Posted:
June 7, 2010
By Tom Bethel
National President
We were pleased to learn at the Memorial Day break that the Norfolk-based Maersk Line Limited had been awarded four Military Sealift Command charters for the operation and maintenance of 10 ships in MSC's Maritime Prepositioning Force, or MPF.
"The ships are among 11 that MSC solicited in February 2009, and MLL was awarded a contract for every ship on which it offered," Maersk Line said in its May 27 press release. The charters will begin later this year.
The charters mean continued employment for American Maritime Officers aboard five ships our union has manned since the early-to-mid 1980s and new jobs for AMO on five additional ships. The charters also represent a substantial net increase in per-billet-per-day employer contributions to the AMO membership benefit funds that serve every deep-sea, Great Lakes and inland waters AMO family.
These gains reinforce our union's traditional position as the pre-eminent private sector source of licensed engine and deck officers for government shipping services. But we as a union always have to consider our advanced standing with respect to MSC charter work from a practical, realistic perspective.
No one can say with absolute certainty what factor or factors most influence Military Sealift Command's charter award decisions. U.S.-flagged shipping companies that bid for such business and the three U.S. merchant marine officers' unions they employ can speculate about cost, best value, past performance and other considerations, but absent specific official or unofficial explanations from MSC, the commercial shipping interests that depend so heavily on MSC charters can only puzzle over what might have gone right or what might have gone wrong.
Timely and telling examples of the unpredictable nature of the MSC charter system are found in the newest awards.
American Overseas Marine Corp. (AMSEA) and Maersk Line share a 25-year history of operating five prepositioning ships each for Military Sealift Command - in fact, AMSEA is the current operator of the five ships that will remain under AMO contract when they transfer to Maersk Line under the new charters. By all measures, and by all official accounts, AMSEA and Maersk and their AMO and Seafarers International Union complements have performed superbly since the 10 vessels entered service for MSC in the mid-to-early 1980s - yet this history apparently was not a factor behind these charter awards.
In addition, one of the ships added to the American Maritime Officers fleet roster under the new charters - the USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham - had been manned successfully by AMO under a previous charter. When a successor charter was awarded a few years ago, the Stockham went to a company that does not have a collective bargaining agreement with our union - AMO was out, the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association and the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots were in.
The same unfortunate and unpleasant twist occurred in the case of the 11th ship in the current mix - the USNS Harry L. Martin was manned skillfully by AMO until successor charters (including the one awarded in May under small business set-aside rules) placed the vessel with companies that employ the MM&P on deck and MEBA in the engine room.
In an earlier unrelated but no less instructive example, four large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off sealift ships manned by AMO were awarded by MSC to a company that not only has licensed labor contracts with the MM&P and MEBA, but no recent LMSR experience.
Charter length is another complication. When MSC began turning many of its principal responsibilities over to the private sector early in the first term of the Reagan administration, the initial charters - 13 Maritime Prepositioning Ships (including the 10 operated by Maersk Line and AMSEA) and five T-5 replacement tankers (all operated by Ocean Ships and manned by AMO) - ran for 25 years.
In time, Military Sealift Command charter length was reduced to five years with varied renewal options, but the standard MSC charter time today is one year or less with options to renew at specific intervals. The charters awarded to Maersk Line late in May are for one year, with four one-year options.
The point I risk belaboring here is that MSC charters can and do change quickly as difficult competitive bidding by U.S.-flagged merchant shipping companies - bidding triggered by MSC Requests for Proposals, or RFPs - occurs with greater frequency and greater urgency.
We in American Maritime Officers can be confident, but not complacent, about our union's superior standing among the three U.S. merchant marine officers' unions in Military Sealift Command and Maritime Administration charter trades. Our union will stay on top if we - the seagoing AMO members who distinguish themselves with day-to-day professionalism in military support services and the AMO strategists who anticipate evolving conditions - continue to work together as we have so well since MSC charters emerged some 30 years ago as the principal source of business for U.S. merchant vessel operators and jobs for American merchant mariners.
