Well said. Gary Chouest may be the power in the gulf but compared to the people on Wall St. who would benefit from the disappearance of the Jones Act, he’s nothing but a fly waiting to be swatted. His billions bear no threat to the power of Wall St. The Jones Act will fall. It’s time we all got used to the idea.
If you say something enough times, eventually it will come true…
After reading this thread a few questions popped into my mind.
I recall seeing a separate thread a while back the was in regards to the operating costs of running a vessel under the US flag. The difference between the US flagged ships vs foreign were staggering; however, the highest contributing factor was the higher wages earned by US mariners. Through further research on the industry, I discovered that the majority of cargo carried by US flagged container ships and ro/ro vessels are food-aid or military vehicles/supplies based on government subsidies or military contract and what not.
Anyways, what about ships flagged out of other high standard of living countries such as a few Swedish flagged Wilhelmsen ro/ro ships? I saw a documentary about one of their vessels and the non-licensed up to the Captain were all Swedes, and carrying commercial cargo.
Maersk I understand has a large number of offshore crewing agencies for un-licensed positions, but aren’t the majority of their mates and engineers from Denmark and the UK? Do the European mariners earn much lower wages even though they are not FoC vessels necessarily? Is the difference in our pay SO great that it would just not work for a US flagged, non-Jones Act vessel to engage in foreign commercial trade?
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;133772]Well said. Gary Chouest may be the power in the gulf but compared to the people on Wall St. who would benefit from the disappearance of the Jones Act, he’s nothing but a fly waiting to be swatted. His billions bear no threat to the power of Wall St. The Jones Act will fall. It’s time we all got used to the idea.[/QUOTE]
JESUS CHRIST! It ain’t just Gary Chouest but he is the most powerful. It is also James Fabrikant (Seacor) who has a huge dog in the fight plus Saltchuk Resources, Alexander and Baldwin, Kirby International, Crowley Maritime, Overseas Shipholding Group, Horizon Lines (yawn), Shane Guidry and his Wall Street money, and the list goes on and on. The Jones Act ain’t just deep sea ships but virtually the entire US maritime industry!
As much as everybody seems to think the likes of John McCain or Charles Grassley can bring down the Jones Act, you are deluding yourselves. The pro JA faction in both the House and Senate is large and strong and well funded by pro JA money. Let the Joiseyites squawk about their salt, but the JA has been the law of the land for almost 100 years and it ain’t going nowhere! THAT’S WHERE THE SMART MONEY SQUAWKS!
[QUOTE=c.captain;133799]JESUS CHRIST! Let the Joiseyites squawk about their salt, but the JA has been the law of the land for almost 100 years and it ain’t going nowhere! THAT’S WHERE THE SMART MONEY SQUAWKS![/QUOTE]
I sure hope so.
Let us expose these anti-American traitors, who would rather our jobs and ships be sent away in the name of “free” trade, leaving OUR Nation genuinely weaker for the doing of it.
Let us expose them one small deed at a time.
For that is how their treason is done.
[QUOTE=+A465B;133800]I sure hope so.
Let us expose these anti-American traitors, who would rather our jobs and ships be sent away in the name of “free” trade, leaving OUR Nation genuinely weaker for the doing of it.
Let us expose them one small deed at a time.
For that is how their treason is done.[/QUOTE]
Waivers are BS but luckily Jones Act waivers are not handed out like candy at Halloween such as with the foreign mariner waivers in the GoM which is not a JA issue but an Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act one. The tide is turning in our favor for no other reason that the OMSA companies see too much valuable business being lost so finally are stepping up to the plate by building American IMR vessels to get the Norwegians, et all out of the GoM. By going to US ships for this work, then the laws of manning of US flagged vessels protects us since US citizens must make up the crew. Of course what we also need to see are large offshore support vessels being American built or at least American manned yet sadly except for Helix, no company is doing that. Will Technip now American man their large pipelay vessels in the GoM now that they have become an American company with their purchase of Global? We know the 1200 is US manned but what about the DEEP BLUE? Not yet but maybe coming? I hope so!
If you read the MARAD report on the subject from 2011 or 2012, I don’t remember which, it shows that the mariners do much up a large part of the added cost of American vessels, but not the lion’s share. The single biggest expense is the cost of the vessels, which, granted is only a one time expense, but it is such a large expense that it would take far more than the useful life of the vessel for the extra costs of US mariners to even approach the extra cost of US construction. The MARAD report attributed our short comings to some other things as well but I don’t have it right in front of me and I can’t think of any other details off the top of my head.
So I guess people like McCain are saying doing away with the Jones Act would be beneficial in that we could open up the coastal trade and domestic shipping and creating “free trade” without government protectionism…but is someone like McCain’s “ideal” model that the doing away of the Jones Act would lead to having American companies build ships overseas, flag them US, and hire US mariners? So the worry is the Jones Act being gone just open up the domestic market to Flag of Convenience and all the US mariners fu%ked out of a job?
Based on my understanding from just reading the forum, I tend to agree with some of the other members in that the “ideal model” I mentioned, although bad for shipyards, does sound pretty good; however, it is just another footstep down the road to Filipino and Croatian crews running pretty much everything domestically ie get rid of one part of the Jones Act just makes it easier to do away with the rest.
What do the unions say about topics like this? Do they just downplay the magnitude of the issue at stake and sugar coat everything?
[QUOTE=MandolinGuy;133817]What do the unions say about topics like this? Do they just downplay the magnitude of the issue at stake and sugar coat everything?[/QUOTE]
there are no issues at stake except that a bunch of business interests in AK, HI and PR are pissed off having to pay a premium to support a critical national industry. Of course, the occasional shipper of road salt as well. What is critical is that you don’t hear the oil companies screaming that they need foreign ships. That should tell all of us something!
Ah yes, and those business interest fat cats at the top in HI, AK, and PR given the Jones Act was abolished would probably keep all of the savings to themselves and keep the price of consumer goods and food the same…just to
never shed light on the issue again.
[QUOTE=MandolinGuy;133836]Ah yes, and those business interest fat cats at the top in HI, AK, and PR given the Jones Act was abolished would probably keep all of the savings to themselves and keep the price of consumer goods and food the same…just to
never shed light on the issue again.[/QUOTE]
you’ll notice a lot of their howling is not to repeal the Jones Act entirely, just the part that pertains to them!
EFFING ASSHOLES!
Speaking of the oil companies, SeaRiver takes delivery late next month of their new tanker Liberty Bay. Funny that she is home ported in Prince William Sound, AK.
[QUOTE=Texaco;133856]Speaking of the oil companies, SeaRiver takes delivery late next month of their new tanker Liberty Bay. Funny that she is home ported in Prince William Sound, AK.[/QUOTE]
Also, this Houston oil spill happened really close to the anniversary of the Valdez spill. Weird.
I took this from a good article on the gCaptain home page–
“The Jones Act came under its most recent attack beginning in February when it was unfairly blamed for New Jersey’s salt shortage, leading to some bad press that the law blocked much needed salt from reaching[B] New Jersey roadways[/B].”
Why does this sound so familiar???
[QUOTE=MandolinGuy;133784]After reading this thread a few questions popped into my mind.
I recall seeing a separate thread a while back the was in regards to the operating costs of running a vessel under the US flag. The difference between the US flagged ships vs foreign were staggering; however, the highest contributing factor was the higher wages earned by US mariners. Through further research on the industry, I discovered that the majority of cargo carried by US flagged container ships and ro/ro vessels are food-aid or military vehicles/supplies based on government subsidies or military contract and what not.
Anyways, what about ships flagged out of other high standard of living countries such as a few Swedish flagged Wilhelmsen ro/ro ships? I saw a documentary about one of their vessels and the non-licensed up to the Captain were all Swedes, and carrying commercial cargo.
