Megayacht News Leadership Series: Tim Hodgdon, Hodgdon Yachts

Tim-Hodgdon-2Since 1816, Maine-based Hodgdon Yachts has produced more than 400 vessels of various types. They range from coastal commercial vessels in the early days, to the arctic explorer Bowdoin in 1921, to sub chasers for the United States Navy during World War I and II, to a number of the famous Alden Malabars, plus a number of yacht and megayacht designs by Sparkman & Stephens, Hereshoff, and Bruce King. The fully custom megayachts, like Scheherazade, are well known, and Hodgdon Yachts has more recently been gaining fame for its fully custom megayacht tenders. The diversity alone is impressive, but also consider that Hodgdon Yachts is the oldest continuously operating shipyard in the United States. Add to the mix fully custom yacht interiors, plus an ongoing focus on the newest construction techniques, and it’s all the more noteworthy. In typical Maine fashion, though, Hodgdon Yachts and its president, Tim Hodgdon, remain low key. In this Megayacht News Leadership Series, Hodgdon talks about growing the family business, the pressure of living up to his ancestors, and reaching far beyond American shores for clients.

 

Q: With Hodgdon Yachts being a family business, do you ever feel the “shadow” of your family and history?

A: I’m fifth generation, and we’re about to celebrate our 200th anniversary here soon. We’re currently working on hulls number 418 and 419. It’s an insightful question. When I joined this company in 1971, my father was building a 54-foot offshore lobster boat for Bobby Brown from The Perfect Storm. In those days, we were building traditional plank-on-frame, commercial vessels and small boatswe were a company of about four or five. As I became involved in the business, I didn’t envision a lengthy future in traditional plank-on-frame construction, and I wanted to take the company to a different place. I bought the company in 1983, and we were working on an 83-foot motoryacht at the time. I established a relationship with Bruce King and the cold-molded process, which is where we took the company. It is complicated, running a company with that type of lineage. I’m very proud of the history of the company, but really, my focus is on the present and the future. I’m certainly aware of the history, but I’m trying to evolve the innovation of the company and trying to take us to a different level in terms of world-class capabilities.

 

Q: How would you describe the typical clients who come to you—are they pretty knowledgeable and decisive, or do they rely more heavily on your input and experience with the construction process?

A: The spectrum is broad. Typically someone who would come to us would be very dedicated and committed to a quality project. We’re currently building boats with some advanced composite construction, while other divisions of the company are dealing with very high-end woodworking.  The people who come to us are typically not a first-time boat owner. They’re knowledgeable; they may want to push the envelope with technology.

 

Q: Would you say that holds true whether they’re a yacht client or a tender client?

A: It does all sort of tie together. Our tenders are very high quality; they’re not very big, but they’re targeted to the high-end megayacht industry, where it’s all about quality. There’s also an interesting blend with our division Hodgdon Defense Composites, which deals with the United States Navy and various divisions of the defense industry. The diversification is really healthy for our company. Also, one supports the other—some of the innovation that comes out of the defense side of what we’re doing is targeted to the yacht industry, and some of the advancements that we’ve been able to come up with in the private sector have tied back to the defense industry. In some ways, it’s easier to develop things and push the technology in the private sector and then expand on it in the defense world. It more or less goes back and forth. One side of the company helps develop products and processes for the other side.

 

Q: In terms of the tenders, did you create them as a way to further diversify, or did you see an opportunity in the market that you thought was really not being addressed?

A: The whole diversification strategy started around 2003. One of the segments we identified was the high-end tender market. It was further explored when a yacht client who was building a large motoryacht came to us and was interested in a high-end limousine tender to transport his guests. The yachts in the world are getting larger and larger, and it’s driving the need for a high-quality yacht tender to carry within the tender bay. The client couldn’t find anything of that caliber and quality among those that were available. We contacted Michael Peters’ office and developed a nice-looking limousine tender and felt it would be something that would work very nicely in the industry, as the yachts continued to get larger.

 

Q: Why did you approach Michael Peters?

A: His designs are fantastic, really beautiful. He’s designed some pretty innovative and creative boats. We got together with Michael, and he developed the aesthetics of the underbody and the running capabilities of the vessel, and we took up the engineering and production side of it and came up with what I think is a really nice combination. We started with a 10.5-meter limousine and have evolved it both up and down in size. We recently delivered a couple of custom tenders which are 8.5-meter Andrew Winch designs, and we’re also working on a 10-meter Michael Peters design.

