That duty is 50% the cost of the repair! That is highway robbery yet not enough to dissuade most owners from doing repairs foreign since the overall quality of work is usually superior enough to offset the cost.
1 Like
who cares about anything you say anymore? we have already proven what you expound concerning the US maritime industry is either inaccurate, baseless or without merit so I for one have no need to knock you down myself any longer. Your own words do the job quite well on their own.
I don’t think there is any duty for work done in Canada or Mexico under NAFTA, at least I’ve never heard anything about it.
So this one word about repairs at foreign yards were the only thing in my long post that you could find to hang your criticism on??
Except c.captain, but he criticises anything and everything that is not in compliance with his opinion. (He has that in common with another famously grumpy old man)
No. I explained why everything in your post was either misinformed or impractical for the US economy and security, except for one thing. I agreed with you about better harmonizing USCG CoCs with STCW standards, and only using GT for tonnage measurement.
Perhaps not many of the “crowd” but rest assured the leaders of that crowd are fully aware and that is one of the reasons they continue to fight for demise of the Act.
Actually, it is the “seamen’s welfare” provisions of the Jones Act that badly need to be modernized.
A prompt and predictable health insurance and worker’s compensation” type system should replace the ridiculous maintenance and cure, and protracted civil litigation provisions of the Jones Act.
A government provided health insurance system (same as members of Congress) should be provided for mariners. This would level the playing field for US shipowners with the national health insurance provided by all other developed nations for seamen. It would also assure reasonable prompt quality treatment. Short term and long term disability insurance should also be mandatory.
A near verbatim copy of the MLC should probably be enacted as a US statute or a USCG regulation. Seamen should have modern rights that are enforced by the government, not merely the right to sue.
4 Likes
+1 Well put I wish our government could get on board with something like your suggesting.
I don’t see much happening with the Jones Act if anything eventually it’s going to get repealed without any replacement provisions for US seamen or shipping most members of Congress don’t stand to gain much if anything and the ones that do will shift assets it’s not about the people any longer if it ever was.
It is very important to remember the 50% duty is applicable to only repair items. Regulatory work items required by Class or USCG, such as, dry-dockings, or those requiring inspections, are not dutiable. Modifications are not dutiable.
This link is a good white paper by CRS on Revitalizing Coastal Shipping for Domestic Commerce.
I agree. But even if nothing happens with the Jones Act, eventually, all that will be left for future US mariners will be a choice between mud-boat operators, tug-and-barge drivers, or dinner boat captains. Or they can choose to sail foreign, which some seem to make work.
Thanks for the link.
If you’re just starting your marine career this may be quite optimistic thinking. Without any protections the US mariner is doomed to be replaced with cheap foreign labor. It’s always the same song US labor is too expensive. Given the chance operators will lower wages to a point it’s not worth the sacrifices you make to perform long shift work then will pull out the not enough qualified worker card and green light importing H-1B visa workers some shipyards in the US are already using this method to crew their yards. End of Rant.
Correct. But what I’m saying is that even with the current protection, we have the same issue. International U.S. fleet is down to 80 ships and continues to shrink despite MSP and cargo preferences. Domestic Jones Act fleet is down to 128 deep draft vessels, and can’t seem to compete against trucks, railways, and pipelines.
The only thing on the water thriving seems to be barges.
I get what you’re saying.
Short sea shipping in the US has many hurdles to overcome before it could be viable maybe the biggest is port costs.
One of the main reasons that the tug and barge business is doing ok, and is able to out compete Jones Act ships, is that most barges can use a multitude of private docks scattered around in various place, without involving any ridiculous overpriced and over crewed union Longshoremen gangs.
Another reason is that tugs and barges have many less expensive competing small shipyards to choose from, while only a few big shipyards compete for ship repair business.
And of course, the lack of serious regulation of the tug and barge business and the undersized crews tugs are allowed to operate with are other major advantages.
1 Like
that and the fact that containers or trailers shipped by sea along the coasts have to still be brought to a dock and taken away by truck and that happens in the ports which are already congested with traffic so in the end not only more costly but likely more time consuming as well so why would anyone want to go that route with their goods?
The consumer product transportation system in the US has evolved over more than a century with the geographic nature of the US in account and if the present system did not work to get the goods to the markets in time and at an acceptable cost then new methods would be developed. Short Sea Shipping however does not suit the US distribution needs and that is why we have never had it. Yes, plenty in Japan, China and the EU but they have totally different infrastructures and distribution systems from ours.
that is why SSS has never gotten going despite all the $$$ wasted to develop it at MarAd.
2 Likes
It isn’t that short sea shipping doesn’t suit the distribution needs. Rather it is just that domestic short sea shipping is too expensive. If you review the article in the link I posted, you’ll see that there has been quite a growth of short sea shipping into the US. But instead of from other US ports, this has come from Canada and Mexico.
Despite their inherent efficiencies, domestic coastal and Great Lakes shipping carry barely half as much cargo today as they did in 1960 (Figure 1), even though the U.S. economy is much larger today. Over the same period, railroads have increased their transport volume by about 50%, and intercity trucks, oil pipelines, river barges, and coastal ships linking the United States with Canada and Mexico all have more than doubled their freight tonnage. While ships remain an attractive transport method for importers and exporters, they apparently are not attractive to shippers in domestic commerce.
I agree 100%
I liked the paper you’re quoting but SSS in the US has a huge hurdle in the fact you have to go over or under maybe through the continent to get goods from one side to the other. Bottom line you handle the cargo too many times to make a profit. Maybe if the railroad didn’t allow shipping from one port to the next without duties someone could make it work until then good luck.
While we are on the subject watch Mexico especially Ensenada if they get the ok to use our road system ( or build the transport corridor) and the port is finished the ports of Long Beach and Los Angles are in serious trouble. Just look back at some of the recent strikes and where cargo was diverted to.
In Europe SSS is seen as much as in an environmental light as in an economical one. Plans for transport within EU and surrounding countries are made for the period up to 2050 to meet the Paris accord and own EU targets:
Yes there are geographical and other differences between North America and Europe, but a lot is also the same.
The biggest difference may be the attitude towards the environment and shipping.
Different rules and regulations governing shipping, transport and SSS, as well as the fight against automation of ports and modernisation of infrastructure may also be a factor.
But all that is problems that could be overcome if there were political will to do so.
The case for SSS in North America:
Maybe Los Angeles, Long Beach and other US ports will become feeder ports rather than main line ports?
With development of deep water Hub ports on both coasts of Canada, in Mexico and in the Caribbean, (Bahamas, Cuba, Panama and maybe Jamaica) it would make sense to build up feeder services by SSS to US ports, incl. inland and river ports.
That would then shorten the distances cargo has to be transported by road and rail, thus decreasing SOX, NOX, particle emission and climate gases.
PS> It would also reduce road congestion. (which is what the bill boards in NYC is about): Cato’s New Jones Act Billboard - #82 by tugsailor