crew communications survey 2014 report dp

8/11/2019 Crew Communications Survey 2014 Report DP

1/23

2014 Crew Communications Survey 1futurenauticsr e s e a r c h

The CrewCommunicationsSurvey 2014


2/23


3/23

4 2014 Crew Communications Surveyfuturenauticsr e s e a r c h 2014 Crew Communications Survey futurenauticr e s e a r c h

operations on board positively. Te ability to accesrything from world and regional news to mediccompany information on any one of the multiplenology/communications devices crew are taking onis changing things subtly but irrevocably. rends sBring Your Own Device (BYOD) are as strong inping as anywhere else: they could, and should, be leveto the advantage of operators, and the benet of sea

If there has been equivocation in the past as to waccess to crew communications affects the choice oployer, now there's a denitive answer from crew. Iemphatic, yes. 69% of crew report that access to co

nications inuences their decision and crucially it isimportant to those with higher I skills, those whderstand the increasingly complex technological opeof equipment and machinery on board. In short, prthe kind of employees ship operators should be lofor.

Te survey shows that the trends and attitudes Millennial generation are beginning to percolate thshipping as elsewhere. Te new generation of seafarpear to want less sea-time, but are also far happiertrained at sea. Tey are also already demonstratin

Executive SummaryAccess to crew communications is an improving pic-

ture, but it isn't good enough. And perhaps the key mes-sage from the 2014 Crew Communications Survey, is thatthis doesn't just disadvantage crew.

Despite the MLC2006 mandatewhich shouldworry those in sectors like Container, Bulk and GeneralCargo where levels of provision are poorest, and where agood deal of the 6% of crew who never have access to crewcommunications workit isn't on the dangers of non-compliance that operators should focus, but in the oppor-tunities for improved operations, effi ciency and margin.

In order to comply with MLC 2006 what is requiredis a denition of what constitutes 'reasonable' access and'reasonable' cost. Only 56% of crew state they have ac-cess to crew communications either always or most of thetime, and it could be argued that this gure must be farhigher if the industry is to achieve anywhere near 'reason-

able'.Certainly the demands of seafarers could not beclassed as unreasonable. Te survey debunks the idea thatwhat crew are desperate for is Internet access for high-bandwidth streaming of movies and music or onlineshopping experiences common ashore. Crew are a highlyI literate workforce which understands all too well howexpensive connectivity is at sea and which spends most ofits money on telephone voice calling. Despite being themost popular service amongst seafarers, telephone voicecalling is only provided free by 6% of operators. As a result

this I literate workforce is solving the problem by usingInternet access for VOIP and video chat, as alternatives toexpensive satellite telephone voice calling.

On average crew are spending $134 per month at seaon crew communications, but drill down into exactly whatcrew are paying for an email, a minute of voice calling, ora megabyte of data and things become less clear. In short,seafarers in most cases have very little idea how pricingfor crew communications works, or what they are actuallypaying for access. Tis is part of a wider issue of over-complexity. Most operators are simply extending the pric-ing they receive from their communications supplier outto the crew. Te pricing is so complicated that it appearsto have led to the welcome, but surprising, nding thatalmost half of operators who offer Internet access to crewdo so free of charge. For many operators it's easier just tomake it available than create pay-as-you-go pricing for

crew.A reduction in complexity and increased transparencyare both required when it comes to pricing for crew com-munications services, and not just because of the benet toseafarers. 36% of respondents expect their expenditure oncrew communications to increase in the next 12 months;complex pricing structures can act as a brake on othersdoing the same so it is in the interests of communicationssuppliers to remove them.

But whereas crew are fairly sanguine about the costof communications onboard ship, they are unhappy about

the amount they are having to spend ashore. Of the 25%of those who use crew welf are facilities the overwhelmingmajority do so to use communications, but still expendi-ture on communications ashore is higher than at sea.

Crew are rightly frustrated that the place where con-nectivity is cheapest is costing them more than the deepocean, and have identied simple solutions they'd welcomesuch as global roaming SIM cardssomething which is socommon in other industries, and yet for some reason havenever been part of the maritime communications productrange. But the most important thing which crew want tosee in the future is free port WiFi, something which wouldtransform their communications expenditure.

In fact when looking at wh at crew want in future, theirinterest is not really in high-tech, innovative services. Tefocus for crew is on reducing the costs of their favouritetype of communicationvoice calling or video chat. Inthis context it would appear that the new satellite-readySkype product promised by Inmarsat's GlobalXpress highthroughput service should be well received by crews, but

looking at the trends, video chat would be even better.Tere is undoubtedly potential for c ommunications pro-viders to develop new VOIP and video calling products.IP satellite systems may be high-tech, but what seafarerswant from them overwhelmingly is a cost effective way tospeak to, and see, their loved ones.

Te survey found that today almost 40% of crew areprovided Internet access on board, a statistic by which theindustry should be encouraged. Even more signicant isthat 50% of that crew is given access free of charge byship operators. But the variation amongst different sec-tors is striking. General Cargo, Bulk and Container lag therest of the industry signicantly, whilst the sectors where

VSA and FleetBroadband IP systems have the greatestpenetration offer the best access to crew communications.Tese systems may have been tted with improvements

in crew retention and recruitment in mind, but for mostimproved connectivity represented a wider business deci-sion to enhance operational effi ciency and leverage bettertechnology on board. What these operators have enabledare not just happier crew, but according to respondents,safer, more knowledgeable, and more productive crew.

Te survey shows that in general crew believe thataccess to crew communications has impacted safety and

Access to crew communications, whilst

an improving picture, isn't good enough.

And the message from the 2014 survey is

that this doesn't just disadvantage crew.

Image credit Gett

Image credit Getty Images


4/23


access to the ship's communications systems had itvalue.

Historically the only alternative to demand-assservices such as Inmarsat's per-minute/per-megabyiffs were even more expensive Single Channel Perrier (SCPC) VSA networks. SCPC VSA was adeployed by a minority in commercial maritime, bmore commonly found in the cruise industry, whererators were able to monetise the traffi c. With the aof ime Division Multiple Access (DMA) VSAworks, however, the landscape of maritime commutions changed. Offering a comparable service to S

networks but sharing and segmenting bandwidth vessels, suddenly high speed, always-on, at-rate Vconnectivity appeared to be within reach of evewithin the maritime community.

Driven by the promise of cheap, reliable, high-

IP connectivity which enabled communications opened up to crew, many operators installed VSAtems. For some, due to a failure to specify on oneor failure to deliver the kind of connectivity and pmance needed on the other, the promise wasn't reaFor others though their VSA and also InmarsaFleetBroadband systems opened the door to a new crew communications.

But despite the advances, research several yearshowed that for most operators, 'broadband' was a reterm, with the average VSA connection speed at

their use of mobile payments, together with the fact thatsmartphones are now more common than cell phones atsea could form the basis for new and better ways to chargecrew for services.

One of the most important ndings of the surveyspeaks to the obvious question which all the demands forservices raises: how do we pay for them? Tere is no ques-tion that seafarers want live audio or video communica-tions, and they want to have them as frequently as possi-ble, but in order to deliver that maritime communicationssuppliers, ship operators, ports, welfare organisations andwider stakeholders need to begin looking at new businessmodels.

When asked whether they would be prepared to allowaccess to their online usage data in return for free Inter-net access, the result was over whelming. 81% of seafarerswould be happy to allow access to their data in exchangefor free Internet access provision. Tis sentiment did notvary considerably between age groups, rank or I compe-

tency and is a clear signal that redesigned, simple servicepropositions based on the exhaust data from crews wouldhave a good ch ance of widespread take-up.

Tere is no doubt that access to crew communicationscontinues to improve, but interestingly crew themselvesdon't overwhelmingly recognise that. 50% of crew believethat access has not improved in the past two years, despite

overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Tis perception isperhaps a function of the fact that land-based connectiv-ity is accelerating at such a pace that, despite its improve-ments, shipping continues to be left behind.

However, with the imminent arrival of the rst highthroughput satellite system, Inmarsat's Global Xpress,reportedly promising unheard of speeds of up to 50Mb,commercial maritime is about to witness another stepchange in connectivity, and maritime communicationssuppliers new competition from non-maritime domainspecic applications providers.

Operators are recognising the operational effi cienciesimproved connectivity for vessels can deliver. One hopesthat this clear evidence from seafarers of the additionalbenets delivered by improving crew communicationsnot just with family and friends, but with colleagues andcompanywill encourage more to see the potential.

Te overwhelming message from this survey is thatcrew want to speak to, or see their loved ones on video,

regularly and affordably. Addressing that one wishwould mean a massive positive change in the lives ofseafarers. Te industry has the technology to enable that.And increasingly not simply a moral and regulatory, buta commercial imperative to deliver it.

