Would repealing The Jones Act affect MSC?

By MSC, I’m talking about the “the” MSC, not the charter/contract vessels.

There is a lot of doom-and-gloom when it comes to repealing The Jones Act (rightfully so), but I want to separate fact from fiction. Someone insisted to me that if The Jones Act were to be repealed, you would see foreign-flagged, foreign-crewed vessels conducting UNREPs alongside our Navy warships. Something about this doesn’t sound legitimate. Can anybody with a bit more in-depth knowledge on the Jones Act tell me if this is truth or lie?

[QUOTE=TheShipCantSink;161720]By MSC, I’m talking about the “the” MSC, not the charter/contract vessels.

There is a lot of doom-and-gloom when it comes to repealing The Jones Act (rightfully so), but I want to separate fact from fiction. Someone insisted to me that if The Jones Act were to be repealed, you would see foreign-flagged, foreign-crewed vessels conducting UNREPs alongside our Navy warships. Something about this doesn’t sound legitimate. Can anybody with a bit more in-depth knowledge on the Jones Act tell me if this is truth or lie?[/QUOTE]

When gov’t owned MSC vessels drop the US flag and get crewed up by Filipinos and Ukranians, all branches of the DOD will be farmed out to cheap labor. The new Chairman of the JCS will be Putin’s most recent Ukrainian/Russian point man in Odessa, and the new USN Chief of Naval Ops will be a former Filipino mariner who now is a full fledged member of Abu Sayyaf.

Seems on the up and and up…

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;161730]When gov’t owned MSC vessels drop the US flag and get crewed up by Filipinos and Ukranians, all branches of the DOD will be farmed out to cheap labor. The new Chairman of the JCS will be Putin’s most recent Ukrainian/Russian point man in Odessa, and the new USN Chief of Naval Ops will be a former Filipino mariner who now is a full fledged member of Abu Sayyaf.

Seems on the up and and up…[/QUOTE]

So… I can chalk that one up to alarmist sentiment? Gov’t-owned MSC is safe?

[QUOTE=TheShipCantSink;161739]So… I can chalk that one up to alarmist sentiment? Gov’t-owned MSC is safe?[/QUOTE]

Unless Senator McCain deems otherwise…

[QUOTE=Johnny Canal;161743]Unless Senator McCain deems otherwise…[/QUOTE]

I don’t get it. The Jones Act affects gov’t-owned MSC or it doesn’t?

Follow the money, If it is cheaper to do as Johnny Canal’s foresight suggests, free enterprise will find a way to make it happen…er, unless it’s illegal (mostly).

It doesn’t make any sense. MSC is the military’s dedicated provider of seaborne transportation. If they choose to outsource, they lose that reliability.

Its cheaper, but the military isn’t known for doing everything on the cheap. Anybody else have any other insights they can provide?

You’re not going to get some answer you can run with, its all speculation one way or another. However, Its highly unlikely that MSC ship’s like you described would be crewed by foreigners.First the military does not care about $ to that degree, and second, I just can’t see it happening if money isn’t the reason. There’s no quote from an insider at the pentagon or something you’ll get to further the opinion one way or another on here.

Youi can probably find some relevant stuff by Googling [I]Rainbow Navigation v. United States[/I]. It’s been a while since I read up on this, but there will be probably be some discuission of the relevant issues.

Mr. Theship, Have you heard of Blackwater from the Irag days of war? Heard of Halliburton? The U. S. military doesn’t hesitate to outsource. When anyone, foreigner or domestic, delivers enough cash to our elected representatives, the group with the deepest pockets will have their hopes and dreams fulfilled.

[QUOTE=Lookout;161814]Mr. Theship, Have you heard of Blackwater from the Irag days of war? Heard of Halliburton? The U. S. military doesn’t hesitate to outsource. When anyone, foreigner or domestic, delivers enough cash to our elected representatives, the group with the deepest pockets will have their hopes and dreams fulfilled.[/QUOTE]

Blackwater wasn’t a foreign company. Neither was Halliburton.

“TheShipCantSink;161843 Blackwater wasn’t a foreign company. Neither was Halliburton.”

I can see it now. After one of the most effective laws in American History, the Jones Act is cited as a threat to National Security and our safety by John McCain, it is finally repealed. The extremely wealthy individuals who “own” McCain and their corporations, begin to bid on government contracts to provide MSC with unlicensed crew members. This begins the initial phase out American crews.

The Filipino deck and engine crew work 11 months and is then they are relieved for a month to ensure he cannot apply for a Green Card. Eventually, some of the Filipino unlicensed crew become licensed and are utilized as 3rd mates and 3rd assistant engineers. In time, the entire ship is manned by a foreign crew and You, my brother U.S. Mariner, are on the beach navigating a taxi, hoping the Filipino guy in the backseat going to join the MSC ship will leave you a nice tip.

