On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:29:37 -0600,
texan....usenet DeleteThis @texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
<l5t1k3ldch7t9hgs8jhjor0bqf4ddj62qs DeleteThis @4ax.com> :
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:17:35 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16 DeleteThis @invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:24 -0600,
>>texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
>><fb8qj3d8q69h9kpqqta77ev4hfhki0eojn DeleteThis @4ax.com> :
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:12:29 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16 DeleteThis @invalid.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>[msge snipped]
>>>
>>>>At the time there was another good lurk for cheap travel going,
>>>>if didn't mind sea travel. By international law, cargo
>>>>freighters had to provide 10 or 12 passenger cabins, but
>>>>they were seldom filled up.
>>>
>>>Cite of the law please and any subsequent alterations.
>>>
>>>Cath
>>
>>Actually, I would regard it as pretty common knowledge, but as
>>time permits I don't mind looking up the original law.
>
>Strange considering the training I have undertaken both in New Zealand
>and in the U.S.A. over a considerable number of years, I have never
>heard of any international law regarding cargo freighters being
>mandated to provide cabins for fare paying passengers.
I am going on information in a good book on cheap travel I read
decades ago.
From memory, the word used at the time was that freighters were
required to provide "accommodation" for 12 persons. If I used
the
word "cabin" I assumed that this wouldn't be in the cargo hold.
[especially on bulk cargo freighters carrying coal, wheat,
etc.... or especially oil tankers
]
Didn't I mention that the original reason for this was to carry
space for the accommodation of a "supercargo"? If you didn't
understand, or don't understand the meaning of the word, it is
easy enough for you to look up.
Supercargo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Supercargo is a term in maritime law (adapted from the Spanish
sobrecargo, one over or in charge of a cargo) that refers to a
person employed on board a vessel by the owner of cargo carried
on the ship. The duties of a supercargo include managing the
cargo owner's trade, selling the merchandise at the ports to
which the vessel is sailing, and buying and receiving goods to be
carried on the return voyage.
He or she has control of the cargo unless limited by his contract
or other agreement. Because a supercargo sails from port to port
with the vessel to which he is attached, he differs from a
factor, who has a fixed place of residence at a port or other
trading place. [this, and more, at]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercargo
I'm sure I didn't mention any requirement for a
a ship to necessarily provide accommodation to fare
paying passengers. This was up to the Captain and
company policy.
I have no idea many shippers send a supercargo, as defined above,
with their loads. Still, if they do, and the ship only has bunk
space for officers and crew, it seems unlikely that the
supercargo would be required to sleep with the cargo or on deck,
or be given a crew bunk and displacing the crew member to
these less-than-desirable locations.
Would the extra accommodation be restricted to just those
acting as a supercargo for a shipper? Very doubtful. A ship
requires a lot of mechanical, electrical, and electronic
equipment.
A mechanical breakdown might make the ship unable to proceed
until the equipment was fixed. They not would only need
experienced mechanics or technicians, and probably spare parts as
well. Naval ships, especially big ones like carriers, not only
carry spares, but have quite elaborate machine shops with
skilled personnel. I doubt that privately owned cargo ships can
afford the extra expense to provide either.
Today if the broke down, they would probably choose to have
the mechanics and parts delivered by helicopter. In which case,
the mechanics or technical personnel brought in wouldn't want to
sleep in the hold or on deck either. So it makes sense to have
some extra accommodation, doesn't it?
We needn't stop here, of course. Ships may have to pick up
survivors from sunken small craft, aircraft, survivors on a
desert island, or whoever. They won't want to sleep in the cargo
hold or on deck either.
There are other possibilities, of course. The ships owners might
want to send one or more employees on a voyage to see if
the existing officers and crew are managing the ship well.
Perhaps the owner or owner might want to send family or
friends on a free voyage?
As an aside:
Families with difficult teenagers who read these lines may see
new possibilities. If they can get the kid aboard a "tramp"
steamer that has no regular schedule, it might take several
months to reach Australia.
Surface mail from Australia to the U.S., was usually carried by
the next freighter or passenger ship due to leave. If the person
sending a parcel didn't want to pay for air mail, they had better
hope that they could get it on a scheduled liner, then it might
get to its destination in a few weeks. Very few passenger liners
these days, though, so it usually went by freighter or tramp
steamer. Have seen this take several months.
Hint to Australian residents: Even airmail isn't the fastest way
to obtain an item from the U.S. It may have to clear Australian
customs, which means that they may have to go down to customs
personally to get it and pay any duty, if chargeable. Or hire
someone to do it for them. If they live outside of Sydney, say
in an inland area, they may have to have a courier pick it up
from customs and bring it out to them.
Fortunately, many years ago United Parcel Services provided a
service to Australia. Several years ago I wanted an computer
related item which simply wasn't available in Australia at the
time.
I had heard of their service, so gave them a toll free call. They
looked up the item and found that no duty was payable
on it. They told me that the would pick up the item from the
manufacturer, and assign it a tracking number. Then they would
put it on a cargo flight, arrange advanced customs clearance,
insurance if I wanted it, and deliver it to my front door. If
I could give them the shipping weight of the item, which I could,
they could give me a per kilo all up cost, which was surprisingly
moderate. At the time, if I wanted to know where my shipment was
could find out by calling the toll free number and just quoting
the tracking number. Later on, they but all this info on a
database, accessible online from a home computer. Type in the
tracking number, and anyone could find out exactly where his
shipment was. Very good system, for every time the article
changed hands the tracking number was recorded. Far better than
any Government mail service!
This info may not be useful to you, but it may be to others
curious enough to read this thread.
To get back to freighter accommodation, though, I suppose they
might even have to carry a government inspector of some sort.
Do you now see why ships were required to provide extra
accommodation?
I didn't say that they "had" to accept fare paying passengers,
just that they often would if they had spare bunks, which they
often did. Why not make a bit of extra money for the ship, the
company, etc? The same reason that international aircraft don't
like to fly without a full passenger load. Why waste the space
and the potential money?
To a freighter, the cost of carrying extra people is negligible.
Most will be happy if they have a bunk and share the crew meals.
As I did state, the freighter companies long ago decided to get
this a bit more organised and allow people who wanted to travel
by freighter to book in advance, rather than waiting to see if
some enterprising traveler would make last minute arrangements
with the Captain.
I just mentioned it in passing as a historical note. I didn't
state that it was still possible to catch such transport today.
I will take the word of the author and publisher of the original
book as to what they said about the possibility at the time.
Another interesting trip they suggested was going down the length
of the Amazon river from the headwaters to the delta. However,
this was by local river transport, and could involve spending
time in ports along the way. Again from memory, they warned
that it could take anything from 3 to 9 months. Still, would be
an interesting trip for many people. No, I don't know if it is
still possible.
They also mentioned that Americans often wanted to travel by
air, but have their own car available on arrival. At the time I
left, could look in the classified ads of any city of a
reasonable
size and find ads wanting a driver to drive their car from, say,
L.A to Chicago. They provided the car, paid for the fuel,
sometimes even a small amount to pay the driver for food and
accommodation. It was a cheap way to get from one large city to
another in the US.
Travel, as you may know, is a balance between money and time.
If a traveler doesn't care how long it takes to get from point
"A" to "B" he can often travel very cheaply. If his time is
limited, then he has to rely on expensive air travel.
>
>I am sure in the units dealing with law, consumer rights, sea
>travel/cruises et al, if it was 'international law', it would have
>been covered as all international law/s in respect to international
>travel by sea or air; as well as New Zealand law [consumer rights et
>al] was covered. Ditto for appropriate U.S. Federal and State laws.
Perhaps you don't realize how laws tend to be much more complex
than they used to be. For instance, at one time any adult could
buy ethyl alcohol , C2H5OH, _Spiritus vini rectificatus_ (SVR)
at any pharmacy, without a prescription.
