Stuck at sea for years, a sailor's plight highlights a surge in ship abandonment
apnews.com
apnews.com
However it makes no sense to refuse entry. Instead states operating PSC will choose to inspect some fraction of the ships and detain them (which they are allowed to do under international law, though since the signatories of early MOUs are countries with serious navies it arguably doesn't matter whether it's legal anyway) if they are unsatisfactory.
The Paris MOU is particularly notable for its black, grey and white lists, which aren't bans of the sort you seem to envision but instead control inspection rates. Since inspection means time not loading/unloading/ sailing elsewhere, which means lost income, a ship wants fewer inspections, but of course if uninspected a ship with unacceptable defects might go for a long period without being detained. The fix is that the Paris MOU counts up how often ships flying particular flags were inspected and what the outcome was over a period of IIRC one year, if flag A has enough (fractionally) good inspections, they're whitelisted and next period ships flying that flag are least likely to be inspected - some still are, but fewer. on the other hand if flag X has too many (fractionally) bad inspections, they're blacklisted and ships flying that flag are much more likely to be inspected next period - though not certain.
Now, as originally conceived before the meeting to sign it, the Paris MOU was, like a lot of French things, mostly about workers rights. But, coincidentally a massive maritime accident occurred and so suddenly instead of "Boring technical conference agrees uninteresting European rules" which is maybe one column inch on page 14 of your paper, now you've got a journalist on a plane to the conference to ask government officials what they're going to do about to prevent accidents like the one on TV, which is good for at least a paragraph on the front page. So the actual Paris MOU signed is very enthusiastic about mechanical problems with the actual ship even though there's still stuff in there about the rights of the sailors.
Anyway, PSC doesn't solve these sailors problems.
It's not that complicated.
When driving into Saudi Arabia in your own car, you are required to show proof of insurance (or can purchase travel insurance at the border).
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/12/a...
It's not too hard to get a small boat to rescue them and be shepherded to the airport. The Saudis aren't doing it because they are owed port fees.
Negligent boat owners should lose their property just like negligent land (real property) owners do.
That's already the case in the vast majority of ports to pay for situations like the Baltimore bridge collapse, although most damage is a lot smaller and more pedestrian like scraping the dock on approach.
Ports generally require protection and indemnity insurance to pay for damage to third parties and the port, hull and machinery insurance so the boat doesn't get stranded in the port, and wreck removal insurance to remove it if it does. Anyone going through the Panama or Suez canal has to have even more insurance to cover the extra risk of blocking a major global shipping channel.
Marine law is optimized for the well-being of ship owners, not anyone else.
> Abandoned ships are sometimes so old and worn that “even the scrap guys lose money stripping it of anything of value,” said Eric White, a ship inspector for the International Transport Workers’ Federation, or ITF, a seafarers’ union.
> Left hanging by Teeters were the ships’ crews of mostly Ukrainian seafarers, who suddenly had no way of sending money to families back home in what was now a war zone after Russia’s invasion. In total, the 22 men were owed $130,000 covering more than three months, White said. If not for $22,000 in donations from local seafarers’ charities, none of them would have made it off the ship and back home, according to White.
They also usually haven't been paid for that time. So they are motivated to stay (usually under deplorable conditions) because of the chance that the new owners will give them their back pay.
Sometimes the local community will ferry food out to the crews. But if the ship runs out of fuel to power the generators they'll be without air conditioning and more importantly - navigation lights to show they're anchored.
https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/charleston-communit...
At minimum, it would be fair to mandate that port countries provide visas for the sole purposes of mariners transiting back home, at the mariners' discretion.
You're not going to keep someone from staying on a boat if they think they're going to get paid... but you can at least resolve the international red tape that prohibits them from choosing to leave the boat.
They did not generate the problem, get no profit from resolving the problem, and actually end up footing the bill for the problem from some random irresponsible owner.
The only reason they don’t just sink them is because of the PR backlash - and that would end up costing them even more in weapons and cleanup.
It’s more like someone abandoning random RVs in your town - full of orphans. Just, ugh. What a nightmare for everyone.
It seems inhumane from an ethical perspective to essentially maroon a person on an abandoned ship, simply because it's slightly more convenient.
The authorities doing anything besides arresting the owners is just enabling more owners doing the same thing and dumping the mess on their doorstep. Bad policy.
The owners obviously. The local authorities through inaction.
My point is there's functionally no difference (and arguably, one which benefits the owners) by stranding crew on abandoned ships. Either way you're left with an abandoned ship.
So why not avoid the human tragedy?
Doing what you propose just creates a huge moral hazard, and would result in even more of this kind of BS on their doorstep.
