Innovating. Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility. Issue 31 May 2015

Transcription

1 Issue 31 May 2015 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the May issue of CargoSmart s Innovating, a monthly, complimentary e-newsletter for the ocean shipping industry. Innovating is designed to provide insights about cargo delays around the globe that you may find useful to improve your daily operations and strategic planning. On May 13-15, 2015, CargoSmart will be participating as a sponsor at the Australian Federation of International Forwarders National Conference (AFIF Conference) in Gold Coast, Queensland. This month, we took the opportunity to focus on cargo delays around Australia. First, we reviewed the performance of the ports of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Fremantle from mid-january to mid-april. Brisbane led the way in terms of shorter berth times and vessel arrival delays. Next, continuing our study of sailing schedule changes around the globe, we reviewed the schedule changes for the top five ports in Australia from January through March. We identified over 65,000 sailing schedule changes to over 18,000 schedules from 22 ocean carriers. Of the five ports, Melbourne experienced the most schedule changes. This month, we also analyzed the schedule reliability of trans-atlantic routes from mid-february through mid-april. Overall, eastbound traffic performed better than westbound traffic. In this month s Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we reviewed the impact that a severe storm on April 21 had on the Port of Sydney. The port closed for two days and operations returned to normal shortly after the storm. We invite you to monitor current events affecting your shipments and share your delay experiences with us on our visibility blog at visibility.cargosmart.com/blog or by at innovating@cargosmart.com. Graham Collins Executive Editor ABOUT INNOVATING CargoSmart is creating a whole new visibility model for ocean shippers and logistics service providers to monitor their shipments. The rules of the game are changing in the global shipping and logistics industry. CargoSmart s innovative methods offer insights for the industry to manage their shipments. CargoSmart s monthly, complimentary Innovating newsletter delivers refreshing insights for you to make intelligent decisions for your supply chain. CONTENTS Port Performance: Australia 2 Sailing Schedule Changes: Top 5 Australia Ports 4 Schedule Reliability: Trans-Atlantic Trade 5 World Incidents: Sydney Storm 8 Contact CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1

2 AUSTRALIA: THE PERFORMANCE OF 4 MAJOR PORTS On May 13-15, 2015, CargoSmart will be participating as a sponsor at the Australian Federation of International Forwarders National Conference (AFIF Conference) in Gold Coast, Queensland. This month, we took the opportunity to research Australia s port performance. We reviewed the performance of the ports of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Fremantle. Analyzing three months of data from January 15 to April 15, we looked into the average berth times, average vessel arrival delays, and the number of vessel arrivals by TEU capacity for each port. Hours Average Berth Times Among 4 Ports in Australia /15/2015-2/14/2015 2/15/2015-3/14/2015 3/15/2015-4/15/2015 Figure 1: Average berth times among four ports in Australia Brisbane Fremantle Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Sydney Experienced the Longest Vessel Berth Times The Port of Sydney is located 12 nautical miles south of the entrance to the Sydney Harbour and the city's central business Fremantle Melbourne Sydney district. It consists of three container terminals with 12 container vessel berths currently while the existing container terminal facilities are undergoing expansion to secure ongoing economic growth for the area. Map data 2015 GBRMPA, Google Brisbane Had the Strongest Performance Among the Ports The Port of Brisbane is one of Australia s fastest growing container ports and Queensland s largest multi-cargo port. It is located at the mouth of the Brisbane River and has eight container berths that are leased and operated by three stevedores using automated container handling equipment. In terms of berth times, Brisbane had the lowest average berth times among the four ports we analyzed, as shown in Figure 1. The length of time ranged from 18.8 hours to 20.7 hours from January 15 to April 15. The average vessel arrival delays experienced a dip during the three-month period we analyzed, as shown in Figure 2. From January 15 to February 14, the average berth time was 24.4 hours. It then dropped to 19.7 hours from February 15 to March 14, and then rose to 23.1 hours during the period of March 15 to April 15. Sydney had the highest average berth times among the four ports we compared during the three-month analysis period, as shown in Figure 1. The average berth times ranged from 35.2 to 35.8 hours, which meant that the port needed around 1.5 days to handle the containers for each berthing vessel. For average vessel arrival delays, Sydney s performance improved from January through April. Average vessel arrival delays dropped from 29.2 hours in January 15 to February 14, down to 22.2 hours from March 15 to April 15. The Port of Sydney had a more even split of smaller vessels and larger vessels visiting the port. As shown in Figure 3, 62% of the visiting vessels had a capacity of 4,000 to 6,999 TEUs and 38% had a capacity of fewer than 4,000 TEUs. 85% of the vessels visiting Brisbane were larger vessels, ranging from 4,000-6,999 TEUs. Brisbane had the most large-size vessels visiting among the four ports, as shown in Figure CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2

3 Hours Average Vessel Arrival Delays Among 4 Ports in Australia Figure 2: Average vessel arrival delays among four ports in Australia /15/2015-2/14/2015 2/15/2015-3/14/2015 3/15/2015-4/15/2015 Brisbane Fremantle Melbourne Sydney Melbourne Experienced the Longest Vessel Delays The Port of Melbourne is the largest container port in Australia, located in Victoria, South-Eastern Australia. It has wide-ranging facilities including 34 commercial berths covering seven kilometers of quay line and around 510 hectares of land. It trades around 2.5 million containers handled annually which is equivalent to around 36% of Australia s container trade. The average berth times at the Port of Melbourne had a steady performance throughout the three-month period. As shown in Figure 1, average berth times ranged between 28.3 and 26.7 hours and ranked third among the four ports. In terms of average vessel arrival delays, it had the longest delays, as shown in Figure 2. From January 15 to February 14, the average vessel arrival delay was 29.6 hours. It started to drop to 25.5 hours from February 15 to March 14, and then rose again to 27.5 hours in the period of March 15 to April 15. For the number of vessels that berthed at the Port of Melbourne, 29% of the vessels had a vessel capacity of fewer than 4,000 TEUs, while 71% had a vessel capacity of 4,000 6,999 TEUs, as shown in Figure 3. Fremantle Had the Fewest Vessel Arrivals The Port of Fremantle is Western Australia s principal national and international sea gateway for container trade and is located near Perth. It is Australia's fourth largest container port. Located on the West Coast of Australia, we found the trend of Fremantle s berth time performance to be different from the three ports located in eastern Australia. For average berth times, Fremantle was the only port to steadily improve over the three-month period, as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, the decreasing trend also existed in terms of average vessel arrival delays. As shown in Figure 2, Fremantle s average vessel arrival delays decreased from 25.9 hours during the period of January 15 to February 14 down to 24 hours in the period of February 15 to March 14, and then further decreased to 21 hours during the period of March 15 to April 15. Nearly 85% of the vessels visiting Fremantle were large vessels with a capacity of 4,000-6,999 TEUs, as shown in Figure 3. Brisbane as a Port of Discharge In conclusion, the Port of Brisbane had the shortest average berth times and the shortest average vessel arrival delays among the ports located in eastern Australia over the three months studied. Forwarders can take the analysis into account when choosing a port of discharge in Australia. The GVVMC shares statistics on ports performance so that you can better plan your shipments and carefully select the appropriate schedules and routings to minimize delays. The statistics reflect the general situation in the past. The future performance of the vessels and ports will depend on the actual conditions that are affected by weather, vessel delays, and other factors. Number of Vessels by TEU Capacity Berthed at 4 Ports Brisbane Fremantle <4,000 4,000-6,999 Melbourne Sydney Figure 3: Number of vessels by TEU capacity that berthed at the four ports 2015 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3

4 THE TOP 5 AUSTRALIA PORTS SAILING SCHEDULE CHANGES Many factors, including weather, labor strikes, and port congestion, contribute to frequent sailing schedule changes that may impact your shipment planning. As we feature Australia this month, we reviewed the schedule changes of the top five ports in Australia by TEU throughput from January to March We considered a schedule change to occur when we identified a change in the estimated time of departure or estimated time of arrival in an ocean carrier s vessel schedule. This month s special report analysis covers 18,259 vessel schedules for Australia ports from 22 ocean carriers from January through March Over 65,000 Sailing Schedule Changes in March Australia ports overall experienced over 59,000 schedule changes in January, decreased to around 52,000 in February, and increased to over 65,000 in March, as shown in Figure 1. The top five Australia ports Adelaide, Brisbane, Fremantle, Melbourne, and Sydney experienced a similar trend in schedule changes from January to March. January February March Total Schedule Changes of All Australia Ports 59,896 52,139 65,923 Total Schedule Changes of Top 5 Australia Ports 59,397 51,757 65,308 Figure 1: Total schedule changes for Australia ports by month from January to March 2015 Schedule Changes Decreased from January to February When we reviewed the schedule changes of the top five Australia ports by month from January to March, we identified that only Adelaide increased over the three months. For the rest of the ports, their schedule changes decreased in February and increased in March, as shown in Figure 2. 2,000 1,600 1, Top 5 Australia Ports' Number of Schedules January February March 25,000 Top 5 Australia Ports' Schedule Changes - Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Fremantle Adelaide Figure 3: The number of schedules for the top five ports in Australia by month from January to March ,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 - Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Fremantle Adelaide January February March Figure 2: Total schedule changes for the top five ports in Australia by month from January to March 2015 We further reviewed the monthly trend of the number of schedules for the top five Australia ports. For all five ports, they had a similar trend of schedules, decreasing in February and increasing in March, as shown in Figure 3. As China is the largest trading partner of Australia, the fewer sailings in February may reflect the Chinese New Year effect. Melbourne Experienced the Most Schedule Changes Among the top five Australia ports, Melbourne had the most schedule changes, with 54,440 changes over the three-month period, as shown in Figure 4. The schedule changes at Melbourne reached over 3 of the total schedule changes in Australia. Melbourne also had the highest average number of changes per schedule, which was over 10 times, slightly above the average of 9.7 times for all Australia ports. The top five Australia ports quantity of schedule changes closely related to their port rankings. The schedule changes at the top five Australia ports accounted for over 99% of the total schedule changes in Australia CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 4

