3 ms·

I'm not entirely understanding this. If the ships are genuinely abandoned, what stops the crew from making them their own and/or selling them? Is it simply the

I'm not entirely understanding this. If the ships are genuinely abandoned, what stops the crew from making them their own and/or selling them? Is it simply the paperwork or what?

giraffe_lady 2y ago
They're still paying the necessary fees to keep control of the ship, because otherwise local authorities or a creditor or whatever would seize it. They simply stopped paying the crew because the consequences of that are avoidable or acceptable to them.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  To put it more bluntly, they're afraid of their creditors, because their creditors can get justice, because the justice system requires money to effectively use. The workers don't have money, so they aren't a threat.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  They don't pay them. If you want an example look up the ship involved in the Beiruit explosion.
throwaway48476 2y ago
When you factor in liabilities the value of the ship can be negative. Often there are port fees that the shipper doesn't pay and because they're in a different country they're unserviceable so the port takes the crew hostage.
vkou 2y ago
They'll be tried as mutineers and pirates. Marine law is optimized for the well-being of ship owners, not anyone else.
david_allison 2y ago
FTA: Even if they did sell the ship, it often won't make the workers whole > 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.
fnordfnordfnord 2y ago
At the time of abandonment, the ship may not be seaworthy. If it requires more repairs or fuel than the crew can afford from their own resources, then they cannot move the ship.
chiph 2y ago
Often the crew don't have visas for the country where the ship was abandoned. So they can't transit from the port to the nearest airport and then home unless Customs/Immigration agree to allow it. 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-community-reaches-out-to-recently-sold-m-v-evolution/ https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/charleston-communit...
- ethbr1 2y ago
  This seems like the failure: abuse of shipping/visa exemptions. 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.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Why would that country care? 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.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      At the point the ship has been allowed to dock, due diligence on the owner/papers should have already been performed. If that process fails, it should be improved at that stage. It seems inhumane from an ethical perspective to essentially maroon a person on an abandoned ship, simply because it's slightly more convenient.

I'm not entirely understanding this. If the ships are genuinely abandoned, what stops the crew from making them their own and/or selling them? Is it simply the paperwork or what?

giraffe_lady 2y ago

They're still paying the necessary fees to keep control of the ship, because otherwise local authorities or a creditor or whatever would seize it. They simply stopped paying the crew because the consequences of that are avoidable or acceptable to them.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
To put it more bluntly, they're afraid of their creditors, because their creditors can get justice, because the justice system requires money to effectively use. The workers don't have money, so they aren't a threat.
throwaway48476 2y ago
They don't pay them. If you want an example look up the ship involved in the Beiruit explosion.

throwaway48476 2y ago

When you factor in liabilities the value of the ship can be negative. Often there are port fees that the shipper doesn't pay and because they're in a different country they're unserviceable so the port takes the crew hostage.

vkou 2y ago

They'll be tried as mutineers and pirates. Marine law is optimized for the well-being of ship owners, not anyone else.

david_allison 2y ago

FTA: Even if they did sell the ship, it often won't make the workers whole > 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.

fnordfnordfnord 2y ago

At the time of abandonment, the ship may not be seaworthy. If it requires more repairs or fuel than the crew can afford from their own resources, then they cannot move the ship.

chiph 2y ago

Often the crew don't have visas for the country where the ship was abandoned. So they can't transit from the port to the nearest airport and then home unless Customs/Immigration agree to allow it. 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-community-reaches-out-to-recently-sold-m-v-evolution/ https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/charleston-communit...

ethbr1 2y ago
This seems like the failure: abuse of shipping/visa exemptions. 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.
- lazide 2y ago
  Why would that country care? 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.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    At the point the ship has been allowed to dock, due diligence on the owner/papers should have already been performed. If that process fails, it should be improved at that stage. It seems inhumane from an ethical perspective to essentially maroon a person on an abandoned ship, simply because it's slightly more convenient.