the seaway has never lived up to its potential; it was built too small
because of political interference from the railways, the locks should have been 1000 x 100 feet and channel depth should have been set at a minimum 30 foot draft. Then you have everyone sucking the life out of it from a cost perspective rendering it unable to compete with the mississippi river. Sadly indeed its best days are behind it
Algoma Fleet
-
laerfan
Re: Algoma Fleet
If you read the entire 2015 annual report the new algoma president is pretty pessimistic about any type of growth for the US and Canadian domestic marine trade on the lakes. Fewer and fewer ships needed ie only enough business for the new-buildings. Combine that with increasingly expensive costs for the salties making it a less attractive trading area and it makes you wonder if the systems best days are behind it?
-
Guest
Re: Algoma Fleet
Noticed that too. Although my remark was, "she's only certified for the lakes? I thought she was built for the ocean?"tugboathunter wrote:The fleetlist also seems to note that the Algoma Guardian has lost its unlimited ocean designation and only has a "GL" for Great Lakes next to her name.
-
tugboathunter
Re: Algoma Fleet
The fleetlist also seems to note that the Algoma Guardian has lost its unlimited ocean designation and only has a "GL" for Great Lakes next to her name.
-
Guest
Re: Algoma Fleet
The specific text from the annual report.TWilush wrote:According to the fleet list on Algoma's 2015 annual report, Algoma Navigator, Algosoo, Algomarine, Peter R. Cresswell and Algosar will be retired. Algosteel is in cold layup status as a spare boat.
From Page 18Algoma has taken the unprecedented step of retiring five dry-bulk vessels at the completion of their 2016 winter season work.
The vessels being demised include the Algomarine,the Peter R. Cresswell, the Algoma Navigator, and the Algosoo. The Algosteel will be maintained in cold lay-up as a spare vessel in the event that customer demand unexpectedly increases but steps are being taken to direct the remaining ships to scrapping.
When they say "2016 Winter Season Work" does that mean the Early Months or the Late months? I'm thinking It means the early months, but I could be wrong.In addition, the
Algosar reached the end of its useful life in 2015 and was retired from service at the end of the season
Re: Algoma Fleet
According to the fleet list on Algoma's 2015 annual report, Algoma Navigator, Algosoo, Algomarine, Peter R. Cresswell and Algosar will be retired. Algosteel is in cold layup status as a spare boat.
-
guest 1
Re: Algoma Fleet
I have been monitoring this conversation,and wonder how this all got away from the original question,However I will add my 5 cents(we no longer have pennies in Canada)All ships under IMO conventions over 500 GT have to meet international rules.Recently International Labour
Code came into effect adding some protection to Employees.Also the ILO has a standard wage convention.I worked so called Flag of Convenience ships,Bahamas, Bermuda Honduras etc and they were also following IMO Conventions STCW conventions.At the time the hours of work rules were superior to Canadas(2000)That was hard to believe.There seems to be a lot of misinformation about FOC vessels.The world of 2016 has changed some what.I am not saying its perfect but for a Seafarer it has improved. FOC ships are part of world trade like it or not. If we are to better understand FOC ships there is plenty of information on the web.International Transportation federation site for one has a lot of good information and specimen contracts.(ITF is not in favour of FOC ships unless they have their contract. To sum up all Ships now by law have to follow ILO, IMO and STCW conventions.Those that do not are finding it difficult to continue to trade with other nations,Hopefully all Seaman will be treated with dignity and respect as per labour conventions.
Code came into effect adding some protection to Employees.Also the ILO has a standard wage convention.I worked so called Flag of Convenience ships,Bahamas, Bermuda Honduras etc and they were also following IMO Conventions STCW conventions.At the time the hours of work rules were superior to Canadas(2000)That was hard to believe.There seems to be a lot of misinformation about FOC vessels.The world of 2016 has changed some what.I am not saying its perfect but for a Seafarer it has improved. FOC ships are part of world trade like it or not. If we are to better understand FOC ships there is plenty of information on the web.International Transportation federation site for one has a lot of good information and specimen contracts.(ITF is not in favour of FOC ships unless they have their contract. To sum up all Ships now by law have to follow ILO, IMO and STCW conventions.Those that do not are finding it difficult to continue to trade with other nations,Hopefully all Seaman will be treated with dignity and respect as per labour conventions.
