Naturally the skewed numbers Colin provides make him jealous since he doesn’t earn anywhere near that.
1 Like
Maybe if that one batch of mates would vote to join the oldest maritime union…
But there still is the stupid bullshit “tradition” of the 13hour 0600 start tanker day…just because muh reasons.
1 Like
Man this again? Get off of it.
You’re on a bad ship with a bad Chief. Find a new ride.
2 Likes
Ya should a seen it before work hour rules !!
1 Like
Next the US will probably follow suit from the EU and adopt a similar ETS. Now imagine those intra-US voyage costs. Just bankrupt the system then. JA needs to have a complete facelift.
For people who are not familiar with ETS: In 2026, the EU ETS will on average increase operational costs per container vessel per year by €550,000 in 2024 and by €1.4m in 2026.
By 2026, bulk carriers with MRV data showing 15% intra-EU voyages and 85% extra-EU voyages will face additional operational costs of €260,000 per vessel.
The EU ETS will result in an increase in operational costs of €1m per tanker in 2026, and €380,000 already in 2024.
I don’t really understand the American sailors loyalty to the JA. It is hard to imagine
anything that has lessened the need for deep sea officers and sailors than the JA. It is, and has
always been, at its core a shipyard subsidy. Over last decades all it has done for sailors
is limit berths.
The major argument I have heard from sailors is, if the build requirement goes, the requirement
for US sailors will too.
I truly dislike slippery slope arguments. In general they almost never have a real basis. There are
literally a plethora of examples of them never occurring. The real purpose of these slippery slope
arguments are just to be a barrier to change.
It is hard to imagine any program with such a miserably record of success with such a die hard
group of supporters that it has completely failed. If anything needs changing to support and grow
the need for US sailors it is the JA
3 Likes
mate’s get shafted even more. 2 watches plus mandatory off watch OT…but they all got company kneepads
Even if you want to build, out of the shipyards who could build commercially large vessels, do they even have spots available, from my understanding the US Navy takes up most of them, so when could you build anyway in the US:
1 Like
Canadians get new ships while Americans have to make do with ATBs. Sad.
Indeed. Here is a list of various Jones Act exceptions that have been enacted since the law’s 1920 passage: Statutory Exceptions to the Jones Act Since its Enactment in 1920 and Other Exceptions to the Coastwise Laws - Google Drive
Obviously, none of these have led to the law’s demise or even any sort of weakening.
I’d submit that leaving the status quo intact is the bigger long-term threat to the JA given the resulting dysfunction that increases sentiment in favor of repeal. Get rid of U.S.-built and allow for economic waivers when no U.S. vessel is available and I think a lot of opposition to the law would dissipate. You can argue that’s a self-interested position on my part, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
I know for MR tankers that NASSCO has no availability until 2026 while Philly Shipyard is booked through 2027. I think Keppel AmFELS should have some availability open up with the WTIV, hopper dredge, and the second OHANA class boxship (originally supposed to be delivered in Q3 2020) all supposed to be delivered this year.
1 Like
Here we go again … “competition” will solve everything!!!
Here’s a few facts that you seem to be (repeatedly) unaware of in the Hawaii trade lane.
- Lack of maritime infrastructure; If the JA were dropped tomorrow, you (and many others) repeatedly insist that there would be a flood of foreign carriers that would LEAP at the opportunity to enter into the Hawaii trade. Evidence?
There is no available land anywhere in the State of Hawaii, not at any of our seven commercial deep water ports, that could be made available to any other interested carrier operating through our ports. None. Even if every Hawaiian resident WANTED to get additional carriers into this trade, there is nowhere to physically go and operate. A few years ago, some bean counting exec at another US flag shipping company made a passing comment about doing this very thing, entering the Hawaii trade. That comment got a LOT of press in Hawaii.
A friend pulled that guy aside and asked him where he planned on operating? After a brief discussion, it became very apparent that it would take years (decades) of time and tens of millions of dollars just to upgrade the one and only dock where it may be “possible” (and I use that word judiciously) to set up his terminal operation. Needless to say, his idea folded up and he disappeared.
