Lamma Forums

Aberdeen Ferry Updates
Page 2 of 4

Author:  KennyL [ Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Photos of the meeting with TD on15-8-08

SPA51010s.jpg [ 65.48 KiB | Viewed 7950 times ]
SPA51009s.jpg [ 61.2 KiB | Viewed 7950 times ]
SPA51008s.jpg [ 59.9 KiB | Viewed 7950 times ]

Author:  nobby [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Does the actual standard of service fulfil the requirments of the tender??

Author:  Lamma-Gung [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Octopus card on the Aberdeen ferry from next month, from their website.

But what is the "No Change" operation that will be implemented at the same time. Could somebody enlighten us, please?

abn-lmi_Page_1.jpg [ 120.42 KiB | Viewed 7861 times ]

Author:  Alan [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lamma-Gung wrote:
But what is the "No Change" operation that will be implemented at the same time. Could somebody enlighten us, please?

I guess it means if you pay cash, you have to give the exact amount.

Author:  Lamma-Gung [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Detailed photos of the new Aberdeen ferry and its dangers are on the home page now, plus several accounts by Pak Kokians...

The Standard wrote:
Free ferry trips proposed
(08-18 20:42)
A scheme to provide free ferry trips to Peng Chau, Lantau Island and Lamma Island for group tours will open for applications from tomorrow.

Organisations such as schools, welfare agencies, community and local groups, are invited to apply for free ferry rides between Central piers and the three outlying islands for group activities, according to Transport Department.

The spokesman said that applications with relevant supporting documents should be sent to the scheme secretariat at least 15 working days prior to the date of the activity. All applications will be processed on a first-come-first-served basis.The information is also available on the Transport Department's website at

Author:  nobby [ Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

In line with the Basic Law - no change for 50 years.

Author:  Lamma-Gung [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:49 am ]
Post subject: 

Selina Chow, LegCo Member wrote:
Dear Tracey, Andrew and Mr. Shum,

This is just to let you know that I spoke to the Permanent Secretary for Transport, Mr. Francis Ho, and put your case across clearly and forcefully. Mr. Ho has assured me that he also received a report from TD, and they will try their best to look for a solution that is acceptable to Lamma residents. I think he is sincere, and I have requested that he should come up with a speedy response to you. I will keep chasing him in a couple of days.

Would appreciate if you would pass the message on to other residents.


Monita Leung, Manager, Tsui Wah Ferry Co. wrote:
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email and we are pleased to share our information with the residents of Lamma Island in very near future.

Sorry for no English in our website; under our planning it may take till 2009. We welcome any enquiry by email, fax or phone:
Tel no: 2272 2022 / fax no: 2528 3320 / email:

The Octopus card will be started in September. The "No Change operation" means we will not have any crew member to handle the fare tickets; there'll be a cash box together with the Octopus (like in the bus) without change given. The passengers can use the Octopus card or put the fare into the cash box. We hope this may not cause any inconveniences.

Again, thank you very much and we will try our best to service all passengers of Lamma Island.

Author:  資深島民 [ Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

KennyL wrote:
Photos of the meeting with TD on15-8-08



I can see your wife and her elder sister in the picture! :wink: :lol:

Also, Tracey D , Andrew and.................................................many pokkokians! :lol:

Author:  KennyL [ Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:56 am ]
Post subject: 

Here is a reply to a Pak Kok resident from Ms.Chow.

Dear ,

This issue has not been discussed in either Legco or the District Council.

I’m now trying to get the TD and the Transport Bureau to meet the wish of residents, i.e. to provide the same service as the last operator. I am chasing up the latest. It seems that Government does realize the problem and the wishes of residents, and we are waiting for their proposed solution. They have promised to give an update this Friday.


Author:  chocolap [ Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:29 am ]
Post subject: 

The reply from Transport Department on Aug 23,2008

Dear All,

This is further to our meeting held on 15 August 2008 in which we had exchanged views on "Aberdeen-Pak Kok Tsui-Yung Shue Wan" ferry route.

2. In the meeting, we briefed attendees of some background about the route. To recap, the background is summarized below :
(a) the route had been operating at a loss for years and passenger demand was persistently maintained at a low level, recording on average about 1,000 passenger trips in a day.
(b) Hong Kong & Kowloon Ferry Ltd. ("HK&K"), the former operator, was awarded of a licence to operate the route since 15 Aug 1998. By 14 Aug 2008, HK&K had been operated the route for a total of 10 years and further extension of its licence was not permissible under the law.
(c) TD conducted a tender exercise in May 2008 to select an operator for provision of the route. In the tender exercise, bidders were required to provide the route at the then headway and number of sailings, while they were permitted to deploy either ordinary or fast ferry in order to allow more flexibility for the bidders to reduce their operating cost. By the closing of tender on 30 May 2008, two bids were received. However, the two bidders subsequently withdrew their submissions due to their commercial considerations. This reflected that the route at the required service level was considered not viable in the market.
(d) TD launched a re-tender exercise quickly in mid July 2008 with a view to obtaining an operator for the route. In the retender exercise, we relaxed the tender requirements on the service headway and vessel quality. This was necessary to allow more potential bidders, including those ferry companies of smaller scale, to bid for the route. By closing of the tender invitation, only one bid from Tsui Wah Ferry Service (H.K.) Ltd. ("Tsui Wah") was received.
(e) before the two tenders were conducted, TD conducted local consultation through the established and regular channels, i.e. through the local representatives including the Lamma (North) Rural Committee, on the service requirements. We also immediately advised the local representatives when the two bidders in the first tender withdrew their bids. We also advised the local representatives that in order to attract more companies to bid for the route, we needed to relax the service and vessel requirements in the retender exercise. We also took into account views of local residents who wrote to us by letters, emails, or through Government's Integrated Call Centre before the service requirements were finalized and adopted for the tenders.

