GUEST EDITORIAL
West Coast Shipyards
By J. T. Gilbride, Chairman
Todd Shipyards Corporation
John T. Gilbride
The following is excerpted from
remarks made by John T. Gil-
bride, chairman of Todd Ship-
yards Corporation, before the
Puget Sound Marine Economy
Critical Issues Conference in
Seattle, Washington.
In our world of rapid and contin-
uous change, we have come to ac-
cept many situations and events
which, just a few years ago, we
would have thought "could never
happen": the first man on the moon;
Japan's technological ascendancy
over many major U.S. industries;
$33 per barrel oil; the breakup of the
world's best telephone system, Ma
Bell; and a trillion dollar national
debt, to name just a few. Most of us
would not have conceived of such
developments very long before they
occurred, and I don't believe our
foresight is greatly improved now.
Today, I'm going to discuss a
future possibility you probably
haven't thought about because it is
in that "it could never happen" cat-
egory. What would happen if, by the
year 2000, there were no longer any
privately-owned, full-service ship-
yards, that is, shipyards capable of
doing both naval and commercial
work, operating on the West Coast?
What economic, social and military
impact would such a development
have on our nation, and on the
Pacific region?
Your immediate response will,
understandably, be that such a de-
velopment is highly unlikely and
could easily be avoided by common
sense government and public sup-
port. As a person who has been inti-
mately involved with shipbuilding
for over 40 years, I must reply that,
no, this possibility is not unlikely
but, yes, it can be avoided with pub-
lic support.
Let me review some of the reasons
why I don't think this scenario can
be easily dismissed.
As you well know, the U.S. ship-
building industry is currently un-
dergoing a drastic shakeout caused
by a variety of factors:
First, commercial ship construc-
tion and repair work is at an all-time
low. Shipyards solely dependent on
this sector are desperately short of
work and many have closed. Todd
has not been exempt; we closed our
Brooklyn and Houston Divisions in
1983.
Second, current government poli-
cy through the Maritime Adminis-
tration has eliminated construction
differential subsidies and will use
operating differential subsidies to
actually promote the construction
of ships for the U.S. Merchant fleet
in foreign shipyards. Jones Act pro-
tection is in jeopardy and, in my
opinion, is very likely to disappear, I
regret to say.
Third, the few healthy yards re-
maining are engaged in naval con-
struction and repair but, as Vice
Admiral Joseph Metcalf, Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations (Surface
Warfare), recently said, "The Navy
simply cannot generate the work
required either in repair, new con-
struction or conversion to maintain
the existing industrial base in any
condition of profitability. We are
almost the only game in town but we
are by no means a large enough
game to support so many players."
Which facilities are likely to suc-
cumb? The industrial base to which
Admiral Metcalf referred is cur-
rently comprised of 23 shipyards,
not all of which have work today
and only 5 of which are located on
the West Coast, three in this area
(Todd, Lockheed and Tacoma). Ob-
viously, any further shakeout here
on the West Coast would be a severe
blow to the national security inter-
est, and to the Pacific region.
Last summer, the local ship su-
pervisor of shipbuilding for the
Navy who was also in charge of
Navy repair contracts in the North-
west—was quoted by the press as
saying that unless shipyards out
here got their wage costs more in
line with Eastern competitors, they
could not expect to get any more
work. This apparently reflected the
Navy's "low-bid" procurement poli-
cy, which has ignored the need to
maintain shipbuilding resources on
all coasts and has resulted in the
overwhelming majority of new con-
struction contracts being awarded
to East and Gulf Coast operations.
Todd's two major competitors for
frigate/destroyer/cruiser type ships,
for instance, one of which is on the
East Coast, the other on the Gulf,
will share an estimated $11 billion
of ongoing work during the next five
years, including 27 Aegis cruisers
(CG 47) and several Aegis de-
stroyers (DDG 51), whereas the op-
portunities available to all five West
Coast mobilization base shipyards
are a small fraction of that amount
during the same period.
This lack of work has impacted
employment unfavorably in the
Seattle area. In the past three years,
6,000 jobs have been lost and about
3,000 of these layoffs have been at
Todd's Seattle Division.
What is the cost differential be-
tween East and West Coast private
shipyards that has led to such a
harsh procurement policy towards
Pacific Coast shipyards? An Octo-
ber 1984 Maritime Administration
report estimated West Coast ship-
building costs to be 4.6% higher
than in the East and 9.2% higher
than in the Gulf. Is this such a con-
siderable difference that our nation
can risk losing its West Coast pri-
vate shipyard capability to build
and support the Pacific Fleet, plus
the U.S. merchant fleet and ships
owned by nations of the Pacific
Basin, our number one trading
area? Further, what will the real
defense costs be after the initial sav-
ings by low-bid, or "low balling"
procurement have been realized?
For the Navy, follow-on cost in-
creases would be unavoidable for
normal peacetime operations and
would be greatly increased under
emergency conditions. Why? Let me
describe a few "could never hap-
pen" scenarios based on a series of
interrelated events which are pure
fiction today but have enough plau-
sibility to be seriously considered
for contingency planning. Scenario
number one:
• The Panama Canal is
blocked by terrorist action. As
a result, submarines, cruisers and
other ships built in the East and
assigned to Pacific fleet duty, which
normally travel an average of 6,000
miles to West Coast ports, must now
travel around the tip of South
America, adding over 10,000 miles
to the voyage. Clearly, this compro-
mises fleet readiness, increases
operating costs, exposes the ships to
unnecessary risk and involves the
crew and ship in weeks of non-
productive activity. Scenario num-
ber two:
• Government-owned ship-
yards replace the private sec-
tor on the West Coast. Since
naval yards had not been building
naval vessels, they will not be able
to overhaul and repair them as cost-
effectively as the experienced pri-
vate builder. Furthermore, in my
judgment, having dealt with relative
private and government shipyards'
costs since before World War II, the
cost of doing work in Government
non-taxpaying yards in terms of dol-
lars, time and bottom line results
are 30% higher than private yards
and this cost variance would be fur-
ther increased by West Coast Navy
yards' wage rates which are 18.7%
higher than their East Coast coun-
terparts, as reported in the 1984
Maritime Administration report.
Over the 30-year life expectancy of
the ships, therefore, the added cost
of life-cycle support services re-
quired to keep a ship in state of
readiness would far exceed any sav-
ings realized from initial low-bid
purchase. Scenario number three:
• The national shipbuilding
industrial base is reduced to
eight East and Gulf Coast
yards because West Coast yards,
forced to bid for new business at a
4.6% to 9.2% loss by Navy procure-
ment policy, are eventually closed
down. New construction and repair
competitions fail to reduce prices
since fewer competitors exist—the
inevitable economic result of creat-
ing near monopolistic conditions—
and government yards are over-
loaded. "Surge" capacity is non-
existent, labor strikes for less over-
time, and crew morale sinks because
of overhaul delays and prolonged
separations from families at home
ports. The problem is particularly
acute for the nine Pacific Fleet air-
craft carriers and their escort ships,
some of which must return to the
East for major overhaul. The fleet is
put at greater risk when a South
American country, denied further
credit by the U.S., gives the USSR
rights to establish a naval base in
return for economic aid.
As these scenarios so clearly point
out, the loss of future naval work
and industrial capacity would have
a severely unfavorable impact on
the nation, and the Pacific region.
Implausible as some of these fic-
tional occurrences may seem today,
present government maritime policy
and procurement actions are head-
ing this nation towards an era of
maritime insufficiency that could
bring them about. By allowing our
U.S.-flag merchant fleet to de-
cline—as of January 1, 1985, our
active fleet totaled only 393 ships,
down 50 units from 1984—by con-
centrating the overwhelming major-
ity of our nation's fleet construction
and repair resources in the Eastern
half of the country and by allowing
Total Navy Repair Work
—FY '84
67%—East Coast
29%—West Coast
3%—Gulf Coast
1%—Great Lakes
Total Navy New
Construction—FY '84
74%—East Coast
4%—West Coast
21%—South
1%—Great Lakes
36 Maritime Reporter/Engineering News
Digital Wave Publishing