The unpredictable nature of MSC charter program
By Tom Bethel
National President
We were pleased to learn at the Memorial Day break that the Norfolk-based Maersk Line Limited had been awarded four Military Sealift Command charters for the operation and maintenance of 10 ships in MSC's Maritime Prepositioning Force, or MPF.
"The ships are among 11 that MSC solicited in February 2009, and MLL was awarded a contract for every ship on which it offered," Maersk Line said in its May 27 press release. The charters will begin later this year.
The charters mean continued employment for American Maritime Officers aboard five ships our union has manned since the early-to-mid 1980s and new jobs for AMO on five additional ships. The charters also represent a substantial net increase in per-billet-per-day employer contributions to the AMO membership benefit funds that serve every deep-sea, Great Lakes and inland waters AMO family.
These gains reinforce our union's traditional position as the pre-eminent private sector source of licensed engine and deck officers for government shipping services. But we as a union always have to consider our advanced standing with respect to MSC charter work from a practical, realistic perspective.
No one can say with absolute certainty what factor or factors most influence Military Sealift Command's charter award decisions. U.S.-flagged shipping companies that bid for such business and the three U.S. merchant marine officers' unions they employ can speculate about cost, best value, past performance and other considerations, but absent specific official or unofficial explanations from MSC, the commercial shipping interests that depend so heavily on MSC charters can only puzzle over what might have gone right or what might have gone wrong.
Timely and telling examples of the unpredictable nature of the MSC charter system are found in the newest awards.
American Overseas Marine Corp. (AMSEA) and Maersk Line share a 25-year history of operating five prepositioning ships each for Military Sealift Command - in fact, AMSEA is the current operator of the five ships that will remain under AMO contract when they transfer to Maersk Line under the new charters. By all measures, and by all official accounts, AMSEA and Maersk and their AMO and Seafarers International Union complements have performed superbly since the 10 vessels entered service for MSC in the mid-to-early 1980s - yet this history apparently was not a factor behind these charter awards.
In addition, one of the ships added to the American Maritime Officers fleet roster under the new charters - the USNS Gunnery Sgt. Fred W. Stockham - had been manned successfully by AMO under a previous charter. When a successor charter was awarded a few years ago, the Stockham went to a company that does not have a collective bargaining agreement with our union - AMO was out, the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association and the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots were in.
The same unfortunate and unpleasant twist occurred in the case of the 11th ship in the current mix - the USNS Harry L. Martin was manned skillfully by AMO until successor charters (including the one awarded in May under small business set-aside rules) placed the vessel with companies that employ the MM&P on deck and MEBA in the engine room.
In an earlier unrelated but no less instructive example, four large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off sealift ships manned by AMO were awarded by MSC to a company that not only has licensed labor contracts with the MM&P and MEBA, but no recent LMSR experience.
Charter length is another complication. When MSC began turning many of its principal responsibilities over to the private sector early in the first term of the Reagan administration, the initial charters - 13 Maritime Prepositioning Ships (including the 10 operated by Maersk Line and AMSEA) and five T-5 replacement tankers (all operated by Ocean Ships and manned by AMO) - ran for 25 years.
In time, Military Sealift Command charter length was reduced to five years with varied renewal options, but the standard MSC charter time today is one year or less with options to renew at specific intervals. The charters awarded to Maersk Line late in May are for one year, with four one-year options.
The point I risk belaboring here is that MSC charters can and do change quickly as difficult competitive bidding by U.S.-flagged merchant shipping companies - bidding triggered by MSC Requests for Proposals, or RFPs - occurs with greater frequency and greater urgency.
We in American Maritime Officers can be confident, but not complacent, about our union's superior standing among the three U.S. merchant marine officers' unions in Military Sealift Command and Maritime Administration charter trades. Our union will stay on top if we - the seagoing AMO members who distinguish themselves with day-to-day professionalism in military support services and the AMO strategists who anticipate evolving conditions - continue to work together as we have so well since MSC charters emerged some 30 years ago as the principal source of business for U.S. merchant vessel operators and jobs for American merchant mariners.