CHINA, CHINA, CHINA .......Denmark, Bush?; Those are the PORT options

[NoMercy]

Unless one trusts the Bush/Cheney cabal to spend a Trillion dollars to nationalize port operations, there are very few good alternatives to the DPW deal.

This is a super-high capital investment business -- high risk, low profit. All major players have been
backed or supported by long-term state guarantees in municipalities -- singapore,
Hong Kong, Copenhagen, Dubai -- where trading is historically a major part of
their economy.

Any major port has many operators (based in Israel, U.S., U.K. Greece, Holland, Saudi Arabia) who lease terminal rights in the Port (operators don't "run" or "own" the ports).

HOWEVER, few operators have the experience or capital to make major infrasturture or security upgrades.
Over the last 10 years much of the investment in U.S. port infrastructure has been made by foreign owned
global maritime conglomerates.

A global ports terminal operation the size of P&O could only be
rationally and securely acquired by one of the major ports terminal players -- most
currently controlled in one way or the other by the Chinese. The Danish company Maersk may have the resources to do the P&O deal but their Port Terminals subsidiary APM is a relatively small part of their business.

I believe the major players in U.S. market are:

Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH) -- Hong Kong
China Ocean Shipping Co (COSCO) - Shanghai
PSA, International (Port of Singapore Authority) -- Singapore
AP Moller - Maersk Group -- Denmark

If anyone here has some other to add, please do.

[mdmc]

1. No USA firms currently running ports use organized labor

The USA firms all use rat worm scabs.:kick: Just thought that I would point that out.:kick:

[MadMaddie]

2. Hmmmmm....I see a huge flaw in the listed major players...

list....

None of them are American. It is true that many of these transactions happened before 9/11...but we are post 9/11 and this has to change.

A plan should be implemented to temporarily have a company other than the UAE run our ports until we can establish a US based company to run the ports. Have them train our people and set up or continue existing procesess...

<snip>
HOWEVER, few operators have the experience or capital to make major infrasturture or security upgrades. Over the last 10 years much of the investment in U.S. port infrastructure has been made by foreign owned global maritime conglomerates.
<snip>

We have to make changes and spend the money on them...

Good Post!!

[NoMercy]

3. Large-scale terminal operation has not be a U.S. specialty for

decades.

[MadMaddie]

4. True....

But does that prevent us from starting to manage and run large scale terminal operations. It's obvious that something has to change....

[MrPrax]

7. True...

But nothing is preventing the US from making televisions again either.

[High Plains]

11. Why does anything have to change?

Because it's a "post 9-11 world"?

Well, it's been a post-9-11 world for almost five years now. Foreign companies have been doing port operations the whole time. No problems. No nukes. No WMDS. Lots of containers full of cheap Chinese shit on its way to Wal-Mart.

And I don't think those 9-11 hijackers came over in a container, either.

[peacetalksforall]

5. I have been slowing checking the ownership of airports. I know that

people say there is a difference between Operation and Security and now we are saying theire is a difference between Ownership, Operation, and Security.

It appears the airports are owned by the cities, counties, states, and are operated by those entities or Port Authorities and they are not operated by foreign entities.

The seaports are a mess to sort out.

We should not continue on this path for seaports.

There should be no difference for seaports and airports.

[NoMercy]

6. U.S. Air companies lease Airport terminals all over the world

as well as in the U.S. And they operate Air terminals for smaller airlines.

[peacetalksforall]

8. Do you mean airlines? Yes, they lease their gates which involves

offices, etc.

Are you speaking about other non-airline companies?

I am thinking about international airports of comparable sizes to seaports to keep it on a parallel base.

[NoMercy]

9. Much the same applies to ports execpt for massive in scale, infrastructure

and capital investment required to manage the terminals. Go to any major
airport and you will find that the only way they function is via long term leases of facilities which pay the bills.

[peacetalksforall]

10. That means we're back to the discussion about who is doing what.

The discussion is so uncontained because we're learning and there are a lot of unknowns.

We've learned there are Terminals. Port operations. Customs. Security.

Those defending the sale, are mixing them up for propaganda purposes.

Those who are trying to understand are having a difficult time.

Yes, I hear there are foreign companies (if not governments) that own terminals - which is equivalent to leasing/buying a gate.

I gather that P & O owns terminals AND port operations in a mix of places within the U.S.

To me Port Operation is over all the terminals and I believe we're talking Port Operation for DP World/UAE.

I cannot see how Port Operations and Security can be separated and I am not against the country of the United Arab Emirates, it's the principal of not owning our own Port Operations. It is the principal of the Bush Administration tried to hide this sale. It is the principal that American is being sold right out from under us. It is the principal that Carlyle will profit. It is the principal that they think they can do anything to us. It is the principal that they spend money to kill, but not secure.

[High Plains]

12. Those defending the sale are mixing things up?

For propaganda reasons?

I don't think it's the defenders of the deal saying things like:

"They're selling our ports to the Arabs."

"The Arabs will control security at our ports."

and similar bs.

I know you cannot see how port operations and security can be separated, but not too many people with expertise in these issues agree with you.

[peacetalksforall]

14. Those who are now defending the sale are stressing that DP World/

UAE is not involved in security. They say the Coast Guard is? My understanding is that the Coast Guard has rights to board and inspect on the sea, prior to docking. Customs inspects incoming shipments (a little).

To me, that means there is still plenty of security to be taken into account. The buildings, the holds, the incoming and outgoing trains cars-trucks-cars, gates, grounds, id's, How can anyone say that DP World is not handling security? If I were DP World, I would strive to have the most incredibly tight security imaginable.

Some want to say that DP World/UAE is suspect. Who knows, but the choice is unbelievable given the history.

Equally insulting is

. the hypocrisy of the money deals and profits for a few
. the fact the our country is being run by corporations and investment companies now they are dictating and using well place cabinet members in place to facilitate it
. the hypocrisy about how our government is being run
. the attempt to keep it a secret
. the fodder for unpatriotic propaganda

FOR ME = I AM INCENSED that we don't own our ports. I AM INCENSED that our infrastructure has been and is being sold to foreign governments.

What am I not understanding about your position?

[NoMercy]

13. "Terminal Operator "and "Port Operator" are interchangeable

Many "Port Operations" exit side by side in big ports. Maritime security is
really a global challenge which needs a systems approach and includes "port opertions" even though the "Port Authority" and national security establishment is really in charge in each country.

[senaca]

15. Why not nationalize?

Use the U.S. Postal Svc. system with it's unions as a blueprint and put retired Coast Guard veterans in charge of establishing universal rules and regulations for our ports as well as retired dock workers who have served with distinction. Make it an entity separate of the Coast Guard. Take the Coast Guard out of the Aegis of Homeland Security as far as funding. I would hazard to guess funds may be going elsewhere like FEMA's funds. To pay for it, get rid of the Faith Based Initiatives Program. Which is more important in the scheme of things? There seems to be a correlation anyway with faith based lobbying politicians and yet there does not seem to be an upswing in programs helping the poor. The churches win because they no longer have govt. money with strings attached and their coffers may once again be filled by their congregation. After all why give very much to churches when you are already being taxed to support them with the Faith Based Initiatives. This may be all pie in the sky, but it would be interesting to hear others ideas.

[NoMercy]

16. Full Nationalization would and endevor on the scale of the Iraq war

-- with troop who had played with paint baloons for experience.

Just look at the Post-Katrina recovery process. And that is like a speck of sand
in a sand-storm of global trade.

It would be great to get some estimate for this endeavor from the GAO and the
an independent commission to see how to do it without a national security debacle.

[senaca]

17. If you used the same unions, same pay

with added universal regulations and actual up to date technology and funding, would this be unsurmountable? Just asking because maybe it's time to brainstorm about all the possibilities or options we may have available.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Indianaoplis Airport is completely operated by BAA

the same company that owns and operates Heathrow, Gatwick and other British airports.

http://www.indianapolisairport.com/pages/baa.html

BAA is itself possibly going to be taken over by a Spanish construction company and an Australian bank. http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1141040491.html

[NoMercy]

19. That is the way it is. Some "ports" have 1 operator others have many

But, a few foreign companies definitely are the major players in terminal operations
of sea ports around the world.