Tangible improvements in daily life are what count. Every shipping company has mission statements that speak of valuing their crew. Yet between the sentence on a corporate website and the reality aboard a bulker in the Gulf of Guinea lies an enormous gap. What seafarers actually experience is whether rotation schedules are reliably honoured, whether medical care begins without three emails to the crewing manager, and whether communication facilities depend on the master's goodwill or are a guaranteed provision.
The MLC 2006 established a framework, but implementation varies enormously. Operators who genuinely align their processes with crew needs measure this through concrete indicators: average contract duration versus planned relief, number of complaints through the onboard complaint system, and whether shore leave is granted in practice or systematically denied.
Transparent repatriation, functioning communication and pragmatic support. The three areas that affect seafarers most directly are rotation reliability, access to medical care and the quality of onboard communication infrastructure.
Rotation is not merely about a contract ending after four or six months. It is about whether the crew change actually takes place, whether flights are booked and whether the repatriation process functions even when the vessel is in a port where visa complications arise. During the COVID crisis, it became visible how fragile these processes were for many operators.
On communication, much has changed in recent years. VSAT systems now provide internet access on most merchant vessels. Yet the question is whether that access is fairly distributed, whether bandwidth is sufficient for video calls home, and whether restrictive usage policies effectively curtail it.
The Maritime Labour Convention of 2006, in force since 2013, sets minimum standards for working conditions at sea. Yet between the text of the convention and daily life aboard a 15-year-old Panamax bulker lies considerable room for interpretation. Regulation 2.4 grants seafarers an entitlement to shore leave. In practice, this frequently fails due to port security regulations, ISPS restrictions or simply because the operator does not organise transport from the terminal to the nearest town.
Standard A2.5 governs repatriation. The operator must organise and fund repatriation when the contract ends, the vessel is sold or the seafarer must be relieved for health reasons. What sounds straightforward in theory becomes complicated when a Filipino AB must be repatriated from a Liberian-flagged vessel in a Nigerian port. The chain of responsibility between manning agent, operator and flag state is often unclear.
Regulation 4.1 concerns medical care on board. The convention requires that crew members have access to medical treatment comparable to that ashore. On board, this means a ship's doctor on passenger vessels, but on cargo ships usually only an officer trained in Medical First Aid and a medicine chest compliant with IMO requirements. Telemedicine services such as TMAS can partly bridge the gap, but only if the communication infrastructure works reliably.
The Onboard Complaint Procedure under Standard A5.1.5 is another area where theory runs ahead of practice. Many vessels have a documented complaint procedure, but whether a rating actually files a complaint against a superior depends on the culture aboard. In hierarchical crew structures, which are common in international shipping, the barrier is often too high.
The most effective improvements are often not the most expensive. Reliable rotation management primarily requires organisational discipline. If the crewing manager plans relief three weeks before contract expiry rather than three days, the probability of delays drops considerably. Operators who systematically capture crew feedback, rather than only looking during PSC inspections or ISM audits, identify problems earlier.
Communication infrastructure is now a hygiene factor. Shipowners who in 2026 still lack VSAT with adequate crew bandwidth will feel the disadvantage in recruitment. This particularly affects the Philippine and Indian labour markets, where seafarers can increasingly choose between employers.
Medical care can be improved through standardised telemedicine agreements. Some operators already have framework contracts with TMAS providers that exceed the statutory minimum. The costs are manageable, yet the effect on the crew's perceived level of care is considerable.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the weaknesses in the system. At the height of the crisis in 2020, an estimated 400,000 seafarers were serving beyond their contract period. Some crew members spent over 17 months at sea without relief. The ITF and IMO pushed for the recognition of seafarers as key workers to enable border crossings for crew changes.
What this crisis demonstrated: operators with robust repatriation processes and strong relationships with local agents were able to organise crew changes even under difficult conditions. Others failed due to a lack of planning and poor communication with crews about the status of their relief.
The long-term effect is measurable. Shipowners who communicated transparently during the crisis and honoured their commitments now report better crew retention. Those who forgot their people at sea are losing them to competitors with a better reputation.
Operators wishing to improve their seafarer conditions should begin with an honest assessment. The following questions help with prioritisation:
First: are rotation schedules reliably honoured? If the average overrun exceeds two weeks, this is the most urgent area for action. Second: is there a functioning crew feedback system beyond the formal complaint procedure? Third: is the onboard communication infrastructure at the level seafarers now expect? Fourth: are there telemedicine agreements that exceed the statutory minimum?
The sequence is not arbitrary. Rotation is the factor with the greatest influence on satisfaction and retention. Communication follows immediately after. Medical care and complaint channels are also important but affect daily life less frequently.
It reduces turnover, conflicts and operational friction. The cost of a crew change ranges between USD 3,000 and 12,000 depending on rank and country of origin. This includes flights, agency fees, medical examinations and the familiarisation period of the new crew member. If an operator causes above-average turnover through poor conditions, these costs quickly accumulate to six-figure sums per vessel per year.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting