Military Sealift Command Sequestration - MSC

[QUOTE=MFOWelectrician;119262]http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MSP_Brochure_June_2013.pdf

According to Marad, all MSP ships are American flag vessels.

http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/MSP_Fleet_JUNE_2013.pdf[/QUOTE]

Right, but not all US flag vessels are in the MSP.

As far as the Jean Anne goes, I work with a couple people who have worked there and I understand she has at least one deck that makes her a PCTC. They’re getting ready to put a second ship on the run–the Marjorie C–so they must be onto something there. They’re not in the MSP, but I understand the military is one of their big customers.

[QUOTE=awulfclark;119284]Right, but not all US flag vessels are in the MSP.

As far as the Jean Anne goes, I work with a couple people who have worked there and I understand she has at least one deck that makes her a PCTC. They’re getting ready to put a second ship on the run–the Marjorie C–so they must be onto something there. They’re not in the MSP, but I understand the military is one of their big customers.[/QUOTE]

sounds like Matson waited too long to put another dog in the hunt…

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;119306]sounds like Matson waited too long to put another dog in the hunt…[/QUOTE]

Matson is just about as moribund as Horizon and not culturally capable of really innovating their operations and ships. What surprises me is that Saltchuk was not made an attempt to gain entry to the Hawaii trade. I would have thought they would have expanded there years ago but perhaps they are just waiting for Horizon to tank to get the infrastructure on Sand Island and Oakland?

[QUOTE=c.captain;119311]Matson is just about as moribund as Horizon and not culturally capable of really innovating their operations and ships. What surprises me is that Saltchuk was not made an attempt to gain entry to the Hawaii trade. I would have thought they would have expanded there years ago but perhaps they are just waiting for Horizon to tank to get the infrastructure on Sand Island and Oakland?[/QUOTE]

matson had thier ducks lined up when they converted the mokihana for ro/ro cargo. i was on it for the first 4 months of trade starting, 2 days before we left mobile.

they had it figured out when they bought the c-9s from APL, which were built at Avondale (Pres. Lincoln, Monroe, and I think Washington… now Manoa, Mokihana, and Mahi, Mahi) those ships will be running for a long, long time. APL has been regretting that for nearly 15 years now.

former APL capt who came over w/C-9 to Matson and has been there for nearly 25yrs as Capt has no love for Matson. he told me on more than one occasion that Matson (owned by Alexander Baldwin corp) could make money by burning it
Matson may not be innovative right now, but they have the only US built containerships left that aren’t ancient (Horizon) and own a veritable monopoly over Hawaii trade. any idea that Horizon is a real HI player is an illusion.

they employ the laziest, POS longshoremen on the planet, in both CA and HI (don’t know about Seattle) but still make plenty of money and do it a snail’s pace of move rate and efficiency. they can probably just bide their time for Horizon to really fall apart and then pay foreclosure price for add’l dock space.

however, i will say that i don’t understand why they have not built another container-ro/ro to compete with Pasha. i heard frequently when i was on the Mokihana (2 sep 4 month jobs between 3 yr spans) that a new “ro-con” would cost approx $200 million. certainly not cheap, but where did Pasha come up with the dough?

[QUOTE=c.captain;119311]Matson is just about as moribund as Horizon and not culturally capable of really innovating their operations and ships. What surprises me is that Saltchuk was not made an attempt to gain entry to the Hawaii trade. I would have thought they would have expanded there years ago but perhaps they are just waiting for Horizon to tank to get the infrastructure on Sand Island and Oakland?[/QUOTE]

I have heard very faint rumors that, when Horizon finally meets their long-awaited demise, that TOTE would make entry into the Hawaii trade, while Matson may well make entry into the Alaska trade (to prevent monopolies). Not sure if this is just speculation or if someone actually had some info. I do know that TOTE Maritime is building two new LNG containerships for Sea-Star Lines, but they have options for three more–probably for this very scenario.

