Some people will not hire Americans for a variety of reasons, including the irrational fear of lawsuits by “litigious Americans.”
Some P&I clubs limit the number of Americans their members can hire, out of similar irrational fears.
Mostly, its just that few Americans will work for small foreign wages.
Some Of our frequent gcaptain posters that usually know what they are talking about, also misunderstand the limited reach of of US law, and continue to promote this myth that American seafarers can sue any foreign ship under US law.
In my days in the medium schools standard four languages were taught: Dutch, English, German and French. In a gymnasium two more languages were added: Latin and Old Greek. Apart from the four languages I also speak Spanish, Swedish and Hungarian, also a little bit Finnish.
??? Isn’t that the EXACT reason the Jones Act exists? To ensure there are US shipyards that can build US flagged ships and a pool of US Mariners available to man them to guarantee military sealift when needed???
I disagree. in WWII, the percentage of coastwise shipping drastically declined as the coastwise fleet was used to augment the much needed ocean going merchant fleet. Following the end of the war, the percentage of shipping done by our coastwise fleet never rebounded, primarily due to the high costs that were a result of Jones Act subsidies on the ocean-going fleet.
This I do agree with. But I’d prefer that US flag coastwise trade prospered because of its value, rather than legislation.
I’m not advocating for the appeal of all maritime policy, but something does need to change.
If Wal-Mart & McDonald’s could find some U.S. labor law exemption that allowed them to hire foreign workers at foreign wages every Wal-Mart & McDonald’s would have a bunkhouse behind it full of Philippinos workers making $30 for a 12 work day doing a 11 month contract. If you don’t believe me then you don’t know much about business & capitalism. Without the Jones Act it would be the same on the U.S. waterways except the companies wouldn’t need the bunkhouses.
You’re wrong. I just happen to be a frustrated seaman. There is nothing I’d like more than to bring back both US shipbuilding and a US flagged fleet manned by American sailors. I’m sorry if that didn’t come across.
You have no idea what you are talking about. That’s why I suspect you are a government worker.
A lot has change since WW II, such as construction of the heavily subsidized interstate highway system.
Even if foreign flag shipping would do the US Coastwise trade for free, the high cost and delays of the longshoremen would still not be competive with trucks for container size loads.
If we want to save money, let’s do something that would really make a difference, like outsourcing 2 million government jobs to better educated, higher productivity, low cost workers in India.
Please do enlighten us as to your ideas on how to do that without the Jones Act.
In one post you rail against the high price of American sailors and now you say you are one? I call bullshit on this. Either that or your desire to implement policies that cut your own throat rivals even out Norwegian friend.
I didn’t rail against the salaries of the typical sailor. What I’m concerned about is the cost of the system. This includes inefficient shipbuiding costs, intransigent labor unions, inefficient and burdensome regulations, and the list goes on. But yea, I’ve never met a sailor, a shipowner, or a shipbuilder who thought he made enough. And that includes me.
Your Norwegian friend has said many times; you can have cabotage laws that requires US flag and US mariners in coastal trade.
Most countries have such laws, but without the additional “burden” that is inherent in the Jones Act.
The rights and welfare of seamen is protected in other laws and Union agreements.
As is the interests of the domestic Shipbuilding industry.
The argument that the domestic trade fleet is needed for Military Transport and preparedness doesn’t hold water. Few, if any, of the present Jones Act fleet is of a type and size needed for this purpose.
A healthy US Merchant Fleet in international trade is what is needed to maintain readiness, not a mediocre fleet of old and obsolete ships in layup, some ATBs and a huge number of tugs and barges, with a handful of modern mid-size ships (mostly tankers) in the domestic service.
A second US register, whether bases in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Island or Delaware, is what is needed. Such ships should be able to compete in world trade, or at least in trade based on US imports and exports.
The cost of US officers are not prohibitive, or uncompetitive with officers from other developed countries when you compare total costs.
A full US crew on high wages and more numerous than what is normal can only be justified with subsidies to cover the extra expenses. (Much like now for the small fleet of US flag ships actually trading overseas)
I’m not qualified to analyze all the factors but if we’re talking history, it’s also worth pointing out that US long-haul railroads, which I believe were regulated in the 60s, went bankrupt by 1970. The railroads were taken over by the federal government in the forms of Conrail and Amtrak. So yes, the US shipping industry is oversubsidized in my opinion but it is competing in part against both heavily subsidized roads and railroads which at first had artificially low prices and were forced to take a loss, and then were bailed out. Amtrak at least is still having to shoulder retirement benefits from the Railroad Retirement System for people who never worked for them.
It is interesting to note that the companies servicing Puerto Rico have invested a considerable amount of money in new ships and facilities the last several years.
The crazy thing about Amtrak is they don’t own much of their tracks. They get blamed for not making money but have to lease the tracks from freight companies that could give a damn about Amtrak and the tracks ability to move people at a 1st world speed. The few miles of track Amtrak owns make money but not enough to upgrade the tracks for world class service. Since the USA would rather subsidize highways than mass transit the USA will stay in 2nd or 3rd world status in regards to mass transit.
except those ships employ experienced citizen mariners who when there is a military mobilization are available to man ships required to ship cargo for our forces overseas.
