Abandonment of sailors

My current ship’s master today ordered our two third mates off the ship and to buy their own tickets home to the United States. Their reliefs arrived but the company has been unable to provide travel back to the States due to a lack of flights. No cash was advanced to them. They were told to pay with their own credit cards. Upon return to Norfolk they can request to be reimbursed however the flights to the U.S. may or may not be reimbursed due to the ‘Fly America Act.’

They didn’t volunteer to go without travel. They didn’t want to risk not being reimbursed. They were told to go.

Anyone else see this before?

18 USC 2195: Abandonment of sailors

§2195. Abandonment of sailors
Whoever, being master or commander of a vessel of the United States, while abroad, maliciously and without justifiable cause forces any officer or mariner of such vessel on shore, in order to leave him behind in any foreign port or place, or refuses to bring home again all such officers and mariners of such vessel whom he carried out with him, as are in a condition to return and willing to return, when he is ready to proceed on his homeward voyage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

What was the reason to go to such drastic step by the Captain?

The company is responsible for repatriation of the seaman. That means the company has to make sure they get back. Usually an agent of some kind is assigned the task of making sure the mariner makes it on a flight. Doesn’t have to be a flight they like.

Who pays is separate issue. The union contracts I am familiar with if a crew member quits or gets fired overseas the crew member pays all expenses. Typically the costs get deducted from the crew’s voucher.

Were they KP grads?

The two mates were properly relieved. They were not fired and they did not quit. There aren’t any seats on a U.S. airline from this small Caribbean island at this time. MSC is required to use a U.S. airline thanks to the ‘Fly America Act.’ So, to resolve the problem the master told the purser to tell them to find and fund their own way back while refusing them passage to another port that may have available flights.

These mates have been told their flights back to the U.S. may not be reimbursed because they must fly on a non-American carrier. This is why they don’t want to go.

I understand the intent of the law. Back in the bad ole days an unscrupulous master could save himself some trouble and money by dumping his crew in a foreign port far from home with a promise of an IOU should they ever make it back. These aren’t the bad old days. A credit card and the Internet can get almost anyone almost anywhere.

Still, this isn’t right and it isn’t legal. I hope one of them makes a formal complaint about it.

[QUOTE=DeckApe;166562]The two mates were properly relieved. They were not fired and they did not quit. There aren’t any seats on a U.S. airline from this small Caribbean island at this time. MSC is required to use a U.S. airline thanks to the ‘Fly America Act.’ So, to resolve the problem the master told the purser to tell them to find and fund their own way back while refusing them passage to another port that may have available flights.

These mates have been told their flights back to the U.S. may not be reimbursed because they must fly on a non-American carrier. This is why they don’t want to go.

I understand the intent of the law. Back in the bad ole days an unscrupulous master could save himself some trouble and money by dumping his crew in a foreign port far from home with a promise of an IOU should they ever make it back. These aren’t the bad old days. A credit card and the Internet can get almost anyone almost anywhere.

Still, this isn’t right and it isn’t legal. I hope one of them makes a formal complaint about it.[/QUOTE]

This not just “not right”. Its outrageous that a Government agency, and the master, is abandoning US seamen in a foreign port like this. They should indeed file a formal complaint and complain to their Congressmen. If this is an example of the master’s problem solving skills, he should be fired. I have to wonder how the relief mates managed to fly in to this island with no US air service. I have to wonder how whoever makes arrangements for crew change thought it was a good idea to send relief mates out to an island without making arrangements to bring the mates being relieved home.

However, the mates are not in the darkest heart of Africa, and they only going to be out of pocket a few bucks to take the next puddle jumper flight to Puerto Rico, and then fly home on a US airline.

[QUOTE=DeckApe;166562]The two mates were properly relieved. They were not fired and they did not quit. There aren’t any seats on a U.S. airline from this small Caribbean island at this time. MSC is required to use a U.S. airline thanks to the ‘Fly America Act.’ So, to resolve the problem the master told the purser to tell them to find and fund their own way back while refusing them passage to another port that may have available flights.

These mates have been told their flights back to the U.S. may not be reimbursed because they must fly on a non-American carrier. This is why they don’t want to go.

I understand the intent of the law. Back in the bad ole days an unscrupulous master could save himself some trouble and money by dumping his crew in a foreign port far from home with a promise of an IOU should they ever make it back. These aren’t the bad old days. A credit card and the Internet can get almost anyone almost anywhere.

Still, this isn’t right and it isn’t legal. I hope one of them makes a formal complaint about it.[/QUOTE]

There are several exceptions to the Fly America Act. Most notably if no US flag is available and a foreign flag can do it to meet the mission timeline. If they adequately document the lack of availability they should be able to be reimbursed. Google ‘fly America act exceptions’. I don’t think the purser and master can tell them to fly on their own in any case since federal travel must be arranged by a contracted travel office. That alone could risk their reimbursement.

crikey, straight to port captain and he will prevent the vessel from leaving until the master hands over the cash for the repatriation.
Std procedure everywhere in the world

Are they Union?

[QUOTE=DeckApe;166562]The two mates were properly relieved. They were not fired and they did not quit. There aren’t any seats on a U.S. airline from this small Caribbean island at this time. MSC is required to use a U.S. airline thanks to the ‘Fly America Act.’ So, to resolve the problem the master told the purser to tell them to find and fund their own way back while refusing them passage to another port that may have available flights.

These mates have been told their flights back to the U.S. may not be reimbursed because they must fly on a non-American carrier. This is why they don’t want to go.

