4 ms·

Why does the empty container have to be taken back to long Beach? Couldn't it be taken literally anywhere else?

ameister14 5y ago
Because the container isn't owned by the trucking company. If you have a contract to take the container to a particular place only, you risk breach doing otherwise; plus think about it, if you want the trucking company to rent or purchase more space to store the containers, that's a major cost increase you're putting on them and they'd have to modify a ton of contracts to get paid there
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Because the empty needs to be either filled and put back on a ship going back to Asia, or put back empty. Either way, all the containers that go from Asia to the US need to go back. And it makes sense for the port that unloads to also load.
- hammock 5y ago
  Doesn't seem like it makes sense in this case, though, does it?
  - btown 5y ago
    Geographically there is no viable other port. And if there was one, you’d need trucks to get the containers there anyways.
  - pests 5y ago
    If they don't go back, how will China ship stuff to us?
chrischen 5y ago
Apparently the containers are not fungible; maybe they should be.
- syngrog66 5y ago
  its surprising. I thought that was a key point of them. Granted the standardized sizes and construction standards is probably the most important thing. But once you have that the next logical benefit is to treat them as fungible commodities, like digits in an account. Perhaps in normal times they are, but when the flow equilibrium is disrupted suddenly the discretized reality pokes its head through.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    The containers are sufficiently fungible for the purposes of mounting on trailers, stacking in lots, and stocking the ships. The containers are not sufficiently fungible in the fact that they are owned by different entities which may not all want the containers to be shipped to just any place.

Because the container isn't owned by the trucking company. If you have a contract to take the container to a particular place only, you risk breach doing otherwise; plus think about it, if you want the trucking company to rent or purchase more space to store the containers, that's a major cost increase you're putting on them and they'd have to modify a ton of contracts to get paid there

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Because the empty needs to be either filled and put back on a ship going back to Asia, or put back empty. Either way, all the containers that go from Asia to the US need to go back. And it makes sense for the port that unloads to also load.

hammock 5y ago
Doesn't seem like it makes sense in this case, though, does it?
- btown 5y ago
  Geographically there is no viable other port. And if there was one, you’d need trucks to get the containers there anyways.
- pests 5y ago
  If they don't go back, how will China ship stuff to us?

chrischen 5y ago

Apparently the containers are not fungible; maybe they should be.

syngrog66 5y ago
its surprising. I thought that was a key point of them. Granted the standardized sizes and construction standards is probably the most important thing. But once you have that the next logical benefit is to treat them as fungible commodities, like digits in an account. Perhaps in normal times they are, but when the flow equilibrium is disrupted suddenly the discretized reality pokes its head through.
- thephyber 5y ago
  The containers are sufficiently fungible for the purposes of mounting on trailers, stacking in lots, and stocking the ships. The containers are not sufficiently fungible in the fact that they are owned by different entities which may not all want the containers to be shipped to just any place.