Administration to Dismantle U.S. Merchant Marine?

When you ask the question that way it implies that your position is that the US Merchant Marine should be broken up. The only way for private industry to be "broken up" is to criminalize it. I sense that "Should the US continue to subsidize the industry?" might be the better question.

Not only is the government reactive, but it reacts so slow that by the time regulations are actually put into place they are by and large obselete.

As long as there are vessels that fly the US flag, even if they never leave US territorial waters, there will be a need for Maritime Academies.

I tend to play devil's advocate, which is helpful to bosses, but can get lost on an internet forum. My grad school classmates happily thought me a liberal, until I broke it to them that I wasn't close.

I'm like our merchant fleet, and I like the Merchant Marine Academy as much as a Coast Guard Academy alum is allowed to.

Maybe what we're asking here is, is doing away with Kings Point the only way the federal government (not states) can "break up" the merchant marine? It is distrinctly not "private".
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should define what you consider the "US Merchant Marine" and how you define "break up".

When you say break up the US Merchant Marine, what that means to me is that there would no longer be any US flag vessels other than the US Navy, MSC, NOAA, USACE and USCG. I suppose you wouldn't have to "criminalize" it per se, but you could just have the USCG revoke everyone's right to fly the flag. I fail to see what the point of that would be.

A private industry conducting business with the government is still a private industry.
 
Maybe you should define what you consider the "US Merchant Marine" and how you define "break up".

When you say break up the US Merchant Marine, what that means to me is that there would no longer be any US flag vessels other than the US Navy, MSC, NOAA, USACE and USCG. I suppose you wouldn't have to "criminalize" it per se, but you could just have the USCG revoke everyone's right to fly the flag. I fail to see what the point of that would be.

A private industry conducting business with the government is still a private industry.

I'm fairly certain it is the State Department that would have to make that decision.

The U.S. Merchant Marine ACADEMY is no more private than West Point.
 
I'm fairly certain it is the State Department that would have to make that decision.
Whoever issues the Certificate of Registry is who would revoke it. Pretty sure that's the USCG, but what do I know I only actual work in the maritime industry (15+ years). I didn't "five and dive" into something totally unrelated to what the taxpayer sent me to school for. How about you?.

The U.S. Merchant Marine ACADEMY is no more private than West Point.
No one said it was.
 
Last edited:
Whoever issues the Certificate of Registry is who would revoke it. Pretty sure that's the USCG, but what do I know I only actual work in the maritime industry (15+ years). I didn't "five and dive" into something totally unrelated to what the taxpayer sent me to school for. How about you?


You're right! And I would hope with 15+ years experience, a better argument could be devised than "it's an industry that's been around a long time."

I'm not doing something "TOTALLY unrelated"... after all, the tax payer did pay for my DINFOS time as well. But let's be honest, considering your "side" of this, I'm not sure taxpayers who really want to pay for your education again. "But it's been around so long." You have yet to offer one reason why anyone should care about the decline of the merchant marine in the U.S. All I'm asking is, you, a 15+ maritime pro.... WHY do we need U.S. flagged vessels? WHY should we care about the decline?

And you are also correct, you didn't "five and dive", although I didn't even know that was an option for a non-military academy alum. Maybe you should have? I don't know. Don't blame me though, you're the one who stayed in.
 
You're right! And I would hope with 15+ years experience, a better argument could be devised than "it's an industry that's been around a long time.".

I'm not doing something "TOTALLY unrelated"... after all, the tax payer did pay for my DINFOS time as well.
Apparently, not money well spent.

A better argument for what? You have yet to be clear as to what your question really is. You can't seem to decide whether you are asking about the US Merchant Marine or USMMA. You show a lack of knowledge of the maritime industry in general so how you would you even know if your question has been answered?

I don't blame you for anything. You are free to make whatever choices you want, but you show a lack of foundation to discuss these issues intelligently.
 
I am learning so much! We have not had a thread like this in awhile and I have missed it.
:popcorn1:
 
Apparently, not money well spent.

A better argument for what? You have yet to be clear as to what your question really is. You can't seem to decide whether you are asking about the US Merchant Marine or USMMA. You show a lack of knowledge of the maritime industry in general so how you would you even know if your question has been answered?

I don't blame you for anything. You are free to make whatever choices you want, but you show a lack of foundation to discuss these issues intelligently.


Well, we all know the federal government has issues spending money "well."


I think what you're missing here is, while I have a general lack of knowledge regarding the maritime industry, that lack of knowledge pales in comparison to the abyss of the general public.

I say merchant marine and someone thinks "U.S. Marines."

The article originally posted, and I assume you read it, talks about the issues of a declining merchant marine fleet.

My comment, tell me why people should care. Your answer is to get angry.

Listen, the U.S. merchant fleet could die off tomorrow, and would the public care? That's what you need to tell me. Do people care about you, or do they see you as bumpkin ship drivers they see on the Discovery Channel?

I'm guessing a Chinese ship can do the same work you do at a fraction of the cost.... so why not use them?

Convince me you're important, and why your industry goes down the drain, I should be worried. If you can't do that, you, and this industry, are already lost.
 
I think what you're missing here is, while I have a general lack of knowledge regarding the maritime industry, that lack of knowledge pales in comparison to the abyss of the general public.

I say merchant marine and someone thinks "U.S. Marines."
The latter statement disproves the former.

Does your job require you to communicate in writing? I suggest you retake Composition 101. You way over punctuate.

You seem to think I'm not answering your questions. It took three pages to get something that somewhat resembles a clear question. You could say the industry is shrinking, not dying and has been for decades if not centuries. But is it really? Yes if you think only in terms of jobs, but what about related to tonnage of goods transported? The industry is driven primarily by economics and technology and has little relation to the actions of the US Government. Re-read my first post in this thread. I said then that this is much ado about not much.
 
The latter statement disproves the former.

Does your job require you to communicate in writing? I suggest you retake Composition 101. You way over punctuate.

You seem to think I'm not answering your questions. It took three pages to get something that somewhat resembles a clear question. You could say the industry is shrinking, not dying and has been for decades if not centuries. But is it really? Yes if you think only in terms of jobs, but what about related to tonnage of goods transported? The industry is driven primarily by economics and technology and has little relation to the actions of the US Government. Re-read my first post in this thread. I said then that this is much ado about not much.

The later disproves the former? I'm not seeing it. I'll try to simplify. The public thinks your floating bus drivers. They here "merchant marine" and all they think is "Marine" as in "Marine Corps." Not sure how the later or former disproves either.

I'm just happy you started reading, not a bumpkin in sight!

If it's much ado about nothing, that's great.

But if that's true, I would secure all of your whining about regulations. Just a thought. But maybe even crusty old 15+ merchant masters need a little whine with their cheese now and then, eh?

Of course, with all of your answers, I walk away asking why the heck the taxpayer supliments to education for mariners in such a "successful" and "vibrant" industry. It would seem the age old industry doesn't need the already stretched federal government paying millions to feed it bodies.

And yes, I think these are the same kinds of conversations people could have abouth the four military academies, but it's not as hard to justify the ROI, because they're going to work in public sector jobs that benefit the country, instead of a shipping industry.
 
Last edited:
The later disproves the former? I'm not seeing it. I'll try to simplify. The public thinks your floating bus drivers. They here "merchant marine" and all they think is "Marine" as in "Marine Corps." Not sure how the later or former disproves either.
I'll retract that. I misread "someone thinks" as "sometimes think", but its latter and not later.

But if that's true, I would secure all of your whining about regulations. Just a thought. But maybe even crusty old 15+ merchant masters need a little whine with their cheese now and then, eh?
I did not whine but simply made an informed statement of fact. I have yet to see you do the same. The article doesn't address the monolith of the USCG as regulators. My point of regulations as an issue was specifically to that and that the difficulty of dealing with the USCG is a bigger issue to the maritime industry as a whole (which you still have not shown an understanding of) than a small segment losing a small amount of government subsidies.

I'm sure you think you're enjoying yourself thinking that you are getting to me. I am enjoying myself watching you not realize that you continually out yourself as out of your depth and element, both in this forum and in your job as a professional communicator.
 
You seem to think I'm not answering your questions. It took three pages to get something that somewhat resembles a clear question.

I'm not sure how you missed the questions....

But here you go.


From page 1, post #10:
Here's a question I'm not sure you'd want to answer. If the U.S. Merchant Marine ceased to exist tomorrow, how would the every-day American feel it? Would they? Would prices go up or down? That's the question that I'm interested in.

From page 2, post #12:
Here's the question though. In the unlikely event this actually did happen, what would change for the U.S.?

From page 2, post #17:
Make the case. Why shouldn't the U.S. Merchant Marine be "broken up?" What do we lose and gain?

