|
Post by shipchandler on May 6, 2008 16:55:30 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? Not much need to worry about the next war, Being that the PUGET SOUND/JUAN DE FUCA area is peppered with military installations [Esquimalt,Comox,Bangor,Bremerton,Mchord and Everett],We will all reach 10,000 degrees fahrenheit in about 1.2 seconds ,In the event hostlities occur on a global scale.............
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 6, 2008 16:56:27 GMT -8
In addition to the Airbus military contract already mentioned...
The Amtrak Cascades trains are made by Talgo. The Sounder commuter trains are made by Bombardier. The Central Link trains are made by Kinkisharyo-Mitsui. The SLU streetcars are made by Inekon.
All government funded public transportation at that.
But ships...and only ships (even private)...all have to be domestic?
Something is wrong with that picture.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 6, 2008 17:08:07 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. If Boeing enjoyed the same protection as the shipbuilding industry, would it have become the global aircraft manufacturing giant that it is, or would it have been pampered into producing overpriced and substandard crap for a domestic market?
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 6, 2008 17:28:03 GMT -8
Not much need to worry about the next war, Being that the PUGET SOUND/JUAN DE FUCA area is peppered with military installations [Esquimalt,Comox,Bangor,Bremerton,Mchord and Everett],We will all reach 10,000 degrees fahrenheit in about 1.2 seconds ,In the event hostlities occur on a global scale............. It's the intimidation factor and the threat of mutually assured destruction that counts.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 7, 2008 5:21:56 GMT -8
In addition to the Airbus military contract already mentioned... The Amtrak Cascades trains are made by Talgo. The Sounder commuter trains are made by Bombardier. The Central Link trains are made by Kinkisharyo-Mitsui. The SLU streetcars are made by Inekon. All government funded public transportation at that. But ships...and only ships (even private)...all have to be domestic? Something is wrong with that picture. 1. As was pointed out before, the Airbus contract, while controversial in the amount of "money" it moves out of the country, does not move significant manufacturing capacity offshore. Looking at BryanK's comment, yes, we should protect our intellectual interests for more than just the shipping industry. But, as a resource, skilled people are portable in a way manufacturing facilities are not, so, given we have a plan to reel this skilled labour back in when needed and provide them with the manufacturing capacity required, allowing them to spread out and advance their skills offshore may actually turn out to be an advantage for us. 2. Although "government funded" LRT trains are being purchased overseas, or, in the case of Bombardier, Canada, the significant portion of freight stock is built here...and as a strategic interest, this is a much more important realization. Give me all the passenger trains you want...I could care less in time of need; I want freight rolling stock to move supplies...freight cars can be converted easily enough to people movers! Also, I would be more concerned about where the steel required to manufacture said trains is coming from...we are purchasing more and more from offshore suppliers, which, again, IMO, is of more strategic importance than who builds our LRT. 3. With the exception of capital/commercial projects, we build little that requires as much infrastructure as the construction of ships do. The facilities required to produce a ship are immense, and, at the time the Jones law was implemented, I'm sure this realization was forefront for the policy makers. It is still an important consideration today as the lead time to construct the above noted facilities to support a woefully lacking ship manufacturing sector is considerable; more-so than any other transportation production we might require.
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on May 7, 2008 6:02:28 GMT -8
Parts of the Jones Act need to be amended to keep up with the times.
The sad truth is that there is not a major ship scheduled to be launched by an American ship builder in 2008. Tugs, barges and foot ferries are about all the US builds any more.
Washington State Ferries (WSF) is hampered by the Jones Act legislation as well as the Legislation that demands ferries be built in Washington. Halter Marine can and would pump out boats faster and with less cost than Todd will ever dream of doing. They built the original Island Home so it would stand to reason that they could offer a more cost effective building plan for WSF.
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, aka the "Jones Act", has some very important seaman's' rights verbiage and I do not propose doing away with it. But the name says it all in the last four digits... 1920. Time for an update to 2008!
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 7, 2008 6:20:07 GMT -8
'Build Them In Washington' is supposed to be considered on a contract-by-contract basis, not an automatic assumption. Only the now-cancelled "Steilacoom III" was mandated as such.
I wouldn't have wanted to bring a Super-class all the way from Louisiana in any case.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on May 7, 2008 6:47:19 GMT -8
'Build Them In Washington' is supposed to be considered on a contract-by-contract basis, not an automatic assumption. Only the now-cancelled "Steilacoom III" was mandated as such. I wouldn't have wanted to bring a Super-class all the way from Louisiana in any case. Especially Equitable's planned six 100-car ferries they would have built by the turn of the 1980s. Remember how they designed them? These would have been naked ladies! Rated XXX!! A bulwark as the Main Deck sides, exposed vertical supports (no Main Deck outer shells), then the Saloon Deck. A Seattle newspaper showed both the Equitable and MP&E designs on the same page in the late 1970s prior to the final contract awarding to MP&E.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on May 7, 2008 6:56:09 GMT -8
Halter Marine would be a good choice but I would think they would need a SeaWise or similar heavy lift ship to deliver it because I don't think they could even handle the seas the Coastals have faced coming up the west coast. Either that or build the modules there prestuffed and assemble them in Washington. Oops considering the troubles of the 787 never mind . Bath in Maine and other shipyards are going full out to keep up with the ships on order for the Navy. Norfolk and Electric Boat are both cooperating on the latest Sub. Norfolk has the next generation of Carrier in the works. The much *delayed next gen Coast Guard ships are being built by Northrop-Gruman in Mississippi with the first on sea trials. There appears to be plenty of capacity for the largest ships but how much ramp up there would be to replace major losses of Naval vessels would I guess be the key question. Todays warships are so complex I don't see the shipyards that are appropriate for ferries all of a sudden be given the task of building a replacement Arleigh Burke destroyer. I think this is where the Jones Act falls down. It treats all shipyards as a national security requirement. In the airliner field it would be saying Cessna is the same as Lockheed Martin or Boeing. If you need bombers all of a sudden Cessna ain't gonna be doing them. I am all for supporting local industries but the costs of doing so have to be weighed carefully. Canada has missed the boat on shipyards long ago and needs to make the best of where we are at now. The US is the other extreme and now are "missing the boats" in another sense.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on May 7, 2008 7:07:32 GMT -8
'Build Them In Washington' is supposed to be considered on a contract-by-contract basis, not an automatic assumption. Only the now-cancelled "Steilacoom III" was mandated as such. I wouldn't have wanted to bring a Super-class all the way from Louisiana in any case. Especially Equitable's planned six 100-car ferries they would have built by the turn of the 1980s. Remember how they designed them? These would have been naked ladies! Rated XXX!! A bulwark as the Main Deck sides, exposed vertical supports (no Main Deck outer shells), then the Saloon Deck. A Seattle newspaper showed both the Equitable and MP&E designs on the same page in the late 1970s prior to the final contract awarding to MP&E. Don't suppose you still have the clipping do you? I have a design drawing of the Issaquahs from an issue of Marine Digest which looks suspiciously like the plan for the new 144's about to be built.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on May 7, 2008 7:14:47 GMT -8
Especially Equitable's planned six 100-car ferries they would have built by the turn of the 1980s. Remember how they designed them? These would have been naked ladies! Rated XXX!! A bulwark as the Main Deck sides, exposed vertical supports (no Main Deck outer shells), then the Saloon Deck. A Seattle newspaper showed both the Equitable and MP&E designs on the same page in the late 1970s prior to the final contract awarding to MP&E. Don't suppose you still have the clipping do you? I have a design drawing of the Issaquahs from an issue of Marine Digest which looks suspiciously like the plan for the new 144's about to be built. I wished I kept a clipping. One of these days, I'll get to a library and look at microfiche reels of both the Times and PI. By the way, the MV SAN DIEGO's Main Deck sides were fine as they were. A necessity for the usually mild climate they have there in San Diego. Plenty of natural ventilation for the Main Deck. It was surprising, though, to see that there were no entrance doors on her Saloon Deck (at the top of the Main Deck stairways). Fumes from the cars must have been aplenty in her lounge areas. Olympic Ferries may have rectified this when she arrived at Port Townsend in 1970.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on May 7, 2008 8:47:21 GMT -8
There appears to be plenty of capacity for the largest ships but how much ramp up there would be to replace major losses of Naval vessels would I guess be the key question. Other than a war with a major powers where 30 lost ships would be the least of our worries I think it is unlikely that the Navy would engage in a conflict with any other nation or group where it would regularly lose high end combat ships at a rate that would truely strain shipyard capacity, just the budget to replace them. BTW last months issue of Proceeding's is thier annual fleet / maritime summary issue and covers all launchings for the navy, contract awards, transfers to the reserve fleet, MSC, and a overview of commercial shipping including a mention of the Hawaii superferry.
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on May 7, 2008 10:19:25 GMT -8
It seems to me that the Jones Act is not the problem. U.S. vessels should be built in American yards with union workers in my opinion. Limiting bids to Washington State yards is a bit of a problem, however. One or two yards at the most would bid in these cases. Perhaps all West Coast yards should have the opportunity to bid on this work.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 7, 2008 13:10:29 GMT -8
Todays warships are so complex I don't see the shipyards that are appropriate for ferries all of a sudden be given the task of building a replacement Arleigh Burke destroyer. I think this is where the Jones Act falls down. It treats all shipyards as a national security requirement. In the airliner field it would be saying Cessna is the same as Lockheed Martin or Boeing. If you need bombers all of a sudden Cessna ain't gonna be doing them. I was thinking just that. If pumping out an adequate supply of naval ships in the event of war is such a concern, why don't they start doing that NOW, instead of waiting for a war to start and then rushing it? And have shipyards that specialize in the manufacture of military craft, so you don't have to scramble to convert a bunch of civilian shipyards and retrain all their workers for it. I can understand the part of the Jones act about ships travelling between US ports employing US eligible workers and being subject to US law and taxation, but the US built boat requirement is too much suppression of the free market and hypocritically inconsistent with laws governing other modes of transportation and manufactured goods in general. I think the war excuse may be just a cover to protect some special interests. By the way, the Jones Act is largely the reason why Vancouver has a cruise ship industry, mostly at Seattle's expense. It is chosen as the port of departure for many Alaska cruises to circumvent the Jones act for foreign flagged ships.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 7, 2008 14:43:54 GMT -8
It seems to me that the Jones Act is not the problem. U.S. vessels should be built in American yards with union workers in my opinion. Limiting bids to Washington State yards is a bit of a problem, however. One or two yards at the most would bid in these cases. Perhaps all West Coast yards should have the opportunity to bid on this work. Cool... we're in agreement! ;D I don't have a huge problem with yards all around the country being allowed to bid, other than the logistical problems of getting them here (okay, I have a little prejudice against one yard in Louisiana for a couple of goofy boats of theirs I've worked on, but that's beside the point).
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on May 7, 2008 15:52:19 GMT -8
Jimmy Pattison has a yacht from Trinity in Gulfport, Nova Spirit. Does anyone know if a pleasure boat/yacht is subject to the same duties as commercial ships? Many of the ultra rich like Paul Allen own a number of yachts. Most of them are built outside of the US. These ships are often listed as "Not Available for Sale in U.S. Waters" when they are visiting and they are for sale, in order to deal with the Jones Act or is it just to avoid a sales tax/duty?. I also believe the same thing for Charter in U.S. waters. These people keep their boats all around the world and in Paul Allens case has a number prepositioned in various parts of the world. Oceaneer please feel free to comment. Barnacle no need to name the yard cause we know of which you speak .
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 7, 2008 18:15:15 GMT -8
Okay. But I'll just say that it's the only boat I've ever worked on that had the odd-numbered liferafts on the port side. ;D
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on May 7, 2008 21:35:40 GMT -8
Cool... we're in agreement! ;D I don't have a huge problem with yards all around the country being allowed to bid, other than the logistical problems of getting them here (okay, I have a little prejudice against one yard in Louisiana for a couple of goofy boats of theirs I've worked on, but that's beside the point). I do think there might be problems with a few yards in "right to work" states. It seems like they too often try to "cut corners," usually at the expense of working folks. Would this work be covered by Davis-Bacon?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 8, 2008 6:03:59 GMT -8
I'm not familiar with Davis-Bacon.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on May 8, 2008 6:47:04 GMT -8
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 8, 2008 7:06:27 GMT -8
Todays warships are so complex I don't see the shipyards that are appropriate for ferries all of a sudden be given the task of building a replacement Arleigh Burke destroyer. I think this is where the Jones Act falls down. It treats all shipyards as a national security requirement. In the airliner field it would be saying Cessna is the same as Lockheed Martin or Boeing. If you need bombers all of a sudden Cessna ain't gonna be doing them. I was thinking just that. If pumping out an adequate supply of naval ships in the event of war is such a concern, why don't they start doing that NOW, instead of waiting for a war to start and then rushing it? And have shipyards that specialize in the manufacture of military craft, so you don't have to scramble to convert a bunch of civilian shipyards and retrain all their workers for it. I would like to know where THAT money's coming from! We already have enough "special appropriations" for the military demands imposed by keeping the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to drive the budget deficit to record levels. Actually, while the concerns about non-specialized yards being able construct warships in times of need are legitimate, I would have to argue the skilled labour is there...if anything, we would be lacking in project leads and designers with specific experience in warship construction, though we might be surprised by the capability of the men and women in these roles. Time and material management is not necessarily sector specific. Besides this, we need to remember that the majority of ships required in a war are of troop and freight transport design. Actual warships make up only a small portion of the typical losses as they are designed to take damage, and can actually defend themselves. I can understand the part of the Jones act about ships traveling between US ports employing US eligible workers and being subject to US law and taxation, but the US built boat requirement is too much suppression of the free market and hypocritically inconsistent with laws governing other modes of transportation and manufactured goods in general. I think the war excuse may be just a cover to protect some special interests. I can respond to this in ten words: "No, it is due to infrastructure requirements for ship building."
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on May 8, 2008 7:18:14 GMT -8
Ooooo. He has his stars and stripes boxers on today. Put your maple leaf ones on tomorrow before you get too yankee-ized. I know many of the smaller shipyards could do ships for specialty purposes. As I mentioned Broward Marine (a pleasure craft company) made wooden mine hunters and coastal boats during WWII. Christensen a yacht builder in Washington could do Fiberglass boats for coastal patrol. There should be enough boats in both reserve and in the Military Sealift Command to more than cover any war losses. Especially since the majority of troops and even some equipment is airlifted these days (a major difference from WWII). And much of the equipment is even prepositioned around the world. And since the Air Force will soon be having the Airbus A330 based tankers with all that main deck cargo space doing nothing, they might as well use them to fly some stuff around .
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on May 8, 2008 7:21:37 GMT -8
I was thinking just that. If pumping out an adequate supply of naval ships in the event of war is such a concern, why don't they start doing that NOW, instead of waiting for a war to start and then rushing it? And have shipyards that specialize in the manufacture of military craft, so you don't have to scramble to convert a bunch of civilian shipyards and retrain all their workers for it. I would like to know where THAT money's coming from! We already have enough "special appropriations" for the military demands imposed by keeping the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to drive the budget deficit to record levels. If that money's not there now, where is it going to come from once a war or urgent situation begins? How long does it take to design and build a large ship, and get it through all kinds of hurdles? Can you say "Too little too late"?
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 8, 2008 7:47:32 GMT -8
Ooooo. He has his stars and stripes boxers on today. Put your maple leaf ones on tomorrow before you get too yankee-ized. I know many of the smaller shipyards could do ships for specialty purposes. As I mentioned Broward Marine (a pleasure craft company) made wooden mine hunters and coastal boats during WWII. Christensen a yacht builder in Washington could do Fiberglass boats for coastal patrol. There should be enough boats in both reserve and in the Military Sealift Command to more than cover any war losses. Especially since the majority of troops and even some equipment is airlifted these days (a major difference from WWII). And much of the equipment is even prepositioned around the world. And since the Air Force will soon be having the Airbus A330 based tankers with all that main deck cargo space doing nothing, they might as well use them to fly some stuff around . LOL...na, wearing ones I cut in half so I could celebrate both...my beefing is always multi-national in flavour! ;D Yes, air lift has become the predominant method of moving troops, and pre-positioning (as opposed to prepositioning ) has significantly reduced the need for resources to stage supplies and equipment at the beginning of an action, resupplying by ship is much more cost effective during a prolonged deployment. Planes for initial mobility, ships for sustained supply routes.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on May 8, 2008 7:48:35 GMT -8
I would like to know where THAT money's coming from! We already have enough "special appropriations" for the military demands imposed by keeping the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to drive the budget deficit to record levels. If that money's not there now, where is it going to come from once a war or urgent situation begins? How long does it take to design and build a large ship, and get it through all kinds of hurdles? Can you say "Too little too late"? You're more than welcome to pay my taxes!
|
|