Of course. I’ve said it so many times, the Jones Act will never be repealed.
The cost of using a US flag, US built ship with US crew is about double or the cost of using a flag of convenience, china built ship with Bangladesh crew making $600 a month. But the short sea shipping of a container is maybe only 25 percent of the cost. Three quarters of the cost is the longshoremen.
So using foreign ships would only save maybe 15 percent of the cost of short sea shipping for a container. The 15 percent saving isn’t much, and would offset by Homeland Security costs, not to mention additional delays.
Jones Act ships are as cheap as its ever going to be. Using foreign ships would not save consumers anything at all.
It’s shameful that you are insinuating that US flag ships can’t compete with foreign ships crewed by poor villagers. Fortunately for you I’m Sunnmøring and not easily offended by this proposterous claim.
It’s a lot smarter to do it the “American way” build the cheapest part of the vessel and fill it with foreign built equipment.
Steel is a international priced commodity and welding is the most labor intensive part of ship building. Why not use cheap foreign workers to do the work?
US shipbuilding, thanks to Henry J Kaiser, was in a world leading position at then end of WWII
In the UK we had unionized labour, poor management, good design and technology (That still exists as BMT)
The yards went under as they could not compete with Japan and Korea
Blue Funnel had their Super P’s built in Japan and the UK
to quote:
“Of the eight ‘Priam’ class ships, five were built at Vickers, one at John Brown’s on the Clyde and two at Mitsubishi’s Nagasaki Shipyard. The Japanese yard significantly outperformed the British yards on both price and delivery. The John Brown and Vickers Walker shipyards went out of business soon after building these ships. Sadly as these marvellous super cargo liners were being delivered, the container ships which would sweep them off the world’s oceans were being planned and built.”
The UK yards are slowly re-organizing.
But not all defense contracts go the UK - in fact no UK yard tendered for the MARS tankers, designed by BMT, as they knew they couldn’t compete. Design & Technology is the key.
Why does anyone think that we need a fleet of FoC tankers running up and down our coasts to ports that have no problems except overcrowding and no shortage of product?
Considering the AJAC* managed to convince the Cheeto that this is good for America I don’t see much hope that he will not fold completely.
I just wonder how you rationalize this idea that Jones Act ships contribute to the defence capability?
Most of these ships are small and of a type that is of little use to the military, assuming that the wars of the future will continue to be fought “on the other side of the world”.
There are few ships in the Jones Act fleet that is actual “ocean going” vessels (not counting ATBs as such). But aren’t those fully occupied in domestic trade at the moment?
Assuming that those ships were conscripted to carry military cargoes to far away places, who would fill the gap in the domestic trade?
Could the mothballed fleet be readied in time? If so, could they be manned up by experienced officers and crews to take on the task without stealing personnel from the domestic fleet?
If not, who would run the ships in the home fleet?
Of course, being a foreigner, I don’t have any answer to these questions but I’m sure somebody can enlighten me.
Japan, hardly a low pay country, and dependent on all imported commodities, has a highly successful shipbuilding industry.
They sell on quality and delivery.
The Japanese Shipbuilding Contract has become a near global model.
Tsuneishi with their TESS series of bulkers have been built by the hundreds, and are quoted as standard vessels for bulker chartering by the Baltic Exchange.
The minimum BASE wage for an AB under ILO / ITF recommendation is USD 614/mth. but with additions the actual wage/month is USD 1.078
This per 2016: http://www.itfseafarers.org/what_wages.cfm
Now ships are hardly operated by ABs from Bangladesh on minimum pay only. What about mentioning pay for higher ranks and other nationalities as well??
It is also not a given that if the Jones Act was replaced by something more up to date, that that would mean all stops are pulled and the cheapest crews would suddenly populate tugboats on Mississippi.
Other countries have cabotage laws and restrictions on foreign crews on national vessels, especially in domestic trade, but none have all the other restrictions and outdated regulations that is hampering US domestic shipping.
What has been called for by this article is to modify or replace the Jones Act with something else to get into the modern world.
The example of the Factory Trawler that may be banned from flying the US flag because a few plates were bent at time of import, while the vessel was fully equipped with foreign machinery is an eye opener to where this Act leads you.
