Current day rate for Captains?

You've combined two situations. The owner of a 75' Viking can certainly afford the going rate for captains. We're talking about a boat that burns over 100gph (that's almost $500 per hour) and who pays his mechanic (current rate here) $168 per hour including travel time. This owner is not poverty stricken.
In the other case you're talking about an owner who pays his loyal employee of 7 years 50% of the going rate and doesn't seem to care if he comes or goes. I'm sure that captain is just biding his time now while he looks for another situation since apparently he is just a "body" where he is now. As for the auto camparrison, he's already bought the "car". Now we're talking about paying the mechanic and car washer. They don't lower their fees just because he bought too expensive a car.

Hi,

There are a lot of unknown things here.

There has never been any details of the job description other than to say it was Captain of a 75 footer.

This might be a boat that sits at the dock year round.

The Owner might be down on hs luck and rather than sell the boat into a very weak market just lets it sit and doesn't spend anything on mainetenace or pay movie star wages to his Captain/ Caretaker.

He could also be one of these Owners that having bought the boat just runs it into the ground.

He could also be an ex Sailboat Owner.......

Thank You Seafarer I don't have deep pocket as NYCAP123 thinks.
As far as My Captain He wanted to come back and I wanted him back. He is more then my Captain, He has also become me and my family close friend. I also never said what I am paying him. NYCAP123 you throw out all kinds of number, which some my be accurate and others seem way off. All I said and what this post started out was current DAY rates for captains. On the West coast, day rates for Captain run 250 to 300 per day.
As also stated,That I am taking advantage of my Captain He gets more then 50% of going rate, which is ?? But He will also get a raise when are old boat sells. As I have just become a 2 boat owner and in this economy I am a little worried. As the boat I just purchased was a bank repo. Another owner that also did not have deep pockets. Along with many more owner with out deep pockets, as the bank also has lots more repos for sale at great prices!!!!

All of this says hire someone to come by and check on the boat. As in the case of some of my boats, I'm paid a monthly stipend to manage the boat, but when we cruise I get a very handsome salary because that is what the job is worth. In fact some pay far in excess of the money we've been talking about...by their choice. It's also what I need to pay my bills (In case nobody noticed this has become a very expensive world during the past couple of years) and what someone else will pay which means I can't be available unless he pays as much as others will. As far as the 75, that's a Viking. That says a lot. As far as the owner being down on his luck because he's got 2 boats or whatever, that goes back to the auto scenario. Does his mechanic take less? Does he pay less for fuel? If he doesn't pay what another boater is willing to pay he'll simply find that the captain isn't available. And if you consider your 7 year captain a "close friend" (which you should) then his welfare should be a very high priority to you. If you cruise one hour less or pull back the throtles just a little or even go to a slightly less expensive restaurant occassionally that would probably cover the salary shortfall. Does anybody think a captain can afford to cut back his lifestyle more than a boat owner can?
We're not talking about gouging anyone here. We're talking about paying a salary representing the cost of living in 2008 so the owner can enjoy a luxury in safety.

Have you noticed that a lot of boats spent more time at the dock and less time underway this season? In watching the river here, and oing out along the CT coast, I even noticed a lot of mid-size (45-65') boats that stayed on the hard, last year's shrinkwrap unmolested. That's not a sign of flush times, or deep pockets.

Poverty stricken or not, $15,000 is not an insignificant chunk of change. $15,000 may be the difference of having her hauled or trying to winter over in the water. $15,000 is critical maintenance deferred. That $15,000 may be the differnce between the captain having a job year-round or sending his resume out once the owner doesn't have the money to keep paying him. A 25% increase is a 25% increase no matter how you look at it, and I don't know if you can swing a 25% increase in your monthly fixed costs, but not many of us have that ability.

Just because an owner has some money doesn't mean that money is endless.

In many cases, yes a mechanic will negotiate his hourly rate, or run a flat rate for certain jobs, or not bill an hour for every 15 minute thing he does on the boat. All it takes is the willingness to ask the the frankness to explain why. A mechanic is more willing to get something for his work than risk getting nothing - can't buy steak on a hot dog budget and all that. In some cases, he can pay less for fuel by working out a deal on a steady payment plan - int he winter months he's not burning diesel, but he's paying for what he burned over the summer. A budget plan, just like the utilities and fuel oil dealers offer regular folks every year.

Squeezing a stone 'til you get blood, just because that stone has a Viking 75, is a foolish proposition. You don't know the owner's situation, or even how he came to own the boat. All you've got is assumptions, and I'm sure you know the old adage about a-s-s-u-m-e.

