Jones act and airlines


Oh yes. The US should tax residency not citizenship like every other country on the world.


Between…I fully agree with you.
NO Indian Captain earns 10 K/month in wages. They are ALL corrupt. He does not sign any tug he used without a 150 cash, he doesn’t sign any cargo papers, whatever, unless he
gets his . He and the CE get a cut from the bunker supplier, who delivers less than he signed for. The crew pays him to get/keep their shitty job on board. That's the way he makes his 10 K.
Don’t believe the snow job he tells you.


FYI - The USA is a major exporter of airplanes. A lot of effort went into making type certifications valid worldwide so that Cessna, Boeing, Douglas, Piper, Lockheed, Beechcraft, etc. could sell their planes anywhere. We could not very well do that and not allow foreign builders into our market. Back in the day at least the idea was this would benefit the USA a lot more than other countries. The aviation “Jones Act” is to keep foreign owners out of internal USA routes, not airplanes.
(I lost a nice job flying cargo between the Hawaiian islands because one of our owners turned out to be Japanese. This was despite using all USA citizen pilots flying Cessnas built in Kansas)


And just as important are the regulations concerning training, certification, maintenance capacity, and financial stability required to obtain landing rights.

As I wrote earlier, if the same standards were applied to FoC ships our ports would be empty tomorrow and no community would ever have to start a collection to feed an abandoned crew.


And if anyone ever tried to restrict aircrew to the airplane itself or the airport during layovers they would all quit that second.


Is this a big flaw (allowing foreign built airplanes to fly in the USA)? If it is not a flaw, then why not allow foreign built ships to be used for Jone’s Act trade?


For a NYK RoRo on a liner service $10K/month is not an unreasonable figure. Not sure what your issues are with Indian officers. I have found them to be technically very competent. As far as your statement of them ALL being on the take…I let that speak for itself.


For aircraft it is not a big flaw - more like a huge benefit to the USA so far. We sell airplanes all over the world and the concept of “have to be made here to fly here” pretty much does not exist. This also means our manufacturers have NO protected market to sell civilian airplanes in and therefore have to compete and win in the world market or they won’t even have their domestic customers.
The mothballed old cargo ship equivalent is the CRAF (civil reserve air fleet and those airplanes are not sitting, they do their usual civilian jobs when not under DOD contract.


Well, that is the point. It isn’t a flaw in the airline industry. The lack of a protected market has meant that Boeing has kept innovating, and kept producing planes that are desired around the world. Therefore Boeing is still a thriving company.

The American shipbuilding industry since at least the 70’s has failed to produce anything in a cost efficient manner. As a result, they cannot complete with foreign builds and have resorted to selling only in a very small protected Jones Act market. Unfortunately, the excess cost that is built-into all US built ships means that the maritime industry that relies on these ships has been progressively contracting and we lose almost all foreign trade to foreign shipping, and lose much of our domestic trade to non-marine alternatives.


Sure, when they buy the same percentage of American built ships as we would buy foreign.

Because we have a corrupt Congress and equally corrupt and ineffective MARAD, rather than our maritime industry matching aerospace’s billions in trade surplus, our shipyards would be driven out of business to make waterfront property for foreign campaign contributors.


We were not talking about Indian officers/engineers.
The subject was $ 10 k / month for Indian Captains.


Re. $10K/month, I was referring to the Master.


We sell a lot of airplanes because people want them, not because we have a law they have to :wink:


On that, I have to say “then so be it.” The domestic build requirement is the one thing I would welcome congress to get rid of. Nobody wants to pay more for poor quality equipment. I drive a Toyota and not a Ford for the same reason. One of my buddies drives a Volvo semi instead of a Peterbilt for the same reason. Why do we accept this with ships when it’s obviously bad business for shipowners?


For the same reason we don’t hire the Swiss government to replace our own.


Channel Ted Arinson’s ghost to see what is good business for shipowners.


I get the theory - in practice having a walled off garden to play in has caused our shipyards to be utterly uncompetitive on the world market.
Our autos on the other hand, are vastly superior to what they would be if BMW and Honda and the rest had not been allowed to drive on US roads.


It was not a “walled off market” it was a government failure to defend American industry against foreign national strategic economic planning. Foreign shipbuilders are dumping heavily subsidized bottoms in American ports. No American shipbuilder can compete with a foreign nation’s treasury.


How do you sell the 99% of Americans that couldn’t care less how their stuff gets moved around as long as it is cheap to pay part of their paychecks into a fund to subsidize shipbuilding and American sailor’s pay? Not an easy sell…


I have just finished a couple WW II books and I bet about 80% of Americans have no clue how badly we would have lost absent our ability to build ships and train sailors at an amazing rate, never mind having civilians doing a job more dangerous than many in the armed forces.