6 ms·

If someone needed those parts to keep their assembly lines running, why wouldn't they just put up the money to have the ships unloaded? We're only talking abou

If someone needed those parts to keep their assembly lines running, why wouldn't they just put up the money to have the ships unloaded? We're only talking about a few million to move these goods.

thesehands 10y ago
Ports are reluctant to let the vessels unload as creditors would impound the vessels tying up valuable mooring space.
- amluto 10y ago
  It seems like the receiving ports and their respective authorities should consider creating a process by which the ship can unload and cannot be seized while unloading or prior to leaving the port.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > It seems like the receiving ports and their respective authorities should consider creating a process by which the ship can unload and cannot be seized while unloading or prior to leaving the port. That's already happening in the U.S. (well, not "creating a process" so much as "using an existing process, to wit, Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection".) [0] [0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-09/hanjin-wins-u-s-bankruptcy-shield-allowing-cargo-off-ships http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-09/hanjin-win...
bkor 10y ago
It's much easier to ship it via air. If this is for some assembly line you'd have weekly shipments by container vessel. Instead of putting it into a container vessel to arrive 4+ weeks later, just air it and have it in a 1-2 days at most.
- clock_tower 10y ago
  Easier, but more expensive and much more polluting.
  - bkor 10y ago
    This was about a factory line possibly shutting down. In those cases it'll be shipped via air. To be clear: I work in this industry. In case of an (factory) assembly line shutting down they'll resort to airfreight. I noticed people downvoting my reply, while it is entirely factual.
cc439 10y ago
A company that desperately needs parts stuck on one of these ships is only going to have at most, a handful of containers onboard. Those containers might be worth several million but then that one company would be shouldering 100% of the unloading costs for a negligible portion of the ship's cargo. Nobody wants to be the party that blinks first as the longer they wait, the greater the likelihood of another party paying those fees becomes. It's in every party's best interest to get these ships docked and unloaded but no single party will own more than a fraction of the total cargo. Cooperation is possible but it will take months for hundreds of primary owners to come to an agreement. Before that happens, each one of those primary owners will need to come to agreements on cost-sharing with all the party's downstream from them in the supply chain first. It's the very definition of "tragedy of the commons" played out in private enterprise.
- intrasight 10y ago
  Seems the very definition of "business opportunity" to me.
  - tehwebguy 10y ago
    Right? You can work out a fee with all of the recipients that covers maybe all of your cost. Plus, free boat!
    - brian-armstrong 10y ago
      These boats are anything but free. Just owning one automatically costs you considerably. They are a liability.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      Plus, free boat! Nothing free about boats. Best two days of your life: the day you buy a boat, and the day you sell it.
      - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
        I recall a certain proverb about an expensive, wet hole.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Business X has ten containers on a ship. The ship has 4000 containers on it. Should Business X pay to unload the whole ship? That seems rather burdensome. Should Business X pay to just unload their own containers? But containers are in large stacks on the ship; it is improbable that the containers they want are all on top. They'd have to unload at least some others to get the ones they want. Should Business X join with all the other businesses that have containers on board? That might be the most equitable, but it's a huge coordination problem (their could be a thousand businesses), and it's still unjust - Business X (and all the others) had to pay for unloading on top of what they already paid Hanjin. It might be better than the alternative (having your assembly line idled), but it's not an easy or cheap solution...
- mjevans 10y ago
  The obvious solution is to agree that any receiving containers from the ship owe an equitable sized fee based on their fraction of all the containers. Also to charge creditors that 'arrest' a ship the mooring fee for the port (since they're the ones demanding it stays there). The ship, any unclaimed cargo, and any unclaimed containers, would then be fire-sold with the base price of the remaining debt for that ship and the condition that whoever buys them is then responsible for them. Any additional proceeds go first to lessening the unload fees (presumably already paid for by the cargo's owners in their transit fees) and finally back to the former owner of the ship. I forgot to add: The nation receiving the cargo should have an economic stability interest in backing the loans to do this, but those receiving cargo obviously also need to be in on the underwriting of these efforts. Second edit: It also becomes obvious to me that the equilibrium price for 'when is it bad enough to execute this' is when those who need to claim the cargo from the ship value what they're getting enough to bail out the price of selling the vessels for scrap.
  - michaelt 10y ago
    If it's allowed to sell unclaimed cargo, doesn't that create an incentive to jack up all the unloading fees? I mean, if I pay $1,000 to ship my $30,000 car, what's stopping the port from saying they want $20,000 to give it to me?