Yes a 25% increase is a lot of money over what was paid 3 or 4 years ago. Just ask the captain who can't afford a million dollar toy because he is trying to pay his heating bill (that jumped 60%) and put gas (which I can't even calculate the jump) in his car or pay his mortgage that just skyrocketed or his school taxes or his health insurance. Unfortunately, all of those things didn't care that the captain didn't have deep pockets. Look at the car your captain drives, and look at his home. Which of you can better afford to take the hit. Again, we're not talking about gouging anyone. We're talking about paying a wage based on life in 2008 so you can enjoy a luxury.

Hi,

NYCAP- You have hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to explain.

You seem intent to get wound up and wind up as many other posters as you can without knowing all the facts.

The Owner might only use the boat for a couple of months of the year and it sits the rest of the time.

$60k would seem like a reasonable amount to do that.

There is an old saying about not squeezing the goose that laid the golden egg, I see it regularly on the boats I am involved in hence some of the changes of recent years.

In that situation 60K would be more than fair. In fact he doesn't need a full time captain, just someone to check on the boat. That he could get for 10K. Heck it wouldn't even need to be a captain, in fact he'd probably be better off with a mechanic or a detailer or a dock worker checking on it. We're talking captains here doing a captain's job. When I step on board a boat I'm working till I step off and taking a big responsibility in my hands. These are hands with 20 years of professional experience and a license. My days often run 12 to 15 hours. Most days I agree that I am paid way too much though because it's a great job, but then there are those days when I'm not sure if I'll live to see tomorrow and there is not enough money in the world to make it worth it. It all balances out. I have to assume that a 75 Viking does a fair amount of cruising and the captain will be responsible to keep it spit shined and managed. If she's a SF that's a whole other kettle of fish (pun intended). If I give (3 hr.) lessons I can do 3 to 4 a day at $200 per. Why would I give a day rate of $250? I can't afford to lose that much money. Besides, that was the rate in 2000. We all Know what things cost today compared to then. It's only fair. Nobody need get wound up. It's a fact of life that some people can just no longer afford to own boats and some captains can no longer find work in the field. We had the same situation in the early 90's and we'll have it again. This is a time when "living a dream" may not be possible for a lot of people. BTW, for the guy who only wants to pay $250 I'm sure they can find a 1st issue 6 pack captain to take the job. That's not really what I'm talking about here.

I seen the above quote in another thread and found it rather intresting.

The reality of the situation is everyone gets paid exactly what the market will bare. It's all negotiable! Besides, we all know this is a bear market right now for everyone and most are facing a downward economic spiral.

Until any of us has walked in both sets of shoes as a current owner and captain it's all just speculation on numbers and reasons. That's unless we'd all like to share our income tax returns.

Besides, anyone with a little common sense understands that wages will very based on what geographical region we reside in. Let alone take into consideration the age, attitude, level of experience, actual days underway, duties performed, along with market saturation, and whether it's for a captain or a mate. Heck, I think most seem to grasp the idea.

I would imagine anyone would want to get the best bang for their buck. If an owner in south Florida can hire a full time captain for a $60g yearly salary who has just as much experience as the next who's asking $75g, why shouldn't he! Especially if he's say younger and has a better attitude and work ethic? The owner can always raise his salary later with longevity, or offer bonuses for keeping the bottom line down on overhead.

I do think there is a trend where owners of vessels that can be safely crewed by themselves are looking at the bottom line and evaluating everything from maintenance to safety and licensing.

I hear quite a few owners who would consider getting the necessary schooling and sea time to get their license. And before anyone chimes in making statements regarding liability..... make sure you have your "Juris Doctor" hanging on the wall please, not to mention are versed in maritime law.

Now I'm not talking about megayachts.... I'm talking about owners who are young enough, physically capable, have been around the water for quite awhile, and own say something 68 feet or less. Managing the time to take on the added responsibility seem to be the main obstacle. Even those full time liveaboards are spreading the word about their experiences.

Bottom line is this, if you're employed in a profession that you love, be thankful! Want more? ASK! If you don't get it, honestly evaluate why and move on! Hopefully you have other options, otherwise you've got no one to blame.

As far as making a living and paying your bills..... we all fit somewhere on the socio-economic ladder. If you can't take a "hit" in the wallet, what makes you think someone else can even if they have bigger toys than you and are also tightening their belt?!

