|
Post by BreannaF on Apr 11, 2008 7:15:51 GMT -8
Since this is getting talked about in a number of threads, let's give it a place: Let's put aside the JA and snag the MV QUEEN OF SAANICH and MV QUEEN OF VANCOUVER. They'd be good on the Seattle-Bremerton run. Modify the holes on the Upper Car Deck sides to accommodate WSF's passenger planks. In between these, a new lounge can be added (or parts storage). Gut the galleys at the stern and turn one of these into an aft wheelhouse for landings at Bremerton. The midships snack bar should be sufficient for food service. Then, a coat of green and white paint. Name them MV QUEEN OF PUGET SOUND and MV QUEEN OF SEATTLE and they'd be in business here! ;D ferrynut, how about just leave them as they are and send them to Edmonds to Kingston since they might want an extra boat this summer They can use less passengers on those routes since most love their cars anyways. Let's put aside the J[ones] A[ct]... Let's not. The Jones Act provides for a lot more than just not allowing foreign-built/flagged vessels from operating between two consecutive US ports. It provides for rights of injured seamen, requiring 75% of the crew to speak English [especially useful in terms of passenger boats], and a few other niceties. So it's a tad more complicated than what amounts to a momentary inconvenience caused by a lack of planning of a government agency... ;D And so on......... My comment to continue (from the Service Bulletins thread): I'm looking at this through the eyes of someone whose father worked for Bethlehem Steel (now Seattle Steel) for 30 years. I don't know for sure whether any of the handiwork that Dad helped to produce ended up in any of the ferries, but I do know that the fact it appears in many road and bridge projects throughout the Northwest. That it did, it kept our family and others families housed and fed for a long time. While I have no way to prove or disprove the relative quality of their steel relative to its imported Japanese counterpart (and he would have said that more colorfully), there is something to be said for local craftsmanship. We should build and produce things here, to keep ourselves employed and to keep our quality up. To that end, I have no problem limiting ourselves to US made ferries. I know that some other places make product of similar quality, but it is all part of a package of laws and regulations that keep us safe and secure. Why mess with a good thing? This talk about Jones Act exemptions to use ferries made elsewhere needs to be put into perspective. Are we going to roll over because we are going through an inconvenience at the moment? I think not. Does the fact we have no ferry (and we do!) for PT-Keystone change things? No. What if we were one boat short on EACH cross sound route? Would that change things? No. We need to get the political guts together as a state to properly fix the problem locally. Would I ever support asking for an exemption? Yeah. The day WSF loses their last boat and people are stranded on Vashon and San Juan Islands. And that won't happen. We dug this hole for ourselves. We need to live within the rules and fix the problems. Even if it hurts in the short term. And if we think any differently, we are whiners, just like the people who ride "that other route". (Gosh. I'm even surprised that those words came out of my uber liberal, free trade lovin' mouth!) Now there it is. Have at it!
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Apr 11, 2008 7:18:53 GMT -8
OK, 2nd post so I can let the above stand on it's own, but........
In the unlikely event that we DID have an extra ferry out there, would it help the PT-Keystone situation any more to put an extra ferry on at Edmonds-Kingston, or perhaps as an Edmonds-PT ferry?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 11, 2008 7:41:10 GMT -8
I don't know if the Edmonds-Port Townsend scenario would sufficiently improve the connections... well, yes, it would. 1 hour and 40 minutes is considerably quicker than driving there from Edmonds.
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 11, 2008 21:53:11 GMT -8
One way that I believe a surplus BC boat might be of some assistance is as follows:
If a BC boat were placed on the 'international route' there would not be a Jones Act issue, would there? The boat that makes the most sense, and will be available soon, is the Tsawwassen. Placing it on that route would free up at least one WSF vessel currently working San Juan Islands routes. Such a vessel could be redeployed elsewhere in the WS system. While this might not help out with the Keystone situation, it might make it more practicable to run a temporary route from Anacortes to Port Townsend, or Clinton to Kingston.
Would it be possible for a non US owned & built vessel such as the Tsawwassen to make multiple calls en route (at various islands) between Sidney & Anacortes, and not be in violation of the Jones Act?
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,151
|
Post by Neil on Apr 11, 2008 22:01:23 GMT -8
The 'Tsawwassen probably doesn't meet the SOLAS standards necessary to allow it to sail on an international route.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Apr 12, 2008 5:40:07 GMT -8
One way that I believe a surplus BC boat might be of some assistance is as follows: If a BC boat were placed on the 'international route' there would not be a Jones Act issue, would there? The boat that makes the most sense, and will be available soon, is the Tsawwassen. Placing it on that route would free up at least one WSF vessel currently working San Juan Islands routes. Such a vessel could be redeployed elsewhere in the WS system. While this might not help out with the Keystone situation, it might make it more practicable to run a temporary route from Anacortes to Port Townsend, or Clinton to Kingston. Would it be possible for a non US owned & built vessel such as the Tsawwassen to make multiple calls en route (at various islands) between Sidney & Anacortes, and not be in violation of the Jones Act? It would as the schedule currently stands, because the international boat still takes domestic traffic--foots to Orcas and cars/trucks to Friday Harbor. On the return stop to Friday Harbor, the boat also takes on domestic traffic for Anacortes. The only way the boat would work is a direct route from Anacortes to Sidney. We do that in the morning trip in the summer, but the afternoon trip makes the same Orcas-Friday Harbor stops. It would be difficult to get the cars going to Sidney from Friday Harbor back to Anacortes to make the Sidney sailing, but not impossible. WSF wouldn't invest the money in a 40+ year old boat for upgrading for SOLAS. (remember, the Elwha was still in her sprite 20's when she was upgraded for SOLAS, as was the Chelan.) Someone tried that before in the early 90's with with the Sechelt Queen--which didn't have the Jones Act issues as she had been built in the US. Granted, there were asbestos issues with her, but the limited size and age of the vessel issues would still apply.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 12, 2008 5:56:55 GMT -8
Moreover, the Chelan/Elwha/Sidneyboat of choice is used for domestic service in the evenings.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Apr 24, 2008 10:31:16 GMT -8
If all other modes of transport aren't subject to similar protectionist laws, it's quite unfair that marine transport alone should be subject to the Jones Act, and should be challenged in court and overturned.
As far as I'm aware, air carriers can fly Airbus between domestic airports, and railways are free to run Bombardier.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Apr 24, 2008 18:02:35 GMT -8
Thanks. Any other jobs you'd like to ship overseas? It stops being funny when it starts being you.
A portion of the intent of the Jones Act is to make sure that there is sufficient United-States built/owned shipping available for a major military sealift along the scope of WWII. Always fighting the last war, that's U.S. ...
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Apr 24, 2008 18:27:57 GMT -8
Thanks. Any other jobs you'd like to ship overseas? It stops being funny when it starts being you. Is it any better that they're building your planes, cars, computer parts and shoes overseas? A portion of the intent of the Jones Act is to make sure that there is sufficient United-States built/owned shipping available for a major military sealift along the scope of WWII. Always fighting the last war, that's U.S. ... Is there any reason why foreign built ships can't be used for that purpose...perhaps even of superior build and cost?
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Apr 25, 2008 3:33:49 GMT -8
Thanks. Any other jobs you'd like to ship overseas? It stops being funny when it starts being you. Is it any better that they're building your planes, cars, computer parts and shoes overseas? A portion of the intent of the Jones Act is to make sure that there is sufficient United-States built/owned shipping available for a major military sealift along the scope of WWII. Always fighting the last war, that's U.S. ... Is there any reason why foreign built ships can't be used for that purpose...perhaps even of superior build and cost? There's more to the idea than just US owned ships. As Barnacle stated, these ships are supposed to be US built, with US shipyards benefiting, therefore maintaining the capacity to ramp up manufacturing in times of war.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Apr 25, 2008 9:44:11 GMT -8
There's more to the idea than just US owned ships. As Barnacle stated, these ships are supposed to be US built, with US shipyards benefiting, therefore maintaining the capacity to ramp up manufacturing in times of war. Shouldn't the same hold true for aircraft, then. Or the manufacture of all other supplies that could be of military use, right down to footwear, backpacks and even packaged foods and bottled water?
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Apr 25, 2008 11:54:35 GMT -8
The Jones Act needs amending.
If we were to do a quick bit of research I believe you would find that there hasn't been any real substantial shipbuilding in the US for a few decades. We get our ferries and other passenger boats built here, because of the law. Most other bottoms are built in foreign shipyards and registered in other ports.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Apr 25, 2008 11:55:24 GMT -8
There's more to the idea than just US owned ships. As Barnacle stated, these ships are supposed to be US built, with US shipyards benefiting, therefore maintaining the capacity to ramp up manufacturing in times of war. Shouldn't the same hold true for aircraft, then. Or the manufacture of all other supplies that could be of military use, right down to footwear, backpacks and even packaged foods and bottled water? lol...it should, which is why the new tanker contracts with Airbus caused a small amount of "brown stuff" to hit the fan...though there is significant confusion and misleading information being put out there as to who will actually be doing the work. As for the other items, until recently, the US was exporting a significant amount of these products to allies instead of importing them...I think we will have to wait and see how this will play out over the next 4 to 8 years...
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Apr 25, 2008 12:21:34 GMT -8
There's more to the idea than just US owned ships. As Barnacle stated, these ships are supposed to be US built, with US shipyards benefiting, therefore maintaining the capacity to ramp up manufacturing in times of war. Shouldn't the same hold true for aircraft, then. Or the manufacture of all other supplies that could be of military use, right down to footwear, backpacks and even packaged foods and bottled water? Well, yeah. I think that realistically, is likely we could muster the resources necessary to produce enough boots and backpacks to get us through with what we have available. Shipbuilding requires rather specialized facilities and skills, while putting together a boot factory could be done on short order. Training of people to manufacture the smaller goods would also be relatively quick. On the other hand, shipbuilding and steel making require a more specialized workforce and huge investment in money and time to build a factory. It makes sense to keep these facilities running so they could be converted to military use in a hurry. I would also argue that the airplane industry should work the same way. These laws were passed "back in the day" before airships were a significant part of a military function. Ships were the workhorses of shipping, military might, and cargo transportation. The airplane now also performs all of those functions in today's society. It is a travesty that Boeing is the only really large aircraft manufacturer in the US anymore. I think it was bordering on a crime that the US military recently chose Airbus to supply aerial refueling planes, regardless of the fact that Northrop Grumman actually made the bid and will do some outfitting of the planes in the US. It seems shortsighted to not keep our own plants operating to capacity, if not to keep them open, then to keep a large group of skilled workers, engineers, and other related people employed. Of course, I also believe that despite what they say, the actions of the recent administration have been to line their own pockets over actually truly looking out for US national security. So, despite all the populist talk by our presidential candidates of eliminating NAFTA, a lot more good could be done by leaving NAFTA right where it is and implementing some sort of "Jones Act" for the air industry. **EDIT** I gotta learn to type faster.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 25, 2008 12:32:48 GMT -8
If you look at the number of shipyards that build seriously large ships, deduct the ones that do significant levels of military contracts (Bath, Newport News, Inglis, Electric Boat etc.) you are left with a scattering of yards that don't do a vast number of ships. Some of the smaller yards today still owe their existance to the military. Broward in Florida (recently reborn) now a yacht shipyard, got a big boost by doing wooden hulled minesweepers for WWII.
Still you would think that the nature of war has changed a lot since the Jones Act was instituted and wonder whether it is now in need of changing or at least updating. Yes there needs to be specific volumes of strategic sealift available in case of war and the ability to quickly replace lost vessels. But beyond that does anybody envisable the volume of ships needed that were required in WWII. At that time the strategic airlift capability just did not exist like it does today. Troops are airlifted not sent in a troop ship for a month halfway around the world. Equipment is prepositioned in key areas already with ships available for transport. Even tanks and helicopters can be flown to destinations. Like everything in our society it is about speed and quick response. All of this lessens the volume of shipping required.
If there were reverse Jones Act everywhere there would be a lot fewer surplus US ships sailing in other navies albeit probably not a huge source of income.
The US President is soon to fly on a new Marine One helicopter fleet from a European manufacturer that will replace the current Sikorsky's. If the KC30 goes ahead all the various 707's will be replaced by A330's not only the current controvery of the tanker deal.
So within that context the Jones Act is a bit of an oddball.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Apr 25, 2008 12:33:37 GMT -8
What's more, scrambling to build ship (and planes) in a hurry once a war breaks out is too little too late, wouldn't you say? Those are things you prepare and keep an ample supply of well in advance.
Besides, none of this would be necessary if you were to commit your forces to defensive purposes only, and keep up with the Joneses (ie. other countries, excuse the pun) as far as military preparedness goes.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Apr 25, 2008 17:26:58 GMT -8
It is necessary for the national defense and for the proper growth of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, ultimately to be owned and operated privately by citizens of the United States; and it is declared to be the policy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine, and, in so far as may not be inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall, in the disposition of vessels and shipping property as hereinafter provided, in the making of rules and regulations, and in the administration of the shipping laws keep always in view this purpose and object as the primary end to be attained. -- Preamble of the Jones Act Sure, everything has it's advantages and disadvantages. In general, a free trade attitude is going to get the US consumer lower prices on consumer goods. The trouble is that if you outsource all of the production jobs to places with lower labor costs, then you will be cheating the US worker out of jobs with a living wage. The question of whether the US public wants lower prices on goods at the expense of lower paying or no manufacturing jobs is probably not best debated in this forum. The Jones Act has many parts, most of which are of a benefit to everyone. It allows that US jobs remain in the hands of US workers. It ensures that at least some US shipyard jobs will remain in the US. While it is likely that we are keeping ships from being exported to other countries, it is more likely that there would be a net loss of US marine construction jobs if the law were repealed. Labor is the major cost in shipbuilding, and the jobs will follow the low wages. It ensures that there will be shipboard jobs available at a US-type wage. I'm sure that we could solve WSF's problems by importing foreign deckhands who would work for minimum wage plus all the cold sandwiches they could sneak out of the cafeteria. I'd rather have the jobs for local workers and figure out a way to pay a proper wage. We also can't ignore the worker protection provisions of the act. I am all for requiring ship owners to pay for the costs of caring for injured crew. Lets not get rid of that one. I think that in many industries that free trade is inevitable. The Wal-Mart shoppers have made that choice for us. (That means that I think that if you buy the cheap Chinese-made stuff at the discount store, that you forfeit the right to complain about you and your neighbour losing their well-paying, US-wage manufacturing jobs.) But for the big, important things, I think a bit of protectionism isn't a bad thing. Those big things are the people in the shipping and related industries, and should be extended to Boeing workers, too. Besides, none of this would be necessary if you were to commit your forces to defensive purposes only, and keep up with the Joneses (ie. other countries, excuse the pun) as far as military preparedness goes. While I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, to go further in that direction is probably stepping out of bounds in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Apr 25, 2008 18:03:41 GMT -8
I think that in many industries that free trade is inevitable. The Wal-Mart shoppers have made that choice for us. (That means that I think that if you buy the cheap Chinese-made stuff at the discount store, that you forfeit the right to complain about you and your neighbour losing their well-paying, US-wage manufacturing jobs.) But for the big, important things, I think a bit of protectionism isn't a bad thing. Those big things are the people in the shipping and related industries, and should be extended to Boeing workers, too. All those small everyday use things add up to be at least as big, if not bigger, than the big things, no?
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 3, 2008 10:13:00 GMT -8
One more thing.
As long as the US keeps up its Jones Act, it's only fair that the rest of the world act in reverse and boycott the products of US shipbuilders.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 4, 2008 14:58:13 GMT -8
You make it sound like US-built ships get purchased overseas.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 4, 2008 15:10:00 GMT -8
You make it sound like US-built ships get purchased overseas. If they're anything like US-built cars. What do you drive anyways? If it's anything other than a GM or a Ford, you may have found yourself the real reason why US shipbuilders need protection from the Jones Act.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on May 6, 2008 11:54:06 GMT -8
If they're anything like US-built cars. What do you drive anyways? If it's anything other than a GM or a Ford, you may have found yourself the real reason why US shipbuilders need protection from the Jones Act. Hey! My company fleet currently consists of 7 Dodge Caravans, 2 Chevy Ventures, and 2 Ford Crown Victorias. My own car is a Ford Taurus. Even if you will forgive me the fact that my other car is a VW Eurovan, I have found that with a little regular maintenance, all of these vehicles seem to run quite nicely. And, in some cases, they have quite a few miles on them. If a person takes a world view of world trade, every country will have something that they do well, or at least better than the next guy. in a perfect world, each would do what they do best as cheaply but as well-made as possible, and would trade with others for goods that they need. However, we live in a competitive world where each country will try to make everything and get all the profit. Also not bad. Therefore, we need to both make sure that we manufacture enough things domestically to ensure that we have good manufacturing jobs for people in our own country to live comfortably. On the other hand, it also does make sense to acquire some items that can be made much more cheaply elsewhere from other countries. That presumes that the quality of the goods is similar, and that we don't displace too many US jobs. So, where is that happy medium. There are probably not a lot of US people waiting in line to work in clothing factories for the relatively low wage that they pay for that kind of work. So it might make sense to outsource a lot of that work to a place where we can save money when purchasing these items. Alternatively, auto manufacturing jobs are good jobs, so it makes sense to encourage them domestically. We do need free trade. We need more NAFTA-type agreements. In theory, free trade means lower prices for all sorts of goods. But, in conjunction with that, we need to put much more effort into keeping the skilled workers here working. While it is important to keep people employed, it is most important to work to keep the most skilled jobs on home soil. If nothing else, it will preserve our ability to produce these important products during tiems when world tensions are higher.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 6, 2008 15:51:52 GMT -8
You make it sound like US-built ships get purchased overseas. If they're anything like US-built cars. What do you drive anyways? If it's anything other than a GM or a Ford, you may have found yourself the real reason why US shipbuilders need protection from the Jones Act. Ford, thanks. All three cars I've owned.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 6, 2008 16:49:06 GMT -8
If they're anything like US-built cars. What do you drive anyways? If it's anything other than a GM or a Ford, you may have found yourself the real reason why US shipbuilders need protection from the Jones Act. Ford, thanks. All three cars I've owned. Two Chevs presently. And I have to say, all three manufacturers are doing reasonably well overseas; in fact, at least one is showing a reasonable profit for overseas sales which is more than can be said of its domestic market. Also, most of the "foreign" manufacturers have a big investment in US based production plants, so the tools and expertise is here...umm, wouldn't that negate the thought?
|
|