12 minute read
Crew rotation: magic bullet or financial nightmare?
An evaluation of the merits of crew rotation
Rotation can help crew longevity and lead to a healthy dynamic on board but what’s the actual cost? And should owners bear in mind the mental and emotional implications as well as the financial ones?
BY JACK HOGAN
The goal of attaining a rotational position is a driving force for many ambitious yacht crew. Rotation can be held up as the ideal endpoint for crew on their career pathway through yachting, with many captains working towards it for their entire careers. It’s seen as the moment when the hard work pays off and the elusive work-life balance is achieved. However, the complexities and costs associated with it are often a sticking point for yacht managers and owners.
Rotational structures range from five months on, one month off (5:1) up to the idealised time for time spilt, most commonly two months on, two months off (2:2). When a rotation is implemented effectively, it can give a level of balance and structure to the vessel’s operational profile, the guest experience and the life of the crew on board and ashore. It also elicits a strong reaction. As yachtmanagement director Jack Molyneaux puts it, “In this industry, rotation is an emotive word.”
The prospect of a structured leave schedule that allows planning for life outside the constraints of a yacht’s operations can hold great appeal for hard-working crew. Conversely, allowing the vessel and management to structure the crew’s movements also adds a level of organisation that can filter through the yearly operational profile of a typically busy yacht. When implemented effectively, rotation can also provide an owner with a healthy dynamic on board, with solid crew retention.
Rotation is also used as an incentive by senior management in some cases, tantalisingly over the horizon but just feasible enough to keep crew on board constantly for one more season. Rotation is becoming an increasingly common feature on commercial vessels and commercially run large superyachts. It’s expected by chief engineers and captains, and is now becoming more commonplace throughout a typical superyacht employment structure and on a more diverse size range of vessels.
Rebecca Adams, placement manager at Viking Yachts, put this growth in expectation for rotation into context. “We are now starting to see junior deckhands stating that they will only accept a 3:1 rotation for their first role.” This is something that would have been unthinkable to the previous generation of crew.
As the application and expectation for rotational positions grow, the rationale for or against implementation deserves examination. Rotation doesn’t suit every vessel and must fit the operational profile of a superyacht. Often, the driving factor in favour of rotation is that the crew’s workload is high and more time off with more structure is needed to retain them. By contrast, the cost to the owner is the reason most often cited against a rotational system. But what is the actual cost? Are the financial implications too simplistic a metric on both sides of the decisionmaking process?
In terms of percentages, the implications for the owner can be reasonably easy to quantify, at least initially. Tim Clarke, managing director at Quay Crew,
says, “We worked with a 100m-plus yacht which brought in a 3:1 from a 5:1 rotation for all the junior crew. This move added just under 20 per cent to the annual cost for the junior departments.”
There are 100m-plus vessels with sufficient junior crew numbers that can implement something like a 5:1 rotation but these don’t necessarily offer a valid comparison with most superyachts. Additionally, this leave schedule is somewhat disingenuous as an authentic ‘rotation’. Having two fixed months off with almost no flexibility essentially leaves 10 months a year that do not exist to you on a personal level. However, this does marry the operational profile of 3,000gt-plus superyachts with the structure of the commercial maritime industry and assists with the bilateral flow of crew between these two sectors.
The majority of the fleet – the sub3,000gt sector – presents a more complicated scenario for rotational implementation. This is where the justifications for or against rotation become more opaque and subjective. However, staying with the financial implications, Clarke offers more detailed examples of the effect on the budget for conventionally sized superyachts. “Quay Crew have recently been working closely with a yacht owner’s team and put together a variety of crewing options for a new-build 65m-plus. The variance in cost from 60 days’ leave, excluding engineers, for the entire crew to a full rotation for senior crew and 3:1 for the juniors was 34 per cent.
“This also meant that the number of crew on the payroll increased from 18
to 24. That is a significant commitment and doesn’t include the additional costs accrued elsewhere. We also recently put together several options for a very prestigious 90m new-build. The difference in cost from the smallest budget to the largest budget, with various rotations and crew structures, was 30 per cent.”
This 30 per cent increase belies a complex set of considerations for any owner. If not handled correctly, the cost of rotation can spiral significantly – a situation that Clarke has seen unfold first-hand. “A few years ago, we worked with a large new-build project. Unfortunately, the build project manager/ owner’s rep, despite being very competent at many things, hadn’t worked on yachts so didn’t have the required knowledge of the optimum crew structure for a vessel of that size, salaries, packages etc.
“The result was that a lot of time, money and effort were wasted on something which wasn’t fit for purpose and which, if implemented, would have been disastrous for the project once launched. The owner experience also would have been very negatively impacted and crew turnover would have been high, as would all the associated costs.”
As Clarke explains, it’s a complicated undertaking and getting the right advice is critical. “Get someone to look at the crew structure, schedule and packages who knows what they’re doing from an early stage before anything is signed off. Having a budget signed off but then reworking it at a later date because of a structural oversight to fit the owner’s expectations is very difficult.”
Dùghall macLachlainn, captain of a 70m-plus yacht, is unequivocal about whether these costs were outweighed by crew retention and a general satisfaction and happiness on board. “One hundred per cent yes, 150 per cent yes!” macLachlainn says the incremental implementation of a structured rotation system helped his pro-gramme immensely, retaining great crew, but he is also clear that it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. “Rotation is just one factor in crew longevity and a healthy dynamic on board. You have got to offer the right package all round and have the right person to match the itinerary.”
