Not necessarily. I don’t think ECO has any supply boats left that have a GRT all and as far as in aware the same is true for most of the large operators. The fishing vessels that @Kingrobby linked might not have a GRT either.
Which company? Most of the companies I’m aware of that run ATBs don’t require (or even prefer) unlimited licenses. The only company I’m aware of that requires unlimited licenses is US Shipping. I’ve heard Crowley prefers unlimited licenses, at least on their 750’s, but they don’t require them.
1 Like
There is no mention of barges on my pilotage. It says “Any gross tons” Tested in Miami and New Orleans respectively.
I am aware of how pilotage is written but that doesn’t change the fact that pilotage includes the barge. Both the tonnage needed to get pilotage and the tonnage limit requiring pilotage consider tug and barge combined tonnage.
What I always disagreed with was getting unlimited tonnage on my pilotage, but limited to 1600 tons Master . Whether I handled a 10k ship or a 300k bbl barge doesn’t matter. Perhaps you missed my point. The pilot license says I can handle unlimited anything in the particular ports I drew and qualified for. Retired now so it is a moot point for me. I hope the guys running the large ATB’s now get some credit for their work/license in the future.
1 Like
The people writing these seatime letters asking for a fraudulent interpretation of the rules, the Mariners knowingly participating in it, and the USCG functionaries doing it, should all be sharing prison cells, and wondering whether they will ever be able to get a license again.
There are quite a few factorytrawlers under 1600 GRT/3000GT, but there are also quite a few that are over 1600GRT/3000GT, and thus do qualify for unlimited tonnage seatime.
However, unless you are a fisherman with factorytrawler experience, or a recent academy grad who had successful cadet shipping on a factorytrawler, it’s unlikely that you will ever get a factorytrawler mate job.
That’s true for the factory trawler fleet but some of the vessels mentioned are motherships and do occasionally hire people without industry experience. Pay is probably below what OP feels is his due.
1 Like
They already share a cell, it’s called an ATB!
Not sure why you think anything criminal is going on, ATBs are rigid and function as ITBs while underway. Seems like the Coast Guard understands this and made policy reflecting that reality.
2 Likes
Someone here will not be happy unless the tug is welded to the barge before accepting ATB’s as unlimited tonnage. 30’ to 40 ’ draft, underpowered and overloaded and still keep it on their side of the channel . My hat is off to you fellows that run those rigs. Back a ways it was 6000 HP with 250 to 300k bbl barges and 33 to 38 ’ draft. Glad the newer rigs have upped the HP and made the barges a bit smaller. Again, those people have their hands full regardless. Unlimited is deserved.
1 Like
Unlimited is earned.
If I had my way combined tug and barge tonnage would count toward an unlimited license in the US, just as it does most places in the World.
But there is nothing magic about it being an ATB, combined tug and barge tonnage should count on the wire too. Being able to transition from towing to pushing, or hip up, and the put the barge where it needs to go takes more skill than simply being pinned to the barge all the time.
3 Likes
No, that isn’t it at all. The issue is what is written in the CFR’s. That what we have to go by as far as license time, not our personal opinion.
I personally think ATB time (tub & barge aggregate tonnage) should count fully, but I am an engineer. (We don’t have the same rules and I don’t make them.) But if it counted that way then unlimited licenses should have been required from the getgo. Conversely, under that situation your 1600 ton license would then not qualify you as soon as your tug mated up to the barge. Yes your pilotage could bring it in and out but that is not the same thing. Just my opinion.
It is all about CFR’s, I agree.
Its a shame, that the US Coast Guard is giving unlimited sealetters for these ATBs against the CFRs but still allowing these vessels to be under-crewed by full ship standards. If you are gonna count these vessels as unlimited vessels (their size is that of a large ship anyway). End the loophole for ATBs just like the CG ended the crewing loophole for ITBs. It’s also a problem that many of these ATB captains and crew have never hipped-up and towed a barge. In an emergency if you break a pin in bad weather and need to make tow, it would be more dangerous due to the inexperience of the crew. Anyone who has ever worked on tugs knows that making and breaking tow is especially dangerous. Especially if you needed to catch the barge in rough seas with a captain or mate driving that has no light boat ship handling experience.
1 Like
Schuyler Line’s Tankers are MMP contracted but direct hire. And they hire permanent thirds so those jobs never come on the board. Yeah the second mates in MMP would be the bottle neck, I was talking about. You have all these green third mates fighting for maybe one MMP job of the board a year. So they would never get the seatime and move up. The ones that do have their 2nd mates might not have a A book that the career 2nd mates have so its hard to move up. A little different from private companies I know which have gotten rid of people who said they were comfortable where they were at and didn’t want to move up and fill a position. The company’s mentality is that they are going to eventually need people to fill the higher positions and being comfortable at a lower position is just creating a road block or filling a training position for someone else.
Correct me if I am wrong but I feel most of the CM & Captains in MMP, were able to get there seatime during the Gulf Wars/ Middle eastern conflicts when there a lot of third jobs on the board and a need for people. When they retire there is gaps that are hard to fill because no one has move up. Just look at the positions for Chief mate and Captain positions - especially MMP contracted companies looking for people.
My two cents is that if all these American Flag Ships weren’t union, you could get a bunch of hungry thirds currently living out of their cars near the Charleston and Norfolk MMP halls to work for these companies with a 30% pay cut. If would not only benefit the companies but the US merchant marine as a whole driving down crewing costs to a more competitive level.
1 Like
Also Central Gulf/ Waterman usually have very long hitches, not saying its impossible to get the job when they come on the board its just that they will appear less frequently in a calendar year.
You are wrong. The majority of us are just stiffs that joined the union, followed the rules, and weren’t picky about where we worked the first few years of our careers to gain points and upgrade our licenses. Granted, there were some applicant heavy companies like the AHL tankers and the legendary Asphalt Commander back then. If you show up to job call and don’t turn down anything that comes up, you can work. Especially this time of year.
My two cents are that this is a terrible idea. If you want to race to the bottom of the barrel, don’t take the rest of us with you. Your logic is very short sighted. Eventually, you end up as that Chief Mate, working your ass off for wages that the MM&P Third Mate was working for and hating your life while wondering how you can make more money. What benefit does it have to the entirety of the US fleet if we all work for less money?
I will leave you with this. You can test for your Chief Mate’s license without ever sailing a single day on your Second Mates license. You just need to hold the license and put another year on the clock. Then you can take your test and walk into any hall in the country and compete for Chief Mate jobs. Not a lot of competition for those. When you try it out you will see why. Besides, there is very little of a Second Mate’s responsibilities that transfer to the Chief Mate’s job anyway.
3 Likes
Agree with Damn Yankee, that isn’t a good plan that may drive down wages that you arent’t gonna like and no way to increase them, even at a higher position and skill level. Avoid the rush to the bottom. The non-union companies will love that particular approach . You won’t later on.
Not particularly a union fan, but will always support the mariners unions 10000 percent. I’ve seen first hand over 20 years how seafarer wages have been driven down and the skills of said mariners diminish, as well as the staffing levels.
25 years ago, your average bulk carrier had at least 25 souls on board, with European officers, particularly Dutch, Norwegian, and more than a few Germans. All very very good at their job, and the skill of the crew in general reflected that. Now? The same panamax has 17 to 18 max officers and crew that do not get sufficient rest, aren’t paid very well, and could not hold a candle to the officers and crew of years past. Then Filipino crew became officers, and crewing agencies rushed to put all Filipino crews on board. Then the Filipinos became too expensive and Ukrainians took over. Then the Ukrainians became too expensive and the Indians took over. From Indians it went to Mayamars. I might have my nationalities mixed up a bit in the “race to the bottom” (in terms of pay), but that is what I saw.
Now you have captains in their late 20s in charge of parcel tankers.
And I’ve never seen the USCG raise a stink or even want to look at timesheets to verify rest hours.
Off topic from the OP, just kind of wanted to vent…
2 Likes