Crew linen issue.

[robpage]

I never run , long stayer , me !

[cappy]

cmon john only two and a half legs and even that's bragging but not by much might I say ,,,,,that's my story anyway and im sticking to it ,,,regards cappy

[robpage]

limp back on board then Cappy ?

[cappy]

now now rob that old bint by the lifeboat never said that lol cappy

[cappy]

aye rob limp back then up to the chief steward for the old m and b tablets ,,,cappy

[Ivan Cloherty]

As usual we have gone off course, which sometimes is no bad thing. Having worked on both sides of the fence I can see pros and cons for certain information in Charter Parties in posts 15,16, and 17 being available to the ship master. Also having set up a shipping company in the UAE in the 70's and chartered in nearly 100 ships both on Voyage and long term Time Charter over a number of years and being responsible for all types of Charter parties and their small print I cannot see why the Charter Party Rate is of any particular use to the Master, as he should be running the vessel to the best of his ability regardless of the rate.

In my experience the Masters 'never' decided where to bunker or what to pay for bunkers so bunker price and C/P rate should have no influence what-so-ever in deciding what amount of overtime to pay the crew. Bunker prices were negotiated on a yearly contract basis and on a fleet basis and turnover basis and whether or not the grades required were available at the placed deemed desirable to bunker on that voyage. It was not always the case that bunkers of the grade required were available when you required them so sometimes the obvious place to bunker would have to be bypassed. The master of a vessel, especially tramping, would not have that up to date information to hand, where-as the ship owner's supts and bunker brokers would have, being in contact on a more or less daily basis.

The reason for the rate not being disclosed on the ship's copy of a C/P had nothing to do with mistrusting the Master, it was a commercial decision because all manner of people such as Agents/Shippers/Receivers in various ports were privy to the C/P loading and discharging terms, laytime, N.O.R. (which could be submitted by radiogram on Foreign going vessels and by running up the quay on Home trade vessels, but I have submitted NOR by radio whilst on HT) and demurrage and ship owners had to bear in mind that these agents also acted for other ship owners plying the same trade who may use the agent more frequently and any rate information passed onto opposition either intentionally or unintentionally could mean the loss of the next cargo for that particular owner's vessel. It was not a case of mistrusting the master, but I re-iterate that cost whether known or unknown should have no bearing on how the Master runs his vessel, which should be to the best of his ability at all times.

What amazes me is how many people berate the ship owner, we have all sailed with good and bad ships in the same company, so I would say the onus in the main for a bad ship is bad shipboard management and not shoreside management. Ship owners are not charities they are in the business of making money so that they can order new ships to keep their business running when the old ships have passed their sell by date. It is easy to blame the ship owner for the shipboard failings. Of course there are bad ship owners where conditions are not ideal despite the best efforts of shipboard management, but there are always two sides to a coin.

Ship owners do not like crew changes, crew changes cost money, and it was always my criteria to try and keep the same crew on the same ship, or if that was not possible then within the same company. Contrary to common belief shipowners were loyal to those who stayed with them, paying them standby pay so they wouldn't ship out with another company, as crew continuity was good both for ship and owner as well as personnel.

No doubt some will disagree with the above, but what I have tried to do is clarify a commonly held misconception about Charter Parties and the with holding of rates information

Message for Keith, I do hope that post 15,16,17 and this one are Merchant Navy related enough for you and apologies to Jim for hijacking his linen!!
I

[j.sabourn]

Agree with most of what you say Ivan re. bunkers overtime storing and whatever the charter rate was not being that important to know. This was a statement of observation on my part. However as regards the drawing up of charter parties sometimes they left a lot to be desired. I will quote you one instant of one particular position I held, no vessel name or company. My position as Mate, master out of touch with deep sea at time customs. Loaded coke in Gdansk for Karachi, as per charter Party which I got off the master to check, the vessel was hired to load 8000 Long tons plus or minus 1 percent if I remember correctly. This was an 8000 ton deadweight vessel. Whoever who drew that C/P up was an idiot. The ship burned Bunker C in large amounts. To conform to C/P without rather large penalties I had to shall we say fiddle a few things. To further describe the mentality on board this vessel as well as that of ashore, the master received orders to bunker at Dakar in west Africa. He came to me to ask if this would be correct to which I of course said yes, he was not convinced as said perhaps they mean Dhaka in West Pakistan, get my drift on the intelligence of who one can work with. He sent messages back to owners to confirm bunkering port. You and others may be right when you extol the virtues of certain shipowners and their benefits, I could certainly give you one for one on the opposite type of shipowner and their methods. I am not anti shipowner but do at least expect them to have a little knowledge of the business they are supposed to run. Cheers John Sabourn