Introduction

"The data allows ship operators to unde

stand and benchmark provision across

sectors and age groups; offers insght f

suppliers into the changing requiremen

habits and spending power of seafar-

ers, and-perhaps most importantly-give

seafarers themselves the opportunity to

have their collective voices heard acro

the industry."

For generations of seafarers a passage on the open oceanwas a treacherous, and lonely, undertaking. Following thewidespread adoption of Marconi's radio at the beginningof the twentieth century the ability to communicate withvessels at sea improved signicantly, but it wasn't until1979 when the reaty organisation Inmarsat was formedthat the maritime industry, its crews and passengers could,for the rst time, be virtually guaranteed global satelliteconnectivity.

It was a step-ch ange in maritime communications, butthe challenges and costs involved in developing, launchingand maintaining the spacecraft and infrastructure meant

that the original L-band airtime was expensive. And shipoperators weren't in a position to buy just any satellite sys-tem. Te complexities of operating sensitive equipmentwith moving parts effectively and safely in the harshest ofenvironments meant that maritime systems were far moreexpensive than their land-based counterparts. In short,maritime satellite communications was both diffi cult andexpensive.

In this context it's not hard to understand why the vastmajority of ship operators chose to equip their vessels withthe minimum level of GMDSS compliant communica-tions: enough to keep their crew and assets in contact withHQ and emergency help if necessary. But whereas therst satellite communications networks were conceivedwith one primary consideration improving the safety ofseafarers and their vessels, as technology advanced the re-quirements for sending data ship to ship and ship to shoreincreased, as did the demand for operators to open com-munications facilities up to their crews.

o satisfy the needs of operators to get the maximumbenet from their satellite connections a range of provid-ers sprang up writing maritime-specic software designedto compress and optimise data for transmission over the

expensive high-latency links. From email to early web-browsing, operators were able to maximise their use ofexpensive airtime using these maritime applications. But,due to prohibitive cost and the inability to deploy themeffectively over the satellite link, the type of sophisticatedprogrammes in routine use throughout land-based busi-nesses couldn't be extended the out to vessels.

For some operators there was an early recognitionthat even though the pay-per-megabyte nature of L-bandmeant costs could be high, the potential benets for re-taining expensive, trained crew meant that allowing crew
http://www.telaccountoverseas.com/


5/23


cial 256kbps. With shore-based communications speedsincreasing and more applications accessed online, the gap

between land and sea continued to widen. For the newgeneration of seafarers, brought up on the Internet andsocial media, expectations around the level of connectivityalso continued to increase.

Whereas voice calling had always been the primaryrequirement of crew, the perception is that access to so-cial media sites such as Facebook, and web browsing foreverything from news and sports to shopping and recruit-ment sites, is taking its place. With surveys suggestingthat in the general population a high proportion of theInternet generationor Millennialsconsider access tothe Internet as important as access to food and water, theimplications for the maritime industry are likely to be sig-nicant.

But along with the Millennials is coming a new gen-eration of connectivity. Te new so-called High Trough-put Satellite (HS) networks including Intelsat EPIC,Iridium NEX, and Inmarsat's GlobalXpress will allcome into service within the next few years. In the case ofGlobalXpress, the system is reportedly promising unheardof speeds for maritime connectivity of up to 50Mbps andis due to go into commercial service in July of this year.

For operators managing bandwidth between mission-critical applications and crew communications, the new

HS systems could offer opportunities unthinkable adecade ago. But while the costs of that kind of connectiv-ity will undoubtedly fall, with both Inmarsat and Intelsatinvesting over $1bn each in their new platforms, satellitecommunications will remain comparatively more expen-sive than land-based connectivity.

But with or without HS, the availability of com-munications for crew has gone from being somethingenlightened ship operators provided because it was goodbusiness, to a mandatory requirement. Te Maritime La-bour Convention (MLC 2006) now ratied by more than

54 countries means that 'reasonable access' to ship-shoretelephone, email and Internet facilities, at 'reasonable'

charge is now part of the responsibility of the ship opera-tor.But what is 'reasonable'? What is the reality of crew

communications for seafarers and how does it differacross sectors, ages and seniority? How do ship operatorsreliably benchmark their provision to ensure they're com-pliant, and how do seafarers really judge what they shouldreasonably expect on board in today's market? And whatwill new crew consider to be essential tomorrow? Whatnew services and solutions should network, hardware,software, equipment and applications providers be pre-paring to deliver to ship operators to continue meetingthe crew communications challenge?

Te answers to these questions can only c ome froma comprehensive survey of seafarers worldwide. In 2012,in association with Astrium Services, (now Airbus De-fence and Space), Futurenautics Research (formerly StarkMoore Macmillan) undertook the rst Crew Communi-cations Survey. An abridged version of the dataset wasreleased as a whitepaper giving insight into seafarers levelof spend on, and access to, communications, paymentmethods, and popular websites.

Te response to the survey was hugely positive and soin 2013 Futurenautics Research decided to repeat the sur-

vey, but with a far larger respondent base. With invaluableassistance from a range of organisations including Phil-ippine ransmarine Carriers, InterManager, BIMCO,ISWAN and Crewoo, the resulting 2014 Crew Com-munications Survey Report with almost 3,000 respond-ents from over 30 countries is now without question thelargest and most comprehensive dataset available.

Independently conducted and analysed, the report andit's full dataset is being made available free of charge forthe benet of the shipping and maritime industry, its sea-farers, regulators and wider stakeholders.

Te data allows ship operators to understand andbenchmark provision across sectors and age groups; gives

insight for suppliers into the changing requirements, hab-its and spending power of seafarers, and, perhaps mostimportantly, gives seafarers themselves the opportunity tohave their collective voices heard across the industry. Tisis crew, communicating.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank eachand every one of them for their contribution.

Futurenautics estimates the market value for crewcommunications at sea in the major sectors at $1.39bnUSD per annum. (Table 1)Tis estimate is based on theexpenditure by offi cers and ratings in each sector. With theexception of the Passenger and Offshore sectors it is basedon 20 crew members per vessel with a split of 8 offi cersto 12 ratings. It also takes in account those that do nothave access to any form of crew communications services,those that choose not to use them as well as those that are

provided the services free of charge by the ship operator.Te Passenger and anker sectors are the most sig-

nicant markets for crew c ommunications. Te Passengermarket is important because of the disproportionate num-ber of crew in this sector in comparison to other com-mercial sectors. Despite the large difference in rating andoffi cer expenditure this is still the largest market by spend.Te anker market (here we include crude, product andchemical tankers) is the largest sector by vessel numbersand expenditure by both ratings and offi cers is high. Bulk

Carrier and Container markets are signicant anContainer sector is only one of two where we see hexpend iture by ratings than offi cers.

Futurenautics estimates the shore based crewmunications market at $1.22bn per annum. (Table 2estimate is based on expenditure by offi cers and creweach sector whilst ashore or in coastal waters wherrestrial (non satellite) communications solutions areable. Te estimate accounts for those crew membedo not get ashore during port calls.

Te Bulk Carrier and anker sectors are the monicant markets, in terms of value, for the shore crew communications markets.

Offi cer's expenditure was higher in all sectorsfrom the Gas Ca rrier sect or. Expenditure by o ffi cthe other sectors was signicantly higher than for r in some cases over double. Te Passenger sector, dcrew getting ashore more often than all the other se

is not as signicant a market as it is for crew commtions services at sea.Combined, the shore-based and sea-based crew

munications market is worth in excess of $2.6bn pnum.

Market Value



6/23


Sector No. Vessels* No. of Crew Ratings Offi cers Market Value

anker 15,501 310,020 $136.39 $157.10 Gas C ar ri er 1 ,6 28 32 ,5 60 $ 93 .7 5 $ 11 8. 52 Ca r C ar rie r 7 62 1 5, 24 0 $ 49 .0 3 $ 157 .1 7 Bulk Carri er 11,958 239,160 $105.92 $145.52 General Cargo 4,366 87,320 $82.38 $202.51 Co nt ai ner 5 ,11 6 1 02 ,3 20 $ 11 5. 37 $ 11 1. 75 Offshore 7,176 86,112 $121.00 $103.72 Passenger 6, 775 380,580 $84.40 $223.74 Other 7,038 140,760otal 60,320 1,394,072 $1

Table 1 | Expenditure at Sea

Sector No. Vessels No. of Crew Ratings Offi cers Market Value

anker 15,501 310,020 $101.83 $148.31

Gas C ar ri er 1 ,6 28 3 2, 56 0 $ 14 0. 47 $1 24 .1 4 Car Carr ier 762 15,240 $48.17 $80.70 Bulk Carri er 11,958 239,160 $98.87 $196.06 General Cargo 4,366 87,320 $99.01 $234.14 Co nt ai ner 5 ,1 16 1 02 ,3 20 $ 104 .36 $ 159 .4 4 Off shore 7,176 86,112 $104.61 $138.66 Passenger 6,775 380,580 $37. 28 $80. 70 Other 7,038 140,760otal 60,320 1,394,072 $

Table 2 | Expenditure Ashore

The combined shore-based and

sea-based crew communications

market is worth in excess of

$2.6bn per annum.

