvious that you like this style or you would not start a thread with an inflammatory heading like " British Cheating".Designed of course to achieve the maximum response.You heading of the current thread is likewise designed.
Congratulations to all of the responders by the way who have presented some very technical and factual arguements.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
I agree with all of that - of course, it is right to question why any organisation does things the way they do. That's called continuous improvement.
But in doing that questioning, it does help to make sure that (a) any comparisons you make with others are equal, and (b) to listen to others who know the subject.
I've often questioned ways that the RNLI operate - my experience is as much indie boats as RNLI and I think the RNLI could learn much from the indies - but, when it comes to boat design, the RNLI are, simply, the best in the world.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Yes.
But the two organisations have different operating standards - that's their choice.
To use your motor industry analogy, both Hyundai and BMW make motor cars. Both get people from A to B in safety. Some people choose one, others choose the other.
You mentioned earlier definitions of call outs - e.g. engine failures. When we task a lifeboat, we discuss all the options with the DLA (launch authority) for the boat concerned, and in the case of tow-ins, we will always have used an "any vessels" broadcast first, or explored other options. If we then decide to request (we can only ever request, it's the RNLI's decision to go or not) a lifeboat, then other factors have come into play and it is a genuine requirement.
The comparison between levels of boating in France and the UK is an interesting one - given the population levels are about equal. I've not researched that - but may well do now.
As an aside, although the debate might get a bit heated, it's a good debate to have. You obviously have considerable experience in your field, and any thought out question is always a valid one.
One of the best intelligent (I hope) debates on ybw for a long time.
Keen_Ed
Well-Known Member
Genuine question - just out of interest, what's your view of the American coastguard boats?
Last edited:
bbg
Well-Known Member
I'll be interested in cy's response, but I believe the USCG is a branch of the military.
Bru
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. Good debate conducted in a sensible fashion and if only debates on other subjects hereabouts could be similar!