[Ivan Cloherty]

John, no matter what business you are in there is always an idiot, sometimes they are in charge or sometimes they just take it upon themselves to be in charge, that's life. I was talking majority situations. I was a member of the Baltic Exchange and 'Fixed' a few vessels but the majority of the Brokers on the Baltic have never been to sea or indeed ever set foot upon a ship and some even thought that SWL meant Swing with Leisure and had no idea on what Union Purchase involved and some of the 'Fixings' I overheard amazed and frightened me, but it was to my company's advantage that I didn't stick my nose in and tell them that the ship they were fixing was unsuitable for the cargo they were marrying to it. After all business is business and if it didn't affect the safety of the vessel it was non of my business, if they fixed a ship that couldn't perform the discharging duty or rates that was none of my business, the more balls up they made the better for everybody else, If what I overheard appeared to compromise the safety of the ship then I had a quiet word with owners broker, breaking my own self appointed rules of non-interference, because once a seaman always a seaman no matter which side of the fence you are on. Shippers go with companies that are competent and put them in a despatch situation, never met a shipper or receiver who objected to paying despatch money. I know my own Brokers always came and asked me if they had a non run-of-the-mill cargo was the envisaged vessel suitable, but not all Ship Brokers had the advantage (or foresight) to have an ex mariner on their team, so sometimes cargoes were fixed that caused those onboard some problems, but who said life was perfect. I know I've made mistakes professionally and personally but in both cases not serious only embarrassing to myself and possibly others who expected better of me.

[John Arton]

Ivan
Agree with most of your post, but the bit about Agents could be a bit inflammatory. Agents appointed by owners are duty bound to not reveal any sensitive or commercial information, surely.
I know that many of the agents I worked with in my last company knew the c/p rates and if I was on very good terms would occasionally reveal the rates to me.
We were in parcel chemical trade and on short sea voyages. A number of our regular cargoes were very expensive freight per ton, up to $3500 per ton and they required particular tank cleaning. Knowing not only the cleanliness requirements but also the freight rate enabled us to make valued judgements on board upon how much time/equipment/cleaning chemicals etc. we had to expend to ensure that tanks passed inspections first time (we had a 98% pass rate). It also made us more aware of the need to research new and different tank cleaning methods (promulgated fleet wise) and also such things as eta's (better to burn less fuel and arrive for the next tide rather than go flat out in an attempt to make an earlier tide). All of this led to a number of the Masters within our fleet researching and implementing different cleaning methods etc. One cleaning system that my best pal introduced saved the company £4000 each call at the MSC, which was one of our regular and major ports.
Also by building excellent relationship's with terminal staff and refinery staff, knowing cost figures enabled us to have a dialogue between ship and shore that led to improvements in tank cleaning methods and time taken without endangering the quality of the cargo. As an example one expensive cargo we used to carry when sampled and tested by independent labs used to fail a 7ppm water content which often occurred leading to attendant claims and cost. By talking to our friends at the terminals we not only found out the freight rate (very high) but also the fact that the production process of this particular product meant that in perfect condition it would always have between 5-7ppm water in it so we had never contaminated the cargo ever as on arrival at discharge port samples were always within the 5-7 ppm.
It was the fault of the manufacturer not telling the buyer the full story that led to the claims not the ships fault in not cleaning and carrying correctly.
It was only when we got to find out the freight rate and c/p contract rate that we really started putting our head together on the ships and talking amongst ourselves that we eventually discovered the cause of the number of cargo claims on this particular cargo on a number of sister ships.
A bit rambling I know Ivan but my belief was and still is, the more information you can give ships staff the better they can manage their ship. I know my technical staff ashore were always onto the operations department to give us copies of all the contracts signed etc. along with the rates but Operations would only let us know what standard c/p we were carrying the various parcels under and never gave us copies of the contracts.
rgds
JA

[Ivan Cloherty]

Ivan
Agree with most of your post, but the bit about Agents could be a bit inflammatory. Agents appointed by owners are duty bound to not reveal any sensitive or commercial information, surely.
I know that many of the agents I worked with in my last company knew the c/p rates and if I was on very good terms would occasionally reveal the rates to me.
JA

John, respectfully, I rest my case.