Roughly 92,000,
Professor Sal gave a pretty good explanation on twitter
1 Like
“At a reported price of roughly $330 million each, the new 3,600 TEU LNG ships will be about twice as expensive as new 24,000 TEU LNG Megamax-24s from South Korea’s DSME.”
And there you have the problem with the US build requirement of the Jones Act in stark relief. This is why the US no longer has a viable merchant marine.
1 Like
I wonder how the US shipbuilding industry would be if the US had subsidized shipbuilding as heavily as Korea has over the past two decades?
4 Likes
Apparently owning and operating shipyards in US is not as profitable as expected:
I think that is really the issue. The US has, via the Jones Act, established quite a few indirect shipyard subsidies. I find it very hard to see how any objective view of these could call it successful.
However, other countries who for some multiple of reasons, tend to use direct government subsidies for shipbuilding. I do think that is a better idea.
The main reason i do, is it makes the support of the industry overt. Politicians have to vote to directly fund it, and answer to their constitutes for their vote. This moves this " we need to spend to maintain shipbuilding abilities" out from behind the curtain provided by, mostly interested parties debating the JA. Into a true democratic debate on is this were we should be spending our tax dollars.
4 Likes
American Airlines flies from US city to US city on Airbus aircraft.
1 Like
Yes, American Airlines is in full compliance with the Jones Act, good point.
Without it there would be ZERO yards engaged in building ocean going commercial ships.
So it has objectively been successful in preventing the extinction of such capability.
Could it be better? Of course but what we have now is the absolute bare minimum required.
The ships cost more here, that’s the problem… Well thank you for that in depth analysis.
No… The ships costing more is a SYMPTOM of many underlying ROOT CAUSES which have been discussed on this forum at length.
There are thousands of passenger aircraft operated by US carriers. There are a small fraction of a thousand cargo ships operated by us carriers.
It’s a ridiculous comparison. In war time, approximately zero commercial passenger planes are going to be needed for sealift of tanks, APCs, fuel, and ammunition.
There will be limited to zero military impact if we are not able to produce new commercial passenger aircraft in war time.
Which, incidentally we would be able to, since Boeing exists and is commercially and globally competitive.
2 Likes
@shipengr You’re making his point for him. Boeing hasn’t been protected by cabotage laws for a century so they have innovated and remained globally competitive.
Our shipbuilders have been protected and they objectively suck. If the status quo is the Jones Act working, ffs let’s try something different.
1 Like
All due respect, but calling the state of US Shipbuilding a success because it barely exists if a pretty low bar.
1 Like
Not a huge fan of “what if’s” - one, including me, can make up any scenario and say it is better than reality - not much value there.
So no clue if this could have been - but I certainly can see a case where increased competition could have lead to innovation and greater competitiveness in our shipbuilding sector - leaving it healthier than it is now.
Good for Philly shipyard.
2 Likes
No cabotage but lots of public and hidden subsidies:
Boeing - Airbus subsidies dispute ended in truce:
2 What if’s on the same post here - maybe I don’t dislike them that much.
I am not sure if there had been a buy foreign - re-flag option for US based companies for the last 10- 20 years we may be in a better sealift position than we are now.
Again, no way to know - but I just can’t buy in to the current paradigm as being the only- best way to meet that need.
Motivation likey for several reasons. Big factor is the fact that the 40+ year old ships in the Alaska fleet require replacement. But also considering EEXI, larger vessels carrying cargo both east and westbound in Pacific trade.
Matson has been positioned well with the west coast volume bottleneck as they run their own leased yards through their minority ownership of SSA.
Early in the pandemic they restructured debt to about 1.5%, bought back a ship they were leasing and expanded China service capacity.
They have been cashing in on China to west coast cargo rates and have bought back ~1.5 Billion in stock in 2021&22. 3rd quarter ‘22 they deposited 550+ million into their capital construction fund.
1 Like
The DKI had all of the gas equipment for the engines installed. Matson chose not to install the tanks and piping due to lack of infrastructure on USWC to supply LNG.
1 Like
Has anyone suggested that? I will fully suggest that opening the gates to foreign ships which WILL result in the death of US deep sea commercial shipbuilding is unacceptable - worst way to proceed.
1 Like
Well, two US Shipyards just sold for $15million. And they have the ~$billion contract to build new icebreakers. Articles say the shipyard lost ~50mil a year for the last 4-5 years. Maybe just pull the plug, like is done with a braindead patient?
1 Like