 Tim-Hodgdon-1

Q: When clients come to you for a tender, are they talking mostly about the looks of the boat, or do some of them talk more so about the speed and performance of the boat?

A: We do deal with all the various requirements. Many times they go in pairs on a big motoryacht. We’ve delivered those as an open-type sport boat and a limousine tender. As people become familiar with what we’ve done, we’re approached by owners who say, “I want something else.” The Andrew Winch tenders were fully custom, they have their own performance and criteria in terms of the accommodation aspect of it, plus the size constraints and weight constraints. We’re trying to promote a standard line, if you will, which is the Michael Peters design, but there’s also another segment of that business, which is completely custom. We’ll take anybody’s design and build a very-high-end, high-quality tender for them.

 

Q: With the tender projects and yacht projects, are you finding the buyers are coming from farther afield?

A: I don’t want to talk about any of the owners, but in general terms, years ago primarily our clients were Americans, while in this point in time, our clients come from around the world, whether it’s for the limousines or the yachts. We’ve been able to develop a good niche for lightweight, innovative, custom composite, state-of-the-art vessels. The yard has a strong design and engineering background, along with our interiors, which in some cases are very traditional, while in other cases are very contemporary, but nonetheless are very high end. We do have a broad spectrum and a blend of owners from around the world.

 

Q: Do you think these aspects of your company, the fact that you have design and engineering in house and the interior department in house, are major attractive factors for these clients?

A: I think certainly these kinds of capabilities in house really add a lot to a company. We have the capability to engineer everything from the composite design to the systems to the interior. With the interior, if it needs to be extremely lightweight yet still traditional-looking, those capabilities are really important. Plus, our ability to work with the defense industry—there’s a level of credibility to that.

 

Q: Yacht clients are accustomed to getting their way, so they want to build a custom yacht that reflects their ideas. But, how do you balance the need to do that yet tell them “no” when needed?

A: That’s a challenge. You don’t have to go far afield before finding expectations that just boggle the mind. We built a 124-foot Bruce King sailboat that had a pipe organ in it, and a cherry bathtub, and a fireplace. It’s just unbelievable, some of the design elements and the expectations of these very creative yacht designers and interior designers. We can pretty much accomplish most any desire that anyone would have. It becomes hugely complicated and very expensive to do some of the things, but the capabilities exist.

Megayacht News Leadership Series: Dr. Herbert Aly, Blohm+Voss

Herbert-Aly-Blohm-Voss

Blohm+Voss, world famous in shipping circles for building the Bismark and Scharnhorst, was snapped up last year by investors who foresee a bright future in building megayachts that top the 260-foot benchmark established with the recent buildings of Mayan Queen IV, A, Palladium, and Eclipse. London-based Star Capital Partners took over all non-military sectors of the business from ThyssenKrupp Marine. The acquisition, reported to have cost just $195 million, included the Blohm+Voss shipyard as well as the megayacht construction and repair divisions. Dr. Herbert Aly, Blohm+Voss’ managing director, spoke frankly to Megayacht News about why the acquisition was sought and what has resulted. He also talked about what he sees as benefits of the non-disclosure agreements that are becoming so prevalent in the upper end of the megayacht market.

 

MYN: What convinced you that Blohm+Voss could find the right financial partner in the worst economic crisis of modern times?

HA: We are a strong brand and as such are well-known worldwide. This is especially true when you consider our new-build activities, our complex repair, refits and conversion activities.  Then you must take into account our long track record as a leading component and service supplier for the global shipbuilding and oil & gas industry. Altogether, in combination with a skilled team, the strong backbone of German engineering and a sound strategy in place to expand in quality markets, I knew we would find shareholders eager to invest into the brand.

 

MYN: How does Blohm +Voss stand apart from other shipyards targeting the same super-size superyacht market?

HA: We have the proven experience and the in-house technical expertise as well as the capacities that enable us to offer tailor-made solutions for the most demanding buyers in this market. Ultimately, customers seeking to commission a unique and very large motoryacht to their precise needs and requirements will always end up contacting us. We are known as those who always make the extra effort to perfectly meet the customers’ expectations in fully customized projects.

 

MYN: It is now over a year since the shipyard was thrown the lifeline from Star Capital. How has the year been spent, and what have you achieved during that time?

