Kevin Gaskell (CEO) leaves Fairline

[rafiki_]

Sorry guys, the Chinese are very brand aware, and want high end European brands, not Chinese. If anyone has been to Bicester shopping village, it is full of Chinese, buying EU brands, much of the stuff made in China! As and when Chinese start building leisure boats, they will be International brands, not Chinese. What are the best selling cars in China? Audi and VW. Not Lifan, Geely, FAW etc.

 

[Hugin]

I have tried to stay out of this boat v automotive building discussion, but have finally failed.

I don't see it so much a boat building vs automotive industry issue. I think the sheer size and economic mass of the car industry makes it a source of inspiration for a lot of industries. There are simply more ressources to seek new avenues and try out new ideas. The competitive market and the large sums also makes it crucial that you don't rest on your laurels. Competitors are continuously developing the products that will kill you in 15 years if you are taking a nap now.

The car industry is very interesting as a source of inspiration for a number of reasons..... robotization/automation is NOT one of them.

First of all, car production is the birth place of the Toyota Way, the 4P's, hunt for muda, continuous improvement philosophy, production flow, value streaming and all the other ideas and concepts now united under the umbrella called Lean Lean is universally applicable to all industries....

Second, I have already mentioned the platform architecture strategy that most (if not all) major producers have adopted. I think it would be obvious to introduce it also in boat building

The third aspect is cooperation. I find it interesting that Citroen, Peugeot and Toyota join forces and build a production plant in Czech Rep. Or that Smart and Renault build their smallest models off the same production line in France (from this year). Cooperation with your direct competitors is apparently not a no-no..... at least as long as it is limited to defined market segments. I honestly cannot see why Fairline (if the development money are limited) could not join forces with, say, Windy of Norway and Sessa of Italy....... share the development cost of a joint platform - say, a 40ft with speed potential 30-35 knots. Establish a joint production line wherever it is most advantageous and roll out 6-9 different models all based on the same hull (platform). 2-3 different models for each company, very different in visual appearance and interior styling... each with their appropriate badges.

I think something like this could make a huge difference in an industry that has lost its innovative direction. Take 3 brilliant ideas from the car industry - The Lean philosophy, the platform strategy and limited cooperation with competitors - and unite them in one project. That would IMHO get the ball rolling..... triggering an invigorated boat building industry in the process.

 

[Nautical]

I don't see it so much a boat building vs automotive industry issue. I think the sheer size and economic mass of the car industry makes it a source of inspiration for a lot of industries. There are simply more ressources to seek new avenues and try out new ideas. The competitive market and the large sums also makes it crucial that you don't rest on your laurels. Competitors are continuously developing the products that will kill you in 15 years if you are taking a nap now.

The car industry is very interesting as a source of inspiration for a number of reasons..... robotization/automation is NOT one of them.

First of all, car production is the birth place of the Toyota Way, the 4P's, hunt for muda, continuous improvement philosophy, production flow, value streaming and all the other ideas and concepts now united under the umbrella called Lean Lean is universally applicable to all industries....

Second, I have already mentioned the platform architecture strategy that most (if not all) major producers have adopted. I think it would be obvious to introduce it also in boat building

The third aspect is cooperation. I find it interesting that Citroen, Peugeot and Toyota join forces and build a production plant in Czech Rep. Or that Smart and Renault build their smallest models off the same production line in France (from this year). Cooperation with your direct competitors is apparently not a no-no..... at least as long as it is limited to defined market segments. I honestly cannot see why Fairline (if the development money are limited) could not join forces with, say, Windy of Norway and Sessa of Italy....... share the development cost of a joint platform - say, a 40ft with speed potential 30-35 knots. Establish a joint production line wherever it is most advantageous and roll out 6-9 different models all based on the same hull (platform). 2-3 different models for each company, very different in visual appearance and interior styling... each with their appropriate badges.

I think something like this could make a huge difference in an industry that has lost its innovative direction. Take 3 brilliant ideas from the car industry - The Lean philosophy, the platform strategy and limited cooperation with competitors - and unite them in one project. That would IMHO get the ball rolling..... triggering an invigorated boat building industry in the process.

