# Hawaii court forces Superferry to cease operations



## kapish (Mar 17, 2009)

*Hawaii court forces Superferry to cease operations*


 HONOLULU (AP) — The operator of the first passenger-vehicle ferry between major Hawaiian islands will stop its service after a court ruled it unfairly was allowed to bypass an environmental review.


Hawaii Superferry said Monday night it has decided "to cease operations for the present" in the wake of the state Supreme Court ruling.
The Superferry, a car and passenger service that links Oahu and Maui and hopes to expand, has been under fire from critics who argue the use of 350-foot catamaran could harm whales and damage the area's fragile ecology.


Article in its entirety can be found here: [link]


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 17, 2009)

When the tourism-based economy of Hawaii is floundering, that's all they need is for the enviromental ninnies to put the Superferry out of business.  Of course, with many ''enviromental'' lawsuits, the real backing may have come from competitors, such as perhaps in this case airlines, for such a suit.


----------



## jmatias (Mar 18, 2009)

End result is more job losses for Hawaii.  The Superferry will start lay-offs on Friday.

Jen


----------



## daventrina (Mar 18, 2009)

What about all of those boats and barges and ships that are running around in all kinds of weather and times of day delivering food and stuff:ignore:


----------



## dougp26364 (Mar 18, 2009)

daventrina said:


> What about all of those boats and barges and ships that are running around in all kinds of weather and times of day delivering food and stuff:ignore:



I was sort of wondering about all the cruise ships that offer Hawaiian sailings. NCL has one that does weekly 7 night cruises and sails from the same port in Oahu as the Superferry. I suppose that NCL ship has less impact on the environment than the Superferry did. 

This really just sounds like Hawaiian government playing politics to me, but, why should they be any different than the rest of the world?


----------



## Jim Bryan (Mar 18, 2009)

It seems to me they had plenty of time to stop this in the begining.

 Just when Hawaii needs it too but I'm sure some are happy.


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Mar 18, 2009)

I would think the cruise ships would have WAY more impact and I don't like seeing them in Hawaii, they seem to loom over everything on the outer islands. I'm wondering if the problem for the Super Ferry is that they didn't do the EIR first. That seems to be the complaint, not that they are saying for sure there is impact, but by not doing the study, the impact isn't known and can't be mitigated.
Liz


----------



## Harry (Mar 19, 2009)

*I thought this would happen*

Recall last year we had an ongoing discussion about this.  There are some very interesting legal issues concerning the reef that just have not been addressed.  I was surprised this case made it as far as it did.  I have not read the actual decision but apparently the court has remanded to consider the reef impact.  We were in Hawaii  a week before the decision was rendered
and apparently the ferry company anticipated it.  At least several local residents I talked to said there were big problems.


----------



## Icarus (Mar 19, 2009)

not exactly, Harry. 

Act 2 was declared unconsititional. (state court, state constitution, something about the land rights act) because it only benefitted a single company. If you really care, there's an interesting blog out there about the law and why it was unconstitutional. There's no federal issues, so it won't go any higher than the state court.

Act 2 is the law that allowed SF to operate without an EIS.

This is just the beginning of the war. It will go on for years and years, I'm sure.

-David


----------



## "Roger" (Mar 19, 2009)

I am not taking sides (too far away, don't know that much about it), but here is a site that makes the case against the superferry.

The antis

(The case for it appears to be jobs, a possible tourist attraction, and greater ease moving about the islands.)


----------



## Snorkey (Mar 19, 2009)

I had friends who would ride the ferry back and forth from Maui to Oahu instead of taking the day tour from the boat.
I always wanted to try it since they said it was whole lot better than seating on the plane.
They got to see more dolphins and relax with plenty of rooms and food on board.  They also have game room for kids.
I am thinking about boycotting Hawaii......Nah, I think Hawaii is just too pretty to boycott but I will reduce thinking about going to Hawaii.


----------



## ouaifer (May 31, 2009)

*Dead in the Water*

 Superferry files for bankruptcy.


----------



## teepeeca (May 31, 2009)

*Wacko's and Beaurocrats won !!!*

A very good idea, AND a needed transportation system "down the drain".

How many jobs being lost did this cause?  How much revenue did the state lose?  I guess the Hawaii government is "flush" with $$$, so it doesn't need the additional dollars the business would supply.

I think some people should look at the "big picture", rather than just their "small" focus.

As far as environmental impact---did ALL the tour operators and other boat owners HAVE to file an environmental impact report?  If they didn't, I think they should all be shut down until it is done---how would the state like that---the loss of tourist revenue to the state???  HEY---what's fair is fair !!!

Tony


----------



## PigsDad (Jun 1, 2009)

ouaifer said:


> Superferry files for bankruptcy.


You're _cheering _because a bunch of people lost their jobs?   Should we all be cheering now that GM has declared bankruptcy?

I agree with Tony -- there was definitely a double-standard applied to the Superferry.  Now the airlines just have greater monopolistic choke hold on us for inter-island air travel.  How anyone thinks this is a good thing is totally beyond me.

Kurt


----------



## ricoba (Jun 1, 2009)

PigsDad said:


> You're _cheering _because a bunch of people lost their jobs?



I agree with this sentiment.  

Even if you did not want the ferry, cheering for people being placed out of work seems a bit harsh.


----------



## Hoc (Jun 1, 2009)

The inside scoop is that the Governor had promised to negotiate them around the red tape, and then failed to come through.  So, after this court decision, they just decided that it wasn't worth it and pulled out of the market.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jun 1, 2009)

ouaifer said:


> Superferry files for bankruptcy.



What company do you work for?  I'll keep it on my watch list for displaced SuperFerry employees and provide them a link to this thread so that they can leave a message for you should your company go bankrupt.


----------



## teepeeca (Jun 1, 2009)

ouaifer said:


> Superferry files for bankruptcy.



I could be wrong, BUT, I think the "moving icons" (or whatever you call them) was to attract attention, that a bankruptcy was filed, NOT that it was a good thing, and jobs were lost.

As I said before, "The Wacko's won, to the detriment of the "people".

Tony


----------



## PigsDad (Jun 1, 2009)

teepeeca said:


> I could be wrong, BUT, I think the "moving icons" (or whatever you call them) was to attract attention, that a bankruptcy was filed, NOT that it was a good thing, and jobs were lost.


If (and that is a *big IF*) it was just to attract attention to the post, then it was extremely stupid to choose the "cheer" icon with so many others to pick from -- it sent the wrong message, to say the least.

Kurt


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 1, 2009)

Folks - let's not make this personal...


----------



## thinze3 (Jun 1, 2009)

Bummer. I was hoping to use that Superferry one day.


----------



## ecwinch (Jun 1, 2009)

I do not think it means that a like service will never be offered. As the article mentioned, you have a company with massive debt - which probably doubled with delivery of the 2nd ship on Mar.28. And due to the court order, they had no revenue. Bankruptcy is a outcome of that situation. 

Does not mean that someone does not buy the assets out of bankruptcy and resume service when the EIS is complete - assuming it is favorable.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jun 1, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I do not think it means that a like service will never be offered. As the article mentioned, you have a company with massive debt - which probably doubled with delivery of the 2nd ship on Mar.28. And due to the court order, they had no revenue. Bankruptcy is a outcome of that situation.
> 
> Does not mean that someone does not buy the assets out of bankruptcy and resume service when the EIS is complete - assuming it is favorable.



The news article said it was a Chap 11 filing, not a Chap 7.


----------



## rubycat33 (Jun 1, 2009)

*Super Ferry vs Airline Ride*

I am ion the Sanfrancisco Bay Area.  

