Welcome to the Dockwalk.com Forum

 

In order to post a comment in one of the forum topics, you must log in or sign up. Your display name will appear next to your posts unless you check the Post Anonymously box. When writing a post, please follow our forum guidelines. If you come across a post that you would like us to review, use the Report Post button. Please note the opinions shared in the forums do not necessarily reflect the views of Dockwalk.


RSS Feed Print
ILO Heads to France
Janine
Posted: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 7:43 PM
Joined: 02/05/2008
Posts: 392


According to a recent press release from the PYA,

 

"The PYA is pleased to announce that a representative from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) will be visiting the South of France from 7th April to the 9th April 2010.

 

This visit will include the viewing of yachts and talks with crew members, as well as discussions with PYA council members and other yachting industry representatives.

 

It will be followed on the 10th April, 2010 by a question and answer session at the Nautilus/D and B Services/Dovaston work shop seminar."

 

Seminar details can be found on the Events page on Dockwalk.com.

 


stockydale
Posted: Thursday, April 8, 2010 7:52 PM
Joined: 12/05/2008
Posts: 8


This is great news, and many thanks for the PYA taking a stand for US(crew)! Hopefully the representatives from the ILO will see that there is no way that Super Yachts can be built to the proposed MLC legislation.

I'm surprised and a little concerned that this topic hasn't had much response on the dockwalk forum. For those that don't know what the MLC is, PLEASE (for your own benefit) check out this very good description of the code and how it could potentially screw the industry, by Tork Buckley: http://www.synfo.com/news/allnews.asp?news=&id=14915



 

rodsteel
Posted: Thursday, April 8, 2010 10:38 PM
Joined: 25/06/2009
Posts: 277


I have two questions.

 

Which nation groups and/or positions and/or certificates (or lack thereof) of crew personnel are not subject to the proposed MLC?

 

Since most yacht crewmembers are usually hired under contract, can the cabin-size issue be eliminated by a clause in the contract?

 

Rod

 


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 3:38 AM
The PYA and media are making a lot of noise about nothing. The ILO has no teeth. It is up to the individual flag states to determine how each section of the Convention will be enforced on their COMMERCIAL vessels. Existing yachts will not be physically modified. Private yachts are not affected at all. MLC is filled with numerous allowances for exemptions or equivalencies. It will be a learning process for everyone, but so was ISM and ISPS. We did fine with that. Anyone wonder why PYA is so involved in this regulation over all other ones? Why have they not been so vocal before? How about some help with US visas or upcoming STCW changes? Why such heavy involvement with Nautilus International - the union for the UK merchant navy? Can you imagine a yacht owner allowing his hobby to unionize but not his company? Don't worry about MLC. Worry about everyone else fighting for their piece of the pie.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 3:59 AM
Yacht Report drank the MCA Kool Aid 100%. Their article was extremely one-sided and based upon non-documented opinions and heresay. It is stated as an opinion but written like a definitive article. The ILO is part of the UN. It is not an enforcement agency. They cannot dictate how a flag-state interprets MLC. If anything, the MCA and its overweighted WG is not being realistic in their approach to properly interpret the MLC for all of the Red Ensign's yachts. Again, the same thing we heard when ISM and ISPS came out. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." But somehow, the world and our industry managed to 'just' survive.
junior
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 7:19 AM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


