Posted:
November 10, 2011
Despite a media report suggesting otherwise, American Maritime Officers does not support a proposed Jones Act "exemption" for the exclusive benefit of a U.S.-flagged start-up container feeder line.
The report, posted recently in the online Journal of Commerce, said American Feeder Lines is seeking legislation that would allow the new U.S.-flagged company to use foreign-built ships to carry cargoes directly between U.S. ports along the East Coast. The legislation would require American Feeder Lines to order U.S. built ships to replace the foreign-built tonnage in coastal service.
Under the Jones Act - Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 - all waterborne cargoes moving between U.S. ports must be carried in merchant vessels owned, built, documented and crewed in the United States.
The Journal of Commerce article said flatly that the American Feeder Lines proposal "has the support of the maritime labor unions" - an assertion attributed to an unidentified American Feeder Lines "spokesman" who was not quoted directly.
"This statement implies that American Maritime Officers is on board with the American Feeder Lines proposal," said AMO National President Tom Bethel. "Nothing could be further from the truth.
"Any U.S. maritime interest reading the phrase 'has the support of the maritime labor unions' would assume naturally that AMO - the nation's largest union of merchant marine officers - is in AFL's corner," Bethel continued. "Anyone on Capitol Hill who supports the U.S. merchant fleet would make the same mistaken assumption."
Bethel added: "As national president of American Maritime Officers, I have to set the public record and the public perception straight on two key points - our union does not support a Jones Act 'exemption' for American Feeder Lines or any other proposal that could undermine the Jones Act, and AFL does not speak for AMO."
American Feeder Lines "has letters of intent to order ships from two U.S. shipyards, but letters of intent are not contracts," Bethel noted. "AFL is also making public promises to steer all of the new construction work - as many as 10 vessels - to a third yard. But, by an AFL executive's own admission, this company does not have enough money to build a fleet of vessels of any size at any cost in the United States - or anywhere else, for that matter."
No legislation to exempt American Feeder Lines from the domestic shipping law's U.S. construction requirement has been filed in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.
If legislation is introduced at some point, "the bill would lay out the specific obligations of American Feeder Lines with respect to domestic construction," Bethel said. "Meanwhile, we see no real commitment from American Feeder Lines to the American shipbuilding industry," he said. "Instead of attempting to breach the Jones Act, American Feeder Lines should be promoting adequate funding of the Title XI shipbuilding loan guarantee program, tax credits and other incentives developed in partnership with U.S. yards."
Bethel warned that the proposed Jones Act "exemption" for American Feeder Lines would encourage other companies to press for equal consideration.
"The consequences could be the elimination of the Jones Act's 'build American' requirement across the board, subsequent sequential calls for concessions on the law's U.S. crewing, ownership and registry mandates or the outright repeal of the Jones Act in a single legislative stroke," Bethel concluded. "American Maritime Officers will have no hand in sacrificing some 500,000 jobs nationwide at sea and ashore, billions of dollars in private capital investment, or the economic and national security interests of the United States to accommodate one company with difficulties linked not to the Jones Act, but to its own credibility."
American Feeder Lines operates one leased foreign-owned, foreign-built vessel in short sea service. The vessel calls at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and at Boston and Portland, Maine.
Setting the record straight: AMO opposes proposed legislation to exempt one company from Jones Act's U.S. construction mandate for domestic short sea service
Despite a media report suggesting otherwise, American Maritime Officers does not support a proposed Jones Act "exemption" for the exclusive benefit of a U.S.-flagged start-up container feeder line.
The report, posted recently in the online Journal of Commerce, said American Feeder Lines is seeking legislation that would allow the new U.S.-flagged company to use foreign-built ships to carry cargoes directly between U.S. ports along the East Coast. The legislation would require American Feeder Lines to order U.S. built ships to replace the foreign-built tonnage in coastal service.
Under the Jones Act - Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 - all waterborne cargoes moving between U.S. ports must be carried in merchant vessels owned, built, documented and crewed in the United States.
The Journal of Commerce article said flatly that the American Feeder Lines proposal "has the support of the maritime labor unions" - an assertion attributed to an unidentified American Feeder Lines "spokesman" who was not quoted directly.
"This statement implies that American Maritime Officers is on board with the American Feeder Lines proposal," said AMO National President Tom Bethel. "Nothing could be further from the truth.
"Any U.S. maritime interest reading the phrase 'has the support of the maritime labor unions' would assume naturally that AMO - the nation's largest union of merchant marine officers - is in AFL's corner," Bethel continued. "Anyone on Capitol Hill who supports the U.S. merchant fleet would make the same mistaken assumption."
Bethel added: "As national president of American Maritime Officers, I have to set the public record and the public perception straight on two key points - our union does not support a Jones Act 'exemption' for American Feeder Lines or any other proposal that could undermine the Jones Act, and AFL does not speak for AMO."
American Feeder Lines "has letters of intent to order ships from two U.S. shipyards, but letters of intent are not contracts," Bethel noted. "AFL is also making public promises to steer all of the new construction work - as many as 10 vessels - to a third yard. But, by an AFL executive's own admission, this company does not have enough money to build a fleet of vessels of any size at any cost in the United States - or anywhere else, for that matter."
No legislation to exempt American Feeder Lines from the domestic shipping law's U.S. construction requirement has been filed in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.
If legislation is introduced at some point, "the bill would lay out the specific obligations of American Feeder Lines with respect to domestic construction," Bethel said. "Meanwhile, we see no real commitment from American Feeder Lines to the American shipbuilding industry," he said. "Instead of attempting to breach the Jones Act, American Feeder Lines should be promoting adequate funding of the Title XI shipbuilding loan guarantee program, tax credits and other incentives developed in partnership with U.S. yards."
Bethel warned that the proposed Jones Act "exemption" for American Feeder Lines would encourage other companies to press for equal consideration.
"The consequences could be the elimination of the Jones Act's 'build American' requirement across the board, subsequent sequential calls for concessions on the law's U.S. crewing, ownership and registry mandates or the outright repeal of the Jones Act in a single legislative stroke," Bethel concluded. "American Maritime Officers will have no hand in sacrificing some 500,000 jobs nationwide at sea and ashore, billions of dollars in private capital investment, or the economic and national security interests of the United States to accommodate one company with difficulties linked not to the Jones Act, but to its own credibility."
American Feeder Lines operates one leased foreign-owned, foreign-built vessel in short sea service. The vessel calls at Halifax, Nova Scotia, and at Boston and Portland, Maine.