a. Trip Expenditure 



Since 1953, rising trip expenditures 

 have become characteristic of the opera- 

 tions of the larger 150-199 gross -ton 

 Gloucester and Maine trawlers and the 

 smaller 50-75 gross-ton Maine trawlers. 

 The average trip expenditures per vessel of 

 the large Maine trawlers were only $1,300 

 per trip in 1950-52. Yet, from 1953 onward 

 trip expenditures were never lower than 

 $1,800 per trip, and were as high as $2,100 

 per trip in 1956. The experience of 150- 

 199 gross-ton Gloucester trawler paralleled 

 that of the larger Maine trawler. Average 

 trip-expenditures per vessel for 50-75 

 gross-ton Maine trawlers increased from 

 $290 per trip in 1950-52 to $333 per trip 

 in 1953 and $377 per trip in 1957, (table 

 V-16). 



On the other hand, Gloucester vessels 

 in the 125-1)^9 gross-ton class experienced 

 a decrease in trip expenditures on a trip- 

 by-trip basis from 1953 onward. A percent- 

 age distribution of wage receipts per ves- 

 sel, however, reveals that on all trawlers, 

 trip-expenditures represented a much larger 

 share of trawler receipts from 1953 to 1957 

 than they did during 1950-52, (table V-17). 

 The distribution further reveals that the 

 rising share of receipts now devoted to 

 trip expenditures has meant a fall in the 

 share of receipts available to the crew. 

 This situation, however, has had little 

 effect on the percentage share of receipts 

 available to the vessel owner. 



In general, rising outlays for trip 

 expenditures have then been offset by de- 

 clining crew earnings. Since 1953 the 

 average per man earnings, Cin all trawlers 

 operating from Gloucester and Maine ports, 

 remained at levels much below the average 

 per man earnings of 1950-52, (table V-18). 



The adverse effects of falling re- 

 ceipts and rising trip expenditures on crew 

 earnings is perhaps the contributing factor 



to the continued decline in the manning re- 

 quirements of these trawlers. The average 

 crew size of the larger 150-199. gross-ton 

 Gloucester and Maine trawlers shrank from 

 11 men and 9 iien respectively in 1950-52 to 

 9 and 7 men in 1956 and 1957. The crew 

 size of the 50-75 gross-ton Maine trawler 

 was rediiced from 5 i"en in 1950-52 to U men 

 in 1956 and 1957 j that of 125-11(9 gross-ton 

 Gloucester vessels from 10 men during 1950- 

 52 to 8 men in 1956 and 1957. 



The differing crew size of the larger 

 Maine and Gloucester trawler may be attri- 

 buted to the absence of an effective union 

 organization in the Maine ports and the 

 presence of a union organization, although 

 becoming less and less effective, in 

 Gloucester. The presence or absence of 

 union organization perhaps may also explain 

 why falling receipts and increasing trip 

 expenditures have had no effect on the per- 

 centage distribution of receipts in Maine 

 ports. They have, however, slightly, in- 

 fluenced the percentage distributions of 

 receipts in Gloucester. In Gloucester there 

 has been some allocation of trip expendi- 

 tijires either by changing the lay entirely 

 or by including more items under joint 

 expenditures. In either event, the vessel 

 operator assumes an added portion of trip 

 expenditures . lOo/ 



b . Insurance 



Insurance expenditures have also in- 

 creased in the years since 1953- It should 

 be noted, however, that in Boston rising 

 insurance expenditures were associated with 

 falling receipts and crew earnings. and so, 

 too, in Gloucester and Maine that this rise 

 in insurance expenditures has accompanied 

 falling receipts and decreasing wages. There 

 is again evidence that falling receipts may 

 well be the cause of an increasing loss 

 experience and an increasing insurance 

 rate. 109/ 



108/ 125-lii9 gross-ton trawlers under examination changed successively from a 

 straight "60-1^0" to a "broker UO" to an "Italian lay". The effect of these changes 

 has been to gradually make all items of trip expenditures "joint expenses". 



109/ Many insurance brokers who were interviewed noted that rates are higher in 

 Gloucester than other New England ports due to the higher loss experience of these 

 vessels. It was further asserted that it is extremely difficult to settle claims 

 in Gloucester. 



72 



