Ghost of BiB Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I don't care about marketing on this one. It looks like a turd and smells like a turd. It's a turd. They can do all the validation studies they want to justify it - doesn't change the fact that it's another misstep that will open a Pandora's Box somewhere down the road. 608238[/snapback] You're better than that. Think a while as an operator. Don't suck in to complacent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 You're better than that. Think a while as an operator. Don't suck in to complacent. 608245[/snapback] I kind of get the big picture but I'm having a hard time agreeing with it. It's a gut thing - which could be nothing more than gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I kind of get the big picture but I'm having a hard time agreeing with it. It's a gut thing - which could be nothing more than gas. 608252[/snapback] Maybe not by design, but perhaps by circumstance, given the human aspect, perhaps a friendly ME business entity with personal connections to bad guys might be a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Maybe not by design, but perhaps by circumstance, given the human aspect, perhaps a friendly ME business entity with personal connections to bad guys might be a good thing? 608254[/snapback] That being the big picture, of course. Enemies closer and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I kind of get the big picture but I'm having a hard time agreeing with it. It's a gut thing - which could be nothing more than gas. 608252[/snapback] I get the same feeling. I can't find anything objectively wrong with it (I haven't yet heard any real argument against it that doesn't boil down to "Sand !@#$s? NIMBY.") But at the same time...it's sitting with me like last week's leftover anchovy pizza. What I'd really like to know is: who are the majority stakeholders in both these companies? It wouldn't be terribly surprising if the British company were majority Saudi-owned, selling a contract to a UAE company that's majority Japanese-owned, or some such. Particularly as, while I can see HQ'ing a company in the UAE for tax/economic reasons (in principle - I don't know if there ARE any, but it's possible), the Emirates don't exactly have an extensive maritime history that leads one to believe they could manage six major ports. Does anyone know that this company is owned by the UAE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Just another thought... I sit about 3,000 feet from the international port of Chicago, terminous of the SeaWay... I know this doesn't affect us here but... Just wait till they contract out the inland waterways... It sure was a cluster eff on 911... All the waterways were supposed to be shut down... That was corrected on 912... That was that day that we were shut down. May I remind people that MSO Chicago wasn't very happy. Now just imagine many different entities controlling the waterways... Think it was bad on 911 and the confusion? Water about coordinating water flows, pool elevations and other aspects the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I honestly don't know what to think, but I will say these three things: 1. It is probably impossible to find a large port-running company that does not, in some way, have ties to the ME. A global economy is a blessing and a curse. 2. Perception is reality whether it is reality or not. Sometimes it is really reality, and sometimes it is just pretending to be reality, but it is always reality. Get it? 3. Martina McBride is indeed a very attractive woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 But, what is your threat? Is it people "walzing" into the port? Or is it what's in the containers and bulk ships being handled? If I'm going to attack an LPG tanker to blow it up, I'll do it from the water. Plus, blowing up an LPG tanker isn't going to do a lot anyway. As for the rest of it, bite me - B word. 608157[/snapback] It will down river say in front of a dam with a 40' foot head and generating capability. Ottawa, Illinois comes to mind. Look how much damage was created from the Chicago River flood in the early 1990's... The Sears tower basically sits along the river. How many visitors are on Navy Pier any given summer weekend? Our coastal ports our the front lines. How are you gonna protect these structures from the water? The dirty little secret is you can't unless you stop it at the front gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 It will down river say in front of a dam with a 40' foot head and generating capability. Ottawa, Illinois comes to mind. Look how much damage was created from the Chicago River flood in the early 1990's... The Sears tower basically sits along the river. How many visitors are on Navy Pier any given summer weekend? Our coastal ports our the front lines. How are you gonna protect these structures from the water? The dirty little secret is you can't unless you stop it at the front gate. 608374[/snapback] Realistically (and seriously), though...is the location of the maintenance company's global HQ going to make that much of a difference in the security of a dam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 That's kind of my point too. Someone define "operations". Anyone here ever spent any time around a container port? 607685[/snapback] This is just the tip of the iceberg... Sorry to be a cassandra. Again... Sorry for going through this thread backwards... I am not on the coast... I am in "operations" and the government is looking right now (A-76 is being conducted) to send the day to day operations of the inland waterways to contract bidders... Who do the contractors hirer? They don't have to be union... They gotta provide prevailing wages... Peoria, Illinois sure has one heck of a low cost of living. The weak link is from within. The wave of the future on the inland waterways is gonna be container shipping... Already happening. Bulk cargo isn't gonna be king anymore. Almost EVERYTHING away from the coasts are non-union... NOLA is our number 1 port in gross tons yearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Realistically (and seriously), though...is the location of the maintenance company's global HQ going to make that much of a