[QUOTE=cappy208;69674]Nope. Don’t believe it. Your barge does not show up to load or discharge with a two man crew. It takes a village, not just the monkeys hanging out on the branches![/QUOTE]
I knew that no one would believe me, but Mr Bouchard has cut manning down on a 3 man barge down to just 2 men now, Not to toot our own horn but Bouchard has some of the very best barge-men over here !
We are back to 3 tankerman
[QUOTE=Bouchard Captain;69695]I knew that no one would believe me, but Mr Bouchard has cut manning down on a 3 man barge down to just 2 men now, Not to toot our own horn but Bouchard has some of the very best barge-men over here !
:D[/QUOTE]
So explain how your barge shows up at the dock with Two tankerman only. Does your barge magically transport itself there? When you are being levitated from one location to another who is in charge of your barge? (both legally and professionally?) Just wondering. Sometimes it appears that a Barge “Captain” is not really a Captain, but a tankerman. Other times it is certain.
The topic is ATB. That is a 'Married Unit" The tankermen are a part of the tug crew. Maybe not at your company, but most (if not all others) are a little more, how to say it… professional? Then again, Morty does lead from the top. Or as one of my friends says: “the bottle neck is always at the top!”
Crowleys new ATB I think has a crew of 19. Its on their fb page but I can’t access fb right now
If you are on a married unit “atb” and there isn’t a barge crew I feel you should get unlimited time. Some of these atb’s are larger then new jones act tankers and are ran the same way but just with smaller crews. The coast guard has been letter people on atb’s upgrade to 2/m unlimited but I’m not sure about further. Just goes to show you can get the job done with less people. And if safety is an argument I don’t by it because the atb’s that are inspected are just as safe as a tanker.
[QUOTE=crudeman89;69707]If you are on a married unit “atb” and there isn’t a barge crew I feel you should get unlimited time.[/QUOTE]
If you don’t need an unlimited license to sail on it in the first place, its a joke to give unlimited seatime for it. I love when people want to be able to take their limited license and go to work, but then want to get unlimited credit for it after the fact. Can’t have it both ways (or shouldn’t be able to)
Just my opinion, and I work on an ATB.
[QUOTE=crudeman89;69707]Just goes to show you can get the job done with less people. And if safety is an argument I don’t by it because the atb’s that are inspected are just as safe as a tanker.[/QUOTE]
I say BS to you SIR! Overwork and fatigue of crew are serious issues that compromise an ATB’s safe operating environment over a tanker’s. I speak from the direct knowledge of my engineer friend who said that the lack of QMEDs on his USSP ATB was downright dangerous because only three engineers to take care of all the machinery on the tug and barge is just not enough men and that was on a relatively new vessel. Imagine a 10+ year old ATB running on IFO with only three men in the engineering department and tell me you feel that is a safe way to operate? YOU CAN’T!
The whole reason an ATB exists is so the USCG can justify the reduced manning the ship owners demand. Pray tell me any other reason why a vessel owner would choose to build an ATB over a tanker? It isn’t for the false reason that a tug can disengage from its barge and go push another. The units are married commercially and must remain a pair for charter purposes. Send the tug away to do some other job and it gets held up returning to move my cargo you can bet I’m taking that barge off hire and will be damned pissed off in the process! A tanker is a true all weather vessel that can make more speed and hence carry more cargoes in a year. You’d think that would be a no brainer if the cost for construction was anywhere close between the two options. Once the vetters get wise to the unsafe issue of crew fatigue on ATB’s and demand higher manning levels then watch how the number of new ATB’s being ordered falls and new tankers rises. Why is 95+% of clean product in the world carried in tankers and not ATB’s?
today’s match equation to learn: LOWER MANNING = HIGHER PROFITS
.
