"MVR": you say: as one of the most consistent defenders of non-state pilotage services, V. egorkin "turned 180 degrees" and now became the most ardent of their opponents.

– It is not so or is not so. I was and remain a staunch defender of the interests of pilots and the public interest, and they are in a pilot case are inseparable. Objectively in the industrial sector exists, without delving into the "high philosophical matter", the conflict of interests of security and profitability. In the merchant service, and one manifestation of this is the desire of ship owners, consumers of pilot services to reduce the level of pilotage, which in most foreign ports occupies a significant place in the total amount of port charges through the introduction of competition in the provision of pilotage services.

Organizing pilot support in their dangerous navigation of the waters of the state, as a rule, is to protect the interests of pilots of the state or non-state if the right to provide pilotage services delegated to the Association of pilots. At the beginning of perestroika, when we were told that the world will be saved by the universal market, in the merchant service, "under the guise of" began hauling or privatization of strategic state enterprises: shipping companies, ports, factories, etc.

Then neither the state in a "disassembled" state, nor business, swallow big chunks, don't care about pilots, and pilots managed to take control of a pilot in itself. Actually, while in the chaos of the pilots saved the state a pilot function, how it is organized in many sea countries. After a short time, somewhere in 2000, when all the choicest of Maritime enterprise was shared, he remembered the pilots and began attempts to capture the functions of a pilot security with the aim of making money.

The history of this time is not easy, pilots resisted the business, but without the support of the state, lost. From 2001 to 2004 on behalf of ANO "AML SPb" and NGO "Association of sea pilots of Russia" I defended in the constitutional court of the Russian Federation the rights of pilots, disturbed illegally issued by the RF Government decree of 17 July 2001, No. 538. In the end, the decision of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation from April 6, 2004 n 7-P was recognized as not corresponding to the Constitution of the Russian Federation provisions of item 2 of article 87 of the Russian KTM and in their normative unity government decree of 17 July 2001, No. 538.

The pilots were defeated, but took advantage of this victory is not the pilots, as entrepreneurs, and in 2005 began the capture of the most profitable business areas of pilotage. The expansion of the private sector in a pilot case with the purpose of profit continues, the state is still not out of lethargy, and I used to do, and now engaged in the protection of the interests of pilots and the state.

"MVR": what generally is the problem of regulation of pilotage activities in the ports of Russia, which they say has for decades? And how many pilots in the country?

Pilots in the country is around 900, maybe a little more, but the exact figure no one calls in Soviet naval pilots were about 700 people and there was only one problem – the underestimation of the public ports of the profession of pilot. And when the ports started to go public, the pilots became part of non-commercial organizations, and their situation has deteriorated significantly.

The problem now is that the law and normative acts regulate the activities of marine pilots, but does not regulate the activities of pilotage organizations, although the "Maritime pilot" and "pilot organization," ensuring "pilotage" are an indivisible unity. In addition, the legal uncertainty of article 88 of the rules of the Russian Federation and other normative legal acts do not allow the transport Ministry to somehow control the activities of private pilotage companies.

Russian legislation allows for the provision of pilotage of vessels in the Russian ports of non-state pilotage organizations, but still is nowhere defined their form of ownership. Still not implemented the decision of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation dated 06/04-2004 n 7-P, where the constitutional court in view of the significant characteristics not to include the pilot activity to the normal business activities that are regulated on the basis of the civil code, ordered "the Federal legislator to regulate the activities of non-governmental organizations on pilotage of vessels".

The provisions of the Russian legislation in force in the field of Maritime security, which does not prohibit the activities of private pilotage companies and the development of competition in pilotage, not fully reflect the changes that actually occurred with the proclamation of private ownership of the means of production.

The only way to eliminate the contradictions generated in the sphere of legal provision of pilot services: material purpose private pilotage company and the intangible purpose of pilotage is to enshrine in law the form of a pilot organization, in line with the objectives of pilotage – the unified state pilotage service of the country, as it is in most coastal countries in the world.

"MVR": In our country the conditions for a market economy, the President speaks about the need for the development of small and medium business, and if in these circumstances, the consumers of pilotage services pilotage choose private companies (the figures), so they offer the best services?

– The market is not always won by the laws of a pure market economy, and we see examples of this constantly in everyday life, and geopolitics.

