No it isn’t. It’s only slightly more expensive than it would be on foreign built ships. Not enough to effect prices in any noticeable way.
It takes 5 years from contract signing to launching of a Navajo-Class Towing, Salvage and Rescue Ships (T-ATS):
This is a modified VS 4612 AHTS design by Vik-Sandvik Wartsila (now Breeze Ship Design), Stord, Norway, back in 2000s, built by an Australian owned shipyard in USA for the US Navy:
https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SNA2020/SNA2020-USNS_Navajo-ChrisPaulus.pdf?ver=2020-01-15-154401-857
Wrong. As long as they have a “green card” or the right to work in the U.S. they can fly for an American airline.
How is that a constructive comment? It is not easy to get a green card so there are very few who are using their green card status for sailing US flag. That is the topic at hand.
If you believe that I have a bridge for sale
‘Not in any noticeable way’? See the graphic which demonstrates just how much more expensive JA ships are in real life,
Your graphic doesn’t demonstrate anything. It’s just colored lines on a satellite image.
1 Like
A good friend of mine started off on a dredge for the Army Corp of Engineers. Later worked as a Port Engineer for Exxon and finished his career for them as an oil trader. An interesting career path to be sure. He tried to explain to me how oil moved and was traded once, and it was anything but simple given the players in the game. While your graphic shows us gasoline from Canada, we also export a lot of it to Latin/South America.
This is ridiculous for a number of reasons.
-
the market is already saturated with Jones Act vessels, there’s no need for more.
-
there’s zero reason to think the trade would expand because there isn’t the need for more ships on those runs.
-
shipping costs wouldn’t be significantly lower and definitely not enough to lower prices noticeably.
Assuming that’s true, and using the same numbers for Crowley’s El Coqui on the Puerto Rico run, that comes out to ~120 extra per container per trip (assuming zero return cargo).
That’s a great argument for why the US government should subsidize American shipyards to modernize them and make them competitive with foreign yards the way so many foreign governments did with their own shipyards.
4 Likes
It sounds like the best solution is to have a big infrastructure investment for our nation to modernize our large shipyards. Even Expanding the Small Shipyard Grant would have a hugely positive effect. We need a stronger and more empowered MARAD to support our industry.
3 Likes
Korean yards deliver vessels consistently at a financial loss. Perhaps if they charged a vessel cost that allowed them financial solvency there would be less of a cost disparity. DSME (now Hanwha) posted over $1billion loss per year the past three years, even more over the last ten. They’ve been bailed out more than once. Samsung has posted losses for the last 8 years. All of the major Korean shipyards have as major shareholders various Korean government agencies. The Korean government provides hundreds of millions in R&D funding. They provide subsidies for hiring foreign workers. Tens of thousands of Korean shipyard workers have been laid off in the last ten years and are increasingly being replaced with foreign labor to the tune of 60%+ discount in labor cost. So if you want to use Korean shipbuilding as a model, let’s get those US gov dollars flowing!
3 Likes
In terms of tankers:
Crowley 23
OSG 17 (including 1 in layup)
Seabulk 6
Polar 5
Chevron 4
I know there’s at least one other doing some unique chem trade or something.
That gets us to 56. However, 3 of the OSG ones are foreign built TSP vessels. Not sure about Crowley’s count, but I know they just picked up management of some Stena Bulk foreign built tankers for TSP.
@RPC72 for your data, you gotta get some more accurate/relevant info. I’m still waiting for a reference/paper/article/etc that shows how Korea can produces ships competitively and still pay US equivalent wages. I still think you need to do more research on airplanes. Also, a tanker in the US has never been 200 mil. Here’s a headline that came out a few weeks ago that was suggesting it, but of course it’s written to get you to click on it:
Point is that it doesn’t actually cost 200 mil., or that much more to build in the US.
But I understand your point that if the vessel built cost was lower, that in and of itself might encourage more vessels, and in turn more mariners, or more business etc.
However, that could become a slippery slope as @HawsePiper pointed out. Next is us mariners at the chopping block. This isn’t some irrational fear. Neither side of the political isle has done anything to change the JA because after it’s changed once, it opens the door to all sorts of other changes.
But that’s a reason not to change the JA. How about a reason to change it? A good ol hunch isn’t good enough of a basis to eliminate US shipbuilding. Who is saying they’d use those ships for cargo? Which ports are saying they’re ready to invest for this? What is the plan for the displaced jobs and business of the shipyards? Which economist ran the numbers for all this?
Let’s bring this back into discussion. You can’t just sweep this under the rug. China knows that full on war with the US (or any nation) isn’t really likely. They know that they can exert the influence they want by controlling the seas. They’re doing it with fishing boats (and are likely to use something similar to adverse possession to claim rights to international waters). They’ve been buying up ports for a while. Just two weeks ago, COSCO snapped up some control of a German port. They are heavily subsidising their shipyards to control that market too. And that’s just the commercial side. Read gCaptain and you’ll know all about their Navy’s activities.
Having a US fleet/mariners is an effective and peaceful block to China’s maritime strategy. So yes, there is more than money to be considered with the JA. It is indeed a national security benefit.
2 Likes
And the point sailed right over your head. Veteran class tanker is not a US ship. It’s completely Korean…even the shitter and shower fixtures are Korean. The drawings are from Korea and nearly all the equipment came from Korea. It’s a farce to call it a “US built” ship, because it isn’t a US ship. It just happened to be assembled in the USA.
Which is yet another reason why Merchant Marine officers should be paid more…we must be US citizens.
No, I just think your point is pointless.
Regardless of who makes the CAD drawings or who makes the shitters, there must be a yard here capable of building the ship. Not sure why you’re confused.
Because it shows that it is foolish (at best) to post patently false statements in support of a poor argument. This forum is not a political rally so please, refrain from lying about such easily countered claims.
1 Like
A targeted waiver on US construction has been suggested for LNG vessels because the US doesn’t have any yet, but it’s been shot down for various reasons.
This kind of thing has actually been tested before, with the Pride Of America (Norwegian Cruise Line). The cruise market was already mature, and there were (and still are) none built in the US. Even the POA is foreign built.
The thought:
There are no US flag cruise ships, so what’s the harm with a waiver that allowed a foreign built vessel get a US flag? It could secure a few more US Mariners; worst case scenario was that nothing would happen. They did keep the POA, but it didn’t work out for 2 other Norwegian vessels that were a part of that same deal.
It should be noted there were other reasons the waiver was made in the first place, but the end result (for all but 1 vessel) is failure because of the economics.
It’s possible there are ways to fix it - maybe require only deck/engine teams be US? Most of the crew on a cruise ship is in hotel ops. I still don’t see that working either.
Sorry, I confused Bollinger Shipyard and AustalUSA.
You are being refreshingly positive and constructive. On LNG you may mean LNG bunkering, which I believe is already happening in Jacksonville. LNG as fuel satisfies all current IMO requirements for emissions, it is usually cheaper than fuel oil. And we have lots of US natural gas. Some ideas don’t work, but no ideas never work.