[QUOTE=“c.captain;124697”]You completely miss that Jones Act shipowners want to maintain it at all costs because it restricts competition![/QUOTE]
That was a pathetic post following the last 3 well articulated replies. Do you just have an ocd need to post your opinion no matter how ridiculous?
[QUOTE=c.captain;124697]You completely miss that Jones Act shipowners want to maintain it at all costs because it restricts competition![/QUOTE]
The remnants of government that once operated to the benefit of it’s citizens. I support more such actions.
We’re all just beating around the central problem. Unions are the biggest hinderance to manufacturing industries, shipbuilding included, since the formation of this nation two hundred and thirty seven years ago. My problem with them in regards to shipbuilding is not that American workers are over-paid. It has been proven that workers at places like Daewoo (DSME) make only 10-15% less than Americans doing similar jobs. This is a significant difference but not significant enough by any means to make up for the disparity between the $209 million Matson is going to pay for a 3600 TEU containership and the $50 million (at the absolute most!) that anyone would pay in a foreign yard. So if it isn’t the workers wages then what is it? The answer is American shipyards are among the most inefficient manufacturing industries [U]in the entire world.[/U] Unions don’t want to upgrade and become more efficient because that means less jobs per shipyard. If they would just realize that lowering the cost per vessel would mean not only more productive shipyards, but also more of them, then we’d be in business. The organized labor movement in this nation’s shipbuilding industry is over-powered, out of date, and dangerous to many of this nation’s industries as well as its defense capabilities.
Just in case I get yelled at for being a union-busting scab, let sum up a few important things about my view points:
[QUOTE=RubberRhib888;124709]That was a pathetic post following the last 3 well articulated replies. Do you just have an ocd need to post your opinion no matter how ridiculous?[/QUOTE]
So what’s your beef? You want foreign flagged vessels carrying cargo between US ports or in the GoM? The Jones Act is protectionist to prevent low cost foreign competition from entering the domestic market which is defacto restricting competition against the established companies in the Jones Act trades but it doesn’t mean another Jones Act company cannot enter the marketplace and compete against the established firms. TOTE did this in the late 1980’s and won market share handily. Restricting the trade to US owners, vessels and crews pays dividends and it works but it does involve nominally higher costs for domestic water transportation. Still I don’t see anyone dying of hunger in Hawaii, Alaska or Puerto Rico because of this.
I’d be willing to bet that by number of vessels built american yards are barely union. Louisiana, Alabama, Missisippi…Not union friendly. Yes some of the big yards down south are, but the ones pumping out hull after hull aren’t. Bollinger, Chouest’s yards, and i think Signal, Senesco, Eastern, BAE, plus all the dirt lot yards down the bayou, can’t imagine many are union. Even good old washburn and doughty up maine are non-union! I don’t see it as a union issue beyond naval shipbuilding.
Just sayin…
[QUOTE=z-drive;124722]I’d be willing to bet that by number of vessels built american yards are barely union. Louisiana, Alabama, Missisippi…Not union friendly. Yes some of the big yards down south are, but the ones pumping out hull after hull aren’t. Bollinger, Chouest’s yards, and i think Signal, Senesco, Eastern, BAE, plus all the dirt lot yards down the bayou, can’t imagine many are union. Even good old washburn and doughty up maine are non-union! I don’t see it as a union issue beyond naval shipbuilding.
Just sayin…[/QUOTE]
The non-union yards you’re talking about are pumping out OSV’s and tugboats. These are the portions of the domestic maritime industry that are, and have been for a long time, very secure. The yards that have a powerful union presence are the ones that should be, but are not, pumping out unlimited tonnage ships for international blue water trade. These facts only make my position more prevalent.
