Crew change: key worker designation is key

Mr Tunge and Mr Hertel agreed with Mr Ramage’s opening remarks. Mr Hertel said adding remote surveys to the SIRE inspection regime was a useful aid. “But it will not take over the physical inspection of SIRE,” he said.

Mr Tunge tackled the first question, which came from an investor in shipping, who noted only the charterers and cargo owners have the commercial power to pressure governments to create regulations to allow mariner exceptions to Covid travel restrictions. ’Have you (the panel) seen the Cargill’s and Exxon’s of the world apply pressure on governments?’

Mr Tunge noted that under several voyage charters, there is a clause that forbids crew changes. “I find that really unproductive,” he said.

Mr Hertel’s observation was that charterers’ exhibited a lack of common sense when it came to crew change.

This was picked up in the next observation: ’There seems to be a lack of common sense when it comes to crew changeover, especially in the US’.

Mr Tunge gave the example of a crew member urgently required for a vessel in Houston. The crew member was cleared to fly into New York and then was escorted by two security guards on the flight from New York to Houston. This made no sense from a health point of view. He said, “You have to remember that the US is made of 50 states and each has their own ideas.”

An interesting question was proposed from a ship financier: ’As investors, we have engaged with our portfolio companies including charterers, shipping firms and ports to learn more about how they are assisting with the crew change. Could you provide some areas for investors to verify (crew change), so that we can engage with them more actively, instead of a general request of "are you doing the right thing?" Any suggestions on how investors can be of help would also be appreciated.’

Mr Ramage replied that there was IMO protocol on crew change, which could be referred to. Mr Tunge suggested that as investors, they need to address the question to the charterers. One of the stumbling blocks to crew change is the no divert clause. Charterers need to agree with the owner to divert a tanker to allow crew changes to take place.

This is one area that investors can exert some pressure. “This is really something that can be shared (between owner and charterer). It is not only for the owner’s (account). That is my message,” said Mr Tunge.

He reiterated the message of Mr Ramage, that seafarers need to be designated as key workers. “An airline crew can fly around the world and stay in a hotel and fly out the next day,” said Mr Tunge, ”They (seafarers) should be treated like the airline crew, that would be a huge benefit.”

Conversely, if a crew member is taken sick, it may reduce the number of required crew below the crew matrix. The question arose: “What happens if crew member(s) had to come ashore and the ship no longer meets the minimum crew requirement?”

Mr Ramage noted that this had actually happened and in these cases the ship can have special dispensation to sail, but the relief crew member has to join at the next port. The factors allowing the ship to do this include where the ship is trading, the length of the voyage and rank of the individual – this is not an option available for a missing Master or Chief Engineer except in force majeure.

For Riviera’s Tanker Shipping & Trade Conference, Americas in 2021, you can register interest here