BNSF prostrates itself [bow] before the feet of it's Chinese Overlords.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

QUOTE: Originally posted by rvos1979

Popcorn anyone??

Randy

Keep the popcorn coming, I've got some cold Guinness. This is becoming one of the more entertaining and less enlightening threads around.

I'll take a large popcorn. Looks like several people have beat me to it on this ranting post.

[vsmith]

James, we pronounce it Ah-noold, and the state is now called Kalifoonia, FYI

Methinks James you speak without the benifit of real life experience.

What you believe or have been told in school and what you end up experiencing in real life are two often very very different things.

Your profile is very vague, I assume your in college? Once you leave school and have to actually survive on the prevailing wages offered out there you might just find that your ideals do not match up to reality. Try buying a home on the WallyWorld wages, most corporations pay real bad to start and tend to hire and fire on a whim, its very difficult to plan anything (buy house, get married, God forbid you have kids and dare to put them before the corporation) when you dont know when the Bigcorp.Inc is going to massacre another 10,000 employees because earnings were off 1/2 of 1% or when you have to move from city to city following work. Your viewpoint belay's a lack of this real world survival skills others here have mentioned. As a college grad with a degree you will have a leg up on the average joe, but under no circumstances think that your less immune to layoffs, jobcuts, or wage concessions. In actual fact you may end being even more prone. You might wake up one day to find your job has been outsourced to India and the only job open is at Wallyworld. You may suddenly fing those jobs with the Union wage being the one thing that allows you to buy a decent home and send your kids to college. Theres a great deal of experience from other members talking here on these forums, lot of life experiences that give their opinions far greater weight and respect. I'm just giving you something to think about.

[samfp1943]

Popcorn, Beer, ..Pretty soon the gloves will come off and the duel will start....Popcorn, Peanuts![(-D][(-D][oops] Time to trot out the boxing gloves.

[Anonymous]

Wow, did this thread ever get wild overnight?!

As usual, most of you who defend BNSF's actions have missed the point. What BNSF is doing is taking money made from captive US shippers (where revenues can be as high as 200+% of variable costs), and using those monopoly profits to invest in the import intermodal business (where revenues are usually as low as 106% of variable costs). The STB defines revenue adaquacy as revenues that are 180% of variable costs.

No, jeaton, BNSF is not reinvesting it's monopoly profits back into it's monopoly business sector.

Normally, a business will reinvest profits into it's highest revenue income streams to further maximize the net income there. One has to wonder why BNSF is using it's profits from the high revenue business and throwing it away on the low revenue business. The railroads will never approach revenue adequacy in the import intermodal business, yet it seems all their capacity improvement projects are predicated on that very thing. Conversely, the railroad is doing nothing to increase capacity on the high revenue bulk export side of the business. It does not make business sense.

BNSF is not investing in it's high revenue business, it is investing in it's low revenue business. And there is no chance import intermodal will ever be a high revenue business, because there is optimal competition availed at every import port, and as Gabe pointed out some time ago, competition is bad for railroads because they do not approach revenue adequacy when there is competition. So BNSF's investment will not benefit the stockholders, unless those stockholders are Asian manufacturers with other financial concerns beyond their BNSF dividend.

Lotus, it should also be pointed out that although the average wage stateside is higher than that of the Asian countries, our labor productivity is the best in the world, so the high productivity justifies the higher relative wages. Unless you include those suicidal pension liabilities that will kill some US companies, labor costs are not the cause of overseas flight of US manufacturing. Rather, it is (in order of impact) high energy costs, high environmental compliance costs, and high domestic transportation costs due to rail captivity. As long as our minority party leaders threaten to filibuster every attempt to explore and drill OUR domestic sources of oil and natural gas, there's not much we can do about energy costs. As long as our minority party leaders threaten to filibuster every attempt to rationalize environmental laws, there's not much we can do about the high cost of environmental compliance. But one thing we can do is to get rid of the monopolistic practices of the Class I's, that is something that is doable from the political perspective.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

By the way, James,
You are aware that Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Burger King, KFC all have major stores in...China!
In fact, Wal-Mart is planning to open two more next year, and Sears/Kmart are looking for property there...it’s a two way street.
Granted, it is a little lopsided...

But you claim to have knowledge of economics....so how do you expect any US company to ignore the buying power of several billion people who's
national economy has grown over 100% in the last 5 years?

Oh, just a side note...looked at your profile photo...one, you should never stand in the middle of the tracks, we call that the dead zone...and two; your cute "engineers" souvenir hat, and your classy shirt both have Made in China and Made in Mexico tags inside...you should practice what you preach and boycott non American goods...but that would mean you would have to give up your computer too, its full of parts made outside the US....

Ed

I never really thought outsourcing was a big deal, but I do know why it happens. If you rember the fight I had with anti-gaites, I agured what you said. Wow, isn't photoshop amazing you can read the tags on the back of my shirt, which, yes I am a sucker for a bargain and bought it at a Wal-Mart.

[jeaton]

futurmodal

Any ideas about dealing with the high cost of the health benefit companies can avoid by going someplace else? Maybe telling companies to drop the benefit and let every pay there own bills?

By the way, if the BNSF isn't making their capital investments in projects that provide them the highest return, you ought to buy a few shares, go to the stockholders meeting and make that point to management. I am sure some wall street analysts will pick that up and send the stock prices south.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Wow, did this thread ever get wild overnight?!

As usual, most of you who defend BNSF's actions have missed the point. What BNSF is doing is taking money made from captive US shippers (where revenues can be as high as 200+% of variable costs), and using those monopoly profits to invest in the import intermodal business (where revenues are usually as low as 106% of variable costs). The STB defines revenue adaquacy as revenues that are 180% of variable costs.

No, jeaton, BNSF is not reinvesting it's monopoly profits back into it's monopoly business sector.

Normally, a business will reinvest profits into it's highest revenue income streams to further maximize the net income there. One has to wonder why BNSF is using it's profits from the high revenue business and throwing it away on the low revenue business. The railroads will never approach revenue adequacy in the import intermodal business, yet it seems all their capacity improvement projects are predicated on that very thing. Conversely, the railroad is doing nothing to increase capacity on the high revenue bulk export side of the business. It does not make business sense.

Then BNSF has no rational motive for doing this and their board and stockholder are just plain stupid?

A vast, international conspiracy?

What?

"What are we going to do tonight, Mr. Rose?"
"What we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!"

You gotta come up wtih a better motive than that if you want us to buy what you're shovelling.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Old Timer

futuremodal -

I don't know how to break this to you gently, my friend, but BNSF isn't in business to provide jobs for folks who don't care about anything but their take-home pay.

If you want to know how come we don't export more to other countries, look at GM, for example. They pay more for health benefits to their union members and retirees than the gross national product of several third world countries.

BNSF is in business to make money, which, if you haven't been paying attention, isn't all that easy to do for railroads, nowadays.

Sounds like you'd rather be part of the problem than part of the solution.

Good luck.

Old Timer

Well said, and much nicer than I would have said it...

LC

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith



Your profile is very vague, I assume your in college?

To be honest with you-I think somewhere Lotus said he was 14. (That's not a slap. I have a 14 year old son. They're just wired differently than a 44 year old dad[;)])

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Latest BNSF *pr* report (from ProgressiveRailroading.com)....

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=7867

Quote (?) from BNSF Group Vice President-Consumer Products Steve Branscum at a recent ocean shipping conference in Ningbo, China, "BNSF serves all major U.S. West and Gulf Coast ports, and is the country’s largest intermodal carrier — attributes that make the railroad an ideal transportation partner for Chinese and other Asian shippers."

The article goes on to point out that BNSF is adding capacity and purchasing more double stack cars - which is another way of stating the obvious, namely BNSF uses it's profits from US captive shippers to make it that much more easier to bring in cheap Chinese imports. It should be noted the article makes no mention of BNSF making any investments into improving the export potential of US goods - 'cause they ain't!

Anyone still want to argue that BNSF isn't predicated to aiding Chinese and other Asian manufacturers to the detriment of US manufacturers and our own hard working union members? Didn't think so.[^]

FM ya just gotta be the turd in the punch bowl don't ya...

Just because BNSF wants import business doesn't imply it doesn't want export business too. An efficient railroad is best used with loads moving in BOTH directions, but perhaps in your pique of self induced blindness, you missed that... Of course, as usual, you just can't resist the temptation to twist some marketing quote to fit your own ill conceived and very transparent agenda so I can't be even mildly surprised.