I agree that it might be an over reaction. Concerning crew accommodation floor space, 7 sq meters for a double crew cabin and one head shower per six crew in not difficult to achieve. I measured our simple crew cabins and get 5.8 sg meters floor space,, correct bunk size plus each cabin has its own shower and head. Additionally who is to say what a cabin is ? If the yacht is designed to carry 8 crew private and 10 crew when on charter what will prevent an owner from building two extra deckhand pipe berths in the forpeake, then instructing the crew to make up two make bekieve bunks in the huge saloon for inspection certification purposes. ??? I do not have a copy of the proposed rules so I may not fully understand the implications but 70 square meters of crew cabin floor space and 2 heads for a 10 crew yacht is not going to ruin the yacht industry . It very well may make yachts run with fewer, more professional, higher paid crew. Nothing wrong with that. I would imagine that the industry is anxious to receive the final regulations so that they may be able to advise owners on the correct design layout of a new yacht . From what I understand the regulations apply to commercially registered yachts.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 8:34 AM
Only 3 countries have ratified MLC so far. And they are no white boat flag states. This is a press job between 2 ineffectual committees. Who listens to the PYA anyway? It's just a golf and dinner club. Never done anything useful and never will. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 12:12 PM
Actually there are 8 countries that have ratified MLC. And there is a yacht registry on the list, Marshall Islands. If you take a look at what MI has posted for their interpretations of MLC, the vast majority of it pertains to merchant ship compliance, but there are attempts to address the yacht issue. It will be interesting to see their continued revisions in the coming year.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 12:36 PM
And just because there are only 8 countries who have ratified so far, there are no countries who have denounced the codes or declined to ratify them. Individual countries have until 2011 to interpret and ratify the MLC. It was passed nearly unanimously, so it is likely all UN flag states will ratify it by 2011. If France is asking crew for their opinions as to how they should interpret the code to accomodate yachts, crew who are in France should make every effort to make sure their concerns are addressed before it's too late.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 12:52 PM
The way I understand it is that each PORT STATE can enforce the code however they see fit, not each FLAG STATE. Which means if you are flagged Marshal Islands and compliant by their interpretation, but travel to France, the code may be enforced differently. Particularly so for yachts who are going to require special exemptions to be compliant under the convention the way it is written. The Bahamas, Croatia and Spain have already ratified, I guess it's time to learn how each of them plans to enforce the MLC for yachts. I really hope at least all red-ensign states will come together and issue a universal interpretation of the MLC becuase if each Port State makes their own rules for white boats and there is no consistency from port to port, it will be a nightmare. It will be like the NOA code on a global scale, no one will know which end is up.
junior
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 1:25 PM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


I understand the rule exactly how you state it. Flag state vs Port state. Naturally an owner best preserves the resale value of his yacht by satisfying both. This is why MCA specs are so prevalent in yachting. I think part of the nervousness in the yacht community concerns this relationship between the Flag state interpretation , Port state interpretation and future yacht value. I personally believe that the issue yacht crew must watch is how the new rulings treat the social and contractual benefits for seasonal...temp crew. Very many commercial yachts are in reality private, registered commercial for tax reasons , perform minimum charter work ,relying on temp crew to satisfy this seasonal need. These yachts may find it difficult.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 2:20 PM
Your assumption regarding the port state involvement is correct when dealing with SOLAS, MARPOL, etc. but not with MLC. Because it is a labour code based upon the national laws of that particular flag, the port state cannot overrule the flag's interpretation of MLC. The port state can enforce the flag's rules, but cannot enforce their own requirements. For example, if the crew are not being paid in accordance with the flag's requirements, port state may step in. But a French inspector cannot dictate the interpretation of MLC unless the boat has a French flag on the stern. ILO published a very detailed guidance on this. Completely different from traditional port state inspections.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 2:27 PM
Something also to remember with MLC, these are not new rules. MLC is a consolidation of existing ILO requirements into a single document. They have been in existence for years, but just were never enforced by the various flags. Now they must be. Also, the "newest" portion of the MLC is the requirement for third-party certification and issue of certificates. But that should not be a surprise to anyone. Just another slice of the money pie.
Mylespe
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 3:27 PM
Joined: 02/08/2008
Posts: 6


Hi All,

Some interesting, varying, opinions here.

As an ex-yachtie, gone back to school, I am currently in the initial stages of the proposal for my 20,000 word long Msc level dissertation into the potential ramifications of the MLC on the superyacht industry from a legal and practical standpoint. My

I will, at some point in the near future, be putting out questionnaires and looking for well-informed industry stakeholders to voice their opinions, so I hope all you 'anonymous' don't disappear! Watch this space....

