+- Firepics-THE place for fire photographers (https://firepics.net/MyBB)
+-- Forum: Photos-MUST CONTAIN IMAGE IN ORIGINAL POST (https://firepics.net/MyBB/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Apparatus Photos (https://firepics.net/MyBB/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Chicago Fire Department (/showthread.php?tid=2101)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
Chicago Fire Department - upstatefire31 - 10-10-2014
Quote:Given Chicago Fire is a reasonable success as a television program, I'm surprised no manufacturer has lent them fire apparatus, such as been done on other fire-related dramas in the past.yeah but look at the FD's fleet....I would hope if that ever came about it should match the style of the fleet....not some demo
Chicago Fire Department - edburke - 10-10-2014
Quote:yeah but look at the FD's fleet....I would hope if that ever came about it should match the style of the fleet....not some demoThird Watch used the former Peepee Townshp E\-One for many years....only the small minority of fire buffs and local firefighters/observant citizens that watch the show would pick up on it.
After the news gaffe with the MVA a few months ago, I'm surprised there hasn't been a demand for the pieces to be uniquely identifiable.
Chicago Fire Department - Roto-Ray - 10-10-2014
Quote:yeah but look at the FD's fleet....I would hope if that ever came about it should match the style of the fleet....not some demo
Like the popular Pierces and E-Ones in the FDNY fleet on Rescue Me.
Chicago Fire Department - GA_Dave - 10-10-2014
Chicago did have a large fleet of the 1970's/1980's era Seagrave rearmounts, but I'm pretty sure none of them had 4 door cabs.
Chicago Fire Department - edburke - 10-10-2014
Quote:Chicago did have a large fleet of the 1970's/1980's era Seagrave rearmounts, but I'm pretty sure none of them had 4 door cabs.
One only has to go to the first page of this thread for proof of this.
http://www.firepics.net/groupboards/index.php?showtopic=93&p=1133 (July 2001)
Chicago Fire Department - RagsCo4 - 02-14-2015
Anything new on the squads?
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 03-01-2015
The squads have been nixed by both Rosenbauer and Chicago Fleet at this time due to Rosenbauer dropping their end of the contract with delays and lack of proven design. I believe now that Smeal has the Snorkel brand now we may see something again on the board soon. Something to keep in mind after working with the CFD and Fleet is nothing will move fast, it may be another 2 yrs before one hits the streets.
Chicago Fire Department - bigjim - 03-01-2015
There is a tad bit more to the squad story than just Rosenbauer dropping their end of the contract. There were issues on both sides.
Chicago Fire Department - southwheatland514 - 03-02-2015
I Wonder why they could order new squads and refurb/rechassis the old snorkels?
Chicago Fire Department - npfd801 - 03-03-2015
Quote:There is a tad bit more to the squad story than just Rosenbauer dropping their end of the contract. There were issues on both sides.
Quote:There is a tad bit more to the squad story than just Rosenbauer dropping their end of the contract. There were issues on both sides.Thanks for posting this. I was aware of this as well but wasn't comfortable being the one that disclosed this first...
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 03-03-2015
Quote:
Thanks for posting this. I was aware of this as well but wasn't comfortable being the one that disclosed this first...
So then what's up? There are always two sides to a story and I know for one I would love to hear both sides.
Unfortunately in this industry you get way too many of these word games. Not that either of you are playing it
but mfg's do this a lot to make themselves seem like they were not the reason of something failing. "Well you
know they had a lot of issues as well. But we can't really say anything." I always hated this, if you have an
issue you ought to be up front and open about it or don't say anything at all.
When selling I tell customers freely upfront that I've had mistakes but so have customers and here are examples.
I found most customer like this as you are being open with them, no BS. Anyone who says they sold for more
than a year without any issues is lying. Something will always come up no matter how hard you try and prevent it.
I take pride in that over twelve years I never had a single truck rejected and never had a delay of more than
two days from time of inspection to delivery. But even with that we've still had issues just thankfully none to bad.
Kris
Chicago Fire Department - bigjim - 03-03-2015
Kris: I wish I knew the whole story. I don't. There is no word game intended. What I posted is what I know and it is from a reputable source. I don't think either party would want the specifics of the deal debated on a fire truck photo web site. If the principals of either organization what to post the details it is their choice. The statement of "a lack of a proven design" was clearly known by both parties from the start. And I stand by my original statement that there were issues on both sides and apparently the most reasonable resolution was to terminate the contract.
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 03-03-2015
Quote:Kris: I wish I knew the whole story. I don't. There is no word game intended. What I posted is what I know and it is from a reputable source. I don't think either party would want the specifics of the deal debated on a fire truck photo web site. If the principals of either organization what to post the details it is their choice. The statement of "a lack of a proven design" was clearly known by both parties from the start. And I stand by my original statement that there were issues on both sides and apparently the most reasonable resolution was to terminate the contract.
Jim,
What I'm thinking happened here is CFD needed new trucks but didn't want to refurb the Snorkel booms. They looked at the tea leaves and thought Snorkel was dead. So out goes a spec which hopes to capture the essence of a Snorkel.
Rosy looked at the spec and decided they could deliver something close and thought the prestige and field experience with CFD would pay itself back. They probably also thought without Snorkel around they would get some leeway in what their product might and might not do compared to Snorkel.
Now in the end Snorkel is alive no matter what the opinion of Smeal is, you can get a new Snorkel. CFD starts to look at a brand new design or lets back out and go the way we're used to. I'm thinking just logistically speaking backing out of a deal with or without a good reason had to start looking good to them. Lets face it no matter how good the Rosy product was or similar there would have to be all new learning and training implemented. Where as an updated Snorkel should be similar enough that most any new training could be done in a few hours one would think.
Like I said before I don't think you or NPFD801 intended any word game. That squarely goes on the shoulders of CFD & Rosy (And all other mfg's out there). It didn't work that's fine it happens, but they both should be open and upfront about it. Why didn't it work out, is a simple question. That should be answered so any other dept or mfg can make a fair decision if they want to deal with either group in the future.
Example #1: CFD demands were unrealistic to what Rosy said they would or thought they could build and deliver after digging into the design stage? That case Rosy comes out looking good.
Example #2: Rosy over promised and couldn't deliver what they said they could, thinking Snorkel was dead and CFD would have no other choices?
After twelve years of selling 8 brands for 1 dealer both of the above examples are quite probable. A mixture of the two is more than likely truth.
There really is no responsible reason for either to not say why it didn't work. What harm is going to come from the truth coming out? Unless one or the other lied or intentionally deceive the other. It should be public domain as they are working for the public and if it's a case of the department being in the wrong changes need to be made. On the other hand if Rosy intentionally deceived they should be barred from bidding in the future.
Really here I'm thinking no malice from either side. I can't blame CFD if they decided they would rather stay with what they have and know all too well. On the other hand I can't blame Rosy for attempting to bring something new to the market for CFD and backing away if they didn't think they could make it work with CFD expectations in the end.
Kris
Chicago Fire Department - Roto-Ray - 03-03-2015
Quote:
Example #1: CFD demands were unrealistic to what Rosy said they would or thought they could build and deliver after digging into the design stage? That case Rosy comes out looking good.
Without getting into specifics, I'd feel comfortable saying this is pretty accurate.
Chicago Fire Department - bigjim - 03-03-2015
And without getting into specifics, I would agree with Roto-Ray.
Chicago Fire Department - npfd801 - 03-04-2015
Let's just say I sell a rig, which is based on a set of specs that is agreed to by contract.
As a salesman, to promote customer satisfaction, some changes can be made to keep the customer happy even if a little bit of a loss is taken on my end.
However, at some point - the demands of a customer exceed my goodwill, and they have to pay for changes made. After all, no business can sell a good for a loss and expect to survive long. Only the customer won't agree to pay more for their demanded substantial changes from the contract specifications.
Stalemate. No one gives in.
Allegedly.
I don't mean to be difficult. I just didn't want to put any friends at risk that I sometimes read into their comments more than I probably should when we talk shop. This is my hypothesis on the situation from speaking to a number of people from various sides on the issue.
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 03-04-2015
Oh I've been down that road before, the stories I could tell just on that subject alone. Had a call 10 minutes before final inspection once
saying they forgot to purchase two cots at a total of $7.500.00 and the deal was off without them! Thank god for demo's still it was not
fun having to deal with my bosses ripping me for having such a large ticket item added, when I had nothing to do with it. Oh well.
The issue is with a new product never built before there are so many unknowns I think you need a slush fund just for such emergencies.
I went thru this on a special dive unit once and we used every part of $20,000.00 slush fund in changes even after throwing in items.
A new design is a tight rope for any salesmen to walk and I truly sympathize with them on those projects. It's too bad for the most part
the departments and manufactures don't appreciate everything the salesmen does on these type of projects.
Kris
Chicago Fire Department - wschrei - 03-06-2015
Does anyone know the model number autocar the squads were? Are there any around privately owned or in a museum?
Chicago Fire Department - Guest - 03-07-2015
Being a person who has dealt with CFD and Fleet, yes their demands can be and are extreme, pretty much a no exception can be taken during the process, you get the specs CFD want and you either meet it or you don't. It doesn't matter what it is with CFD, airpacks, turnout gear, tools, TIC's, whatever, they give you the spec and expect you to meet that spec. Very difficult to meet a spec that has never been done before.......
Chicago Fire Department - tmcbride - 03-07-2015
There seems to be quite a bit of speculation here.
I know from a very, very reliable source that Rosenbauer and Chicago still have a valid contract. Yes there have been hurdles along the way, (for reasons not even mentioned here) but those are being worked out.
Stay tuned...