I would bet dollars to donuts if you knew the private conversations, that there was input from the airline industry to kill the ferry just like the oil companies and car manufacturers killed our San Francisco ferry system and lobbied for the bridges to be built.  Probably something like we won't lower airline ticket prices to Hawaii if we don't get some help here (to stop a potential ferry system)

The business of the enviromental laws may or may not be valid, but they are effective.  Look how we quit building homes for our residents here in the North Bay to save a frog.  But the frogs have a place to live.  

Likewise, if you are trying to kill a project that could undermine the airline industry between islands, what more pure way than to say it's bad for the environment.

AND, you don't pull this kill card until the ferry is totally up and running so you bankrupt them.  That way they don't come back.


----------



## Hawaiibarb (Jun 1, 2009)

*Loss of the Super Ferry*

I'm all for "saving the aina" but I do believe that the Super Ferry was singled out unfairly and that the Super Ferry bent over backwards to show they would implement all safeguards.  I know the environmentalists feel triumphant, but so many people have been hurt by the loss of the Super Ferry.  Jobs, of course, but teams were going to take all their members and equipment on a bus on the ferry.....what an easy way to go!  People were going to be able to ship their goods more cheaply, patients could travel to Oahu for better medical care more easily (wheelchairs are tough on a plane!)
Air fares continue to go up and many simply can't visit family on neighbor islands the way they would have if we could have kept the ferry.
I wanted it so badly I could taste it! (I know....the kiss of doom!), but most of my TS's are on Kauai, and I look forward so much to driving my own car over there.....a few selfish people ruined it for many more!


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jun 2, 2009)

I looked at the link to the anti-super ferry, and they make some compelling arguments. I really would like to know how it truly affects the whales and such. If it is killing more than just a random whale then it's a problem. Sometimes however these things are blown out of proportion and we lose a valuable commodity that could better mankind.

And as suggested what about the other boats in the ocean? Are they a zero threat? I guess this ship is different in design, but again is it that much different? 

Is someone now actually going to do the environmental study? I'm very interested to see the results. My bet is the people that are fighting this won't be happy even if it comes back in favor of the vessel.


----------



## "Roger" (Jun 2, 2009)

MOXJO7282 said:


> ...And as suggested what about the other boats in the ocean? Are they a zero threat? I guess this ship is different in design, but again is it that much different? ...


The following link speaks to this issue.

http://pacificwhale.org/news/news_detail.php?id=337

[Look toward the middle.  I would like to quote the relevant paragraphs, but I am afraid the quote would be longer than allowed.  The long and the short of it is while other boats go as fast as the Superferry - recreational boats and tour boats - they do not have the mass of the Superferry nor do they extend as deep into the water.  Other boats are slower. Also, the Superferry apparently went right across the most vulnerable area.]

While it might seem like I am taking sides, I just like to see all views presented and that was not happening early on in this thread.  In that vein, I would like to respond to the comment that the Superferry is being singled out.  While that might be true in general, the court's decision (and I am speaking just of the court's decision) was based entirely on the fact that the legislative law that they struck down singled out the Superferry and made special provisions that were only intended for it.  So the court decision was about just this issue, but it fell the other way.


----------



## rubycat33 (Jun 2, 2009)

*Hawaiian Ferry and Peacocks*

Things just aren't they way they used to be.  In the case of whales, I suspect they are smart enough to go deep.  I didn't read anything but when the super ferry crossed, did it leave a wake of dead fish in it's path.  I would think there would be millions of fish near water level in it's path.   
Similar, but different, a lady went to jail in Honolulu because she killed a peacock that screached all night.  Now, she did have choices like animal control, but what happened to the days we raised turkeys in the back yard and at Thanksgiving went out and rung Toms neck?  Things just aren't in balance.  Time to hit the reset button.   :deadhorse:


----------



## Hoc (Jun 2, 2009)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> The news article said it was a Chap 11 filing, not a Chap 7.



But they did shut down all operations.


----------



## ecwinch (Jun 2, 2009)

I think it becomes a Chapter 7 shortly. With no revenue, the going concern aspects of Chapter 11 become problematic.

I can see a way Chapter 11 could work, but it looks like a long-shot.


----------