I understand the intent of the law. Back in the bad ole days an unscrupulous master could save himself some trouble and money by dumping his crew in a foreign port far from home with a promise of an IOU should they ever make it back. These aren’t the bad old days. A credit card and the Internet can get almost anyone almost anywhere.

Still, this isn’t right and it isn’t legal. I hope one of them makes a formal complaint about it.[/QUOTE]

MSC is responsible for the repatriation of the mates. That means MSC is responsible for them until they arrive in the U.S. I don’t see that requirement means the ship carry the mates to a port of their liking.

As far as abandonment goes it depends on the situation. Were these two mates left pennliess on the pier when the ship sailed or are they in a hotel on MSC’s nickel waiting for their flight arrangements? One case is possbile abandonment the other is a case of inconvenience.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;166581]As far as abandonment goes it depends on the situation. Were these two mates left pennliess on the pier when the ship sailed or are they in a hotel on MSC’s nickel waiting for their flight arrangements? One case is possbile abandonment the other is a case of inconvenience.[/QUOTE]

He said very clearly that they were ordered off the vessel and told they had to pay their own way back to the USA. That doesn’t sound like they are in a hotel on MSC’s money waiting for a flight…

[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;166582]He said very clearly that they were ordered off the vessel and told they had to pay their own way back to the USA. That doesn’t sound like they are in a hotel on MSC’s money waiting for a flight…[/QUOTE]

There are some missing pieces in this story, eveyone is free to fill in the blanks as they wish.

It sounds to me like the purser is not familiar with this “Fly USA Act” and went to the master for help. The master proposed, as a work-around, to get the mates on their way home in an expeditious manner, that the mates pay for the flights themselves and get reimbursed.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the mates were sitting in a hotel hoping that bringing up 18 USC 2195 in this case will get them a quicker flight home.

WTF? And folks wonder why MSC gets a bad rap. If they were on Articles, which I have never sailed MSC direct, but MSC contract and we were, the Master is responsible for getting these mates back to their port of engagement. Never have I heard such a fate as this on a US Flag ship. I have watched the old man fire guys in foreign ports, but as stated previously, he was still responsible to ensure their passage back home, via local agent. I cannot believe these guys are Union either, else shame on them for not contacting the Union. Regardless, what an embarassment, this is the type story you read about on gCaptain about a FoC ship dumping crew, not US Flag. Those mates should not let it go quietly, they do have a leg to stsnd on.

They should grow a set of balls and make some phone calls.

They’re not going to get anywhere in life if they don’t learn how to raise hell sometime!

[QUOTE=z-drive;166589]They should grow a set of balls and make some phone calls.[/QUOTE]

I feel sorry for those 3M because they may screw their MSC career if they make enough bother.

That master is the chicken shit one letting the office make him do that. It’s a simple phone call, “it is illegal for me to abandon then in a foreign port so either you provide hotels and transportation for them to get back to the US or they ride the ship to a port where you can do so.”

they’re screwing theirselves as without a set of balls in this business you won’t amount to anything other than a yes-man.

No, I laid out the facts as they are. These kids have been waiting for transportation home. They remained on the ship while this played out and not in a hotel or street corner ashore. The company and its travel agency tried but were unable to provide them with travel back to the U.S.

The way I see it the master had three legal options 1) have them buy their transportation then immediately reimburse them the cost of that transportation 2) bring the mates along as riders until transportation from another port was available 3) put them up in a hotel after the ship departed until transportation was available.

If I had to guess I’d say the office didn’t permit any of these options and just shrugged the problem off on the master. After all the office pukes are not liable, he is. I’m sure there’s some further backstory in the master’s in-box.

I guess there was option four: he could have invited them into his office, explained the situation, asked for their understanding and given them his assurance that no matter what happens he would personally see to it that they were made whole. That would have been classy. Instead he had the purser do his dirty work.

[QUOTE=DeckApe;166603]No, I laid out the facts as they are. These kids have been waiting for transportation home. They remained on the ship while this played out and not in a hotel or street corner ashore. The company and its travel agency tried but were unable to provide them with travel back to the U.S.

The way I see it the master had three legal options 1) have them buy their transportation then immediately reimburse them the cost of that transportation 2) bring the mates along as riders until transportation from another port was available 3) put them up in a hotel after the ship departed until transportation was available.

If I had to guess I’d say the office didn’t permit any of these options and just shrugged the problem off on the master. After all the office pukes are not liable, he is. I’m sure there’s some further backstory in the master’s in-box.

I guess there was option four: he could have invited them into his office, explained the situation, asked for their understanding and given them his assurance that no matter what happens he would personally see to it that they were made whole. That would have been classy.[I][B] Instead he had the purser do his dirty work.[/B][/I][/QUOTE]

And this is part of why MSC is such a fucking joke. What a great reputation MSC has… can’t get a relief when your time is up, but when you do, the POS Captain tells you to break out your own plastic to get yourself home because nobody can find you a seat on an American-owned bird.
But yet somehow we have a USN Warship going through a major maintenance overhaul at a [B][U]Croatian shipyard since January 2015[/U][/B] and somebody is worried about whether CIVMARS fly United vs Cuba Libre Airways?

WTF???

Can someone please tell me what the derogatory MSC acronym is? There has to be one!

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=z-drive;166578]Are they Union?[/QUOTE]

Yes, MMP, MEBA, and SIU represent in some twisted manner the CIVMARS on MSC ships.

Spot On!! No wonder MSC has difficulties retaining people. As for our warship in a foreign yard, the Mount Whitney is a command and control ship with major electronic warfare systems. You don’t see Russian warships in UK yards. Are we that dumb?