HA: After the adjustment to the corporate structure of the new investor, we had to get back across to the market that Blohm+Voss remains in the picture as an interested and serious player in the market for megayachts. Having meanwhile various inquiries and promising projects under development in that segment, it proves that our approach was right. All businesses performed better than shown in the previous plans, which is a strong indication that our strategic direction is a sound one.

 

MYN: Without the intervention of Star Capital, what do you think would have happened to the superyacht building and refit division of Blohm+Voss?

HA: Our former owner had lost interest in non-naval shipbuilding as a whole and decided to sell that part of activities. They had made clear that, otherwise, they would discontinue their shipbuilding activities at the location in Hamburg, meaning the closing down of the activities.

 

MYN: Tony Mallin, CEO of Star Capital, said publicly, “we intend to invest by providing a significant capital commitment to drive growth and job creation.” Can you explain what has been received to date?

HA: The capital commitment of Star Capital Partners provides a strong foundation for a long-term partnership. That means that Blohm+Voss has got the chance to continue as a solid and reliable partner to our clients in the complex megayacht business and hence secures future business and jobs. We have, for example, recently received comprehensive new orders at Blohm+Voss Repair for the lifetime extension of two floating production storage and offloading units, and several cruise ships have been docked in 2012 and will do so in 2013 and 2014, too. Besides the motoryacht Project Graceful under construction, we are also working on several promising new-build and refit projects for very large motoryachts.

 

MYN: Shortly after the deal with Star Capital was completed, you said, “Opportunities exist in each of the markets within which the businesses operate. We hope to take advantage of these opportunities with the backing of our new owners, who share our vision for the business.” How successful have you been in reaching your goal?

HA: In two of our businesses, namely the ship component and the pipe-handling equipment business, we have outperformed the shareholders expectations already. Accordingly, we have all options open. Ship repair and conversion business also has performed better than expected, given the actual market and competitor situation, which allows us to continue this successful growth story.  Regarding megayacht new building, we always knew that it would take some time to retrieve the customers’ confidence after the hesitation shown by our former shareholder. This uncertainty has come to an end now, and we are well received by the market again with respect to upcoming serious projects.

 

MYN: Where in the world do you think the new superyacht owner will come from?

HA: I think that as in the past years, megayacht owners will mostly come from Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Emerging markets in South America and Asia have and will surely generate high-net-worth individuals interested in motoryachts. However, I think that it will require much more time to go before such long-term potential will reflect in the market for very large megayachts.

 

MYN: Blohm+Voss and other shipyards are often tied into signing NDAs. Is this, in your view, good or bad for the industry?

HA: For us as the building shipyard, there is no other choice other than to follow the owner’s expectations, and to professionally deal with confidentiality is a significant part of our brand awareness. It might sound easier to be allowed to show to interested new owners pictures if we could, but not being allowed to do so also gives a special aura of extreme exclusivity to our work. Furthermore, the megayacht world is a small one, owners know each other, meet onboard, and talk between themselves. A recommendation from an owner is, in our opinion, a lot more valuable than anything having been done by us. All in all, I do not think that it is bad thing for the industry.

 

MYN: Blohm+Voss has not yet joined SYBAss. Is this a conscious decision, and if so why?

HA: Blohm+Voss was told by SYBAss to hold off its application until the market received a vote of confidence that our shipyard will remain active in the field of new builds. This has been demonstrated, but presently we have no plans to apply for SYBAss membership.

Exclusive: Mehmet Karabeyoglu, CEO of Proteksan Turquoise, Comments on Yogi Report

Mehmet-Karabryoglu-Proteksan-Turquoise-

PHOTO: Frances Howorth

The French Marine Accident Investigation Office, a.k.a. the Bureau d’Enquêtes sur les Évènements de Mer (BEAmer), released its report into the sinking of Yogi this week. In this exclusive interview, Mehmet Karabeyoglu, the CEO of Proteksan Turquoise shares his thoughts on the findings and candidly discusses what has occurred at the yacht yard over the past year.

 

Q: Now that the report into the sinking of Yogi has been published, can you explain your feelings?

