Aaron Virgil Woolridge wrote:
Jami Glas wrote:
I think the outsourcing to the UAE could be a good thing for the U.S. We need to get people to push past the 9/11 attacks and realize that Dubai is a very rich country and could be a great asset to the U.S. I see more benefits coming from this than harm. If a terrorist attack is going to happen, it is going to happen no matter who is controlling the ports, they will find a way to do it one way or the other. If an attack were to happen and the ports would have to close down that could be very detrimental to businesses and could cost them a lot of money due to the delays that would occur in getting products to factories. However businesses need to be proactive and have a back up plan ready to go into place. Business should pre negotiate with air lines pricing and turn around time on getting the products flown in. Along with that have a team ready for when the ports open back up because there will be a lot of packages and product that will need to be sorted through causing another delay to get the end product to the customer. With a plan in place this could bridge that delay and business would not lose as much in the end. A plan like this needs to be in place for businesses not just in case of terrorist attacks but any kind of unforeseen event that could possibly keep the ports from operating such as natural disasters.
If the US would outsource to the UAE back up plans would definitely be required (and I hope they are in place even without outsourcing to UAE). The problem is in times of panic we have not proven to be able to execute plans correctly. Also, we are making the assumption that airports would be able to handle this type of load/impact. Also, if a terrorist attack would hit the ports it's very likely we would ground all planes or at the very least stop any plans from coming into the US. This would make the back up plan useless. I'm still going with not letting this happen but I like someone took the opposite view. :-)
I agree with points from both arguments. Terrorist attacks will likely happen no matter what, but why give a country with proven past terrorist involvement access to your front door? Would you do that for a known sex offender thinking he would just come in anyway? I certainly wouldn't. Aaron has a great point in grounding planes as well. They would absolutely be grounded as they were in 9/11. They may not be grounded as long this time, but it would still be days before they were allowed to fly again, and they would be severely bogged down with extra security measures. In addition to that, shipping by sea, train, and OTR trucks is vastly cheaper than by plane. If companies were to have to immediately switch shipping methods and expect to stay profitable, their costs would skyrocket as planes would see an increased demand and increase their costs. This would be passed on to the businesses and then to the consumers with a type of bullwhip effect which would likely cause the economy to shut down. A loaf of bread would go from $3 to $30. That may be an extreme, over the top example, but it's the point behind that. Another thought would be that airlines in this case wouldn't honor their previous pricing. They either would refuse your shipments at that cost, or force you to pay more due to the circumstances. Even if a company has a contract with a vendor (the airlines), if it doesn't make them the most profit, or becomes unprofitable, it doesn't matter if you have a contract. They simply won't provide the service. Jami does have a great point in needing backup plans for both logistics and suppliers. Way too many companies have single source suppliers because they get a better bulk rate. This caused havoc a few years ago when Asian suppliers were the sole source and energy costs went through the roof. All of a sudden, domestic suppliers were more competitive in some cases and ended up costing businesses significant profits until they were able to react and resource their goods. I still stick with Aaron and my original view of not giving them control.