I can understand what you are saying for sure. While there could be synergies in co-operating with your competitors it could only be in a limited form such a co-operative to purchase engines, machinery, equipment etc which is common to many. In Taiwan for example they have a co-op that buys engines, so instead of one yard asking for an annual tender for 50 engines they are bulk purchasing 500 engines, that makes a big difference in unit cost. The problem with sharing a "vehicle" platform is it would be very difficult to differentiate between one product and another. The material used is FRP and the hull comes out of only one mold, you would instantly see the similarities in design, no one builder could claim a better hull design over the other, they will look identical, unless of course each has a different set of mouldings in which case you are back to square one all you are saving is the uniform labour which perhaps could save a small % off the lamination time, then you would have to ship huge pieces of mouldings to various facilities. Building them all in one facility would be a difficult sway for the buyer, they all come out of the same factory. The difference with cars is you can build one chassis platform but have a dozen different exterior panels even down to the shape of the glass and then you can have huge variations of drive train you could have a 1.4 turbo diesel or a 3 litre supercharged fire breather on the same platform, then different suspension, interiors, brakes, gearboxes etc , the character or USP of each is quite different from the other. With a boat hull you are extremely limited on what you can do, it is designed around a very fixed set of parameters, you can't put small engines in or it wont work, you can't put massive engines in or it will exceed its design speed and fall over, even bulkheads etc will be fairly fixed within the structure, so you end up with very little difference in terms of aesthetics, performance and layout. The only real difference you can make is to the quality of the installations and interiors but who wants to buy a £1m one when there is aesthetically a very similar one at £700k just with a different badge and both came off the same line.

With boats its a very personal thing, some people want performance, others want bags of space, others want absolute bespoke quality, others want contemporary styling others want much more conservative and each builder has his own unique USP which the brand is built on, you would lose a lot of that by trying to build it out of just one platform/set of tooling because you can not change the fundamental architecture or the performance.

Could it be that buyers at Southampton show are going to be incredibly enthused to see, Sunseeker, Princess, Fairline all fendered up in a row of thirty models and all with identical hulls, performance and similar internal sizing and knowing that they all came out of the same sausage machine? the only thing you really have to sell is the badge, you can't sell on performance or economy because they all perform the same, you can't honestly say your design is hugely different than the other and you can't really say yours is better quality because it came off the same production line as the brand next to you and even assembled by the very same guys.

With cars it is completely different, Audi shares the same platform of the Q5 with the Porsche Macan but they are completely different cars, different engines, suspension, gearbox, brakes, body panels, interior etc . If the Q5 and the Macan had the same body, same engines, same suspension, same brakes just the interior was different that would be a hard sell for Porsche, and an easy sell for Audi, Audi would make hay on the Porsche DNA but it doesn't work the other way round, Porsche wouldn't sign up to it.

 

[oldgit]

Just an observation,but suspect that the vast majority of boat purchasers would not give a fig or care/be aware if their entry level bog standard hull was a generic moulding shared by Princess.Fairline.Broom.Sessa. Beneteau.Jeanneau.Hardy.Skipsplast or even *ayliner.
It is the topsides and interior that would reflect the aspirations and desires of the purchaser and would be catered for by the individual builders.
What was "A Cabin Cruiser" has long disappeared over the horizon of the averagely better off man on the Clapham omnibus ?
Who is catering for the gap between the spartan "peche promenade" and a certain companies entry level 42ft flybridge at £350* K ?
* Steering wheel not included. See options list.

 

[henryf]

Pearls of wisdom from Rafiki.



I still maintain that Fairline need to fundamentally revise their boats. They are years behind in terms of internal volume, flat floors and glass. Aesthetic design changes often come at the expense of practicality.

The particular boat I looked at in their range was the Squadron 50 and at no point was it ever on our short list regardless of discount available. Who in their right mind tries to sell a front V berth main cabin when all else around them are wowing punters with full beam master cabins? The list went on......

Henry

 

[oGaryo]

If anyone has been to Bicester shopping village, it is full of Chinese, buying EU brands, much of the stuff made in China! .

I think that in part, this is due to the tax incentives at Bicester village for the likes of the Chinese http://www.bicestervillage.com/en/guest-services/village-services/tax-free-shopping

 

[EME]

Pearls of wisdom from Rafiki.



