Well, guess that ends that discussion !!
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.
If they are competitive then we don’t need to shield them from competition.
1 Like
Not quite sure what your question is, but by all means the military should have the guaranteed access to sealift that it requires. I just find the Jones Act a highly inefficient and ineffective means of providing that. And I don’t think I’m alone in that assessment, as evidenced by the establishment of the MSP and TSP.
1 Like
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?”
You’re under the misguided impression that Colin and his ilk are sane.
2 Likes
So are you saying subsidizing ships to the point of being barely profitable in a foreign market is a better game plan than letting a limited market operate coastwise vessels? It’s panning out that a good percentage of TSP tankers likely will already have been US flagged tankers on government contract. We’re just throwing tax payer dollars at a business plan that already works, and artificially adding competition in exchange for companies welding UNREP stations to their deck. I haven’t sailed on MSP vessels, but from what I see on the SIU job boards, some of the ships on the roster don’t even seem to pay enough to retain their talent. Why would we be protecting these welfare programs when we could reformat our own cabotage laws.
1 Like
Pretty sure that’s right: https://twitter.com/cpgrabow/status/1369340994789969923
The book The Abandoned Ocean also says the same thing (see 1.):
I think subsidizing ships is a better approach than relying on those in coastwise trade, particularly given the interruptions it would have on the domestic economy to pull those ships out of trade during conflicts. As for MSP and TSP, I’m certainly not opposed to their restructuring and think improvements can be made. But I think the basic concept of paying stipends to US flag ships in exchange for guaranteed access to them to meet sealift needs is a sound one.
The tonnage is only half the problem, and arguably not even the important half.
This picture would neutralize 40% of the Tanker Security Program fleet.
The Hull loss would be infortune. What’s more unfortunate would be losing 4 full tanker crews. We are just pen strokes away from making a law allowing for the purchase and reflagging of 2nd hand tankers. You can not write a law to give someone the 10-15 years of experience to become a tanker captain or chief engineer. However with a robust coastwise fleet working even time, half your manpower can be found at Bimini Bay Bar in Fort Lauderdale on any given day to fill the gaps. For the sake of the free world, I’d wager there are folks who would be willing to extend their 75 day hitch so we can keep the cargo rolling at home and abroad. And given we can see what we can survive on with our dwindling jones act fleet, we’d have room to spare if we were able to add some cheaper hulls into the Frey.
1 Like
Also worth noting we are one of two countries that is 2-0 when it comes to World Wars, so perhaps there is a method to the madness.
1 Like
Sure, we need more experienced and properly licensed crew as well. On a recent CIMSEC podcast the suggestion was made to pay a stipend to foreign flags that hire US crew so they can get the proper licenses: https://twitter.com/CIMSEC/status/1629481547463118851
Sounds smart to me. Should also look into establishing a Merchant Marine Reserve.
1 Like
In both WWI and WWII the U.S. had to build entire new shipyards from scratch, and it’s also worth noting that most ships built for WWI were delivered after the armistice. Did better in WWII, but I think that’s largely because of the MMA 1936 shipbuilding subsidies and the pre-War Navy buildup (e.g. 11 Essex-class carriers had been ordered before Pearl Harbor). Also, thank goodness for Henry Kaiser. Wasn’t a lot of Jones Act shipbuilding in the interwar years.
Yes, people laugh at me when I say Elon Musk would revolutionized the shipbuilding industry if we paid him enough to do so. Shoot, I know very little about chickens, but given 6 million dollars and and pay me $1000 per chicken sent to market and I’ll become a god damn chicken producing powerhouse within 12 months. I make this argument all the time, including in this thread:
That being said, we can’t industrial revolution ourselves a crew, it’s much more efficient to keep them in the wings. I think spending taxpayer dollars to foreign companies so American mariners can make a competitive wage is not the answer when we can just have protected jobs moving cargo domestically on foreign built ships.
1 Like
I don’t see what the big deal is about paying foreign companies, which we already do via MSP. I just think we should do whatever is most effective and efficient, and I’m skeptical that a policy of indirect subsidies with unknown costs—the Jones Act—is the smartest approach. But if someone can show me the math indicating otherwise I’m certainly willing to listen.
That said, I’m in complete agreement that foreign-built U.S.-flagged ships should be able to engage in domestic trade.
Removing the US build requirement - or better said, acknowledging that there is minimal US large ship shipbuilding capability, and allow US companies to buy ships from foreign yards, have some process to re-flag them – and maintain the requirement for US crews. Would address many of the issues raised here - with only a minimal real impact on any of the stakeholders. IMO it has a positive impact on seafarers, shipping companies, sealift capabilities, and the general population. The only negate impact is on less than a handful of shipyards -
3 Likes
There aren’t enough JA tanker routes for additional ships without oversupply and crashing the market for the few companies involved. And US-flag/crewed tanker can’t really compete internationally due to opex cost disadvantages due to crewing costs, etc, regardless of where the tankers were built. I also agree pulling the JA tanker fleet during times of conflict would disrupt the particular routes served by the JA tankers. I won’t list them because I get the feeling you know them all. I would like to see US buy MR hulls from S Korea and finish the vessels here. Barring that, TSP seems reasonable. I am not sure how to increase the mariner population, which is what we really need. Enjoying this conversation though.
What’s wrong with people making a nice living?
Well, it protects the majority of the jobs left at this point. The US Shipbuilding industry is intimately tied to the owners of JA tonnage as many are both. Hard to separate the two.
Curious on the details of this
Probably best for another thread but @cpgrabow it seems you know a lot about the Airline Industry. Penny for your thoughts on the laws there, both cargo and passenger. Get rid of it all in favor of free trade?
All his think tank cares about is maximizing profit so yes, he doesn’t want any regulation in the way of cheap labor.
3 Likes
My point was, at least IMO, and supported by the empirical evidence, is the cost of US tonnage, driven by the anti competative nature of the JA, has limited constrction of US ships to the absolute bare minimum. In my view if the US build requirement was lifted, and the requirement for US crews maintained, there would be significantly more jobs available for US sailors. That is why I don’t understand the American sailors loyalty to the JA - IMO the US build requirement has hurt them far far more than helped them.
2 Likes