First. The owner does not know the local conditions and the choice of service providers makes it specific to the port agent. It is common international practice, but in world practice there is no competition in the pilotage case, and the agent is not tempted to cash in a fraction on the choice of pilot company. One could argue that the agent, knowing the local conditions, the pilot selects a private company because it provides best services and I tarnished the "good name of the agent."

Yes, it would be possible if it were not for cases where agents kickbacks for the selection of private pilotage companies. Some small part of them can somehow confirm, not doing a criminal investigation, and most, of course, not confirm, but it, of course.

Second. Safety requirements and commercial interests of increasing profitability are in a state of confrontation at the level of strategic confusion. Private pilotage company has long been covertly began to form, and then paraquats major stevedoring companies, operators of port terminals (sometimes units strategically large), owners monoposto, mainly oil, towing and shipping companies. The main purpose of these affiliated to large business of private pilotage companies is the extra profit at the expense of at least a slight lowering of the level of safety of navigation and the quality of pilotage service.

The market for pilotage services in specialized monoposto and the major port terminals has long been monopolized by private pilotage companies affiliated with stevedoring, grazuleviciene or shipping companies, and there is no close competition there is no neither healthy nor unhealthy. And of course, they will not allow on "their" terminals "their ancestral lands" the public pilot service with its strict enforcement of the law, the rules of safety of navigation and transparent accounting, and that most of the "talking numbers".

"ISI": And whether it is possible to scientifically resolve the dispute between supporters and opponents of private enterprise in a pilot case?

– Yes, of course, possible, although Russia has not conducted research on the possibility of providing pilot services on commercial principles in a competitive environment and market development of pilotage services in the seaports of the Russian Federation. Such studies should be carried out at a high level, focusing on the implications of different patterns to avoid making changes that might increase the risk of accidents and environmental disasters. In European countries – Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and others in recent years at a good level conducted study of market aspects of the pilot activities.

These studies caused by the fact that the issues of the value of pilotage in the total cost of call has long been buderussia ship-owners at different venues UES and their powerful lobbying, taking into account other aspects of the common market, published several recommendations on introduction of competition in the field of pilotage services in the member countries of the EEC. But the leadership of these countries, realizing the tremendous danger to its waters and coastal areas from the growing volumes of cargo transportation by Maritime transport, including dangerous goods, defends the state monopoly in the field of pilotage services, and quite successfully.

The principles of the pilot activities in all countries are the same, and therefore, for a solution it is possible to use the results of existing studies because of their independent implementation requires a significant investment. It's enough to make a translation of those works that have been conducted in several sea countries, and to take what suits us. This is by orders of magnitude less expensive. In their estimates and reasoning I am based on foreign experience, a synthesis of practice and theoretical research.

"MVR": are There any restrictions on market access to pilotage services organizations conducting or planning to conduct pilotage in the seaports?

– Due to some legal uncertainties in law there are no restrictions on the access of any organization to market pilot services, but this is one of the drawbacks of normative regulation of pilotage activities. Nothing prevents any of the stevedoring company, any shipowning company, any towing company and any operator in the port to create a pilot service in order to generate additional income or any other benefits.

Now to the small port of Rostov-on-don, about 17 private pilotage companies working peacefully on the basis of certain "specific agreements" without guarantees from the redistribution market. Private pilot organizations have become the subject of bargaining: we know that in the ports of Tuapse and Novorossiysk private pilotage companies have 2-3 times changed their masters. But if a private business in the sphere of pilot activities will be legalized in the Big port of St.-Petersburg will be 20 or 30 private pilotage companies, and unmanaged "pilot market" with its shady sides will start to operate across the country, and not always peacefully.

While the state organization in the "market war" have no chance to win because they have transparent accounting and there is no shadow of resources. And the implementation of "exclusion cartel" and "the exception to the monopolization of the market" private pilotage companies will require significant regulatory support, with no guarantee of success.

"MVR": a nonprofit Association of owners of private pilotage companies NP ", NOLO" offers to resolve long-standing dispute with the adoption of the amendments to the rules of the Russian Federation on a pilot self-regulatory organization. Maybe this is the solution to the pilot problem?

This bill No. 639382-6 recently, 08/11-2017, the state Duma has been rejected, but our pilot businessmen really do not want to part with their easy income, and they are again intensified.

The purpose of state regulation of entrepreneurial activity is the creation of certain conditions for the operation of the economy as a whole. At the mercy of self-regulation around the world have given a vast sphere of activity that are difficult to regulate from above, with the exception of cases when it comes to national security issues, emergencies, etc.

In the pilot case is just the opposite: with small volume and the absence of an artificially created market difficulties in the regulation of no, and refers to the sphere of national security. A bill on a pilot SRO not permit the situation, and even more worsens. This bill establishes a pilot provision in the commercial interests of private pilotage companies rendering pilotage services not for the purpose of ensuring navigation safety, and for profit, creating an insoluble contradiction in KTM the Russian Federation.

In addition, a bill on a pilot SRO proposes to establish property liability insurance when providing pilotage services, which is double insurance in international trade sailing under pilotage, and from which the world's Maritime community has long since abandoned.

What is the need to equip the market in a pilot case with the submitted bill, requiring a large variety of procedures without guarantee its complete subordination to the state? Neither the pilots nor the state is not necessary and not profitable, and the long period of celebration Orgy in a pilot case is unlikely to be codified in law.

In my opinion, the idea of a bill on a pilot SRO has only one purpose – the decision of problems of preservation of profitability of the owners of private pilotage companies. It is not the improvement of the state function on the organization providing a stable pilot in all ports of the country, including the Arctic unprofitable, and it does not solve the problem of making pilot decisions independent from commercial interests of the employer.

"MVR": Advocates of market relations in a pilot case in numerous letters to the leadership of the industry and the country called a private pilotage company's commercial organizations are one and the same?

– No, these concepts are not identical. A commercial organization that provides pilotage services may be owned by the state, is valid in this case with non-commercial purposes and completely controlled by the authorities, it is established. Private pilotage company, being purely commercial, is owned by physical or legal persons, it is founded, operates to generate profits, and competent pilotage authority has no right to interfere in its activities, if it is not against the law, and this is a violation of Russia's international commitments. Currently in Russia there is no other non-state pilot companies, in addition to "private", so they should be called.

"MVR": the Defenders of "small and medium business pilot" saying that the market is driven by progress, therefore, competition is the development of a pilot case.

– It is not. A pilot case does not need any additional market mechanisms that encourage it to develop. Pilotage is part of the infrastructure safety of navigation in the port and is carried out with all elements of the navigation safety systems, including management system traffic. All parts of this system are the sole property of the state and under the control of public authorities. In this system, are completely absent market mechanisms, but it is running fine, evolving and improving to ensure the safety of navigation of vessels.

The commercial activities of private pilotage companies to extract profits inside non-profit in fact system violates harmonize activities of the system and sooner or later will fail in its work. It is obvious that the benefits of any development, and the danger of disruption there.

"MVR": Why not, in your opinion, to organize pilot activities on a competitive market basis?

– World experience shows that market model, competition leads to a "doubling business expenditure" to pilotage. If you are even two organizations, each of them must have special pilot boats, delivery vehicles on the beach, restrooms pilots, accounting, etc., and it is unnecessary double expenses for the same process. A collection of limited edition and one port it will be enough to ensure quality work is only one pilotage organization. There is no doubt that the unjustified rise in operational costs at a fixed rate of pilotage reduces the possibility of making pilotage in the development and improvement of the quality of pilotage services.

The market for pilotage services is so small that it is in principle insufficient for healthy and sustainable competition among a large number of participants and the positive effect of competition manifests itself only when a large number of market participants. While not extensive the market the risk of unhealthy competition, its Treaty section, and organizing price agreements, and eventually the redistribution of the market, the formation of monopolies and, consequently, higher prices.

Unfair competition arises the need for control, fine-tune and regulate the local market in each port, where there are conditions for the activities of private pilotage companies and requires the creation of conditions for development of competition, and it is very difficult given the characteristics of the market pilot services.

In addition, private pilotage companies, being commercial, we work on the basis of freedom of contract with for profit. Hypothetically in this case, a situation may arise when the private pilot, the company received a large share of the market, will subsequently cease to exist (the provision of pilotage services). In such a situation there is no guarantee that the state-owned company or other private pilotage companies will have the necessary power to ensure that the pilot operations, previously performed by the departed from the market by the company.

"MVR": Frequently asked question: why in one port can work with several towing companies on a competitive basis, and several pilot companies can't, and those and others ensure the safety of navigation of vessels in the port?

Yes, some can, but others cannot, so it is and so it should be seen. And that's why I will try to explain briefly without getting into the wilds of the theoretical arguments.

First. Attaching special importance to ensuring safety of navigation in the port waters and the approaches thereto, the international Maritime organization (IMO), which member we are, back in 1968 (IMO Resolution A. 158, 159 from 27/11-1968) adopted a resolution on the establishment by coastal States of the areas of compulsory pilotage in dangerous for shipping areas. This was detailed in IMO Resolution A. 485, which in 2003 was replaced by IMO Resolution 960 (23). This position IMO is supported by practically all the Maritime countries of the world, which in one form or another, legislated the state monopoly on activities for pilotage of vessels.

Second. We have a monopoly of the state on a pilot activity has also been enshrined in KTM the USSR in 1967. In its reform in the 90-ies there were some loopholes to appear in 2000 years of private pilotage companies in the field of the pilot providing, but from the analysis of the current legislation it is obvious that the government puts the provision of pilotage services in the port for a special place and highlights the pilotage of all types of business activities in the port, including the provision of towing services.

The special status of the pilot activities is confirmed by a simple analysis of the articles of KTM of the Russian Federation, where pilotage highlighted in the articles regulating the relations arising from merchant shipping (V. 1, 2); the article, which establishes rules for navigation along the NSR (article 5.1); the article on functional duties of the captain of the port (article 76).

Marine pilots dedicated a separate Chapter of KTM, articles 85-106, where detailed and objective pilotage (article 86), and the status of the marine pilot (article 87), and the oversight of organizations engaged in pilotage (article 88), and compulsory pilotage (article 89, 90), and the implementation of a pilot duties of a public nature (article 92), and the relationship of the pilot with the ship's captain in the performance of pilotage duties (article 93-101), including their liability (article 102) and liability for improper pilotage of the vessel, including its limitation (articles 103-105, 314), and compulsory pilotage (article 106).

None of this on the provision of towing services in the KTM doesn't. If pilot activities are regulated in detail in KTM the Russian Federation and some legal uncertainty allows unscrupulous officials to treat it as a market, port towing in KTM the Russian Federation, devoted to only one 230-article I of Chapter 12 (article 225-231) on the contract for the towing and everything!

Third. The port has compulsory pilotage dues, but no towing of compulsory acquisition (article 19, paragraph 3. FZ 08/11-2007 No. 261-FZ).

If port towing is regulated by the civil code and the monopoly in the provision of towing services is not allowed, that pilotage is regulated by the CMW RF and competition, commercial activity in the provision of pilotage services not valid.

"MVR": Traders accuse Rosmorport that "the lack of separate accounting" allows him the expense of cross-subsidies and price dumping out of the market, non-governmental organizations.

– Maybe someone knows examples of that somewhere and sometime Rosmorport "pushed out of the market" at least one pilotage organization?! There are no such examples, anyway, I don't know of any.

Pilotage rates are the same for organizations of both forms of ownership, and competition is expressed only in the possibility of obtaining more favorable pilotage services. A pilot practice of modern market shows that the private pilot companies are much more "market mechanisms" because the state cannot intervene and control the expenditure of the pilotage.

What kind of "price dumping" Rosmorport may be involved, if the yield average pilotage of a pilot in a private company in 2-10 times higher than the average yield of pilotage in the pilotage service of the FSUE "Rosmorport"? Performing the task to ensure safe navigation of all vessels, without exception, in all ports of the country, including modeately and the Arctic, Rosmorport is forced to cover the loss from its pilot service in the amount of missing pilotage, "put in pocket" owners of private pilotage companies, at the expense of other port charges.

Forced additional financing pilotage service of the FSUE "Rosmorport" in ports where there are favorable conditions for private pilotage companies from other port charges on the basis of implementing the functions of the state means the whole country save and subsidies for super-profitable business owners of private pilotage companies at the expense of the safety of navigation.

"MVR": the Defenders "pilot market" write about the inability of state structures to establish an effective port state pilot organizations and their ability to effectively manage a household.

Is just the opposite. Private pilotage company shown on the report, the average cost of a single pilot operation 2-7 times higher than the state, working in the same conditions. That is, the production efficiency per unit of goods (services) in private pilotage companies are no better, and 2-7 times worse.

The bulk of the work for pilotage of vessels in the seaports of Russia now do the pilots of the FSUE "Rosmorport", which carries out pilot activities in the interests of the state with non-commercial purpose. Moreover, private pilot doing 4 times less volume of pilotage services, receive annually nearly the same amount of gross pilotage, and government organizations ("Maritime news of Russia" № 11, № 18 for 2018 and # 1 for 2019).

"MVR": the Defenders "pilot market" say that the creation of a single public service will lead to loss of its activity and excessive increase in pilotage, which will adversely affect the operation of ports and provision of carriage of goods by sea transport.

In this case there is not the slightest cause for concern. With the departure from the scope of the pilot provide pilotage to private companies going back to at least half a billion rubles annually lose now and forever. Will not need subsidies for pilot activities at the expense of other port charges or pilotage increase in small ports at the expense of the shipowners.

After a unified state pilotage service will begin work, and the expenditure of the pilotage will be completely transparent, which allows to develop a methodology for the calculation of rates of pilotage, on the basis of the state task of the pilot software, and to determine the actual level of necessary sufficiency of pilotage in all ports of the country.

The state is interested in stable, smooth operation of ports, and the financial results of port operations, is not comparable with the amount of pilotage, and because the state pilot service will be in complete subjection to the state, will not be allowed to excessively increase pilotage dues.

In Finland, for example, according to them, a pilot fee is on average about 5% (we have about 5-10%) of the gross value of the ship entering port (53% accounted for by the terminal operators, 30% other, port charges, 10% channel collection). The "Finnpilot" economically independently, and the government subsidizes a pilot activity, although only 10% of pilotage services in ports operate with a positive balance, and the rest of the local pilot service at a loss and are subsidized at the expense of pilotage profitable ports.

"MVR": private pilot Defenders of business claim that the difference between the pilots and no pilot is solely responsible for their work, no matter under what guise it works: public or private.

Is incorrect information. According to KTM, the Russian Federation, the pilot does not assume "full responsibility for his work," if his actions were not of direct intent (article 97, 102 KTM). And any pilot organization in which employee is a pilot, carries less liability (article 103, 104, 105 CMW RF) only when the proof of guilt of the pilot, which happens very rarely, because the responsibility for maneuvering the responsibility of the captain of the ship. In this pilot, the organization is not responsible for the actions of the pilot of his employee and shall not be liable to third parties.

Today we have a strong disproportion of the state's responsibility for the organization of a pilot security in its waters and irresponsibility of private pilotage companies, whose activities the state can not control, losses due to mistakes of their pilots. This imbalance persists, while pilotage services are rendered by private uncontrolled pilot companies on a commercial basis.

"MVR": Traders say that in matters of Maritime safety, private pilot, like all pilots, are equally subject to the commands of the captain of the port.

– It is not, the captain of the port, relatively few functions with respect to pilots. In accordance with article 76 of KTM of the Russian Federation and the Provision on the seaport captain (paras. 14.1, 14.6, 14.8, 16.4, 16.15) the harbour master carries out the General management of the security infrastructure of navigation, which includes pilotage, but no more.

The captain of the port has no right to interfere in the work of the pilot and to give him any commands, and the pilot in matters of navigation safety guided only by the law and regulations in force in the port. But employers pilots private pilot companies on the profit motive can induce them to a violation of navigation safety, and the pilot can't refuse, if you do not want to be fired for some reason.

"MVR": According to defenders of the market, the statistics do not confirm that the emergency cases and accidents for private pilots more than pilots in the state. Is it really so?

Maybe the difference is, but it is insignificant. In fact, the qualification of pilots about the same, and no the pilot will not knowingly commit an accident, but the system of organization of work of the pilots, goal the provision of pilotage services from public and private pilotage companies. Can only say that in private pilotage companies violated the regime of working time and rest time of the pilots, and this is a direct way to increase the accident rate.

One of the main characteristics of the pilot organisation is its stability, the use of pilotage on the development and upgrading of technical provision of pilotage that is completely absent from private pilot organizations and lead to their degradation.

The state-level law protects the stability of the pilotage functions: a guarantee of stable operation of the pilot organizations and obtaining pilotage (article 90, paragraph 1.4 of article 80 of the Russian KTM), this limitation of the liability of pilots and pilot organizations (articles 102-105 KTM the Russian Federation).

