Farstad "redundancies"

[GuinnessMan]

I'm not an oil trader, shipowner or a shipbroker so have no interest in your three questions. So I will just copy and paste what I have already stated for you to read again:

Then have no interest, but those are the problems that is currently affecting the North Sea Offshore market. Your "law" will not fix any of those problems and the redundancies, both on board and ashore, will continue as vessels are either sold on, scrapped or laid up.

[WesternStar]

Then have no interest, but those are the problems that is currently effecting the North Sea Offshore market. Your "law" will not fix any of those problems and the redundancies, both on board and ashore, will continue as vessels are either sold on, scrapped or laid up.

If all the non-British Officers and ratings were removed from vessels operating within the UKCS there would be enough positions made available so that the current redundancies could be prevented. Even in the current economic climate we would probably see an increase in job availability for British qualified personnel.

My proposed regulation would have an immediate and positive impact for British seafarers.

[MrStealth]

Whilst I don't want to get involved in the "In/out" debate, it should be noted that the EU recently released a bulletin(?) urging member states to take steps to secure employment for seafarers. IE, Britain should take action to secure jobs for brits working on the UKCS, Germany should secure jobs for Germans in their O&G sector etc etc. So I don't think the EU can be blamed for this one... Particularly as (at-least the last time I checked) Asia isn't part of the EU. Annoyingly, I can't find it at the moment... I'll edit the post when I do.

Also - and this is just my personal opinion - Demanding that any vessel operating within UK waters have at least 1 cadet on at all times is plain daft. Not only will that limit the cadets experience, particularly in terms of navigation (ever tried doing a cadetship on a PSV working exclusively out of Aberdeen?), but it will only add to the growing glut of seafarers world-wide.

Being "British" doesn't and shouldn't automatically make you better than any other seafarer. Being a good sailor, that's what should make you better than the rest.

I've worked with some very good Filiphino seafarers within the UKCS - Both AB's and OOW's. The brits I've worked with however...

And, for the record, I'm currently under the employ of a Scandinavian concern with interests in the UKCS who's ships are crewed by Scandinavian and Filipino crews.

Dismissing EXTREMELY valid points (How do you intend to pay the British seafarers when the company can't turn a profit because the charter price is through the floor? Magic money tree?) makes you look a little daft, if I'm brutally honest...

[WesternStar]

And, for the record, I'm currently under the employ of a Scandinavian concern with interests in the UKCS who's ships are crewed by Scandinavian and Filipino crews.

It will dawn upon you as your career progresses that all the other countries in the world are doing exactly what I have proposed: Soon you will not be working in other nations offshore sectors as they will all have a nationality requirement.

[GuinnessMan]

If all the non-British Officers and ratings were removed from vessels operating within the UKCS there would be enough positions made available so that the current redundancies could be prevented. Even in the current economic climate we would probably see an increase in job availability for British qualified personnel.

My proposed regulation would have an immediate and positive impact for British seafarers.

Not if the company goes to the wall because their vessel's OPEX has now trebled, which is all your "law" will do. It will not fix the current issues that the North Sea Sector is facing. You need to understand that if a vessel does not, financially, break even then the Owner's will eventually decide to either sell it off, lay it up or scrap it as they cannot operate at a loss for long periods of time. Whilst the larger, more diversified, organisations can weather this, companies like Farstad can't really as the bulk of their business is OSV's and Anchor Handlers. Even Maersk have had to make a bucket of redundancies both on board and ashore. Look at the Farstad Q4 report and you'll see just how deep a hole they're in.

The low oil price means that there are less O&G projects going on in the North Sea, which means there is a lower demand for vessels and because there is such a large oversupply of vessels there the charter rates have fallen like a stone. This affects everyone in the Offshore sector and Aberdeen as a whole. Please tell me you actually understand this?

Magic money tree?

I quite like that phrase. Nicked!

[WesternStar]

Not if the company goes to the wall because their vessel's OPEX has now trebled, which is all your "law" will do.

