[QUOTE=tengineer;67434]I hear that Chouest has instituted a pay system that is unique. The " lead captain" gets $100/day more than the “relief captain” until such time as the “relief captain” takes over from the “lead captain”. He then gets the full pay as “lead captain”. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. There can be only one master of a vessel. What’s up with these false titles no one else in the maritime industry recognizes? There will be even more bickering and backstabbing than normal in order to be called “lead captain”. If you are a qualified master of the vessel you get paid as master end of story. There is no such thing as 1st capt, 2nd capt, 3rd capt. etc… It would appear that they want to keep their captains and chief engineers but don’t want to pay them full pay for retaining them so they bestow titles on them and pay them partial wages part of the time. What genius came up with this plan? I also hear the guys running the anchors won’t make any more than the guys running the mud boats unless they are doing anchor work. Why would anyone take on the stress of running a big anchor vessel when you could make the same running mud? I hope I am wrong about what I was told but if I am not Chouest just increased their retention problem, not decreased it.
I have always wondered what the heck they think in that navy down in the bayou, now I am sure they don’t think much at all.[/QUOTE]
For me, thats the greatest thing Chouest did! No more complains! Just fully satisfied!! Lol
[QUOTE=AHTS Master;67442]Master is only a job title. None of the vessels working in the GOM have a master listed on the vessels official documentation. The owner is the Master.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;67445]It makes sense to me. The master of the vessel gets paid more, why is that so controversial? The “relief captain” gets paid as chief mate when he is sailing as second and gets paid as master when he is sailing as master. Maybe the difference between the two is a bit high but the extra headache and liability needs to be compensated. (I thought it was a $25 difference but maybe that changed with this new raise.)
The second part of your complaint seems to disagree with the first. There is no such thing as “2nd captain”, “3rd captain”, etc. They are mates, regardless of what license they hold, so why should they be paid as much as the captain? The only person who should be paid as captain is the actual captain. Just because you are a “qualified master” does not mean you legally are the master so why would they be paid the same?[/QUOTE]
If this story is true about the new pay raise scale it actually only works out to a $50 a day difference, the relief spends 2 weeks making $100 less than the lead and 2 weeks making the same. I can see the headache for the payroll dept however…
The only thing that bugs me is ‘anchor boat pay only on anchor jobs’ I can understand the reasoning, but I’m relief on an AHTS stuck on a year long supply contract. I have a 3000 ITC Master/3rd Mate AGT Oceans, MOTV Oceans, and DP unlimited, I may look into jumping to a bigger boat if that turns out to be true…
I kinda need to any way, for professional reasons if nothing else.
[QUOTE=CaptKrunch;67443]This has to be one of the more absurd statements I have read. So please tell me if I am wrong…regardless of the title bestowed on the man, you feel they should not be getting paid for the job they are performing at that moment? If this system is in fact true then I applaud it whole-heartedly and cannot for the life of me see how this will affect the industry in a negative way. I think that backstabbing will always be there as a human nature but that is relatively minor compared to the ones who never wanted to step up in the first place. Those boats are full of people glad to take the reduction just to be a watchstander and not take on as much responsibility.[/QUOTE]
I believe that if you have been selected to be master you should be paid as master. If you come in early to work with the other master you should not have your pay reduced. There is nothing absurd about that idea since the majority of the rest of the maritime industry seems to have no problem with operating just that way. Those who are glad to take the reduction in pay to avoid the responsibility should ask to be made a mate permanently so as to open up more opportunities for the more motivated individuals. I also have never understood “lead chief engineer” and “relief chief engineer” that is a unique small vessel idea. Is the relief less qualified? If something happens on his hitch like an oil spill is the “lead chief engineer” responsible? It is a silly system.
The way I have seen it other places ( towing) the captain makes $500 a day, the relief captain makes $450 a day and the mate makes $400 a day. The relief makes the same amount whether he is on the boat as mate or captain. You make a very broad statement saying “the rest of the maritime industry” does it a certain way…
The thing is, if the 3 rd captain is on watch the USCG is not going to ask the “Master” what happened! Any captain holding a watch should get paid the same. Yes some or better than others but at the end of the day it is your 12 hour watch. Master has to sleep and go home sometime.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;67456]The way I have seen it other places ( towing) the captain makes $500 a day, the relief captain makes $450 a day and the mate makes $400 a day. The relief makes the same amount whether he is on the boat as mate or captain. You make a very broad statement saying “the rest of the maritime industry” does it a certain way…[/QUOTE]
Excuse me. I was talking about ships when I said that. The uninspected towing vessel industry is something I am not familiar with but have great respect for. Perhaps the supply and anchor boat companies evolved from that regime but it is high time they grew up! The newer and increasingly complex anchor and PSVs certainly deserve the same respect as their higher tonnage brethren as do the people manning them. As is done in other countries, they should be trained, licensed and paid the same based on the size vessel and complexity but that is just my opinion. I am not going back over that. This subject has been covered much too much in the past.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;67444]Reread the COI, I promise you it calls for a master.[/QUOTE]
I should have said the Masters name is not listed on the COI or any of the other vessel documents. The only official doc that has my name is the log book.
Not too long ago there was minimal pay difference between the “HMFIC” and the others; both on the bridge and in the engineroom. $5 between #1 & #2 and $10 between #2 and #3. I for one am glad to see a larger spread between them all. In addition to being compensated for the increased responsibility it provides incentive for others to try and move up. And while painful in the present, I believe the backstabbers are taken care of by Karma in the long term. If I encounter them, I ignore them.
Although I would love to make the same pay as the Captain of the vessel while I am not serving in that position at the time I will have to respectfully disagree with you. I would suggest that it is a far better idea to get paid for the job and responsibility you currently hold. If you are a Capt. (ie. 3rd, 4th, 27th) then I would stand my ground that you have the same responsibilities and payment as those that hold your same license. A Mate…lower due to obvious reasons. Now, they used to have such a minimal convergence between all of these positions (whether you desire to call them Capts, Mates or whatever) salary-wise that there was not the desire for one to step up other than ego, etc. With this system I can see creating actual incentive.
To be honest, I believe that the industry should pay you based on your license, position and time involved. I know this will not work for the same exact reasons that these raises are coming about. Those reasons are that there are a multitude of vessels being built or slated to be built and now a bidding war of sorts has started. There will soon be a huge demand for mariners in the OSV sector and the writing has been on the wall. For every new vessel you will need around 18-20 qualified mariners to man them if you include offtime personnel. A little less for those companies that don’t provide cooks, etc. So lets just round that off to 15 people per new boat to be very conservative. Chouest is building 14 and HOS 17 new vessels. This has been widely publicized. All in the 300+ foot range. This means 6000ITC endorsement or Unlimited license. Then God only knows what other companies are building. GOL, Aries, Tidewater, Candies, Harvey you name 'em! There are a lot of boats coming down the pipeline. But let’s just stick with these two companies with aggressive build plans. That would mean, by my conservative estimate that would need 465 people total to man these vessels. That’s way more than the extra they may have on hand already. I’m sure it’s more then what the industry contains already in addition to the current fleet that is manned. A bidding war was foreseen.
Now, having stated that…I have to wonder what kind of detriment that a bidding war of wages can cause. When you all NEED the license and you are all pulling from the same pool. By necessity it can get ugly. Good for us…in the short term, but are dayrates for vessels rising as fast as the wages. I can’t begin to know the profit margin of these boats but I do know the rates haven’t seemed to rise as much as the salary in the last 10 years. Like I said…I don’t know the profit margin (and apparently it has been VERY good for some) but my concern still has to fall into long term employment. Don’t get me wrong, I want all I can get…I’m just worried how long I can get it. Then there is flooding the market with boats but I digress. Lets all hope I’m concerned for nothing.