I still maintain that Fairline need to fundamentally revise their boats.

The particular boat I looked at in their range was the Squadron 50 and at no point was it ever on our short list regardless of discount available. Who in their right mind tries to sell a front V berth main cabin when all else around them are wowing punters with full beam master cabins? The list went on......

Henry

Henry -- not sure what you were looking at but the Squadron 50 is a Tardis and doesn't have a V-Berth front/main cabin. The Squadron 48 has a V-berth up front but has a full beam midships master.

 

[Nautical]

Oldgit, I could see the rational behind standardising a hull across the mass produced smaller end of the market, but I can't see the £1/2m + premium brand owner being particularly enthralled to discover he has the same hull and majority build as a Bayliner (no disrespect to Bayliner, they make a good product for their intended market) , all you are doing is badge engineering. Part of the whole yacht buying and owning experience is the diversity and sheer breadth of styles, abilities, function of the different builders.

 

[Nautical]

Henry -- not sure what you were looking at but the Squadron 50 is a Tardis and doesn't have a V-Berth front/main cabin. The Squadron 48 has a V-berth up front but has a full beam midships master.

I think the Sq 50 does have a forward master and two twins midship, defo no midship master on the 50 unless something changed recently.

 

[henryf]

Henry -- not sure what you were looking at but the Squadron 50 is a Tardis and doesn't have a V-Berth front/main cabin. The Squadron 48 has a V-berth up front but has a full beam midships master.

I think you'll find it does. It's also the one with the bathroom halfway down the stairs which you set up into then if you leave by the other door (as though you were going to go to the forward berth) there is a huge step down to the point where it almost warrants a ladder!

I think it's also the one where the rear cleat is hidden under something and you have to lean over the boat and feed your rope into a fairliead opening whilst fishing around with your other hand to grab the end. It didn't take long to strike it off the list.

Edited to say, just checked and the Squadron 60 is the one with the suicude drop out of the mid stairs toilet.


Henry

 

[EME]

I think you'll find it does. It's also the one with the bathroom halfway down the stairs which you set up into then if you leave by the other door (as though you were going to go to the forward berth) there is a huge step down to the point where it almost warrants a ladder!

I think it's also the one where the rear cleat is hidden under something and you have to lean over the boat and feed your rope into a fairliead opening whilst fishing around with your other hand to grab the end. It didn't take long to strike it off the list.

Edited to say, just checked and the Squadron 60 is the one with the suicude drop out of the mid stairs toilet.


Henry

I'm not banging on about it but you're wrong!
http://www.fairline.com/en/boats/squadron/50/deckplan/lower-deck
and the fairlead… I think you mean the 48

 

[ari]

The third aspect is cooperation. I find it interesting that Citroen, Peugeot and Toyota join forces and build a production plant in Czech Rep. Or that Smart and Renault build their smallest models off the same production line in France (from this year). Cooperation with your direct competitors is apparently not a no-no..... at least as long as it is limited to defined market segments. I honestly cannot see why Fairline (if the development money are limited) could not join forces with, say, Windy of Norway and Sessa of Italy....... share the development cost of a joint platform - say, a 40ft with speed potential 30-35 knots. Establish a joint production line wherever it is most advantageous and roll out 6-9 different models all based on the same hull (platform). 2-3 different models for each company, very different in visual appearance and interior styling... each with their appropriate badges.
.

The motor industry is very different in so many ways. Citroen, Peugeot and Toyota can sell the same car with different badges because the average C1/107/Aygo buyer has zero interest in cars and couldn't care less who makes it. So there is an advantage to it being a Toyota to Mr Smith because the dealer is just down the road and Miss Trendy will buy the 107 because they do a fashionable shade of bronze and there's an iphone holder on the dash. Making the same boat and having three different badges isn't going to cut it with the discerning boat buyer.

Of course you could just mould hulls and have them fitted out as different makes, but then where are you going to build your FaWiSe 40? Build it in Italy and that's not much good to Fairline. Build it in Corby and that doesn't help Windy.

Finally, there just isn't the economies of scale in the boat industry. Great, build a huge factory in Where-ever and churn out a million 107/C1/Aygos a year, fantastic. But really, is there going to be much (or indeed any) saving from building a factory making 100 FaWiSe 40's far away from the companies that they're built for?

Surely it is better to optimise your existing factory to build 150 boats of one make, but be far more flexible about what goes down the production line. So instead of 10 lines building 15 boats each on average a year, all with one or two boats on each you have four lines building a range of boats, all full and all adaptive.

Which, if I remember rightly, is exactly what Fairline invested a lot of money into setting up last year.

 

[Hugin]

Who in their right mind tries to sell a front V berth main cabin when all else around them are wowing punters with full beam master cabins?

The Squadron 50 has it's master cabin forward for a reason. It's a shafted boat so the engines are pushing a potential full beam master cabin forward too. While you theoretically could shoehorn in a master cabin with ensuite between the engines and the staircase it would be a rather compromised design and you would certainly loose one cabin when moving the two twin guest cabins up front... IOW, you'd lose those looking for a 3-cabin boat around 50ft. Moreover, a full beam master would have made the lower decks of Squadron 50 and Squadron 48 virtually identical...... if a full beam master is a must..... go for Sq48. But then you'd have to be a Pod-man

PS, Squadron 50's forward master is not with a V-berth... it has a proper double with ensuite and floor space seems to be rather to the generous side. I have not expereinced it myself though. The deck plans are available on Fairline's webpage for anyone to study

 

[jrudge]

If the S50 master cabin is anything like the Targa 50 front Cabin it is absolutely vast!

 

[EME]

If the S50 master cabin is anything like the Targa 50 front Cabin it is absolutely vast!

It is and it is …

 

[admillington]

I think you'll find it does. It's also the one with the bathroom halfway down the stairs which you set up into then if you leave by the other door (as though you were going to go to the forward berth) there is a huge step down to the point where it almost warrants a ladder!

I think it's also the one where the rear cleat is hidden under something and you have to lean over the boat and feed your rope into a fairliead opening whilst fishing around with your other hand to grab the end. It didn't take long to strike it off the list.

Edited to say, just checked and the Squadron 60 is the one with the suicude drop out of the mid stairs toilet.


Henry

How odd, I have had a Squadron 55 and now own a Squadron 58 (same as the 60 but without the large swim platform) and I am still alive.

I have had enough of ALL THE RUBBISH TALKED about Fairline and quality - I am constantly surprised and impressed by the attention to detail such as the light in the area where the bow thruster motor is for example - same light that Princess use to light their entire engine room I suspect. Back to the car comparison, I have never owned a Vauxhall (it was an Opel in 1982) and don't own a boat that compares to one either. I see a Fairline like a Bentley - I own one of those as well and trust me they give good deals in the same way that Fairline do because the residuals are excellent and enable a "my car and some cash for new car deals" - replace "car" with "boat" and this has meant third Bentley in 2 years coming soon and I have had 8 Fairlines in 10 years.

Back to the title about the CEO leaving, I think I would have had something to say if he worked for me with all this other business interests and sporting challenges and focus on my business - I don't know why he left.

Maybe it isn't all about mega yachts - I think we are lucky to have so much to choose from that is built here and supported my great dealers - no sane person would own a boat but we all enjoy the great days out with the family and playing with the latest bit of technology. I wouldn't want to be driven around in a 150ft boat

 

[petem]

Back to the title about the CEO leaving, I think I would have had something to say if he worked for me with all this other business interests and sporting challenges and focus on my business - I don't know why he left.

Yep, when looking at his recent tweets it did occur to me that he seemed to spend a lot of time (before getting the sack) on motivational speaking and other similar stuff.

 

[Nigelpickin]

I see a Fairline like a Bentley -

Perhaps that's prophetic....Bentley have done very well post 1998 and the Germans understand the importance of brand hierarchy, diluting the costs of R&D and trickle down asset distribution; as do Beneteau and Brunswick.

But fair play to the Brand Ambassadors and partisan chest beaters...you are a testament to the quality of the brands which you represent, (and I kind of mean that in a non sarcastic way).