Hawaii is an island. LAND is at a premium. There is no land for anything these days, which underscores why the ‘average’ price of a home here is about $1 million dollars. Thats not a nice house for you mainland boys. Thats a basic, 3X2 on a postage stamp lot with no frills.
- No prospects for growth There is a limited market here for cargo. Unlike other ports around the world or even just on the US west coast, our islands have a finite amount of cargo to bring in annually. Yes, there is a seasonal lift in volume and perhaps a smaller amount based on a growing population or tourism growth.
But there is only so much “stuff” to bring in week to week.
The general sentiment of locals here in the islands is such that we have now started to see a net drain on our population. More residents are leaving, than people that are moving to Hawaii. Like most other “blue states” that are under the tyrannical rule of left wing politicians, the price of burdensome taxation policies here (the real reason its so expensive, NOT the Jones Act) is driving Hawaiians out.
Even tourism, our prime generator of our economy, is seen differently. Most residents see tourism as a necessary evil. But the days of unrestricted growth are over. In fact, the State agency that has for decades been “promoting” growth is being shut down. Now, in it’s place, another agency to “manage tourism as it is” without growth.
This means to any new shipper that wants to enter our market, they must ask themselves “why should we invest in a trade that has no prospects for growth, OTHER THAN stealing existing cargo from your competitors?”
Hawaiians have a great historical model to base their suspicions on with respect to entry of more competition in a closed transportation market. I’m old enough to know (as most other non-residents do not) that we have seen quite clearly what happens when you have a duopoly of carriers in the aviation industry serving the inter-isle market. Planes carrying a finite number of tourists and residents between the islands. We had two carriers for decades, at times three trying to compete. But the third usually never could make it. Why? Because in order to get a greater market share, the three carriers would lower their ticket prices so much (great for the consumer, yes?) that it would be a game to see who went bankrupt first. Then that guy leaves the market and we are back to one or two carriers all over again. this cycle would play out over the course of maybe a year or two.
But then what happens? The surviving carrier jacks his ticket prices so high in an effort to recoup all his losses in the preceding airfare war. I have watched this (with other local residents) time and time again. What is stopping the carrier from raising his prices sky high? Nothing. Quick way to piss off your customers, too.
- Restrictions to the size of ships Clearly the size of ships that most foreign carriers are investing in or currently posses, are NOT conducive to the Hawaii trade. Our primary harbor at Honolulu cannot manage box ship beyond the 5000 TEU range.
Actually, Matson’s newest largest ships are about 3500 TEU. PASHA’s newest ship is less than that. The CMA CGM ships that call here (295m X 32m) are maxed out about 5000TEU, but they transit in light condition, nearly empty, and are no where near loaded to what they can actually carry. Matson ships are near their loaded maximum allowed drafts here during peak cargo loads.
Foreign carriers have moved to mega box ships to lower the per unit costs of each box. Thats what makes the ULCC ship so attractive to the greater Transpacific trade. But I keep asking, what carrier wants to “compete” in a trade going the wrong way? Smaller ships, higher per unit costs, lower margins, and the prospect of carrying into Honolulu loaded boxes, but having nothing but empties (thus no revenues) on the outbound lane??? Where is THAT guy?
Presently we see the turmoil in the greater transpac service, as the greatest number of mega-box ships enter service in a short amount of time next year.
We are going to watch (again!!) the pain of overcapacity brush aside the sky high freight rates of last year and shipowners will muddle through (again!!!) having to accept cargo at ANY price to fill their gynormous ships … probably at a loss.
I appreciate the libertarian think tanks boys at Cato love to promote the concept of “competition” in the Hawaii Jones Act trade.
I get it.
But they are academics sitting behind a desk, spinning charts and graphs all day. They are motivated only because they are being paid to do so.
Meanwhile, I’m just an local Hawaiian on the waterfront everyday. Nobody would love to see the cost of living here go lower than little ol’ me. But I have watched this fight for more “competition” in the market in an effort to lower overall costs before. It doesn’t always play out like the economic text books like to teach you. Sometime it turns out to be just theory.
