Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 224 posts

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#211

Post by Animats »

johan_larson wrote: post #86
Animats wrote: post #59

This is a mess because Hanjin's top management was in denial about the possibility of bankruptcy. Just like the typical startup. They've been trying for months to get a bailout deal from somebody, anybody - a merger, loans, their parent chaebol, their stockholders (Korean Air is the largest), or the S. Korean government. Everybody turned them down. There's too much container ship capacity right now; nobody needed Han…

> This is a mess because Hanjin's top management was in denial about the possibility of bankruptcy. Just like the typical startup. Just like pretty much anybody. Everyone keeps hoping against hope, everyone is afraid to show weakness, and nobody likes to tell the boss no. Typically the staff knows for months that the end is nigh until some minor event precipitates the final undeniable crisis. Megan McArdle has some i…

Yet when GM did go bankrupt in 2009, GM Legal did a great job of doing it, at least from GM's perspective. They had a prepackaged bankruptcy ready to go. They made it happen in NYC, not Detroit, by using some GM dealership in Manhattan as the base. They had a contract they forced on suppliers to keep parts flowing. (GM's terms were very tough; they didn't want to pay pre-bankruptcy debts or pay for custom tooling made but not paid for, but demanded suppliers keep shipping to them post-bankruptcy on extended payment terms.) That got them through the first few weeks without shutting down the business. Then there was a major downsizing; all the bad stuff went to Motors Liquidation Corp., and the new GM Company kept the good stuff.

Hanjin just stopped in place for weeks. No plan.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#212

Post by r00fus »

ars wrote: post #171
r00fus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow your logic - data would help your point. For example, there may be a missing middle step there - as quality of life went up (due to massively increased international trade which allowed suppliers in emerging markets to bypass strict first-world environmental regulations and massively pollute) Then the reaction to the worsening environment because of overall consumption increase caused a backlash…

I don't even know how to reply to you. You think the only way for people to increase their quality of life is to pollute? And you think people want a better environment as a backlash? That's such upsidedown thinking. People always want a better environment, but if they are searching for their next meal they have better things to worry about. But once they are secure then they worry about their local environment, and…

> You think the only way for people to increase their quality of life is to pollute?

Lets remove what I think - the facts are pretty clear, as industrial/trade increases, so does pollution.

Wishing otherwise doesn't change the facts.

Once we live in at > 50% renewable/sustainable reality, I'll take your point of view seriously.

Labeling people as "silly environmentalists" because they strive for efficiency is pretty pompous.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#213

Post by josscrowcroft »

chii wrote: post #165
GavinMcG wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The officers, at the very least, would be criminally liable.

how can it be criminal when it's not you who instigated the issue in the first place? It should be criminal on the upper management imho.

I recall one major case (the Costa Concordia) in which the captain abandoned the sinking ship, survived, and later faced prosecution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16611371

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#214

Post by josscrowcroft »

PeterisP wrote: post #179
foobarian wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But suppose they ran out of food. And suppose there was no shuttle from the ship due to owner going bankrupt. I think they could probably call a mayday signal and get rescued by some other vessel.

They can and will obtain supplies and food at no cost (essentially, with the ship and cargo as collateral) but they can't really abandon it. Do note that calling mayday gives the rescuing vessel significant rights to the ship and cargo. If your ship is not at risk of sinking, that would be a really expensive way to solve a comparably minor problem, ordering a daily helicopter delivery from the closest McDonalds would…

> calling mayday gives the rescuing vessel significant rights to the ship and cargo

What do you mean by this? Is there a legal case for a rescuing vessel to commandeer the ship and cargo somehow?

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#215

Post by josscrowcroft »

aquark wrote: post #104
josscrowcroft wrote: post #90

I'm curious - and surprised nobody seems to have mentioned or asked - what happens to all the sailors working aboard the ships, which are now stranded offshore? Do they continue working aboard, knowing that they probably won't be paid (because the company is bankrupt)? What's morale like? Can they leave, and how would they logistically? What kind of laws and rights (if any) apply to them in these circumstances? It's…

The BBC ran a story on a ship stuck off Singapore: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37335614

That's just the kind of coverage I hoped for, thank you.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#217

Post by erikpukinskis »

the_watcher wrote: post #20
erikpukinskis wrote: post #6

This seems like a really good sign. We can only hope global shipping continues to shrink until we can get down to a level of consumer purchasing that is sustainable for the ecology of the planet.

So your solution to sustainability is for everyone to just accept a lower quality of life? Yea, good luck with that.

Shipping petroleum products around the world isn't the only way to increase quality of life, and in many ways is detrimental to it.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#218

Post by erikpukinskis »

the_watcher wrote: post #20
erikpukinskis wrote: post #6

This seems like a really good sign. We can only hope global shipping continues to shrink until we can get down to a level of consumer purchasing that is sustainable for the ecology of the planet.

So your solution to sustainability is for everyone to just accept a lower quality of life? Yea, good luck with that.

Shipping petroleum products around the world isn't the only way to increase quality of life, and in many ways is detrimental to it.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#219

Post by astrodust »

bkor wrote: post #204
ethanbond wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting! That's actually pretty shocking that they can be unloaded in 12 hours. I would've expected far longer than that, though now thinking about it I suppose it seems reasonable with all those crazy crane systems that industrial docks have.

Hanjin has max 13.000 TEU vessels. That's maybe 8000 containers. One crane can unload at around 30 containers per hour. You might be able to use 6 cranes on such a vessel. It works out to 45 hours to unload such a vessel if completely full. I might be off a bit in some of the calculations, but 12 vs 45 hours is quite a big difference. There's various physical limitations. You cannot have too many cranes working on a…

Is the upper end getting much higher with aggressive automation efforts like those in Rotterdam? (https://www.flexport.com/blog/port-automation-oakland-rotter...)

Smaller vessels can be cleared out inside a day, but the larger ones are still a project for all but the best equipped ports.

Re: Why billions of dollars of goods are stuck at sea

#220

Post by amazon_not »

chiph wrote: post #135
superuser2 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens to the crews of these ships? Can they leave? How? Who pays to transport them to shore? Under what authority are they permitted to walk on shore? Office and factory workers of a suddenly-derelict company can walk off the premises and go home. Imagine finding out that not only will the paychecks stop, you also can't leave your desk.

There is the occasional ship stranded in Charleston SC and there are local church groups who will put together a food & supply boat to go out there for the crews. They can't leave the ship as they don't have visas. USCIS doesn't really want them to anyway, as there's no guarantee they'll return to the ship or their home country.

> They can't leave the ship as they don't have visas. What's to stop them? Can't they take a life boat, head for shore, get arrested for illegal entry and get deported home?

Obviously not ideal, but at least you get fed and eventually get back home.

Post reply on HN