Why not crew these hypothetical foreign built ships with foreign crews… Maybe even allow foreign ownership of the whole thing, amiright? I mean, the US citizen mariners and shipping companies aren’t losing anything because they don’t have it now, right? Who’s with me??
2 Likes
The are lots of small shipyards around today , the same yards or same type of yards, that built USCG cutters, Army and Navy tugs, oilers, minesweepers, etc. during WWII.
Large US commercial shipbuilding is uneconomic because it lacks scale, volume, and a local supply chain. Most importantly, the big shipyards are a too militarily necessary to fail, near monopoly that lacks competition.
If there were 20 large , we’ll financed, US shipyards supported by a local supply chain and a cadre of skilled labor, they would be competitive with Western Europe.
No US manufacturer can compete on price with foreign companies that have no environmental rules, no labor or employment rules, no safety rules, no lawsuits, and a lot of government support, if not outright government ownership.
The US has a huge demographic problem. There is at the moment a huge shortage of people willing and able to work. Work and training that leads to skills needed in the workplace must be encouraged. Expensive education that does not lead to productive employment must be discouraged. Life without working needs to be discouraged. It needs to become very difficult for people to lay around the house smoking pot all day. Welfare programs need to be slashed.
Smart and effective legal immigration that is in our national interest must be encouraged. We need skilled workers that speak English and can fit into hardworking and productive American society. Mass illegal migration must be stopped.
1 Like
You know very well that the national labor shortage is not limited to shipyards. Don’t frame this shortage as uniquely maritime in nature by naming Philly’s SEC filing.
I never said it was unique to maritime, but the question still stands. Also think U.S. shipbuilders have been scrounging for workers for a while, resulting in stuff like this: Local shipyard accused of abusing foreign workers
SUNY Maritime’s new training ship was built on time and on budget in the US with US steel etc. and built during the pandemic when parts were hard to come by, especially foreign ones.
According to @john and others, that ship had plenty of components imported from South Korea. That would help explain the numerous imports arriving in Philly Shipyard in recent years: Philly Shipyard Inc. | See Full Importer History | ImportGenius
U.S. shipyards can’t even compete with the Dutch and Norwegians, which aren’t exactly known for being unregulated or having cheap wages. BTW, worth noting that even U.S. shipyards don’t believe that health and safety regulations explain the high cost of U.S.-built ships: https://twitter.com/cpgrabow/status/1501951910227496972
1 Like
I’m with you. No harm to the U.S. maritime industry and big benefits to the U.S. economy. Let’s do it.
My sarcastic post that you replied to basically said let’s do away with all provisions of the Jones act. If that happened, how do you justify claiming that course of action would do no harm to the US maritime industry? It would ELIMINATE the US maritime industry!
However, it is refreshing to see you come out of your “I’m only after the US build requirement” closet and let your true (anti-Jones act as a whole) colors show.
1 Like
I didn’t think it was a secret that I think the JA should be repealed and is the ideal policy outcome. But: a) I was responding to your specific call to allow foreigners to operate in trades abandoned by the domestic maritime industry (e.g. coastal feedering or shipping bulk LNG to Puerto Rico) and b) repealing the build requirement would be in the self-interest of the U.S. maritime industry and is something that crazy libertarians like myself and U.S. mariners should be able to agree on. Promoting the domestic maritime industry’s development by jacking up the price of new vessels is absolutely bananas.
Getting some thread drift here plus a lot of regurgitated thoughts from this:
In the above thread you insinuated the build requirement of the JA is your primary focus when you said
“If US-built was repealed and a waiver system instituted so Americans could use foreign flags if no US vessel was available or didn’t exist (e.g. for transporting LNG), I’d probably move on and spend more time attacking other dumb laws…”
Are you suggesting that we, as a nation, should not trust these Washington think tanks like Cato? How dare you!
They always seem to have the interests of the common citizen in their sights. 
Where are those yards and what kind of ships are they building? I don’t know of any major shipyards in the world that; “have no environmental rules, no labor or employment rules, no safety rules”, but maybe you can enlighten me?
As to “no lawsuits” I presume you are referring to frivolous lawsuites from labourers for minor injuries. filed on their behalf by “ambulanse chasing” lawyers that advertise their services at billboards outside the shipyard gates ?
In that case, you are right, but lawsuites and cancelation is common. Shipowners will look for any excuse when the market is down.
Shipbuilding subsidies are limited by OECD and WTO rules, but some Governments are good at hiding other kind of support by issuing overpriced contracts for Naval and other types of Government vessels.
I have not found any specification or equipment list, stating manufacturers, for the “Empire State VII”(??)
The hull for RSV Nuyina was built in Romania, but outfitted at a Daman yard in the Netherlands:
1 Like
It wasn’t. It was supposed to have been delivered to SUNY Maritime late Spring in time for their Summer '23 cruise. It was delivered last week.
1 Like
I think US consumers end up paying 10 times as much as they should for economists and pundits. Let’s open US citizenship to less expensive and more competent foreign economists and pundits that can actually do math. India has millions of them.
There’s no conflict in those statements. I view JA repeal as the ideal policy outcome but if US build was repealed and a waiver system based on economic considerations/absence of US vessels was instituted I’d hunt down GW Bush’s MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, hang it outside of Cato, and move on to other topics.
You are describing the status quo. You can open a think tank abroad and export its output to the US market. And foreigners can (and do!) work at Cato. I welcome the competition!
Just in time for Mass to use it for their cruise!
2 Likes
U.S. shipyards are a moot when it comes to national defense. Going all out one of the yards might deliver 3-5 ships in a year, or all of them maybe 15-20.
2 Likes
I think I recall a senior Philly Shipyard rep stating that they can deliver two per year when running at full capacity.
That’s one of the reasons that we need at least 20 big shipyards.
1 Like
The reason U.S. deep sea builders are so inefficient and expensive is economies of scale. In a good year each may build 2-3 ships. Each of the big 3 Korean yards build in excess of 75/year. This allows them to invest in technology that makes their costs so much lower. There is no need for 75 deep sea Jones Act ships/year. And if we are talking about national defense, those ships, just like every other U.S. flag non-Jones Act ship, would be foreign built. All of MARAD’s maritime security fleet, and almost all of the Ready Reserve fleet are foreign-built.
U.S. yards basically just build the hulls and everything else is imported: main engines, auxiliary engines, electronics, bow and stern sections, etc. So, U.S. yards are incapable of building entire vessels without substantial imported major items.
3 Likes
Both Korean and Chinese yards rely heavily on imported or license built machinery and equipment.
In many cases vessels built there are designed by foreign Naval Architects, especially special purpose vessels. The same goes for a lot of machinery and equipment, even for “run of the mill” tankers, bulkers, PCTCs etc.
When it is said that “Philly import most of the design, machinery and equipment from Korea” that often mean “licence built in Korea”. (MAN, Sulzer, Wartsila, WinDG etc.)
High cost Japan still manage to compete in “simple” shipbuilding, but also import designs, and/or licence build machinery and equipment where that is advantageous.
Building yards in high-cost NW European countries frequently imports hull blocks, or entire hulls from lower cost countries like Romania, Poland etc. while exporting designs, machinery and technology to yards all over the world. Smaller yards in the US that build offshore and fishing vessels etc. are among their customers.
Because of shortage of skille and unskilled workers, many of the yards in NW Europe is dependent of imported labour. Due to the common labour market within EU/EEA this is possible to overcome.
PS> That doesn’t mean “cheap labour”, as pay is regulated by Union agreements with Employer organizations and is applicable for all, regardless of nationality.
1 Like