* Clarksons Re

Image credit Royal Caribbean International
http://www.smsglobal.net/http://www.smsglobal.net/


7/23


Te Crew Communications Survey took place be-tween December 2013 and March 2014. Te survey wascompleted either digitally, online or via a paper-basedquestionnaire. Responses were then collated, paper-basedquestionnaire data manually keyed, cleansed, and the re-sults calculated and analysed.

We are indebted to a range of organisations for as-sisting in the dissemination of the survey link and paperquestionnaires. Philippine ransmarine Carriers, a leaderin the Philippine maritime industry deploying over 35,000Filipino global maritime professionals on board close to700 vessels, and offering an integrated value chain of ser-vices, continued their support in 2013/4 by making the

survey available to all crew passing through their facilities,then collecting and mailing completed questionnaires foranalysis.

Both InterManager, the international ship manage-ment organisation known as 'the voice of shipmanage-ment', ISWANthe International Seafarers Welfare andAssistance Networkand BIMCO were instrumental inlending their support to the survey and promoting thecompletion of surveys by the crews of their member-ships. Crew social networking site Crewoo, part of theKVH Media Group also offered invaluable assistance increating awareness of the survey amongst their 80,000strongand growingonline community.

Respondents

Tanks to the efforts of all involved the total numberof respondents was in excess of 2,850 representing over 30different nationalities. Te top ten nationalities represent-ed were Ukrainian (32%), Filipino (31%), Indian (12%)followed by Polish, Russian, Greek, Pakistani, Indonesian,Romanian and Egyptian. (Figure 1)

Of the total respondent base, 61% were offi cers whilst

39% of respondents were ratings. Te balance betweenoffi cers and ratings does not correspond to the typicalbalance on an average commercial vessel, however wher-ever meaningful the results are broken down by offi cers/ratings, to enable accurate reporting, analysis and conc lu-sions to be drawn.

We asked all respondents to give us information aboutthemselves including to which age group they belonged:18-24 years; 25-34 years; 35-44 years; and 45 years or over.We also asked respondents about their marital and familystatus. Te youngest age group represented the smallest

Fig. 2 | Vessel Type By Respondent

The Survey

number of respondents at 400, the 25-34 year age groupthe largest at 1022 respondents, and the remaining 35-44and 45+ age groups 750 and 576 respondents respectively.Te highest number of offi cers were represented in the 45+group at 75%, whilst the lowest number of offi cers were inthe 18-24 youngest age group at 36%. In this group onlywere there more rating respondents than offi cers.

Of the total respondent base 67% were married and62% had children.

Sectors

Of our respondents, 96% worked on vessels in the ma-jor sectors; namely, anker, Bulk, Gas, Car/ruck (PCC),Offshore, General Cargo, Container and Passenger. Al-though a further 15 sectors were representedeverythingfrom coastal vessels and tugs to super yachtsanalysiscentres around the key sectors for the commercial mari-

time market. (Figure 2)Te percentage of respondents from each of these sec-tors corresponds closely to the spread of vessel type acrossthe world eet. (Figure 3)For example, General Cargo is7% of the world eet and 8% of survey respondents; Pas-senger is 11% of the world eet and 8% of survey respond-ents; Bulk Carriers are 20% of the world eet and 19%of survey respondents. Most sectors are within +/- 2-3%of the world eet gures, other than the Container sec-tor, where the survey respondents at 20% are signicantlyhigher than the world eet gure of 8%.

Sea ime

On average respondents spent 7.3 months per year atsea. Ratings spent 7.5 months at sea, slightly more than of-cers who spent 7.1 months per year at sea. When lookingat this data in terms of age groups we can see that thoseaged between 18-24 spent the least amount of time at seaat 6.8 months. Tis could be accounted for by the fact thatmore of these younger crew undertook training ashore. Itis also possible that this Millennial age group is beginningto demonstrate a decreased appetite for prolonged sea-

time in comparison to older seafarers in line with reportedtrends and anecdotal industry evidence.

Port Calls

When asked about port calls, respondents reportedthat 34% of port calls were greater than 24 hours dura-tion. 38% of port calls were less than 12 hours in durationand 28% were 12-24 hrs in duration. 76% of respondentseither never, or were rarely able to go ashore during these

Fig. 3 | World Fleet By Vessel Type

Fig. 4| How Often Do You Go Ashore?

Phone11%

Gym/Sports7%

Transportation6%

Shop5%

General (unspecied)30%

Internet41%

Fig. 5 | Crew Welfare Facilities Used In Por

Fig. 1 | Top Ten Nationalities


8/23


port calls. 18% said that they were able to go ashore onmost port calls and 6% said they were able to go ashoreduring every port call. (Figure 4) A higher percentage ofoffi cers never or rarely were able to go asho re during portcalls, whereas a higher percentage of ratings were able togo ashore during most of every port call.

Tese gures for time spent in port and the ability togo ashore could account for the fact that of the total re-spondent base only 25% of crew used crew welfare facili-ties whilst in port. Tere was no difference in the experi-ence of offi cers and ratings in relation to their use of crewwelfare facilities.

Of the 25% of respondents who reported using crewwelfare facilities whilst in port, the most popular servicesaccording to crew and those used most by them, werethose relating to crew communications, namely Internetaccess, telephone access and purchase of SIM cards. (Fig-ure 5)

I Skills and Perception

With the signicant increase in technology use bothin the operation of vessels and in terms personal devices,respondents were asked to rate their perception of theirown I skills and literacy.

Only 11% reported that they felt uncomfortable withtechnology and didnt really understand how it worked.

62% of respondents reported that they understoodhow the technology they used worked, and felt comfort-able using it. Nearly 30% thought they were very knowl-edgeable and could help others onboard with technol-ogy. aken together these two groups represent 89% ofrespondents, clearly demonstrating seafarers are a highlyI-literate workforce, used to using technology and com-fortable with it. Tis is also reected in the type and vari-ety of devices being brought aboard.

When the responses are considered by age group, wesee that those in the millennial generation age groups aremost knowledgeable about I matters. (Figure 6)

Te over-45 year old age group is the most uncom-fortable with technology, but not by a signicant margin.Whilst one might expect the older age group to be the

least comfortable, slightly less predictable was that theyoungest age group of 18-24 years old also feel quite un-comfortable with technology. It is possible however thatthis youngest age group is reecting a lack of conversancewith shipboard technology as opposed to personal Iequipment and skills; understandable in the least experi-enced seafarers.

Ratios of I skills between offi cer and rating are mostnoticeably different in the 'very knowledgeable and helpothers' c ategory. (Figure 7)Only 22% of ratings consid-ered themselves very knowledgeable and able to help oth-

ers, as opposed to 30% of offi cers. In gen eral offi cers' per-ception of their I skills are more positive than ratings'.

Overall it is clear that shipping has a highly I andtechnology literate workforce who do not perceive them-selves to be struggling with increases in onboard technol-ogy and systems.

Access to Crew Communications Services

When asked about their access to crew communica-tions services 56% of respondents reported that they hadaccess to some form of crew communications either al-ways or most' of the time. (Figure 8)Generally speakingoffi cers enjoyed better acc ess than crew, but this should beseen in the context of offi cers often having access withintheir cabins, and using communications systems for opera-tional business as part of their duties.

Perhaps of more concern is that 39% of seafarers re-

port having access to crew communications services only'sometimes', and 6% never have access at all whilst on-board. Extrapolated to the global seafarer population, thiswould equate to 78,000 seafarers who regularly have noaccess to crew communications at all. Not all of these sea-farers will fall under the MLC 2006 mandate, but a sig-nicant proportion are likely to.

Considering the recent ratication of the MaritimeLabour Convention 2006 which stipulates that ship op-erators should give crew reasonable access to communica-tions at a reasonable cost, it seems clear that meeting thisprovision is proving challenging to operators.

Access Within Different Sectors

Access to crew communications varied signicantlybetween different sectors. Te percentage of crew report-ing never having access to communications was as lowas 1% in the car carrier sector and as high as 13% in theContainer sector. In fact the Container and Bulk sectorsprovide the lowest levels of access to crew communica-tions. (Figure 9)

Te highest gure at 18% was seen in the other cat-

egory, however this is explained by the number of coastal/workboats in this group. Tese vessels typically would notspend long periods away from port, and will have regularaccess to terrestrial GSM networks. In addition, many ofthese vessels will not fall under the MLC 2006 mandate.