[QUOTE=awulfclark;119330]I have heard very faint rumors that, when Horizon finally meets their long-awaited demise, that TOTE would make entry into the Hawaii trade, while Matson may well make entry into the Alaska trade (to prevent monopolies). Not sure if this is just speculation or if someone actually had some info. I do know that TOTE Maritime is building two new LNG containerships for Sea-Star Lines, but they have options for three more–probably for this very scenario.[/QUOTE]

d-8 horizon diesels on alaska run are actually now divested/subsidiary, whatever from rest of horizon lines. insulated from pending failure of rest of company. between horizon and whatever other companies are serving alaska (including APL out to dutch harbor) i don’t think there is room (sales) for additional vessels on that run. but if you are implying TOTE pulling out of alaska trade after Horizon dies, maybe.

however Horizon has just recently announced plans to convert 2 or 3 USWC steamers to diesel or something else more friendly/economical to LSFO burning.

as far as Matson goes on alaska run… they don’t have anything left to run jones act up there. kauia/maui/matsonia/lurline are often in a rolling lay-up routine. and they are all ancient ships not well suited for gulf of alaska. unless Alexander Baldwin is really ready to open up it’s wallet (to build their own or buy horizon d-8s), then there are no alaska options for Matson.

[QUOTE=awulfclark;119330]I have heard very faint rumors that, when Horizon finally meets their long-awaited demise, that TOTE would make entry into the Hawaii trade, while Matson may well make entry into the Alaska trade (to prevent monopolies). Not sure if this is just speculation or if someone actually had some info. I do know that TOTE Maritime is building two new LNG containerships for Sea-Star Lines, but they have options for three more–probably for this very scenario.[/QUOTE]

Well I would certainly say it would be easier for TOTE to get to Honolulu than for Matson to get to Anchorage. Now Crowley on the other hand could get going in Alaska much easier and faster simply buying the HORIZON ANCHORAGE, KODIAK & TACOMA. TOTE will build all those new LNG powered ships at NASSCO and the era of SeaLand/Horizon will finally forever disappear.

[QUOTE=c.captain;119000]well if that is the case, they wouldn’t the contracts with the vessel owners enrolled in the MSP be sacrosanct? Aren’t they good for 5 years at a stretch?[/QUOTE]

hey cc, here’s the answer to that question about MSP participants. see last bullet of “applications and award process”…

https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=core&id=e1641d2f699bb685e20abfa14cb4f03e

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;119332]d-8 horizon diesels on alaska run are actually now divested/subsidiary, whatever from rest of horizon lines. insulated from pending failure of rest of company. between horizon and whatever other companies are serving alaska (including APL out to dutch harbor) i don’t think there is room (sales) for additional vessels on that run. but if you are implying TOTE pulling out of alaska trade after Horizon dies, maybe.

however Horizon has just recently announced plans to convert 2 or 3 USWC steamers to diesel or something else more friendly/economical to LSFO burning.

as far as Matson goes on alaska run… they don’t have anything left to run jones act up there. kauia/maui/matsonia/lurline are often in a rolling lay-up routine. and they are all ancient ships not well suited for gulf of alaska. unless Alexander Baldwin is really ready to open up it’s wallet (to build their own or buy horizon d-8s), then there are no alaska options for Matson.[/QUOTE]

The Horizon Alaska ships–by the way, they’re D-7, not D-8–I think may be a subsidiary of Horizon Lines but I don’t think they’re divested. However, Horizon did buy those ships–they had been leasing them before, turns out they save a few million this way.

The trouble with Horizon is, the D-7 Alaska ships are the newest ships in their fleet, and they date from the mid-80s. They are really falling apart, they just can’t handle the rigors of the Alaska run any more. With all their debt, they simply don’t have the capital to build new ships, and I don’t think anyone is going to loan them the money to go on an ambitious shipbuilding program. I could see Horizon spinning off the Alaska run and bankrupting the rest, though the actual mechanics of this scenario might be a bit difficult. They still make good money on the Alaska run.

Hadn’t heard about Horizon’s plans to repower any ships, but that’s going to be quite expensive also, and how much good will it do when the rest of the hull is 40+ years old?

And, TOTE won’t ever pull out of Alaska. That’s Saltchuk’s cash cow. The scenario I had mentioned was just a rumor I heard, like I said I’m not sure how true the rumor is or how likely it is to come about.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=c.captain;119333]Well I would certainly say it would be easier for TOTE to get to Honolulu than for Matson to get to Anchorage. Now Crowley on the other hand could get going in Alaska much easier and faster simply buying the HORIZON ANCHORAGE, KODIAK & TACOMA. TOTE will build all those new LNG powered ships at NASSCO and the era of SeaLand/Horizon will finally forever disappear.[/QUOTE]

Crowley would definitely be an option, hadn’t thought of that. They do have history in Alaska.

the horizon HI route ships were 1980, so hitting the 40 yr mark in 2020 might as well be a lifetime away.

as long as they are making money on the west coast they can stretch it out unless ship unexpectedly falls apart. puerto rican market is not as good for them right now. i expect USEC horizon to sputter and die very soon. just got off 1968 built horizon discovery in february. tied up in front of sister ship Challenger (also 68). Navigator finished lot of repairs (built 1972) and then took over. west coast ships are not as old, especially d-7s.

they will make it happen on west coast, especially if it comes down to making it last 40 yrs. they certainly have track record of that, just don’t think they can last on USEC.

they do have a longer term strategy on USWC or they wouldn’t be doing power conversion for 2 old steamers.

Purchase of Vessels

Three of our Jones Act qualified vessels; the Horizon Anchorage, Horizon Tacoma, and Horizon Kodiak (the “Vessels”) were previously chartered. The charter for the Horizon Anchorage, Horizon Tacoma, and Horizon Kodiak was due to expire in January 2015. For each chartered vessel, we generally had the following options in connection with the expiration of the charter: (i) purchase the vessel for a fixed price or its fair market value, (ii) extend the charter for an agreed upon period of time at a fixed price or fair market value charter rate or,
(iii) return the vessel to its owner.

On January 31, 2013, we, through our newly formed subsidiary Horizon Lines Alaska Vessels, LLC (“Horizon Alaska”), acquired off of charter the Vessels for a purchase price of approximately $91.8 million. Financing for the acquisition of the Vessels, and associated fees and expenses, was arranged via two separate term loans totaling approximately $95.8 million at a weighted average interest rate of 9.8%, and both maturing on September 30, 2016.

$20.0 Million Term Loan Agreement

On January 31, 2013, we and those of our subsidiaries that are parties (the “Loan Parties”) to the existing 11.00% First Lien Senior Secured Notes due 2016, the 13.00%-15.00% Second Lien Senior Secured Notes due 2016, and the 6.00% Series A Convertible Senior Secured Notes due 2017 (collectively, the “Notes”) entered into a $20.0 million term loan agreement with certain lenders and U.S. Bank, as administrative agent, collateral agent, and ship mortgage trustee (the “$20.0 Million Agreement”). The loan under the $20.0 Million Agreement matures on September 30, 2016 and accrues interest at 8.00% per annum, payable quarterly commencing March 31, 2013 with interest calculated assuming accrual beginning January 8, 2013. The $20.0 Million Agreement is secured by substantially all of the assets of the Loan Parties that secure the Notes, on a priority basis relative to the Notes. The $20.0 Million Agreement does not provide for any amortization of principal, and the full outstanding amount of the loan is payable on September 30, 2016. The covenants in the $20.0 Million Agreement are substantially similar to the negative covenants contained in the indentures governing the Notes, which indentures permit the incurrence of the term loan borrowed under the $20.0 Million Agreement and the contribution of such amounts to Horizon Alaska (the “Indentures”). The proceeds of the loan borrowed under the $20.0 Million Agreement were contributed to Horizon Alaska to enable it to acquire the Vessels. Horizon Alaska is an “unrestricted subsidiary” under the Indentures.

$75.0 Million Term Loan Agreement

On January 31, 2013, Horizon Alaska, together with newly formed subsidiaries Horizon Lines Alaska Terminals, LLC (“Alaska Terminals”) and Horizon Lines Merchant Vessels, LLC (“Horizon Vessels”), entered into an approximately $75.8 million term loan agreement with certain lenders and U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”), as the administrative agent, collateral agent and ship mortgage trustee (the “$75.0 Million Agreement”). The obligations are secured by substantially all of the assets of Horizon Alaska, Horizon Vessels, and Alaska Terminals (collectively, the “SPEs”), including the Vessels. The loan under the $75.0 Million Agreement accrues interest at 10.25% per annum, payable quarterly commencing March 31, 2013. Amortization of loan principal is payable in equal quarterly installments, commencing on March 31, 2014, and each amortization installment will equal 2.5% of the total initial loan amount (which may increase to 3.75% upon specified events). The full remaining outstanding amount of the loan under the $75.0 Million Agreement is payable on September 30, 2016. The proceeds of the loan under the $75.0 Million Agreement were utilized by Horizon Alaska to acquire the Vessels. The $75.0 Million Agreement contains negative covenants including limitations on the incurrence of indebtedness, liens, asset sales, investments and dividends. The agent and the lenders under the $75.0 Million Agreement have acknowledged they have been notified that they do not, pursuant to the loan, have any recourse to the stock or assets of Horizon or any of its subsidiaries (other than the SPEs or equity interests therein). Defaults under the $75.0 Million Agreement do not give rise to any remedies under Horizon’s ABL facility or the Indentures.

Horizon Lines is leasing the Vessels from Horizon Alaska under a bareboat charter. The initial term of the bareboat charter expires in December 2019, with an ability to extend. The obligations under the bareboat charter are guaranteed by Loan Parties and such guarantee, along with the bareboat charter, have been pledged as collateral by Horizon Alaska under the $75.0 Million Agreement.

gets a little wordy but Horizon Alaska is subsidiary of Horizon, but looks protected from possible failure to repay $75 mil loan, but then i could just be lost in legalese of it all…

First, I want to point out that the original title to the thread is a misnomer because MSP is funded through the MarAd budget and not MSC. With that though it does indeed appear that the boot is soon to drop with catastrophic results. Here is Tony Munoz and Maritime Executive’s take on the pending defunding of much of the MSP and apparently the funding of the RRF.

[B]MARAD Announces De-Funding of U.S. Merchant Marine[/B]

September 03, 2013
By MarEx

MarEx received disturbing news on Labor Day about the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) defunding the U.S. Merchant Marine (USMM) due to sequestration cuts.

This will be the defunding of the Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF) and the Maritime Security Program (MSP). This will not only result in the loss of ships and the reductions to billets for merchant mariners, but it may cause shipping companies that currently operate U.S.-flagged vessels to cease operations. MARAD sketched out scenarios where MSP could lose upwards of 15 vessels.

There is an effort to get Congress and the Obama Administration to act in a positive way, but the political atmosphere on the Hill is toxic and there is a significant chance no resolution will be reached. More than one observer in Washington, D.C. has noted that the nation has entered uncharted budgetary waters here because MARAD and other federal agencies have not had to make these kinds of cuts before, so there is no precedent to follow.

Politics and the inability of the Congress to make choices and give clear direction to federal agencies are pointing to a dire situation. The impact of congressional inaction will hurt the job prospects of everyone working in the USMM, not just the members working aboard MARAD vessels.

Of course, I want to know more specifically what ships are going to be booted, but it appears that even MarAd doesn’t know yet? I also want to know more about this defunding of the RRF that is mentioned. Are they talking about drydockings and annual breakouts of the ships in the fleet and not the crews on them keeping them ready for a breakout? Isn’t MSC involved in funding RRF ship readiness?

In any event, this means the loss of many jobs for American seafarers and further points to how the Obama Administration is the most maritime short-sighted since well before WWII. The Merchant Marine is a proven needed 5th branch of the US ability for project its military overseas…THIS IS UNCONSCIONABLE!

CC, thanks for that article. would not have thought of looking there. but it will definitely be a regular stop of mine from now on.

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;119362]CC, thanks for that article. would not have thought of looking there. but it will definitely be a regular stop of mine from now on.[/QUOTE]

Tony Munoz, publisher and editor in chief at Maritime Executive Magazine, has one of this country’s most clear, coherent, thoroughly well versed voices pertaining to matters relating to the US maritime industry and his Op/Ed is simply the best one can find. I urge every one here to visit his Editorial Page and better to subscribe to his newsletters.

A very close second to him is Tim Colton at coltoncompany.com. Another clearheaded and thoroughly knowledgeable voice on all matter pertaining to US shipbuilding and operations.

You know, if gCaptain and Maritime Executive somehow merged…that would be a true power to recon with in the industry.

[QUOTE=c.captain;119377]Tony Munoz, publisher and editor in chief at Maritime Executive Magazine, has one of this country’s most clear, coherent, thoroughly well versed voices pertaining to matters relating to the US maritime industry and his Op/Ed is simply the best one can find. I urge every one here to visit his Editorial Page and better to subscribe to his newsletters.

A very close second to him is Tim Colton at coltoncompany.com. Another clearheaded and thoroughly knowledgeable voice on all matter pertaining to US shipbuilding and operations.

You know, if gCaptain and Maritime Executive somehow merged…that would be a true power to recon with in the industry.[/QUOTE]

Great minds think alike, I visit all of these 3 sites several times a week.