Maersk I understand has a large number of offshore crewing agencies for un-licensed positions, but aren’t the majority of their mates and engineers from Denmark and the UK? Do the European mariners earn much lower wages even though they are not FoC vessels necessarily? Is the difference in our pay SO great that it would just not work for a US flagged, non-Jones Act vessel to engage in foreign commercial trade?[/QUOTE]
to answer part of your last question, YES. Without MSP or PL480 (may be wrong on that program #) a very large # of US
Flag operators would flag out and give us the boot. Within 15 mos or so of coming off MSP (25 plus yr old ships), all C-10s flagged out or scrapped. Recent changes in govt food aid program to give cash instead of wheat, corn has Liberty toying with idea of flagging out some of their US flag from start Japanese/Korean built bulkers. Another item that also hurts us is telling a potential shipping company looking to hire US mariners (for an FOC hull) is Health Plan contributions. A Norwegian outfit approached MMP to man their tankers some time in last 10yrs. They clearly knew what they were getting into as far as wages go, but their interest vanished when they were given the cost per man per day for health insurance. It was alien to them and also simply not cost effective for the bottom line.
Maersk, the world’s largest shipping company has very, very few Danish or European flag hulls. Only Danish flag I have ever seen were ones named “insert female name here” Maersk. With exception of MLL (including those BBC ones), almost everything “X” Maersk is FOC. There might be a European Capt and C/E, on FOC, but everyone else I see on deck or hanging around house is of the short, brown persuasion.
I would be surprised if there were not more US flag ships engaged in global trade crewed only by US nationals than the same for all European flag vessels manned similarly, combined. I could be wrong, but I just don’t see many box boats flying German, Dutch, British, French, Spanish, Italian, etc. flags when I pull into Singapore, Rotterdam, Charleston, Jebel Ali, Oakland, etc.
[QUOTE=MandolinGuy;133817]So I guess people like McCain are saying doing away with the Jones Act would be beneficial in that we could open up the coastal trade and domestic shipping and creating “free trade” without government protectionism…but is someone like McCain’s “ideal” model that the doing away of the Jones Act would lead to having American companies build ships overseas, flag them US, and hire US mariners? So the worry is the Jones Act being gone just open up the domestic market to Flag of Convenience and all the US mariners fu%ked out of a job?
Based on my understanding from just reading the forum, I tend to agree with some of the other members in that the “ideal model” I mentioned, although bad for shipyards, does sound pretty good; however, it is just another footstep down the road to Filipino and Croatian crews running pretty much everything domestically ie get rid of one part of the Jones Act just makes it easier to do away with the rest.
What do the unions say about topics like this? Do they just downplay the magnitude of the issue at stake and sugar coat everything?[/QUOTE]
Lately, the unions have been much more worried about MSP and PL480 than Jones Act. And they should be.
Just as Jones Act sailing mariners should be… Having 20-25 ships flag out would not be good for anybody. That’s approximately 850 unlimited tonnage/HP mates, engineers, qmeds, and ABs who have to work somewhere. It’s not like they can just go to another union ship. They lost their ship, lost their billet. In most cases, they go right back to the hall and ship off the board. That may take months to get a temp job, and years of those temp jobs before they get an offer for perm job. In a lot of cases perm jobs are only available to capt, cm, ce, 1ae, 1 bosun, stwd, and 1 electrician.
A lot of them will come right down to GOM if that ever happens. A big supply of high level qualification (tonnage/hp ) mariners could be very bad for wages down here, especially for deck hands and the E/R.
The jones act isn’t going anywhere, but I don’t understand why labor (not to be interpreted as unions) between airlines, truckers, maritime, and similar don’t band together and lobby for more collective protection?
If we fall, airlines are next.
If the Jones Act ever seriously comes under fire, all it’s going to take to kill that is one senator or congressman to stand up and say that anyone who votes to repeal it is against national security. That is the trump card nowadays, if you vote against national security you’re helping terrorists. End of story.
[QUOTE=c.captain;133805] Of course what we also need to see are large offshore support vessels being American built or at least American manned yet sadly except for Helix, no company is doing that. Will Technip now American man their large pipelay vessels in the GoM now that they have become an American company with their purchase of Global? We know the 1200 is US manned but what about the DEEP BLUE? Not yet but maybe coming? I hope so![/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t expect to see Technip crewing with US mariners on Deep Blue or their other large pipelay vessels. The Global Orion is almost exclusively crewed with Americans. The 1200 not as much as you think. Despite the acquisition of Global, they have sold off all the barges, and have significantly reduced the office personnel in Houston. Let’s just say that there is very little left but a handful of people left for Technip’s USA marine operations presence.
