Latest Ruling Jones Act and Offshore Wind

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

https://gcaptain.com/latest-customs...139820873&mc_cid=d0954fe606&mc_eid=5b70bcca05

 

[SteveK]

Guess now I will be biding my time before the Jones act is repealed

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Never really understood the Jones Act and the need for it in todays world.

 

[rslifkin]

Never really understood the Jones Act and the need for it in todays world.

Agreed. The idea of protecting US shipbuilders made sense at one point, but at this point, a lot of the big stuff won't be built in the US either way, as there aren't many facilities capable of it anymore.

 

[Medic]

Jones Act

Everyone way back then forgot just one teeny thing:

The Law of Unintended Consequences.

And that is why the USA does not compete well in yacht and shipbuilding.

Needs to Go!

 

[oscar]

Guess now I will be biding my time before the Jones act is repealed

And the air transportation cabotage and ownership laws will not be far behind.

 

[Lepke]

The Jones Act requires all vessels engaged in coastwise shipping are required to be US built, crewed, and owned. In the event of a war, those vessels can be taken into government service.
The Jones Act is much more than cargo ships. Coastwise shipping is any vessel going in and out of the same US port or going between two US ports. Including tugs and barges on our waterways. The act was signed only 8 years after the Titanic sank. Besides having shipping for national emergencies, by requiring vessels to be US built, it ensures that we have shipyards, the skilled workers to build those ships, the steel mills and foundries to provide the materials for the ships. Along with cargo and passenger ships, the commercial fishing vessels in our waters must be US built, owned and crewed.
Some of the issues that led to the act was concern that some foreign vessels and crews were not up to US standards. If you look outside the US, some of the people and ships wanting into the US market have very poor safety and construction records. Asian ferries are in the news yearly, sinking and killing sometimes hundreds.
Maintaining US built and crewed ships is an emergency pool of people to become skilled trainers for crews needed for additional ships or additional shipyard workers in the event of a war. The Jones Act was never about protecting union jobs, but about preserving maritime skills.
Do you want foreign owned barges and tugs moving cargo on the Mississippi? Or maybe running the New York ferries? Without the Jones Act, it will go to the cheapest operator.
Building 30gw of offshore wind by 2030 remains to be seen.

 

[rslifkin]

Some of those goals of the Jones Act could likely be accomplished at this point with a new set of rules that are better adapted to the current state of the world. For example, they could require US ownership, but lighten up the requirement to be US built to allow commercial use by a US owner. As in, high preference to US built, but if you can show that you either cannot get what you want built in the US or the cost of a US build is more than X percent higher, a foreign build would be allowed.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The Jones Act requires all vessels engaged in coastwise shipping are required to be US built, crewed, and owned. In the event of a war, those vessels can be taken into government service.
The Jones Act is much more than cargo ships. Coastwise shipping is any vessel going in and out of the same US port or going between two US ports. Including tugs and barges on our waterways. The act was signed only 8 years after the Titanic sank. Besides having shipping for national emergencies, by requiring vessels to be US built, it ensures that we have shipyards, the skilled workers to build those ships, the steel mills and foundries to provide the materials for the ships. Along with cargo and passenger ships, the commercial fishing vessels in our waters must be US built, owned and crewed.
Some of the issues that led to the act was concern that some foreign vessels and crews were not up to US standards. If you look outside the US, some of the people and ships wanting into the US market have very poor safety and construction records. Asian ferries are in the news yearly, sinking and killing sometimes hundreds.
Maintaining US built and crewed ships is an emergency pool of people to become skilled trainers for crews needed for additional ships or additional shipyard workers in the event of a war. The Jones Act was never about protecting union jobs, but about preserving maritime skills.
Do you want foreign owned barges and tugs moving cargo on the Mississippi? Or maybe running the New York ferries? Without the Jones Act, it will go to the cheapest operator.
Building 30gw of offshore wind by 2030 remains to be seen.

Thanks for the lesson. I understand it a little better. Question: Hasn't Labor Organizations (unions) been involved for a long time?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Some of those goals of the Jones Act could likely be accomplished at this point with a new set of rules that are better adapted to the current state of the world. For example, they could require US ownership, but lighten up the requirement to be US built to allow commercial use by a US owner. As in, high preference to US built, but if you can show that you either cannot get what you want built in the US or the cost of a US build is more than X percent higher, a foreign build would be allowed.

Sounds reasonable to my uneducated Jones Act mind.

 

[JLD]

Do you want foreign owned barges and tugs moving cargo on the Mississippi? Or maybe running the New York ferries? Without the Jones Act, it will go to the cheapest operator.

Point taken, but I believe that it also includes ANY U.S. port, even if not CONUS. This would include Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories like Puerto Rico.

Jim

 

[SteveK]

Cruise ships are the immediate concern, maybe more. But an executive order could give them an exemption for the next few years, problem solved.
I doubt if either Canada or the USA will ever go into competition with the existing fleet using cheap labor, so there really is no conflict.