The basis of entrepreneurial activities of private pilotage companies is the risk (para. 3 of part 1 of article 2 of the civil code) that allows their instability and is one of the reasons why the pilot company can not be private. It is also one of the reasons why the pilotage service of almost all Maritime countries are in direct control of the state or are controlled by the pilots and their activities are strictly regulated by the law of the country.

"MVR": According to the "pilot business" world and European experiences speak for the fact that the presence of private pilotage companies along with the state – a common international practice. If the government declares a market economy, the competition in the field of pilotage services is natural.

– Statement on world and European experience is absolutely false.

Monopoly on pilotage activities enshrined in the legislation of countries such as Germany, UK, Holland, Belgium, France, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, with their purely market economy. Did not let the pilots in the market and our post-Soviet republics: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. The only country in Europe, Denmark, the Law on pilot case No. 567 of 9 June 2006, established the competition in pilotage. However, a pilot case in Denmark was not released to float on the "sea market" and the state fully controls the activities of private pilotage companies, including their finances and the amount of work.

In fact, the coastal States around the world do not allow competition in pilotage and pilotage service operates within a monopoly, regardless of the form and status of the pilot organization. Of the great variety of the marine world, there are 3-4 countries, where in some extent, allowed competition in a pilot, but experts in the field of Maritime safety refer to this experience as purely negative. Foreign researchers of the pilot case believe that the field of pilotage services and competition may not lead to the desired result – a decrease in the value of the offered services without lowering their quality.

Pilot activities abroad is carried out on a nonprofit basis, and pilots are working either in government organizations or members of non-state pilotage organizations, managed by the pilots. Examples of pilot organizations, privately owned and for profit, generally unknown, since among the items forming the value of pilotage, there can be no room for the profit of the owner is a private pilotage company.

"MVR": it is said that a private pilot salary is higher than that of the state?

– Several old data "in the port of St. Petersburg pilot service of the state of organization of the wage Fund (PAYROLL) pilots is about 70% of the pilotage, which is consistent with international practice, where conventionally, the PH of the pilots is around 65-75% of the gross pilotage received a pilot organization. In a private company "Petersburg Pilot" FOT pilots is no more than 30% of the pilotage and pilots of this company, working more than 30% of the time get a salary of more than government organizations.

At the oil terminal of LUKOIL in Vysotsk, the salary of pilots of the private company OOO "Baltic pilot" is indeed higher than that of the state pilotage in the seaports of Vyborg and Vysotsk, where FOT pilots by 9.7% more than received a pilot collection, but FOT pilots from private owners is not more than 25% of the pilotage.

If in the port of Kaliningrad a pilot in the service of the state organization FOT pilots by 9.3% exceeds the pilotage dues received in the private pilot of the company "Albatross" is working in the ports of Primorsk and Ust-Luga, FOT pilots is about 25% of the pilotage".

The numbers probably have changed a little, but the principle remained, and the entrepreneurs work only where the largest part of the expenses of pilotage PHOT pilots is not more than 30 per cent of their amount. They keep the wages of their pilots, focusing on the Rosmorport, a little above to not moved.

Of course, the salary of the pilots in the FSUE "Rosmorport" today varies widely on ports and regions, which, in the opinion of the pilots, should not be. Even in the same basin management the salary of the pilots of St.-Petersburg and Vyborg differs by about 20-25%, although the download of pilots and the complexity of the work in Vyborg and Vysotsk are not lower and even higher than in SPb, not to mention Kaliningrad, where the difference is even higher and the complexity is not below. But the main reason for this, although there are others, is that taking away from the amount of pilotage hundreds of millions of rubles, owners of private pilotage companies Rosmorport deprived of the ability to provide a decent salary level pilots in all the ports of Russia.

"MVR": How are the pilots themselves to the idea of creating a unified state pilotage service of Russia?

– In different ways. Pilots state organizations feel the expansion of private entrepreneurs in the pilot and very concerned about this aggression. The pilots of the port of Ust-Luga still remember the story, when the traders, with no chance, dragged on the part of a pilot service at this port, and in a letter to the leadership of the country pilots expressed concern for the future of the pilot. Pilots of the Arkhangelsk that work in the Arctic Sabetta port, with large vessels – tankers, and now secretly pressed the emissaries of private pilotage company in any way trying to capture a new profitable market.

