Not just SIU, you should see some of the folks I’ve had come up the gangway non-union too.
Someone rejected by the Navy or Coast Guard for medical reasons that would not necessarily disqualify them from the merchant marine being made aware of other ways to go to sea and contribute meaningful work for the country isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Remember, many unfit for military service found a home in the merchant marine during World War 2 and several classmates of mine only heard of and decided to attend Schuyler because they were DQ’d from military service after some trivial issue was discovered at MEPS.
Making it into the military/advancing in rank is not an immediate sign that someone is bright… it’s no different in that regard than any other line of work.
6 Likes
You sir have abandoned reality
2 Likes
Says for work with MARAD not necessarily on the vessel.
Confusing why they only reduced the requirements for ABs like why what could be a possible reason? Other than a shortage of people. Looks like the SIU had a part in this ! Although is only going to reduce wages for its members.
The permanent reduction in Seatime for an Able body seamen is crap. Now I’m never going to know if I’m truly getting ABs or if I’m going to get a really getting a whole crew of Ordinary Seamen.
This is going to make our vessels even more unsafe. I think it’s going to push a lot of people away from the industry. Ships that are becoming more unsafe and even the senior officers skills are becoming scary bad.
Now that is funny. Made me chuckle. You must be living charmed life at sea currently. Maybe you should try to weed out the AB’s with less than 18 months on their ticket. That means they’d pass the magical threshold of 3 yrs at sea that miraculously turn OS’s into truely real AB’s. Ha, ha.
1 Like
For years many of us have been harping that the current state of the US Merchant fleet is a national security weakness. Now there’s a bill floating around with proposed solutions for short-term ship shortages, long-term ship shortages, training issues, manning/recruiting problems, shipyard deficiencies etc. At first, I was very happy about it. Then I remembered some foriegn relation analysts have been warning the public of a very possible WW3. Very convenient timing? I also remember from studying history that the US selective service draft was passed by Congress & went into affect two years BEFORE the US entered WW2. Maybe the folks behind this bill knows something we don’t?
Haha hardly I’m sick of sailing with inexperienced people, I am constantly training and explaining the basics. Every trip I get less and less experienced people.
As a senior officer and I know others that are sick of this industry and are prepping to leave. It’s become too unsafe and the pay isn’t anything crazy good.
If the US drastically adds 250 ships there will be a shortage and pay will increase. But at the same time, personally believe it’s going to become pretty dangerous. I can’t count on anyone anymore. There’s maybe like 3 or 4 deck and engineer officers I can count on. And if I’m lucky a decent bosun and a solid dayman.
That’s a maybe- some trips it’s like 2 people on the whole ship you can count on.
You add stress and strain on people that know what they are doing keeps increasing.
Maybe I should just switch companies idk….
1 Like
I don’t think anyone has truly considered the secondary and tertiary issues in reducing seatime requirements for AB’s.
One one hand the AB’s critical job functions have gotten considerably easier in the past 40 years. On the other, the seatime requirements for AB unlimited ensure that the best of the AB’s are truly experienced seamen. This becomes more important when you consider that the mates’ job functions have also evolved, and have not been simplified. Reducing the experience required WILL shift the onus of reaponsibility for multiple tasks more squarely on the mates’ shoulders by depriving them of experienced AB’s.
There are AB’s and there are AB’s. We all know this. There is always a need for GOOD AB’s and they are always in limited supply. I’m not sure how, barring increasing manning, reducing the experience requirements will effect productivity and workload for the mates and for the ship. Every ship has at best 1-2 good AB’s in good times. Fostering conditions where this continues (or improves) seems like a no brainer. Reducing seatime isn’t smart… and neither is trusting more training to the diploma mills in MA, MD, VA, FL, AL, LA, CA, and WA which already turn out AB’s with papers and no experience because they don’t get paid if they fail students.
1 Like
Just being the devils advocate here. A turn off for people, unlicensed, going to sea is the low pay of entry level positions. Time for promotion & better paying positions are the #1 questions asked by possible new mariners from my experiences. Maybe more qualified & better motivated people will enter the industry if they think they won’t be lowest on the totem pole as long? I went for my AB special at 240 (12h) days. DDE the month after I turned 21 yrs old. Making it easier for Unlicensed to advance is better for the industry as long as we have places to employ them IMO.
1 Like
After covid I think it is the same everywhere.
I’m a bit rusty on my knowledge of SIU gimmicks and levels for ABs, but wasn’t experience one of the differentiating factors between AB “Blue” and AB “Green”?
I genuinely can’t remember.
1 Like
Perhaps jdcavo’s post was prophetic…I’d suggest reading the Act before getting riled up about things that are or aren’t in it.
How does this soften the Jones Act? How does adding vessels to the foreign trading fleet, not permitted to participate in domestic commerce (Jones Act Trade) in any way affect the build requirement for Jones Act vessels?
I have only made it through the first 130 pages so far, but a lot of the comments here are addressed, and other topics:
- Jones Act - The Strategic Commercial Fleet would be vessels in Foreign Trade, not Jones Act Trade (p 68-69, 78, 84)
- Owner Citizenship - at least 25% of vessels must be owned or operated by a US citizen or entity led by a US citizen (p72)
- Age of Vessel - Any foreign built vessel brought into the fleet cannot be more than 14 years of age. (p 65)
- Interim Vessel replaced by US Built Vessel - see page 69, “operate a qualified foreign-built vessel as a vessel of the United States in foreign commerce as part of the Fleet until the United States built vessel described in such clause enters the Fleet”
- Incentive to Build US - “a proposed annual capital support payment, which may cover the difference in capital costs associated with constructing a vessel in the United States as compared to a fair and reasonable estimate of the cost of the construction of that type of vessel in a foreign shipyard”. (p71)
- Incentive to Operate a ship brought in - “a proposed annual operating support payment, which may cover the difference in operating costs associated with operating a vessel of the United States as compared to a fair and reasonable estimate of the cost of operating that type of vessel under the laws of a foreign country” (p71)
- Increase true foreign cargo trade - any agreement payments would cease if any vessel is used on Gov charter, carries Gov cargo, Military cargo, Cargo Preference cargo, engages in coastwise domestic trade (p92)
- Competing with China - Requires an increasing percentage of imported goods from China to be carried on US vessels built in the US crewed by US mariners (p118)
- Port Priority - US vessels shall receive priority in US ports over foreign vessels (p120)
That’s as far as I’ve gotten so far, but there is a lot in there, and I see a lot of interesting thought put into it. (Though I question how productive the Maritime Security Board will be with the 27 members listed (p22).)
1 Like
Sounds a lot like:
1 Like
Wait till you find out that every graduate of such a program already has an AB ticket.
3 Likes
Blue water in Jacksonville should throw into the pits of hell for the “AB’s” they produce
1 Like
Yea but I’m pretty sure that language only means the SMAs, not every place with a 6 pack hanging on the wall.
Not a gimmick, it’s a statute, see 46 U S Code 7312. On larger vessels 2/3 have to be AB Unlimited. Remainder can be limited or special. Never could remember which is blue and which is green.
See 46 CFR Part 166.
This removes the current caps on sea service equivalency for AB in 46 US Code 7315. It would likely be used for comprehensive programs with shipboard training, e.g. the U.S. Job Corps program at Tongue Point, the SIU Unlicensed Apprentice Program, or Seattle Maritime Academy. It will not be every 40-hour AB course gets the endorsement. See the definition of training program in 46 CFR 10.107.
Not really, they already get that and have for a very long time. See 46 CFR Part 166 (link above).
3 Likes
I see the Longshoreman’s unions had their fingers in this pot:
FULLY AUTOMATED CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT.—No withdrawals may be made from a capital construction fund to purchase fully automated cargo handling equipment that is remotely operated or remotely monitored with or without the exercise of human intervention or control, if the Secretary determines such equipment would result in a net loss of jobs within a marine terminal.
(page 193)
I certainly do not see any magic in requiring 540 or 1080 days of seatime for AB Unlimited.
The focus should be on what skills and proficiencies do we want ABs to have, and how do we make sure that they do in fact have those skills.
It does not take 1080 days (six years on an even time schedule) for an AB to learn basic line handling, how to steer, or be a lookout.
Most ABs cannot steer very well no matter how many years of experience they have. They either have a knack for steering or they don’t.
Most of what ABs do today is sweeping and mopping, and chipping and painting. That can be learned pretty fast.
1080 days is a hold over from the days when ABs had to be sailmakers and canvas cover makers, and carpenters, and riggers.
ABs don’t do those things anymore. Today, rigging and canvas covers come from shoreside shops with certificates. The only ABs that can splice wire are a few former fishermen. Most ABs cannot sew a button on. If you tell experienced AB’s to build a hanging locker for foul weather gear, the horrible result will look like it was built by a kindergarten play group.
In some trades, it’s important for ABs to have cargo skills, and equipment operating skills, but in most trades only the longshoremen can touch cargo.
Time put in on vessels is not a good proxy for skills acquired. Some people are smarter, more motivated, and have more aptitude than others. AB training needs to teach and measure the desired skills, not just measure 1080 days spent sweeping, mopping, chipping and painting
I have had a few talented green hands that learned more and better deckhand skills in six months, than most ABs with six years of experience. I’ve had ABs with 20 years experience that only have modest skills and ability.
We need good AB qualification processes that focus on the efficient acquisition of necessary AB skills and abilities, not time spent going through the motions for 1080 days.
Regulations need to be simplified and reduced to put America (and Americans) first within America. A good place to start would be to make all the vessels that operate exclusively with in the US EEZ (200 mile limit) exempt from STCW. No more Able Seafarer - Deck (or engine) for domestic vessels.
3 Likes