OK, Let me clarify a few things,
#1. we do arrive at the dock as an ATB unit with about 8 or 9 personnel on-board (6 on tug 2 or 3 on barge) We “AB/Tanker-men” have living quarters on the barge 24/7
#2 Then after we are docked safely, the tug either A) breaks down and comes alongside for a fire-watch,
or B) moves other ATB barges in the local area, (we are not really a married unit we are more or less just “engaged”)
also about the title “Barge Captain” we “tanker-men” are called “Barge Captain’s” to limit the legal liability towards the owner of the company.
IE, we will go to prison, and the owner will pay any penalties or fines.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;69669]I’ve done all three - pulled a barge up the inside / ship on the inside / ship on auto pilot across the Pacific. Also a bonus fourth, towed a barge across the Pacific.[/QUOTE]
Got your first three except that I don’t have the barge across the Pacific but I do have hand steering a ship across the Pacific with a big brass telemotor yet that needed a diaper under it to soak up all the hydraulic oil that leaked from the damned thing! God, how those AB’s were beside themselves with near ecstasy when that old WWII vintage Sperry “Iron Mike” was repaired finally after a couple of weeks. Those things were like a Swiss watch inside…an electromechanical marvel that was something amazing to see taken apart and then reassembled.
I do also remember once running across a little old ex Army LT tug towing a big drydock eastbound across the Pacific. They were way out in the middle of nowhere making all of 3 knots all by themselves. I talked with the man on watch by VHF for a while and he told me that they were taking fuel off the DD when they needed it. I think he said they had been out there for 5 weeks by then and had 4 more ahead. Our normally creeping 12kts suddenly felt like a jet as we watched them disappear behind us. I kept thinking those poor pathetic sods…they must be living on canned beans, hash and Dinty Moore stew!
.
Why should the existence of a barge crew make a difference?
Be happy that, at least for now, you do get credit for barge tonnage. It isn’t day for day credit but you can still get unrestricted any gross ton licenses up to chief mate.
The scenario you describe has NOTHING to do with being a “Captain”, but being a tankerman who has signed a DOI.
FYI, the term “Barge Captain” is uniquely a New York 333 remnant of terminology. Bouchard was not only a 333 signatory, but was the first to RE SIGN with 333 after the strike. The title is only company specific and has NO validity or legal connotation. An endorsement as tankerman is NOT a license. And certainly a Captains license!? It is funny that you are stuck on the title that was derived from Union Negotiation, but kindly omit the knowledge that Morty has not given a raise in over 5 years and has gone out of his way to get rid of the union since he never resigned another 333 contract.
[QUOTE=cappy208;69650]Fast Fwd to now, Now as one vetter mentioned during a vetting: “The vetting organizations are only just now realizing that 'Unlimited tonnage” Tank vessels (barges) are being operated by (in some cases) 200 ton operators." It is hard to believe that such ‘mismanagement’ could be allowed. How could this happen? How has this been allowed to go on (for 40 years)? When will ‘we’ get rid of this incompetent operation? Should we?[/QUOTE]
All vessel which carry hazardous cargo, including containerized cargo or petroleum, should have to meet the same requirements. For tonnage requirements on vessels carrying hazardous cargo the tonnage of the tug and barge should be added together.
As long as an ATBs are manned and regulated as tugs no one will ever built conventional tankers or other type ships for the U.S.coastwise trade. Either raise manning and standards on ATB to the level of a conventional ship or, if the standards on ATB are adequate for a vessel of that size then the same standards should apply to conventional ships on domestic voyages.
K.C.
[QUOTE=cappy208;69728]It is funny that you are stuck on the title that was derived from Union Negotiation, but kindly omit the knowledge that Morty has not given a raise in over 5 years and has gone out of his way to get rid of the union since he never resigned another 333 contract.[/QUOTE]
Bouchard was “once upon a time” the best paid company in the NY harbor when I came here from Texas in the “1990’s”,
I started working here as a "barge mate"on April 19th 1990,
the pay was double that of the pay from "down in the “Gulf” at that time period.