5 Total Schedule Changes Average Changes per Schedule Percentage of Total Schedule Changes in Australia Melbourne 54, % Sydney 51, % Brisbane 48, % Fremantle 11, % Adelaide 10, % Top 5 Australia Ports 176, % All Australia Ports 177, Figure 4: Average changes per schedule and percentage of total schedule changes for Australia ports from January to March 2015 SCHEDULE RELIABILITY IN THE TRANS-ATLANTIC TRADE This month, we analyzed the schedule reliability of routes on the trans-atlantic trade. The carrier performance analysis covers a total of eight weeks from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15). First, we analyzed the weekly schedule reliability performance during the studied period. As shown in Figure 1, except two peak points during Week 10 and Week 12, the general trend of reliability declined slightly from late February (Week 9) to early April (Week 14). and remained at a much lower level than the eastbound schedules. The results are shown in Figure Trans-Atlantic Trade Weekly Schedule Reliability Performance (by Direction) 10 Trans-Atlantic Trade Schedule Reliability by Week Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 15 North America-Europe Europe-North America Figure 2: Weekly schedule reliability in the trans-atlantic trade by direction from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) 48% 37% 45% 31% 45% 31% 3 45% Next, we measured the schedule reliability of four popular trans-atlantic trade routes: 2 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Week 15 Figure 1: Weekly schedule reliability performance in the trans-atlantic trade from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) We further analyzed schedule reliability by direction on the trans-atlantic trade. From February 15, 2015 to April 11, 2015, schedule reliability steadily declined on the North America to Europe eastbound routes. During the same period, westbound schedule reliability from Europe to North America fluctuated Eastbound: I) New York-New Jersey to Hamburg II) New York-New Jersey to Rotterdam Westbound: III) Antwerp to New York-New Jersey IV) Rotterdam to New York-New Jersey 2015 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 5

6 New York-New Jersey to Hamburg: Overall Performance Was 72% On the eastbound route from New York-New Jersey to Hamburg, four carriers, Hamburg Süd, Hyundai, MOL, and OOCL, had the same score of 88% and were the most reliable carriers on this route. APL ranked second with 7. The third ranked carrier, NYK, followed closely with only 3% less. The top four carriers high scores pulled up the market average reliability to 72%, which was even higher than the second and third carriers. The results are shown in Figure Schedule Reliability New York-New Jersey to Hamburg 88% 88% 88% 88% 7 67% 72% 10 2 Schedule Reliability New York-New Jersey to Rotterdam 86% OOCL 78% 77% APL Figure 5: Schedule reliability performance on the New York-New Jersey to Rotterdam route from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) In Week 11, the top three G6 carriers had no reliability records as they encountered serious delays. A vessel that was expected to arrive in Week 11 arrived in Week 12, causing the poor reliability in that week with only 5. The results are shown in Figure 6. NYK 64% Average Hamburg Süd Hyundai MOL OOCL APL NYK Average Figure 3: Schedule reliability performance on the New York-New Jersey to Hamburg route from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) As shown in Figure 4, the top carriers performed well during most of weeks. The reliability dropped sharply in Week 12. The overall performance during the other weeks was quite stable. Figure 6: Weekly performance of the New York-New Jersey to Rotterdam route from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) Figure 4: Weekly performance of the New York-New Jersey to Hamburg route from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) Antwerp to New York-New Jersey: K-Line Performed Best On the westbound port pair of Antwerp to New York-New Jersey, K-Line was the most reliable carrier with, followed by Evergreen and MSC, achieving 67% and 56% respectively. As shown in Figure 7, the average performance on the route was poor, only 42%. New York-New Jersey to Rotterdam: Overall Performance Was 64% On the route from New York-New Jersey to Rotterdam, the top three carriers were G6 members. OOCL was the most reliable one with 86%. APL followed with 78%, ranking in second place. NYK was ranked third with 77%. The overall performance was 64% in the market. The results are shown in Figure CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 6

