OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 119 



"Albatross III is an old ship." — I am forwarding separate No. 200 which gives 

 a fairly good history of the Albatross. The "Commercial Fisheries Review" is an 

 official publication of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 



'"Opcratinii costs are very high." — Costs are high from what point of view, 

 and in ctmiparison with what? Admittedly, it costs money to run a vessel, but 

 it costs money to run anything. Period. It is reliably reported in Woods Hole, 

 that the operating budget of the R. V. Atlantis, owned and operated by the 

 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is around $200,000 a year. The Atlantis 

 is a smaller vessel (142 feet) and her wage scale is lower than that of the 

 Albatross. Incidentally, it easily costs between $50,000 and $100.<X>0 a year to 

 operate a yacht. (Yachts are commonplace in Woods Hole). Wages? The 

 present wage for the Albatross crew is $6,800 per annum, the captain gets 

 ai-ound $8,000, and the first and second officers and the engineers, are somewhere 

 in between. Sixty-eight hundred per annum is nothing remarkable, but it figures 

 out to about $131 a week before deductions. And these men are paid for 

 what they know, not for wliat they do. Recently, the crew of a trawler out of 

 Boston cleared $700 apiece for a 10-day trip. (The price for the catch is figured 

 on a pro-rata basis, after taking out the operating costs of the trip; the usual 

 practice on a fishing vessel.) 



And in the January 9, 1959, number of the English Fishing News, mention 

 is made of the gross earned by the drifter-trawler Fellowship. This fishing 

 vessel grossed £12.870 (US$36,036). Fishermen on the better (financially) 

 trawlers fre<iuently clear US$11,000 or US$12,000 a year. And, it is also 

 reliably reported that the master of one of the big trawlers out of Boston re- 

 ceives an annual salary of $.30,000. 



Food? — Fo(xl does cost, no two ways about it. Food costs could be cut, if 

 tlie Albatross steward were permitted to buy staples at Otis AFB. (The station 

 is about 14 miles from Otis AFB). For some reason, unknown to me, this 

 practice is not permitted. And probably there is some waste. Incidentally, 

 the usual food budget for a fishing vessel out of Boston, is around $700 a v/eek. 

 The fi.tnire for IS men on the Albati-oss covering a similar period, vrould run 

 between $400 and $425. 



'•Maintenance costs are very high." — Considerable money has had to be ."^^pent 

 to bring the Albatross up to par because she was allowed to get into a^ poor 

 condition. No major reconditioning is in sight. The September 1958 haul-out 

 cost about $2:^,000. It is reliably reported in Woods Hole that the last haul- 

 out of the RV Atlantis was around $50,000. A $15,000 maintenance figure is 

 considered moderate in marine circles, and the annual haul-out is a nuist for 

 any vessel, large or small. And to think there will be practically no maintenance 

 for a new vessel is wishful thinking. Maintenance costs for a new vessel will 

 be much higher for 2 or 3 years than the present cost for the Albatross, in order 

 to eliminate the "bugs" any new vessel has. The automobile industry gets 

 around this by exhaustive road tests: this is not feasible for a vessel. And 

 why spend all this money to get the Albatross in good condition, and then sell 

 her? 



"Too little return per research dollar expended." — First and foremost, it 

 should be recognized that research in and of itself is expensive, and to some 

 extent, at least, wasteful. The return on research cannot be compared to the 

 return one would naturally exi>e<?t from a stock market transaction. The re- 

 sults are not immediately apparent, and more closely resemble a mosaic or a 

 parquet floor, i.e., a piece at a time. Research, must not only prove what is 

 true, it must also prove what isn't. It happens that I worked at one of the 

 Navy's research activities for several years. There I learned that an experi- 

 ment which didn't work out could easily cost $100,000. In Mr. Leffler's view 

 that money was wasted. But the Navy didn't think so because it proved what 

 couldn't be done in regard to the specific problem. 



"Afore efficient planning * * *". — There is no argument on this point ; we are all 

 for it. If there appears to be an insuflacient return on the work of a particular 

 cruise or cruises, this is not the fault of the ship and her crew. This is due to 

 lack of proper planning in order to utilize the Albatross to the fullest extent. 

 This is the responsibilit.v of the Director of this Laboratory. 



The master and crew of the Albatross are convinced that the operating costs 

 of the ship could be pared if the vessel operation and maintenance were in the 

 hands of a marine superintendent (or port captain) who was a graduate of one 

 of the maritime academies, and who had put in several years as master on 

 ■"blue water." 