We asked those respondents who reported having ac-cess to crew communications to identify the communica-tions services provided on board. (Figure 10)

elephone- the most common form of communica-tions to which seafarers have access across all sectors isvoice c alling, usually via satellite telephone. On average

Fig. 7 | IT Skills By Rank

Fig. 6 | IT Skills By Age Fig. 8 | Access To Crew Communications

Fig. 9 | Access To Crew Communications Vessel Type


9/23


Fig. 10 | Crew Communications ServicesProvided Onboard

across all sectors 76% of seafarers with access to someform of crew communications have access to telephonecalling, but in some sectors like Container, over 30% ofrespondents still report that they do not have access to atelephone.

Onboard GSM Tis could be either satellite or ter-restrial GSM and on average is available to 23% of re-spondents to whom crew communications are providedonboard. Low levels of onboard GSM are seen in mostcommercial sectors apart from Offshore and Passengerwhere there are high levels of VSA installations andhence a satellite distributed GSM solution is likely. Terelatively high levels of onboard GSM seen in the Con-tainer and General Cargo sectors may be explained by thehigher reliance on terrestrial GSM for those vessels en-gaged in liner and short-sea trades.

ext only email provided on average by 48% of ves-sels across sectors, text only email is still the most com-mon form of Internet-based crew communications, with

very high levels seen in the Container sector at 62%.Email with attachments at 26% on average there aregenerally relatively low levels of access to email solutionswhich allow attachments. Tis could be explained in partby the increased levels of Internet access and the movetowards the use of web based email solutions. (See Crew'sfavourite websites.)

SMS Messaging Generally provided via a PC ex-cept for the Passenger sector where routed via a distribut-ed GSM solution. At 24% the level of provision is broadlylow across most sectors.

Internet Access With average availability of Inter-net access across all sectors 36%, access is an improvingpicture. Notably the Passenger and Offshore sectors re-port close to 70% provision, with Gas Carriers at almost60%. Tis relatively high level of provision in Passengerand Offshore reects the correspondingly high VSApenetration levels in those sectors.

Te comparatively buoyant Gas Carrier market hasalso driven the sector to t increasingly sophisticatedcommunications systems for operational effi ciency andcompetitive advantage. Te improvement in crew accessto the Internet is most likely part of a trickle-down effect.

However, the Container, Bulk and General Cargosectors are still lagging behind the rest of the industry,with provision of Internet access at 21%, 21% and 25%respectively, despite the increase in installations of In-marsat FleetBroadband, of which there are now 40,000worldwide.

Provision of Free Services

Respondents were asked to identify which of theservices provided on board were available to use free of

Fig 11 | Provision of Free Services

charge. (Figure 11)ext only email solutions are still themost commonly provided free crew communications ser-vice, but the most signicant gures relate to Internetaccess. With almost 40% of respondents indicating thatInternet access was provided onboard, approximately halfof those that had access to the Internet were given it freeof charge.

Tese gures represent an increase in Internet accessper se, which can be explained by the increase in Internet-enabled platforms such as Inmarsat FleetBroadband andVSA, and increased demand from crew for Internet ac-cess whilst at sea. Whilst only 6% of ship operators offer-ing access to a telephone are doing so free of charge, whenit comes to Internet access, that gure is almost threetimes as high.

It seems likely that the explanation for this lies in thecomplexity of implementation. In short, designing, imple-menting and managing a pay-as-you-go or paid-for ser-vice for Internet access is perceivedrightly or wrongly

by ship operators as suffi ciently complicated that it's morecost effective to provide the service for free to crew.Also striking amongst the results is the low levels of

free access to telephone calls. Tis does however explainthe large percentage of expenditure amongst crew on voicecalling (see Crew Communications Expenditure). It alsoindicates why crew are so keen on communications alter-natives such as video chat/VOIP and also free port WiFiall of which leverage IP technology to deliver live audio/visual contact.

In general ratings were provided more free access thanoffi cers across all sectors, other than in text only emailswhere there was a substantially larger percentage of offi c-ers (26%) who had access to this service free of charge, asopposed to ratings (14%).

Where is access provided?

Te most common place for crew to access commu-nications services is still on the ships bridge. (Figure 12)However, more interestingly, the second most commonplace to access communications is now in the crew mem-bers cabin, with 34% reporting access here. Te compar-

atively higher number of offi cer respondents within thesurvey is not responsible for distorting this gure, as bothoffi cers and ratings report similar levels of access withintheir cabins.

Signicant differences do exist between sectors how-ever. As expected, the Passenger sector has highest levelsof in-cabin communications services for crew along withthose sectors with high levels of broadband (VSA) in-stallations such as the Gas Carrier and Offshore sectors.But again, crew within the Bulk, Container and GeneralCargo sectors fared worst with high levels of access via the

Fig 12 | Where Onboard Can Crew Commnications Be Accessed?

Fig 13 | Frequency Of Service Use


10/23


bridge and ships offi ce i.e. where there was no privacy.

Frequency of Ser vice Use

Te majority of services are accessed by crew no morefrequently than once a week. Te only services accessedmore frequently than that are text only email and theInternet with the majority (56%) of crew provided theseservices using them on a daily basis. (Figure 13)

Interestingly 17% of respondents never used the Inter-net. Tis was highest in the lowest age group 18-24 years,where 28% never used the Internet services provided. It isnot clear whether this is an access or cost issue, but is mostlikely a combination of the two.

Ratings used the Internet on a daily or weekly basismore ofte n than offi cers. 69% offi cers used t he Internet ona daily or weekly basis compared to 75% of ratings. Tiscorresponds directly to the numbers of crew that never

used the Int ernet, with 21% of offi cers, compa red to 13%of crew.Only 19% of crew access phone services on a daily ba-

sisprimarily as a result of cost and accessbut morecrew use the telephone than any other ser vice provided.

Tose respondents that never used the Internet werehighest in the Bulk, General Cargo and Container sec-tors, which corresponds to the fact that these are the sec-tors with the lowest levels of Internet access provision.(Figure 14)

Harder to explain however are the high levels of re-spondents who report never using the Internet in the carcarrier sector, where relatively high levels of provision ex-ist. In this sector 64% use the Internet on a daily basis but23% never use it. Tis does not appear to be either ageor rank related, therefore we can only conclude that thesmall sample size in this sector may be responsible forthis result.

Factors Limiting Crew use of Communi-cations

Te factor that most (49%) limits crew use of commu-

nications services providedunsurprisinglyis the costof services provided. (Figure 15) Tere is evidence thatthe cost to ship operators of providing these services hasreducedparticularly that of telephone callsbut thereare issues around both the complexity of pricing to crewas end-customers and indeed whether ship operators arepassing on the reductions in cost they have enjoyed. Seethe Crew Communications Expenditure section for fur-ther insight and analysis on these areas.

Te other main issues limiting crew use of commu-nications include: I have no privacy when using these ser-

Fig 14 | Never Use Internet By Sector

Fig 15 | What Limits Crew Comms Usage?

Fig 16 | How Do Crew Want Access To Cmunications?

Fig 17 | If Ship Operators could provide ofree service, what should it be?

vices Despite the number of users that can now accesscommunications from their cabins, privacy is still an issue.Tis is particularly acute in certain sectors such as Bulk,Container and General Cargo where much of access is stilllimited to the ship's bridge.

Too many people trying to use them & I dont get regularaccess 50% of respondents cited one of these two state-ments, indicating that these issues are as important as cost.Large volumes of crew trying to access communicationsimpacts the frequency of use, but also, where limited band-width is concerned, also affects the quality of the service.

How do Crew want to access communica-tions?

Overwhelmingly crew wanted to access communica-tions services via a laptop connected to WiFi, except inthe case of SMS services where the preferred method of

access was via their smartphones. (Figure 16) Tis is borneout by the range of technology currently being taken onboard, and the indications of new technology purchaseswithin the next 12 months. Tese gures are all broadly inline with the BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) and AA-WAD (Any ime, Anywhere, Any Device) trends beingseen in shipping and the wider population.

Respondents were also asked which service they wouldmost want if ship operators could provide just one freeof charge service. (Figure 17) At 77% the overwhelmingmajority chose free Internet access, with results consist-ent across all age groups and ranks. Tis may seem oddconsidering that current levels of expenditure by both of-cers and ratings are highest on voice calling (see CrewCommunications expenditure section), which was the sec-ond most popular choice, identied as the most desirablefree service by 9% of respondents. However this nding isexplained by the way in which Internet access is used bycrew, for VOIP and video chat, making satellite voice call-ing potentially redundant.