If anyone happens to have any video/any audio recordings from the meeting in France tomorrow it would be most helpful?

Also someone above mentions an ILO paper detailing the Port State/Flag State enforcement issue - I have yet to come across this. Any chance of a link?

Cheers!



junior
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 3:30 PM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


Its unfortunate that Tork did not cite examples of how the MLC could affect yachts. For instance, a Flag State such as M. I. could relax the regulations for yachts under its flag, encouraging MI yacht registration to the detriment of other flag states but compromise the resale value when the yacht is re sold to a customer not wishing to fly the MI flag. I would expect fierce competition between Flag States seeking to offer the best yacht exemption package.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 3:49 PM
Mylespe... All ILO documents are on their website. Two guidelines are posted...one for port state, one for flag state.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 4:05 PM
MLC is a joint convention of the IMO and ILO not just the ILO. The IMO calls the MLC the "fourth pilar" of SOLAS, STCW, and MARPOL, so I'm not too sure you are correct in saying it is a separate entity which is not enforcable like the other UN IMO conventions. I think the MLC is subject to interpretation and enforcement by the vessel flag state and the physical port state not just one or the other. And that's the problem, becuase individual port states may have difference terms of enforcement or requirements for compliancy from the vessel's flag state. Did anyone go to the meetings this week?
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 4:08 PM
Unfortunately, the Yacht Report is heavily, HEAVILY biased towards the MCA. Understandably so. It is a British publication and the MCA/Red Ensign have the majority of commercial yachts in the world. But it is terrible to see when other flags put forth an effort to bring needed change and a realistic approach to a yacht Code or STCW or similar. The YR's treating of Belize is a perfect example. They put a lot of work into producing a risk-based approach towards yacht certification, some changes in licensing, etc. In the end, they said that it is highly unlikely that the MCA will accept this. The MCA doesn't have to "accept" anything. Belize and the other flags can do whatever they want, just like the MCA did when they watered down SOLAS and created LY1 and LY2.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 4:15 PM
This type of post is what gets the industry's panties all in a bunch. "I'm not too sure you are correct in saying it is a separate entity which is not enforcable like the other UN IMO conventions." If you don't know, then don't say. PLEASE READ the MLC before making such statements. The guidelines produced by the ILO clearly state the role of the flag and that of the port state. If the port state enforces its national labour law on a foreign vessel, everyone docked in France must fly business class on flights more than 5 hours and work a 32 hour week.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 4:30 PM
Junior...you're absolutely correct about the inherent competition that will be created between flags. What will probably happen is that the flags will swing to the far end of the strictness pendulum, get hammered by their clients, swing to the complete other side of the spectrum, and then settle somewhere in the middle where everyone has homogenized the MLC requirements to a digestable level. MCA is watching Marshall Islands who is watching St. Vincent who watching the US. No one will stick their neck out too far in front of the other. That's why class societies now all have common structural rules. Owners were shopping around for the easiest approach. The same will happen with MLC...eventually.
junior
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 4:42 PM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


I must have missed something. By signing on to the ILO MLC, France accepts to enforce the agreed guidelines upon a fellow signatory vessel operating in their waters. A yacht must not adhere to French short week labour practices, it must adhere to the ILO agreement. as in ""the maximum hours of work shall not exceed 14 hours in any 24-hour period; and 72 hours in any seven-day period "
junior
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 5:07 PM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


Each time I review the condensed MLC guidelines, I fail to notice anything that should cause Tork to take fright nor force yachting out of business. All impractical small vessel proposals seem to have a built in escape clause. (h) sleeping rooms are situated above the load line amidships or aft, except that (i) in exceptional cases, where the size, type or intended service of the ship renders any other location impracticable, sleeping rooms may be located in the fore part of the ship, but in no case forward of the collision bulkhead.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 5:25 PM
"This type of post is what gets the industry's panties all in a bunch. "I'm not too sure you are correct in saying it is a separate entity which is not enforcable like the other UN IMO conventions." If you don't know, then don't say. PLEASE READ the MLC before making such statements. The guidelines produced by the ILO clearly state the role of the flag and that of the port state. If the port state enforces its national labour law on a foreign vessel, everyone docked in France must fly business class on flights more than 5 hours and work a 32 hour week."============================================================= It is not their National Labor Law it is their interpretation of the MLC. And so what are you proposing happens when you have a mixed nationality crew aboard a vessel flying a Cayman flag but happens to be located in France when a discruntled crew member seeks to arrest the ship because it is in violation of the MLC. Are you saying that the crew can only seek recourse in Cayman Islands? The whole point of the MLC is to give seafarers equal rights and even the paying field across the board, so if you do not comply with the convention, your vessel can be denied access to any port which has ratified it or arrested for violations if you do not comply...meaning you are governed by each port state's interpretation of the convention as well as your flag state's interpretaion convention. The flag state issues your "certificate of compliance" but any port state can enforce compliance. The MLC consolidates over 60 existing standards - and there is not specific language or exclusions for pleasure vessels, that's a lot of room for interpretation. Of course the industry should get their panties in a bunch, there are a lot of lumps in the MLC.
junior
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 5:47 PM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


In this case France would be obliged to solve the dispute, impound, fine the yacht ,not because the yacht has violated French rules, but because the yacht has violated signatory state, Cayman Islands MLC rules. This all seems logical and beneficial to me. If a flag state withholds ratification of MLC, France could refuse her permission to navigate in French waters. .
Janine
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 6:23 PM
Joined: 02/05/2008
Posts: 392


If you’re interested in learning more about the MLC 2006 set forth by the ILO, check out this April 2009 article in Dockwalk. Also, the February 2010 issue of Dockwalk features the first yacht built to the new code. Read about it here.


Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 7:11 PM
To touch upon the 2 posts about dispute resolution, it would not be up to France to arrest, fine, and resolve the problem. That is for the flag state. If you look in MLC and ILO guidelines to the flag and port state, it clearly outlines what situation the port state can step and their scope of authority. In all of the guidance, no where does it state that the port state must determine acceptability of the corrective action. The port state may only ensure that action is being taken. If not, then they are to contact the flag state for a status and I quote here, "refrain from any further involvement..." It is already done this way. If there is a labour dispute on a foreign-flagged vessel, why would that port state want to bring it into their jurisdiction? They will identify the issue, notify the flag state, and at the most, instruct the vessel to leave. Perhaps it may be denied re-entry until corrected, but do you know the easiest way to fix a crew problem? Get new crew. How can port state then stop the vessel when the problem no longer exists? They cannot penalize the asset for a human element issue.
Anonymous
Posted: Friday, April 9, 2010 7:20 PM
Dockwalk partially drank the Kool Aid too. RoMa was a fantastic marketing plow by Viareggio Yachts to promote her as being built to the MLC, yet being registered with a flag (UK) that has not ratified MLC. How do they know the yacht was built to the MLC standards of the UK, when the UK does not know what their standards are? With this reasoning, then ALL existing yachts are also compliant to the UK's MLC interpretations. So is my tender, the wave runner, the kayaks,...
Capt.Dave
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:06 AM
Joined: 11/04/2009
Posts: 20


If you are going to profess to have all the answers, then don't post anonymously. If you think what you have to say has some credibility, then put your name on it. If the ITF, MCA and PYA are all saying one thing, and someone named "anonymous" is going to be a blow-hard claiming to have deciphered all 65 covenants of the MLC and start accusing reputable agencies of selling kool-aid, then you should back up your challenge with some pedigree, otherwise all this thread has to offer is amateur speculation and nonsense.
Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:40 AM
Do you feel better now Capt. Dave? Did your little temper tantrum about the anonymous feature of this blog really deter from the content of the comments? I have not seen anything in the various posters' comments that profess full answers to anything. They are making reasonable observations about a set of published rules that have yet to be defined by the major yacht registries. Did you read the rules or guidelines that are referenced? Did you perform some research to the statements that contradicts what they opine? This is a great lively discussion for a change. We finally have some talk about a subject other than looking for work or how to clean windows. Noting the clarity in their statements, I would guess that we have some senior insiders posting these comments that, for understandable reasons, cannot publicly post their identities. If they did, some screwball like you would contact them during the work day and kill their time for no reason at all. The anonymous feature is a perfect tool for these types of contributors. As a fantastic illustration of a blowhard, why not contribute to the discussion "captain" or STFU. And I posted anonymously just for your enjoyment. Whomever is giving the info on MLC that is not part of the main stream "Kool-Aid drinkers," keep it going! It's awesome.
Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2010 4:17 AM
Yeah Dave. Put up or shut up. Great thread on an important topic.
Kelly
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:42 PM
Joined: 02/05/2008
Posts: 40


Oh boy, there’s a lot going on here and I am going to try and sort some of this out. I wrote about the MLC for Dockwalk last year when the yachting community first collectively said, “Woah, wait a minute.” At the time I interviewed a number of people who had been very vocal in their concerns, and since then I have read a great deal of the MLC for myself (it’s better than Ambien). After digesting a fair amount of the code, I can tell you that it is not going to be the end of the world as we know it, but there are going to be a bunch of issues to sort through when the MLC goes into effect. There are far too many to enumerate here and they are kind of all over the map (a series of subjects for another time). There is a basic point of confusion going on in this thread that I think I can explain.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest issue going on here is some confusion about GUIDELINES of the MLC versus the STANDARDS of the MLC. As each flag state ratifies the MLC they will have certain specific STANDARDS which MUST be in place in order to issue a certificate of compliance. At the same time, nations are ENCOURAGED to adopt a number of recommended GUIDELINES. The application of Part B of the MLC 2006 (the GUIDEILINES) will vary from Flag State to Flag State and the GUIDELINES will only be enforceable by the flag state. Quoting the ILO language: “The guidelines are intended to provide supplementary practical information and guidance to flag States that can be adapted to specifically reflect their national laws and other measures implementing the MLC, 2006.” So that’s the GUIDELINES.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The STANDARDS (unlike the guidelines) are “required” and therefore enforceable by both Flag and Port State officers. Every nation which ratifies the MLC MUST comply with uniform ARTICLES, REGULATIONS and STANDARDS. Part A of the MLC code (the STANDARDS) pertains to the living and working conditions on the boat. So when people talk about “MLC STANDARDS” they are talking about the specific points outlined in MLC PART A, these are not arbitrary standards - and as they are written, there is little or no room for variation in "interpretation." All Port States are required to conduct port state inspections to make sure that all MLC vessels are in compliance with these standards. (These are the regulations we are hearing a lot of chatter about with room size, work/rest hours, medical facilities, and such and there are differences for vessels under 500gt and those over). To quote the ILO: “Port State control inspections are, in principle, concerned with the14 areas of working and living conditions on the ship.”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In theory, a Port State Inspector would simply check to make sure that the vessel has all of its current certificates of compliance issued by the Flag State on board and barring any reason to believe something foul is afoot, be on their merry way. But if the Port State inspector sees something which causes him/her to think any of required articles, regulations or standards are not being met, then they can conduct a thorough inspection of the vessel. The Port Sate inspector can also conduct a more thorough inspection if a member of the crew files a complaint claiming that vessel is not in compliance with MLC PART A STANDARDS. Depending on the severity of the violation the Port State Control Officer can prevent the boat from leaving port until the violation is resolved. In order to do this, the violation has to present a clear and present danger to the health or welfare of the crew.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crew can report violations of Flag State PART B Guidelines, to Port State Control Officers, but when it comes to GUIDELINE violations, all the Port State Control Officer can do is report the violation to the Flag State and Vessel’s owner. There are no GUIDLINE (Part B) violations that can result in the immediate intervention of the Port State Control Officer. Hope that clears up some of the confusion.
rodsteel
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2010 5:42 PM
Joined: 25/06/2009
Posts: 277


Kelly wrote:
The STANDARDS (unlike the guidelines) are “required” and therefore enforceable by both Flag and Port State officers. Every nation which ratifies the MLC MUST comply with uniform ARTICLES, REGULATIONS and STANDARDS. Part A of the MLC code (the STANDARDS) pertains to the living and working conditions on the boat. ...All Port States are required to conduct port state inspections to make sure that all MLC vessels are in compliance with these standards. (These are the regulations we are hearing a lot of chatter about with room size, ...under 500gt and those over). ...The Port Sate inspector can also conduct a more thorough inspection if a member of the crew files a complaint claiming that vessel is not in compliance with MLC PART A STANDARDS.
 
...Hope that clears up some of the confusion.


>>>>

 

Unfortunately, unless the under 500gt regulations provide exemptions to the contrary, it seems you have confirmed the "fears" that started the discussion. I.E., there is no way for yachts to avoid compliance with the STANDARDS on cabin size for new builds via crew contract or Flag State exemption (other than to be a private yacht "personally owned" by an individual - i.e., no more "corporate" owners ;o(( - unless you can find a Flag State that does not "sign up to" the MLC - new business opportunity?? ;o))

 

 

Rod


junior
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:06 PM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


Rod, the guidelines that I have read refer to "exceptions" granted by a competent authority . Logic implies that a signatory Flag state's "competent authority" may grant certain exceptions to vessel types , for instance commercial yachts under 500 ton who have difficulty conforming to standard, and this Flag state vessel would be compliant in all signatory states. Logic also implies that a Flag state may simply refuse to sign on to the guidelines in the knowledge that their vessels could be denied permission to operate in a signatory states waters. Additionally any vessel constructed to take advantage of a non signatory states relaxed scantlings would have little resale value outside of its flag. Concerning Private vs Commercial registration...well Rod, your a taxpayer and Im sure you would be happy to weed out tax avoiding " Commercially registered " private yachts by forcing them to conform to expensive commercial regulations if they would like to fly a flag of convenience..
Kelly
Posted: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:26 PM
Joined: 02/05/2008
Posts: 40


Indeed, Rod, that’s something else. I was trying to clear up the argument over whether a Port State or Flag State enforced the MLC. What Junior just said is right. Again, when you sit and read the MLC and not just alarming parts picked out of it with subjective commentary, there is actually quite a bit of forgiving language which addresses “special circumstances” and a “need for flexibility in implementation.” Having read much of the MLC I just don’t see it as a document designed to be the demise of yachting. Yes, it is full of a lot of head-aches and obnoxious carry-over and there is still a lot of work and negotiations to be done in the ratification process. But the MLC is intended to protect the rights of seafarers, not to punish yacht owners and builders. Take for example item 19 on the ILO’s Explanatory Note of the Regulations and Code of MLC 2006: “19. The MLC, 2006, recognizes that ILO Members need some flexibility to address particular national situations, especially with respect to smaller ships and ships that do not go on international voyages or specific kinds of ships. It also recognizes that flag States may not always be in a position to implement the requirements of the MLC, 2006, in the manner set out in Part A of the Code and allows them to adopt measures which are substantially equivalent.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key now is to make sure that the work gets done. Unfortunately, the yachting industry did not do much to make their voice heard during the writing of the MLC, so now it is a mad scramble to the finish to adapt the codes favorably before ratification. I interviewed a guy last year who was working with the MCA on sorting all that out for yachts, I will see if I can get in touch with him for an update and more timely information. I'd love to hear what was said by the ILO in France, any chance someone on this thread went?
junior
Posted: Sunday, April 11, 2010 8:33 AM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


As I see it the present apprehension in yachting circles concerns " what to build " and "where to flag". Certainly if you are preparing to design, build a commercially registered Superyacht you would be alert to the issue. The red flag has proven to be an effective way to survey, regulate and operate commercial yachts. Ideally the PYA, being a British dominated club, would lobby the MCA as they have successfully done in the past with licensing formalities. The MCA would be the competent authority examining scantlings and recommending " special exemptions " for its flag vessels . Imagine how incredibly difficult and dense it will be for a group of yacht captains in the South of France to lobby the United Nations ILO MLC to seek comment from all its members world wide regarding Super Yachting special exemptions. . Perhaps this realization is what has caused the PYA to hyperventilate.
Kaj
Posted: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:54 AM
Joined: 05/08/2008
Posts: 83


What another mess in the yachting industry, which follows on the heels of STCW 95´etc etc. STCW 95´was supposed to align all those countries that signed the agreement, all that did was make the industry even more seperated than it was before with countries saying "we don´t recognise your qualifications" and "ours are the best" type ridiculous scenarios. I see the new prospective ILO and MLC debacle being even worse. Especially with flag states, port states, MCA etc etc all seathing over each other and feasting on loopholes and flaunting the rules. What a mess in this politically incorrect world we have created.

This also brings to mind the "Commercial flags" we fly, following the rules of Commercial Ships, yet another mess. Put your hands up, who breaks these Flag States rules every day during summer with regards to man hours?? Also put your hands up which owner will pay for a replacement crew waiting in their hotels in Corsica or the Bahamas that will be there to take over the out going crew for their time off period? I hear you say NONE. Which owners will happily pay the tax segment of salaries, and also the super annuation for their crew? I don´t hear many of you who have said YES happily! Yes we will lose some owners and the saying "yachting aint what it used to be....I remember when......" will be all but a distant memory. Time to retire??

I do agree that crew accomodations must be liveable, unfortunately nothing can change the majority of yachts out there that were built pre-ILO and MLC rules and regs.

Capt Kaj


junior
Posted: Monday, April 12, 2010 9:31 AM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


Kaj, the obvious solution to any accommodation,operational problems would be to sail with fewer crew. I never met an owner in my life who wouldn't jump for joy at the thought. The remaining crew benefit from better living accommodations, well considered cruise schedules and more than likely ,greater job security with better pay and benifits.
rodsteel
Posted: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:27 PM
Joined: 25/06/2009
Posts: 277


Junior, Kelly,

 

Thanks for the clarifications (re: the "exemption" option).

Hopefully the Flag States will cooperate and "standardize" a set of exemptions for private and charter yachts

 

However, if they don't come to some agreement then I could see an increase in new builds trying to beat the ratification process and the value of older (exempt) yachts increasing

 

Rod

 

P.S. Junior, the tax avoidance issue is not big deal (especially if I win a $200M Powerball Lottery - then my new 50m stinkpot yacht could avail itself of the same "advantage", no?)

 


junior
Posted: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:02 AM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


Hate to tell you this Rod, but when I get my hands on your 200 mil, you will be hard pressed to even meet the payroll, uniform, contractual and vacation time demands of my crew..... let alone afford industry standard leopard skin furnishings , eye watering underwater light shows and your mandatory Donald Trumpski hairdo for strutting your stuff before the adoring gin palace crowd. Better hold off on the big stink until you've accumulated at least a billion. Hey? Ive got a connection over in Nigeria who can assist in pumping up the volume on your powerball win !!!
yachtone
Posted: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:50 PM
Joined: 27/07/2008
Posts: 96


Some possible solutions;
1. There are no regulations regarding minimum guest cabin size, so simply put the guests in the crew area & vice versa.
2. 1 maybe a bit extreme but consider the possibility of 2 or more extra crew cabins if the owner could possibly manage with only 1 bathroom in his suite.
3. Put the tenders on deck ( radical new idea! ) & use the 80m2. for crew accom.
4. Carry less than 12 guests on smaller boats, frees up space & reduces crew.
5. Build bigger yachts, yachts near or over 1000 grt. don't have a problem.
6. Get an organisation that represents yachting (PYA, SYS, MYBA etc.) to discuss reasonable compromises and find a solution acceptable to the yachting industry & the relevant authorities.