 

[Hugin]

Of course you could just mould hulls and have them fitted out as different makes

That's the idea. As oldgit remarked earlier..... it's the topsides and the interior that matters. People hardly ever discuss or even notice the particulars of a hull..... because visually there really aren't any that could move significant numbers of buyers in or out of your shop

but then where are you going to build your FaWiSe 40? Build it in Italy and that's not much good to Fairline. Build it in Corby and that doesn't help Windy.

Where it is most advantageous. Windy is already building half their boats in Poland. Sessa is a family run business so on second thought probably a bad candidate for co-production; let's exchange for Spanish Rodman. Why would Fairline, Windy or Rodman really care where production is located as long as they get boats of the expected quality that buyers will pay for. Why would buyers care? The British brand Sealine is now exclusively Made in Germany. The Swedish brand Delta with it's distinct clean Nordic designs are exclusively Made in Estonia - and has been made there from the beginning. Mercedes, BMW and Audi are no longer exclusively Made in Germany....... and buyers really don't care! Brand image is today completely separated from location of production. As I mentioned earlier, Bentley (I struggle to find a more archtypical British brand) is now being assembled in Dresden/Germany..... and it doesn't hurt the brand.

I can't see why Fairline can't profit from a boat built in Italy. If it's sold as a Fairline then the profits from building it belong to Fairline. If it's sold as a Windy then the profits belong to Windy. Just because the boat is maybe built on a production line operated day-to-day by Sessa's management wouldn't mean Sessa was entitled to more than strictly the expenses of building it and managing the process.

But really, is there going to be much (or indeed any) saving from building a factory making 100 FaWiSe 40's far away from the companies that they're built for?

Where the companies have their HQs are irrellevant..... it's where the buyers intent to use the boats that matters.

Yes, I beleive there are huge advantages in roughly tripling production volume. But who says it is only possible to triple the numbers. More brands + platform strategy to support multiple models + cost reductions allowing lower end price could allow maybe tenfold volumes

Even with only tripled volumes you can afford to push 3 times a many resources into product development and refinement, which I expect would make a difference for buyers. Start-up (tooling) costs can be spread out on a larger number of hulls. Better prices from suppliers due to higher volumes. Process fine-tuning has potential for saving, not to mention that it simply matters how many times you repeat the same procedure..... your staff accumulates routine, which allows them to build faster in a higher quality. Imagine a smaller producer using the same staff to build maybe 5 different boat sizes. Every time they shift over from one size/model to another they have to refresh/reaffirm the procedures for this particular boat..... not to mention they would probably be involved in so few repetitions that it would be hard to develop optimized procedures.

Which, if I remember rightly, is exactly what Fairline invested a lot of money into setting up last year.

Let's hope they have gotten the numbers right. It is obvious that Fairline is testing the platform strategy with respectively 3 and 2 models (48ft and 50ft) sharing almost everything but the topside. Bavaria is doing the same with their New Sport productline, available in 3 versions per size...... so far in 36ft and 40ft. The downside is that they don't gain production volumes in the same way you do when 3-5 brands pull products from the same production line. So Fairline's and Bavaria's system only gives some optimization potential in the production phase. It is the wider distribution and the much larger production volumes that entails, that makes pooling resources so attractive.

 

[Nautical]

"That's the idea. As oldgit remarked earlier..... it's the topsides and the interior that matters. People hardly ever discuss or even notice the particulars of a hull....."

if you think experienced buyers don't really care what is or who made the hull and its relative and particular characteristics you have missed the whole boat ownership concept . It is very hard to disguise the hull as not being from one builder or another, an averagely experienced buyer can pretty much tell at a 100 yards which hull belongs to which builder and their relative merits (or not ) .

As was said earlier you can't apply all car manufacturing ethos or marketing strategies to boat building. When buyers go out to buy a premium boat they are looking for very different things from their purchase. If you use one platform for several different brands that you really cannot easily disguise or differentiate performance from one to another what have you got left to sell? badge engineering, great for a £10k shopping cart who cares, it goes forwards and backwards and has 4 wheels and that's all you want.

Imagine Rolex, IWC and Breiting all using the same movement and internals from the same factory but just adding a different case. 80% of their marketing strategy would be out the window, can't really claim one is better than the other, just it looks different, you are just buying the packaging.