3. The views we received during the meeting were that :
(a) TD was asked to explore with Tsui Wah the possibility of deploying another vessel with quality on a par with that deployed by HK&K previously, and inform representatives of the attendees in a week's time;
(b) the previous timetable operated by HK&K should be maintained;
(c) facilities on board of Tsui Wah 8 (the current vessel) should be improved having regard to its riding comfort and passenger safety; and
(d) TD was asked to inform the attendees about the progress in one week. In response, TD explained that it would be better for TD to reply to the representatives of the attendees and TD's website was not suitable for displaying such note of progress.

4. We also replied in the meeting that during the consultation conducted in the past, we were aware that there were diverse views amongst passengers using the route. Some were willing to pay higher fares in return to maintain the service level while a number of residents considered that fares should not be increased significantly. If Tsui Wah had better quality vessel and were willing to deploy such vessel on the route, a higher fare might be charged. We agreed to discuss with Tsui Wah about the feasibility, and would consult the locals again if use of better quality vessel by Tsui Wah was feasible.

5. After the meeting, TD has discussions with Tsui Wah. The outcome is that :
(a) In the current fleet of Tsui Wah, there is no vessel with quality on a par with the vessel previously deployed on the route by HK&K, in terms of operating speed and vessel construction. Tsui Wah would need to use the existing vessel to operate the route.
(b) As to facilities on board, Tsui Wah has agreed to take measures to improve riding comfort of passengers. The measures already made or being made are summarized below :
(i) it has already provided anti-slippery mat and additional handrailings on corridors leading from vessel head to the entrance of enclosed cabin, added protective net at the gangplank area and put on seat covers; and
(ii) it has already initiated actions to install air-conditioning facilities at the enclosed cabin and additional fencing along the ship hull at the upper deck of the vessel. It is targeted to complete the installation works by mid September 2008.

6. We have also discussed with Marine Department your concern over passenger safety on board again. The vessel deployed on the route has complied with the safety requirements. As regards the life jackets and lifebuoys provided on board, they are properly placed where passengers can access to these facilities without much difficulty.

Carol Cheung
Transport Department

Author:  nobby [ Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

There you go, thats fine then, glad things worked out so well.

Author:  Lamma-Gung [ Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Submitted by Marcus the Pak Kokian:

(Letters to editor)


I have been astounded to read in your Forums that the cost-ratio of an inverted U shaped parking space for a bike would be around HK$49,000 (see Bike Park @ Ferry Pier forum).

To put this into some perspective, that amount to assist cyclists (or Not as the idea seems blindingly obvious to be) would pay for a current Aberdeen ferry return ticket for 3.8 years.

Both of these issues are of increasing concern to a growing number of islanders and, in some extreme cases, are beginning to consider a move to DbAY. No doubt the thought of being pebble-dashed with shotcrete whilst strutting along the YSW 'catwalk' is starting to fray nerves.

Fat-Gor as profiled in Lamma-zine today, should be aware of these issues facing his former home. I am certain he would support a proper ferry service over a $18m bike park. Also, the Banyan Tree Spa/Resorts guy (I'm very sorry that I can't recall his name, but he is from Lamma - hence the Banyan Tree name). CE Donald Tsang's popularity might even rise a nano-point if he was seen as supporting a cause that was not Beijing-based. Selina Chow's tourism experience could more than question the present TPB $billions global ad campain being based on eco-tourism to the outlying islands. A dream team!

Whilst it all seems futile, and concrete will be poured one way or another every year, that in itself does not effect daily lives too much. However, when a popular ferry route for all sectors of society is dropped, when a prospering cosmopolitan hamlet is effectively marooned, and when consultation with users/residents is at the bottom of the list, it does, and its time to call the big shots and the ICAC hotline on 2526 6366.

Author:  zoopkabir [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:55 am ]
Post subject: 

Lamma-Gung wrote:
Submitted by Marcus the Pak Kokian:
However, when a popular ferry route for all sectors of society is dropped, when a prospering cosmopolitan hamlet..........

You were doing well up until that bit!

