5 ms·

The article says the parent company is in financial difficulties, and the individual in question was basically being held for ransom (along with the ship). Depe

by nickff 6y ago

The article says the parent company is in financial difficulties, and the individual in question was basically being held for ransom (along with the ship). Depending on the ordering of debts (for the company), they may not have been able to compensate the Egyptians. All of that being said, I agree an American company likely would have had this sorted out faster, because the USA tends to deal with bankruptcies and the like very quickly.

worldsayshi 6y ago
Seems to me that corporations owning ships having financial difficulties would be a natural consequence of outsourcing behaviour. You want to outsource risk and responsibilities. So the big companies get rid of their ships and hire small companies on the edge of profitability. I assume it's not always the most sound way to do business but some should get away with it.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Name me a country where logistics orgs never run out of money or resources.
  - labster 6y ago
    The United Federation of Planets doesn’t even use money, and it’s post-scarcity so they don’t run out of resources.
    - zoshi 6y ago
      Ships, planets, space, etc. are scarce and owned by various actors. The Federation is an interplanetary government made of sovereign member states, many of which do trade and use money. Even without the use of trade, there must be systems for determining who controls what.
      - robotbikes 6y ago
        This discussion makes me wish that I had borrowed the book Trekonomics from my friend when he offered to loan it to me. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
    - edoceo 6y ago
      replicators tho. makes a huge difference. we're headed away from UFP and more towards DOOP.
    - imagineerschool 6y ago
      They run out of resources all the time and it drives many plots!
    - dexterous 6y ago
      I had a feeling someone was eventually going to pull this one out. :)
    - drdeca 6y ago
      fictitious evidence isn't.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The United Federation of Planets doesn’t even use money Well, they occasionally say they don’t (and Roddenberry said they don’t), but they actually do (or discussing the fact that they do) in every single one of the series, and several of the movies. > and it’s post-scarcity so they don’t run out of resources. They do run into resource limits. Also, the UFP is, you known, fiction, and not even haed science fiction (or even particularly internally consistent fiction.)
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Let's invert that. Let's assume that logistics organisations consistently run out of resources. That this is a probabalistic outcome of operations. The BBC article even gives us a sense of the baseline risk, about 250 cases presently, and 85 new ones reported in 2020 (meaning that typical durations exceed a year in length). In that case, how do you address the inevitable circumstance without creating a human rights abuse crisis, presuming sufficient consideration and political will exists for this to occur? Elsewhere in the thread, surity bonds are mentioned. That is, a ship on entering a port or other navigational / marine facility, places a bond in which some large and far more solvent entity assures that compensation where due is paid. International treaties (to which major transit points such as canals might be obligated to join) are another option. An international response organisation with the ability to both intervene and impose additional sanctions on any entities which impose such sailor-arrest. Keep in mind that the 2020 Beruit ANFO explosion occurred after a not-dissimilar situation, in which a ship was deemed unseaworthy and its cargo seized and held under exceptionally (and ultimately massively fatal and damaging) conditions, in part because its ownership and questions over compensation were not met. (There were quite admittedly other concerns and failures, including by the Beruit port authority and judiciary, but the ownership and payment aspects touched on most of these. Hazardous cargo and storage have been at the heart of several other recent major disasters, including in Tianjin, China.) Whilst "flag of convenience" regulations make race-to-the-bottom standards in shipping regulation common, obligations to maintain surity bonds or similar instruments of substantial duration (e.g., a year or more) to access major ports, canals, fueling depots, and the like, could help ensure compliance.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  How? I mean there are shady American transport firms. This isn’t the result of big massive conglomerates. It’s mom and pop small firms. People to small and broke to sue.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    mv aman is a 100m ship. any company owning that is kinda stretching the term "mom and pop".
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    The mom and pops are the puppets of large companies. Large companies transfer risk and plausible deniability to small companies all the time.
- refurb 6y ago
  What’s the option if you don’t outsource? Every company who wants to ship something by sea needs to purchase and boat and man a crew?
rfrey 6y ago
Most of these ships are owned by single vessel companies, much like power plants. This allows the massive shipping companies to walk away from individual vessels.
- account42 6y ago
  > are owned by single vessel companies This legal fiction is only true as long as it is allowed to be. Egypt can see who was operating and using the ship and block their other ships until they fix the issue - they don't need to hold a scapegoat hostage for years.
ornornor 6y ago
There is also back channeling. I also believe that if the shipping company and the sailor were from a different country (not necessarily the US but not failed states either), he would have gone home a long time ago.

by nickff 6y ago

worldsayshi 6y ago

Seems to me that corporations owning ships having financial difficulties would be a natural consequence of outsourcing behaviour. You want to outsource risk and responsibilities. So the big companies get rid of their ships and hire small companies on the edge of profitability. I assume it's not always the most sound way to do business but some should get away with it.

andromeduck 6y ago
Name me a country where logistics orgs never run out of money or resources.
- labster 6y ago
  The United Federation of Planets doesn’t even use money, and it’s post-scarcity so they don’t run out of resources.
  - zoshi 6y ago
    Ships, planets, space, etc. are scarce and owned by various actors. The Federation is an interplanetary government made of sovereign member states, many of which do trade and use money. Even without the use of trade, there must be systems for determining who controls what.
    - robotbikes 6y ago
      This discussion makes me wish that I had borrowed the book Trekonomics from my friend when he offered to loan it to me. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
  - edoceo 6y ago
    replicators tho. makes a huge difference. we're headed away from UFP and more towards DOOP.
  - imagineerschool 6y ago
    They run out of resources all the time and it drives many plots!
  - dexterous 6y ago
    I had a feeling someone was eventually going to pull this one out. :)
  - drdeca 6y ago
    fictitious evidence isn't.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The United Federation of Planets doesn’t even use money Well, they occasionally say they don’t (and Roddenberry said they don’t), but they actually do (or discussing the fact that they do) in every single one of the series, and several of the movies. > and it’s post-scarcity so they don’t run out of resources. They do run into resource limits. Also, the UFP is, you known, fiction, and not even haed science fiction (or even particularly internally consistent fiction.)
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Let's invert that. Let's assume that logistics organisations consistently run out of resources. That this is a probabalistic outcome of operations. The BBC article even gives us a sense of the baseline risk, about 250 cases presently, and 85 new ones reported in 2020 (meaning that typical durations exceed a year in length). In that case, how do you address the inevitable circumstance without creating a human rights abuse crisis, presuming sufficient consideration and political will exists for this to occur? Elsewhere in the thread, surity bonds are mentioned. That is, a ship on entering a port or other navigational / marine facility, places a bond in which some large and far more solvent entity assures that compensation where due is paid. International treaties (to which major transit points such as canals might be obligated to join) are another option. An international response organisation with the ability to both intervene and impose additional sanctions on any entities which impose such sailor-arrest. Keep in mind that the 2020 Beruit ANFO explosion occurred after a not-dissimilar situation, in which a ship was deemed unseaworthy and its cargo seized and held under exceptionally (and ultimately massively fatal and damaging) conditions, in part because its ownership and questions over compensation were not met. (There were quite admittedly other concerns and failures, including by the Beruit port authority and judiciary, but the ownership and payment aspects touched on most of these. Hazardous cargo and storage have been at the heart of several other recent major disasters, including in Tianjin, China.) Whilst "flag of convenience" regulations make race-to-the-bottom standards in shipping regulation common, obligations to maintain surity bonds or similar instruments of substantial duration (e.g., a year or more) to access major ports, canals, fueling depots, and the like, could help ensure compliance.
pyuser583 6y ago
How? I mean there are shady American transport firms. This isn’t the result of big massive conglomerates. It’s mom and pop small firms. People to small and broke to sue.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  mv aman is a 100m ship. any company owning that is kinda stretching the term "mom and pop".
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  The mom and pops are the puppets of large companies. Large companies transfer risk and plausible deniability to small companies all the time.
refurb 6y ago
What’s the option if you don’t outsource? Every company who wants to ship something by sea needs to purchase and boat and man a crew?

rfrey 6y ago

Most of these ships are owned by single vessel companies, much like power plants. This allows the massive shipping companies to walk away from individual vessels.

account42 6y ago
> are owned by single vessel companies This legal fiction is only true as long as it is allowed to be. Egypt can see who was operating and using the ship and block their other ships until they fix the issue - they don't need to hold a scapegoat hostage for years.

ornornor 6y ago

There is also back channeling. I also believe that if the shipping company and the sailor were from a different country (not necessarily the US but not failed states either), he would have gone home a long time ago.