I cannot agree with you more when it comes to having physical ships available but having a large fleet of non useful vessels does employ mariners who can transfer over to ships mobilized for service such as the RRF. a vast number of the mariners who manned the sealift in 1990-91 came from vessels not trading internationally. I myself came from the Alaskan fisheries.
and how exactly does this “second” register help military mobilization if it does not involved having 100% citizen manning? foreign nationals on these ships would not be any more of an asset on these ships than they would be today sailing on foreign flagged vessels.
please explain what you mean by this? that you believe US officers are cost effective but US seamen aren’t? ships still require unlicensed seamen and if there is a military sealift they will be just as needed as officers.
Tote and Crowley have invested over $1 billion in the Puerto Rico trade. No doubt supported by government guarantees on the financing. If the Jones Act were repealed I envision that the Puerto Rico divisions of both Tote and Crowley would be forced into bankruptcy and the taxpayer would get stuck on the debt.
Tote and Crowley would just put foreign flag ships into the Puerto Rico trade. Freight rates would stay the same.
Perhaps the new Jones Act ships would get sold by the government for 30 cents on the dollar to the West Coast divisions of Tote and Crowley for the Hawaii and Alaska trades.
OK let us take this systematically; MARAD has a fleet of obsolete vessels in layup at three location.
I don’t know how much this cost the US taxpayer per year, but I suspect a pretty penny.
I also don’t know how many, what type and exactly how long it would take to reactivate a credible fleet, if it should ever be necessary. (Lets hope not) I presume it would be weeks, if not months, since they have been inactive for years.
Besides, are there US shipyards in operation able to handle that task in reasonable time?
You say; if needed this fleet will be manned by taking experienced personnel from the active domestic fleet.
Who will then man the domestic fleet, which I assume is still needed to keep the home front going?
Now for the solutions:
A modern healthy US fleet in active operation and making money, (or at least costing less in subsidies than the RRFin layup)
These ships could be under a second US register, allowing some vetted foreign crews to be employed, but with American officers, fully certified and experienced in foreign trade.
In case of war the ships could be requisitioned by USN/MARAD, either with their foreign crews, or replacing them with US citizens from the domestic fleet. (incl. OSVs, Tugs, Fisheries and Lakers)
It is not as if the US hasn’t used foreigners in their service before, even in the military and in war situation. (Lots of Pinoys served in the Seabees during the Vietnam War)
That would protect the domestic trade, save money and increase preparedness, without loosing sovereignty, or representing any security risk.
Yes. The US probably should operate an international register and become a no tax, minimal regulation “flag of convenience” with foreign built ships and mostly foreign crew in foreign trade.
Do not get confused; the Jones Act trade will remain as it is.
Summary - In recent years, domestic shipborne commerce has lost much of its market to other modes. Although potential shipping routes run parallel to congested truck, railroad, and pipeline routes along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the Great Lakes region, the volume of cargo carried by domestic ships has declined by 61% since 1960, while the volume carried by other modes, including river barges, has more than doubled. Use of domestic ships has retreated to routes where overland modes are not available, such as between Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska and the U.S. mainland, and where oil pipelines do not exist or are at capacity. One reason for the comparatively lower usage of domestic coastal and Great Lakes shipping is that despite their inherent efficiencies, ships are often not the lowest-cost option for domestic shippers. U.S.-built ships cost six to eight times more to build than the equivalent cargo capacity provided by rail and barge equipment. The comparatively high cost is related to the absence of foreign competition in shipbuilding and the lack of economies of scale at U.S. shipyards. U.S. container ports are widely considered to be much less efficient than ports in Europe and Asia, some of which are fully automated. A 2013 study examining the feasibility of coastal container services on the East Coast found that port handling costs were the largest cost element ship operators would face. Ship crewing costs are inflated by subsidies provided to U.S. crews aboard U.S. international trading ships that have government-impelled cargoes reserved for them. Domestic ship lines compete with the international fleet when hiring maritime officers. U.S. cargo shippers have responded to the comparatively high cost of domestic ship transport by turning to land modes, exporting goods instead of selling them domestically, and utilizing oceangoing barges instead of ships for coastal transport. Oceangoing barges cost less to construct, and can require only a third as many crew as coastal ships. Since 1960, coastwise and Great Lakes tonnage carried by barges has increased 356%, while ship tonnage carried on these waters has decreased by 61%. However, oceangoing barges have significant disadvantages: they are less efficient for longer voyages, and their use does not preserve the shipbuilding and maritime crewing capabilities Congress has sought to protect. Oceangoing barges mainly carry petroleum products, suggesting that commercial shippers do not find them attractive for other types of cargo. Reviving coastal shipping would dramatically increase the capacity of the nation’s freight network. Moreover, some of the necessary infrastructure is largely in place, as many of the harbors the federal government dredges for deep-draft vessels currently have little or no ship traffic. The question is whether a different mix of federal policies would make coastal trade an attractive option for shippers and ship owners. To revive coastal shipping, the cost issues would need to be addressed. Further information on the causes of the high cost of U.S.-built ships, the justification for the crewing disparity between oceangoing barges and coastal ships, and whether automation would lower cargo-handling costs at ports would be useful in evaluating policies that might revitalize coastal shipping.