-
Guest
Re: Algoma Fleet
How would US 'employee protection' laws have anything to do with the foreign sailors crewing the flag of convenience ships that would take over domestic coast wise and great lakes trade if the Jones Act were repealed?Fred Garvin wrote:The Jones Act is an outdated pile of regulations that cripples competitiveness. There are plenty of employee protection laws on the books to cover employees who work the Great Lakes. The Jones Act is protectionism, pure and simple. It cannot be repealed soon enough. And the Great Lakes and its shipping interests and employees will benefit for its repeal. So too will industries that rely on the safe transport of commodities at competitive prices.
-
Darryl
Re: Algoma Fleet
Free Trade? Sounds innocuous. But isn't it somewhat interesting that the two people, one from each of the two major political parties, that are causing the greatest amount of excitement, are running on the failed trade policies that have shipped so much manufacturing to foreign LCOs at the expense of US, and Canadian workers?
-
hugh3
Re: Algoma Fleet
compete with Saltys who Have Workers from the Philippines,India or any Country in the world were the People are depressed and willing to work for 600 dollars a month
I have talked to crew member on ships who ere paid @$50 - $75for AB's a month and sign articles for 3/5 years and if they quit before end of contract they had to pay there transportation home.
Re: Algoma Fleet
Look how quick American steam ship Snatched up the Ken Boothe Sr.
They let the Republics lease go back,have Modern Boats sitting with no work,including a Thousand Footer but they lease the Boothe and keep it sailing?
US fleet was bought buy Canadian National and They found a look hole and have Key Lakes operating There fleet!,If the Jones Act was Eliminated all Shipping on the Great Lakes would be fair Game!,and Foreign Company's could slide right in,and Interlake,American and all the other Company's who are not Captive to there steel mills would have to compete with Saltys who Have Workers from the Philippines,India or any Country in the world were the People are depressed and willing to work for 600 dollars a month,Our Thousand footers would be competitive,but our old time self unloaders would only be valuable for as long as these Saltys can have self unloading Systems added to them.
Would Interlake and American Steam Ship stand there ground and stay with Union workers? Nope!,there in business to make a profit,and they would take advantage of Cheap help as well!
Our Existing Captains and Mates with unlimited ton licenses would than be pilots!
Just so everyone knows,I am just speculating!,I was a Carpenter and a contractor from 1980 to 2012. I am just speculating Shipping could turn out cut throat as Construction and Trucking has been that I have lived with first hand. I hope The best for Great Lakes Shipping!! mn brett
They let the Republics lease go back,have Modern Boats sitting with no work,including a Thousand Footer but they lease the Boothe and keep it sailing?
US fleet was bought buy Canadian National and They found a look hole and have Key Lakes operating There fleet!,If the Jones Act was Eliminated all Shipping on the Great Lakes would be fair Game!,and Foreign Company's could slide right in,and Interlake,American and all the other Company's who are not Captive to there steel mills would have to compete with Saltys who Have Workers from the Philippines,India or any Country in the world were the People are depressed and willing to work for 600 dollars a month,Our Thousand footers would be competitive,but our old time self unloaders would only be valuable for as long as these Saltys can have self unloading Systems added to them.
Would Interlake and American Steam Ship stand there ground and stay with Union workers? Nope!,there in business to make a profit,and they would take advantage of Cheap help as well!
Our Existing Captains and Mates with unlimited ton licenses would than be pilots!