This scenario wouldn’t be exclusive to MSC either. OSV’s and other vessels in the Gulf, the East and West Coast waters, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico could all be affected.

Oh, by the way, you can mail your inquiry questions on the Jones Act and outsourcing to;

Halliburton Corporate Headquarters
P.O. Box 3111
Dubai, United Arab Emirates

The only “constant” in the Maritime Industry is “change”.

If they wanted, couldn’t a lot of the MSC functions be performed by a foreign flagged ship right now? Imagine crewing the UNREP ready oiler with foreigners, loading fuel in Hawaii, then rendezvous with the task force as it heads west. Not loading cargo in one US port and discharging it in another (unless a US Navy ship is considered a US port).

If not that, then certainly the supply delivery business. Load tanks in the US, discharge them in country X.

Honestly, if they REALLY wanted it, they would just get exceptions to the rules. Like, for example, using foreign built ships in the MSP program and calling them “US Flag”.

I think they use US mariners currently because they want to use US mariners due to security reasons. I worked for MSC very briefly in the mid 2000’s and the background check is the same one I had to do when I joined the Navy. Hard to check the background of a foreigner.

I have a hard time understanding why you people are discussing this. The MSC is an arm of the DOD, which is an arm of the US government.

To work for the government, you have to be a citizen or, in a few cases, have green card. That’s it. it doesn’t matter whether you’re floating around on a ship for MSC or driving a payloader for the Forest Service.

[QUOTE=Rich Bogad;161857]I have a hard time understanding why you people are discussing this. The MSC is an arm of the DOD, which is an arm of the US government.

To work for the government, you have to be a citizen or, in a few cases, have green card. That’s it. it doesn’t matter whether you’re floating around on a ship for MSC or driving a payloader for the Forest Service.[/QUOTE]

Yup I’d say MSC and MSC conmar ships would be safe from any Jones Act shenanigans. In my uneducated mind a repeal of the Jones Act would probably result in elimination of US flag coastwise tanker trade and the MMP/AMO commercial contracts instantly, and a lot of GOM work over time.

[QUOTE=yard_bird;161862]Yup I’d say MSC and MSC conmar ships would be safe from any Jones Act shenanigans. In my uneducated mind a repeal of the Jones Act would probably result in elimination of US flag coastwise tanker trade and the MMP/AMO commercial contracts instantly, and a lot of GOM work over time.[/QUOTE]

I would think if anything elimination of the Jones Act would be incentive to increase the size of the MSC fleet.

[QUOTE=Rich Bogad;161857]I have a hard time understanding why you people are discussing this. The MSC is an arm of the DOD, which is an arm of the US government.

To work for the government, you have to be a citizen or, in a few cases, have green card. That’s it. it doesn’t matter whether you’re floating around on a ship for MSC or driving a payloader for the Forest Service.[/QUOTE]

Better start believing. The DOD and other federal agencies already outsource various equipment contracts to foreign countries and there is a bill starting up in the house to allow illegal aliens to join the military. You are very sadly mistaken, as is anyone else that think our government reserves it’s jobs for it’s citizens only. The foot has been stuck into the doorway and now the door is being pushed wide open.

[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;161868]I would think if anything elimination of the Jones Act would be incentive to increase the size of the MSC fleet.[/QUOTE]

MSC essentially IS the modern incarnation of the classic “merchant marine”. The merchant marine fleet after WWII directly transitioned into MSTS which was eventually renamed MSC. I’m a total supporter of US flag jobs. However I can’t help but thinking of how the “Merchant Marine” (being essential to national defense) which everyone seems is solely protected by the Jones Act basically is already completely insulated and protected in the form of MSC being under the DOD umbrella. The classic textbook Merchant Marine normal people learn about in textbooks would be just fine without the Jones Act.

[QUOTE=yard_bird;161870]The classic textbook Merchant Marine normal people learn about in textbooks would be just fine without the Jones Act.[/QUOTE]

In truth, the Jones Act never applied to the classic Merchant Marine since it only applies to cargo carried from US ports to other US ports. The classic Merchant Marine that you learn about in history, was epitomized by people working on ships carrying cargo internationally. I’d bet that, if you asked a person on the street today what “merchant marine” referred to, they’d still come up with a picture of a freighter carrying cargo across the ocean.

The US international merchant marine business was ruined by many, many factors. The Jones Act, however, was pretty irrelevant to that, one way or the other.

If they even knew what merchant marine meant. :confused: