planewasted wrote:

Maybe generating newspaper articles about that you ordered a yacht so big so that bridges had to be dismantled is a USP for the yacht building company?

As I pointed out previously the masts don’t need to be stepped at the shipyard, they could be stepped at a wharf anywhere, the yards the problem here not Jeff buying a large yacht.

If Jeff Bezos really needs to buy a yacht, why does it have to be so big that they have to dismantle a bridge to get it through? Though I'd rather he used the money to somehow improve society, and yes I will absolutely criticize how the rich spend their money considering the state of the world now and into the future.

Back in December I walked around Rotterdam for a few hours and saw this bridge. It reminded me of the Aerial Lift Bridge in Duluth, Minnesota. I wish I had taken a closer look at it, but I'm glad I took photos of it from the Erasmusbrug.

af773atmsp wrote:

If Jeff Bezos really needs to buy a yacht, why does it have to be so big that they have to dismantle a bridge to get it through? Though I'd rather he used the money to somehow improve society, and yes I will absolutely criticize how the rich spend their money considering the state of the world now and into the future.

Back in December I walked around Rotterdam for a few hours and saw this bridge. It reminded me of the Aerial Lift Bridge in Duluth, Minnesota. I wish I had taken a closer look at it, but I'm glad I took photos of it from the Erasmusbrug.

The bridge doesn’t need to be dismantled, the yacht could easily pass under the bridge without its masts, the masts could be stepped at any wharf with access to a large crane.

Jeff earned his money, he can spend it however he wants.

Likely this shipyard and related businesses employ 100's of workers with good paying jobs, brings millions in tax revenues to the country and too difficult to relocate. Its too bad that the part of the ship that is excessive to the bridge passage wasn't assembled beyond the bridge in another shipyard. In the end money will be the deciding point of what happens here inducing partial dismantling of this bridge. Of course dismantling the bridge has its risks too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLS-gPu656M

Great opportunity to give this bridge some TLC........this is a good thing for Holland.
Let`s not have all tonnage being built in the Far East!

No Tax On Rotax

About the bridge itself I'm not sure what the problem is exactly. If it's about the rich getting their way, well the Netherlands is a bit of a tax haven so people there don't appear to mind that much. Have Bezos make a donation to a museum or something on top of paying for the bridge deck removal.

This hysterical campaign is just bizarre, yet amusing.

The Independent wrote:

Furious locals plan to hurl rotten eggs at Jeff Bezos’ superyacht

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 08417.html

Kilopond wrote:

:mrgreen: This hysterical campaign is just bizarre, yet amusing.

The Independent wrote:

Furious locals plan to hurl rotten eggs at Jeff Bezos’ superyacht

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 08417.html

That is a brilliant idea. It is a quick and easy way to make sure that there will be no more mega yachts, the building of which pump hundreds of millions of euros into the local economy, built at this yard.

The Dutch have managed to create a very good name for themselves in the high end yacht world. Having a bridge taken down then rebuilt is far from optimal, but they must have known about this before contracts were signed and the yard was confident there was not an issue.

jetwet1 wrote:

Kilopond wrote:

:mrgreen: This hysterical campaign is just bizarre, yet amusing.

The Independent wrote:

Furious locals plan to hurl rotten eggs at Jeff Bezos’ superyacht

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 08417.html

That is a brilliant idea. It is a quick and easy way to make sure that there will be no more mega yachts, the building of which pump hundreds of millions of euros into the local economy, built at this yard.

The Dutch have managed to create a very good name for themselves in the high end yacht world. Having a bridge taken down then rebuilt is far from optimal, but they must have known about this before contracts were signed and the yard was confident there was not an issue.

For some things you have to also ask local people's sentiments. If I were living there and I was not told about it, I would have surely raised hell.

pune wrote:

If I were living there and I was not told about it, I would have surely raised hell.

Why?

If it does not affect you, it is paid for fully by the parties with the issue, and has no real effect on you, why would you raise hell? I'll raise hell when something affects me, my family, take money from me or my community or will permanently affect it. I don't get the outrage (or that it is directed at the person who purchased the service when it is the local company that made the decision that created the situation).

Tugg

jetwet1 wrote:

That is a brilliant idea. It is a quick and easy way to make sure that there will be no more mega yachts, the building of which pump hundreds of millions of euros into the local economy, built at this yard.

Honestly I suspect you are right. If I were going to have something like this built, based on this uproar I would not use this facility. Who needs their private business and names made public and dragged through the mud and to have insults hurled at them for absolutely no good reason? So the area and the jobs and the local people will ultimately suffer.