Just so everyone knows,I am just speculating!,I was a Carpenter and a contractor from 1980 to 2012. I am just speculating Shipping could turn out cut throat as Construction and Trucking has been that I have lived with first hand. I hope The best for Great Lakes Shipping!! mn brett
-
Pete in Holland MI
Re: Algoma Fleet
Saving jobs & waving the American flag are an honorable thing to do, but most stock held companies are all about spending less and making greater profits. Stock holders get excited about the value of their stocks going up. The don't get excited about stocks not growing, but they saved jobs in a remote town.
Stocks, which private investors make money on, are also where your retirement funds grow with, are a necessary evil in our society. Stocks, unfortunately, allow business decisions to be made without looking at the workers eye-to-eye in the plant, or on the street.
I don't like it either. Don't have a solution though.
Pete
Stocks, which private investors make money on, are also where your retirement funds grow with, are a necessary evil in our society. Stocks, unfortunately, allow business decisions to be made without looking at the workers eye-to-eye in the plant, or on the street.
I don't like it either. Don't have a solution though.
Pete
-
old sailer
Re: Algoma Fleet
I just don't get it, what is so wrong with protecting your own jobs and industries.
-
Fred Garvin
Re: Algoma Fleet
The Jones Act is an outdated pile of regulations that cripples competitiveness. There are plenty of employee protection laws on the books to cover employees who work the Great Lakes. The Jones Act is protectionism, pure and simple. It cannot be repealed soon enough. And the Great Lakes and its shipping interests and employees will benefit for its repeal. So too will industries that rely on the safe transport of commodities at competitive prices.
-
Paul Beesley
Re: Algoma Fleet
Cabotage Cronyism: Some History of the Jones Act
By Robert Bradley Jr. -- July 1, 2015
“Forced use of higher-cost U.S.-flag vessels has benefitted domestic water carrier firms, shipbuilding companies, and associated labor. This advantage, however, has been diluted because inflated shipping costs has reduced the attractiveness of barge and tanker transport compared to other alternatives.”
The current debate over legalization of oil exports is intertwined with cabotage (water vessel) protectionism. The previous two posts (Part I; Part II) examined the history of oil-export regulation by the federal government; this post surveys water-vessel restrictions from Washington, D.C., that directly or indirectly impact the oil trade.
In 1808 and 1817, the United States passed legislation reserving coastwise and intercoastal trade to U.S.-built and registered vessels. [1] Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act, reaffirmed this policy and extended it to the noncontiguous U.S. by declaring:
No merchandise shall be transported by water . . . between points in the United States . . . in any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States. [2]
Public Resolution 17 on March 26, 1934, expanded the U.S.-flag requirement to any shipper receiving a loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or receiving any other government assistance. [3]
On August 26, 1954, the Merchant Marine Act was amended pursuant to this resolution to require at least one-half of government cargos to be moved by private U.S.-flag ships. [4] This became particularly important with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which received imported oil by tanker. Although not adhered to early in the program, an agreement between the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation regarding SPR gave lucrative preference to American bottoms. [5]
1970s Laws
Two other petroleum-related cabotage laws were passed in the 1970s.
A provision in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973 banned exports of Alaskan oil unless strict conditions were met. [6] This special-interest coup single handedly pushed water carriers past oil pipelines as the leading transportation source as measured in ton miles by 1980. [7]
The logical scenario would have been to export oil by tanker to Japan and import more oil from traditional sources into the East Coast. But maritime interest groups pushed to “domesticate” Alaskan supply to require transport from Valdez in U.S. flag vessels.
The National Maritime Council reported that as of October 1, 1982, 75 U.S. flag ships aggregating over 6.3 million deadweight tons were transporting crude through the Panama Canal to Gulf Coast and even East Coast refiners. [8]
A third protectionist element of petroleum transport by water came with an Interior Department appropriations bill in 1979 that gave a 50 percent entitlements benefit for oil shipped by U.S.-flag tankers to refineries located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. This political element raised acquisition costs and distorted the refinery equalization program.
