Okay, maybe I'm an idiot but why couldn't ANY company run the ports

[karlrschneider]

Don't they already have the equipment and machinery to lift and tote big boxes? I mean this shit isn't rocket science. I normally fly a plane but I can operate a crane fairly well and damn sure a fork-lift. Or alternatively why couldn't the CITIES that are home to these ports do it?
Sure, it would require a little training and such but who else would have a better incentive to do it efficiently and with the best affordable security?

Isn't NOLA one of the ports involved in this? Why couldn't they operate these big machines?...hell, the city is home to plenty of workers who operate the huge drilling platforms in the Gulf.

[benburch]

1. All it takes is capital and the knowledge of the industry.

And you can hire the knowledge.

[karlrschneider]

2. Exactly! I used to work for a company that moved 100 ton machines

and built 2,000 foot TV towers. Unloading boats would be a piece of cake for them with just a little training. It's a small company but they know how to handle big heavy shit and would only need additional personnel to deal with it. Hell, *I* could put together an organization if I had the resources to augment the infrastructure, hire qualified (or trainable) people and some front money. Jesus, like I said this shit ain't rocket science...

[benburch]

3. The Longshoreman's Union would be happy to assist.

They have the know-how, and would be happy to help you hire ANY number of good workmen.

[Sydnie]

4. Why didn't this company bid?

http://www.carrix.com/ They have all the right things to do the job - http://www.carrix.com/carrixCo.html and they are currently in most of the smaller ports in the US, running other ports all over the world including having done work for the government in Iraq at the port there.

I emailed firedoglake and asked Jane to investigate and see if they will tell her why they didn't bid or if they did, why their bid wasn't accepted.

[karlrschneider]

6. Well, as far as we know, bids weren't solicited. Who the hell knows

what goes on in the bowels of the PNAC/Chimp basement?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. All major port companies considered it

The offer price represented a 46% premium to P&O's price before 30 October when P&O confirmed it was in talks. News of the potential bidder sparked a 30% rally in its share price on hopes that the approach could trigger a bidding war.

Denmark's Moeller-Maersk, Singapore government investment agency Temasek Holdings and Hong Kong's Hutchison Whampoa were named in the press as potential rival bidders for P&O.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4480542.stm

The Singapore company did actually put in a bid after that, which forced Dubai to raise its bid. All this happened in full view on an internationally known stock market. Americans could have bidded for the business (of which the American operations are just one part) any time they wanted. Then an American company could operate ports in China, Thailand, India, Australia, the UK, France, Belgium ...

[Coastie for Truth]

14. The infrastructure (cranes, rr tracks, etc)

were bult by the "Port Service Company" on land that they leased under long term leases from the local government.

The British Shipping Co - "P&O" bought up the older, local and locally owned "Port Service Companies." In a financial move "P&O" sold their "Port Sevice Business" to Dubai World Ports.

"Port Security" per se was not part of the deal. That's provided by the government. See my append to see what is covered.

I would just as soon have local port authority operate the terminals.

[SpiralHawk]

5. Community Port Authorities

May indeed be the way to go

Corruption will always seep in it seems, no matter what, but I like the idea of local control

[Erika]

11. Port waters are navigable waters and under fed jurisdiction

Not the state or local govt.

[Erika]

7. Apparently the feds determine who they wish to run the ports

So they choose a Muslim Country?

[karlrschneider]

8. I guess they do, but do we know who actually DOES "own" them?

I sure don't. But it sure seems to me that any that are inside a city's limits would be the property of the municipality. If that's wrong, why is it wrong?

[Sydnie]

9. Pataki certainly seems to think that he has some control over

the NY port, doesn't he? Perhaps they ARE the property of the locality and they have agreed to a similar contract for each locale?

[Erika]

12. The state is a minor partner on ports

The feds control the issue and the port.

[Erika]

10. Federal waters are under the feds

As are the ports.

[Erika]

13. Navigable waters come under federal jurisdiction n/t

[Drum]

15. Exactly!

Kick & Recommend

:kick: