Shipowners Sue Coast Guard Over Pilotage Rates

Maritime News
1

not that I give two shits about pilotage rates on the Saint Lawrence but this goes to show how the USCG can be taken to Federal Court to challenge them. Why the FUCK don’t the owners of US vessels in the GoM take the USCG to the same Court to challenge them over their allowing so many foreign vessels to operate in the Gulf with full foreign crews? Force the owners of these vessels to replace their foreign crews with Americans as the OCSLA says they should and either the foreign vessels will leave or the owners will need to find American crews which likely would come from the GoM operators via management contracts. The Bayou Mafia could not lose if they would only get their heads out of their collective ASSES!

[B]Shipowners Sue Coast Guard Over Pilotage Rates[/B]

By MarEx 2016-06-03

Six Canadian and European shipowners – Brochart, Spliethoff, Wagenborg, Polsteam, Fednav and Canfornav – have joined in a suit against the U.S. Coast Guard over pilotage fees on the St. Lawrence Seaway / Great Lakes, alleging that the USCG has not taken commercial needs properly into account in its latest review. They contend that the agency has set the 2016 season rates so high that “pilotage is now one of the largest single cost items for foreign-flag vessels that enter” the area, and they have asked a federal court to reverse the Coast Guard’s decision.

The U.S. and Canada jointly manage the St. Lawrence Seaway, which connects the lakes with the Atlantic, but the USCG is charged with administering pilotage rates for both Canadian and U.S. pilots on the waterway.

The owners contend that in its latest ruling on pilots’ wages, the Coast Guard did not consider the different sizes of vessels transiting the Seaway, unlike in prior years, and also did not make account for the seasonal demand fluctuations in determining pilot staffing requirements – assuming instead a constant peak level demand (a measure the Coast Guard justified in part as a way to have enough pilots to comply with rest period guidelines).

The six owners also disputed USCG claims that higher wages were needed to recruit and retain pilots. In its rulemaking announcement, the USCG asserted that "the career-long prospects a recruit or new pilot faces for lower compensation than their counterparts [elsewhere]” was an obstacle to maintaining a qualified pool for the Seaway.

The current rate structure would “effect a dramatic increase in costs for all vessel owners, and this effect may be especially harsh to vessels that operate on certain routes," the plaintiffs said. As relief, the shipowners are asking a federal district court in Washington, D.C. to vacate the Coast Guard’s rulemaking action and to grant a 20 percent cut in pilotage rates.

As of June 3 the Coast Guard has not yet filed a response with the court.

the BASTARDS in Blue will never change their dirty ways until a court forces them to!

2

[QUOTE=c.captain;185479]not that I give two shits about pilotage rates on the Saint Lawrence but this goes to show how the USCG can be taken to Federal Court to challenge them. Why the FUCK don’t the owners of US vessels in the GoM take the USCG to the same Court to challenge them over their allowing so many foreign vessels to operate in the Gulf with full foreign crews? Force the owners of these vessels to replace their foreign crews with Americans as the OCSLA says they should and either the foreign vessels will leave or the owners will need to find American crews which likely would come from the GoM operators via management contracts. The Bayou Mafia could not lose if they would only get their heads out of their collective ASSES!
the BASTARDS in Blue will never change their dirty ways until a court forces them to![/QUOTE]

Could it be because there are no legal reason to do so?

Would you agree to have a foreign government tell an American Owner that he had to replace his American crew with locals, or GET THE FUCK OUT??

I know that there are VERY few American vessels working International, but it is a two way street.
Brasil is trying to do so and Australia is doing it. How many Brazilian or Australian vessels are you seeing competing internationally??
The answer is NONE, but there are both Brazilian and Australian seafarers working outside their home waters.

Accept facts.If you block free competition you get blocked back.
What happened to the American principe of demanding equal rights and free trade? Is it freedom for some (read Americans) and not for others??

3

That’s untrue, if a foreign government had a law saying that only their citizens could work their own territorial waters then the law is the law. We are talking about domestic trade not international trade. Waivers are exactly that, they waive the applicable law. If US Mariners and companies were to prove that a waiver was unjustifiable then the courts would void the waiver. You talk strongly about globalization without understanding how law and policy have worked both presently and historically.