 

[ksanders]

I'm in favor of the Jones Act.

Protecting US taxpaying workers is a good thing to me.

We can all be outsourced to cheaper labor. Somewhere someone with more skills than you or me (in our specialty) is willing to work for less money, and lead a lesser lifestyle than we live.

I would like to protect that lifestyle.

 

[denverd0n]

Some of those goals of the Jones Act could likely be accomplished at this point with a new set of rules that are better adapted to the current state of the world.

This ^^^^ Absolutely!

I'm in favor of the Jones Act. Protecting US taxpaying workers is a good thing to me.

But it is not, and it has not for many decades. In fact, at this point it is probably COSTING more U.S. jobs than it is creating.

It is the 21st century, and whether we like it or not, we live in a global economy. Time to face up to that fact!

 

[twistedtree]

This reminds me of the old SNL gag. New flash! General Francisco Franco is still dead.


As I read it, nothing has changed here other than clarification that off-shore US wind sites are treated the same as off-shore oil sites, and considered US ports with respect to the Jones Act.

 

[Barking Sands]

And the air transportation cabotage and ownership laws will not be far behind.

Why do you suspect that? Can you elaborate?

 

[Jmarsh203]

Cruise ships are the immediate concern, maybe more. But an executive order could give them an exemption for the next few years, problem solved.
I doubt if either Canada or the USA will ever go into competition with the existing fleet using cheap labor, so there really is no conflict.

There are like 2 American flagged cruise ships that comply with the Jones act, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Jones act that has nothing to do with current discussions on it either. I can guarantee you that the entire US inshore industry will go on strike instantly if the Jones act is being tried to seriously be repealed. I know I would.

 

[SteveK]

There are like 2 American flagged cruise ships that comply with the Jones act, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Jones act that has nothing to do with current discussions on it either. I can guarantee you that the entire US inshore industry will go on strike instantly if the Jones act is being tried to seriously be repealed. I know I would.

How do those two comply with the Jones Act, today?

 

[Jmarsh203]

This ^^^^ Absolutely!


But it is not, and it has not for many decades. In fact, at this point it is probably COSTING more U.S. jobs than it is creating.

It is the 21st century, and whether we like it or not, we live in a global economy. Time to face up to that fact!

It is definitely protecting the inshore and coastal shipping industry, the international shipping that’s already dead for the United States so that has no merit in any discussions, any changes to the Jones act will help nobody except for huge foreign companies. US Mariners already priced themselves out of the international shipping market to be competitive 20 years ago in that so repealing the Jones act for them makes no difference and will create no jobs. But as for the inshore, coastal and western rivers workers it’s absolutely protecting the workers. know a little more about what you speak of before you do.. Given the ability to, all companies operating in the United States inland and coastal waterways would instantly replace all of the workers with foreigners. They would have to just to compete the moment the law changed wether they wanted too or not. Luckily with todays tech it would be easy enough for the workers to essentially sit down of the job and shut the entire industry until it is changed back. It’s happened in the past about 25 years ago once and has been erased from history. And some parties here in the us have been trying to get the Jones act repealed since it was first introduced, namely parties that are involved with large foreign shipping companies. Repealing the Jones act will gain no new us worker jobs but will most definitely loose them so where is the sense in having it repealed.

 

[Jmarsh203]

How do those two comply with the Jones Act, today?



I don’t understand the question but I can go more in depth if you need me too. There are very very few US flagged cruise ships, 2 on the Mississippi and a couple very small operations along the east coast all of them are very expensive to go on. If it’s us flagged it needs to be US built and US crewed. If it’s foreign flagged it does not pretty simple. There are plenty of foreign flagged cruise ships opperating in the United States that do not need to operate under Jones act rules, how you ask??? All they need to do to do to be able to leave out of a us port is not have the next port be inside the us. Why do you think there are no east coast cruises that stop in multiple east coast cities. They go from here to somewhere outside of the US so therefore do not need to be US flagged and get around the Jones act.

 

[SteveK]

How do those two comply with the Jones Act, today?



I don’t understand the question but I can go more in depth if you need me too. There are very very few US flagged cruise ships, 2 on the Mississippi and a couple very small operations along the east coast all of them are very expensive to go on. If it’s us flagged it needs to be US built and US crewed. If it’s foreign flagged it does not pretty simple. There are plenty of foreign flagged cruise ships opperating in the United States that do not need to operate under Jones act rules, how you ask??? All they need to do to do to be able to leave out of a us port is not have the next port be inside the us. Why do you think there are no east coast cruises that stop in multiple east coast cities. They go from here to somewhere outside of the US so therefore do not need to be US flagged and get around the Jones act.

so basically, those are not part of the current discussion about getting foreign flagged ships approval to travel from Seattle to Alaska and back without first stopping BC.