The master is still ultimately responsible, even if he is asleep. You are not a “captain holding a watch”, you are the mate on watch who happens to have a master license. The coast guard will treat you just like any other mate if something happens
[QUOTE=tengineer;67434]I hear that Chouest has instituted a pay system that is unique. The " lead captain" gets $100/day more than the “relief captain” until such time as the “relief captain” takes over from the “lead captain”. He then gets the full pay as “lead captain”. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. There can be only one master of a vessel. What’s up with these false titles no one else in the maritime industry recognizes? There will be even more bickering and backstabbing than normal in order to be called “lead captain”. If you are a qualified master of the vessel you get paid as master end of story. There is no such thing as 1st capt, 2nd capt, 3rd capt. etc… It would appear that they want to keep their captains and chief engineers but don’t want to pay them full pay for retaining them so they bestow titles on them and pay them partial wages part of the time. What genius came up with this plan? I also hear the guys running the anchors won’t make any more than the guys running the mud boats unless they are doing anchor work. Why would anyone take on the stress of running a big anchor vessel when you could make the same running mud? I hope I am wrong about what I was told but if I am not Chouest just increased their retention problem, not decreased it.
I have always wondered what the heck they think in that navy down in the bayou, now I am sure they don’t think much at all.[/QUOTE]
The Master is the Master, that is self explanitory.
His relief, when the Master is on vacaion, is also a Master and should receive the same pay.
In regards to the remainder of the bridge officers; OICNW, Mates, third Captains, the tital of the day; in my mind the pay should depend on their expierence. There are Mates on GOM OSVs who are new hires with no OSV time and guys who have been in the the patch for 20+ years. Seems to me that expierence should go a long way in determining the day rate.
In regard to the anchor boats; traditionally in the GOM the biggest and best AHTS vessels have always operated with two very expierenced “capatains” who were each, on their own, more then qualified to be master of the vessel. The guys who are running ( deep water ) anchors generaly deserve the tital of captain no matter which watch they are on.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;67467]And I doubt on ships that the chief mate gets paid master wages, even if he holds a master license.[/QUOTE]
True, he’s the chief mate not the second or fourth captain and he gets chief mate pay. Even if he holds a masters ticket [most do] if he is working as chief mate he gets chief mate pay. If a licensed master is working as second mate he gets second mate pay etc. However, if he/she is one of the chosen masters of the vessel and comes in early for whatever reason he still gets his full pay even though he is not officially master until the other guy leaves or turns over the vessel. He doesn’t have his pay reduced because the company did not demote him from his master position simply because he came in early at the company’s request. It’s logical really.
Ahhh. I get it. You need to realize though that that is different than captain and relief captain. The relief captain doesn’t just “come in a few days early”, half his time every year is running as chief mate. That is his job description, to be mate half the time and captain the other half; and he is paid for the job he is doing at the time. (Also logical…)
As “most” said, the Master is ultimately responsible. Does not matter who was on watch. That is why is normally compensated more. Does anyone remember the name of the 3rd mate on watch for the Exxon Valdez??? He was the one on watch, not Joseph Hazelwood. But you heard Joseph Hazelwood’s name at that time all over the place.
The majority of my time with ECO I have been on their U/L vessels, and we followed the chain of command, Master, Chief Mate, 2nd Mate and so on. I have been on a couple OSV’s for them in the Gulf, and you heard about 2nd, or 3rd Captain. Never heard of a 3rd captain before. I would have thought that person would be considered a “mate” regardless of what license they hold. Simple as that. I guess the title sounds good to some. But when I questioned it, “there is only one captain on a vessel”. I was told that some oil companies require more than one captain on the vessel, meaning license wise.
I got burned already with a guy saying he was “one of the captains” onboard. The client rep who just got onboard heard the guy say that, and then later went find this guy and asked about the placement of some sub sea equipment. He gave his answer, and it was not how I wanted to do it. So now I have to go and find the client rep and explain. His reply was, “the guy said he was a captain”… So back to the original statement, there is only one captain onboard…
P.S. The name of the Mate on watch on the Valdez at the time of the incident…Gregory Cousins. I remember stupid things as this…