I refer to the article on the Sea Malta situation wherein you cast blame for the collapse of negotiations on some un-named seafarers (TMIS, 4 December). Perhaps you should be offered an 18 per cent pay cut in your daily rate and required to work a further 60 days per year, then you might understand why Grimaldi’s offer was unacceptable to the majority of the seafarers involved.

If I could explain how I reached this figure you might then understand the injustice of Grimaldi’s offer. Taking the chief officer’s salary, as quoted in your paper, Lm210 per week, this is on a one on one off agreement equal to Lm10,920 per year or Lm60 per day worked. However, with a nine per cent increase we reach Lm11,902.8 per year but on two on one off only Lm48.78 per day worked.

I must point out that as a British seafarer I personally was earning more than the second engineer’s rate when working on cross English Channel services as fourth engineer 11 years ago. Two years ago I chose to reduce my time away from a two on one off to a one on one off rota and accepted a 25 per cent paycut in doing so. However I am still earning in excess of the rates quoted for all except the master/chief engineer. I would at best be allowed to sail as third engineer officer.

I do not have any connection with Sea Malta or the Grimaldi Group but offer my comments as a counterpoint to what appears to be a witch hunt or blame game against people who may not be here to answer these allegations.

William. E. Wilkins

QAWRA