61–70 of 224 posts
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…
It's not just retail goods on those ships. There is also a great deal of parts that are needed by US manufacturing lines. That creates a ripple effect down the line as missed parts causes snags in the lines. Businesses have gotten pretty good with Just In Time building, so the loss of a few containers will put a snag into it. Some places may have predicted this and gotten alternative parts flows, but that puts a stra…
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.
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…
What does this "Arrested by Bunker Supply Co. (Panama Canal) mean?
EDIT: More on arrest of a vessel: http://www.maritimelawcenter.com/html/arrest_of_vessel.html
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…
What does this "Arrested by Bunker Supply Co. (Panama Canal) mean?
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…
What does this "Arrested by Bunker Supply Co. (Panama Canal) mean?
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…
What does this "Arrested by Bunker Supply Co. (Panama Canal) mean?
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.
We will only get to a sustainable ecology when 1) solar power provides energy for less than fossil fuels, 2) the majority of human women have control of their fertility, and 3) the majority of humanity's basic needs are fulfilled enough that they can worry about the environment. #1 will lead to less pollution and climate restoration, #2 will lead to decreased or sustainable global population, and #3 will lead to the preservation and restoration of ecosystems. All of these things are only possible because of the wealth generated by capitalist economies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be a neat resolution, but that's basically telling one set of creditors to make a second set of creditors whole out of their own pockets. And there's likely thousands of them with multiple layers: eg, your new iPhone 7 is stuck on one of these ships. Are you the owner, or is Apple? or Foxconn? etc.
The answer to that question is not complicated. It's either Apple or Foxconn, and it's clearly determined in their contract. One of them has it on their books as current inventory, not both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hanjin doesn't own the goods; they're just transporting them. The owners of the goods are also by now creditors of the bankrupt company (for late fees if nothing else). That's why it's a snarl.
Wonder if it'd be feasible and/or make sense for the owners of the goods to pool their money together in order to pay the docking fees so they could receive their goods.
It's not just retail goods on those ships. There is also a great deal of parts that are needed by US manufacturing lines. That creates a ripple effect down the line as missed parts causes snags in the lines. Businesses have gotten pretty good with Just In Time building, so the loss of a few containers will put a snag into it. Some places may have predicted this and gotten alternative parts flows, but that puts a stra…
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.