Te Inuence of Crew Communicationson Recruitment

For some time now there has been a heated debateamongst ship operators as to whether or not the provisionof crew communications impacted recruitment and reten-tion of seafarers. (Figure 18)

Te survey questioned respondents as to whether thelevel of crew communications services provided on boardvessels inuenced their decisions about which shippingcompanies they worked for. Te answer was unambiguous.

69% of respondents said that the level of crew com-


11/23


munications services provided onboard did inuence theirdecisions about which shipping company they worked for.Tis sentiment varied little between offi cers and ratingsand amongst age groups, but did vary signicantly withI skills. Tose with lower I skills were less inuencedby the provision of crew communications services thanthose reporting higher I skills.

Te provision of crew communications had more in-uence in those sectors where higher VSA/Internetpenetrations levels existed, such as Car Carriers, Offshoreand Gas Carriers. Provision had least inuence upon crewin the sectors such as Container and General Cargo wherelow levels of VSA/Internet connectivity exist.

Clearly, the provision of crew communications servic-es is just one of a range of factors which will inuence thechoices seafarers make about which operators they workfor. However, the magnitude of the yes vote means thatwhether or not it is a factor is no longer in question.

For ship operators evaluating the importance of crew

communications to their own overall recruitment and re-tention policies, those within sectors where higher VSA/Internet penetration levels exist are the most likely to bedisadvantaged by a failure to provide a high calibre ofcrew communications access. For those operating in sec-tors with lower levels of penetration and therefore crewexpectations, improving provision would appear to holdthe potential for signicant c ompetitive advantage.

Te Impact of Crew Communications onLife and Operations at Sea

Te increased levels of connectivity within the ship-ping industry as a whole and its impact upon life and op-erations at sea have been the subject of much speculation.We asked respondents a range of questions to establishhow seafarers themselves believe improved communica-tions have impacted their lives and jobs at sea.

Just under half of respondents (46%) believed that in-creased levels of, and access to, crew communications hadreduced social interaction onboard. Tis sentiment wassimilar across most sectors except for Gas Carriers wherethe gure dropped to 33%, and the Offshore sector where

it rose to a high of 53%. As might be expected, this re-duction in social interaction was most keenly felt by theoldest group of respondents.

Of particular interest was the impact of crew com-munications upon safe operations. Respondents wererst questioned as to whether they felt that crew com-munications had had any effect upon safety at sea. 22% ofrespondents felt that crew communications had affectedsafety onboard the vessel.

Of this 22% more than half54%believed thatit had impacted safety in a positive way. Tis varied ac-

cording to rank with 62% of ratings believing there wasa positive impact compared to 46% of offi cers. For theserespondents an increase in safety stemmed from:

- Greater awareness and access to information:including home/family, company and world news. Seafar-ers felt that if the ship operator/company did not provideparticular information which they needed, there was nowan alternative means of access to it. One respondent high-lighted an incident where access to the Internet enabledoffi cers to nd out medical information for a sick col-league.

- Happier crew:better access to friends and fam-ily reduced stress amongst seafarers which in turn led toimproved focus and ultimately fewer mistakes. Tere wasalso a perception that the reduction in the urgent needto go ashore to access communications services whilst inport resulted in more concentrated, more focussed crewand therefore a corresponding reduction in general risk.

Of the 46% of respondents that believed safety had

been negatively affected on board this stemmed from:- Increased levels of fatigue: in those who hadbeen accessing crew communications services during theirrest periods.

- Poor focus:caused by a lack of contact from fam-ily, or bad news which led to the crew member not givingthe job in hand their full attention, and consequent mis-takes and injuries.

- Distraction:was cited as a major issue. Safety wasreportedly affected by crew members using communica-tions services on watch on the bridge whilst at sea. Whilstin port the ability to make and receive calls via the crewmembers mobile phone was also a cause of distractionduring loading and discharge operations.

- Unauthorised communications: this includedboth the malicious and accidental transmission of com-pany or vessel information. Examples ranged from givingaway the position of the vessel as it was transiting an areaknown for piracy attacks, to the unauthorised transmissionof company specic information.

- Equipment risk: some respondents cited therisks of personal communications equipment on board.For example, there are possible risks of sparks from mobilephones and smartphones which are routinely used in port.

Only 38% of ratings believed that there had been anegative effect on safety compared to 54% of offi cers. Itis likely that these gures represent the new risks whichimproved connectivity brings to those in positions of over-sight, management and responsibility. For crew, access tocommunications is simply of personal benet, whereas forthose responsible for the vessel, along with the personalbenet comes the need to respond dynamically to thechanges in behaviour of the crew and the potential impactupon safe and effi cient operations.

Fig 19 | Computer Based Training Onboa

Fig 20 | Where Would You Prefer To UndeTraining?

Fig 18 | Influence on Crew CommunicationsProvision on Recruitment

22% of respondents felt that

crew communications had

affected safety onboard

the vessel. Of this 22%, more

than half believed that it

had impacted safety in a

positive way.


12/23


Overall, the vast majority of seafarers do not believethat improved access to crew communications has had anegative impact upon safety onboard the ship. However,for offi cers and f or ship operators there is an ongoingneed for awareness as to how shipboard life is changing,and to develop and implement the necessary policies tomanage any downside risk.

raining and Other Services provided onboard

At 79%, Videos and DVDs were the most commonlyprovided service onboard. Satellite V was only availableto 25% of respondents, as were online training materials.E-books and publications were available to 14% of sea-farers. Tis is reinforced by the growing number of tab-lets and e-readers now taken onboard. (See echnology/Communications Devices Onboard.)

raining

42% of respondents had undertaken some form ofComputer Based raining (CB) on their last vessel.(Figure 19)Tis training typically related to either safe-ty or securit y. Offi cers under took more computer basedtraining than ratings at 48% compared to 38%. Te Off-shore and Passenger sectors provided least CB to theircrew members. Only 22% of Passenger ship crew wereprovided any form of CB and this was, in the main,basic language training. In the Offshore sector this g-ure was 32% and consisted mainly of compliance relatedsafety training.

Despite the fact that the majority of respondents(77%) said that the ship was a good place to undertaketraining, when given the choice the majority (48%) of re-spondents preferred to undertake training at a trainingcentre ashore. More offi cers than ratings would prefer tobe trained ashore but the most striking difference was byage group.

Te 18-24 year olds are the only group that would pre-fer to be trained at sea rather than ashore. As age increases

so does the desire to be trained ashore, with the oldestgroup least amenable to being trained at sea. (Figure 20)Tis reinforces another Millennial trait amongst the gen-eration more comfortable with online training or trainingon the job.

Crew Communications Expenditure

On average respondents spend $134.00/month oncrew communications whilst at sea, and spend $139.00/month whilst ashore. (Figure 21)Te largest expenditure

Fig 23 | Expenditure Ashore - By Age

Fig 24 | Expenditure By Rank

both at sea and ashore is accounted for by voice commu-nications, but this expenditure on voice calling was sig-nicantly higher at sea, given the premium cost of satellitecalls. Expenditure on SMS and email was comparable atsea and ashore. However, there was signicantly higherexpenditure ashore on Internet based servicesInternetaccess, VOIP and video chat, and instant messaging. Tisincreased the total expenditure ashore above that at sea.

Lower expenditure at sea reects the lower levels of ac-cess to Internet servicesespecially in certain sectors. Itdoes demonstrate that when access to both is equal (i.e.ashore), expenditure on Internet based services is higherthan voice.

Te overall higher expenditure gures ashore as com-pared to at sea is accounted for by the signicantly higherspend of offi cers than ratings when ashore and in coastalwaters. A clear split has emerged between the two groups,with ratings spending more at sea than ashore, and offi cersspending more ashore than at sea.

Comparison of expenditure by age group

Te youngest respondent group spent the least of anyage group on crew communications both at sea and ashore/coastal waters. (Figures 22 & 23)

Tis 18-24 age group spent approximately 50% of oth-er groups on voice communications both as sea and ashore.Tis is likely to be inuenced by two main factors, rstly,junior crew are paid less and therefore have less disposableincome.

Secondly, these Millennial generation seafarers couldbe exhibiting behaviour typical of that generational co-hort, more used to using social media and instant messag-ing rather than voice communications. Tis would appearto be borne out by the fact that their Internet expenditureis equal to that of the other age groups.

Te highest expenditure at sea is within the 35-44 yearage group, but drops signicantly in the over 45 year oldcategory. It is in the over 45 year category where we seeleast expenditure on Internet access. Expenditure on emailwhilst at sea also increases with age, suggesting that this isa technology with which older age groups are more famil-

iar and comfortable.Expenditure ashore is almost identical in the 25-34,35-44, and over 45 age groups. Te youngest, 18-24 agegroup, also spent signicantly less ashore than any otherage group.

When ashore the 18-24 year olds also spend less thanany other group on Internet access, which suggests this ismore of an income issue than a generational one.

Fig 21 | Average Monthly Expenditure

Fig 22 | Expenditure At Sea - By Age


13/23


Fig 28 | Payment Methods Ashore By Age

Expenditure by Rank

Overall ratings spent less than offi cers on crew com-munications both at sea and ashore. Ratings spent moreon communications at sea than ashore whilst offi cersspent more ashore than at sea. (Figure 24)

Ratings' expenditure at sea and ashore was roughlysplit 50:50 between non-Internet based services (tele-phone and SMS) and Internet based services (email, chat,web acccess). With offi cers it was a 70:30 split betweennon-Internet based services and Internet based services.When ash ore, like ratings, the split for offi cers was ap-proaching 50:50.

Despite spending more on voice communication thanany other service, ratings still spent signicantly less onvoice communications than offi cers. However, they spent

more than offi cers on ever y other service, especially onInternet based services.Ratings spent approxmately 20% less on shore based

communications services than when at sea. Offi cers spent13% more whilst ashore or in coastal waters. Tis high-lights that the higher levels of overall expenditure ashoreis generate d by offi cers not ratings.

A weighted average taking account of a 40:60 ratiobetween offi cers and ratings would bring the gure to$121.60 per month for spending at sea. A weighted aver-age for expenditure at sea would be $130 per month.

Expenditure by Sector

Crew in those sectors with least access to crew com-munications (Bulk, General Cargo) spent signicantlymore than their counterparts in other sectors on com-munications whilst ashore/in coastal waters, reectingthe relatively low levels of service provision and access inthese sectors. (Figure 25)

In most sectors crew's expenditure is higher ashorethan at sea and this is l ikely a reection of the 60:40 splitof offi cers to crew in the survey sample. In the Passengersector crew expenditure at sea is nearly 3 times higher

than that ashore, reecting the better provision of serviceson these vessels and also the relatively low ratio of offi cersin this sample group, as offi cers spend more ashore.

Future Spend

When questioned about their likely expenditure oncrew communications services over the next 12 months,exactly half of respondents believed that their expenditure

Fig 25 | Average Expenditure By Sector

Fig 26 | Payment Methods At Sea and Ashore

Fig 27 | Payment Methods At Sea By would remain the same.However, despite complaints concerning the cost of

these services 36% thought their expenditure would in-crease. In total 86% of crew believe that their expenditurewill either stay the same or increase. Only 14% anticipatethat they will cut their expenditure on crew communica-tions in the next 12 months.

Tese results were consistent across both offi cersand ratings, and also largely across age range. It was theyoungest age group 18-24 year olds, which had the larg-est percentage of respondents (42%) reporting an expecta-tion that their expenditure would rise. Tis nding wouldsupport the hypothesis that the prime factor limiting thisgroup's expenditure is lack of income.

Payment Methods

In general deductions from salary and cash still domi-nate the payment methods used by seafarers at sea, butcrew payment cards and Internet banking are also startingto make inroads. Credit card usage at sea remains low, butof the respondents overall 34% had a credit card. (Figure26)

Payment Methods At Sea Age Groups

When the data is examined in terms of age groupsthere are some interesting potentially emerging trends.Te 18-24 year age group shows the highest levels of In-ternet banking of any age group, perhaps because this Mil-lennial cohort is more used to using, and more trusting ofsuch service delivery.(Figure 27)

Tis age group also shows the highest levels of mobilepayments and the highest levels of Paypal usage. In generalthe new generation of seafarers demonstrate they are themost comfortable with online banking/payment methods.Tis age group also have, by a small margin, the highestlevels of credit card use of all seafarers.

Payment Methods Ashore - Age Groups

Te 18-24 year age group once again used more pay-ment methods than any other group. Whilst cash wasstill the dominant method of payment whilst ashore bysome margin, credit cards and Internet banking come next.(Figure 28)

However, lack of access to Internet services onboardhas limited the use of these payment methods whilst atsea. Notable is the emergence of mobile payments, which,coupled with the increasing numbers of smartphones be-ing taken on board, and increasing WiFi access, could po-


14/23


Fig 32 | Planned Purchases of Communictions & Entertainment Devices

tentially offer a new method for taking payments fromcrew in the future.

When examining methods of payment favoured bydifferent ranks it's c lear that offi cers use more Internetbanking both when at sea and whilst ashore. Tey alsouse credit cards signicantly more than ratings, especiallywhen ashore. (Figure 29)

Tere are similarly high levels of cash usage by bothgroups both at sea and ashore, and also of Paypal and mo-bile payments, which again reinforces the possibility thatthese may be potentially more universal payment meth-ods in the future as opposed to credit cards etc.

echnology/Communications DevicesOnboard

We asked crew about the technology/communications

devices taken on board in order to understand what ef-fect this has on the services they used, what they wantedin future, and how they would like to access these ser-vices. Te key nding is that seafarers already carry a lotof technology/communications devices on board, the ma-jority taking multiple devices. Tis nding is in line withbroader commercial and consumer trends such as BYODand AAWAD, and demonstrates that shipping not onlyhas a highly I literate workforce, it also has a device-literate workforce.

Te most common device taken onboard by crewmembers was a laptop PC, carried on board by 75% ofcrew. (Figure 30)Tis goes some way to explaining whythe majority of seafarers would like to be able to accesscrew communications from a laptop (their own) via WiFi.Te percentage of those taking their own laptop on boardwas highest amongst offi cers, with 81% reporting theytake a personal laptop on board.

Te second most common device taken onboard is asmart phone, with 57% of respondents taking this deviceon board. Interestingly, the percentage of those taking asmartphone on board is as high as 68% among those whorated their I skills highest. Signicantly, the smartphoneis now more common than the ordinary cell phone on

board the commercial eet, and is set to increase in num-bers. Tis helps us to understand why the majority of crewwant to access SMS on a smartphone as opposed to a PCor other device.

Also fairly common are external hard disks, takenaboard by 50% of seafarers as a means of storing moremedia content. Tere are now also a signicant number oftablets being taken onboard vessels with 20% of respond-ents reportedly carrying these onboard, and this gurelooks set to rise.

4% of respondents did not take any kind of technology

Fig 29 | Payment Methods By Rank

onboard the vessel, not even a mobile phone.

echnology/Communications Devices BySector

Te Container and Bulk sectors reported the highestlevels of technology/communications devices. (Figure 31)Te Container and Bulk sectors provide the lowest levelsof additional services onboard, hence crew take their ownequipment onboard to supplement the existing services.(See Access o Crew Communications Services)

Similarly, the Passenger sector has high levels of ad-ditional services onboard, as do Car Carriers and as a con-sequence crew in these sectors take relatively low levels oftechnology/communications devices aboard with them.

Planned echnology/CommunicationsDevice Purchases

In order to understand future BYOD/AAWADtrends we asked respondents about their planned pur-

Fig 30 | Communications & EntertainmentDevices Taken Onboard

Fig 31 | Communications & Entertainment Devices Taken Onboard By Sector


15/23


chases over the next 12 months. Over 40% of respondentssaid that they planned to purchase a tablet PC for useonboard. (Figure 32).Only slightly fewer respondents re-ported their intention to purchase a smartphone, at 35%.

Already the second most common device onboard,if this sentiment translates into purchases, smartphones

look set to increase their dominance onboard. A further30% indicated that they planned to purchase a laptop forthe rst time, or as a replacement to an existing device.

Te level of technology currently carried onboard, andthat which is likely to be carried on board in the nearfuture, provides signicant opportunities for service pro-viders and ship operators alike. With smartphones, tabletsand laptops all increasing in number new ways to dissem-inate services, training and other information and contentutilising wireless networks and personal devices are possi-ble. Coupled with the clear nding that seafarers consider

themselves to be highly I literate, it seems likely thatsuch services would be welcomed by seafarers.

If seafarers were provided with Internetaccess what would they use it for?

o understand what seafarers really wanted to use theInternet for we asked them to choose from a range ofservices and tell us how frequently they would use them.Unsurprisingly, traditional crew communications ser vicessuch as email rate highly. However, the emerging trend istowards VOIP and video chat. (Figure 33)

Social media is still of signicant interest to crews, asis content, suggesting that crews still don't have suffi cientaccess to the news and sports content they desire. How-ever, interest in content does not extend to that which can

Fig 33 | If the Internet Was Provided WhatWould You Use It For?

be purchased and downloaded, e.g. music, lm and bookswhich all fared p oorly. Tere was even less appetite forgeneral shopping which scored highest in the 'would neveruse' rankings of any category. Despite 12% of respondentsreportedly using online banking whilst at sea, bankingfared poorly, with crew indicating they would only use iton an occasional basis. It does appear though that morewidespread Internet access would drive an increase in us-age. However, it should be borne in mind that bankingservices may not need to be accessed on a daily or evenweekly basis dependent upon the complexity of nances.

From a training perspective there were an encouragingnumber of respondents wishing to use Internet access forsome form of distance learning/studying. However, nd-ing out about jobs online scored the lowest of all catego-ries, with accessing recruitment information of little inter-est to seafarers whilst at sea.

Crew Communications Costso understand what crew paid for their communica-

tions we asked them to specify how much they paid fora minute of voice, an email, and a megabyte of Internetaccess.

According to the data, the average price paid by seafar-ers for telephone calls was $1.42 per minute. Tis variedfrom users paying just a few cents per minutemost likelyVSA usersto those paying in excess of $2.00 per min-ute. However, this data comes with a signicant caveat,namely that of all the questions in the sur vey, those aboutcosts and pricing clearly caused a good deal of confusionamongst respondents who struggled to answer them.

However, although the gures provided by crew con-cerning what they actually spend should be approachedwith a degree of caution, their answers have highlightedsome very important issues around how crew communica-tions services are provided and charged to seafarers.

Most importantly, many seafarers clearly didn't under-stand what they were being charged for a minute of voicecalling. Many respondents quantied the gure as monthlyspend, indicating they knew how much they spent, but nothow many minutes that equated to, or the advertised price

per minute. Considering that this is the service on whichseafarers spend the most, their lack of familiarity with thecharging structure and pricing of that service is a concern.

Crew generally had a better idea of what they werespending on email, although some answers were clear-ly not accurate. Te average price paid for an email was$0.27, but many respondents appear to be c harged a xedfee for text only emailmost likely via a dedicated crewcommunications system.

When it came to Internet access, the average price paidfor 1 megabyte of Internet acc ess was $0.42. However, the

Fig 34 | Top 10 News Sites

Fig 35 | Top 10 Sports Sites


16/23


17/23


Has Access o Crew CommunicationsImproved?

When asked whether access to crew communicationshad improved in the two years since the original CrewCommunications Survey in 2012, respondents wereequally split. (Figure 40)Exactly half of the respondentsfelt that access to ser vices had improved, whilst the otherhalf felt that there had been no improvement in access tocrew communications in that period.

Te results did not vary signicantly based on respond-ents' perceived level of I skills. However 10% more crewthan offi cers thought that access had improved whichcould show that crew are gradually achieving better accessas compare d to offi cers who, for operatio nal reasons, havealways had a higher degree of access.

In terms of sectors, the Bulk and Container sectorssaw the least improvement, whilst Gas and Passenger sec-

tors saw most. Tese ndings are in line with the broaderpenetration of VSA and other IP connectivity solutionswithin these sectors.

Where this nding is of particular interest though, isin relation to the perception of provision by crew. Te re-sults of the survey clearly show that access is an improvingpicture, particularly access to the Internet which nearlyhalf of seafarers who have access to it are receiving free ofcharge from ship operators.

In short, the correct answer to this question, based onthe respondent's own experiences, is that access to crewcommunications has demonstrably improved, and yet sea-farers don't overwhelmingly see it that way.

Future Services

We asked respondents to consider a list of potentialfuture services and asked them to choose the most impor-tant to them. (Figure 41)

When we consider the services seafarers want to seeprovided in the future we see further conrmation thatthere is little interest in on demand music, V or lm ser-vices. Tis reects the responses given to the question of

what seafarers would use the Internet for, were it providedto them.Given the levels of expenditure in port/coastal wa-

ters it is perhaps inevitable that crew most want to seefree WiFi access in port. Te potential savings could bevery signicant for seafarers since their Internet relatedexpenditure ashore is on average approximately $75 permonth. Free WiFi service could provide access to evenlarger savings for crew, as it can also be used for VOIP andvideo calls, both of which are highly in demand.

Tere is a strong appetite for a low-cost global roam-

ing SIM card that would allow low cost calls from anycountry. Currently seafarers nd themselves purchasingSIM cards from port welfare facilities which, if not used,are worthless in another country.

Considering the wide availability of such global roam-ing SIMs and smartphone mobile apps, it is curious thatnone of the terrestrial providers of such services have rec-ognised the opportunity to market these SIMs to seafarers,or that maritime communications suppliers have not addedthem to their product portfoliosespecially consideringthe likely growth in smartphones. Te signicant interestin such SIMs would suggest that these cards represent thelow hanging fruit of crew communications products, andfailure to provide them is leaving money on the table.

Te other product which scored highly among seafar-ers was a low cost satphone for crew that would allow voicecalls to be made in privacy. Whether current maritime orwider suppliers are yet in a position to make a satphonewhich could retail cheaply enough to meet the require-

ments of the seafarer market is unclear. However, the datais once again highlighting the importance of voice callingfor seafarers.

Upon analysis crew appear somewhat resigned to thecosts of crew communications services at sea which theyperceive as unavoidably expensive. However, they appearless happy with the amount of money they are havingto spend ashore where they have to pay potentially highroaming charges, and also for Internet access, when land-based connectivity should be far more affordable.

Crew are not particularly looking for new and innova-tive service provision, but ways by which to reduce costswhich they see as unnecessarily high ashore.

Te other very signicant nding is that Internet ac-cess, whilst utilising the latest IP technology is actuallybeing leveraged to address the costs of the oldest and mosttraditional form of communicationsthat upon whichthey are still spending the mostvoice calling, and in-creasingly, video chat.

Access o Data

But perhaps the most striking and important nding

here lies in respondents' attitudes towards their online us-age data. When asked whether they would be prepared toallow access to their online usage data in return for freeInternet access, the result was overwhelming.

81% of seafarers would be happy to allow access totheir data in exchange for free Internet access provision.(Figure 42)

Tis sentiment did not var y considerably between agegroups, rank or I competency and is a clear signal that re-designed, simple service propositions based on the exhaustdata from crews would have a good chance of widespread

Fig 42 | Would You Be Prepared To AlloAccess To Your Online Data In ExchangFor Free Internet Access?

Fig 40 | Has Access To Crew CommunicationsImproved In the Past 2 Years/By Age

Fig 41 | What Future Services Would You LikeTo See Made Available?

take-up. Te implications of this nding are pertinejust to deep-sea connectivity suppliers and ship opebut to shore-based stakeholders including ports andproviding crew welfare facilities within them, or lthem.


18/23


On average respondents spent 7.3 months peryear at sea, with ratings spending slightly more time at seathan offi cers. Te 18-24 Millennial age group are thosespending the least time at sea, perhaps a sign of decreasedappetite for sea-time following broader trends. However,as this age group also undertakes a good deal of trainingashore, this could account for some of the discrepancy.

38% of port calls are less than 12 hours in durationand 76% of respondents reported they were either never, orrarely able to go ashore whilst in port. More offi cers thanratings never or rarely went ashore, possibly reecting theburden of management responsibility upon offi cers whilst

in port.

Possibly as a result of the limited opportunities togo ashore only 25% of the total respondent base used crewwelfare facilities whilst in port. Tere was no differencebetween offi cers and ratings in terms of their use of crewwelfare facilities. By far the most popular services providedby crew welfare facilities were those linked to communica-tions, namely Internet access, telephone access and SIMcards.

89% of respondents considered that they both un-derstood how the technology they used at sea worked, andwere comfortable using it, or were so knowledgeable thatthey helped others on board with technology.

Clearly, seafarers are a highly I-literate workforcewhich, coupled with the range of personal devices beingbrought onboard suggests there are signicant opportu-nities for ship operators to utilise technology more, andin more innovative ways to drive effi ciencies and safety ofoperations.

56% of respondents reported that they had access

to some form of crew communications either 'always' or'most' of the time. Generally speaking offi cers enjoyed bet-ter access than crew. However, of more concern is that 39%of seafarers report access only 'sometimes' and 6% neverhave access at all whilst on board. Access to crew commu-nications varied signicantly between different sectors.

Te percentage of crew reporting never having accessto communications was as low as 1% in the car carriersector and as high as 13% in the Container sector. TeContainer and Bulk sectors provide the lowest levels ofaccess to crew communications. Tese ndings have se-

rious implications for operators following the ratiof the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006 mandates 'reasonable' access to crew communicatio'reasonable' cost.

elephone was still the most common focrew communications service provision with 76% farers on average having access. In some sectors likeeral Cargo however, over 30% of respondents still haccess to a telephone.

ext only email is the most common formternet-based crew communications provided on ave

48% of respondents, with signicant variations besectors.

Te most encouraging nding is that Intercess is now available on average in 36% of all sectorPassenger and Offshore where relatively high penetlevels of VSA and Inmarsat FleetBroadband systeist reporting close to 70% provision, and Gas Carrirelatively buoyant marketreporting close to 60%.ever Container, Bulk Carriers and Containers are labehind the industry with around 20% provision.

Perhaps one of the most interesting ndingproportion of ship operators who are providing Inaccess free of charge. Whilst text only emails are stmost commonly provided free crew communicatio

Conclusions

Image credit Getty
http://www.maritimebroadband.com/


19/23


vice, almost half of the 36% reporting Internet access arebeing provided it free of charge. Tis is compared to only6% of crew who are being provided telephone voice call-ing free of charge.

It is likely that the complexity of designing and im-plementing a pay-as-you-go system for Internet accesshas led many ship operators to simply offer the servicefree. However, with voice calling still making up the l ion'sshare of crews' expenditure on communications, the lowlevels of free provision of that service are seeing crew us-ing Internet access to give them VOIP and video chatinstead.

Te most common place for crew to access com-munications services is still on the ship's bridge, the sec-ond most common place is now in the crew member'scabin, with 34% reporting access here. Once again thoughsignicant differences exist between sectors with BulkCarrier, Container and Container crew faring worst of all.

Te majority of services are accessed by crew nomore frequently than once a week, other than text onlyemail and the Internet, with the majority of crew (56%)using these on a daily basis. Only 17% of crew accessphone services on a daily basisprimarily as a result ofcost and accessbut more crew use the telephone thanany other service provided.

Te main factors limiting the use of crew com-munications continue to be cost (49%), privacy andwhere limited bandwidth existsquality of service.

Tere is evidence that the cost to ship operatorsof providing these services has reducedparticularly thatof telephone callsbut there are issues around both thecomplexity of pricing to crew as end-customers and in-deed whether ship operators are passing on the reductionsin cost they have enjoyed. See the Crew Expenditure sec-tion for further insight and analysis on these areas.

Overwhelmingly, crew want to access communi-cations services via a laptop connected WiFi, except inthe case of SMS services where the preferred method ofaccess was via their smartphones.

If crew could choose one free service, it wouldbe free Internet access. 77% of respondents chose this

with the results consistent across all age groups and ranks.Considering that telephone voice calling represents thegreatest cost to crew, this may seem a strange nding,however, it is explained by the way in which Internet ac-cess is used by crew, i.e. for VOIP and video chat, makingsatellite voice calling potentially redundant.

When asked whether the level of crew commu-

nications services provided onboard inuenced their deci-sions about which shipping company that they worked for,seafarers' answer was unambiguous. 69% reported that itwas a factor in their decisions.

Tis sentiment varied little between offi cers and ratingsand amongst age groups, but did vary signicantly withI skills. Tose with lower I skills were less inuenced bythe provision of crew communications services than thosereporting higher I skills. Te most signicant variationshowever, were among sectors. For ship operators evaluat-ing the importance of crew communications to their ownoverall recruitment and retention policies, those withinsectors where higher VSA/Internet penetration levelsexist are the most likely to be disadvantaged by a failureto provide a high calibre of crew communications access.

For those operating in sectors with lower levels of pen-etration and therefore crew expectations, improving pro-vision would appear to hold the potential for signicantcompetitive advantage.

Just under half of respondents (46%) believed thatincreased levels of, and access to, crew communicationshad reduced social interaction onboard. 22% believed thataccess had affected safety onboard the vessel. Of those,more than half (54%) felt it had impacted safety in a posi-tive way.

Only 38% of ratings believed that there had been anegative effect on safety compared to 54% of offi cers. Itis likely that these gures represent the new risks which

improved connectivity brings to those in positions osight, management and responsibility

42% of respondents had undertaken some fComputer Based raining (CB) on their last vesstraining typically related to either safety or security.ers undertook more computer based training than rat 48% compared to 38%.

Despite the fact that the majority of respondentssaid that the ship was a good place to undertake trawhen given the choice the majority (48%) of respopreferred to undertake training at a training centre a

Te 18-24 year olds are the only group that woufer to be trained at sea rather than ashore. As age incso does the desire to be trained ashore, with the group least amenable to being trained at sea.

On average respondents spend $134.00/mocrew communications whilst at sea, and spend $13

month whilst ashore. Te largest expenditure bothand ashore is accounted for by voice communicatiothis expenditure on voice calling was signicantly at sea, given the premium cost of satellite calls.

Expenditure on SMS and email was comparasea and ashore. However, there was signicantly expenditure ashore on Internet based servicesInaccess, VOIP and video chat, and instant messaging

At sea ratings' total expenditure was $126, a

When asked whether the level of crew communications services

provided onboard influenced their decisions about which shipping

company that they worked for, seafarers' answer was unambiguous.

69% reported that it was a factor in their decisions.

Telephone was still the most common form of crew communica-

tions service provision with 76% of seafarers on average having

access. In some sectors like General Cargo however, over 30% of

respondents still have no access to a telephone.


Image credit


20/23


cers' $136. Ashore, ratings' total expenditure was $100,whilst offi cers spent $154 in total.

Te youngest age group 18-24 spent the least oncrew communications, inuenced both by a lack of dis-posable income, and also potentially generational trendstowards social media and instant messaging rather thanvoice.

Tis group had the largest percentage (42%) of thosewho expected their spend to rise in the next 12 monthshowever. In total 86% of crew believe that their expendi-ture will either stay the same of increase in the next 12months.

Deductions from salary and cash remain thedominant payment methods used by seafarers at sea, butcrew payment cards and Internet banking are also startingto make inroads.

Notable is the emergence of mobile payments, which,coupled with the increasing numbers of smartphones be-ing taken on board, and increasing WiFi access, couldpotentially offer a new method f or taking payments fromcrew in the future.

Seafarers carry a lot of technology/communica-tions devices on board, the majority taking multiple de-vices in line with broader BYOD and AAWAD trends.75% of crew take a laptop onboard and, signicantly,smartphones at 57% are now more common in the eetthan cell phones.

Shipping not only has a highly I literate workforce,it also has a device-literate workforce. Over 40% of re-spondents said that they planned to purchase a tablet PCfor use onboard within the next 12 months. Only slightlyfewer respondents reported their intention to purchase asmartphone, at 35%.

If provided with Internet access respondentswould use it for traditional crew communications servicessuch as email, but the emerging trend is towards VOIPand video chat. Social media is still of signicant interest,as is access to news and sports content, but music, lmsand books, and general shopping is of limited interest. Anencouraging number of respondents would use Internetaccess for some form of distance learning or studying,however, nding out about jobs online scored lowest of allcategories.

Te average prices paid by seafarers for telephonecalls was $1.42 per minute, for an email was $0.27, and fora megabyte of data was $0.42, however this data should betreated with caution. Te more signicant nding is thatin many cases crew have little idea what they are beingcharged.

Ship operators are not making the costs or the pric-ing structure clear enough for their crews, however, theseare often pricing structures imposed upon them by theircommunications supplierpricing structures which are socomplex that, particularly in the case of Internet access forcrew, are resulting in the service either not being madeavailable at all, or being given away free of charge.

Communications suppliers offering overly-complexpricing structures in some cases are p reventing services be-ing made available more widely to crew, and could there-fore ultimately be acting as a brake upon usage.

Tere are attendant questions raised by the data

on pricing for crews, including whether ship operatorshave passed on recent reductions in communications costs,and whether making margin on crew communicationsservices remains an ethical practice in the light of the newMLC2006 provisions.

When identifying their favourite websites crewchose major news and sports sites including CNN, theBBC and the NBA and also large search engines such asGoogle and Yahoo. eBay and Amazon are the top shop-ping sites. Facebook remains the most popular social net-working site with 79% of seafarers citing is as their favour-ite. However, it is interesting that no maritime websiteswere mentioned by seafarers until asked specically toname them.

Te most popular maritime website was Crewoowith 16%, followed by Marinetraffi c at 11% and IMO at9%. Te rest of the top ten, including Marineinsight andgCaptain had no more than single digit percentage shares.When asked to name their favourite maritime recruit-ment website Jobships led with 14%, closely followed byJobatsea (12%) Pinoyseaman (11%), Seajobs (10%) andSeaman Jobsite (10%).

It is particularly noteworthy that none of the most rec-ognisable names in maritime recruitment were mentionedaside from Rigzone at just 4%. It is possible that the tra-ditional recruitment agencies are either nding it diffi cultto compete online with web-based recruiting sites, or po-tentially that maritime recruiters have not yet g rasped theimportance or potential of connecting with those at sea.

Also noteworthy is the high level of major por-tals, such as search engines cited by respondents. It seems

likely that there is a trend towards use of portals than individual sites, particularly when useful serviceas free email are offered. Tis could also reect the faportals which aggregate and curate content, make seetc. more effi cientof signicance when crew arecharged for web access.

Respondents were equally split whe

crew communications survey 2014 report dp

Documents