LC

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Wow, did this thread ever get wild overnight?!

As usual, most of you who defend BNSF's actions have missed the point. What BNSF is doing is taking money made from captive US shippers (where revenues can be as high as 200+% of variable costs), and using those monopoly profits to invest in the import intermodal business (where revenues are usually as low as 106% of variable costs). The STB defines revenue adaquacy as revenues that are 180% of variable costs.

No, jeaton, BNSF is not reinvesting it's monopoly profits back into it's monopoly business sector.

Normally, a business will reinvest profits into it's highest revenue income streams to further maximize the net income there. One has to wonder why BNSF is using it's profits from the high revenue business and throwing it away on the low revenue business. The railroads will never approach revenue adequacy in the import intermodal business, yet it seems all their capacity improvement projects are predicated on that very thing. Conversely, the railroad is doing nothing to increase capacity on the high revenue bulk export side of the business. It does not make business sense.

BNSF is not investing in it's high revenue business, it is investing in it's low revenue business. And there is no chance import intermodal will ever be a high revenue business, because there is optimal competition availed at every import port, and as Gabe pointed out some time ago, competition is bad for railroads because they do not approach revenue adequacy when there is competition. So BNSF's investment will not benefit the stockholders, unless those stockholders are Asian manufacturers with other financial concerns beyond their BNSF dividend.

Lotus, it should also be pointed out that although the average wage stateside is higher than that of the Asian countries, our labor productivity is the best in the world, so the high productivity justifies the higher relative wages. Unless you include those suicidal pension liabilities that will kill some US companies, labor costs are not the cause of overseas flight of US manufacturing. Rather, it is (in order of impact) high energy costs, high environmental compliance costs, and high domestic transportation costs due to rail captivity. As long as our minority party leaders threaten to filibuster every attempt to explore and drill OUR domestic sources of oil and natural gas, there's not much we can do about energy costs. As long as our minority party leaders threaten to filibuster every attempt to rationalize environmental laws, there's not much we can do about the high cost of environmental compliance. But one thing we can do is to get rid of the monopolistic practices of the Class I's, that is something that is doable from the political perspective.

I was wrong, I had forgotten that your banjo can play the open access song too! In fact, it can play it over and over and over.................[xx(]

[Junctionfan]

Well this is just a dandy thread..........

As far as the railroad BNSF goes, the problem lies with the governments. They are the ones allowing outsourcing-BNSF is just adapting by increasing its intermodal profits to make up for its loss in general merchandise profits in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal



Anyone still want to argue that BNSF isn't predicated to aiding Chinese and other Asian manufacturers to the detriment of US manufacturers and our own hard working union members?

They are, and at the risk of being made even more unpopular than I already am,..I agree with you....for the most part.

these taxpayers who are sold upon the paradigm of replacing bridges and expanding harbor capacity in order to enhance thecompetitiveness of their local port are grasping at short term benefit at the expense if long term economic viability of the nation as a whole. And the railroads who enlarge tunnels to accomodate double stack are contributing to the same problem.

Sure, it helps them squeeze a few dollars more than their competitors do out of current conditions, but in the long run what it accomplishes is the end result of attacking the middleclass and narrowing the consumer base that has always made this country a great market.

Enriching the 'sit on your butt and do nothing' stock holders by robbing the american dream from the working class., is what is at the root of all of this.

Just wait and see how many new refrigerators and new cars will be bought by those displaced factory workers forced to take $6/hr jobs at Walmart.

Those businesses able to squeeze an angle out of globalization will have about a 7 year honeymoon as the diminished buying power of the average american depletes their savings.

After that, the pigheaded harvesters of globalization will be stuck wondering why nobody in america wants to buy big ticket items anymore.

Make no mistake about it, the misguided cheerleaders can gaw faw all they want about 'free market economics", but the REAL dynamic driving this is a veiled mechanism whereby the wealthy holders of equity in this country are raiding the savings accounts of the middle class, and the wake up call for them will be when the savings run out and their middle class stooges can no longer buy things.

"Progress" indeed [:(!]

[spbed]

Your know I worked for steamship lines for many, many years & all I can say of your post is you appear to know nothing of international trade nor do you even know how the relationship between steamship lines & RRs works IMHO. [:(][:(]

Originally posted by futuremodal
[

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

• Reply