[QUOTE=ombugge;190618]The explanation that it was to be kind to the Shipowners sounds a lot more plausible, although I do not understand the reason. [/QUOTE]
the reason is of course…PROFITS which come from reduced manning these domestic regulations provide to shipowners
Why do US Owners think that “cheap is good” when it also increase the risk of accidents?
the owners don’t really care about risk when there are PROFITS at stake…money trumps safety! old ships? who cares when a new ship will reduce net income? old lifesaving equipment? why replace it when the regulators don’t require us to?
More to the point, why do Underwriters accept this, unless they are able to charge higher premium to cover the higher risk?
because they are a competitive business who longs for the income from premiums and as long as there is one big enough underwriter who will right cover for a minimally manned vessel all the rest have to as well…the underwriters would be the most powerful force out there if they were a tight combine without competition.
Even more to the point, why do US Maritime Authorities, who are responsible for ensuring safety and welfare of mariners, accept and condone this practice??
read my lips…“POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS” to elected leaders who then dictate to regulatory authorities how to “regulate” their respective industries. in the USA, the maritime corporations OWN the USCG and if some Commandant came along and told the corporations that there was a new sheriff in town, the Congress would shoot him at sunrise and bury him at Boot Hill.
Where is the Unions who are supposed to act in the interest of the Mariners?
where oh where are they? who knows? under the bed? no, they too are competing for business from the shipowners. if there was only one union, then they too would have some muscle to flex but as long as we have so many maritime unions they are each nothing more than a 90# weakling which the big beach muscle duke kicks sand into their faces. then again, I seriously doubt any of the maritime union leaders even GIVE A SHIT for mariner safety. Just look at their response to the EL FARO!
the thing my friend is you are from a nation which has a strong maritime heritage and identity which includes vessel owners who are proud to have the finest ships regardless of the cost. Here we have no maritime identity even though we too have a strong maritime heritage. In our country, the shareholder is the most powerful force to recon with and even if an owner had pride in his ships, the shareholders will throw him to the wolves if they don’t get their pound of flesh too. what is a shipowner to do if he hears the wolves out there howling?