Jones Act requires “all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.”
A foreign flag chemical tanker loading partial cargoes going from one US port to another is still transporting goods between US ports. It doesn’t set any conditions based on the transportation state of that cargo, loading or discharging. There’s a reason we only have one US flag cruise ship.
I went to sea for a reason however, I’m sure the lawyers know better than I do.
The answer to your question relies on the definition of that statement. Just being onboard the ship doesn’t qualify as being “transported by water between U.S. ports”.
As long as it’s not discharging oil loaded in a US port in another US port it’s not violating the law, as far as I understand it.
The US flag foreign built container ships with MSP contracts will load in Long Beach, Oakland, and Dutch Harbor but not discharge any of that “US” cargo in any US ports. They’ll discharge all foreign cargo in US ports.
That’s how companies like Matson, Pasha, and Coastal survive. They service the JA trade from the mainland to Hawaii/Alaska where foreign ships can’t. Obviously Matson and Pasha have other endeavors but without their Hawaii trade they’d be competing with every other foreign company.
I will add that something like a broken refrigerated container, loaded in a U.S. port, which requires greater repair service than can be provided onboard, will be a J.A. violation if it is left in a U.S. port. Even if it will never leave that port area and get on the next U.S. ship coming through and carry on to its destination. Companies will actually weigh the cost of that J.A. violation versus a cargo loss in those situations.
@Jnx Transshipment is a thing. It all has to do with port of load and port of discharge.
The future of Jones Act “loopholes” is clearly visible if you look at the agreements between civil aviation authorities and national governments known as the “Open Skies Agreements”. Of particular interest to merchant mariners is the “9th Freedom of the Air”. It completely removes all cabotage protection.
Ninth Freedom. The freedom to carry traffic between two domestic points in a foreign country without a flight continuing on to an airline’s home country. This freedom is also referred to as “full cabotage” or “open-skies” privileges.
Amazing that it took some Norwegian-Americans to come up with this scheme. Aren’t there some smart Irish-Americans that could do so?
Come to think of it, this sounds a bit like what Italian-Americans where doing back in them days.
Don’t you believe in the separation of the Legislative], Executive and Judicial branches of the United States government?
Surely the Supreme Court Judges have nothing else in mind than to correctly interpret the Constitution?
To think otherwise would be anti-American. Heaven forbid that anybody here do so.
See, that makes a lot more sense to me. Being apart of the Maritime Security Program, those ships are essential to our national security and interests. It’s not just containerships, btw.
American Eagle Tankers, transversing the beautiful waters of Port Arthur, with their bright orange glow, don’t need to make their Malaysian owners richer at the expense of Americans and American companies.
Same how? MSP fleet is a government program and brainchild. It makes sense in that, our government can do whatever they want. Especially when they throw defense into the pretense. A private foreign company successfully finding a loophole year after year without repercussion doesn’t make much sense to me. Call me crazy.
I would liken MSP more akin to a hedge against down quarters in earnings for the private companies that participate. They don’t do it for any altruistic reasons. It is purely monetary and until Uncle money bags stops paying his bills, they will likely continue to do so. On top of the subsidy, they get cargo preference for military cargo, so it is good business to have.
Sorry a "slip of the finger2 there.
This bit is NOT a quotation from anywhere but my own thoughts:
I don’t have any “proof” that this is the reason(s), but do you see any better reason, or explanation?
BTW; The same applies to the MSP fleet,
Why are most of the ships under MSP “contract” foreign built second hand vessels, mostly on BB Charter from foreign owners, or owned and operated by US subsidiaries of foreign Shipping companies?: