Dr.Sal again at Peter Seihan throat and not letting go. That is why i like Dr.Sal. and his videos .
Then probably lay off 15% of their workforce to cut costs because they wasted all their profits on bonuses and buybacks.
Maybe the Koreans can teach US builders how to build ships efficiently.
There’s also the legal requirement for all US government cargo and personnel to be carried on US ships and planes whenever possible.
Building a brand new LNG ship would increase the transport cost a few cents per gallon at most. Hopefully this ship will prove there’s a market and Crowley will build a new ship or three.
Not lease, buy then immediately sell to a private company.
A US-built LNG tanker would cost ~$700 million more than one built in Asia. Plus its operating costs would be substantially higher. Will never happen without massive subsidies.
So about $0.20 per gallon increased shipping cost. Big whoop.
Yes, we know your next goal is to eliminate US flag shipping altogether. You don’t have to constantly remind us.
You’re missing the point. You may not think the build cost or opex is a big deal, but vessel operators do. The economics simply do not work. A US-built/flagged LNG tanker will never happen absent significant subsidies.
I’m just reading through this thread and can’t comprehend why so many US mariners are anti-Jones Act.. All I see is “please get rid of the legislation that gives me and the rest of the US maritime sector a good steady job.” I don’t mean this sarcastically; I really don’t understand why y’all want to shoot yourselves in the foot.
They severely overestimate how long the crewing requirement will survive without the build requirement.
Probably also underestimate the chances a repeal of the build requirement survives litigation and implementation and comes out the other side in a recognizable and meaningful form. Every owner that has built domestically in the last ten-fifteen years will fight viciously against it because it would absolutely destroy the value of their assets.
Maybe they assume somehow the US crew requirement part of it would somehow remain and there would be more jobs with cheaper ships? The odds of that are IMHO quite low.
How would you all react to “We could sell more American ships if we could man them with cheap 3rd World crews”. Same deal in reverse.
Didn’t even think about that, that’s a good point.
Whatever the case may be, I suggest just leave it alone and stop fussing. I’m not paying all this time and money to go to a academy just to graduate and find out that the very people I’ll be working aside have wiped out US mariners.. lol
empirically the JA has done an awful job at building a US Merchant Marine. That is just a fact - it lives on, as you correctly say, mostly due to the “slippery slope” argument.
IMO - this is a minor case of insanity. We are accepting an awful status quo due because we fear it could go from awful to really awful. Instead of changing the status quo and taking a chance the situation could go from awful to better than awful.
There are plenty that would love to see the JA just vanish, they would have no problem with say a Liberian flagged tug with a third-world captain and crew pushing a raft of barges down an inland river - I mean what could go wrong ?
Given USA pay rates in both shipyards and on the boats, I don’t see how the industry would not just vanish the rest of the way if there was no JA.
Given the current system is keeping the patient just barely alive, is there some “halfway pregnant” idea like sourcing hulls from friendly countries and doing all the rest of the work here? I used to fit out Taiwan built boats until the Luxury Tax killed that business 
I kept a crew pretty busy while it lasted.
- the aviation version of the JA is cabotage rules that prevent foreign-registered airplanes and/or foreign owned airlines from carrying passengers between two USA airports, the same crew that wants the JA gone is always after that too. There never was a domestic build requirement though.
the complete though is, due to the protections of the JA, US deep sea construction costs are so prohibitive they idle projects, and incentivize work arounds to avoid the need for a US Flag when they can.
If the US build requirement was lifted, and US companies could buy ships in the market. Go through some re-flagging process - and operate them with US Crews with cabotage protections. There would be more projects that worked economically, no need for creative work arounds, and therefor more ships and more berths for US Sailors.
The loser (maybe) in this scenario would be the deep sea US shipbuilding yards. The less than handful that exist.
The arguments -
US shipbuilding is a strategic asset we need in time of war. - Well, again empirically the JA has done an awful job of protecting that. But if true, and I think the argument has merit, then have the government subsides us yards directly. Go to congress, make your case, and get the money.
the Slippery slope - if you do away with the build requirement, the crew requirement will shortly follow. Well these are types are arguments that are impossible to defeat, because the live in 2 worlds. The first world is “ well the past would have been different if…..” and the second world is “ well the future will be awful unless …..” - These arguments ignore and avoid the reality in favor of the what if.
Have any of y’all looked into the SHIPS for America Act that is currently in line to be voted on? What do y’all think of it?
“A” tanker will be expensive. That’s not the point. It’s a lead ship for a fundamental industrial change, paving the way for the ships following the same path. Building more than one lowers the cost in multiple ways. In addition to the simple learning curve inherent in building multiple ships of the same design, there’s also the learning curve for the designers, engineers, purchasing agents, logisticians, and everyone else involved with the project. Then there’s the opening of a market that offers the prospect of return on capital investment in the domestic industrial plant necessary to supply the components–steel, engines, shafts, gears, deck machinery, pumps, cryo plants, controls, etc.
Economy of scale requires scale. It is also not a binary system, but a scale. The loss of the commercial shipbuilding industry has resulted in the reduction of everything that goes along with sustaining that industry. The more lines of product, the more flexible and resilient the industry, and the more competitive the supply chain. In the not-so-distant past, Avondale was building commercial tankers, LMSRs, and amphibs. NASSCO was building Eco tankers and Matson ConROs at the same time as building auxiliaries. That new-build supply chain also means cheaper repair and modification parts for operators.
As for those of you making the argument that the aviation industry is doing just fine with foreign involvement, I’d suggest you look at what happened to Martin, Convair, McDonnell-Douglas, and Lockheed once the US opened the market to subsidized competition from Airbus. But also ask yourself why there are no Ilyushin airliners, or Comac ARJ21, Comac 919, or other foreign airliners in US service, instead of the Boeing/Airbus/Bombardier/Embraer gang. It’s still a protected market zone.
Likewise, we don’t have DAF, Hino, Shacman, Sinotruck, or other foreign semi-trucks running on US highways. Those foreign brands, like Volvo, don’t import Class 7 & 8 trucks, they build them here.
The free-traders forget that the reason shipbuilding is concentrated in 3 countries is because the market isn’t free and has been deliberately skewed as part of the national strategies of those countries.
Doug
The loser is also the US Navy and the US taxpayer. The industrial base supporting the construction of ocean going merchant ships provides the scale necessary to drive down the cost of naval ship construction. Suppliers of steel, forgings, weldments, machinery, and other equipment don’t have the economy of scale when relying solely on naval construction.
Doug
- How long since a US shipyard built a large merchant ship solely from US design, with all US made machinery and equipment?
- How long will it take to regain the ability to build a totally US designed and equipped large merchant ship?
- Is it worth the cost and effort to develop a complete US supply chain when there are existing suppliers in allied countries that already have the ability to supply what is needed at competitive prices and terms?
National security you say? Maintain the ability to build Naval vessels at US yards, with US machinery and equipment afa possible and at whatever price.
Merchant vessel needed to supply US forces worldwide can be built/purchased from friendly nations, put under US flag, owned and managed by US shipping companies and crewed by US citizens/residents.
And US shipbuilding is not “deliberately skewed as part of the national strategie”?
Isn`t US shipbuilding “subsidized” by overpriced Government contracts?
Suspect the crew requirement would be safer without the build requirement, as there would be less anti-JA animus. How many people criticize the JA, for example, compared to how many criticize airline cabotage restrictions? Now consider how much criticism of airline cabotage there would be if the carriers had to use aircraft that cost 5x as much as those built abroad?
The real mystery here is why so many mariners continue to go along with a build requirement that leaves them sailing on an old and declining fleet. It’s truly bizarre.
Totally correct that scale is a key ingredient in competitive shipbuilding. And scale will never be achieved within the confines of the protected JA market, where orders are typically for 2-4 ships. High costs are baked into the cake. And things are only getting worse. Costs continue to spiral (cost of a US-built MR tanker has gone up by ~$70 million just in the last five years, and the cost of Matson’s Aloha class went up $124 million in nine years)) which leads to demand destruction and further upward pressure on costs. End result: Pasha spends tens of millions to get a 1980-built ship repowered in a state-owned Chinese shipyard instead of buying from a US yard. And then we tell ourselves that the JA is all about national security and stopping China, It’s tragicomic.
As for shipbuilding in Asia, let’s not fool ourselves that in a zero subsidy world that protected US shipyards could compete. Don’t forget that US yards torpedoed a deal in the 1990s to rein in shipbuilding subsidies: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/03/business/on-second-thought-us-decides-shipyard-subsidies-aren-t-so-bad.html
How much overlap is there between commercial and naval construction? Is the same steel used in both? The same machinery? Are inflated materials cost a leading cost of ballooning naval shipbuilding budgets? These are earnest questions.