Remember these regulations are supposed to benefit crew, and don't tell me that crew accommodation is not a factor in crew turnover.
I remember when people selling yachts said they could not possibly find any extra space for crew accommodation ( & stay in business ) but when ONE owner decided he wanted the boats off the deck they found the space for that & then everybody found that space. I think a solution, at least for new-builds, will be found.

Two more thoughts, 1. Those that sit on the sidelines and criticise the PYA are either just to selfish to contribute or are sore because they had scammed their way into a position they weren't qualified or experienced enough for.
                                    2. Do you really think you can give French Unions the finger & still operate in France.

Janine
Posted: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:43 PM
Joined: 02/05/2008
Posts: 392


Dockwalk.com member Bransom attended the seminar. Read his blog about it here.
Cizealin
Posted: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:30 PM
Joined: 26/07/2008
Posts: 50


It is a shame that the ILO would not be involved with the smaller fast craft sub 26m. In my opinion here is the most significant problem within the yachting industry. The insane accomodation offered by these yacht builders is sometimes almost impossible to use. I seriously could hardly use the heads and shower on a certain Italian 26m new build, and I am a reasonably fit guy. The deckhead was some 25cm above my head in the top bunk.. This was my experience some ten years ago, but I see things are no better now.

Some English yacht builders are frankly worse. It was like sleeping in a cupboard in the cabin, ok for a night or two but these boats are sold with "crew accomodation".

They should be regarded as "dayboats" with occaisional overnight accomodation for crew.

I think owners are often oversold this type of yacht, being unaware of the conditions their small crew will have to live in during the seasons. I feel sorry for some of the young tired Captains and crew out there having to live with this.

ILO? I'm sure there could be a another Flag state existing law that covers this abuse for a "hired crew vessel"? I hate to think what would happen if anyone called the ITU over a dispute with a commercial 26m English regd yacht such as this type...


Chief
Posted: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:55 PM
Joined: 02/06/2008
Posts: 341


"I hate to think what would happen if anyone called the ITU over a dispute with a commercial 26m English regd yacht such as this type."

 

I don't think the ITU would care very much unless the owner was forcing the crew to use Morse code on the wrong radio channel.


Cizealin
Posted: Thursday, April 15, 2010 6:36 PM
Joined: 26/07/2008
Posts: 50


Sorry Chief, you are quite right! I think I meant the ITF, International Transport Workers Federation. I don't think they would be able to have much effect on my point re cabin sizes on small yachts on reflection.

However they have recently got heavily involved with two crew dispute cases, both involving fired crew (one for just being ill). The other was for a deckhand fired without pay and return flight, they involved immigration and assisted the crew member with emergency accomodation. Maybe this is more their type of thing. A force to be reckoned with though. I'm sure they will be watching the ILO moves clsoely.


junior
Posted: Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:58 PM
Joined: 14/01/2009
Posts: 1026


I respect organizations like Nautilus and the ILO for looking after the rights of seaman. In the US we have the Jones Act and it has proven to be a very blunt tool . Lets hope that Nautilus and the ILO employ a much more sophisticated approach when interpreting the MLC guidelines in relation to Yachting.
Chief
Posted: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:41 PM
Joined: 02/06/2008
Posts: 341


"Sorry Chief, you are quite right! I think I meant the ITF, International Transport Workers Federation. I don't think they would be able to have much effect on my point re cabin sizes on small yachts on reflection."

 

I figured you meant the ITF, was just yanking your chain, this discussion is getting rather heavy.

 

I don't think the ITF would be too eager to claim yacht crew are hard done by. It would be like asking Oxfam to start a campaign to aid Russians who can't afford domestic caviar.


 
 Average 0 out of 5