Then you have real life to reflect upon. And we have seen that here before.
Regarding all the other side issues of the JA … the STCW, training, security, blah blah blah … whatever. It goes on ad nauseum. I’m NOT trying to stand on the patriotic soapbox, but I can’t fathom how any sane American can justify in their mind that letting a COSCO box ship under a Chinese flag carry military/DoD cargo, is in the best national interest of the US. Unless of course, you are Colin Grabow and anyone else that works at CATO.
Hawaii probably has more military forces in this State than most others. About 100,000 military are here. Everything they need to be war ready, comes to these island on a civilian cargo ship, under the US flag, with US mariners. Even most military people here don’t even know that.
So we should let China take care of that for us, if they had the chance? Guess you didn’t learn anything the last two years of the Chinese caused pandemic.
Shipbuilding This is admittedly a disaster area. But this warrants an entire review all its own, regardless of the JA. To me, they are different issues that should be managed separately. This sector of the maritime industry needs complete change. But throwing out the Jones Act to fix the shipbuilding industry is entirely the wrong way to approach the subject.
Shipbuilders are not doing themselves any favors and as far as I know, have few honest supporters among mariners. We begrudgingly support them. But they need to get their act together. Now.
A $12 billion dollar aircraft carrier that doesn’t work and will likely have to go into an extended period of “maintenance” soon after her first deployment is a reflection on the shipyard, the Navy as a whole, and the idiot politicians that have just as much to blame as anyone else for perpetuating a broken system of funding national defense. And that one pathetic carrier is just a blip on a very long list of sea going platforms, that I personally consider a national embarrassment.
How do those shipyard guys stare at themselves in the mirror everyday and say “Look at what i accomplished!”
12 Likes
Thanks for your response, Captain Enos. You asked what it should cost to ship goods to Hawaii and I responded that we should open up to competition and let the market decide. I don’t know what that number will be, but I’m pretty sure it would be lower than the status quo. Which seems an obvious conclusion unless one thinks that a carrier’s underlying cost structure has no bearing on shipping prices.
Doesn’t seem very wise to bleed the military with high shipping costs on vessels maintained by COSCO shipyards. Let’s have the military do their own cost-benefit analysis and decide who to ship with. Fortunately, there are plenty of ships in the world flagged and owned by countries other than China, a number of whom are U.S. allies.
Will never happen so long as they have a captive market for what they build. These guys haven’t been internationally competitive since the late 1800s and there’s no reason to think that will change anytime soon. Why U.S. mariners continue to lend the shipyards their support, begrudging or otherwise, is beyond me.
No they wouldn’t.
1 Like
It’s not support for the big shipyards , it’s support for the thousands of smaller boatyards. Small yards are thriving and turn out a good product at prices that are competitive with Canadian and Northern European yards.
1 Like
You guys get kneepads?
2 Likes
How do you address the many examples of foreign shipowners’ refusal to carry military cargo at times of great need, or insurers’ refusal to underwrite policies for ships carrying military cargo during conflict? There’s plenty of precedent. The British army running out ammunition during the Falkland islands conflict is the best example to mind. Having to order soldiers to die in place, and to perform a bayonet charge into incoming fire has happened in living memory as a DIRECT result of relying on competition and market forces to fulfill shipping needs.
5 Likes
And plenty of suitable ships owned by American corporations that flys “friendly” flags.
Marshall Island Registry comes to mind. Infact MRI’s address is:
INTERNATIONAL REGISTRIES, INC. | Reston | US | AIS Marine Traffic.
PS> Until recently ITF listed MIR as; Marshall Islands (US)
My response to those that want to do away with the Jones Act is, “Should foreign airlines be allowed to fly between US airports? World you be OK with Air India flying passengers and cargo between Dallas and Chicago?” If our airways are protected from foreign competition, so should or waterways.
3 Likes
91 countries in the world has some form of Maritime Cabotage Laws.
Here is a link to an ITF study with a listing of all 91:
The book can be loaded down in PDF
PS> Only the US has any “domestic built” requirement as far as I can find out.
Here is one more for your reading pleasure:
1 Like