The low oil price means that there are less O&G projects going on in the North Sea, which means there is a lower demand for vessels and because there is such a large oversupply of vessels there the charter rates have fallen like a stone. This affects everyone in the Offshore sector and Aberdeen as a whole. Please tell me you actually understand this?

I understand this perfectly well.

If a vessel is operating within the UKCS and cannot afford to employ British citizens or even pay minimum wage it should not be operating on the UKCS regardless of economic conditions.

Do you believe a company is justified in using third world labour within the UKCS to reduce operating costs and avoid going bankrupt?

What percentage of the crews on vessels operating within the UKCS are British citizens?

[GuinnessMan]

I understand this perfectly well.

About time.

If a vessel is operating within the UKCS and cannot afford to employ British citizens or even minimum wage it should not be operating on the UKCS regardless of economic conditions.

So, if a company makes the decision that it's not worth the cost or hassle of operating within the UK and then either buggers off or shuts down, how does that help employ more British Seafarers or bring more money into the local and national economy?

Don't get me wrong, people should be paid a fair wage for what they're doing and they should have decent employment protections in place. I would imagine that they are doing this as otherwise the Union would have gone ballistic about this well before now as well as still be banging the drum about it.

Do you believe a company is justified in using third world labour within the UKCS to reduce operating costs?

No, but most of the offshore companies aren't doing that anyways so it's irrelevant. With Farstad replacing the crew, it's probably because they are going to take the vessel's elsewhere as they've already got 7 of their 10 PSV's there laid up.

What percentage of the crews on vessels operating within the UKCS are British citizens?

Not a scooby. There are 54 vessel operators within the North Sea sector at the moment and they don't publish their HR data.

[JSTORM]

You're saying you understand but then you continue with the same rant... Instead of blindly arguing when GuinessMan has given a reasoned argument and sited reputable figures, how about you do the same after researching your own questions.

Don't forget the sauce!

[Crash&Burn]

If I may clarify one small point,

Farstad has no intention of removing the affected vessels from the north sea. They only have 3 PSV's with UK-EU crew remaining and of those 2 are being subjected to the UK-EU/ASIAN swap out. both these vessels are on term charter and are in fact profitable at this time, tho the Q4 results were not great primarily due to value lost on assets. The third is on spot market and one can reasonably surmise this is being left unaffected as a European crewed vessel will appeal more to prospective charterers.

Incidentally Maersk have recently changed out crew on one of their PSVs operating in UK sector for non-EU (I do not know how many or what rank) on a term charter and this caused the charterer concern.

[WesternStar]

If I may clarify one small point,

Farstad has no intention of removing the affected vessels from the north sea. They only have 3 PSV's with UK-EU crew remaining and of those 2 are being subjected to the UK-EU/ASIAN swap out. both these vessels are on term charter and are in fact profitable at this time, tho the Q4 results were not great primarily due to value lost on assets. The third is on spot market and one can reasonably surmise this is being left unaffected as a European crewed vessel will appeal more to prospective charterers.

Incidentally Maersk have recently changed out crew on one of their PSVs operating in UK sector for non-EU (I do not know how many or what rank) on a term charter and this caused the charterer concern.

Thank you very much for clarifying the point and dispelling some of the absurd excuses for and theories around the actions of Farstad we have been hearing from other members of this forum.

This is the thin end of the wedge. No other country allows this to happen to seafarers in their own national waters. Legislation in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would make this illegal. British seafarers are being sold out, yet again, to cheap foreign labour.

Remove these vessels from UK waters.

[marlinspike]

Shipping companies only need a seamans transit visa for non-EEA crew on boats working out of UK ports if the ship spends "most of the year" (183 days presumably) outside of the 12 mile limit. So that means that PSVs on long term charter, who will most likley spend more than 183 days outiside the 12 mile limit, can be crewed with people entering the country on transit visas. However OSVs that work the spot market, especially AHTS, will most likely spend more than 6 months inside the 12 mile limit, so transit visas legally shouldn't be used for crew who join them, but some shipping companies do. So the boats working the spot market out of Aberdeen that are crewed by filipinos, ukranians or croatians (not full members of the eea yet) are breaking employment law as their crew join on the wrong visa. Crew on boats that spend most of the year inside the 12 mile limit should also be getting NMW.

The first step the goverment could do to stop this exploitation in the UK EEZ is to extend UK employment law i.e. national minimum wage, to all ships that continually operate in the UK EEZ, this would make hiring cheap asian labour less attractive and would make them have to get the crew fully blown work visas, and not transit visas for PSVs on long term charter.

[Clanky]

I assume those who are demanding that only British nationals be allowed to work in the UK coastal / offshore trade would be happy to see the many Brits similarly employed in other countries lose their jobs?

No more Brits in the offshore industry in WAF, no Brits on boats running out of Labuan, no more Brits in Vietnam, etc.

Put down the Daily Mail for a second or two and have a think.

[WesternStar]

I assume those who are demanding that only British nationals be allowed to work in the UK coastal / offshore trade would be happy to see the many Brits similarly employed in other countries lose their jobs?

No more Brits in the offshore industry in WAF, no Brits on boats running out of Labuan, no more Brits in Vietnam, etc.

Put down the Daily Mail for a second or two and have a think.

Your point is completely irrelevant since we as a nation have absolutely no say in what these countries decide to within their own waters. We can however control our own EEZ.

What I would also point out is that the majority of foreign nationals working in our waters originate from states which don't have any offshore resources whatsoever. For example Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Romania. This has been a one way transfer from which we have derived no benefit at all.

Many nations have already have, or are starting to impose a nationality requirement. Take Nigeria for example. Take Vietnam for example.

I did read the Daily Mail yesterday - How was your copy of the Guardian?

[Midge]

Some very interesting views on this whole British seafarers thing. A few of the things I have noticed and followed overtime.

MGN 455 page 6 Smart guidelines
c. proficient in spoken and written English and must state an intention to be ordinarilyresident in the UK following completion of their training.

What I would like to know is how many manage to comply with being ordinary resident ? How many realise that is what they have signed up to? How many sponsors help them after training to do so? Are there jobs there anyway?

Brief definition of ordinary residence is where you are living now and for the foreseeable future, apart from occasional absences. Time at sea wouldn't count as not living in the UK. Where you return to and have a home where your things are kept etc You can be dual ordinary resident too bit more difficult. There is no definition of it in any Act of Parliament only from case law leading case is R -v- Barnet LBC ex parte Shah [1983] for the legally interested bunch.

Reading Nautilus March edition ( I keep an eye on what going on as I will have the prospect of an unemployed offspring looming I like to know how the industry is fairing)
Page 3 Shipping minister Robert Goodall, says about smart being in place until 2021 so hopefully that will happen how much money and if sponsors will get more is unknown, maybe the budget on 16th will provide some info, smart is up at the end of March.
Still the mention of shortages of seafarers being a problem, but it also covers shore jobs.
Points out a 1000 lost officer jobs.
Of concern too was the UK has issued more CECs to foreign officer than the total number of UK officers. The number has more than doubled over the past decade. "Confirming fears that they provide cheaper officers that undercut our own seafarers and encourages the avoidance of training British officers. "

Page 10 also around the same theme.
Page 14 French seafarers also suffering similar problems losing seafarers
Page 15 French giving seafarers rights to social security benefits access to pensions etc for resident French seafarers case won, caused a strike here a couple of years ago in St Malo. French unions are quite active!
Page 19 concerns about offshore loss of skills and where people are bought in not having them and the effects of safety because of that.

[WesternStar]

Points out a 1000 lost officer jobs.
Of concern too was the UK has issued more CECs to foreign officer than the total number of UK officers. The number has more than doubled over the past decade. "Confirming fears that they provide cheaper officers that undercut our own seafarers and encourages the avoidance of training British officers. "

Thank you very much for bringing this factual and salient point to the forum.