Illegal Charters

[CPseudonym]

The fractal mistake of this thread is believing the myth a free market exists at all. We live in a structured and managed economy.

 

[BandB]

The fractal mistake of this thread is believing the myth a free market exists at all. We live in a structured and managed economy.

And more of a mistake is believing one is desirable. Do we want unlicensed surgeons or pilots? Of course not. So clearly we require some regulations. It's a matter of how many.

 

[Baker]

Most interesting, to me, was that it is the trade association complaining that their unlicensed competition is subjecting the public to danger. That may be, but I suspect that, like most trade associations, their real concern is having to compete. Reminds me of how taxi-cab companies / associations have complained (with surprisingly little success) about the dangers to the public of their unlicensed competition from Uber. From my perspective, competition is a good thing for the consumer and the consumer ought to be able to make his/her own decision about these matters.

Would you feel the same way about air travel????

 

[twistedtree]

Getting away from the philosophical, and back to the concrete, I would still love to hear an example of an illegal operation. What exactly are they doing that is against the law? I don't understand what they are doing, nor what law it violates. And let's stick to these small/medium operators alluded to in the article, not the big cruise lines - though they would be a whole other interesting topic.

 

[Gdavid]

I believe we are having parallel conversations at this point. There is a pretty significant difference between:
A. Government regulated industry where a government entity controls pricing and/or limits the illegible participants without regard to qualifications
B. Regulations pertaining to safety, environmental impact, insurance requirements, qualifications (education, testing, accreditation, etc) that everyone must follow

 

[Ski in NC]

..... but you aren't arguing that some regulation improves safety are you?

No, of course not. The last bit of my post made that very point.

If we had capitalism and no regulation, an efficient way to limit your competition would be to go shoot your competitors. No one is advocating such a free-for-all.

But it can be taken to absurd levels in the other direction, too. We have seen some of that.

 

[MYTraveler]

. . .Here are some areas where the free market . . . failed from a societal point of view.
- The oil company monopolies in the early part of the last century.
- Working conditions and worker abuses during the industrial revolution.
- Health care insurance industry.
- Civil rights (ie red-lining etc...)
- Environmental impacts from industry (I grew up playing in arsenic and heavy metal contaminated soil from the free market smelting industry)
- Loss of fishing stocks
- banking and financial collapses in the last century and the beginning of this century.

While it may be true that if an airline had a lot of accidents that eventually the market would correct by folks not flying on those airlines. However, how many lives would be an acceptable loss before the market made the correction?

Free markets are a great concept that I basically agree with, however one should never be blinded to the very real, and very bad effects of free market excesses.

Most of the problems you point to are the result of excessive / stupid regulation, including particularly the recent collapse of financial markets. I recognize (as referenced in my post) that free markets don't protect against the "tragedy of the commons", and that regulation is therefore necessary to protect against environmental impacts (including the loss of fishing stocks).

As far as civil rights and redlining, I don't believe there is any credible evidence that redlining was motivated by anything other than the profit motive. To the contrary, its biggest critics think it is not fair and therefore which to help one group (the high risk group) at the expense of another. The government is not good at that, and rarely foresees the inevitable, but unintended consequences. I will stick with capitalism and freedom.

Regarding airline price regulation, perhaps my point wasn't clear: those regulations (the regulations setting a floor price, not safety regulations) were encouraged by the airlines themselves as being necessary to protect safety. In retrospect, they clearly were not and served only to enhance airline profits at the expense of consumers. As far as the concern that regulations are necessary to incentivize airlines to properly maintain there planes, I believe the free markets would do a better job, but since regulations already exist to shield airlines from negligence liability to a ridiculously large extent, the free market is not allowed to operate.

Some people don't like free markets because it produces winners and losers. I liked capitalism since before enjoying any level of success.

 

[dhays]

No, of course not. The last bit of my post made that very point.



If we had capitalism and no regulation, an efficient way to limit your competition would be to go shoot your competitors. No one is advocating such a free-for-all.



But it can be taken to absurd levels in the other direction, too. We have seen some of that.

I agree completely.

 

[dhays]

Some people don't like free markets because it produces winners and losers. I liked capitalism since before enjoying any level of success. Your comment about oil monopolies producing wealth suggests that you may resent the winners?

I don't resent winners. However a monopoly can lock up a market and prevent competition. It no longer is a free market.

 

[BruceK]

I agree that no amount of regulation can make any industry perfectly safe, but you aren't arguing that some regulation improves safety are you?