This situation, of course, creates a tense psychological situation in the work of pilots of the state organizations. But the mental attitude of pilots pilotage of private companies is even worse. Many would be happy to escape from serfdom by clever businessmen, but do not see this possibility and do not want to be unemployed in adulthood. And those who tried to look for the truth already "outside the gate".

The pilots of the older generation, working in private pilotage companies, are nostalgic for the days when they worked in organizations that they created in the European example, but I understand that in this situation really pull them out of serfdom by clever businessmen can only state. Some pilots government organizations experience in the branches of Rosmorport, not very positive due to various reasons, is transferred to the future state pilot service without considering the fundamental difference in the nature of the organization, but it's just a misunderstanding the intended changes.

Pilots are well educated with a great life experience and I am sure that all pilots, including those working in private pilotage companies will view the reform positively, with the exception of a small amount of lured their owners, and vote for it (maybe not openly), but they all have to be sure that no one lose my job and no one will lose in salary. Pilots believe in a separate state pilotage service they must have wages worthy of their profession and in politics pilotage service should be a place for their views on professional issues.

"MVR": Constantly uses the phrase "areas of compulsory and optional pilotage". With a mandatory more or less clear, and the regulation of pilotage in the areas of optional pilotage?

– Yes in any way. Are any of the waters in inland seas, where there is no duty on the state to establish pilotage to ensure the safety of navigation, but the captain for some reason may require a pilot, but sometimes it may be necessary to pilotage. The problem of providing the courts with quality pilotage in these areas is practically insoluble in the conditions of private business in a pilot case is easily solved and the state pilotage service. This also applies to pilotage of "the pilots of the open sea", which is actually carried out in the Baltic sea, but currently does not legally settled.

"MVR": Traders say the argument that "Maritime security can be provided only by pilots of the state of the organization", is not tenable. Ask: "what kind of security involved and the risks posed to the state by a private pilot"? The answer is no.

– The thesis is formulated correctly. There are no public or private pilots, they all studied in the same universities, worked in the same courts, and all received a certificate "out of hand" the captain of the port. None of the representatives of the competent pilotage authorities of Russia never had the dividing line on the pilots, no matter what organization they worked. The dividing line is in the form of ownership of pilot organizations:

– private pilotage companies are not interested in having their pilots informed the port authorities about the negative state courts clients, because it can negatively affect their profits, and can affect pilots;

– private pilot company in order to generate more income often force pilots to violation of working time and rest time, although the regime is one of the most important parameters of quality pilotage services and the responsibility of the pilot;

– owners of private pilot organizations in some way take away from the scope of the pilot provide a portion of the target pilotage in his personal income, which leads to the need of funding of state pilotage services in the Arctic and other "marginal" ports above the rates charged by pilotage.

"MVR": Many doubt the need to change the existing working and now the system pilot software, we should do it?

– Of course, it is necessary as soon as possible as the organisation of pilot schemes in the country monthly damage in the sum about 40 million roubles. The benefits of creating a state pilotage organizations are the following:

The gross pilotage of the country, which is now receiving organization of both forms of ownership, enough for the organization of high-quality pilotage services in all ports of the country, including the currently unprofitable, to attract all the ports of pupil pilots promising young captains.

After a unified state pilotage service will begin work, receipts and disbursements of the pilot collection will become fully transparent. Will not be necessary to increase pilotage at the expense of the shipowners or subsidies to pilot activities at the expense of other port charges. This will allow to develop methodology of calculation of rates of pilotage and determine the actual adequacy pilotage in all ports of the country, considering state objectives supply of the Arctic territories, increased freight turnover of sea ports and pilotage support.

State organization with a monopoly will surely be able to offer the cost of pilotage at least the same low, as in the model with competition that is beneficial to the shipowners. World experience suggests that savings on the rates, cooperation and better use of pilots among the highest in the state model. The state organization ensures a reasonable, informed and dynamic control of expenses, is advantageous in the formation of cost of services and provides a higher degree of efficiency.

State organization owns all the equipment, hires all pilots, ensures their education, training and negotiating working conditions. In addition, the state company will carry a full, real responsibility for the stability and continued development of a pilot case.

Concentration in the hands of all the potential pilots and technical resources will allow us to more reliably and efficiently to ensure all areas of pilotage, including the areas of optional pilotage, in which the state's obligations to ensure the safety of navigation is not obvious, and the need for such services arises periodically.

The creation of a single national state pilot service will solve all organizational problems pilotage including in the open Baltic sea and in the Arctic, will eliminate the problem of misuse of pilotage. At the same time legal regulation of pseudo, the current in the pilot, ensuring quality and full control of the competent pilotage authority of the now existing private pilotage companies will require a huge amount of legal work, a large number of changes and additions to the existing system of law without any guarantee of success.

It's not at times, but dozens, hundreds of times more extensive legal work than the amendment of the rules of the. And what is the need to work so hard to preserve profitability (mostly shadow) a small number of hosts (20-30 people) of private pilotage companies and legalization of the market relations in the sphere of Maritime safety? And in whose interests it?

Regulation of activities of non-state pilotage service of the Netherlands, controlled by pilots and working exclusively on a commercial basis in all ports of the country, has demanded more thousands of pages of laws and regulations. And the members of the working group, investigated in 2010 the possibility of opening pilotage for competition activities in Finland, argue that changing the current model based on membership of the state one company at a model with multiple providers of pilotage services on market terms will lead to a stressful situation in the field of official control of the pilot activities to ensure the safety of pilotage services.

The establishment of the state pilotage service of Russia will provide:

– effective control over the professional activities of pilot organizations and the uniformity of the approach to the pilotage service in all sea ports of the Russian Federation;

– control of targeted use of pilotage and the optimization of the rates of pilotage in Russia as a whole taking into account the interests of both the state and consumers of pilotage services;

– project preparation and construction of new pilot vessels, including ice class, and other means of delivery used in international practice, as well as other means to ensure the work of pilots and the development of progressive technologies;

– the creation of a single national training centre, corresponding to modern requirements to professional training of pilots, the improvement of programmes of retraining and advanced training of all pilots of Russia;

– employment in the unified state pilotage organizations of all existing pilots, including a pilot of the private companies and their greater social protection.

"MVR": it Turns out that the pilot companies should be nationalized? And this is consistent with the Constitution of Russia?

– No, no nationalization of private pilotage companies may not be, by definition, because they are not privatized any state-owned property. During the confusion of clever businessmen "prihvatizirovat" only a state function for the organisation ensuring a pilot and did it in the best ports, than has caused considerable damage to the organization of a pilot security at the country as a whole.

I think that no one is going to close the private pilot of the company and to take away their "acquired by overwork", is troublesome, and the state is simply the legitimate way to restore their rights to the execution of a pilot security that does not contradict the Constitution. Privateers in their charters probably scored up to fifty different types of activities and let them legally earn their "bread and butter" in accordance with article 2 of the civil code at your own risk.

"ISI": And how long will it take the transition from the current system of pilotage services in the seaports to the unified state pilotage service? Isn't there any failure in the operation of the ports?

– Any failure will not. Private pilotage companies operate in 15 sea ports of the Russian Federation, the "work ports" did not accurately reflect the reality of the situation, since most of these ports they work in a competitive environment with the pilotage service of the FSUE "Rosmorport".

Really out of 67 ports reform in its purest form will affect only two ports of Primorsk and suburban, and the remaining ports pilots both worked, and will work without any changes. The whole country has enough qualified pilots, and if they took a willful decision on the establishment of a unified state pilotage service, any port will not be a temporary gap in the provision of pilotage services. Have a little question about the means of delivery and facilities for recreational pilots in those two ports where pilotage private companies operate a monopoly. All!

But this is not the question, because private pilotage companies rent space for recreation and the means of delivery pilots, only one of them owns some watercraft, which will need to find a replacement. But in each port there is a Maritime administration, the service of the captains of the port and public infrastructure safety of navigation, and because the reform will take place under government patronage, all questions will be addressed in the most favored.

Of course, organizational work, preparation of equipment, material, parts, paperwork will take some time, but a small, even months, specifically the translation of the pilot activities from one organization to another will occur overnight without the slightest interruption of the functions of a pilot security at a specific port. The pilot as engaged, and will carry out their work, only receipts will be discharged in another form, and this has happened many times.

Source: http://morvesti.ru/interview/detail.php?ID=78349&sphrase_id=1677512

Download files:

8908.pdf (449 Кбайт)

Tags: Sea doctrine , Anna Gornova