Posted on 02/19/2006 12:33:10 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.
The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.
Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company
Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said: “While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave’s selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.”
Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said: “Dave’s decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.”
Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.
Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.
For the record I am concerned as well.
Foreign Ownership of US Airlines & Ports Deemed Troubling
Government/Diane M. GrassiFebruary 16, 2006 - The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) on February 8, 2005, presented its decision before the U.S. House of Representatives House Aviation Sub-Committee, to change a rule which would clear the way for foreign corporations to own and control U.S. airlines. But members of the House Aviation Sub-Committee were all in agreement that the DOT may lack the legal authority to unilaterally make such a change. Yet it does not begin to reveal all of the implications of such a historic shift in policy in bypassing the U.S. Congress in order to do so.
Trade negotiations with the European Union to loosen up regulations in ownership of U.S. airlines is seen as a tradeoff by the DOT in order for the U.S. to gain greater access to landing at London's Heathrow Airport, where presently only American Airlines and United Airlines have limited service there. Known as the Open Skies Agreement, lawmakers in both parties believe that this proposition transcends `free trade' or globalization as it becomes an issue which directly impacts labor and national security.
Currently, U.S. law requires that U.S. airlines must be under the "actual control" of U.S. citizens in order to be licensed for operation. And for corporations, 75% of the voting interest must be held by U.S. citizens and 66% of its board of directors and officers must also be U.S. citizens. But Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, in a statement in November 2005 said that the rule change would be an "historic opportunity to increase travel, reduce fares, expand commerce and bring two continents closer together than ever before. It provides new opportunities for U.S. and European airlines, healthier competition for a growing travel market and greater connection between cities and towns of all sizes on both sides of the Atlantic." ...
Surprisingly, the Department of Defense as well as the State Department have agreed with the DOT on this issue. But for several Congressmen, it does not pass muster and especially as concerns the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) which is used to transport U.S. troops including in times of war. The Open Skies Agreement would have to be redrafted to accommodate such. According to Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), "During the Gulf War a European Union member didn't supply us with a type of carrier we needed when we ran out because they didn't support the war."
Should the Congress fail to create legislation to block the proposed rule it would take effect, even though most U.S. airlines with the exception of cargo carriers, FEDEX and UPS as well as United Airlines, having recently reemerged from bankruptcy, are opposed to it. ...
[paranoid rumblings relating to Dubai deal snipped]
What on earth does Tiger Woods golfing in Dubai have to do with our national security?
"For the record I am concerned as well."
I think most sensible people are.
Uh it was the P&O shareholders who facilitated the sale, not Bush.
BTW, where was your outrage that a foreign company was already operating in US ports?
"What on earth does Tiger Woods golfing in Dubai have to do with our national security?"
None, of course. It's just a head fake or something. Michael Jackson lives in Dubai, now, doesn't he? Maybe that will come up in the discussion.
I'm more worried about Dubai Ports World's new port parking procedures?!?
Took alot of Expertise to park those ships like that.Just no common sense.
not the sale, that was a private corporate transaction.
the approval, that's what I am interested in - what role did he play in securing the US government approval from Treasury and the other agencies that had to sign off on this.
He's taking(according to some on FR) dirty money isn't he and he is a celebrity with world wide name recognition. Shouldn't he be held up to the same standard as Mr. Sanborn.
This company is owned by an Arab country - read up on the current events this week - you must have been too busy on the Cheney goes hunting threads. That makes the man Bush wishes to appoint a former employee of that country.
LOL, I photoshopped it to look like a bullseye.
"good man(Dave Sanborn)"
Thanks for the info from someone in the buss. for 20 years.
DPWorld according to Condileeza Rice met all the regualtory and security regulations, I guess that is some "evil" role.
I have no problem with a congressional investigation if they want one.
What I have animus about is your attempted "borking" of Mr. Sanborn.
"He's taking(according to some on FR) dirty money isn't he "
Nobody's talking about "dirty money" here, Dane. We're talking about a company owned by a Muslim country buying out P & O, and an executive of that company getting an appointment that oversees the very thing that company is going to be involved with in the USA.
Money is money. That's not the issue here. You seem to have a difficult time understanding people's concern about this.
We don't care about the money at all. We care about a company owned by a Muslim govenment acquiring large, sensitive holdings in this country and having one of their executives appointed to a near-cabinet-level position.
Tiger Woods is a golfer. He administers nothing of interest to national security. Nobody cares who pays him. Nobody cares about Tiger Woods at all.
Don't be dense.
Getting US appoval was most likely a key issue in the sale.
Hope you don't mind if I save it.Looks like Mobile Bay.
Rice doesn't know a think about this deal, she is just parrotting status reports that the underlings at State are sending on up the line.
i'm glad you have no problem with hearings - because if this deal is not called off, there will be some.
Mr. Sanborn is a former employee of many different shipping companies with 30 years experience.
AND BTW, he is still a US citizen and I say give the man a fair hearing, not this attempted borking of him by some on FR.
it was, that has already been established.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.