Agree. Some gain from regulation, even if imperfect, is worth having.

 

[BruceK]

While it may be true that if an airline had a lot of accidents that eventually the market would correct by folks not flying on those airlines. However, how many lives would be an acceptable loss before the market made the correction?

Free markets are a great concept that I basically agree with, however one should never be blinded to the very real, and very bad effects of free market excesses.

One Asian airline, maybe 2, got to that stage. I remember news film of a man standing on the nose section of a crashed 747, using spray cans to cover up the airline name. Both airlines got serious about safety.
But it`s no reason to wait until a lot of people die to regulate.

 

[MYTraveler]

I don't resent winners.

I realized commenting about you, personally, was impolite so I edited that out of my post, apparently while you were preparing your response. In any event, I recognize that how you feel about others is none of my business.

 

[Gdavid]

I don't resent winners.

I resent winters

 

[dhays]

I realized commenting about you, personally, was impolite so I edited that out of my post, apparently while you were preparing your response. In any event, I recognize that how you feel about others is none of my business.

I didn't take any offense at all. No worries.

 

[ancora]

We have an unlicensed charterer (harbor cruises) in our yacht club marina. The club knows about it (even though it illegal to use a club slip for commercial purposes), and the CG knows about it, (got stopped once, got off with a warnin'.) This will be his third year as an illegal charterer and no one cares.

 

[BandB]

The question has recurred of the actual violations being committed as the article seems to run off in all directions as bad as a TF thread.

Two primary violations of USCG rules:

1-Captain not licensed and/or boat not approved for charter. There's still an inspection and sign off, even of non-inspected vessels.

2-Captain and boat ok for up to 6, carrying more.

Both of these are seen rather frequently.

Now, there are variations as to how they occur. The most common is a fake bareboat charter. It's made to look on paper like the boat is being chartered without crew, which is legal, but then the owner captains it, making it illegal. This is also springing up a lot on the boat rental sites. Often someone wants to rent it, but then they bring up the question of would the owner go with them since they don't have a lot of experience.They crossed from legal to not.

Why is each of these important? First, the "Captain" has already shown a lack of concern regarding laws. What about pfd's, fire extinguishers? What about first aid training? What about handling in rough conditions? Then you go with the second group and exceeding 6, is that even a reasonable number for the boat in a chartering situation? 12 people might fit on a Sundancer 350, but one is not a safe charter with that many. The Captain can't keep up with them all and fulfill his responsibility.

Then when something goes wrong, there is no insurance. Even if they had it, insurance bails out very quickly on those chartering illegally.

We're also thinking larger boats, but this happens on all sorts of boats. I saw it years ago on the lake on a small pontoon boat. Someone was looking to rent a pontoon boat with a captain, but none was available. A man at the marina said he'd take them out. They seemed like a nice group and he had nothing better to do plus making a little money. Mid day they anchored for a swim. A girl got injured jumping into the water, hit her head and nearly drowned. Insurance denied the claim. The family's medical insurance paid and came after the boat owner. The claim for actual damages was over $120k. Nice guy, did one stupid careless thing, and he and his wife ended up having to file bankruptcy to save their house. Divorce also followed closely. Oh, the family that chartered that boat that day had even said that they wouldn't tell anyone they paid, just pretend they were friends. That lasted about five minutes once questioning started.

When someone, anyone, operates outside the law, then all the protections one gets within the law quickly disappear.

 

[BandB]

We have an unlicensed charterer (harbor cruises) in our yacht club marina. The club knows about it (even though it illegal to use a club slip for commercial purposes), and the CG knows about it, (got stopped once, got off with a warnin'.) This will be his third year as an illegal charterer and no one cares.

Oh my. Maybe no one will ever care. However, something happens and not just the charterer will have problems, the yacht club may too when it's proven they knew and facilitated. This isn't the same level or type thing, but legally similarities-someone sells drugs from your property. You don't know they're doing it so no liability on your part. You know and allow them to continue, you have liability and could even lose the property.

 

[twistedtree]

We have an unlicensed charterer (harbor cruises) in our yacht club marina. The club knows about it (even though it illegal to use a club slip for commercial purposes), and the CG knows about it, (got stopped once, got off with a warnin'.) This will be his third year as an illegal charterer and no one cares.

"unlicensed" as in the captain has no USCG license? Or they are carrying more than 6 people on an un-inspected boat? Or something else.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to dispute these things - just trying to understand what the exact violation is.

A simple complaint to the USCG should resolve it. I think they have an obligation to enforce those laws.

 

[twistedtree]

The question has recurred of the actual violations being committed as the article seems to run off in all directions as bad as a TF thread.

Two primary violations of USCG rules:

1-Captain not licensed and/or boat not approved for charter. There's still an inspection and sign off, even of non-inspected vessels.

2-Captain and boat ok for up to 6, carrying more.

Both of these are seen rather frequently.

Now, there are variations as to how they occur. The most common is a fake bareboat charter. It's made to look on paper like the boat is being chartered without crew, which is legal, but then the owner captains it, making it illegal. This is also springing up a lot on the boat rental sites. Often someone wants to rent it, but then they bring up the question of would the owner go with them since they don't have a lot of experience.They crossed from legal to not.

Why is each of these important? First, the "Captain" has already shown a lack of concern regarding laws. What about pfd's, fire extinguishers? What about first aid training? What about handling in rough conditions? Then you go with the second group and exceeding 6, is that even a reasonable number for the boat in a chartering situation? 12 people might fit on a Sundancer 350, but one is not a safe charter with that many. The Captain can't keep up with them all and fulfill his responsibility.

Then when something goes wrong, there is no insurance. Even if they had it, insurance bails out very quickly on those chartering illegally.

We're also thinking larger boats, but this happens on all sorts of boats. I saw it years ago on the lake on a small pontoon boat. Someone was looking to rent a pontoon boat with a captain, but none was available. A man at the marina said he'd take them out. They seemed like a nice group and he had nothing better to do plus making a little money. Mid day they anchored for a swim. A girl got injured jumping into the water, hit her head and nearly drowned. Insurance denied the claim. The family's medical insurance paid and came after the boat owner. The claim for actual damages was over $120k. Nice guy, did one stupid careless thing, and he and his wife ended up having to file bankruptcy to save their house. Divorce also followed closely. Oh, the family that chartered that boat that day had even said that they wouldn't tell anyone they paid, just pretend they were friends. That lasted about five minutes once questioning started.

When someone, anyone, operates outside the law, then all the protections one gets within the law quickly disappear.

Those all seem like simple, clear infractions. So the problem seems to be enforcement. The comment about asking to see the captain's license and vessel inspection certificate I think is ridiculous. When you board an aircraft or train, do you ask to see their license and the craft's airworthiness certificate? The agency, in this case the USCG I presume, needs to police this. People get boarded all the time. And if other boat operators think someone is operating illegally, report them. I don't see any need for new laws, or any problem with the existing laws.

 

[markpierce]

Gonna get you. (Got a thirty-calibre machine gun, an M-14 22-calibre rifle, a twelve-gauge shotgun, and several semi-automatic pistols. What's your story?)

 

[FF]

Do we want unlicensed surgeons or pilots?

We already have Air France , with "licensed pilots" that can not recognize a simple stall.

 

[MYTraveler]

Do we want unlicensed surgeons or pilots?

We already have Air France , with "licensed pilots" that can not recognize a simple stall.

In my opinion, we want well qualified surgeons and pilots. Because licensing is required, we tend to take the license as a sign of qualification but actually know little more about the surgeon's / pilot's actual qualifications. Imagine a world without governmental licensing. What would a consumer do? Well, free market to the rescue. For example, airlines would discern the value of having great pilots and would tout their own standards -- perhaps something like "All of our pilots are former military aviators, and have XXX hours, etc." That would actually spur competition for pilot quality -- competition that doesn't exist today.

 

[dhays]

In my opinion, we want well qualified surgeons and pilots. Because licensing is required, we tend to take the license as a sign of qualification but actually know little more about the surgeon's / pilot's actual qualifications. Imagine a world without governmental licensing. What would a consumer do? Well, free market to the rescue. For example, airlines would discern the value of having great pilots and would tout their own standards -- perhaps something like "All of our pilots are former military aviators, and have XXX hours, etc." That would actually spur competition for pilot quality -- competition that doesn't exist today.

Without government regulation, there would be no requirement that those claims would be true. Who else would ensure that the claims are true, the market? The market can't even keep up with all the falsehoods from our President, let alone every company.

I also know that consumers are terrible at judging the competence of their physicians. I have heard patients complain about how bad a physician is when I know for a fact that they are an excellent clinician. Likewise I have seen patients praise some who I think are woefully incompetent. All they can really determine is if they like and trust the individual, they have no way to know their competence outside of credentials.