(and only one barge at a time)
Before working @ “Bouchard” I started working as a tankerman at Higman towing company located in Orange TX , back in 1987 with the company title of: “UT/Tankerman”,
I was at the time the cook, engineer, & deckhand after 90 days I upgraded to the "Tankerman endorsement"
I was in charge of (2) two barges and the tug
(This was WAY before the one barges one DOI CG ruling)
The changes from Higman Towing to Bouchard were like night and day!
for example, only one barge, no tug & no tug captain, it was like free money to me (& still is by the way) to load and discharge just one barge !
So the context of this post is to point out that I am what the company man says I am, as are you, …
so if Morty called me tomorrow, and told me that I am no longer a “Barge Captain” and I am now a “Barge Supervisor”, Tankerman or “Insert Title Here”…
I will at that moment in time begin signing all the barge paperwork as a “Barge Supervisor”, Tankerman, or “Insert Title Here”
I also would like to point out that “Down South” “NY Harbor Captains” are considered to be “Wheelman” at certain companies, …
and so I guess the message that you would like to convey here or to"sink in" is this:
“I hold a U.S.C.G License & you are $hit” or "I hold a U.S.C.G License and you DO NOT!!!)
and this is the exact same reasoning of every single “Tug Captain” that I have worked for previously & this is why I no longer work on tug boats.
also about the pay, yes I do indeed want a raise as do we all @ Bouchard, However I am not starving and my bills are never late, so no complaints from me …
I have learned a long time ago, no matter how much you give a man, it is never enough…
~Safe Sailing, Captain…~
end of content~
[QUOTE=Bouchard Captain;69755]
So the context of this post is to point out that I am what the company man says I am, as are you, …[/QUOTE]
Not true. I KNOW what rank and position I hold. Regardless of the companies “pet” name or local derivative of the name is… And when I sign official documents I know what title to put next to my name.
“I hold a U.S.C.G License & you are $hit” or "I hold a U.S.C.G License and you DO NOT!!!)
I never said the first, You did. the second phrase is the whole issue. Where I come from (as did you, as noted) you are called what position you are filling. A Tankerman is a… Tankerman. Regardless of location or company. There is no pretend made up legal rationale as you seem to have made up.
and this is the exact same reasoning of every single “Tug Captain” that I have worked for previously & this is why I no longer work on tug boats.
Nope… You need to realize that the whole unit works together. The barge does not get to the dock magically. The other people are JUST as important to the operation. This topic was about ATB’s. Hidden within this whole message is the crux of the topic. Your company is marketing the units one way, operating them another, and keeping all of you blindly clanking along with no pay raises, working a forced schedule of 6 and 3 or 8 and 4; and has a revolving door of hiring. WHY? Could there be a problem?
Obviously you need to try out different companies like so many of your brethren in Mortys Navy have already done (and continue to do; month by month, week by week, and day by day). Maybe the fear of the unknown would be replaced by the satisfaction of being treated like a human being and having a scheduled crew change.
This is dragging on because I want to make sure that newbies to the industry don’t get the wrong idea that if they get hired by Bouchard all they need to become a Captain is to become a Tankerman. That seems to be the message you keep reinforcing. Even your avatar name is promoting this idea! I really don’t care what the New York local name for ‘Tankerman’ is (even if it is a Person In Charge now!) But there IS a lack of professionalism in the insistence on using the title Captain when the rank has NOT been earned. You entered a work force (NY Harbor) admitting that your ‘title’ changed when you arrived. Then in the same sentence you say the job is the same! It didn’t change legally, officially, professionally or actually. The holdover from the Union description is what you are hanging onto.
To recap: I have (and sometimes do) done your job. I have (and sometimes do) a Barge Mates Job. I have (and sometimes do) a Tug mates job. I have (and continue to) work as a “Tug Captain.”
I have worked as Deckineer.
The issue is: I know what my job title is. I am not angry with others who I work with. I am mature enough to know I need others to fulfill the job mission. Similarly, My crew knows I have their back when they need support, supplies, guidance or counsel. However, I know that the buck stops here when the shit hits the fan, when the USCG is coming aboard after a navigation casualty, or a 2692 I will be the one they ask for. I will be the one doing the company drug and alcohol tests, and I will be the one who the company calls when there is a problem. Think about it this way. What percentage of the time is your Barge under the ‘control’ of the DOI. Remember your DOI has a start and finish time on it. Who else is responsible during the other times?
So how about that ATB vs ship manning debate
ATBs need more manning. However the ‘old’ ship manning, union rules, outdated standards are rediculius and un needed.
Everybody please note that there is NO SUCH THING as a captain in the eyes of the USCG! There are only masters and everybody else. Only a master can command (unless in exceptional circumstances he can’t and then legally the chief mate can assume command on a vessel but only to get the vessel to a safe port).
Any clown can be called captain but it is without any legal validity. As someone once pointed out here, in Fourchon even the cook is called captain! As far as the USCG and CFR’s are concerned, the only captains ever mentioned are “Captain of the Port” which is a Coast Guard officer!
Ok, my username is c.captain…SO SHOOT ME! People also call me captain aboard but legally it is just a word only and nothing more.
[QUOTE=kfj;69771]So how about that ATB vs ship manning debate[/QUOTE]
An ATB is a grossly undermanned unit,
& as far as the shipping industry goes, such as SIU & MEBA has manning requirements down to a science now.
but for me personally,
I hate to be in a sardined, & cramped, work place, bumping into my shipmates, so 4 to a room is definitely out of the question for me.
Competency should be the only thing that matters. How someone acquired that competency should not matter, as long as they have it.
Gross register tonnage is an ancient fiction that has very little to do with the size and complexity of vessels, or the skill or competence required to serve in whatever capacity on any vessel.
If three years of mopping and sweeping and chipping and painting on a 1601 gross ton “ship” qualifies someone to be 3rd mate on a 50,000 gross ton ship, then certainly one year as a 199 gross ton Master towing a 5000 ton barge ought to as well.
One day of actually running a 99 ton crewboat is more valuable experience than 10 days of sweeping, mopping, chipping and painting on some vessel that just happens to be over 1600 tons.
If a 22 year old kid that graduated from an academy last week with only 90 days of actual seatime as a cadet is qualified to sail as 3rd mate unlimited on a 50,000 ton ship, then surely a guy with over 1080 days of real seatime that has actually been commanding a vessel and handling a 5000 ton barge ought to be able to sail as a 3rd mate too.
True enough, tug masters with 200 ton licenses should not become instant unlimited masters based upon combined tug and barge tonnage. Some seatime on a ship over 10,000 tons (perhaps 90 days) should be required in addition to tug and barge time for 2nd mate unlimited. Beyond 2nd mate, at least half the seatime should be on large vessels.
Nor should someone who’s entire career has been spent on a oil rig trying to remain stationary 100 miles offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, get an unlimited master’s license without spending some time on ships that actually navigate.
The seatime requirements are based upon the least educated applicants. We need rules about having adequate experience of the right type, but there also needs to more flexibility as to what, and how much,seatime is actually required. A guy with a degree in physics from MIT does not need as much seatime as a high school dropout to achieve the same level of competency.
As long as one develops the proper level of competence, it shouldn’t matter how they did it, or how long it took them. Nor should competency be presumed just because one put there time in.
I would be surprised if any one thinks that the outdated USCG exams are a meaningful measure of competence.
Tugsailor, realize that the sea time requirements specify 1080 days of “watch standing”, not chipping, painting, and cleaning. Companies write sea time letters a if all deckhand stood navigational watch for a full 8 (12) hours every single day they were on the vessel.
Also, realize that as long as your time is over 200 grt you can get a 3m, it will just have a tonnage restriction. Seems fair to me…