The cost is, in many ways, the most simplistic factor: more flights, more hotels and, especially in the age of COVID, more testing. But there is a more complex set of circumstances that require attention, concerning both the owner’s experience of their vessel and crew job satisfaction and their mental health. Molyneaux believes the emotional considerations should not be overlooked, at least from an owner’s perspective. “Everything always comes down to the emotional position of the owner. I think that in some cases, irrespective of whether the numbers make sense or they don’t, sometimes emotionally, rotating the crew is just not what the owner wants to do.”
As more pressure and expectation for rotational positions is applied from junior crew up to senior management, there needs to be a more nuanced appreciation of what is involved. The yacht management is not simply asking for more budget. Molyneaux says, “I’ve never tried to justify a rotation based on expenditure. It’s always been based on the workload of the crew. This approach gives you room to review continually. You may be able to make smaller incremental changes and tailor the organogram of the structure of the crew to the yacht specifically, as opposed to [it] being a preconceived idea.”
The justification for six months of the year doesn’t sit well with many time-
for-time rotational crew who may work entire rotations with no time off and have days that flirt with the boundaries of hours-of-rest compliance at the very least. Also, for a rotation to work within the challenges of a busy yacht, many captains especially are never entirely ‘off the boat’. While this may be a system that works for regimented commercial vessels, the dynamism and complexities of a busy superyacht can make it impractical.
Barry de Kock, captain of a 65m-plus vessel, says, “Personally, myself and my rotational captain would keep in touch each week during my rotation off. I am never completely cut off from the yacht. I think you should have enough involvement and rapport with the crew to know what is going on on board, so that when you return you are up to speed with important developments because a lot can change.”
Molyneaux adds, “What’s the thought process or the emotional decision leading towards going to the rotation? Is it because you want to retain the crew? Are you trying to adopt it because you think it’s an industry standard? Or does the boat think anyone that’s holding a class one licence should have a rotation? The clarity in this position will always help in presenting it to the owner.”
Another side to the topic that certainly comes up on board is the resentment, sometimes explicit and sometimes implied, from the senior crew. Many captains, for example, have worked their entire long careers for a rotational position. According to Molyneaux, as captains are the conduit between the crew, management and owner, their hesitancy may hold up its implementation, even when it’s the solution that suits the vessel’s operational profile. “The senior crew that have invested so much time to get rotation, and maybe [are] resentful to new crew getting it significantly quicker, perhaps need to take emotion out of the equation and accept that that is the way the market is going. As rotation becomes increasingly normalised, then you may be doing the owner a disservice by not offering it and attracting the best possible candidates for positions.”
A significant implication of the idea of rotational ubiquity across the industry is the dilution of the talent pool. The system works for owners only if there is minimal disruption to the guest experience, and by implication that requires having an equally talented crew in each rotational position. Clarke says, “There will be an owner at some point soon who has no concern about budget, who purely wants the best crew and wants to hold on to them, and will offer time-for-time rotation from the most junior positions up. In my view, this will be disastrous for the industry as a whole because, at the moment, there’s a massive shortage of great crew for the number of yachts and new builds scheduled.”
A less tangible implication that rotation presents for an owner is the effect on the continuity of a charter. The structure that underpins a rotation of crew does not always fit with what suits a trip. The bonds that form between crew and owners, owners’ families and charter guests is a large part of what makes a trip successful; disrupting this balance with a partial crew changeover at the midpoint of a long trip can be highly disruptive. Often, despite the black-and-white nature of many seafarers’ contracts, the reality is that an owner will want a specific crew with them on a particular trip. This requires flexibility that may seem fundamentally the opposite of the idea of rotation in the first place.
Molyneaux feels there should be clarity, with rotational agreements being communicated clearly. Days on board, especially concerning time-for-time crew, have broader implications on time ashore. Many crew walk a tax-burden tightrope that is predicated on a precise number of days outside their country of residence. This balancing act relies on organisation on both sides, and mistakes have affected many crewmembers.
“As crew contracts become more serious, and you’re on rotation with a significant salary package, it’s very important that you fundamentally understand what you’re signing,” says Molyneaux. “What it means to you in the event of not being able to join, having to stay on longer or if the vessel sells. Today, you need to understand your contractual position more than ever.”
The least calculable, but most palpable, consideration associated with a rotational system affects crew mental health and the dynamic on board. Holding up rotation as a panacea for the healthy operation of a vessel is an oversimplification. Speaking from personal experience, I never saw a crewmember gain rotation and then have their career stress wash away. Molyneaux explains, “Teams on board have to think about their own culture and their ethos and what they’re trying to establish on board. Everything has to tie in together. You can’t cherry-pick the aspects you like. I think there has to be a sensible and professional approach to it.
“Rotation will not fix a broken culture. I think a competitive package is essential. I think there is an expectation, and I think it’s becoming more commonplace, reasonable or not. I think it’s a personal interpretation but it does not fix the dynamics on board or cultural issues on board, which can become more exacerbated by introducing it.”
Clarke was also prescient with his conclusions. “Rotation is viewed as some form of magic bullet. If we bring in a 3:1 rotation for all junior crew and put all the department heads on timefor-time, the cost will be another 40 per cent over the year. Then we will have to pay X, Y and Z, and then we will have a great crew and a great dynamic on board. That’s a fallacy. The reality is that unless you have a good captain with a solid working culture and a happy work environment, you’re still going to get turnover.”
Rotation is not a privilege or a right for crew. However, it does present an excellent chance for a vessel to reward its crew with more time ashore and structure to their lives. This can lead to higher retention of crew, an improved dynamic on board and a better owner experience. However, it should not be seen in isolation and will succeed only if considered as part of a comprehensive system of on-board operations. JH
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE? VISIT SUPERYACHTNEWS.COM AND SEARCH ‘CREW ROTATION’
