[QUOTE=Capt. Lee;51428]Chouest was responsible for the invention of that license.[/QUOTE]
I would not say that, but it was certainly pointed out by industry that the definition of an OSV in the regulations was up to 6,000 tons, even though it was industry that came up with that number arbitrarily in the first place. That was the work of an advisory committee, not a company. However, the first OSV over 3,000 tons in the GOM was an ECO vessel, and an anchor boat.
At the risk of looking like a homie! I can say from experience the last year and a half working for Hornbeck I have no complaints. I make my crew changes, do my job as good as I can and try not to let personalities and things I canāt control eat my lunch. Company is doing itās best to hold onto crews while acknowledging the current slowdown. Right know we are sending some stacked OSVās overseas. Which does leave one wondering about long term employment outlook. Working for Hornbeck or any other company is what you are going to make it. I came looking for a job. Was given one. Do it to my best ability. Stay out of drama and things are working out! ā¦good luck if you do come abaoardā¦Feel free to send a pm:)
I am going to call bullshit on that one. Why was the license called Gary Chouest/Akira, etc. Class vessels and a letter from the office in the beginning? The other did not come until later.
I purposely worded it the way I did to get a response out of you.
[QUOTE=Capt. Lee;51521]I am going to call bullshit on that one. Why was the license called Gary Chouest/Akira, etc. Class vessels and a letter from the office in the beginning? The other did not come until later.
I purposely worded it the way I did to get a response out of you.[/QUOTE]
I was one of the first (4) and mine never had a vessel specific name, there were several others that were done the same way later on, some like you said, some that even said unlimited way later. One of the very first was the SEABULK AKER DOVE, and some had that one their license. Owned by SEABULK and named after Peter Dove with AKER owning 49%. The way that the various letters were written and the answer given by Stew Walker at the time was not very consistent and caused confusion to the various RECās. The Coast Guard finally said that one vessel specific license, even if it doesnāt have the right name of the vessel, will cover all the others till renewal. This was relayed to all the operators and RECās at the time, and the coherent 6,000 ton OSV was endorsed, as it should have been interpreted from the beginning, like was done with me and the others that got the first of these endorsements.
It was simply a vessel specific versus class interpretation at first by some RECās, then it was realized of the stupidity of having to get an endorsement for each name of vesselā¦there would not be enough room on any license.
It was not a letter from any office. It was a letter straight from USCG Headquarters, that you took to the REC, and on that letter it had the definition of an OSV and the authority to endorse to the extent of the definition, the name of the mariner, and the vessel it would be for. It did not have instructions on how to add the endorsement, that was left up to the REC, and I do remember the confusion when mine was doneā¦a phone call had to be made.
I actually found myself down near their HOS Port about a month ago and ran into a friend that worked for Hornbeck. Deep sea shipping hasnāt been great for a little while, maybe for a few but not the most. I ended up submitting my application to Hornbeck and did a few phone calls with them. I guess the biggest thing was I didnāt like not being able to find out the pay for an A/e starting out on their OSVās, not findnig out how much medical is going to cost me without flying down to Nola for a few days. I understand the fact that even coming with a larger license and big ship experience, I would have to start at the bottom but would like to know a little more about the pay before committing to a trip. The tug companyās Iāve worked for have been more forwarding than that to say the least. I wouldnāt imagine anyone caring to share the daily pay for A/e and C/eās on OSVās around the gulf, could private message me here too I guess. I thought Iāve seen some of it around here.
500 to 600 a day
Before the oil spill. I had an interview with them and the money was not good. It was exactly $468 a day. Marty got pissed off because I didnāt take the job. Why the hell would I leave $550 a day for that? She said it is what what it is and I choose to be a mariner. Needless to say I immediately left before I blew a gasket. I was maxed out on their point system with all my documents and have chief limited oceans. They try to make the pay sound allot better by throwing in the bonuses in the daily rate, but like I told her, thatās not guaranteed money. The benefits were not as good either. Higher deductibles and premiums then want I was curently paying. I would stay way from them personally. I would have been layed off if I took that job. Try Harvey Gulf, Otto Candies, or Chouest.
I have been with Hornbeck for 9 years and in those 9 years it has been its worst in the past two. They have stripped 401K matching, insurance co pays have gone up, and we are losing vested āqualifiedā vessel employees on the Tug fleet. Not to mention no raises in 5 years. Could be different on the supply boat fleet but I would steer clear, unless you are hurting. They claimed a 9 million in losses the first quarter yet gave 8 million in bonuses to senior management, if that tells you how much they care for the vessel employees!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = āurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:officeā /><o:p></o:p>
I see their boats and what they look like. Pay always is important