If it was popular it wouldn't have caused so much problem to renew. It's either prospering or it's a hamlet.

Author:  Alan [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:53 am ]
Post subject: 

zoopkabir wrote:
If it was popular it wouldn't have caused so much problem to renew. It's either prospering or it's a hamlet.

I've seen the figure of "1000 passengers a day" given (presumably 500 returns). That seems quite "popular" to me. The problem is that it's not sufficiently profitable for the operators.

Author:  資深島民 [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:25 am ]
Post subject: 

Alan wrote:
The problem is that it's not sufficiently profitable for the operators.

:thumb-up: Exactly!

Author:  dragon [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Need your support

There will be a petition form circulating Lamma in the next few days - please sign it to enable us to show the Transport Department that the service and ferry we have been given is unacceptable.

We have drawn up a 5 point plan which we feel we are entitled to and is not in any way unreasonable to be asking for.

Yung Shue Wan & Pak Kok residents are entitled to the following.

1. Vessels of quality similar to HKKF boats.

2. 30 minute journey time from Yung Shue Wan to Aberdeen via Pak Kok.

3. Same HKKF Yung Shue Wan to Pak Kok to Aberdeen time table.

4. 20% increase on HK$12.80, or similar fare structure as Yung Shue Wan, to give Yung Shue Wan the choice of routes. Higher fare structure for visitors for Sundays / Public Holidays.

5. Govt. Subsidies as all other Inter Island Ferry Companies to enable the service to run.

We hope to have a meeting at the Transport Department the week after next and the more signatures we have the stronger our case will be.

The ferry crashed into the Pak Kok pier this afternoon - taking out almost half a step with it. We worry about our safety and the ability of the men working on the boat.

Anyone who would like to write to show their support should do so to the following people:

Don Ho -
Carey Wong -
Janice Lai -
Eva Cheng -

Monita Leung - Tsui Wah Company -
Human Chu (Oriental Daily News) -
Millie Ng

Thank you

File comment: Aberdeen pier damaged by ferry
dragon-piershot.jpg [ 164.6 KiB | Viewed 6720 times ]

Author:  nobby [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'd put free beer down on the list, there's probably more chance you might get it.

Author:  Tavis [ Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:49 am ]
Post subject: 

Since the Govt. has already granted the contract to Tsui Wah can u imagine the legal mess they would be in and / or the compensation they would have to pay to break that agreement? There's no way they will do that - people's heads would roll. . . . And they've already met with the ferry company to ask for improvements and all they got was some netting and air con in the cabin area. The company aint gonna run out and buy a fleet of new boats - so I'm pretty sure this petition is a waste of time. My approach is to find the good side of the new boats and deal with it. They're old rusty buckets of crap but I guess they're sea worthy or the govt. wouldn't have allowed them to pass inspection. So, we just have a more rustic closer to the water boating experience when we head aberdeen way.

Author:  Alan [ Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Need your support

dragon wrote:
5. Govt. Subsidies as all other Inter Island Ferry Companies to enable the service to run.

What subsidy is this?

The TD made it very clear that government policy is not to subsidise transport costs.

However, we know that transport companies do actually receive many other benefits (the MTR gets billions in land grants) -- the question is how to sneak these in without breaking the letter of the policy. The problem with the Aberdeen/Pak Kok ferry is that there is no value in use of piers at either end, (unlike the Central and YSW piers, which while chronically mismanaged, must earn some income that offsets costs), and probably little tourist demand for this route, so you can't hit them with high weekend charges.

Author:  gisela [ Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:29 am ]
Post subject: 

At this stage, just writing to TD or even the Transport and Housing Bureau will be quite useless. Take the next stage directly to Legco (although as everything is ‘finalised’ and not easy to fight for, at least there is still slim hope with this)

What I would suggest:
Wait until the legco season opens up (election is next Sunday and I believe meeting will start end of Sept).

Write to the Legco transport panel on this issue specifically asking them to have this issue discussed in their panel meeting.

Fight on the basis of :
Safety – state all the accidents that happened etc etc
Fairness - no consultation whatsoever, residents are not aware what had happened until results are announced, huge increase in fare with huge setback in service.
Question on the policy again, point out that it is actually quite stupid to tender the Pak kok route separately coz the route on its own is simply not profitable and as Alan points out, unlike the YSW Central route, there is simply no non-fare box income at all.
Demand that TD has to ask Tsui Wah to rent another suitable boat to run this route as the present one is far from satisfactory.

Also, write to the Ombudsman on TD’s ‘mis-handling’ blah blah, this will not have an immediate result, investigation takes a long time but will give TD some more pressure.

If looking for a legislator for help someone in NT west and sitting in the Transport Panel will likely be more helpful. I know a Liberal Party legislator had recently ‘helped’ on this issue, however, this same legislator have not been helpful at all during the YSW-Central retender issue, in fact, she was absent on both Transport Panel discussion on that matter, although she represented NT west and sits in the Transport Panel.

Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC + 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group