License stranglehold

Our office informed us that OMSA and Edison Chouest has been lobbying congress to restrict licenses in 2014.
The proposal is that you have to choose to be OSV or Blue Water, once you have chosen you can’t cross over to the other.
The purpose is to eliminate pay competition and have a captive workforce.
Does anyone know anything about this?

That is basically what the 6000ITC is now, it is good for nothing except a US flag OSV. That limits alot of people to that one class of vessel.

I think they will have a hard time, proving that a unlimited tonnage bluewater license does not trump any of the restricted licenses. No matter what the calss is.

I don’t see that many blue water guys wanting to move over to the OSV side to make any significant impact on the pay scale. Most of them don’t want to work on a supply boat anyway.

[QUOTE=ChiefRob;83600]That is basically what the 6000ITC is now, it is good for nothing except a US flag OSV. That limits alot of people to that one class of vessel.

I think they will have a hard time, proving that a unlimited tonnage bluewater license does not trump any of the restricted licenses. No matter what the calss is.

I don’t see that many blue water guys wanting to move over to the OSV side to make any significant impact on the pay scale. Most of them don’t want to work on a supply boat anyway.[/QUOTE]

We, blue water guys also heard everything about what’s going on with OSV… which is getting better with per diem, internet access, fresh salad bar, frequent home coming etc…
Most wants to move but I don’t know how many actually move… I just heard one of CM moved to a Drilling rig…Yes, not too many moved to the Boats (not ship, sorry, we just call it that way, no bad intentions…)

Seems like this would make the labor pool even smaller and make our day rates even higher!

Unless your name is Gary, Dino or Dionne, how would u know the purpose?

How would it be a captive workforce?

The only thing I cannot do with my license is sign off the 6,000 ton stuff and honestly, I never would because the “large OSV” license is one of the silliest things I have ever seen.

[QUOTE=liftedlimo;83603]Seems like this would make the labor pool even smaller and make our day rates even higher![/QUOTE]

This was my thought too. Less people for the same jobs means the guys with the license can be more selective.

The only thing I could see them doing is requiring some sort of additional endorsement, similar to TOAR. Not sure how that would work.

How would license restrictions square with obligations to IMO rules?

[QUOTE=lemurian;83617]How would license restrictions square with obligations to IMO rules?[/QUOTE]

That is a good question. I thought the coast guard was trying to align our license structure closer to the IMO and European standards. However the OMSA companies are fighting this tooth and nail.

If we were going by IMO rules there would not be a 6000ITC or any OSV endorsment.

Guess we will have to wait and see who wins this battle.

[QUOTE=capitanahn;83601]We, blue water guys also heard everything about what’s going on with OSV… which is getting better with per diem, internet access, fresh salad bar, frequent home coming etc…
Most wants to move but I don’t know how many actually move… I just heard one of CM moved to a Drilling rig…Yes, not too many moved to the Boats (not ship, sorry, we just call it that way, no bad intentions…)[/QUOTE]

capitanahn, I understand your point, and coming from somebody that is stuck in the middle. I am not really an OSV guy or from deep sea, the cards are for the most part stacked against you. The 6000ITC rule was invented by the OMSA companies to prove to the coast guard that they did not need a guy like you. I admit that there is almost no difference between a 2900 ITC OSV and a 3100 ITC OSV, but to run the 3100 you have to either be unlimited or have the 6000 endorsment. I am sure that you are more than qualified to do. When the 6000 ITC was invented it was because the OMSA companies lobbied the coast guard to make the new rule. They made the argument that it was safer to let the guys that had been running the 2900ITC boats to get the endorsment to run the 3100ITC boats, because most unlimited masters had never been on a DP boat at the time. They did not want to have to pay for an unlimited master, and played the safety card to the coast guard and won. Now the wages are up, way up compared to what they were when all this first come about. However a guy like you will probably still run into what I guess would be termed a form of prejudice. Not that you can’t do the job, but they will probably only hire you if they can’t find someone with the 6000ITC, just to prove the point that the home town boys can do the same job just as safe.

All I can say is welcome to the bayou.

Moving to the drill ships also has a type of road block, because they will say you don’t have drilling experience or DP time.