WHAT an EFFING LOAD!
take this all you Jones Act Nattering Nabobs of Negativism
By Duncan Hunter and Steve Scalise Tuesday, March 25, 2014
U.S. shipping contributes billions to the national economy
Those searching for signs of hope in the U.S. economy need look no further than an industry too often taken for granted — the American maritime industry.
In the midst of a renaissance that is creating jobs and leading an American economic recovery, the men and women who work on U.S. vessels and in U.S. shipyards collectively contribute billions to our national economy.
The growth opportunities in the domestic maritime sector stem from the boom in domestic oil production. Leading this boom is the high demand to move the abundance of natural gas and oil being produced here at home. In fact, recent headlines have celebrated the resurgence in U.S. shipbuilding, with our home states of California and Louisiana among the nation’s shipyard leaders.
The latest example of this economic renaissance can be found in San Diego, where the construction of the world’s first liquefied natural gas-powered container ships are underway. These vessels are not only the most advanced, environmentally progressive vessels of their kind, but they also represent $350 million in U.S. investment, support 600 American shipyard jobs and brighten the future of the indispensable domestic maritime industry.
The San Diego project is far from the only notable example of the innovation and investment that is taking place in the domestic maritime industry today. Seven of the top 10 busiest ports in the United States are found along the Gulf Coast. Nearly 30,000 Louisianans work in the private sector on the front lines as they build and repair ships, earning an average salary of more than $70,000 in the process.
American companies and workers are applying American ingenuity — and investing billions of dollars — to meet the nation’s transportation needs. Whether through new vessel construction, innovative technology or rigorous safety training, at a time when other industries are suffering from uncertainty, the domestic maritime industry is investing in its future and safeguarding its resilience. All Americans will reap the benefits.
This growth would not be possible without the Merchant Marine Act passed by Congress in 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, which requires that vessels moving cargo between U.S. ports be owned by American companies, crewed by American mariners and built in American shipyards. The resulting benefits cannot be understated: More than 40,000 American-owned vessels built in American shipyards and crewed by American mariners move agricultural goods, petroleum, coal, natural gas, chemicals and other essential commodities safely and efficiently along our rivers and coastlines. The domestic maritime industry supports nearly 500,000 jobs and almost $100 billion in economic output.
The security importance of this law is equally, if not more important than the economic benefits. For decades, U.S. military leaders have supported the Jones Act because of its national and homeland security benefits. One remarkable, historic example came on Sept. 11, 2001, when the New York maritime community responded to unbelievable tragedy in a most astonishing manner, assisting with the largest maritime evacuation on record as it transported more than 500,000 people away from Manhattan after the attacks. Additionally, the Jones Act supports our men and women in uniform. During the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 90 percent of all needed material was moved to the war zones using water transportation.
The domestic maritime industry also protects America’s security interests within our own borders. Our connected system of waterways links the heart of our nation to our coasts. Without the Jones Act, vessels and crews from foreign nations could move freely on U.S. waters, creating a more porous border, increasing possible security threats and introducing vessels and mariners who do not adhere to U.S. standards into the bloodstream of our nation.
We are blessed to have fellow Americans operating U.S. vessels between our ports and on our waterways. Our mariners are best in class in their training, safety and commitment to this great land. Waterborne commerce and our nation’s maritime base are vital to our nation’s economy, security and quality of life.
The Jones Act should be hailed as a commercial and a public policy success. It is the critical factor that ensures a vibrant domestic maritime sector, which in turn helps propel the American economy and protect vital U.S. national and homeland security interests.
American maritime is investing in itself and leading an economic recovery. We would be wise to not get in its way.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana are Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
to paraphrase what a man once said:
“I’ll give you my Jones Act when you take it from my cold, dead hands”
.
Let me ask a question.
Would the US economy be better off, if a reasonable portion of the goods in US FOREIGN TRADE (goods coming from or going to foreign countries), say 33 percent, were required to be carried on US built, flagged, and manned ships?