Respone each  with 110  Response 1: According to Investopedia it defines the Jones Act as a legislation that regulates maritime commerce between U.S. cities. The Jones Act is found in Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. The act required that goods and passengers transported by water between U.S. ports be done in U.S.-made ships, owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by U.S. citizens. The Jones Act also provided sailors with additional rights, including the ability to seek damages from the crew, captain or ship owner in the case of injury. “Some provisions of the Jones Act are considered to be protectionist in nature as it requires ships to be U.S.-flagged, crewed and owned. This may price ship builders and operating companies out of the international market because the added expense and higher labor costs make companies less competitive. Today, at least 75% of a ship's crew must be comprised of U.S. citizens.” I am totally against the Jones Act because it limits many job opportunities and not allowed legal immigrants with maritime experiences to do business domestically. There are several legal immigrants that are highly skilled and know how to navigate the open seas. Therefore, the Jones Act would be more diversify and beneficial if allowed legal immigrants to bring their ideas to the table. For me I think if you are qualified and your ship passed a safety inspection whether it was U.S. made ship or not it should be able to navigate between ports. The more diversify a business is the better it will grow due to the fact that everybody brings different ideas to the table. In my opinion I think they should get rid of the Jones Act and I think the Jones Act is obsolete.   Jones Act is a maritime law that was enacted in the 1920s to address Seamen’s industrial injury dispute with vessel owners with a no fault determination before service and a minimum of 31 months wait period for benefit. It also addressed the issue of ship flagging and domestic commerce with the United States territorial waters. The Jones act defines a seaman as an employee of a sea vessel that spends a minimum of seventy (70%) of their time working on a vessel at sea keeping the MTS ( maritime transportation system) functioning smoothly in the support of commerce, developing security capabilities, shipment loading/unloading to provide efficiency benefits (TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, 2004). The Act as a g eneral maritime law provided seamen a no-fault short-term benefits that was less extensive than those provided by industrial insurance for disabled employees. The Jones Act and general maritime law gave seamen the right to sue for damages – a right that is not extended to employees under industrial insurance or workers compensation insurance. The Jones Act does not cover Long-term disability, pensions, vocational training, and survivor benefits for the seamen. It is interesting to know that there is no payroll deduction under the Jones Act. Presumably, the seam.

1. Respone each with 110
Response 1:
According to Investopedia it defines the Jones Act as a
legislation that regulates maritime commerce between U.S.
cities. The Jones Act is found in Section 27 of the Merchant
Marine Act of 1920. The act required that goods and passengers
transported by water between U.S. ports be done in U.S.-made
ships, owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by U.S. citizens. The
Jones Act also provided sailors with additional rights, including
the ability to seek damages from the crew, captain or ship
owner in the case of injury.
“Some provisions of the Jones Act are considered to be
protectionist in nature as it requires ships to be U.S.-flagged,
crewed and owned. This may price ship builders and operating
companies out of the international market because the added
expense and higher labor costs make companies less
competitive. Today, at least 75% of a ship's crew must be
comprised of U.S. citizens.”
I am totally against the Jones Act because it limits many job
opportunities and not allowed legal immigrants with maritime
experiences to do business domestically. There are several legal
immigrants that are highly skilled and know how to navigate the
open seas. Therefore, the Jones Act would be more diversify
and beneficial if allowed legal immigrants to bring their ideas
to the table. For me I think if you are qualified and your ship
passed a safety inspection whether it was U.S. made ship or not
it should be able to navigate between ports. The more diversify
a business is the better it will grow due to the fact that
everybody brings different ideas to the table. In my opinion I
think they should get rid of the Jones Act and I think the Jones
Act is obsolete.

2. Jones Act is a maritime law that was enacted in the 1920s to
address Seamen’s industrial injury dispute with vessel owners
with a no fault determination before service and a minimum of
31 months wait period for benefit. It also addressed the issue of
ship flagging and domestic commerce with the United States
territorial waters. The Jones act defines a seaman as an
employee of a sea vessel that spends a minimum of seventy
(70%) of their time working on a vessel at sea
keeping the MTS (
maritime transportation system) functioning smoothly in the
support of commerce, developing security capabilities, shipment
loading/unloading to provide efficiency benefits
(TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, 2004).
The Act as a g
eneral maritime law provided seamen a no-fault short-term
benefits that was less extensive than those provided by
industrial insurance for disabled employees. The Jones Act and
general maritime law gave seamen the right to sue for damages
– a right that is not extended to employees under industrial
insurance or workers compensation insurance. The Jones Act
does not cover Long-term disability, pensions, vocational
training, and survivor benefits for the seamen. It is interesting
to know that there is no payroll deduction under the Jones Act.
Presumably, the seamen’s right under Jones Act/General
Maritime Law to sue the employers for industrial disability
compensation has a major drawback, even though they can get a
larger – total payout amount, but ironically, these employees
have to wait an average of 31 months between the incidence
occurrence, and the receipt of their settlement which usually
impose undue hardship on the employees (
Final Jones Act Report
).
The new policy options proposed after the repeal of Jones
Act proposed that we enact regulations to substantially reduce

3. freight rates aimed at enhancing the previous legislation using
statutes to address other maritime concerns. Vessel operators
had a choice to choose an alternative among various suppliers
when procuring goods and services they need for their vessel
operations thus giving themselves comparative cost advantage
for the individual destinations. Majority of the larger ports, for
instance, have cheap fueling services at their ports even if these
services are not provided, the ships can choose to use bunkering
services at alternative destinations. If one country alone is able
to offer that level of service to other nations, they would have
the competitive advantages from that country but unfortunately
they cannot because it will violate the maritime law. Jones Act
also is a broad-based federal legislation and regulations that
protects air and water quality, ecosystem functions, wildlife and
their habitats. The Marine Transportation System and the
Federal Role under the Jones Act have since evolved prompting
several changes in marine transportation demand, operations,
and infrastructure. The jones Act had also promoted a number
of statutory and regulatory requirements focused on marine
transportation, and the federal requirements for the safe
disposal of dredged materials from water ways, highlight
regulations on air, emissions from ship engines, and the
treatment of ballast water to prevent the spread of harmful, and
invasive species (TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD,
2004). A country hosting competitive insurance service
providers does not reduce maritime transport costs on vessel
services within the shipping network rather other factors effect
ship operating costs and freight rates like
1). Developing coastal Shipping-Countries can operate as an
open market with very little regulation other than relevant
international rules on carrier liability, security and safety. The
exception to this rule is that they still have to obtain these
services through the design of ship registration infrastructural
investments such as the development of a feeder port network.
(In a market where cabotage is restricted to domestic carriers

4. only, ship operators have no choice but to comply with the
country’s regulatory set up) which would directly impact
operating costs. The is not future potential that the United
States Department of Transportation will open up Cabotage to
international shipping lines even with a prospect of creating
diversity and fostering further reduction in freight rates for
shippers. However, most countries often give cabotage rights
exclusively to their domestic carriers with the aim of protecting
and promoting their national shipping industry.
2). Another way of supporting cabotage is to expand the
country’s feeder port networks to facilitate the access of traders
to coastal shipping, and prod them to shift their logistical
operations from land to maritime transports. The fact is that the
increased volumes would lead to higher utilization rates and
lower freight rates thus developing port competitiveness.
Response 2:
The Jones Act, enacted in 1920, brought about critical
legislation that required ships transiting materials and
passengers between two U.S. ports to be under the primary
operational control of U.S. citizens. This act was implemented
to ensure the integrity of the U.S. economy and the protection
of U.S. water ports. Some of the issues addressed by the Jones
Act include the taxation of domestic carriers and shipyards
which contribute to the U.S. economy, enforcement of
environmental standards set by U.S. regulations and quality of
vessel staff, which are trained and monitored per U.S. policy
(Transportation Institute, n.d.).
While some of the intentions of the Jones Act listed above are
undoubtedly beneficial to the U.S., there is a question as to the
current relevance and positive impact in our country’s economy
as it stands today. The Jones Act requires that at least 75
percent of the crew on board a vessel transiting between two

5. U.S. ports be made up of U.S. citizens, in addition to 75 percent
ownership of the vessel being U.S. controlled itself. While this
requirement is beneficial for ensuring that U.S. jobs are going
to U.S. citizens, the effects of this policy can have a negative
impact on the labor pool and operating costs as well. The
emphasis on providing U.S. jobs to U.S. citizens is important
and the ability to ensure that manufacturing capabilities for
U.S. made machinery can benefit the U.S. economy are both
qualifiers that should be taken into consideration in the nation’s
best interest. However, modifying the Jones Act to be less
restrictive in some areas should still make it possible for the
United States to remain successful in the areas of trade and
employment, while incorporating the capabilities of
manufacturing and job opportunities from the rest of the world’s
global trade infrastructure.
My question to the class is this… Do you think that the Jones
Act helps or hinders the cost of trade and logistics for U.S.
consumers?
Response 3:
There are many critics of the Jones Act —the law requiring all
maritime commerce between U.S. ports to be carried on ships
built, crewed and owned by Americans—who believe the law
has outlived its purpose because it costs millions to maintain
the status quo which is to sustain maritime industry which needs
to be available during national emergencies or wartime.
However, the fleet of vessels originally assigned to provide the
support during wartime and national emergency are either gone
by almost half or in real bad shape. A good example of the
state of deterioration of these vessels is the 40 year-old El Faro,
a cargo ship servicing Puerto Rico sank and the whole crew
perished. The Coast Guard called this incident one of worst
maritime disasters in U.S. history.

6. There are two reasons why the U.S. shipbuilding industry has
fallen behind the rest of the world and the big shipbuilding
powerhouses like China, South Korea, and Japan to name a few.
The price to build a container ship in the United States is
double what it will cost in other parts of the world. Secondly,
to crew a vessel with U.S. mariners (American crew) is also
more expensive than a foreign crew.
The national security argument for the Jones Act fleet has also
come under attack because the United States used foreign flag
vessels during the first Gulf War and many of the sanctioned
vessels under the Jones Act were not fully utilized to the extent
called for under the law.
With said, I think the U.S. needs to revise the Jones Act and
update some of its mandates to better accommodate the changes
that have occurred over the past 100 years and allow for more
openness to all. I do not think there is enough will in Congress
to abolish it completely.