Why don't American Co's want to run our ports?

[napi21]

With all the discussion about the UAE and now we find out that damn near every other counrty is already running our ports, no one has answered the one question I have. WHY don't American Co's want to run our ports?

I hate it, but I understand why American co's outsource jobs, it's called GREED! But I don't see them shying away from any other business where there's $$ to be made.

Do we simply not have the expertise to do it?

[kaygore]

1. Halliburton, KBR, etc. are too busy making money off of war, disasters...

[AnnieBW]

2. Bought Out

They were bought out by foreign companies - Sealand was bought out by Maersk of Denmark in the '90's.

[TomClash]

5. Sealand was an ocean carrier

I don't think they ever ran a port terminal.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Sealand did run at least one terminal...

at Newark. Maersk got it as part of the package.

[TomClash]

18. Universal Terminals

not Sealand ran the terminal at Newark before the Maersk deal.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. Coulda been them running it, I just remember...

seeing Sealand signs all over it.

[TomClash]

21. You're right

that Universal was purchased by Maersk at the same time Sealand was. I don't think Universal was owned by Sealand but it might have had an interest. It's hard to remember now.

[napi21]

7. I realize the "bought out" part, but why?

Were they loosing $$ and couldn't pass up the offers? Surely it wasn't because ALL the owners just wanted to retire? I'm sure $$ is the answer somewhere, but most businesses won't just sell if they're profitable. If they weren't profitable, and the new owners are making a profit, yet again another WHY?

[The2ndWheel]

20. Monolithic control

Civilization has been building towards monolithic control for 6000 years. 5 networks control television, one global military, basically one global language, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Manifest Destiny. Just picture an ever expanding circle.

[htuttle]

3. Regarding 'expertise'

I don't see why running a seaport is that terribly different than running an airport.

Sure, your inventory would be different and there'd be different procedures, but many of the issues seem to be the same: Livery inspection and Customs, foreign crews, parts and resupply, traffic control, etc...

Anyone know why an entity that runs a big international airport couldn't learn how to run a big international sea port relatively quickly (especially if they kept as many of the local staff as possible)?

[spindrifter]

14. Port of Seattle involves both

the airport (SeaTac) and the water port. You are right, they are very similar in many respects. The water port involves provision of more kinds of services--e.g., loading breakbulk, containers, liquid cargo, as well as massive coordination to transship to trucks and rail, as well as intermediate storage.

[htuttle]

15. It looks like all of the Great Lakes ports are US/Canadian operated

Googling tells me there's two main corporations running almost all of the shipping in the Great Lakes: the The Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (a non-profit Canadian corporation), and The U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, a wholly government owned US corporation. Each individual port, such as Port of Milwaukee, might also have a separate company running on-the-ground operations, but in every case I looked up, they were all local companies (Port of Milwaukee is run by a Milwaukee company, etc...).

Sure, they individually get less traffic than many of the large East Coast ports, but together, and spread out over the Lakes, they are at least as large as any single East Coast port.

:shrug:


on edit: speling

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. Nobody wants to do the work?

Nobody is connected enough politically to get the contract?

[enough]

6. Perhaps there is no longer such a thing as "American Co's."

[xray s]

8. The ports should be nationalized

They should be the property of the US government and operated by the US government.

We can't trust the private sector to defend us.

[napi21]

9. Good idea, but we don't have any $$ to do that!

Shrub gave it all away!

[Telly Savalas]

12. Actually we have the highest per capita GDP in the world.

Just because Bush cut taxes for the rich doesn't mean money disappeared.

[Radio_Guy]

22. I'm in favor of that

Reverse Bush's tax cuts for the rich and nationalize all airports and seaports. If they don't want to sell them to the government or if the government doesn't have the money, hit them with eminent domain for national security.

[sam sarrha]

10. so what is to keep the UAE from sellng to N Korea or Castro..??

[Clarkie1]

11. Nothing.

Except perhaps lack of funds from N. Korea.

I suppose we should all just hope for the best.
:sarcasm:

[napi21]

13. Nothing! Same as there's nothing preventing the Brits from

selling to the UAE!

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Ahem... we're talking about terminal operations here, not...

running ports, although the two do often overlap.

Foreign capital costs and liquidity play a part, as do exchange rates and balance of payments problems, but basically terminal operations may be profitable, but it's a side business for many companies involved in it, and the return on investment just isn't as great as many of their other operations.

On the bottom line, if someone with cheap capital wants to buy your business for what seems like an obscene amount of money, you often tend to sell it to them.