[hwillis]

"Crew costs of $3,299 a day account for about 44 percent of total operating expenses for a large container ship, according to Moore Stephens LLP, an industry accountant and consultant."[1]

The Maersk triple E's have a crew of 13 and consume ~136 tonnes/day of bunker fuel[2] which costs currently ~$315/tonne[3], for a daily fuel cost of $42,840. So right off the bat that number is very suspect. Even for other ships like the CSCL Globe with a crew of 31, that's a 12x difference.

I don't understand how that estimate can possibly be true. Ship captains and engineers make ~80k annual and crewmen make under 40k. For a crew of 20-30, $3,299 would be basically bang on for a daily crew cost but there's no fucking way fuel and depreciation only cost $4,200 a day. Even a 4000 TEU ship (tiny) at 17 knots (snail) burns $15,000+ a day.[4]

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-25/rolls-roy...

[2] http://www.scdigest.com/ontarget/13-09-12-1.php?cid=7401

[3] http://www.tsacarriers.org/calc_bunker.html

[4] https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_c...

[mabbo]

While I agree with your analysis, one counter-argument I can think of: Is the ship always using that much fuel?

I know a lot of ships spend days waiting to enter the panama canal, or days in port. Crew is certainly paid for those days as well. What percentage of the time is the ship fully underway and using fuel?

That 44% figure might be more reasonable if you're only burning fuel 1/3 of the time.

[hwillis]

I did think of that, and also that you may need other shifts on retainer, and the normal food/insurance/fees/overhead of employing people across borders. Still though, for the triple E the expected fuel cost is 30x the expected crew cost.

The stretches to explain that gap would be ludicrous eg 3 shifts, each costing the company 3x more than their actual salary, and the engine being turned off 70% of the time. Even still that requires you to disregard depreciation, which for the triple E is at least $17,000 a day.

[dredmorbius]

I suspect that the answer more likely lies in the direction of "there's a lot of ships smaller than the Emma Maersk".

Canals, port clearances (bridges, channel depth, width), dockside facilities, etc.., all put limits on ship sizes. There is a whole slew of "max" and other classifications: Panamax, Suezmax, Chinamax, Seawaymax, etc. "Handysize" is still my favourite of the lot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_ship#Size_categories

For small and local transit, think the US Great Lakes, the Baltic Sea, English Channel, Mediterranean, South Pacific islands (many small populations and ports), and coastal transit along Africa, South America, and Asia, outside the major ports, there's still call for many much smaller ships.

As with other areas, automating smaller instances may be where the payoffs come as the relative labour costs are greater relative to total operating costs. Part of that comes from simple logistics:

* You need multiple shifts. * You need a helmsman, and an engineer, for each shift. * You need a cook, and other housekeeping.

That's already a crew of about 9 - 12.

Regardless of whether your DWT is 20k tonnes or 400k tonnes, your staffing actually doesn't change all that much, and may well increase as smaller ships frequently have (and I presume staff) their own offloading equipment.

[electic]

What about food? What about living supplies? Also, dock living services? And other dock related expenses for crew? Don't forget, all this has to be insured on sea and on land.