 

[Jmarsh203]

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/jones-act
Pretty much sums up they do not need to be us flagged to be a cruise ship even going port to port inside of the US. So I was partially wrong in that instance but still right since they do not fall under Jones act since they are not us flagged so therefore have no place in the discussion. Again us flagged cruise ships are such a small minority that they make no difference in the talks of wether the Jones act is still relevant for maintaining US mariner jobs.

 

[FF]

"but lighten up the requirement to be US built to allow commercial use by a US owner."


"Offshore is cheaper" is how we got the problem of not being able to make our own medical supplies.

 

[Hippocampus]

Would add

Jones act is routinely circumvented. Looked in to shipping from US west coast to east. Apparently its common to make a port call in Mexico so Jones act wouldn’t apply. Same with shipping between Miami and PR.

Think maintaining Bath and like facilities is important. Given how specialized modern naval construction is don’t know (one way or the other) if commercial construction is that relevant. Please educate.

Think autonomous ships are our future for long runs. Think this , not Jones act, is what’s going to be transformative. Would want our country to be a leader in this technology. Think this form of AI will also be integrated into coastal activities (ferries, near shore supply vehicles, patrol etc.) Would prefer domestic development even though actual maritime jobs will decrease as a result of this transformation.

 

[twistedtree]

https://www.royalcaribbean.com/faq/questions/jones-act
Pretty much sums up they do not need to be us flagged to be a cruise ship even going port to port inside of the US. So I was partially wrong in that instance but still right since they do not fall under Jones act since they are not us flagged so therefore have no place in the discussion. Again us flagged cruise ships are such a small minority that they make no difference in the talks of wether the Jones act is still relevant for maintaining US mariner jobs.

The loophole with cruise ships is that they don't pick up new passengers, or leave passengers behind along their route.

 

[twistedtree]

"but lighten up the requirement to be US built to allow commercial use by a US owner."


"Offshore is cheaper" is how we got the problem of not being able to make our own medical supplies.

And this pretty well sums up the whole off-shore manufacturing dilemma. We want everything built here in the US. But at the same time we want things to be lower cost and more affordable. Given a choice between the two, lower cost/more affordable will always win.

 

[oscar]

Why do you suspect that? Can you elaborate?

Yeah, but I don't want to take this thread, or this forum, too far off topic. There's miles of discussion on the subject on aviation forums. Do some digging.

 

[ksanders]

And this pretty well sums up the whole off-shore manufacturing dilemma. We want everything built here in the US. But at the same time we want things to be lower cost and more affordable. Given a choice between the two, lower cost/more affordable will always win.

Agreed, and it works...

Until you reach a point where you reduce the number of people in the "outsourced" country that have good jobs, and money to spend.

Then those masses start turning to other sources for lifestyle support, IE their government.

Basically this whole "offshore" thing sounds great until you are the one who looses their job to lower paid foreign labor.

This real life situation scared me.

I went down to Houston to do a acceptance test on a new oilfield microwave system for our wellhead control project. The equipment was designed and built in India. I met the team as this was serial number 1 and we were a huge client. They were there from India.

Great folks. Very well educated. Actually better educated than the Client team from America. Plenty of PHD's running around on their side. Very motivated folks. Very smart.

We in some down time discussed life in India and salaries for folks of our similar occupation, experience, etc... Their lifestyle, in where they lived, homes, "stuff", was not even comparable to the US counterparts.

These guys literally dream of our lifestyle in the US. They are willing to do the same jobs we do, and live a lifestyle that our most junior workers would not be happy with.

That really changed my outlook. There is frankly no competing with someone just as smart, just as educated, and willing to lead a lifestyle that represents the entire reason you went to college and busted your but to get away from.

I got lucky, or smart, who knows. I was able to keep my lifestyle and am at the end of a long career. I was able to retain job security by doing work that required technical expertise but had a necessary hands on component. Tough to outsource that. My son on the other hand is the head of a engineering department for a major international company. I really hope he is able to keep his lifestyle and not be outsourced. If his team of engineering professionals can work mostly from their desks, there is no reason someone in India (or name your upcoming country) could not do the same job function for less money.

 

[soin2la]

so basically, those are not part of the current discussion about getting foreign flagged ships approval to travel from Seattle to Alaska and back without first stopping BC.

Even one of the authors of the Bill before the US Senate is admitting it isn’t likely to go anywhere this cruising season: “There is not currently a vote scheduled in the U.S. Senate for the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act,” commented Hannah Ray, press secretary for U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski”

https://www.cruiseindustrynews.com/...could-help-save-the-alaska-cruise-season.html

"The effort to save the 2021 Alaska cruise season may have been too little too late”

“The Act will thus need to be part of a larger bill, or be voted on, which could be months off.”

 

[SteveK]

Kevin an excellent summation.
You have shown it is not just the sweatshops we keep hearing about taking jobs.