Besides, if you think you're the "do all and end all" for some boat owner to safely enjoy his leisure time and luxury toy.... you may be marketing yourself into retirement. One other thing to keep in mind, safety starts with the owner..... not with the captain!

Hey, that's just my opinion.... your GPH & NM may vary.

STRAT57,
I agree with you 99.99%. "One other thing to keep in mind, safety starts with the owner..... not with the captain!" From your lips to god's ear

Safety starts with the Owner?

In almost 30 years in the business that must be the biggest crock I've heard in years. A Skipper has full responsablity. In an accident the owner is not the one who could lose his livelyhood or get sent to jail. Peoples' lives are in your hands.

Most owners know you are manager of a large investment on their behalf, almost like a part of their portfolio. You do a good job and make good your end of the deal, hopefully he will see it and reward you as any good CEO would.

Fish

Crock? Have a read.....

Limitation of Shipowners Liability Act: 46 U.S.C. Sec. 181-89

http://www.miamimaritimelaw.com/limitationofliability.htm

Limitation of Liability Actions

LOLA only permits boat owners to limit their liability for loss, damage, or injury if the act, damage or injury occurred without the owner's privity or knowledge or malfeasance and/or nonfeasance. 46 U.S.C.App. § 183 Determining whether LOLA applies instead requires the Court to go through a two-step analysis. Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. Florida, 768 F.2d 1558, 1563-64 (11th Cir.1985). First, the court must determine what acts of negligence or conditions of unseaworthiness caused the accident. Second, the court must determine whether the shipowner had actual knowledge or privity of those same acts of negligence or conditions of seaworthiness.

So in essence safety must begin with the owner. His ability to limit his liability exposure depends on several factors. Granted the captain bares responsibility as well as a degree of liability. But who do you think litigants are going to go after... a captain who's financial means may be rather limited or an owner who can afford a multi-million dollar investment along with his insurance carrier.

Times have changed.... we commonly see "legislation from the bench" creating appeal after appeal over court rulings. Again, odds are the owner and insurance co. will bare out those costs not the captain.

Plus I haven't personally talked to many owners who didn't take their guests safety as a personal and moral responsibility, especially if they are acting as the captain of a private vessel.

Even if a licensed captain is in charge, if the owner is aboard and aware of a potential threat to safety it is the responsibility of the owner also.

Heck, I hate to even point it out but even rule #2 of the ROR clearly list the owner.....

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Maybe I'm misinformed, and if so..... offer up something to reinforce your position other than "biggest crock in 30 years"!

Hi,

Strat57- That is an excellent resource you posted there.

What you will find is that there will be very few if any large yachts where the original beneficial owner ( the physical person with the funds) is actually identified in writing.

The info you posted above is probably a good reason why it is like this.

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master, or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

Absolutely the owner and his insurer will be held liable and pay the lions share of any claim, but the captain will be ruined in the process. I've seen too many small (under 80') boat owners who constantly have to be saved from themselves. Just recently I had an owner of a 68 who was upset that I was using the radar (at night no less) because his wife doesn't feel comfortable with it (the sterility thing I guess).
.

Let's be practical here for a minute.... both post 54 & 55 make valid points. I think K1W1 refers to true ownership being difficult to determine. In the commercial side of shipping it's a fact that vessels are flagged from certain countries for economic reasons. Not to mention leased out to 2nd and 3rd parties, all the while being crewed by entirely another source.

I'm sure the same or similar situations occur on some megayachts regarding registry and ownership. I can't vouch for that, nor is it really my concern. But lets face it, playing a shell game regarding ownership is a diversionary tactic and the hard facts generally catch up in the end. Besides, pleasure craft are excluded under some of the provisions regarding LOLA.

But regarding the responsibility of owners, captains, & crew..... Look guys my point was regarding where safety MUST begin. My personal (and practical) view is it still rests on the owners shoulders.... even if he lists ownership under a corporate name, then leases it to a third party (who mans the boat) who he then "hires" for his luxury cruise to nowhere.

I would hope that any captain taking on the responsibility would do some owner background investigation and inspection before signing on. Just to know where they stand.

But lets be practical regarding negligence and reckless operation which is what leads to most accidents.... Yep, the captain is in charge of the crew, passengers, and vessel. But if he's allowing reckless behavior, or worse contributing to that, then he should be held accountable wouldn't you all agree?

We just recently had a local boating accident where a group of family and friends went out on a 31 footer for a night out on the water. Yep, they stopped at several dockside bars and apparently all had "a few". While heading back..... the "captain" ran the boat aground killing two and injuring everyone.

Let's be real..... he should be held accountable and have his life ruined whether he's liscensed or not. And the owner? He should be held accountable also! What I don't know is if the owner and "captain" (term used loosely) are one in the same.

Come on guys..... accidents do happen, unintentional damage occurring to the boat, a guest falls because he/she loses balance from taking a wave or simply not keeping a hand grip for themselves. I don't beleve a liscensed captain would or should have his life ruined over that.

And NYCAP123.... I hear ya regarding some owners being a danger to themselves. The only answer I have there is education. Or turning down work if you feel an owner is a risk to your livelihood. Lets face it some people can't be saved from themselves!

I do have some firm convictions regarding licensing. If you have your captains license whether it's a "6-pack" or unlimited for use as a hire or just personal education and safety, it's a serious responsibility. Then again, so is ownership.

Complacency, failing to stay current, and plain old negligence shouldn't be tolerated. A captain & crew should hold an owner to the same standard.

Dang..... this thread kinda got a little off course! *#&@* autopilot must be wacky.....

Unfortunately checking out an owner is impracticable if not impossible. Yesterday I got a call from a yard to move a boat to there today. Don't even know the owners name. Most large boats are owned under a corporate veil expressly to shield the owner anyway. As for allowing reckless behavior, how does a captain tell an owner that he can't drink on his own boat, since he hired you so he could drink, until he shows that he is too far gone and by then it too late or watch that every passenger maintains a handhold at all times. We're kind of busy running the boat. However, if something happens we know we'll be named as defendent. Once word is out that something happened on your boat and you've been sued you're finished regardless of the outcome and your money has gone to the lawyers. Ruined. To tie this back to the original topic let me say that this is why we charge more than a store clerk. We have serious responsibilities and risks. Not every cruise is a la-de-da bay cruise. We're watching out for everything on, in and around the boat and living by the words "What if".

Safety DOES begin with the owner. Even if the owner takes pains to shield himself from unlimited liability, it is the owner who, when all is said and done, decides how he wants the yacht managed - on a shoestring, bare maintenance, fix it when it breaks if it leaks? preventive maintenance, with the budget to assure that everything mechanical is in good operating order and everything cosmetic is fairly clean? **** retentive, where everything old is replaced whether it needs it or not, everything cosmetic is buffed to a high gloss, and the unlimited budget is given until the next one is built?

Just as with what is likely that owner's business, direction comes from the top. Who he or she hires, and his expectations of that hire, dictate how safe the boat will be.

Captains, the weight of the world is not on your shoulders alone.

I find that safety begins with the owner is mostly untrue. I have had to put my foot down with several owners about getting safety items recertified such as the liferaft, halon, fire extinguishers recertified, radar fixed. Most owners don't know about any of those things and ones on limited budgets would rather spend it on cosmetics. I have had to basically tell several owners over the years that they need to spend the money to have safety items updated. Or the radar repaired.

Also, the majority of owners in the under 100' category are very unknowledgable about what goes on with their yacht. They have no idea what safety items they have and how to use them. Many don't know things need to be re-certified, or maintained.

I also believe that every Captain charges what he's worth. I charge a certain fee and don't take a penny less, because I am too busy to even think about it. I also will not work for owners with certain attitudes. I also will not run vessels that have been mechanically neglected. I am far too busy to risk my reputation or license on it.

If an owner has a 75' Viking he should pay at least what the going rate is. The going rate has been $1k per foot per year for a very long time. In fact I've had several owners offer me jobs full time at $1200 per foot per year along with many perks and turned them down because I am not interested in going full time anymore. I find that the cheapskate owners are also the ones that ask for the most of their Captain and work him to death without any rewards.

Perhaps I more rightly should have said safety, or lack thereof, starts with the owners.

While you think you've contradicted me, you've actually proven my point. When an owner hires someone competent and knowledgeable, he ends up with a safe vessel. Just like the owner who won't spend on mechanical maintenance or competent crew ends up with what he paid for.

The owner may not know how to do all the things you do, but when he knows enough to hire the people who know how, then he is creating a safer environment and an environment that fosters safe practices. Conversely, when he doesn't care and he hires people who don't care (e.g. "I'm not paid enough to do X, Y, and Z") then he is creating a boat that is intrinsically unsafe, even if it's brand new and reliable.

Safety starts with the owner, no matter how you slice it. He hired you to do the job, didn't he?