If someone needed those parts to keep their assembly lines running, why wouldn't they just put up the money to have the ships unloaded? We're only talking about a few million to move these goods.

thesehands 10y ago

Ports are reluctant to let the vessels unload as creditors would impound the vessels tying up valuable mooring space.

amluto 10y ago
It seems like the receiving ports and their respective authorities should consider creating a process by which the ship can unload and cannot be seized while unloading or prior to leaving the port.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It seems like the receiving ports and their respective authorities should consider creating a process by which the ship can unload and cannot be seized while unloading or prior to leaving the port. That's already happening in the U.S. (well, not "creating a process" so much as "using an existing process, to wit, Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection".) [0] [0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-09/hanjin-wins-u-s-bankruptcy-shield-allowing-cargo-off-ships http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-09/hanjin-win...

bkor 10y ago

It's much easier to ship it via air. If this is for some assembly line you'd have weekly shipments by container vessel. Instead of putting it into a container vessel to arrive 4+ weeks later, just air it and have it in a 1-2 days at most.

clock_tower 10y ago
Easier, but more expensive and much more polluting.
- bkor 10y ago
  This was about a factory line possibly shutting down. In those cases it'll be shipped via air. To be clear: I work in this industry. In case of an (factory) assembly line shutting down they'll resort to airfreight. I noticed people downvoting my reply, while it is entirely factual.

cc439 10y ago

A company that desperately needs parts stuck on one of these ships is only going to have at most, a handful of containers onboard. Those containers might be worth several million but then that one company would be shouldering 100% of the unloading costs for a negligible portion of the ship's cargo. Nobody wants to be the party that blinks first as the longer they wait, the greater the likelihood of another party paying those fees becomes. It's in every party's best interest to get these ships docked and unloaded but no single party will own more than a fraction of the total cargo. Cooperation is possible but it will take months for hundreds of primary owners to come to an agreement. Before that happens, each one of those primary owners will need to come to agreements on cost-sharing with all the party's downstream from them in the supply chain first. It's the very definition of "tragedy of the commons" played out in private enterprise.

intrasight 10y ago
Seems the very definition of "business opportunity" to me.
- tehwebguy 10y ago
  Right? You can work out a fee with all of the recipients that covers maybe all of your cost. Plus, free boat!
  - brian-armstrong 10y ago
    These boats are anything but free. Just owning one automatically costs you considerably. They are a liability.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    Plus, free boat! Nothing free about boats. Best two days of your life: the day you buy a boat, and the day you sell it.
    - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
      I recall a certain proverb about an expensive, wet hole.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Business X has ten containers on a ship. The ship has 4000 containers on it. Should Business X pay to unload the whole ship? That seems rather burdensome. Should Business X pay to just unload their own containers? But containers are in large stacks on the ship; it is improbable that the containers they want are all on top. They'd have to unload at least some others to get the ones they want. Should Business X join with all the other businesses that have containers on board? That might be the most equitable, but it's a huge coordination problem (their could be a thousand businesses), and it's still unjust - Business X (and all the others) had to pay for unloading on top of what they already paid Hanjin. It might be better than the alternative (having your assembly line idled), but it's not an easy or cheap solution...

mjevans 10y ago
The obvious solution is to agree that any receiving containers from the ship owe an equitable sized fee based on their fraction of all the containers. Also to charge creditors that 'arrest' a ship the mooring fee for the port (since they're the ones demanding it stays there). The ship, any unclaimed cargo, and any unclaimed containers, would then be fire-sold with the base price of the remaining debt for that ship and the condition that whoever buys them is then responsible for them. Any additional proceeds go first to lessening the unload fees (presumably already paid for by the cargo's owners in their transit fees) and finally back to the former owner of the ship. I forgot to add: The nation receiving the cargo should have an economic stability interest in backing the loans to do this, but those receiving cargo obviously also need to be in on the underwriting of these efforts. Second edit: It also becomes obvious to me that the equilibrium price for 'when is it bad enough to execute this' is when those who need to claim the cargo from the ship value what they're getting enough to bail out the price of selling the vessels for scrap.
- michaelt 10y ago
  If it's allowed to sell unclaimed cargo, doesn't that create an incentive to jack up all the unloading fees? I mean, if I pay $1,000 to ship my $30,000 car, what's stopping the port from saying they want $20,000 to give it to me?