A: It is difficult to really express precisely how I feel. I am relieved that an independent body of marine experts without, in my opinion, any agenda or vested financial interest in why Yogi sank have published their findings. I cannot say I am happy or sad because the fact remains that a beautiful yacht that encapsulated the physical and intellectual labor of many people sits some 500 meters below the waves; it doesn’t make me happy that the very public sinking is there on YouTube to be viewed time and time again. However, it is clear, as we at the shipyard have always felt and known, that Proteksan Turquoise acted within the law, that the shipyard did everything that was expected of it, and that there was no failings on our part as builders.

Indeed, in April 2012, three Turkish court-appointed experts concluded that Yogi did not sink due to any design or engineering fault or any construction defect, and those court-appointed experts did not avoid the difficult questions.

As to the French report? I am a little frustrated that on some key points, BEAmer’s conclusions and summations of the report are clumsy, as they are illogical and convey misleading impressions. For example, they say that the original inclining test was done without French flag representation, yet the report says that ABS were the flag’s representatives and ABS were present and conducted the tests. How can they then imply that that no one was present at the inclining test?

BEAmer also claim, and on this point we are taking legal advice, that we refused to carry out a new inclining test during the last warranty works, and present as evidence a warranty wish list upon which the merits of an new inclining test are discussed. It is true that on the initial warranty list the owners alleged a listing problem, but the owner’s team removed the item from the warranty list and as far as we know did not report the matter to class. We have no way of knowing if there was a stability problem or if the listing, if any, was caused by some other cause. It was never tested. We did not decline a new inclining test, and we have the emails from the owner’s team to prove it. But BEAmer didn’t think it was important to check their facts. If there was a stability problem, I don’t believe a professional captain would have allowed the matter of a new inclining test to be removed from the warranty list or would have headed off in a force 8.  BEAmer unfortunately did not have the good grace to put that allegation to us during the consultation phase. Frankly, I think on both these points, BEAmer have let us, the industry, and themselves down.

 

Q: How is it we don’t know about the Turkish courts’ expert inquiry into the sinking? 

A: We felt that if we announced the Turkish report before BEAmer had published their findings, it might be received by a sceptical world as being pro-Turkish, given that we had requested the Turkish courts to investigate the sinking. We also didn’t want the Turkish report in any way to taint the official French investigation, but the fact is the yacht sits at the bottom of the ocean, the only real evidence we have is firstly, the video clip on YouTube, secondly what was said by the crew and those witnessing the sinking onboard the surrounding vessels, and finally the certified documentary paper trail of the French flag and the classification society.

What has been troubling over the past year is just how many different versions of the sinking have emanated and how those have evolved and changed. Some of the stories cross over, and others only surfaced several months after the sinking, when logically the story of the sinking should have been consistent.

I have not read all the versions of the sinking, but I think we have the captain’s call to my former partner, Hayati Kamhi, and the yacht’s project manager, Nedim Sukas, wherein one version of the sinking was given which was reported by the press; (2) the testimony of each of the crew to the Hellenic Coastguard; (3) the Rapport de Mer of the captain and the senior officers to the French Ambassador in Athens on 20 February 2012; (4) the interviews with BEAmer; (5) the owner’s insurance claim; (6) the Turkish courts’ expert report. As you can see, there are many possible variations and versions of the truth, and no two versions seem to be identical, and of course now we have the seventh version, that is the BEAmer report, which seems to be chiefly an academic exercise and yet another version of events. I think we need to ask BEAmer just what did they consider and what did they reject as evidence.

Yet, I find it quite interesting that one of the recommendations of the French investigators is that yachts over 500 tons carry the same voyage data recorders that commercial ships carry, in that way you have absolute certainty as to the position of the ship, its speed, what alarms worked and did not work, how the rudder worked and so on.  The data on the voyage data recorder is independent, tamper-proof, and verifiable.

 

Q: Are you saying that the crew, in giving their testimonies, were not independent, not verifiable, and not tamper-proof?

A: No. Absolutely not. I’m not saying that at all, but the French investigators who ordinarily investigate commercial shipping accidents and having never investigated a yacht sinking of this kind, I think they were unhappy to discover that the only source of evidence for what actually happened on the night the yacht sank was what the crew had said to them several months after the event, and those statements were not capable, at least not easily capable, of being cross-checked, especially when the log book was lost and that yachts do not have either voyage or voice data recorders. But, for some reason it is thrown in as a recommendation, without a logical process to arrive at the recommendation.

 

Q: Do you have any knowledge about the insurance claim or what is happening in Greece?