That seems like a serious devaluing of human life.
An abstract goal isn't a justification for a concrete ill.
Are you a taxpayer in any of the jurisdictions involved? Do you own any of these boats?
Are you going to fly over there and solve this problem yourself individually?
Near as I can tell, you’re just moralizing about how other people should solve the problems created by the ship owners without doing anything to actually solve the problem, and with no skin in the game.
Same as me, of course. But I’m trying to explain the reasoning of the folks with skin in the game.
It’s easy to be high and mighty when it isn’t your actual problem, and you don’t have to pay for it.
Different matter in countries that generally try to be more decent to people...
... but in this case (per your reasoning) are looking the other way past human suffering to make sure that shipowners don't have more incentive to dump boats.
I'm saying "That's a shitty moral justification for causing human suffering."
Are you saying you think it's a good one, per your personal opinion? Or that you don't, but it doesn't matter because you're not a minister of transportation?
Sailors and fishermen are recruited internationally from poor countries, then treated like slaves. No country's law reaches these ships, and they're ultimately owned by corporations that have no reason to care.
Another example:
https://www.dw.com/en/chinese-fishing-fleets-in-indian-ocean...
(no I've never been on a cruise)
I once talked to a guy who did this in the 80s and 90s; His first repo trip was to pick up a 727 that had been abandoned by a defunct American cargo operator at some airfield in the Middle East. Being the desert, the creditors felt it had a good chance of being serviceable due to the dry environment. He shows up with a repo crew, they inspect the airplane, test what they can, and it's in ragged shape but seems airworthy by all the testing they can do on the ground. There is a snag though - Someone had taken all of the log books and documents, which renders the airplane basically radioactive when it lands back stateside.
The cost of recertifying everything will exceed the value of even a new aircraft, and a lot of the electronics and other technical components can't be resold for aviation use without their repair logs. Unless by some miracle the missing documents can be retrieved from the bankrupt former owners, it renders the whole thing just bulk metal scrap. Not what the creditor wants.
So he asks around the airfield (as best as he can through the language barrier) for anyone who knows the history of the airplane or its former crew and where the documentation might be found. Eventually he finds someone who indicates enthusiastically that he has just what they need. The pilot goes about other things, flight planning, getting fuel, filing the ferry paperwork, then arrives back at the airplane to see where they stand. Indeed, their friend on the ground had found some of the aircraft's documentation, and had arranged what he found in the manner the local crews were accustomed to; In the pocket where the FAA airworthiness documentation was supposed to be, he had helpfully provided a Quran. They ended up with just enough of the documents though, and in a three leg trip that included almost being arrested in West Germany due to a paperwork error, they safely returned home.
The 'flag' of the ship is the law to which it must operate (at least in international waters):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_state
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_registration
But a lot of popular flags are lax at employment rules—kind of why they're often picked. But you also have to have the resources for law suits, regardless of flag/registration.
But the government is cozy so they are allowed to continue. In some cities, the land is literally sold to the Chinese government in exchange for funds to pad the coffers, or nominal "services" like removing piles of dirt on the land from mining activities.
It's mad neo-colonialism. Instead of armies, you just buy leaders.
Why do locals refuse business with them?
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/04/11/... (https://archive.is/0aDEg)
> For the next 20 hours, on a typical day, the bleary-eyed crew would be hauling up fishing nets. If sharks got entangled they would hack off their fins, tossing the mutilated creatures back into the water to die. When dolphins were ensnared, the captain shot them, cut out their teeth and bartered them with passing ships in return for whisky.
> Illegal fishing is also harming local fishermen. Chinese vessels routinely fish in waters close to the shoreline reserved by law for small-scale local fishers. According to the EJF, Chinese trawlers in Mozambique often line their nets with a fine mesh, allowing them to catch smaller fish usually targeted only by locals. They have also been known to intimidate the local fishermen, ripping their nets and hounding them out of their usual fishing grounds. The volume of fish caught by small-scale fishers in Mozambique has slumped by 30% over the past 25 years.
Not directly a citation, but here's a supporting writeup of decent quality: https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/china-illegal-fishing-fleet...
And yes, he can sue his employer. That is likely as effective as trying to get blood from a turnip
Presumably, it’d be up to the employer to recover damages from their former (aka my current) employees.
I think you're right about piracy though. Hedora could salvage the now-abandoned ship but I don't think that transfers ownership - it produces something vaguely like a lien. (Presumably space law in _The Expanse_ is different, or maybe the Roci was technically a prize?)
To use the ‘expanse’ example - how long (and what did it take) before the Martians were interested in doing anything but trying to capture or destroy the Rocinante on sight?
Good luck doing any of that as a random Ukrainian or Thai sailor stuck at sea.
Facts like these are what are missing from these stories. They always say something like "the company was going bankrupt" or whatever. Somehow they paid for fuel, berthing fees, port entry fees, docking fees and a host of other stuff you need to do international shipping. They quit paying the crew because they can get away with it.
Most ships are registered in Liberia, so good luck making and collecting a claim based off their law.
Not as bad a situation as the main topic, but can’t be easy either.
When a vessel is docked in a port, they are able to disembark and operate under a special visa that lasts the duration of their vessel's stay, and they are required to leave with the vessel when it disembarks from the port. Since the vessel has left the port, their visas are no longer applicable and they would be arrested if they left the vessel.
Their special visas to disembark while at port would most likely not be approved if they have a big "deported" note on it.
On top of that, a lot of these workers are kept in exploitative working conditions and are owed thousands of dollars in backpay. Leaving the vessel to be willingly deported effectively negates any chance of actually being paid and can kill your career right then and there. I highly doubt that's a risk any of them are willing to take.
I'm not sure I want to give local police the power to put whoever they want on a plane to "wherever".
I presumed that the proposal is a shorthand for "why the police can't offer to escort them to the airport and let them board an airplane to a destination of their own choosing". As in the police would be there to make sure they don't "abscond" in the country without a valid visa, but the seafarers can get back to their family. (if they so choose)
Maybe being overly pedantic, but "destination of their own choosing" won't work. Airlines will refuse to board, because they're generally responsible for the costs of flying that person back if they're refused entry at the destination (if their due diligence wasn't done re passport/visa, rather than an immigration official's decision).
Not just maybe.
I was talking from the perspective of the interaction between the stranded mariners and the police. I emphasised the "destination of their own choosing" because it appeared that the comment I was responding to had a misunderstanding. They thought the proposal is that the police kidnaps the mariners and sends them to wherever the police wants to. I was clarifying that it would happen in consultation with them, and the mariners would select the destination.
That does not mean that there would be no other constrains on them flying. Presumably they would choose their home country as their destination. Or some other country where they have a right to be.
But if you choose to be pedantic why did you only mention the "visa requirement" constrain? Why not list all the others. To just name a few: Their destination has to be a real place. They cannot fly to Narnia, or Middle Earth, or La-La Land. Their destination has to have a continuous atmosphere from their departure airport. Otherwise the airplane can't fly. So for example they cannot choose the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon. It has to have an airport. So Monaco is out right away. It has to be existing on the day they depart. So they cannot fly to Pangea, nor to the USSR. Because they don't exist anymore. It also has to be a place where there are scheduled flights to. So they cannot choose McMurdo Station either. And yeah, visa requirements too.
I understand that the situation is less than ideal, and i hope they get a crew change at the end of whatever contract period they have. And I sure hope their wages are being paid correctly. The mobile phone situation is really bad too. I hope that got rectified since.
Imagine if they haven't hit the bridge. They would be most probably still on the same ship doing the same job. Just the ship would be in some other patch of water. Would you still describe them as "stuck onboard" if that were the case?
- "The crew, made up of 20 Indians and a Sri Lankan national, has been unable to disembark because of visa restrictions, a lack of required shore passes and parallel ongoing investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FBI."
..
- "According to Mr Messick, the crew has been left largely without communication with the outside world for "a couple of weeks" after their mobile phones were confiscated by the FBI as part of the investigation."
- "They can't do any online banking. They can't pay their bills at home. They don't have any of their data or anyone's contact information, so they're really isolated right now," Mr Messick said. "They just can't reach out to the folks they need to, or even look at pictures of their children before they go to sleep. It's really a sad situation."
Surprised they haven't made a break for shore via life rafts
If they're both lucky and fortunate and if the weather is nice and assuming there's not more than 500 people to 3 phones. Source: dealing with it right now.
And if you just stay on the ship long enough, a court will appear right on the deck?
Sorry, man, this is a self-inflicted problem. Not being paid for 10 years starts with not being paid for a month, and then three and so on. At some point, it's just your choice.
Even if the money were to materialize, there is no way the guy is getting paid for the time spent on the ship after it was abandoned.
That's like continuing to show up to work to an abandoned office building after the company has folded, expecting to get paid for all that time one day.
I think that guy is just running away from something. While he stays on the ship, he has an ongoing excuse for all his inaction (in his mind) and doesn't have to face anything. Obviously, he's clothed and fed somehow, probably from doing odd jobs at the docks? And that lifestyle tied to the ship suits him fine.
Who provides him fresh water?
Inhumane.