A consultancy report by Superyacht Intelligence
THE CREW CONUNDRUM SURVEY REPORT:
TRAINING & RETENTION
January 2026
The Superyacht Agency
The Superyacht Agency does not work in isolation, but rather operates as a collective where our core team draws on the wider expertise within The Superyacht Group as and when needed. The Superyacht Group’s editorial, intelligence, events and support divisions represent the global elite – the finest journalists, editors, analysts and event planners in the industry, coupled to market-leading publications, digital portals and global events.
For more than three decades, The Superyacht Group has dedicated its global media channels to educating, informing and advising all sectors of the superyacht market. The Group’s team of industry experts consistently deliver on our mantra ‘building a better superyacht market’.
The Superyacht Agency is here to meet the need for superior data-driven decisions in the superyacht market.
Through a tailored service and long-standing relationships with industry business leaders, we understand what the superyacht market needs –and the tools needed to deliver it.
Copyright © TRP Magazines Ltd 2026 All Rights Reserved.
All information in this report is the intellectual property of TRP Magazines Ltd. The entire contents are protected by copyright Great Britain and by the Universal Copyright convention. Material may only be reproduced or shared by prior arrangement and with due acknowledgement to TRP Magazines Ltd.
ACROSS DIFFERENT ROLES REFLECT THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CHALLENGES INVOLVED?
BENEFITS DO YOU THINK ARE MISSING FROM TODAY’S
AND HOW DOES THIS IMPACT RETENTION AND CREW’S LOYALTY? WHAT ARE THE MAIN FACTORS THAT ENCOURAGE CREW TO STAY ON A 34 PARTICULAR SUPERYACHT AND BECOME PART OF A LONG-TERM TEAM?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following executive summary presents the key findings from the Crew Conundrum Survey, exploring how training investment influences retention and long-term career development across the superyacht industry. While many respondents describe a highly capable and motivated workforce, the system around training and progression remains inconsistent, shaping expectations, loyalty and career decision-making.
1. Training investment remains uneven and often falls on crew
A clear finding is that training is still frequently self-funded, particularly at junior stages where mandatory courses create the greatest financial pressure. Although some respondents view this as a normal part of entering the industry, many describe it as an unnecessary barrier to progression. Support varies widely between yachts, with no consistent standard guiding who pays, when or why. Where funding is limited or unclear, crew often assume that progression will require moving to another yacht.
2. The industry is caught in a retention–investment cycle
Many owners and managers remain cautious about funding training due to a belief that crew will leave shortly after qualifying. At the same time, respondents recognise that a lack of development support can become a driver of turnover. When training is treated as optional, delayed or inconsistently delivered, crew are more likely to protect their progression through job changes, reinforcing the view that loyalty is declining. Training decisions therefore function as more than a cost discussion. They shape trust and signal how committed the yacht is to long-term employment relationships.
3. Reimbursement and service-linked models are the most common compromise
Despite these tensions, many respondents describe structured funding models that balance development support with retention risk. The most common approaches are reimbursement after a set period onboard or training paid for in return for continued service. These schemes are generally seen as fair when terms are clear, consistently applied and supported by proper follow-through. When commitments shift or agreements are not honoured, the value of the benefit is quickly undermined.
4. Retention is shaped more by the lived onboard experience than benefits alone
Long-term retention is most strongly linked to the quality and consistency of daily life on board. Crew are more likely to stay when leadership feels stable and professional, communication is respectful and expectations are managed well. Predictable rotation and scheduling stand out as key factors because they allow crew to plan life beyond the yacht. Team dynamics also carry significant weight, with respondents repeatedly describing culture and morale as deciding factors in whether a yacht feels sustainable long-term.
5. Recruitment and training credibility remain weak points
Respondents frequently describe recruitment as unreliable, with frustration around exaggerated CVs, inconsistent screening and limited accountability from agencies. Many also believe training has become overly certificate-driven, with course standards varying significantly between providers. There is a clear call for training that demonstrates real competence, supported by stronger practical standards and better development of leadership and soft skills, particularly as crew step into senior roles.
INTRODUCTION
This report examines how the superyacht industry is funding crew training, what drives retention and what changes professionals across the sector believe are needed to strengthen recruitment and long-term development. Drawing on qualitative insights from experienced crew, captains, senior leaders and those involved in hiring and managing on-board teams, the findings provide a grounded view of the realities shaping career progression and long-term retention.
As expectations on board continue to rise and industry standards come under greater scrutiny, the findings highlight the growing tension that superyachts rely on skilled, reliable teams to run smoothly, but the training support, progression pathways and employment practices remain inconsistent from one programme to the next. As a result, many crew continue to carry much of the financial burden of development early in their
careers, while owners and managers weigh training investment against concerns around turnover and short-term movement between yachts.
The research explores not only who pays for training, but what that decision signals about trust and the credibility of the employment package. It also considers the day-to-day factors that influence whether crew stay, such as stability, rotation, culture and progression, and highlights growing calls for recruitment processes and training standards that prioritise real capability and soft skills over boxticking and surface-level assumptions.
The full findings are presented in this report, bringing together the most meaningful themes and recurring challenges, while highlighting practical opportunities that could help support a more transparent and professionally structured future for crew development and retention in yachting.
HOW WELL DO YOU THINK
CREW SALARIES ACROSS
ROLES REFLECT THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CHALLENGES INVOLVED?
CURRENT DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES
INVOLVED?
HOW WELL DO YOU THINK CURRENT CREW SALARIES ACROSS DIFFERENT REFLECT
THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND
CHALLENGES INVOLVED?
THEME ONE: INFLATION AND RISING COSTS HAVE QUIETLY ERODED THE REAL VALUE OF CREW SALARIES
The most consistent message across responses is that crew salaries have failed to keep pace with economic reality. Many crew feel that what was once a highly lucrative career has quietly slipped behind the curve. Findings highlight that crew salaries remain similar to those offered 10 to 20 years ago, despite significant increases in living costs, travel expenses during leave, and the financial burden of mandatory training and certification.
Monthly deckhand salaries of €2,500 to €3,000
are repeatedly cited as unchanged since the early 2000s, while respondents argue that yacht values, operating budgets and owner expectations have increased dramatically. Respondents describe this stagnation as creating a sense of moving backwards, particularly for experienced crew who expected longevity and progression to translate into greater financial security.
While a minority argue that crew remain well paid, exposing a polarised perception of value, the dominant narrative is one of erosion and stagnation. Taken together, the findings suggest a widening gap between the perceived value of onboard roles and the economic realities faced by crew over time.
“Deckies
and stews are earning the same as they did 10 years ago.”
“Most wages haven’t kept pace with inflation, let alone pay rises. A deckhand salary has been stuck at €2,500/3,000 for the last ten years despite the yacht values climbing to hundreds of millions.”
“European crew salaries vary greatly and many salaries have not necessarily followed inflation over the years. We are still seeing deckhands starting on €2,500, as they had back in the early 2000s.”
“Crew salaries have undoubtedly slipped behind inflation and general cost of living increases.”
“Salaries have remained the same for decades and certainly fallen behind inflation.”
“My salary hasn’t managed to keep up with inflation, let alone a salary increase.”
DIFFERENT ROLES
THEME 2: PAY DOES NOT CONSISTENTLY SCALE IN LINE WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AND RISK
Another strong theme is frustration that compensation does not consistently reflect the weight of responsibility or risk on board, especially in senior and safety-critical roles. Captains, engineers and senior officers are described as holding significant accountability for compliance, safety, asset protection and operational decision-making, yet their pay is often seen as misaligned with those responsibilities.
Several respondents questioned internal pay ratios, especially where chief officers act as second-incommand but earn significantly less than captains,
despite shouldering operational and leadership responsibilities. At the same time, some highlighted perceived distortions at the junior end, where entrylevel or less technically accountable roles can earn salaries comparable to those of positions requiring high-risk decision-making and extensive qualifications.
This imbalance is viewed as having broader implications beyond fairness. Respondents suggest that when responsibility is not adequately recognised through compensation, it discourages progression into leadership roles and weakens long-term succession planning. There is a clear call for salary frameworks that more transparently reflect accountability, risk and decision-making responsibility.
“I am trying to understand how come chief officers generally have half of the captain salary when they are second in command.”
“Very poorly at the chief officer level. A 30 per cent rise is needed.”
“Salaries don’t always reflect the true pressure, responsibility, or sacrifice involved.”
“With the exponential increase in technically complex yachts, engineering personnel also need to be bumped up significantly.”
“Crew salaries have not gone up in 15 years or more and … pay should be higher for the responsibility senior roles take on.”
“Captains are underpaid for their risk and responsibility … their role deserves compensation well above current market.”
HOW WELL DO YOU THINK CURRENT CREW SALARIES ACROSS DIFFERENT
REFLECT
THE
RESPONSIBILITIES
AND CHALLENGES INVOLVED? (CONTD)
THEME 3: FATIGUE CAN ERODE THE REAL VALUE OF EVEN COMPETITIVE SALARIES
Many respondents emphasise that salary cannot be assessed independently of how time is structured on board. For many crew, the physical and mental demands required shape how compensation is experienced in practice. Respondents describe situations where strong salaries lose their value when paired with chronic fatigue, unpredictable leave, long hours and expectations of constant availability.
In this context, rotation and reliable time off are not framed as discretionary benefits but as factors that directly influence fair compensation. Exhaustion is linked not only to declining well-being but also to increased mistakes, reduced service quality and eventual burnout. Where leave arrangements are inconsistent or frequently altered, respondents report that confidence and trust diminish, regardless of salary level.
The underlying insight is that crew increasingly judge compensation not only by amount but by whether it’s realistic long-term. Salaries are viewed as less meaningful when they are associated with working patterns that are difficult to maintain over time.
I
think crew salaries are not in line with hours worked.”
“Better compensation still seems to correlate with increased hours worked which in turn causes burn-out and turnover.”
“Greenies are sold the dream of 5:1 rotation – that is not a rotation. People burn out quickly.”
“We are slowly recognising the value of time off … rested crew serve the owner’s interests better.”
DIFFERENT ROLES
THEME 4: PAY VARIES BY CIRCUMSTANCE, NOT BY CONTRIBUTION OR MERIT
Respondents repeatedly described the salary landscape as inconsistent and unpredictable. Pay levels for identical roles on similar-sized yachts can vary significantly, driven less by qualifications or workload and more by owner preference, management approach or timing. This randomness undermines confidence in what “fair pay” actually means within the industry.
Salary surveys were widely criticised as unreliable, blending outdated figures with aspirational numbers that do little to establish credible benchmarks. In the absence of clear frameworks linked to vessel size, usage, certification and responsibility, crew feel compelled to move between yachts simply to protect their market value.
Rather than viewing standardisation as restrictive, many respondents see it as a way to reinforce professionalism. Transparent salary baselines could help crew feel recognised for their skills, reduce opportunistic turnover and support long-term team stability without removing owner flexibility.
“The range of salaries between different yachts varies greatly.”
“Salary surveys have lost credibility.”
“There is no ‘normal’, any salary poll has such a large variance that it is almost useless.”
“There are no fixed tables taking into consideration crew certificates, sea time, or tonnage … to define their salary.”
“If another yacht presents €100 more per month, several crew just change employer.”
HOW WELL DO YOU THINK CURRENT CREW SALARIES ACROSS DIFFERENT ROLES REFLECT THE RESPONSIBILITIES
AND
CHALLENGES INVOLVED? (CONTD)
THEME 5: COMPENSATION DECISIONS OFTEN REFLECT GOVERNANCE PRIORITIES RATHER THAN ON-BOARD REALITIES
A final main theme to emerge was concern that compensation decisions are shaped by governance structure rather than a detailed understanding of on-board demands. Management companies and agencies are often perceived as prioritising cost control, driving salaries downwards to demonstrate operational efficiency rather than advocating for retention and professionalism.
Crew describe feeling treated as a cost line rather than as professionals delivering safety, service and continuity. In contrast, yachts where leadership actively invests in fair pay, development and wellbeing see noticeably higher morale and loyalty.
The overarching insight is that compensation is not just a financial mechanism but a signal of value. How pay is structured communicates whether crew are viewed as replaceable labour or as long-term professionals essential to the yacht’s success.
“Put simply, salaries are for the most part set by managers who want to show how good they are at driving costs to an absolute minimum.”
“Stop
management companies driving salaries down as part of an unmitigated race to the lowest possible operating cost.”
“Still
too many middlemen extracting money from owners at the expense of the crew.”
“Crew are treated as a cost line rather than professionals delivering safety and service.”
WHAT
BENEFITS DO YOU
THINK
ARE MISSING FROM TODAY’S CREW EMPLOYMENT PACKAGES?
THINK TODAY’S PACKAGES?
WHAT BENEFITS DO YOU THINK ARE MISSING FROM TODAY’S CREW
THEME 1: PREDICTABLE TIME OFF IS INCREASINGLY VIEWED AS A CORE EMPLOYMENT CONDITION
As expected (as it aligns with theme 3 of the previous question), responses consistently highlight the lack of reliable, structured time off as a significant gap in current employment packages. Many respondents describe a working reality defined by long seasons with limited clarity around when meaningful time off will occur. Guest programmes are demanding, and the boundary between work and personal life is often thin. In light of that, predictable leave and rotation are no longer viewed as discretionary perks but as essential conditions that determine whether a role feels manageable over time.
Uncertainty seems to be a major part of the problem. Respondents refer to leave dates moving at short notice, rotation arrangements that exist in principle but not in practice, and schedules that change without much warning. This creates frustration and over time undermines trust and morale. The impact is particularly felt by crew attempting to maintain relationships, manage family commitments or plan time ashore. Where yachts offer clearly defined rotation and dependable leave structures, crew report feeling higher satisfaction and far more inclined to stay. What matters most is not how generous the time off looks on paper, but whether it can actually be relied upon.
“The trend is clear: crew is more and more attracted by time off, time to socialise ashore, to set aside from the vessel. Rotation is the key.”
“As soon as you reach officer or captain and have a family, the industry is no longer friendly … without the correct rotation. Too many good people are lost.”
“Burnout is a real risk. Offering reasonable periods of rest and structured time off ensures that crew remain energised, focused and committed. A well-rested crew is a high-performing crew.”
“[Crew] should be allowed to have some more downtime and leave.”
“Transparent leave policies … nothing more demotivating than thinking you’re going home and have to stay for another month.”
“Better work-life balance, with a rotation and salary package to reflect it.”
EMPLOYMENT PACKAGES?
THEME 2: TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT REMAINS INCONSISTENT AND UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED
Another frequently cited gap in benefits relates to training and professional development. While many crew view yachting as a long-term career, respondents describe development pathways as unclear, inconsistently supported and often reliant on personal financial investment. Mandatory qualifications, refresher courses and progressionrelated training are commonly funded by crew themselves, even when these skills directly benefit the vessel and owner.
Respondents also point to perceived imbalances between departments, where some roles require substantial upfront investment in certification, while others progress more informally. Deck and technical crew typically invest large sums into mandatory qualifications before they can progress, while interior crew may step into senior positions quickly with limited formal training. This inconsistency contributes to frustration and a sense that advancement is driven more by circumstance than by structured capability-building.
There is a clear call for training support to be treated as a standard employment benefit, with transparent pathways that link skill development to progression and recognition.
“Study
leave guaranteed after sea time is completed.”
“More
professional development packages … no one wants to remain still.”
“I feel this
area
needs
to be redeveloped with a more structured learning path.”
“Training incentives and time off for
development.”
“Paid crew training.”
“Better training policies.”
WHAT BENEFITS DO YOU THINK ARE MISSING FROM TODAY’S CREW
THEME 3: LONG-TERM FINANCIAL SECURITY LARGELY ABSENT FROM EMPLOYMENT PACKAGES
The lack of long-term financial provisions was another missing element in current crew benefits, according to respondent feedback. Pensions, retirement savings and employer contributions to social security are described as either minimal or entirely absent, leaving individuals responsible for managing long-term financial risk on their own.
This concern becomes more pressing as crew progress into senior roles and start considering life beyond yachting. Respondents note that the industry often relies on the assumption of short careers, despite the increasing professionalisation of on-board roles. The absence of long-term security contributes to uncertainty and accelerates exit from the industry, particularly among highly experienced crew who might otherwise remain.
“Pension scheme, better training budget, better bonuses.”
“Retirement savings options.”
“Pensions or savings schemes. Few crew are set up for life after yachting.”
“Pensions, social security contributions.”
“Pension
plans.”
EMPLOYMENT PACKAGES? (CONTD)
THEME 4: WELL-BEING SUPPORT HAS NOT KEPT PACE WITH THE PRESSURES OF THE ROLE
Responses also highlight missing benefits in medical and well-being provision. While some yachts offer basic medical insurance, coverage is often described as limited, with exclusions for dental care, preventative treatment and mental health support. Respondents emphasise that the nature of yacht work, including isolation, fatigue and high service expectations, places sustained pressure on both physical and mental health.
Mental health support was identified as a particular weakness, with limited access to confidential counselling or proactive wellbeing resources. Familyrelated benefits, including maternity and paternity support, were also described as underdeveloped, reinforcing perceptions that current employment packages are poorly aligned with longer-term life stages. Respondents indicate that benefits which support wellbeing both on board and ashore would help to improve stability and retention.
“Access to mental health professionals, counselling or wellness check-ins.”
“Make sure health insurance is offered.”
“Mental health allowance.”
“Maternity and paternity, health care for family.”
“Full medical insurance whilst on or off.”
“Better medical care/maternity/mental health care cover.”
“Proper health insurance and real mental health support.”
WHAT BENEFITS DO YOU THINK ARE MISSING FROM TODAY’S CREW EMPLOYMENT PACKAGES? (CONTD)
THEME 5: RECOGNITION AND REWARD STRUCTURES DO NOT CONSISTENTLY SUPPORT LONGTERM COMMITMENT
Respondents highlight an absence of meaningful recognition for loyalty and long service. In practice, they suggest that crew can progress financially more quickly by changing yachts than by remaining with the same employer, reinforcing a pattern where movement is incentivised over commitment.
Clear incentives for staying with the same yacht, such as longevity bonuses and structured pay progression, are often cited as missing elements. Crew who remain long-term are widely seen as carrying operational knowledge and experience that takes time to build and is difficult to replace. When that contribution is not formally recognised, motivation tends to fade and attachment to the vessel weakens over time.
“Yearly loyalty bonuses.”
“A structured annual bonus for crew who stay year after year would go a long way in encouraging longevity.”
“Retention incentives, career progression planning.”
“Encouragement for crew loyalty.”
“Structured
rewards for longevity.”
“Scaled
pay rises for longevity.”
WHO TYPICALLY PAYS FOR
TRAINING
COURSES
AND DEVELOPMENT, AND HOW DOES THIS IMPACT AND CREW’S
LOYALTY?
CREW’S DEVELOPMENT, IMPACT RETENTION
WHO TYPICALLY PAYS FOR CREW’S TRAINING COURSES AND DEVELOPMENT, IMPACT RETENTION AND CREW’S LOYALTY?
THEME 1: TRAINING IS OFTEN SELF-FUNDED, WITH SUPPORT VARYING BY YACHT
The dominant theme described is that crew are still largely expected to pay for most, and often all, of their training, particularly for mandatory certifications during the early stages of their career. Some respondents view this as fair, arguing that qualifications belong to the individual rather than the yacht. However, many point out that the financial burden falls hardest at the earliest and lowest-paid stages of a career, making progression more difficult than it needs to be. It was also noted that this approach to training support remains inconsistent across the market, often depending
heavily on the yacht, captain or owner rather than any shared industry standard.
This variation contributes to uneven development opportunities and shapes how crew think about their next move. When training is consistently supported, it signals a more professional and structured approach to employment. When it is not, crew tend to assume they must self-fund and remain mobile in order to progress. Several responses suggest that this contributes to shorter stays on board, as crew seek progression opportunities through changing yachts rather than remaining in place. Over time, this can weaken loyalty, particularly where crew feel they are carrying the cost of progression without meaningful support from the employer.
“I have worked on 6 boats in over 10 years and I would say 1 out of those 6 actually paid for courses.”
“Most crew pay for their training.”
“Crew should invest in themselves and not ask the owner to pay for it.”
“It is difficult to find [yacht] owners who pay for the crew’s courses, so the costs fall on the crew.”
“I
have during my 20+ years in yachting probably had 2-3 courses paid, the rest has been on my own account.”
“Crew
pay. It’s just accepted these days.”
DEVELOPMENT, AND HOW DOES THIS
THEME 2: OWNERS ARE WILLING TO INVEST, BUT PAST TURNOVER HAS MADE THEM CAUTIOUS
A recurring tension in responses is that owners and management can be hesitant to fund training because of perceived low loyalty, particularly among junior crew. Several respondents describe patterns of crew moving quickly between yachts for higher pay or better prospects, creating a reluctance from owners to sponsor development that may benefit another employer shortly afterwards. As a result, training costs are often left with the individual or funding is delayed until a crew member has demonstrated commitment over time.
At the same time, respondents recognise that this dynamic can become self-reinforcing. When training is not supported, crew may be more likely to leave in order to find better opportunities elsewhere, which then reinforces the view that funding courses does not lead to retention. Several responses suggest that this is not simply a question of cost. Decisions around training are strongly influenced by trust and perceived commitment, including whether owners believe a crew member will stay long enough for the investment to make sense. Owners are more likely to invest when they believe commitment will follow, and crew are more likely to stay when they feel that investment is being made in them.
“Crew have no loyalty, especially the younger crew who will jump to another vessel just for better payregardless of the program.”
“Typically the packages offered by most yachts has moved away from paying for the courses due to the crew doing the course then leaving to get a better paid job.”
“The owner pays for crew training. It makes no difference. Crew will still leave for a bigger boat/better pay.”
“Too many owners have been burned with crew paying for their classes and then leaving the boat.”
WHO TYPICALLY PAYS FOR CREW’S TRAINING COURSES AND DEVELOPMENT, IMPACT RETENTION AND CREW’S LOYALTY? (CONTD)
THEME 3: REIMBURSEMENT MODELS ARE USED TO MANAGE RISK AND ENCOURAGE COMMITMENT
A common approach described across responses is a shared-cost or conditional funding model, where training is either paid upfront by crew and reimbursed later, or covered by the yacht with an expectation of continued service. This is often positioned as a practical middle ground. It allows owners to support development while managing the risk of short-term turnover, and gives crew a clearer route to manage the financial burden of progressing through the ranks.
Many respondents refer to time-based repayment structures, including staged reimbursement over 12
or 24 months, repayment after one year on board or return-of-service arrangements where costs must be repaid if a crew member leaves early. These models are generally seen as reasonable when the terms are clear and consistently applied. They are also described as supporting retention in a straightforward way, since the timeline attached to funding creates a tangible incentive to stay beyond the immediate contract period.
What matters most is whether the yacht follows through. When the rules are unclear or support disappears once a course is booked, crew lose confidence in the arrangement very quickly. Even so, many see reimbursement and service-linked training as a realistic way to support development while ensuring training investment is not repeatedly lost with no return.
“The vessel paid but they did it that the crew member paid and then over 24 months you get paid back.”
“We adopted a policy of the crewmember pays up front for the course and the yacht will reimburse monthly for 12 months.”
“Often crew pay up front but if they stay for a year afterwards we would reimburse them.”
“The yacht pays out educational funds on a 12 months basis of service.”
“We have a system of crew training in return for two years on board on a pro-rata payback system.”
DEVELOPMENT, AND HOW DOES THIS
THEME 4: TRAINING SUPPORT STRENGTHENS LOYALTY WHEN IT IS STRUCTURED AND LINKED TO PROGRESSION
Training support tends to carry the most weight when it feels genuine and dependable. Several respondents describe funded development as a strong signal that leadership is serious about investing in people, especially when new qualifications are recognised in a practical way. Examples were shared where courses were clearly linked to pay progression
or expanded responsibilities on board, and these structured approaches were seen as having a noticeable impact on retention.
That said, respondents also cautioned that paying for training does not automatically create loyalty. In a market where crew can often improve their situation by moving elsewhere, development support on its own is not always enough. The strongest outcomes appear to come when training is built into a wider employment experience that offers clear progression and consistent follow-through.
“When owners do fund this investment, it has a clear, positive impact on loyalty and long-term crew retention.”
“The captain handed me a sheet of paper saying clearly how much my salary would increase with every course I took, which was amazing.”
“Even if a promotion was not available straight away for key courses such as OOW, a pay rise was offered as a way of showing the added value you brought to the team. These small things created good morale and motivation as well as helping create retention on board.”
“This is paid for by the owner and included in annual budget. It has greatly improved retention.”
“I
have found that when an employer assists with training costs, we generally see greater crew longevity.”
WHO TYPICALLY PAYS FOR
CREW’S TRAINING COURSES AND DEVELOPMENT,
AND HOW DOES THIS
IMPACT RETENTION AND CREW’S LOYALTY? (CONTD)
THEME 5: BROKEN TRAINING COMMITMENTS QUICKLY UNDERMINE TRUST AND ACCELERATE TURNOVER
A distinct but important theme is that broken promises around training come through as a real point of frustration. Several respondents describe being offered course funding during recruitment or retention conversations, only for it to be delayed, reduced or taken off the table later. In these cases, the issue is not only the money, it is the sense that
an agreement was made and then quietly dropped, which damages trust far more quickly than simply saying upfront that support is not available.
What stands out is how quickly this type of experience affects retention. When training support is handled inconsistently, it creates doubt not just about the course itself, but about the reliability of the wider employment package. Several responses suggest this kind of breakdown often becomes the point where crew disengage and begin looking for their next move.
“My 3 out of the 7 boats dangled the courses to be paid for after 1 year, but this never happened for anyone. It was just a way of hiring crew.”
“I made my new employer aware of this course and the dates before I joined he agreed to give me the time off. Three months in and I tried to make sure everything was agreed and set in stone, but to find out the captain didn’t want me to leave for my course and said I either resign or I don’t go.”
“I feel like honouring an agreement in yachting is rare for captains and crew.”
“Study leave was also not an option, which results in crew either becoming stuck in the role with no possibility of advancement or talented crew leaving for their own personal development and ultimately career advancement.”
WHAT
ARE THE MAIN FACTORS
ENCOURAGE CREW TO STAY PARTICULAR SUPERYACHT PART
OF A LONG-TERM TEAM?
FACTORS THAT STAY ON A AND BECOME TEAM?
WHAT ARE THE MAIN FACTORS THAT ENCOURAGE CREW TO STAY ON AND BECOME PART OF A LONG-TERM TEAM?
THEME 1: LONG-TERM TEAMS FORM UNDER STABLE, PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP AND CONSISTENT FOLLOW-THROUGH
Across responses, one of the clearest drivers of long-term retention is how the yacht is led day-to-day. Crew are more likely to stay when leadership feels steady and professional, with clear expectations and calm communication, and issues are handled calmly rather than through ego or blame. In these environments, the yacht becomes predictable in a good way. People feel able to learn and raise concerns without fear, which strengthens trust within the team and creates a more stable onboard culture.
What reinforces this loyalty is consistency. Respondents repeatedly point to the importance of a yacht doing what it says it will do, whether that is honouring agreed terms, handling crew fairly or maintaining a predictable and respectful approach to management. Where the operational culture feels reliable, crew describe being more willing to settle in, commit and build a longer-term career.
Several responses also highlight that retention improves when the wider management structure around the yacht supports the crew properly, including aligned relationships between owners, captains, management and senior leadership on board. When that leadership layer is supportive and consistent, respondents describe a stronger sense of stability and a greater willingness to commit long-term.
“I think loyalty from crew is gained from an environment where they feel heard, supported, respected and part of a well-run operation.”
“Another contributing factor is stable and ‘human’ leadership … with a genuine effort from yacht manager and owner to invest in their crew wellbeing.”
“When a yacht feels like a professionally managed workplace and not just a transitional contract I think loyalty would follow naturally.”
“The management team - the people between the crew and the owner. Understanding, compassion, flexibility and kindness.”
“When I ask my juniors and the deckhands, the general opinion is that being in an environment where you can learn and make mistakes without being heavily punished.”
“Strong leadership - open communication, crew feel valued and supported.”
ON A PARTICULAR SUPERYACHT
THEME 2: PREDICTABLE SCHEDULING MAKES ROLES EASIER TO COMMIT TO LONG-TERM
Rotation and leave remain important, but what stands out most in the responses is the value of predictability. Crew are more likely to stay when they can plan their lives with confidence, rather than constantly adjusting to last-minute changes or unclear schedules. Respondents describe the ability to know when time off is coming, and to rely
on it, as one of the biggest factors shaping work-life balance and long-term commitment.
This need is framed less as a luxury and more as a practical requirement. Even on demanding programmes, crew suggest that a predictable structure makes the job feel more manageable. Where schedules are realistic and leave is treated as non-negotiable, retention improves because people can build a life that includes yachting without being consumed by it.
“I’ve found scheduling a huge factor for all crew members. Everyone wants to know when it’s Friday. Being able to plan is the key factor behind creating a positive work/life balance.”
“Rotation
is key - I have never met crew throughout my time at sea that would prefer not to have a rotational role.”
“Equal
rotation means good life balance.”
“I understand that pay, rotation and owner’s understanding of down-time needs are paramount.”
“Pay and leave/time off … feature high on list of priorities.”
WHAT ARE THE MAIN FACTORS THAT ENCOURAGE CREW TO STAY ON AND BECOME PART OF A LONG-TERM TEAM? (CONTD)
THEME 3: CREW STAY WHEN THE DAY-TO-DAY CULTURE FEELS RESPECTFUL AND SUPPORTIVE
Another strong driver of retention is the experience of daily life on board. Respondents describe longterm teams forming more naturally when the crew dynamic is positive, and the environment on board stays calm and supportive. Several comments emphasise the importance of feeling respected by colleagues and backed by senior crew. When
teamwork is solid and morale stays high, people are far more likely to see the yacht as somewhere worth committing to.
What stands out is how often crew describe team dynamic as a deciding factor. Even when the itinerary is appealing or the package is competitive, a tense atmosphere or poor interpersonal dynamic can quickly make a role feel unsustainable. By contrast, where the culture is healthy, demanding programmes feel easier to manage, and crew are more likely to stay beyond the contract.
“Good community within the team.”
“The correct team. Having the right people around me that understand how I operate and that I trust to do the job and have each other’s backs.”
“A healthy crew dynamic, fair owner and just being respected and treated the way you treat others.”
“Often
not only the salary, more often the crew ties itself to a boat when life on board is not stressful and you can have rest periods.”
“Being surrounded by a good and supportive team, where there’s a good crew atmosphere.”
“Feel like they are looked after, respected, trusted and part of the ‘family’ on board.”
ON A PARTICULAR SUPERYACHT
THEME 4: PROGRESSION ENCOURAGES RETENTION WHEN CREW CAN SEE A FUTURE ON BOARD
Many respondents link loyalty to whether there is a clear path forward. Crew are more likely to stay when growth is realistic, whether through training opportunities, more responsibility, promotion from within or simply feeling that their development is being taken seriously. Several describe how
important it is for progression to feel credible, rather than being stuck in a role indefinitely without any sense of movement.
Progression is seen as a signal that the yacht is investing in professionalism and long-term capability, rather than just filling roles. When crew can see that effort is recognised and leads to something tangible, they are more willing to commit to the team and build longevity on board.
“Leadership and a route for progression that can be readily identified and believed in.”
“Once money is taken off the table, it’s all about growth. People have to feel like they are moving forward and growing as a person and in their career.”
“More responsibilities, trust, training.”
“Career progression opportunities.”
“Encouragement to step up, take courses and also promoting from within.”
“Harmonious operations, projected plans, room for growth and ongoing training and development.”
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ABOUT CREW RECRUITMENT, TRAINING
OR DEVELOPMENT?
TO CHANGE RECRUITMENT,
DEVELOPMENT?
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE ABOUT CREW RECRUITMENT,
THEME 1: RECRUITMENT NEEDS TO BECOME MORE RIGOROUS, CREDIBLE AND EVIDENCE-BASED
A strong message is frustration with how unreliable recruitment has become. Many respondents want better verification of experience, including background checks, reference checking and better scrutiny of CVs that are seen as exaggerated or easily manipulated. Several describe a gap between how candidates are presented on paper and how they perform once on board. This creates
risk for both vessels and crew, and contributes to poor matches and unnecessary turnover.
Some also feel the hiring process has become too focused on surface markers such as certificates, previous yacht size or appearance, rather than proven competence and attitude. The broader call is for recruitment to feel more serious, with clearer accountability in the hiring process. Some believe employers and placement companies should take more responsibility for the people they put forward, rather than pushing volume.
“Crew recruitment needs to be more rigorous, with proper background checks and a closer look at CVs that are often filled with exaggerations or outright lies.”
“Crew placement companies should do background checks on all crew.”
“I feel like the crew need to be reference-checked better and maybe some kind of platform for officers, chief stews and captains to give a hidden reference on a crew member which is not public but kept within a portal so that recruiting boats can have another opinion on crew.”
“The employer should take on more responsibility and be more accountable for hiring.”
“Recruiters need to read between the lines and prioritise proven experience, attitude and dedication.”
TRAINING OR DEVELOPMENT?
THEME 2: THE INDUSTRY IS SATURATED WITH AGENCIES AND INCONSISTENT STANDARDS, REDUCING QUALITY AND TRUST
Respondents describe recruitment as crowded and difficult to navigate. Many feel there are now too many agencies offering the same service, and it has become harder to tell which ones are genuinely adding value. A few highlight that placement fees can feel excessive, while others criticise the volumebased approach some recruiters take, sending large
numbers of CVs rather than properly matching candidates to a programme. This is described as exhausting for captains and managers, and unhelpful for crew who are trying to make informed decisions.
There were also concerns raised about a lack of regulation in the agency space, including pop-up agencies and recruiters who do not fully understand on-board roles. Several respondents want more regulation, better standards and a return to recruitment that is relationship-driven rather than transactional.
“Crew requirement is overdone. So many to choose from and so hard to navigate and quite expensive.”
“Too many crew agencies with no differentiation.”
“There are FAR too many ‘pop-up’ crew recruitment agents that seem to be unregulated.”
“The crew recruitment model is broken. Agencies throw as many CVs at a job listing, hoping one will stick and they will get the commission.”
“Crew recruitment charges are ridiculous.”
“Recruitment has become a free-for-all, and every year there is a new and exciting company that will revolutionise the recruitment world. What do these new companies offer? The same as all of the recruitment companies …”
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE ABOUT CREW RECRUITMENT,
THEME 3: TRAINING NEEDS TO FOCUS ON CAPABILITY, NOT JUST CERTIFICATES OR BOX-TICKING
Another common theme is dissatisfaction with the current training landscape. Respondents question how much some courses really prove, especially when standards vary by provider and qualifications are treated as equal on paper. Some believe this has contributed to a drop in practical readiness,
particularly in seamanship and real on-board competence.
Many want training to feel closer to the reality and demands of the job. That includes stronger practical standards, better on-board drills and clearer proof of experience that cannot easily be exaggerated. Rather than accumulating certificates, respondents want training that genuinely prepares crew to perform well under pressure, operate safely and contribute professionally as part of a team.
“Training is very often a box-ticking exercise and a licence to print money.”
“Standardise training - inconsistency undermines the credibility of some certs.”
“There’s a clear mismatch in the quality and difficulty of certain courses depending on where you do them.”
“Training, I feel, has become a factory for printing money, as many students in and out as possible per week, regardless of competency levels. Most courses are [about] attendance and some participation, then a certificate.”
“Drills. Actual drills so that we can have even the slightest confidence in emergency response.”
TRAINING OR DEVELOPMENT? (CONTD)
THEME 4: SOFT SKILLS AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT NEED TO BE TAKEN MORE SERIOUSLY
Beyond technical training, respondents want the industry to take performance and soft skills more seriously. Communication, basic leadership, teamwork and conflict resolution are repeatedly flagged as major gaps, especially as crew step
into senior positions. Several comments suggest that many on-board issues stem from people management, not job competence.
There is also a concern with how quickly some crew are promoted without the behavioural skills required to lead well. Respondents want stronger mentorship, better onboarding and more development support that prepares crew to manage others calmly and professionally.
“We need to go beyond basic requirements like STCW and actively provide soft-skills trainingcommunication, cultural awareness, conflict resolution and basic financial literacy.”
“Anyone stepping into a leadership role should receive proper leadership training.”
“More training, particularly in leadership and no technical skills.”
“We need to be trained in how to build healthy work relations and to work in a more strengths-based way.”
“More focus on leadership training and more emphasis and encouragement on mentorship on board.”
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE ABOUT CREW RECRUITMENT, TRAINING OR DEVELOPMENT? (CONTD)
THEME 5: CAREER DEVELOPMENT SHOULD FEEL LONG-TERM, NOT REACTIVE
A final theme is the desire for recruitment and development to feel less short-term and reactive. Respondents call for clearer career pathways and more structure around progression, so crew can understand what a five or ten-year career can look like. Some suggest apprenticeships or cadetship models to set expectations early and build skills properly.
Several respondents also argue that development should be more personalised, with more attention paid to where a crew member is trying to go, rather than simply hiring to fill the next vacancy. This includes recognising pre-trained entrylevel candidates more fairly, offering meaningful internal advancement and building teams who stay because they can see a future on board. When crew feel there is a future on board, they are far more likely to stay and invest in the programme.
“Career path clarity – we need to show crew what a 5–10-year journey looks like, not just the next job.”
“Create educational pathways for all.”
“An apprenticeship would be an interesting concept. With a structured learning program. It would help crew invest in their career and help with retention.”
“I would propose a period of cadetship where green crew are paid a basic salary and must perform for a certain period of time before being eligible for full-time positions.”
“I would like to see more internal opportunities for advancement and more yacht owners investing in crew training and development.”
CONCLUSION AND KEY TAKEAWAYS
Taken together, the findings in this report reveal a deeper issue than “who should pay for training” or “why crew don’t stay”. The underlying challenge is that the industry still operates without a consistently professional employment model that aligns investment, progression, trust and performance in a way that makes long-term commitment realistic for both crew and owners.
Across responses, training funding becomes a proxy for something bigger. It is treated as a signal of whether a yacht is serious about building capability and treating crew development as part of the operational system. When training is left mostly to self-funding, especially for junior crew, it reinforces the idea that progression is something crew must manage alone. In that environment, moving yachts becomes the most dependable and rational strategy for advancement. Crew do not leave simply for higher pay. They leave because moving yachts often feels like the only reliable path for growth.
Hesitation from owners, captains and management is also easy to understand. Many have seen crew take a course and leave shortly afterwards, which makes funding development feel like a poor return. But the responses highlight a more circular reality. When support is limited, crew are more likely to keep their options open. That mobility and low sense of loyalty then feeds the belief that investment does not work. This loop is sustained by inconsistency. Decisions often depend on the captain, the owner’s mindset or the season rather than a transparent and stable approach. Over time, this does not just create frustration, it damages trust in the overall employment package.
The strongest insight from the data is that retention is rarely created by a single incentive. Training
support can help, but it works best when it sits inside a wider experience that feels stable and well led. Crew are more likely to commit long-term when leadership is calm and consistent, when the role feels manageable over time, when rotation is predictable and when progression is believable. Loyalty does not come from extra perks. Instead, it comes from credibility built through consistent dayto-day management decisions.
This is also why broken promises around training are so damaging. They are not viewed as a missed benefit, but as proof that agreements are conditional and unreliable. Once that belief sets in, the cost to retention becomes immediate because crew stop planning a future on board and begin protecting their future elsewhere.
Looking ahead, the report suggests that meaningful change will require the industry to shift from a certificate-driven model of professionalism to one that includes proven capability along with essential soft skills. Respondents want recruitment that is more rigorous and evidence-based, training that proves competence rather than attendance and better support for leadership development as crew move into senior positions. If the industry wants stronger retention, it needs clearer pathways and more consistent development support that does not change drastically yacht by yacht.
Ultimately, the industry can continue relying on short-term hiring in a high-turnover market or it can build the kind of professional structures that turn good crew into long-term teams. The findings suggest that the programmes that take the second route can reduce churn, improve performance and create stronger stability over time.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Training support is not just an expense, it is a signal of professionalism and employment credibility.
• When training is mostly self-funded, crew movement becomes the default pathway for progression rather than staying on board.
• The industry is trapped in a cycle where low investment in crew drives low loyalty and low loyalty discourages investment.
• Shared-cost and return-of-service reimbursement models work best when they are transparent and honoured.
• Retention is driven less by perks and more by steady leadership and an on-board environment that feels consistent and respectful.
• Broken training promises damage more than morale. They undermine confidence in the entire employment package and accelerate turnover.
• Recruitment and training systems need to shift from certificate accumulation to proven competence, supported by stronger verification and leadership development.
DISCLAIMER
(1) Introduction
This disclaimer governs the use of this report.
(2) Credit
This disclaimer was created using an SEQ legal template.
(3) Extra Services
Any additional services perceived as falling outside the deliverables will be chargeable. If the client becomes aware that such work is needed, it is their responsibility to inform The Superyacht Group/The Superyacht Agency – Intelligence. Upon reaching an agreement with the client, extras will be billed and charged according to the additional time required.
(4) Data Protection Clauses
Any information collected and/or data provided by the client to The Superyacht Group/The Superyacht Agency – Intelligence and used by the company directly or indirectly in the performance of this agreement shall remain at all times the property of The Superyacht Group/The Superyacht Agency – Intelligence. It shall be identified, clearly marked and recorded as such by the client on all media and in all documentation. However, confidential data will be used for statistical purposes only. All data passed to the client as part of this project, may be used by the client at its own discretion, while citing the source as The Superyacht Group/The Superyacht Agency – Intelligence.
(5) No advice
The information is not advice, and should not be treated as such. You must not rely on the information in the report as an alternative to financial advice from an appropriately qualified professional. If you have any specific questions about any financial matter you should consult an appropriately qualified professional. You should never delay seeking legal advice, disregard legal advice, or commence or discontinue any legal action because of information in the report.
(6) No Representations or Warranties
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law and subject to section 6 we exclude all representations, warranties, undertakings and guarantees relating to the report. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph, we do not represent, warrant, undertake or guarantee that the information in the report is correct, accurate, complete or non-misleading; that the use of guidance in the report will lead to any particular outcome or result; or, in particular, that by using the guidance in the report you will choose the best model to meet your business needs.
(7) Limitations and Exclusions of Liability
The limitations and exclusions of liability set out in this section and elsewhere in this disclaimer: are subject to section 6 below; and govern all liabilities arising under the disclaimer or in relation to the report, including liabilities arising in contract, in tort (including negligence) and for breach of statutory duty. We will not be liable to you in respect of any losses arising out of any event or events beyond our reasonable control. We will not be liable to you in respect of any business losses, including without limitation, loss of or damage to profits, income, revenue, use, production, anticipated savings, business, contracts, commercial opportunities or goodwill. We will not be liable to you in respect of any loss or corruption of any data, database or software. We will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage.
(8) Exceptions
Nothing in this disclaimer shall: limit or exclude our liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence; limit or exclude our liability for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation; limit any of our liabilities in any way that is not permitted under applicable law; or exclude any of our liabilities that may not be excluded under applicable law.
(9)
Severability
If a section of this disclaimer is determined by any court or other competent authority to be unlawful and/ or unenforceable, the other sections of this disclaimer continue in effect. If any unlawful and/or unenforceable section would be lawful or enforceable if part of it were deleted, that part will be deemed to be deleted, and the rest of the section will continue in effect.
(10) Law and jurisdiction
This disclaimer will be governed by and construed in accordance with English law, and any disputes relating to this disclaimer will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
(11) Our details
In this disclaimer, ‘we’ means (and ‘us’ and ‘our’ refer to) TRP Magazines Limited, a company registered in England and Wales under registration number 2728298.
IT’S TIME TO STAND OUT FROM THE CROWD
01 UNRIVALLED INSIGHTS
INTELLIGENCE
We deliver the superyacht industry’s most trusted insights using our network of key stakeholders and decision-makers.
STRATEGY
02
We build brands and businesses from the ground up - with purpose, DNA and multi-channel marketing strategies. INFORMED DECISIONS
03
CREATIVE
From brand identities to full-scale campaigns, we develop standout visuals, digital platforms and marketing assets. INSPIRED SOLUTIONS
CONNECTIONS
We offer high-level gatherings, and meaningful conversations that move the market forward.
04
INCREDIBLE EXPERIENCES