 

[CPseudonym]

Some of y'all never heard of yelp.com

Some of us use that website and others before we make any medical, legal or other professional services appointment. It's called one part of making an informed choice and happens to be a free market solution to finding out what state licensing boards are all to good at hiding from the general public.

 

[Baker]

When you board an aircraft...., do you ask to see their license and the craft's airworthiness certificate?

No you do not because it is HIGHLY regulated and policed...which is what you are advocating against.

 

[Baker]

In my opinion, we want well qualified surgeons and pilots. Because licensing is required, we tend to take the license as a sign of qualification but actually know little more about the surgeon's / pilot's actual qualifications. Imagine a world without governmental licensing. What would a consumer do? Well, free market to the rescue. For example, airlines would discern the value of having great pilots and would tout their own standards -- perhaps something like "All of our pilots are former military aviators, and have XXX hours, etc." That would actually spur competition for pilot quality -- competition that doesn't exist today.

There are very strict qualifications for pilots of airliners. And the licensing requires certain qualifications. And those qualifications are available to the public. If it was left up to the "free market" without any sort of licensing, it would be raining aluminum and bodies. I do understand where you are coming from. But you are taking it to the extreme here and not being realistic at all.

 

[Seevee]

This is an interesting discussion, with a few differences of opinion.

I'm totally against govmt regulation and rules and laws, with the only exception to protect the people of this country. And that's the only job the government was hired for.

We have seen way too many regulations, rules, restrictions and privacy invasions by the government, mostly a bogus excuse for a power and money grab.

I've seen the charter situation in aviation go from bad to worse to ridiculous. I used to be in that business and it was fine... 25 years ago. Hope the marine charter business doesn't go that way.

What is reasonable?
The captain should be licenses, with a license that shows that he knows how to operate a safe boat, period. That would put him in the position of knowing the boat and the operation were safe.

Also, the buyer (customer) should exercise some due diligence with any activity they partake in and realize that with any moving object, there are risks.

 

[dhays]

Some of y'all never heard of yelp.com

Some of us use that website and others before we make any medical, legal or other professional services appointment. It's called one part of making an informed choice and happens to be a free market solution to finding out what state licensing boards are all to good at hiding from the general public.

Yelp can be helpful but again, you are asking the generally uninformed public to make decisions about something they know nothing about.

Say you have a cold with chest congestion. You may have acute bronchitis. You go to a Doc and tell him/her you are sick and you want him/her to give you something to get well. The Doc does an exam and determines that you have acute bronchitis due to a viral infection. The Doc then tells you that antibiotics will not cure you, will not make you feel better, and that rest, fluids, an OTC expectorant, and time are the only things that will help.

You go away unhappy because you didn't get that prescription for an antibiotic that you friend got from another doctor. So you fire up Yelp and leave a review complaining that the Doc didn't know what they were doing, didn't listen to you properly, and even had the nerve to charge you for the visit! It is obvious the Doc is a quack and should be avoided at all costs.

So, what is the Doc supposed to do with that review? Federal laws prohibit them from discussing you and your case in an open forum. They can't even acknowledge that you are a patient without a signed release naming everyone who may read it.

In the mean time, some poor schmuck reads that review and decides they are going to avoid that Doc because they got a negative review.

Simply put, it is stupid to have lay folks write reviews about things which they know nothing about. A few days ago we were asked about marine surveyors in the Everett area. I replied that I was happy with mine. However, I didn't claim that they were a good surveyor because I honestly have no idea. I only know that I was happy with the experience and so far have not found many unidentified problems.

Want to know how I really feel?

 

[MYTraveler]

Without government regulation, there would be no requirement that those claims would be true.

Not true. Not only can individuals sue, but where the injury is minor, class actions can be brought. And the penalties for intentional fraud can be severe. It is worth noting that one of the best defenses cigarette companies had is that they complied with all governmental regulation.

I also know that consumers are terrible at judging the competence of their physicians.

Again, free market to the rescue -- consumers can hire an expert to sort it all out. The free market isn't perfect, but it beats the pants off any alternative and is single-highhandedly responsible for the great wealth our economy produced in the last century. Time to make America great again.

 

[MYTraveler]

So, what is the Doc supposed to do with that review? Federal laws prohibit . . .

Once again, regulation is the root of the problem.