Around a century ago, passports and visas were generally not
required for travel. In the gold rush days of 150 years ago, I
doubt if prospectors needed any documentation whatsoever
to travel between the US and Australia.
>In fact, FYI, most of the newer ships have been built without cabins
>to accommodate paying passengers.
>
>There are some that do offer often very comfortable accommodations for
>less than it would cost for the same on a cruise ship. And of course,
>many do have restrictions regarding no children under x yo or persons
>over y yo; persons over z but under y must have a doctor's
>certificate; must have insurance etc.
>
>With today's turn-arounds being very short, the time available in a
>port [of call/discharge] can be extremely limited.
>
>
>>As to "all subsequent alterations" that is a bit of an unusual
>>request.
>
>You were the one who brought it up to begin with i.e. you stated
>a] 'by international law' ships were required to have cabins;
>b] the number of cabins each ship was required to have;
>c] the fact they 'were seldom filled up'.
>
> - like you had some 'actual knowledge; of what you were talking
>about.
It would be easier if you just commented on each point of my
posts without snipping or abbreviating it, let alone offering
your interpretation of it.
>
>So based on what you wrote, and thinking you did have some valid
>'knowledge', I just asked for a cite. Surely i f you had
>some prior knowledge, it would be very easy for you to find the
>relevant info would it not?
Not necessarily. I feel it safe to say that every U.S. state has
a law against first degree murder without looking up the laws of
each of the 50 states.
Do you know the boiling point of water in degrees C or F? Ever
determine it for yourself in a chemistry course under the
standard conditions? Or do you just take the word of others for
the information? If I tell someone that pure water boils at
100 C or 212 F, I expect them to believe me. Not only is that is
what the scientific references say, I've experimentally verified
it when took chemistry as an undergraduate.
If ask to give a melting point for ordinary salt, [sodium
chloride, NaCl] I wouldn't remember it offhand, would have to
look it up, but I assume my reference books are correct.
O.K, I claim that the m.p. is 804 degrees C. Believe me?
Most of us accept that cigarette smoking is a contributing factor
to lung cancer. Can we prove that cigarettes cause cancer? Not
really.
Can weather forecasters predict the weather? Um, roughly, within
limits. Can they prove what the weather in Sydney will be two
weeks from now? Nope, they can't even predict that far ahead if
it will rain or not, let alone how much will fall if it does.
there any actual evidence, let alone proof? Not really.
Can the existence of God be proven or disproven? Nope. A matter
of faith, not science. If you are interested in what science can
or cannot prove, I suggest you do some research into the
philosophy of science.
>
>Afterall you have proven how much you like to look up things and post
>the info and/or urls....
Things like the boiling point of water I don't bother to look up.
If I were to give the melting point of salt from memory I might
be inaccurate, so prefer to check it rather than possibly mislead
people.
>
>>How much are you offering me per hour to do your
>>extensive legal research for you?
>>Are you offering an retainer in advance? If so, how much?
>>Not that I am a qualified "barrister", "solicitor" or even a
>>qualified "accountant".
>
>Or qualified at anything else by the sound of it.
You are in error, but that isn't my problem. Am not going to
provide documentation on the net.
>
>>However, if you make an adequate offer, I, or someone else on the
>>group, might refer you to someone else who is suitably qualified.
>>If you have money to waste, am sure that you can find many
>>Aussies in the U.S. who would be pleased to offer you a
>>"quitclaim" deed on their theoretical share of the Sydney Harbour
>>Bridge.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Kangaroo16
>
>>Cheers,
>>Kangaroo16
>
>You were unable to cite or confirm the 'source' of your claim!
>
>Cath
I now have, to my satisfaction.
Perhaps not to yours. Sorry about that....
I really would like to help advance your knowledge,
but it often seems a thankless task.....
Perhaps other readers find our discussions amusing? They
generally amuse me.
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