[QUOTE=seadog;83594]Our office informed us that OMSA and Edison Chouest has been lobbying congress to restrict licenses in 2014.
The proposal is that you have to choose to be OSV or Blue Water, once you have chosen you can’t cross over to the other.
The purpose is to eliminate pay competition and have a captive workforce.
Does anyone know anything about this?[/QUOTE]

What office where said that and how would they know? I am not doubting what you were told but such things have to wind their way thru the rules making process. Chouest certainly has the lobbyists and congressmen in their pocket but what would they gain I wonder especially since they seem to be getting into the subsea construction end of the business and consequently larger vessels not classed as OSVs? [Then again I’ve always said Chouest could get an aircraft carrier classed as an OSV.] If such a license scheme happened the USCG has to know they would be viewed among the international maritime community with even less regard than they are now. I don’t see it happening but I’ve been wrong before, lots.

I have seen some large construction vessels that are not OSVs using 6000 ton licensed people to run thier boats, I have seen quite a few vessels that should not be classed as OSV with paperwork that said they were, or have multiple notations, so they use people with 6000 ton OSV licenses on these vessels when they really should not. Just more ways to get around having to hire people with unlimited licenses.

[QUOTE=JP;83632]I have seen some large construction vessels that are not OSVs using 6000 ton licensed people to run thier boats, I have seen quite a few vessels that should not be classed as OSV with paperwork that said they were, or have multiple notations, so they use people with 6000 ton OSV licenses on these vessels when they really should not. Just more ways to get around having to hire people with unlimited licenses.[/QUOTE]

For those of us who don’t work in this sector of the industry, what is the typical manning on a vessel of this size? How many deck and engine officers?

[QUOTE=seadog;83594]Our office informed us that OMSA and Edison Chouest has been lobbying congress to restrict licenses in 2014.
The proposal is that you have to choose to be OSV or Blue Water, once you have chosen you can’t cross over to the other.
The purpose is to eliminate pay competition and have a captive workforce.
Does anyone know anything about this?[/QUOTE]

If that’s true then I’m blaming Capt. Lee and Anchorman for leaving ECO for better money :wink:

[QUOTE=SeaSick;83633]For those of us who don’t work in this sector of the industry, what is the typical manning on a vessel of this size? How many deck and engine officers?[/QUOTE]

Well there is a big difference between what the COI will call for and what the oil companies actually require to be onboard to fullfill the contract.

Alot of times the COI will only call for 3 on the bridge, and 2 engineers and a qmed in the E/R.

Most of the time now, the boats will have a junior DPO, a senior DPO on each watch, then a master working days, sometimes the oil company will require another master to work nights on top of the 4 DPO’s

Most of the time a chief on each watch, then a asst engineer, or at the least a qmed on each watch. Sometimes even 5 in the E/R.

The boat companies are happy to put extra people on the boat nowdays, The oil companies are willing to pay for the extra folks in the name of safety, and the boat companies say OK, but it will cost you $$$$

The OSV licenses served a good purpose years ago, but now there is no justification for them.

So where are all the unlimited tonnage Gods? Why aren’t we overrun with unlimited tonnage awesomeness? Let me guess they’re doing us a favor by staying away. If they stay in the thriving blue water industry wages will stay good for us. Wow thanks unlimited tonnage Gods. There is plenty of justification if the vessels can’t be manned. The only reason anyone cares is because this is where the work is now. If there were plenty of deep sea jobs no one would give shit about what happens on the bayou. Sounds like people have a big fancy license but no super tanker or freighter to drive. Now you wanna drive the fancy new mud boat you wouldn’t have looked at twice years ago.

[QUOTE=SeaSick;83633]For those of us who don’t work in this sector of the industry, what is the typical manning on a vessel of this size? How many deck and engine officers?[/QUOTE]

Our 290’ 15,000hp, 11 engine DP2 AHTS COI Requires 1 Master, 1 Licensed Mate, 1 Chief Engineer, 1 licensed Engineer, 1 OS and 2 QMEDs. And we usually run with just about that many people, maybe a few extra AB’s.

Do you understand what constitutes an OSV?

I think Unlimited will remain unlimited.

Cant you go to the FBI and say there is a nation wide extortion racket going on
USCG in a conspiracy with vessel owners…I think its called racketeering