7 10 Schedule Reliability Antwerp to New York-New Jersey 67% 10 Schedule Reliability Rotterdam to New York-New Jersey 9 86% 83% 56% 42% 33% 2 2 K-Line Evergreen Figure 7: Schedule reliability performance on the Antwerp to New York-New Jersey route from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) MSC Average Maersk Evergreen K-Line Average Figure 9: Schedule reliability performance on the Rotterdam to New York-New Jersey route from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) As shown in Figure 8, the performance on the Antwerp to New York-New Jersey route fluctuated. As shown in Figure 10, there were significant drops in reliability in Week 9 and Week 13 for Evergreen and K-Line respectively. The overall performance during the other weeks was quite unsteady. Figure 8: Weekly performance of the Antwerp to New York-New Jersey route from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) Rotterdam to New York-New Jersey: Top Carriers Performed Much Better than Average Along the route from Rotterdam to New York-New Jersey, the overall performance was poor. The average reliability was only 33%. The most reliable carrier on this route, Maersk, scored 9. The second ranked carrier was Evergreen, scoring 86%, followed by K-Line 83%. Except for the top four carriers, all the others experienced low reliability scores below 5. The bottom three carriers, CMA CGM, Hamburg Süd, and MOL had reliability. Even though the top three carriers performed well, the market average reliability remained low. The results are shown in Figure 9. Figure 10: Weekly performance of the Rotterdam to New York-New Jersey route from February 15, 2015 (Week 8) to April 11, 2015 (Week 15) 2015 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 7

8 INCIDENTS AROUND THE WORLD Vessel casualties, port strikes, facility shutdowns, and extreme weather can all affect vessel schedules and potentially delay shipments. In this column, we cover incidents around the world that caught our attention during the previous month and their impact on shipment delays. Vessels Ports April 25 April 28 April 1 April 1 April April 24 April April 30 Maersk Londrina, explosion and fire in one of its cargo holds, near Port Louis, Mauritius Maersk Tigris, seized by Iran military in the Strait of Hormuz Port operations disrupted during a country-wide power outage, Turkey Santos Port operations halted due to a fuel tank fire, Brazil Sydney port closed during a storm, Australia Port strike in Durban, South Africa Trucker strike in Los Angeles and Long Beach, US Port worker strike, Cyprus Storm: Port of Sydney, Australia On April 21, a severe storm brought extreme rainfall and sudden floods to Sydney. Described as the worst storm in decade, it halted all transport in the city and led to the port s closure for 48 hours. Flooding caused damage to the public transportation system, with numerous roads and railways under water. At sea, heavy swells and gale-force winds forced harbors and terminals to close for two days. Vessels needed to wait in the open sea until the swells and winds were over. The average berth times around the time of the storm in Sydney were as follows: Date Range: April 16 26, 2015 Vessel Arrivals: 27 Longest Berth Time: Hours Average Berth Time: 58 Hours Sydney Average Berth Times (Hours) As shown in the chart, berth times were prolonged for vessels that arrived on April 18-19, due to the port closure. The average berth time for April 16 was also longer than normal because one of the vessels that arrived that day berthed for 160 hours. No vessels arrived on April due to the port s closure. After the storm, the port performance was quite normal and did not experience extended berth times due to a cargo backlog. We also monitored the sea area around the port right after the port re-opened. We did not observe a major queue of container vessels CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 8

9 ADVANCED SOLUTIONS TO MANAGE YOUR SHIPMENT PLANNING Measure Carriers Reliability Performance CargoSmart s latest mobile app innovation, SSM+, allows you to access current sailing schedules and view schedule reliability information alongside schedule search results. New performance tracking methodology and integrated reliability results enable you to select the best routes for your shipments. The free app lets you search schedules with reliability results for one port of origin or destination of your choice. Download the free SSM+ app today at to experience the brand new schedule reliability! DATA METHODOLOGY CargoSmart established the Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) to detect and analyze exceptions as they are happening so that shippers, forwarders, and NVOCCs can be informed earlier. Opened in Hong Kong in October 2012, the GVVMC monitors and analyzes over 5,500 vessels' movements covering 9 of the world's container capacity and over 1,000 global container ports. Using advanced analytical software tools, the center analyzes vessel patterns, to detect deviations that have the potential to cause shipment-plan exceptions and monitor live vessel schedules to measure carriers reliability. For iphone For Android The GVVMC obtains data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS), ocean carrier websites, marine terminals, and shipment data. The center ensures high data quality by observing and reconciling multiple data sources. iphone is a trademark of Apple Inc. Android is a trademark of Google Inc. VISIBILITY BLOG - JOIN THE DISCUSSION Follow updates and share your insights about vessel delays on CargoSmart's blog at visibility.cargosmart.com/blog. To receive the monthly Innovating newsletter for the shipping industry by , please subscribe at We value your feedback and want to continue to improve our service and information that we provide to you. To provide feedback or ask questions, please contact us at innovating@cargosmart.com. China Germany Hong Kong United Kingdom United States CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 9