difference in the security of a dam? 608375[/snapback] Could... If those dams are privatized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Just a suggestion. You know one way to break the stevedore's hold in this counrty? Ship container directly to barge... Then take it inland. You can cross load/break-in-bulk say in the Carribean to to the big seagoing barges and bypass NOLA directly... Straight up into the non-union hinterlands of the east. Sounds crazy? I got other crazy ideas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Oh... My plimsoll line is getting knocked out of whack just thinking about this. Return of the "coffin loads" of the past with a new twist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I'd like to see the answer, because "operations" pretty much should = "logistical" and "administrative". Headlines using words like "Control Of Our Ports", are meant to convey a certain sense, as they always do. To me, "control of" and "operation of" have two different meanings. But, media would never try to shape the news. How many times was Cheney's target described as being in "intensive care in xyz hospital", when the surgeon, the hospital administration and the victim himself said he was staying there for privacy, and not health reasons? Privacy from who - maybe the press? Sorry to go off on a tangent, but take all of it together and try to convince me that the media doesn't affect policy through the angles it takes in presenting a story. Here is a situation that could have long term trickle down implications. But, by choosing to present this in a certain light, it places people into a short term reaction mode. Who's to say the right call will get made either way? React to the story, not the facts. That's going to get us real far. 607751[/snapback] I tried to rbing up some points you and Tom stated on a call in show on 101.5. I was basically shouted down and called an idiot. Apparently, our moron of a Governor is now suing saying he doesn't want this to happen in NJ. I stated I thought he was manuvering politically. I was then hung up on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Outsourcing the management of these ports will not avoid the fact that longshoremen will be loading and unloading the ships in these ports. I don't see how this has anything to do with unions or the high cost of American labor. 607680[/snapback] With some people, it always come backs to "hotpockets". The same people who will denounce any criticism of Bush, or his continuing misguided attempt to govern, are the ones who will cut you off with their "Bush bad" crap...that people here still continue to defend this man is beyond belief. Now, it is the fault of unions? Some things never change... As Bush continues to transform our country into a corporate bidding ground, we should all be scared. When you are putting corporations in charge of your safety, you are screwed. They are corporations, they exist to make money. That is their bottom line, not safety..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 And... Just to beat everyone to the punch... Clinton did this crap with China and it WAS WRONG. American companies based in America should be in administrative control. Who is to say that security policy and operations procedures can't fall into the wrong hands? I know, I know we are talking about administrative control here and not operations... Something just isn't right if this company is not subjected to American laws... How will that work? There is no way HQ should be outside our borders and jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 This is just the tip of the iceberg... Sorry to be a cassandra. Again... Sorry for going through this thread backwards... I am not on the coast... I am in "operations" and the government is looking right now (A-76 is being conducted) to send the day to day operations of the inland waterways to contract bidders... Who do the contractors hirer? They don't have to be union... They gotta provide prevailing wages... Peoria, Illinois sure has one heck of a low cost of living. The weak link is from within. The wave of the future on the inland waterways is gonna be container shipping... Already happening. Bulk cargo isn't gonna be king anymore. Almost EVERYTHING away from the coasts are non-union... NOLA is our number 1 port in gross tons yearly. 608378[/snapback] Don't worry, the government rarely loses an A-76. They cheat to high heaven on those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 When you are putting corporations in charge of your safety, you are screwed. They are corporations, they exist to make money. That is their bottom line, not safety..... Without contractors, the government would grind to a halt quickly. The only alternative is to make the government three times the size it is now in order to accomodate the workload. "Corporations" are and have been "in charge" of our safety for a long time. There are a lot of people on this board who work for the government through one private company or another. How can one live in a global economy by making limitations to what is global? I once spent some time forming a Hong Kong LTD company in China representing an American company that was owned by another company in Belgium. I think that might be more the norm in this day and age than the exception. And bringing the unions into it as motivation isn't right. The dockworkers and their unions aren't going anywhere, and don't have anything to do with this. Anyone who tries to get the Longshoreman out of the ports had better be prepared to not ship anything for a long, long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Again....no American companies that can handle this? Does EVERYTHING have to read "Made in China" on the label? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I know, I know we are talking about administrative control here and not operations... Something just isn't right if this company is not subjected to American laws... How will that work? I was hoping you'd show up because I thought you would know at the real world level. Doesn't everyone have to answer to, and be controlled by the respective Ports Authority? In effect, Government Oversight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts