Eastern Railroad Discussion > Eastern US ports plan for strikes in 2013

The Wall Street Journal has an article today about contingency planning in anticipation of strikes at eastern US ports in 2013. The dock workers have been working without progress on a new contract, and have signaled that accommodations may be near an end. The old contract expires on December 29.

Most east and Gulf ports have extensive rail networks and feed the trunk line connections into the center of the US. A strike would ripple quickly into energy, rail, trucking, and distribution areas.

The strikes would be in advance of the opening of Panama Canal expansions, which are expected to generate additional business for eastern ports. A sticking point on the new contract is the cost of container transfer on the docks. Earlier agreements locked in lifetime employment for workers who allowed the boxes to be introduced, but most first generation workers (people who were in the union when the McLean agreements were signed) have passed from the scene.

The eastern and Gulf ports handle about 35% of US imports, while the Pacific ports handle about 65%. The article notes that Los Angeles / Long Beach handles about 40% of the 65%, or about 25% of all US imports. There isn't any good "diversion" alternative for struck ports in the US east and Gulf.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578163562114161162.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_business

Gonna affect big on both CSX and NS....plus their new container mixing terminals as well for both railroads.. Its gonna be a huge mess..

CR

We can't access your link, paid portion, however I see in the Journal Of Commerce update I just received....it's from Maine to Texas; but what are the contingency plans mentioned?

GregR27 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can't access your link, paid portion, however I
> see in the Journal Of Commerce update I just
> received....it's from Maine to Texas; but what are
> the contingency plans mentioned?


None, that's the big problem shippers face. They have to go to Canada, or to the west coast of the US. In some cases Mexico could be an alternative, but many shippers etc are concerned about using the Mexican Gulf ports.

Is Halifax a diversion alternative?

On the West Coast, you've got Vancouver and Prince Rupert in Canada, and Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico, to pick up at least some of the slack. An all-water routing via the Panama Canal to Gulf or East Coast ports is also an option.

With a strike on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts, shippers are out of luck. Halifax is tiny -- can handle only maybe a million containers a year. Montreal and St. John are even smaller. Mexican east coast ports are also small players. Importers, especially from Europe, will be hit hard if the strike takes place. There really isn't any alternate routing.

But you still have to have teamsters to unload the ships don't you?

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> O An all-water routing via the Panama
> Canal to Gulf or East Coast ports is also an
> option.
>
>

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But you still have to have teamsters to unload the
> ships don't you?
>
> shoretower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > O An all-water routing via the Panama
> > Canal to Gulf or East Coast ports is also an
> > option.
> >
> >

Different contract in Canada.

For Shoretower, Montreal handles more containers than Halifax. But in the last few months Montreal has been affected by the Midwest drought causing reduced water levels in the St. Lawrence River.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/12 13:56 by SOO6617.