4

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;185489]That’s untrue, if a foreign government had a law saying that only their citizens could work their own territorial waters then the law is the law. We are talking about domestic trade not international trade. Waivers are exactly that, they waive the applicable law. If US Mariners and companies were to prove that a waiver was unjustifiable then the courts would void the waiver. You talk strongly about globalization without understanding how law and policy have worked both presently and historically.[/QUOTE]

I DO understand how Law and policy work. It works like this; You block us we block you.
Let a boat load of Americans be banned from working anywhere and hear them claim their RIGHTS.

5

Americans can’t go get jobs in the EU. What’s your point.

6

Americans are unwelcome to work in far more places than they are welcome, your point is bogus.

7

American shipping companies don’t care a lot about expanding labor for American sailors. They care more about profit and stable labor rates. CG is their regulator, don’t rock the boat with law suits. The rat-bastard foreign shipping companies will be told to pack sand. This is their feeble attempt at controlling rates with high hopes of eroding the law of the land. And how can you not give two shits about one sector of USA jobs and be so passionate about another???

8

[QUOTE=z-drive;185495]Americans are unwelcome to work in far more places than they are welcome, your point is bogus.[/QUOTE]

That IS my point. You close your market to others, you get blocked from working in their market.
America is the champion of free markets & free competition around the world, yet is unfairly protective in some segments of their own markets.

Simply put; you can secure 100% of a relatively small home market, but loose out on your fair share of the much larger worldwide market.
This does NOT apply only to the maritime and oil & gas segment of the economy, but in general.

You try to protect your industry by raising tariff barriers, or regulatory barriers and you get met by the same in other markets.
The progress in globalization and free trade that has been made in the last 4 decades will soon be eroded and isolationism return.

The big difference is that 50 years ago America ruled supreme on the market for manufactured goods, while having free access to raw material and oil from abroad. That is not the case today.

If Apple is forced to bring back production of Iphones, Ipads etc. to the US, the cost of such devices would be prohibitive on the home and world markets. Apple would have to move to Canada, or Ireland, or dissolve. Huawai would soon be the dominant brand on the market in the world, incl. US.

OK, you can put 35% tariff on anything imported from China to make it a “level playing field”, or whatever spin is put on it by the politicians.
The politicians will tell you; hey, look how clever we are to protect American jobs and the interest of the American consumer to buy American.
But that force Americans to pay double the world price for their phones, still made in China.

What happened next?? China put a ban on export of “Rear Earth” to protect their interests and secure own supply. Now the cry will be; HOW UNFAIR!!! We have to punish China for unfair practices.

And so on and on and on, until the world as we know it is no more, with the US pushed out in the cold and lonely place of isolationism, or think they can solve the problem with weapons.

I’m happy it will not happen in my lifetime.

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;185494]Americans can’t go get jobs in the EU. What’s your point.[/QUOTE]

Where does it say so?? There are a lot of Americans living and working in the EU, or anywhere else for that matter.
How many Americans do you think there are living and working in China, or Japan, or wherever??
You can look it up here: http://www.transitionsabroad.com/listings/living/living_abroad/living_abroad_by_country.shtml

9

[QUOTE=ombugge;185507]That IS my point. You close your market to others, you get blocked from working in their market.
America is the champion of free markets & free competition around the world, yet is unfairly protective in some segments of their own markets. [/QUOTE]

There is NO prohibition against foreign owned and flagged vessels working on the US Outer Continental Shelf. What there is are protections for American mariners who are by the law expected to man these ships. All drillships working on the OCS are foreign flagged but most have 100% American crews. What there is are loopholes in the law which allow some foreign owners to claim that they have the “effective control” of their vessels even though they are chartered to US service providers. It is the unfortunate reality that there is no definition of the term “effective control” in the regulations that allows these foreign mariners to remain in place.

I say that when you are a foreign vessel owner with your vessel(s) in the US working for a US company, you are under their control. You are only providing a platform from them to work from, however no one has ever gone to Federal District Court to demand that this be legally defined. If it was found that the control did rest with the charterer and not the owner, then that would mandate these foreign crew be replaced with Americans which is the intent of the law. That is what I call for and what I want the OMSA companies to do to protect their turf. They are the best placed to do this because like us mariners they can claim harm.

Now you can say that this would restrict the use of US vessels from working in other parts of the world, but let me honestly ask you how many US vessels are in fact working in other markets? Certainly not in Norway, Britain or Australia. They are in Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, etc… but in many cases only the master is American on those vessels because the host country has their own laws requiring their nationals to be employed which the US owners are happy to comply with because those locals cost less than Americans (even though in most cases those foreign nationals are working under a collective bargaining agreement which is unheard of for their American counterparts).

THESE LOOPHOLES ARE DEVASTATING FOR US AMERICAN MARINERS AND ALL I ASK FOR IS FOR THIS TO BE HEARD IN A COURT OF LAW TO DETERMINE WHO REALLY IS IN “EFFECTIVE CONTROL” OF THESE FOREIGN OWNED VESSELS WORKING IN MY COUNTRY!

I will say this to you SIR! We are mainly US citizen mariners here so unless you like being the skinny guy walking into a biker bar and screaming in a high pitched voice that we are all gay that you be circumspect in you words here because otherwise you best have a good dental plan!

GODDAMNED FOREIGN INTERLOPERS!

10

If only there was someone who could build a wall around the forum network server…

LETS MAKE THIS FORUM GREAT AGAIN!!!

11

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;185515]If only there was someone who could build a wall around the forum network server…

LETS MAKE THIS FORUM GREAT AGAIN!!![/QUOTE]

I am simply slavering for the day the Trumpster starts having Rebel flags flying at his rallies and then starts to open carry!

Then go all in and name Ted Nugent for VP!

12

[QUOTE=ombugge;185507]You try to protect your industry by raising tariff barriers, or regulatory barriers and you get met by the same in other markets.
The progress in globalization and free trade that has been made in the last 4 decades will soon be eroded and isolationism return.

If Apple is forced to bring back production of Iphones, Ipads etc. to the US, the cost of such devices would be prohibitive on the home and world markets. - - Updated - - -
[/QUOTE]

Call me a romantic or a reactionary, I don’t care. A sailor’s lot was a hell of a lot better when we had a strong merchant marine and he could step off a stick ship for a week or more while stevedores handled cargo instead of on a box ship where you don’t have time to step off because you’re only in port for 4 or maybe 8 hours if you’re lucky. Yeah, I know, you can’t stop “progress”.
It’s not news that most of our goods come from China loaded on floating warehouses with ever increasing numbers of containers packed with cheap crap that either doesn’t work or breaks down before the label wears off. The price we’ve paid for inexpensive goods is the loss of our manufacturing base and the middle class is disappearing fast. If isolationism means the flow of shit like tainted baby food from third world countries stops and we don’t have to put up with a flood of immigrants who promote abominations like sharia law and other stone age concepts that rank women on an equal footing with camels, I’ll take it any day of the week and you can shove your progress where the sun don’t shine.
I have an Iphone and an Ipad and a bunch of other gadgets but they don’t enrich my life.

13

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;185515]If only there was someone who could build a wall around the forum network server…

LETS MAKE THIS FORUM GREAT AGAIN!!![/QUOTE]

I withdraw my statement that it will not happen in my life time.
If your hero here gets to the white house I’m afraid it COULD HAPPEN!!

14

Be afraid. Be very afraid…

15

[QUOTE=c.captain;185512]There is NO prohibition against foreign owned and flagged vessels working on the US Outer Continental Shelf. What there is are protections for American mariners who are by the law expected to man these ships. All drillships working on the OCS are foreign flagged but most have 100% American crews. What there is are loopholes in the law which allow some foreign owners to claim that they have the “effective control” of their vessels even though they are chartered to US service providers. It is the unfortunate reality that there is no definition of the term “effective control” in the regulations that allows these foreign mariners to remain in place.

I say that when you are a foreign vessel owner with your vessel(s) in the US working for a US company, you are under their control. You are only providing a platform from them to work from, however no one has ever gone to Federal District Court to demand that this be legally defined. If it was found that the control did rest with the charterer and not the owner, then that would mandate these foreign crew be replaced with Americans which is the intent of the law. That is what I call for and what I want the OMSA companies to do to protect their turf. They are the best placed to do this because like us mariners they can claim harm.

Now you can say that this would restrict the use of US vessels from working in other parts of the world, but let me honestly ask you how many US vessels are in fact working in other markets? Certainly not in Norway, Britain or Australia. They are in Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, etc… but in many cases only the master is American on those vessels because the host country has their own laws requiring their nationals to be employed which the US owners are happy to comply with because those locals cost less than Americans (even though in most cases those foreign nationals are working under a collective bargaining agreement which is unheard of for their American counterparts).

THESE LOOPHOLES ARE DEVASTATING FOR US AMERICAN MARINERS AND ALL I ASK FOR IS FOR THIS TO BE HEARD IN A COURT OF LAW TO DETERMINE WHO REALLY IS IN “EFFECTIVE CONTROL” OF THESE FOREIGN OWNED VESSELS WORKING IN MY COUNTRY!

I will say this to you SIR! We are mainly US citizen mariners here so unless you like being the skinny guy walking into a biker bar and screaming in a high pitched voice that we are all gay that you be circumspect in you words here because otherwise you best have a good dental plan!

GODDAMNED FOREIGN INTERLOPERS![/QUOTE]

I know that there are no restrictions on foreign vessels working on the US OCS (or EEZ)and have stated so several times. There cannot be as it is not US territorial waters and not allowed under UNCLOS. Only fishing and exploiting resources found on or below the seabed is sovereign “property”.

What some here appears to believe is that the Jones Act applies outside carriage of cargo between US ports, incl. within the OSC/EEZ, which it does not. There may be some other laws prohibiting carriage of cargo to fixed platforms on the US OCS, if these are classed as “US ports”.
The likelihood that some cheap foreign OSVs should show up in the GOM to compete in that market is VERY remote.

As you point out nobody has tested the requirement for US nationals as crew on foreign vessels operating exclusively outside US territorial waters.
As not all such vessel are under FOC flags, there are certain requirement from the flag state as to the nationality and qualifications of crew on vessels under their flag. They may not recognize foreign qualifications or training for instant. One flag state that do not is the US.
Most national flags require at least the Master to be of their national, as does US.

To insist on 100% local manning is thus very difficult. I believe Australia is the only country where there is a requirement for 100% local manning, which is a Union thing, not Commonwealth Law. In fact the present government is trying to block these practices as it costs Australia a lot.

I have never said that cabotage laws are wrong, nor that it is wrong to protect the rights and livelihood of seafarers. On the contrary, I fully support that, but not protectionism to the detriment of freedom of the seas, which has been a cherished principle of maritime law for centuries.
US is and has been the protector of this right and is still insisting on the right of free navigation, regardless of what some nation state pass as laws to block it. That must also apply to US laws.

As for my writing things that may not tally with the majority opinion here, I have no regrets. If everybody has the same opinion on everything, this will be a dull forum.

Ohh and I’m checking if my dental plan includes prosthesis, just in case.

16

We should build a giant ice wall to keep those Scandinavian wildlings from the rest of civilization. Winter is coming.

17

Not only that, but we should make the wildlings pay for it!!

18

For a proud example of Nordic protectionism wiki ‘Cod Wars’ (Iceland) and to a far lesser degree wiki ‘fisheries case’ (Norway). The Cod Wars are a fine example of how a Nordic nation defended their seafaring citizen’s livelihoods against foreigners who would destroy it. Or google ‘Norway protectionism’. Norwegians, too, are guilty of looking out for their own (as they should!).

What I’m getting at is our Nordic brethren are guilty of selective memory as it suits them. Some of them just don’t want to admit it.

There isn’t much difference in saying foreigners can’t fish in their waters to saying foreigners can’t drill in ours.

19

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

20 
   [img]https://patricksponaugle.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/game-of-thrones-craster.jpg[/img]  omCrasterbugge