- Reaction score
Doing it in both yards definitely increases costs; even with the same design they have to redo all the detailed planning and manufacturing engineering to suit the specific facilities/processes used at Davie, so we're paying for the same thing to be done twice for each location. Additionally they haven't actually built anything there yet, so there is a huge efficiency penalty as part of that learning curve, and there may be some redesign required if the facilities don't allow for the same kind of block size as VSY.In a perfect world, you'd have both Arctic icebreakers built by the same yard, using the same design, with presumably commensurate savings from doing so. Since it's been determined that either the schedule or perhaps dearth of voting being spread out in the most satisfactory manner (to the G's way of thinking), I wish that they had both been given to Davie and a 3rd AOR had been allotted to Seaspan by way of compensation.
Plus Davie had tens of millions in facility upgrades needed to come up to the 2010 NSS shipyard standard, so there will be a lag time to do all that. Those facilities wouldn't have been needed for their current work, so unless they did it anyway will be a while before they are ready to go.