Tugg

All I want to know is if the boat has a Klingon type cloaking device. Maybe poor Bezos won't suffer the indignity of having someone track his boat.

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

If I were living there and I was not told about it, I would have surely raised hell.

Why?

If it does not affect you, it is paid for fully by the parties with the issue, and has no real effect on you, why would you raise hell? I'll raise hell when something affects me, my family, take money from me or my community or will permanently affect it. I don't get the outrage (or that it is directed at the person who purchased the service when it is the local company that made the decision that created the situation).

Tugg

You are forgetting that people who are able to afford a place near the pier, most of them would be millionaires or maybe even beyond. I know it's hot property. And those people are virtually guaranteed to a specific scenario. Now, what if people were guaranteed the view of the bridge. AFAIK this should have been taken months or even a year or two before in a town council meeting. Was it ever taken up to be disccused? The bridge is Govt./public property. One can put all sorts of conspiracy stuff but it doesn't need to be. As somebody pointed out unless the boat is so big that even without the masts they cannot go under the bridge, then it is a problem. What were they thinking? As somebody told places on the yard are reserved, but would the same have been true across the bridge on the other side. We would need some local gentleman or lady who is perhaps from the industry to tell us more. And yes, I understand in the scenario I described it would mean a temporary relocation of workshop or an expansion/subsidiary and that again would mean costs. If Bezos is willing to pay for the bridge, why not an expansion to the concerned firm. That will make the controversy die away. No falling of bridge, no controversy at all.

Its down to the builder to figure out the bridge. Bezos is the customer, he orders and pays for the yacht to be delivered, the cost of the bridge removal and rebuild will have been factored into the cost of the yacht.

What will be interesting is if the town refuses to dismantle the bridge. I am going to assume there are payments made at certain stages of the build (I'm having a boat built right now, about 100th the price of this, but we are required to make payments at the end if each stage and just over 50% due at delivery), now, if the town refuses to allow the bridge work Bezos could refuse delivery, can the yard afford to eat 200 million + euros. I doubt it, even figuring in the margins the builders are going to face a battle.

jetwet1 wrote:

Its down to the builder to figure out the bridge. Bezos is the customer, he orders and pays for the yacht to be delivered, the cost of the bridge removal and rebuild will have been factored into the cost of the yacht.

What will be interesting is if the town refuses to dismantle the bridge. I am going to assume there are payments made at certain stages of the build (I'm having a boat built right now, about 100th the price of this, but we are required to make payments at the end if each stage and just over 50% due at delivery), now, if the town refuses to allow the bridge work Bezos could refuse delivery, can the yard afford to eat 200 million + euros. I doubt it, even figuring in the margins the builders are going to face a battle.

Exactly. I just don't get the extreme "personalization:" that has occurred. "Bezos demanding bridge be removed." What utter bullshit.

The company is seeking action on the bridge so they can deliver their product as they had committed. That is what is happening here. (And as KiwiRob has noted, it appears they could have planned this better.)


Can you imagine the uproar if Bezos came forth and stated he was not wanting to cause the distraction and so as the yard could not deliver the vessel, he would simple have his money refunded?

Tugg

Kiwirob wrote:

Jeff earned his money, he can spend it however he wants.

No he didn't, his employees that make peanuts and are forced to wear adult diapers in order to meet their quotas earned that money. Jeff Bezos is just a modern day slaveowner. If he wasn't, he'd allow a union into his place...I mean you must agree he can afford it? Or did his yacht use up all his spending money? Like nobody else would ever have come up with the idea to sell things online...

Well, anyone might have, but it was Bezos that actually did it—so he gets the credit and the money. Without the business he built, none of those people would have jobs.

I’ve worked with and without a union representing me, never thought I was a slave in either one. It’s just as easy to be a pawn to a union or a business.

meecrob wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Jeff earned his money, he can spend it however he wants.

No he didn't, his employees that make peanuts and are forced to wear adult diapers in order to meet their quotas earned that money. Jeff Bezos is just a modern day slaveowner. If he wasn't, he'd allow a union into his place...I mean you must agree he can afford it? Or did his yacht use up all his spending money? Like nobody else would ever have come up with the idea to sell things online...

If people want a union they can form a union. And as to "no one earns money if other people do the work" that is kinda out there. I manage people, so I guess I do not earn my pay?

Tugg

Thread has drifted off topic and is now locked