A continuous effort has been made since the early 1970s by the maritime lobby to require a percentage of oil imports to be transported on American tankers. In 1972, a 50 percent cargo preference proposal was defeated in the House; in 1974, President Ford vetoed a 20 percent proposal (with escalations to 30 percent by mid-1977); and in 1977, a 4.5 to 9.5 percent minimum requirement was again defeated in the House. Concern over the rising cost of oil imports prevented passage. Protectionist attempts continued in the 1980s. [9]
Industry Winners vs. Consumers (Concentrated Benefits; Diffused Costs)
Forced use of higher-cost U.S.-flag vessels has benefitted domestic water carrier firms, shipbuilding companies, and associated labor. This advantage, however, has been diluted because inflated shipping costs has reduced the attractiveness of barge and tanker transport compared to other alternatives.
Railroads and, to a lesser extent, trucking have benefitted. [10] With petroleum, trunk pipelines have benefitted on certain routes. [11] In fact, many have argued that protective maritime legislation weakened the industry on net and point to historic declines in the U.S.-flag fleet for substantiation. [12]
United States consumers have been saddled with unnecessary oil product costs. Economist Richard Mancke estimated that cabotage regulation of oil products shipped by tanker from Texas-Louisiana refining centers cost East Coast consumers over $100 million per year in the early 1970s. [13]
The total differential between lower-cost foreign-flag vessels and U.S.-flag vessels from the Jones Act, including Alaskan oil and SPR oil in addition to coastwise transport, would bring Mancke’s sum to much higher levels for subsequent years.
By Robert Bradley Jr. -- July 1, 2015
“Forced use of higher-cost U.S.-flag vessels has benefitted domestic water carrier firms, shipbuilding companies, and associated labor. This advantage, however, has been diluted because inflated shipping costs has reduced the attractiveness of barge and tanker transport compared to other alternatives.”
The current debate over legalization of oil exports is intertwined with cabotage (water vessel) protectionism. The previous two posts (Part I; Part II) examined the history of oil-export regulation by the federal government; this post surveys water-vessel restrictions from Washington, D.C., that directly or indirectly impact the oil trade.
In 1808 and 1817, the United States passed legislation reserving coastwise and intercoastal trade to U.S.-built and registered vessels. [1] Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act, reaffirmed this policy and extended it to the noncontiguous U.S. by declaring:
No merchandise shall be transported by water . . . between points in the United States . . . in any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States. [2]
Public Resolution 17 on March 26, 1934, expanded the U.S.-flag requirement to any shipper receiving a loan from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or receiving any other government assistance. [3]
On August 26, 1954, the Merchant Marine Act was amended pursuant to this resolution to require at least one-half of government cargos to be moved by private U.S.-flag ships. [4] This became particularly important with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which received imported oil by tanker. Although not adhered to early in the program, an agreement between the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation regarding SPR gave lucrative preference to American bottoms. [5]
1970s Laws
Two other petroleum-related cabotage laws were passed in the 1970s.
A provision in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973 banned exports of Alaskan oil unless strict conditions were met. [6] This special-interest coup single handedly pushed water carriers past oil pipelines as the leading transportation source as measured in ton miles by 1980. [7]
The logical scenario would have been to export oil by tanker to Japan and import more oil from traditional sources into the East Coast. But maritime interest groups pushed to “domesticate” Alaskan supply to require transport from Valdez in U.S. flag vessels.
The National Maritime Council reported that as of October 1, 1982, 75 U.S. flag ships aggregating over 6.3 million deadweight tons were transporting crude through the Panama Canal to Gulf Coast and even East Coast refiners. [8]
A third protectionist element of petroleum transport by water came with an Interior Department appropriations bill in 1979 that gave a 50 percent entitlements benefit for oil shipped by U.S.-flag tankers to refineries located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. This political element raised acquisition costs and distorted the refinery equalization program.
A continuous effort has been made since the early 1970s by the maritime lobby to require a percentage of oil imports to be transported on American tankers. In 1972, a 50 percent cargo preference proposal was defeated in the House; in 1974, President Ford vetoed a 20 percent proposal (with escalations to 30 percent by mid-1977); and in 1977, a 4.5 to 9.5 percent minimum requirement was again defeated in the House. Concern over the rising cost of oil imports prevented passage. Protectionist attempts continued in the 1980s. [9]
Industry Winners vs. Consumers (Concentrated Benefits; Diffused Costs)
Forced use of higher-cost U.S.-flag vessels has benefitted domestic water carrier firms, shipbuilding companies, and associated labor. This advantage, however, has been diluted because inflated shipping costs has reduced the attractiveness of barge and tanker transport compared to other alternatives.
Railroads and, to a lesser extent, trucking have benefitted. [10] With petroleum, trunk pipelines have benefitted on certain routes. [11] In fact, many have argued that protective maritime legislation weakened the industry on net and point to historic declines in the U.S.-flag fleet for substantiation. [12]
United States consumers have been saddled with unnecessary oil product costs. Economist Richard Mancke estimated that cabotage regulation of oil products shipped by tanker from Texas-Louisiana refining centers cost East Coast consumers over $100 million per year in the early 1970s. [13]
The total differential between lower-cost foreign-flag vessels and U.S.-flag vessels from the Jones Act, including Alaskan oil and SPR oil in addition to coastwise transport, would bring Mancke’s sum to much higher levels for subsequent years.
-
Paul Beesley
Re: Algoma Fleet
Prior to 1920, seaman and sailors suffered harsh working and living conditions aboard commercial ships, and lacked any legal protection against injuries suffered in the line of work. Passage of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act, brought seamen engaged in coastal shipping a measure of safety and security. The Jones Act regulates shipping in U.S. coastal waters and between U.S. ports.
A boost for marine commerce
Named for its sponsor, Senator Wesley L. Jones of Washington, the Merchant Marine Act was intended to maintain a viable commercial workforce for the seas, with the aim of ensuring the growth of marine commerce.
Protections for seamen
The Jones Act protects seamen by giving them a legal avenue for claiming damage awards from their employers when they are injured due to negligence on the part of the ship owner, captain, or crew. Un-seaworthiness of ships is also a legal cause for litigation under the Jones Act. To qualify as a seaman and to be eligible for protection under the Jones Act, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the injured seaman:
Must have sustained an injury
The injury must have occurred while the employee was permanently assigned to a commercial vessel on a navigable waterway
The injury must have been caused either by the negligence of a fellow crewmember or by an unseaworthy vessel or equipment
Supporters and detractors
Although the Jones Act has improved safety of working conditions for seamen, it also has its downsides. Its restrictions on shipping and working conditions caused the price of moving goods and passengers between ports to rise. Critics of the act claim it is a protectionist economic policy that restrains free trade.
On the other hand, supporters claim that the Jones Act is of strategic economic interest to the United States, protecting the nation's sealift capability and its ability to produce commercial ships. The act is cited by supporters as a vital factor in helping maintain a viable workforce of trained merchant mariners for commerce and national emergencies. Supporters say that it also protects seafarers from deplorable living and working conditions often found on foreign-flagged ships.
Waivers of the Jones Act
Occasionally the Jones Act is waived under unusual circumstances. After Hurricane Katrina severely damaged the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico, the Jones Act was waived for two weeks for foreign vessels carrying oil and natural gas. There are also U.S. ports that are exempt by law from the provisions of the Jones Act. These include Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas in the Pacific, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean.
A boost for marine commerce
Named for its sponsor, Senator Wesley L. Jones of Washington, the Merchant Marine Act was intended to maintain a viable commercial workforce for the seas, with the aim of ensuring the growth of marine commerce.
Protections for seamen
The Jones Act protects seamen by giving them a legal avenue for claiming damage awards from their employers when they are injured due to negligence on the part of the ship owner, captain, or crew. Un-seaworthiness of ships is also a legal cause for litigation under the Jones Act. To qualify as a seaman and to be eligible for protection under the Jones Act, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the injured seaman:
Must have sustained an injury
The injury must have occurred while the employee was permanently assigned to a commercial vessel on a navigable waterway
The injury must have been caused either by the negligence of a fellow crewmember or by an unseaworthy vessel or equipment
Supporters and detractors
Although the Jones Act has improved safety of working conditions for seamen, it also has its downsides. Its restrictions on shipping and working conditions caused the price of moving goods and passengers between ports to rise. Critics of the act claim it is a protectionist economic policy that restrains free trade.
On the other hand, supporters claim that the Jones Act is of strategic economic interest to the United States, protecting the nation's sealift capability and its ability to produce commercial ships. The act is cited by supporters as a vital factor in helping maintain a viable workforce of trained merchant mariners for commerce and national emergencies. Supporters say that it also protects seafarers from deplorable living and working conditions often found on foreign-flagged ships.
Waivers of the Jones Act
Occasionally the Jones Act is waived under unusual circumstances. After Hurricane Katrina severely damaged the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico, the Jones Act was waived for two weeks for foreign vessels carrying oil and natural gas. There are also U.S. ports that are exempt by law from the provisions of the Jones Act. These include Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas in the Pacific, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean.
-
Alan Francis
Re: Algoma Fleet
I agree CB. I don'the believe the Jones Act will ever be repelled, but quite possibly it could be altered or reformed. I am certain that the Unions will ensure that any anti-cabotage laws will be protected. I would welcome a respectful discussion about what reforms are needed.
My involvement in this discussion was based on the comment that all the US ships will be replaced by salties if the Jones Act was removed. That won't happen. US fleet owners will find a way to keep their vessels operating - even if that means re-flagging them. They are profit driven just like every other business. The reality of it is - the people behind the push to eliminate the Jones Act are the ones who have the most to gain.
My involvement in this discussion was based on the comment that all the US ships will be replaced by salties if the Jones Act was removed. That won't happen. US fleet owners will find a way to keep their vessels operating - even if that means re-flagging them. They are profit driven just like every other business. The reality of it is - the people behind the push to eliminate the Jones Act are the ones who have the most to gain.
-
CB
Re: Algoma Fleet
If you had no cabotage laws you could use a foreign flagged vessel. However if it is operating entirely within US territory it would still be subject to all the laws that apply to any other business operating in the US. Coastal shipping and vessels operating between The Us and Canada probably could crew with whoever they wanted but the bulk of the fleet on the lakes would likely not.Alan Francis wrote: Flagging the ship under a flag of convenience would eliminate those pesky labour laws. Not to mention the taxes..
That said in such a scenario there would probably be a lot of litigation back and forth before it all settle down as the current legal structure when it comes to shipping has never had the situation with the cabotage laws. Some would probably argue that cutting through Canadian waters would make them exempt.
Really any hypothetical situation needs to be flushed out a lot more than just "getting rid of the jones act" for any reasonable predictions to be made.
Discussions of reform are probably more fruitful as it is more likely than complete elimination of cabotage laws. What reforms are needed is the real question.
-
Earl
Re: Algoma Fleet
The ship owners are building disposal ships these days. The new boats aren't intended to last forever like their predecessors. The companies don't want to make that sort of financial investment. The new classes of boats made in China are just fine for what they are. They were built to deliver maybe 25-30 years of useful life. It's silly to bash the quality of the ships built in China therefore. Nobody has asked them to build the next Wilfred Sykes or Arthur Anderson, or in other words boats built to a high quality level that were expected to deliver 50 plus years of service.
-
Alan Francis
Re: Algoma Fleet
Flagging the ship under a flag of convenience would eliminate those pesky labour laws. Not to mention the taxes...The removal of the jones act would not eliminate existing labour laws. Any vessels working domestically would not be able to use crew not legally entitled to work in the country. So the crew would not change.