A: As to the insurance claim, I do not want to comment because that is a something for the owners and the insurers to sort out, if it hasn’t already been settled. As to Greece, I understand there is an ongoing criminal investigation.

Mehmet-Karabryoglu-Proteksan-Turquoise-2

PHOTO: Frances Howorth

Q: The report clearly does not criticize your shipyard or its build practices, but falls short on saying where the fault lies. What are you own personal thoughts on the sinking of the yacht?

A: My own personal thoughts are not really relevant because again I have a vested interested. What I would say is that the vessel was built with state-of-the-art knowledge, and state-of-the-art class and flag rules were applied and certified as applied. She was in class, she was built to the French version of the Large Yacht Code, namely Division 242, and when she originally left the yard on delivery and subsequently when she left the yard after the warranty work, all the work had been signed off, and all of the work requested to be undertaken at the shipyard was completed and signed off by the captain. BEAmer have a copy of the complete warranty list as approved, yet they only published a single page of that list in their report. Everything that needed testing by us was tested. The BEAmer report has made no credible effort to establish the water ingress, even though as photographs show, deck furniture cushions were floating near the sinking yacht. In fact, we delivered to BEAmer a photograph we had taken a few days before the sinking showing all the deck cushions stowed in the beach club…yet there is no acknowledgement of this.

 

Q: In retrospect, is there any action you or your shipyard could have taken to prevent the loss of Yogi?

A: In retrospect, I wish we were more forceful in our suggesting to the captain not to sail on that fateful evening. We knew that a storm was coming in, and we suggested that the yacht did not sail until the following day, but the captain was determined to leave, and as the records show, determined to leave and sail into those force 8 winds at high speed, which to this day I cannot understand.

 

Q: Did the shipyard receive any cancellation of orders following the sinking?

A: Cancellation of orders? No, but people who were building with us and are still building with us asked us some very searching questions, as did existing owners of our yachts. No one terminated a yacht construction, and no one terminated negotiations with us on the basis of the sinking of Yogi.

 

Q: How did the sinking affect the morale of the workforce?

A: As I have said before, each yacht is seen, by us, as our child, and to see a child pass away is an experience a parent never wants to go through, and to say that the morale of the workforce was not affected would be a lie. They were deeply affected. Our craftsmen, shipwrights, and indeed all the designers and support staff are proud people, proud of the work that they do on each individual aspect of a yacht whether it’s seen or unseen, and they are proud of the success that all of their efforts have brought not just to the shipyard but to Turkish yacht building. We cannot live our lives forever mourning, and the yachts that we have subsequently built and are building are benefitting from a re-invigorated pride to show the world that we build some of the best yachts in the world.

 

Q: Were you forced to make cutbacks in expenditure or workforce as a direct result of the sinking?

A: Cutbacks? Yes we have made some cutbacks. Is it as a direct result of the sinking or the economic climate? It is difficult to say. It would be easy to blame the sinking of Yogi, but the fact is other yards have also made cutbacks who have not faced our tragedy.

 

Q: What do you plan to do to restore the image the shipyard had before the sinking?

A: In reality, I don’t think our image really has been damaged.  However, we have deliberately not sought to be insensitive and pretend nothing has happened. We could have been quite aggressive after the Turkish experts report. But we didn’t. We just wanted to get on with building yachts and yachts for people to be proud of and confident of. We will allow our yachts to speak for our reputation.

 

Q: What do you think the superyacht industry can learn from this tragedy?

A: Save for an exceptional weather event, no single event causes a sinking. BEAmer had no axe to grind, and we as an industry should look at their recommendations seriously. I know that some of their comments are directed specifically at the French flag, but all flags should be discussing the merits of BEAmer’s recommendations, such that they are.

However, I do believe the sinking of Yogi was a wake-up call to the whole industry to remind everyone in the industry that we build ships that can and should be able operate in harsh conditions, and everyone associated with yachts must be trained and competent not only to meet those harsh conditions but to be prepared for those harsh conditions. Whether it is regular ISM drills, regular reviews of the class status of the vessel, or a serious reconsideration of how yachts are to be used and who should crew them.

Equally we should take a step back and remember that these are not toys but ocean-going vessels, with a responsibility to keep those onboard safe, but equally, if we are to be taken seriously by the wider maritime community, we must be serious about our obligations to that wider maritime community.