NASSCO is union, but They have an order book filled for the foreseeable future, as does AKER (A Norwegian holding company that sees it as a profitable business). If they were laying off thousands and desperate for work things would be different. I choose to be optimistic given situations that these orders keep coming through, even for the big union yards. I don’t claim to predict the future, BUT with these orders stacking up and military spending apparently slowing I would not be surprised to see someone either get back into building merchant tonnage from strictly naval tonnage, or a new player enter the field from “brownwater” tonnage and/or strictly repair to new building. Halter is building deep-sea stuff, including a naval ship for EGYPT, granted its probably with our money, but its being spent here. What about all the SOLAS 300+ Bbl ATB’s capable of sailing internationally with capacity that rivals product tankers? Crowley, US shipping, OSG, bouchard, reinauer (smaller at the moment)… international bluewater trade capable, just not currently doing so.
You’re just not going to compete with the far east for newbuild tonnage, its as likely as the 45 year old guy who’sstill pissed “coach” didn’t put him in 4th quarter in the championship getting on and playing in the NFL. Be glad the yards here are showing signs of health and have their order books filling up.
Not that I’m for unions, but as it’s clearly a discussion point here I’d like to point out for those using DSME as an example that DSME is unionized.* And that only 28% of US shipyard labor is unionized. An interesting report from 2011 below. http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/programs/academic/industry/reports/2011/pdf/icaf-is-report-shipbuilding-2011.pdf
[QUOTE=shipengr;124738]Not that I’m for unions, but as it’s clearly a discussion point here I’d like to point out for those using DSME as an example that DSME is unionized.* And that only 28% of US shipyard labor is unionized. An interesting report from 2011 below. http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/programs/academic/industry/reports/2011/pdf/icaf-is-report-shipbuilding-2011.pdf[/QUOTE]
I will take you at your word that what you say is true, I have no reason to doubt you, but I am going to have to refute your point by asserting that unions at DSME and unions in domestic shipyards cannot be compared. American unions are less restricted in their range of functions than in countries like South Korea. The unions swing the big hammer here in the U.S., in South Korea, they’re not allowed as much freedom of movement.
Well, the Wall Street journal says:
“Kia’s union has presented similar proposals. These demands come on top of wages that are already among the highest in the world for the industry. Since 2002, Hyundai workers’ average annual salary has more than doubled to 94 million won. In 2012, the hourly labor costs in Hyundai’s South Korean factories were estimated to be 24,778 won per worker, higher even than in its plants in the US.”
It’s no better in shipyards I can nearly guarantee.
Rest of the article: Unions are driving Hyundai and General Motors out of South Korea
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;124741]I will take you at your word that what you say is true, I have no reason to doubt you, but I am going to have to refute your point by asserting that unions at DSME and unions in domestic shipyards cannot be compared. American unions are less restricted in their range of functions than in countries like South Korea. The unions swing the big hammer here in the U.S., in South Korea, they’re not allowed as much freedom of movement.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I was only trying to point out that unions alone are not the reason that US shipyards are not as competitive. In continuing with your previous post, the fact that labor wages in Korea are not that far behind their US shipyard counterparts, combined with the fact that DSMEs profit margins are on the range of 1-3% while the two largest US yards margins are between 4-10% might suggest that US yard parent companies profit taking is contributing to higher build costs. Not to mention the underlying infrastructure differences in place that allow a yard to put out 50 ships per year. Economy of scale is an important factor, and hard to come back from behind.
[QUOTE=z-drive;124742]Well, the Wall Street journal says:
“Kia’s union has presented similar proposals. These demands come on top of wages that are already among the highest in the world for the industry. Since 2002, Hyundai workers’ average annual salary has more than doubled to 94 million won. In 2012, the hourly labor costs in Hyundai’s South Korean factories were estimated to be 24,778 won per worker, higher even than in its plants in the US.”
It’s no better in shipyards I can nearly guarantee.
Rest of the article: http://qz.com/115107/unions-are-driving-hyundai-and-general-motors-out-of-south-korea/[/QUOTE]
Maybe I’m just tired but I’m afraid you’ve lost me on that one…
[QUOTE=shipengr;124743]Fair enough. I was only trying to point out that unions alone are not the reason that US shipyards are not as competitive. In continuing with your previous post, the fact that labor wages in Korea are not that far behind their US shipyard counterparts, combined with the fact that DSMEs profit margins are on the range of 1-3% while the two largest US yards margins are between 4-10% might suggest that US yard parent companies profit taking is contributing to higher build costs. Not to mention the underlying infrastructure differences in place that allow a yard to put out 50 ships per year. Economy of scale is an important factor, and hard to come back from behind.[/QUOTE]
I’m glad you brought up the underlying infrastructure differences, I think that’s a big part of the point I’ve be driving at the whole time. There are underlying fundamental differences in the very framework of the two places and it is that that sets us behind in the global market. The South Koreans are more organized, harder working, more technologically equipped, and more efficient over all. That is where our shipyards need to be more competitive so that in the long run they can be competitive [I][B][U]financially[/U][/B][/I]. To bring my argument full circle I attribute our our falling behind in the areas I just mentioned to the undue influence of American unions, which are unlike unions anywhere else in the world, in all the ways that I mentioned earlier in this thread.
It’s an example of Korean unions being just as bad, if not equally bad as American unions. Where’s there to get lost?
[QUOTE=z-drive;124747]It’s an example of Korean unions being just as bad, if not equally bad as American unions. Where’s there to get lost?[/QUOTE]
I’m afraid I don’t agree, at least not in regards to the short portion of the article that you posted. Whatever that was seems to be in reference Korean wages being on par with American wages, which we’ve already hashed out as something of a non-issue in this debate. So if that’s all that article has to offer then what’s your point?
My very personal pet peeve in the US shipbuilding industry is the inability of some (many?) shipyards to produce double-curvature plates (so-called non-developable surfaces) either at all or without great difficulties that considerably increase the price of the vessel due to subcontracting. It may not be a problem when building barges or Great Lakes bulkers, but in certain ship types the fact that you have to simplify the hull form and accept chines under the waterline will affect the performance of the vessel. I don’t mean that every GOM supply boats needs an X-bow or something like that, but if (when) the offshore production moves to the Arctic, there’s no going back to the Canadian box-shaped monstrosities that cannot turn in ice…
In most cases it’s not a big issue - large merchant ships have only a few places where you need to have such complex shapes - but if most shipyards around the world have been happily producing such ships for decades, why are the US shipyards lagging behind?
The sad thing is that we did ONCE have the ability to do these things.
[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;124789]The sad thing is that we did ONCE have the ability to do these things.[/QUOTE]
Hell, we still do but nobody wants to spend the extra money for a ship with fine lines, sheer and camber. It isn’t just the US either, it is the entire world that builds box shapes now with only the necessary simple hull curves.
Recall once there was construction differential subsidies where MarAd specified design features to satisfy the needs for speed for merchant vessels to be convertible to Naval auxiliaries. Those features were paid for by the government in just about all cases so what was build were curved and very pleasing hull forms.
The old States Lines vessels were the perfect example and this is what we get today
Square as a bloody box
Of course it would be nice if ships looked like ships again, but that was actually not what I meant. The most obvious example that I can think of is the Ulstein X-Bow, but that’s not the only OSV design with relatively complex geometry. Generally, if you want to integrate a hydrodynamically efficient bulbous bow to the hull lines without chines and knuckles that cause additional resistance, you end up with a lot of double curvature plates. That’s why American shipyards that produce offshore vessels tend to favor simpler hull forms with sharp corners whereas e.g. the Norwegians generally have finer-looking vessels.
Personally, I work with ice-going tonnage where straying from “optimal” hull form due to limitations in the shipyard’s steel production line may be detrimental to the ship’s icebreaking capability. In worst case, the increased ice resistance may require you to add a cylinder or two to the main engines.