To continue to patch up old rust buckets just to satisfy an obsolete law is not rational to most people and do not do anything to improve the standing of the US Maritime industry, or create jobs for US mariners.
A fleet of modern vessels that meet international standard, (not tugs/barges/ATBs etc.) supplying an efficient logistic service to satisfy the requirement of US businesses is the way to go.
If the US yards are not able to build such vessels at competitive rates, so be it. They may be forced to modernize their facilities and management methods. Or maybe even learn to import hull and/or sections from yards in foreign countries, able to weld steel together at lower costs. Transport is cheap if you use modern HLVs, like the rest of the world.
This refusal to accept the modern reality is what is killing the US Maritime Industry, not Bangladeshi seafarers at low wages.
Us shipyards use cheap foreign labor. They are awash in Polish and other foreign welders. One of the scumbag Gulf Coast shipyards lost a big class action lawsuit about their slave labor treatment of foreign workers.
If it were not for the Jones Act, there would be no US maritime industry. I can tell you that American tugboat owners are very anxious to but cheap Tugs built in China and to replace their American crews with low cost Mexican, Honduran, and Filipino seamen.
If we want to “save consumers money” why waste time on maritime. Maritime is too small to have a meaningful effect on the national economy.
Let’s save real money, replace the doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators with foreign workers. Allow foreign health insurance companies to sell policies in the US.
Next, let’s replace all the stupid, underworked, overpaid public school teachers with teachers from India.
Let’s replace all the truck drivers and longshoremen with Mexicans. That would save real money.
The first place to start in maritime savings and improvements would be to replace the USCG shipping, inspection and manning functions by contracting that out to the NMD, MCA, DNV GL or Lloyds.
I repeat: You can replace the Jones Act with a new and up to date Cabotage Act that still require American mariners on American vessels in domestic trade, as you now have for foreign built American ships in overseas trade.
Your last idea about replacing USCG as the Maritime Authority to inspect vessels, issue COCs and specify manning etc. is very good and in line with how other shipping nations do it.
There may be qualified Americans available that can do that. There are already some that is running several of the largest FOC registers with a tonnage and manning number many times that of the US fleet, incl. domestic and inland.
If not, I’m sure DNV-GL could do a credible job for a decent fee.
I’m sure he meant to build hulls and/or hull sections in places where it can be done cheaper, just like European, Korean and Japanese yards are already doing very successfully and as I also said in post 29 above.
It isn’t just the hull and machinery … it is an American industry that employees thousands of Americans. The latest attack allows FoC deep sea ships into our coastwise trade and replace American ships and mariners. That is the threat and it is one of the “defense capability” issues. When FoC deep sea ships eliminate all American mariners and maritime support industries then the US will be at the mercy of any and all foreign shipping interests. We will have sold out one more critical part of our domestic capabilities, a potentially fatal move for the sake of putting a few more million dollars into the pockets of lobbyists, politicians, and carpetbaggers.
There are few deep sea ships in the coastwise trade because we have railway, pipeline, and road transport that serves the interior. The Gulf to East Coast pipelines were built in WW2 to eliminate the need for coastwise tanker shipping. We have 3 coasts that have tug and barge service to provide services that cannot be performed economically by land transport. There really isn’t much need for large ships in coastwise trade. Allowing FoC boxboats and tankers to to pickup local work at the expense of domestic coastwise carriers before the return voyage would be a suicidal move on our part.
All the questions you ask in your post answer questions as to why it is insane to destroy our domestic marine transportation industry. This race to the bottom has to end.
I agree; it is INSANE to destroy your domestic marine transportation industry by refusing to join the modern world of shipping.
Force your ship building industry to modernize and teach them not to be dependent on Government subsidies, either directly or through over priced Government contracts.
Those are welfare recipient incomes in the US. The base wage for an american AB on a deep sea ship is 5 times more at around USD 3500/mo and with additions and built in OT, an AB who can find his ass with both hands can easily make 6 times more than USD 1078/mo.
If you have law saying American mariners on American vessels that is NOT an issue. You just don’t need to have the Jones Act to do that. A new and improved version will do.