Jones Act Attack


#41

lest any of us forget but this is what happens when a nation’s protections for its coastwise trade are thrown under a bus for the sake of greater corporate profits…

[B]Another Unpaid Crew Working in Australia[/B]

By MarEx 2016-10-13

For the second time in as many months, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has detained a foreign-owned vessel off Gladstone in central Queensland.

AMSA acted against the Indian-owned Maratha Paramount on Friday after an inspection of the bulk carrier by the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF).

ITF National Coordinator Dean Summers says the captain admitted the 22 Indian crew had not been paid for more than two months.

“Our inspector found that the ship was pretty shoddy,” said Summers. “The inspector went straight to the captain’s accounts and the wages and found that even though the captain had asked the crew to sign off on receiving the wages, nobody had received wages since the end of July.”

The inspector also found the ship was poorly maintained, and the crew was running out of food.

“There was only a very scant amount of food, I think three bags of frozen vegetables, half a bag of rice and little else,” said Summers.

“The quality of water was the color of tea, and it looked just absolutely disgraceful.”

Four days after its detention by Australian authorities, the ship’s owners paid the crew and met a series of other conditions.

The Maratha Paramount is registered in the Marshall Islands. It was chartered by Pacific Aluminum, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto, to transport alumina from Gladstone to Newcastle.

The Case of the Fujian Five Stars

It is the second time this year Rio Tinto has been linked to a foreign vessel detained for not paying crew.

In August, AMSA detained the Hong Kong-owned Fujian Five Stars with a $10 million cargo of coal. It had been abandoned off Gladstone, along with its unpaid crew, for more than a month.

The crew of 20 had insufficient food and had not been paid for five months.

Emergency provisions were sent to the cargo ship twice before the owners finally obeyed AMSA’s order to pay the crew and provision the ship for its journey to China.

Foreign Vessels Replace Australian Crews

In February, the Australian crew of bulk carrier CSL Melbourne was ordered off the ship by police and security guards while it was docked in Newcastle.

The ship had transported alumina from Gladstone to Newcastle for Pacific Aluminum for eight years.

In its place, Pacific Aluminium has used foreign-owned vessels with temporary licenses, according to the ITF.

“Pacific Aluminum has chartered a whole range of foreign-owned ships to replace that one single Australian ship,” Summers says.

"When we get access to those ships we can find some pretty disgraceful conditions on board. Sometimes they don’t even sign up to international minimum standard for conditions and wages, and that’s very alarming, particularly when seafarers are hurt or injured.”

The Temporary License Scheme

The temporary license scheme, under which the Maratha Paramount is able to operate in Australian waters, was introduced by the federal government in 2012.

The licenses are valid for 12 months, and the number of voyages under a license is unlimited.

“We’re now surpassing 8,000 voyages since June 2012 when the system started,” said Chris McGuire, director of maritime consultancy firm Strategic Marine Group.

"As time goes, on we’re transporting more and more cargo via the temporary licences.

“We can just look at the number of vessels in Australia. There have been some specific vessels that have left the coast over the last 12 to 18 months, including CSL Melbourne. They’re being replaced by temporary licenses.”

The ITF is calling on resource companies to support domestic shipping. Summers says companies like Pacific Aluminium need to step up. “They need to play a bit more of a positive role and ensure the ships they charter are of a high quality and at least pay their crew and feed their crew, and allow the ITF to check that,” he said.

since we are rapidly reaching a point where the thought of a President Trump becomes an impossibility we can rest on that ugly prospect but we can never rest that there will always remain a persistent voice in the Congress calling for the Jones Act to be repealed or at least drastically changed to allow exactly the conditions this article so graphically describes in ugly detail. let us never tire in our fight to preserve what little we have to ensure that there will always be some US Merchant Marine.


#42

The issue coming down the pipe isn’t the Jones Act, I’m sure that will always be there, but manning. Will we have enough man power to crew the vessels? I betting we won’t once the full force of the new STCW regulations are felt. Unless a mariner is in the Union of with a benevolent employer it will cost thousands of dollars to maintain his license, couple that with increasing scrutiny on Medicals and lack of interest in the field your going to see less bodies shipping out. Figure 3 to 5 years before companies begin to ask for waivers for foreigners.


#43

Some damn foreigner dear to have an opinion on the Jones Act: http://www.tugtechnologyandbusiness.com/news/view,jones-act-keeps-us-behind-on-workboat-technology_45128.htm


#44

Yes that damned foreigner wants to bring his foreign built boats he already owns into our market. That damned Jones Act ruins his preferred business model. FUCK HIS BUSINESS MODEL AND FUCK ALL OF HIS TUGBOATS! Obviously all of the equipment domestically in use is up to the task. If not I’m sure one of OUR fine tug companies would build a whole fleet of ASD’s similar to or better than his boats.


#45

Fuck that guy.


#46

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;191920]Yes that damned foreigner wants to bring his foreign built boats he already owns into our market. That damned Jones Act ruins his preferred business model. FUCK HIS BUSINESS MODEL AND FUCK ALL OF HIS TUGBOATS! Obviously all of the equipment domestically in use is up to the task. If not I’m sure one of OUR fine tug companies would build a whole fleet of ASD’s similar to or better than his boats.[/QUOTE]

Looks like some American didnt get the memo and is building some. (story in same newsletter as O’bugs)
ECO tugs with azmuthing units


#47

And now we wait for Google Master ChEng to copy and paste 12 year old design drawings of zdrive tugs. Maybe throw in a wiki article explaining engineering, design and control philosophy of azimuth drives.


#48

[QUOTE=ombugge;191911]Some damn foreigner dear to have an opinion on the Jones Act: http://www.tugtechnologyandbusiness.com/news/view,jones-act-keeps-us-behind-on-workboat-technology_45128.htm[/QUOTE]

His opinion is that the Jones Act hurts his company’s ability to use their foreign boats to take US business.

The Jones Act doesn’t prevent US companies from building their own, state of the art, ASD or Voith Drive tugs like all major tug companies are currently doing.


#49

[QUOTE=coldduck;191921]Fuck that guy.[/QUOTE]

and give him a swift boot to his pea sized balls…

nothing stopping him from being a 49% owner of a US operation with US built tugs with US citizen crews but he doesn’t want that because he’ll make less M_O_N_E_Y!


#50

Dubious fluff piece of no merit. Laughable, really.

Nice try though.

Sorry, not sorry Svitzer can’t enter US market.


#51

[QUOTE=Slick Cam;191929]Dubious fluff piece of no merit. Laughable, really.

Nice try though.

Sorry, not sorry Svitzer can’t enter US market.[/QUOTE]

Don’t be too sure that Svitzer will not be there. They are a part of the A.P.Moller-Maersk Group, which has been active in US Shipping for 35 years and still is.

Even if they should be allowed to bring in existing tugs (which is doubtful) they would hire Americans to man them. (which is compulsory)

They will probably do like ECO, build tugs to they preferred design, with their preferred machinery and equipment, but at an American yard of their choice. (Or buy an existing yard to do so)
If ECO can do so, why not Maersk? (See “Chouest in Valdez”, post #91 & 93)

APM Terminals North America Inc. is a A.P.Moller-Maersk owned company operating several Container Terminals in USA: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4391837
They can probably find use for some Svitzer tugs to service their operation.


#52

If they want to enter the US docking tug market under the laws of the land, with US built hulls crewed by US merchant mariners, more power to them. Good luck.


#53

[QUOTE=Slick Cam;191946]If they want to enter the US docking tug market under the laws of the land, with US built hulls crewed by US merchant mariners, more power to them. Good luck.[/QUOTE]

I would think they have the capacity and know-how to break into the US market. There should be no doubt that
Svitzer, backed by Maersk Line Ltd., has the muscles and clout to operate in the US, if they should so desire.

They are already in the Americas: https://worldmaritimenews.com/archives/182378/svitzer-firms-presence-in-the-caribbean/
More to the point, they are a major player in the tug market in Australia, which is as hard, if not harder, to break into then the US. They are also in China, also not an easy place to operate tugs for foreign companies.


#54

social media junkies, meatloafs like RBN Energy, Tobias Koenig know nothing about the JA and strickly nothing about the shipping industry markets and the LAW.


#55

A Canadian Trucking Company cannot cross the bridge in Detroit to take a load from Deadborn Michigan and haul it 5 miles to Detroit, even for a quick $2000 for 30min…, totally illegal and will get caught by the U.S CBP.

The company [B]can[/B] however drop its load (say Ohio) and re-load skids to be hauled back in Toronto.

Cabotage law (Jones ACT) [B]have nothing extraordinary.

[/B]


#56

[QUOTE=ombugge;191911]Some damn foreigner dear to have an opinion on the Jones Act: http://www.tugtechnologyandbusiness.com/news/view,jones-act-keeps-us-behind-on-workboat-technology_45128.htm[/QUOTE]

EUROPEAN whining in the Medias (now pitch their business in New York [B]“Blaming the Traffic on the I-95 on the Jones Act”.[/B]

but have similar laws into their country, France Italy, Norway). figure…


#57

[QUOTE=lm1883;191535]The issue coming down the pipe isn’t the Jones Act, I’m sure that will always be there, but manning. Will we have enough man power to crew the vessels? I betting we won’t once the full force of the new STCW regulations are felt. Unless a mariner is in the Union of with a benevolent employer it will cost thousands of dollars to maintain his license, couple that with increasing scrutiny on Medicals and lack of interest in the field your going to see less bodies shipping out. Figure 3 to 5 years before companies begin to ask for waivers for foreigners.[/QUOTE]

Do you Know the number of waiver that all foreign flagged vessels currently operating the numbers of all current applications for waivers from the Jones Act and the companies, (both foreign and domestic) seeking the waivers from USCG.

At least 400 demand by foreign companies PER year. a Potential for Corruption on a massive scale.


#58

How many waivers are granted?


#59

[QUOTE=lm1883;192057]How many waivers are granted?[/QUOTE]

waivers to allow foreign vessels in the coastwise trade are only made on a temporary basis usually in case of some natural disaster when the flow of petroleum is disrupted. as far as I know they are only granted on a voyage basis by the US Customs and Border Patrol and not the USCG. CBP also is the enforcement agency where Jones Act violations are concerned. Any attempt by a foreign owner to get a longer term waiver is always met with vociferous opposition from the US operators and often strong opposition happens during these period where short term waivers are granted but they usually go through all the same.

now, in the GoM there is a whole separate statute from the Jones Act which is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and that is supposed to be enforced by the USCG but they have been corrupted by energy interests to much so that there in no real enforcement and plenty of waivers granted under what I say is false pretenses however no big US flag vessel operator has challenged this and until that happens expect business as usual down in the swamp.


#60

[QUOTE=ombugge;191955]I would think they have the capacity and know-how to break into the US market. There should be no doubt that
Svitzer, backed by Maersk Line Ltd., has the muscles and clout to operate in the US, if they should so desire.[/QUOTE]

you do realize that Maersk Line Ltd. has no operations in the coastwise trades…don’t you?

I believe that as long as they are owned by their Danish parent (AP Moller Group) they can never qualify for any domestic trade operations.