Yesterday, I posted a quote from a Fox News article(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185994,00.html), which stated that the DP World website gives 21 ports. I tried looking at the DPW site and couldn't find the reference, although they appear to have taken down some info since the deal has been delayed.
Today's Fox headline story also references 21 ports: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,186044,00.html
P&O Ports only LEASES terminals in those six ports which were first named.
The only place DPW would be *managing* any operations would be within the terminals where they LEASE space/equipment to service their clients.
As it is, these operations are a very small part of the overall operations at any one given port. It is just one terminal or in some ports, two. That's out of dozens of terminals, sometimes more than 100, as in the case of the Port of Houston.
In the other 15 or however many ports, P&O's operations are simply stevedoring service contracts, nothing more. In some they have additional services they contract, but they don't manage any of the terminal activities.
Service and labor contracts run out and are open to re-negotiation; they're not quite "property" like a lease contract is. Even at that, the leases are as short as 6 years (shortest one I noticed, some might be less), not the 30 years Schumer referred to, as in the ONE in NY/NJ.
Note also that in many cases, the port authority or other entity is the 50% partner and some are joint ventures where P&O is not the general partner. You have to read the specs on each port terminal's work descriptions.
I took a look at this reference of yours. I saw in line 1, and in line 15, references to SIX PORTS. Nowhere in the article that you referenced did I see 21 ports. As I said before, the reference to 21 ports seems to be erroneous. (This number might be their worldwide management of ports)