Just some JA bashing with regards to Conception dive boat fire

It is also a customs regulation that requires vessels of 5 net tons and greater, that will be used for commercial service be US built. As such, the CG requires commercial vessels of 5 net tons and greater be US documented. To be documented for commercial service, vessel required to be U.S. built, in control of U.S. citizen, and owned by U.S. company/individual. If a foreign built vessel is to be used in commercial service a tonnage certificate issued by a classing society recognized by the CG, proving vessel is less than 5 net tons. Also, if a U.S. commercial vessel visits a foreign shipyard for work, it cannot be altered/added to over a certain percentage, hull or superstructure. If the percentage is exceeded, it renders the vessel foreign built and it will loose their document for commercial service, and just turned into an expensive pleasure vessel.

make it like fishing, you pay big for a license to limit the operators to allow the ones that have invested to make a living

You know that this same argument has been going on since the 1920’s? But the facts remain the same… the U.S. shipbuilding sector is not competitive when competing against foreign builders. The protectionist attempts to prop up this industry have hurt the Merchant Marine and too many other U.S. maritime companies. This is from the Congressional Research Service report on Jones Act:

A 1922 government report on shipbuilding concluded that U.S.-built ships cost 20% more than
those built in foreign yards. The cost differential increased to 50% in the 1930s. In the 1950s,
U.S. shipyard prices were double those of foreign yards, and by the 1990s, they were three times
the price of foreign yards.
Today, the price of a U.S.-built tanker is estimated to be about four
times the global price of a similar vessel,
while a U.S.-built container ship may cost five times
the global price, according to one maritime consulting firm. Some 91% of the 911 vessels built
in U.S. shipyards between 2007 and 2017 were sold domestically, suggesting that U.S. shipyards
compete infrequently with foreign shipyards on price or vessel characteristics.
The cost differential with respect to oceangoing ships is an issue for Department of Defense
officials in charge of military sealift ships. As discussed later in this report, the military has
modified a plan to build sealift ships domestically, finding it costly, and instead intends to buy
more used foreign-built cargo ships.

But what on earth does that have to do with the market for 75-foot dive boats?!

1 Like

The same thing applies for ships, boats, trains, cars, tvs… If the item is more expensive, demand for that item will be less. If you want more new 75 foot dive boats out there, then open up the industry to allow foreign-built boats. Not only will the foreign-built boats be cheaper initially, but the competition will drive down the cost for some U.S. builders. The noncompetitive U.S. builders will ultimately be driven out of that business.

Sure, but we all know you can count on one hand the number of large oceangoing shipbuilders in the US and equate that to the JA as has been discussed around here forever.

However there are tons of competitive successful small boat builders in the US as well building everything from crew boats, police boats, yachts small and large, fishing boats, etc. Are they pumping out dive boats, not really. But could they for a reasonable competitive price, very likely. So to say that the Conception was still operating at its age is related to the JA just rings a bit hollow.

2 Likes

I’m not so sure. I do agree that domestic small vessel builders are probably not as uncompetitive as the major yards that need to charge up to 5x the global price for a container ship. But if these small builders could build at a reasonably competitive price, then they would surely be selling some of these vessels to our friends outside the U.S. And this just isn’t happening. Conversely, if the U.S. small boat manufacturers are able to build reasonably competitively, then there is no reason the Jones Act should apply to these types of vessels.

Many builders in the PNW produce quality commercial fishing boats and expedition yachts in the same size as the Conception but dive boats are too small of a market to bother with.

Just as one example, Metal Shark builds vessels in Louisiana and Alabama. Just two years ago they claimed to have sold to, or be in production for, vessels for over 50 countries. So I’d say it is happening. There are plenty of yacht builders too like Hatteras and Westport who sell and compete internationally very successfully. And small boat yards in ME who build custom boats all the time for people who have no requirement to build US. If the owners wanted a reasonably priced new boat in the US it might have taken some research and bids, but there are certainly options, even as a one-off.

I don’t see how the Jones Act is a contributing factor.
Age of the boat, being constructed, prior to 1996 and the construction of the boat.
Small older passenger vessels are used in many countries depending upon the local economics.

The economics of running a small tourism based company are probably pretty tough. And potentially a reason why these boats operated in the manner common the rest of the industry.
Choosing to meet requirements rather than exceed requirements.

Jones act or not. The operating cost of the vessel would determine whether or not it required replacement.
Nothing in the report indicates the vessel was not properly maintained.

At 40 year old presumably financing ect costs probably quite low other maintenance costs probably a bit higher. Age of engines and fuel economy. Probably significant.

The big thing which would affect older vessels would be upgrading regulatory requirements. Which boats like this may not be able to comply with.

One might wonder why the USCG has not updated the regulations despite NTSB recommendations and congressional approval.

I don’t know for the US. I have observed the process here in Canada results in significant push back from “Stake Holders”. Otherwise defined as industry lobby groups.

Unfortunately, pointing the finger at operational concerns like no roving rounds.
Questions like requirements to be built to be fire resistant may get ignored. Such as is Fibreglass a suitable construction material for small passenger vessels with overnight accommodation. May not get asked.

Fiberglass goes up fast, wood or no wood. At my marina a Bertram caught fire. The lady that lived aboard heard an electrical arcing sound and then very quickly after the main cabin was engulfed in flames. She barely got off in time and probably wouldn’t have had she been asleep.
There is such a thing as flame-retardant fiberglass. Uniflite built some boats for the Navy with it. They famously mixed the chemicals wrong when they took over production of Valiant sailboats and caused a huge blister problem.