From page 2, post #19:
That's not the important question. The important one is.... why have a Merchant Marine. "It's old" doesn't cut it.

From page 3, post #21:
Maybe what we're asking here is, is doing away with Kings Point the only way the federal government (not states) can "break up" the merchant marine?



And then we go back and forth with you saying I haven't asked a question, or that it took 3 pages to ask one. Well, it's been pretty consistent... they're even related to each other.

"why care about the merchant marine?" "if the merchant marine disappeared how would American's feel it?"

We can do this with other, actual, services. If the Coast Guard went away, people would say they miss the search and rescue side of the house, or the aids to navigation side of the house. Maybe people inland wouldn't care, maybe they would. But if we asked this question on the Coast Guard's forum, people would be able to answer it. It wouldn't take them three days. They would start off by attacking anyone else (maybe eventually they would).

You had a fairly simple request.... justify your existance and tell me why I should be concerned about what this (the original article) is telling me.

You didn't. Instead you attacked a poster, which I'm A-OK with. I know I 5-and-dived. I know I not only had my undergrad paid for, but also my PA training and master's paid for by the taxpayer. I don't feel bad about that. I'm thankful for it though. I left and I'm happy on the outside. I did my time. I paid back what I owed.

And I will give you, I have plenty of typos. If you enjoy finding and declaring all that you find, you're going to love me, because I'll give you plenty to spot. My vice, not double-checking anything on a "for fun" forum.



Maybe, in the future, you should just answer the question from the first page... but maybe you can't. Maybe all you can do is take pot shots. I'm not worried about that. That's on you.
 
Last edited:
I said you are not clear what your question really is. You have asked at least four different questions.

As I've said several times. The article is much ado about not much. The US Merchant Marine is not an entity, it is an industry. It is not something to be "broken up".

We have a free market economy. Its being is itself justification of its existence.
 
The US Merchant Marine does not exist as a singular entity and can't be "dismantled" by any administration. It is an industry that extends far beyond cargo preferences for US food aid. Not all food aid preferences require that 75% be shipped on US flag vessels, some food aid is exempted entirely from the requirement. These same preferences were “only” 50% prior 1985 anyway.

The USCG as regulators do more to drive US owned vessels to foreign flags and “dismantle” the US Merchant Marine than reducing a cargo preference by 33% which only affects, at most, 33% of US vessels.

The need for deep sea mariners has been shrinking for centuries. As ships get bigger, the same amount of cargo is shipped on fewer ships. As technology advances, smaller crews are needed to operate the smaller number of ships. In truth, most US ships are over-manned by international standards. The nature of inland shipping is changing to in favor of the Academies. Companies are requiring a higher level of training and licenses than they used to and this is where more and more Academy grads ending up. I sailed with one who said he went to KP with the intention all along of going the inland route.

From my partly uninformed view, and what I've read about the industry, KPengineer is right. Their will be no less demand for highly educated mariners. Perhaps the jobs to which they are assigned will shift some from blue (deep) water to shallow/inland (brown water). The new Kings Pointer in fact, was chosen with that transition in mind. The new (class of) 2017 curriculum was also updated to reflect this evolution.
Oil drilling support, dredging ops due to coastal change from storms and the like are all growing industries. Further, our world is shrinking and the "conflicts" in which we are often involved are increasing. Think of the number of countries where we have sent troops/aid/weapons in 2012 alone. Those troop require support, and the materials we supply to these hot zones have to get there somehow.

Finally, USMMA has always been a target for congressional cutters, as is the DOD when we are not involved in any major conflict. The second a problem arises, they scurry around yelling, "we need ships and sailors!". As long as 95% of the world's goods travel by sea, there will be a need for a workforce to get the stuff from A-B...Just my 2.5 cents.
 
The IMO has a say in US Coastwise trade because the USCG says they do. USCG regulations are an extension of IMO regulations (SOLAS, MARPOL, LSA, etc.) The USCG can grant waivers and exemptions if they want to. If they want to, they can exempt a vessel from SOLAS requirements which operates solely within a nations territorial waters. How easy do you think that would be? How loooooong do you think that would take?

I didn’t think my SMS requirements were that much as an engineer on an ATB. It was only about an hour a day of paperwork and I would do it in the evening when things were quiet. I actually didn’t mind as it would break up my boredom a little bit. The bigger hassle was the company not recognizing the ability to utilize modern technology in carrying out the SMS. Like you said about the printing, scanning and e-mailing. Plus, then we would keep paper copies on the boat and I would also have to send paper copies in to the office. Believe it or not, SMS does make you safer overall. How many injuries are prevented by a correctly done Job Hazard Analysis? How much routine maintenance and inspections would go undone without your checklist? I know it’s tedious, but I’ve been on non SMS vessels and SMS vessels and I can tell you I felt a whole lot safer with an SMS in place.

I'm not against the principles of an SMS but it has turned from being a benefit to the crew, into a cover your ass system. Yes, a properly done JHA does make things safer. But when they're routinely pencil-whipped after the fact, it's a burden and worthless. Our company makes us do one for every docking and undocking. The volume has diluted the significance so much that nobody pays attention to them anymore. Just like the mandatory "you must have two near-misses per month" even if nothing happened. It used to that if somebody submitted a near miss, the fleet paid attention. Now, there are so many of them flying left and right with ridiculous premises that nobody pays attention.

And no offense to you, but filling out paperwork in your room after a long day is significantly different than trying to do it in the wheelhouse, at night in traffic (at which point I'm not doing it anyways). I don't have a computer in my room.

And yes, I realize my rantings are company specific and may not reflect everyones experience.
 
I'm not against the principles of an SMS but it has turned from being a benefit to the crew, into a cover your ass system.
Then it’s not being implemented properly. From my experience, that is probably more an issue with the office than the crew. The companies that have moved from tug/barge to ATB have to realize that there is a lot more to it than putting pins on a boat. An ATB should be operated more like a ship and not like a harbor boat. The companies don’t see this and just keep dumping more and more on the smallest crew they can get away with. They don’t do a good job of educating the crew on the point of it and its usefulness. They train the crews just enough so they can pass an external audit so the crew just sees it as one more piece of paper to fill out.
I know mates have it worse. That is part of the old culture of non-licensed deckineers that still hangs around. Some companies are slow to realize that they have intelligent personnel in the Engine Room and that some of the mates duties really should be the Engineer’s

Care to share who you work for? My boat was grey with a black stack.
 
As far as USMMA goes, the big question that I would like to ask is this:

What does the MMA offer to the public when we have multiply state maritime academies like SUNY or Mass Maritime that can provide the same sort of service? Don't the majority of MMA graduates enter the private sector? And if so, why should the public pay money for private endeavors? For instance, there isn't a public aviation academy that supplies pilots to all of the commercial airlines like Southwest or Delta. Why should the public pay for the education of private industry mariners, particularly in light of sequestration.
 
Sam: There is no service obligation involved with the State Maritime Colleges. The federal government has identified and recognized the need to have licensed mariners at their disposal, and had created USMMA to supply this need through the service obligation placed upon its graduates. By default, each grad that chooses not to go AD must work in the maritime industry for five years and serve seven years concurrently in the USNR SSOP. The first part of this obligation, what you refer to as the private sector, is the result of the periods of time in the history of our nation when licensed mariners were in short supply. This could happen again...a lot could happen depending upon many influences...the economy and international unrest, to name a few. Congress and the Executive Branch has done a respectable job by providing support to the State Maritime Colleges and by making the decision to operate Kings Point as a Federal Service Academy in an attempt to remedy the potential problems resulting from a shortage of licensed mariners. I point out the financial assistance granted to the State Maritime Colleges to illustrate the importance of the merchant marine to our nation's economic well-being as well as to its military support function. The result at Kings Point is a Regiment of Midshipmen drawn from a pool of candidates with extremely impressive credentials, with a commitment to serve their nation.
As to the other half of your question, my guess is that the government has not determined a dire necessity to have aircraft pilots at its disposal. It may be that a critical shortage of aircraft pilots has never existed. I could be wrong, but I think the government does indeed train many aircraft pilots through the military and Coast Guard. Also, I would think that if such a shortage of aircraft pilotsever did occur, be it for military of economic reasons, then some type of additional government training program to meet this need will be created. It is the need that must be addressed.
I respect your intestinal fortitude for asking such pointed questions, rather then beating around the bush. I am sure that as a cadet you have precious little time to concern yourself with how the government chooses to operate, so I find fascinating your interest in another Federal Service Academy. As for the sequestration, I think we can both agree that there are many areas that could be subjected to a close scrutiny long before any of the Academies--the taxpayer is well served by each. Thank you in advance for your service.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top