Issue 36 October 15 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the October 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 October 13-15, CargoSmart will be participating as a gold sponsor in the TPM Asia Conference in Shenzhen, China. With our focus on Asia trade, we analyzed alliance, port, and carrier performance in Asia and on the trans-pacific trade lane. We prepared a special feature on 6 alliance services in the trans-pacific trade from August 15 to September 15. Which alliance offered the most services to Savannah? Which alliance had the fewest vessel arrivals delays of more than 1 hours from Asia to Long Beach? And, which alliance had the largest average vessel capacity to the Port of New York-New Jersey? This article shares insights on trans-pacific services to the US that the M, CKYHE, G6, and O3 alliances offer. We also reviewed the performance of three popular Asia ports of origin in CargoSmart s Big Schedules sailing schedule search engine. They included the ports of Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Kaohsiung. Overall, we found that vessel arrival delays and berth times improved from August to September as fewer vessels visited the ports. From mid-july to mid-september, schedule reliability in the trans-pacific trade improved. When reviewing the reliability by direction, we found that the westbound direction performed better than the eastbound direction. We also reviewed reliability for four popular port-pairs in the trade. Throughout the year, members of CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) visited ports and terminals in Asia, Europe, and North America. This month, we share a few of our findings about terminal planning and operations practices and challenges. In our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we analyzed vessel berth times to see if the 8.3 magnitude earthquake in Chile on September 16 had an impact. We did not find a significant impact on the average berth times. We invite you to monitor current events affecting your shipments and to share your delay experiences with us on our visibility blog at visibility.cargosmart.com/blog or by email at innovating@cargosmart.com. Kim Le 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 Vessel Delay Study: Trans-Pacific Alliances Port Performance: Asia Ports of Origin 3 Schedule Reliability: Trans-Pacific 5 GVVMC Visits Ports and Terminals 8 World Incidents: Chile Earthquake 9 Contact 1 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1
VESSEL DELAY STUDY: ALLIANCE SERVICES AT US PORTS IN THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE This month, we studied the vessel arrival delays of four alliances: M, joined by Maersk and MSC; CKYHE, joined by COSCON, K-Line, Yang Ming, Hanjin, and Evergreen; G6, joined by APL, Hapag-Lloyd, Hyundai, MOL, NYK, and OOCL; and O3, joined by CMA CGM, China Shipping, and UASC. We compared the alliance services in the trans-pacific trade and selected four major US ports to study, two of them are West Coast ports: Long Beach and Seattle; the other two are East Coast ports: Savannah and New York-New Jersey. G6 Provides More Services to East Coast Ports In total, we measured 6 alliance services that sailed to at least one of the four US ports. As shown in Figure 1, the service distributions were similar at the two West Coast ports, Long Beach and Seattle, with each alliance deploying one or two services. However, on the East Coast, the G6 alliance deployed two to four times more services than the other alliances. East Coast West Coast New York-New Jersey Alliance Service Distribution by Port Long Beach Seattle Savannah 1 4 4 Figure 1: Alliance service distribution by port among the studied 6 alliance services from August 15 to September 15, 15 1 M CKYHE G6 O3 CKYHE: No Vessel Arrivals Were Delayed More Than 1 Hours Next, we analyzed the alliances vessel arrivals at the four US ports from August 15 to September 15, 15. By analyzing schedule data and comparing the actual time of arrivals to the estimated time of arrivals of the coastal schedules provided by the carriers, we identified 191 unique vessel arrivals at the four ports. On average, around 13% of the vessel arrivals were delayed more than 1 hours while only 3% of the vessel arrivals were delayed more than 4 hours. 1 8 6 1 1 Coast Port Name Alliance Total Unique Vessel Arrivals Delayed Vessels (Delay > 1 Hours) Delayed Vessels (Delay > 4 Hours) West Coast East Coast Long Beach Seattle Savannah New York- New Jersey M 9 3 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%) CKYHE 4 (.%) (.%) G6 9 (.%) (.%) O3 4 4 (1.%) (.%) M 4 (.%) (.%) CKYHE 4 (.%) (.%) G6 8 (.%) (.%) O3 4 1 (5.%) (.%) M 7 (.%) (.%) CKYHE 19 (%) (.%) G6 4 3 (7.5%) (.%) O3 7 5 (71.4%) 1 (14.3%) M 14 3 (1.4%) (14.3%) CKYHE 19 (.%) (.%) G6 31 3 (9.7%) (.%) O3 8 3 (37.5%) (5.%) Figure : The performance of four US ports by alliances from August 15 to September 15, 15. 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
When we looked at each alliance s performance by port, we found that the vessel delay results varied. The G6 alliance had the most vessel arrivals at the East Coast ports. The CKYHE alliance performed the best, with no vessel arrivals delayed more than 1 hours. A summary of the results is shown in Figure. M Experienced Its Longest Delays at New York-New Jersey; O3 Experienced Its Longest Delays at Savannah Next, we analyzed the average vessel arrival delays of the delayed vessels among alliances. Figure 3 shows the details of the average delay durations in hours at the four ports. At the ports of Long Beach and New York-New Jersey, M experienced the longest average delays. O3 followed with the second highest average delay, which was close to the overall alliances average level. CKYHE and G6 performed well with the shortest average delays. At the ports of Seattle and Savannah, O3 experienced the longest average delays while M had the best performance. 5 Average Vessel Arrival Delays by Port and Alliance 47.8 5 Average Capacity at Long Beach Was the Largest Next, we analyzed the average vessel capacity and average port stay of the four US ports. As shown in Figure 4, among the four ports, Long Beach had the largest average capacity for the M, CKYHE, and O3 alliances. Long Beach also had the longest average berth time. 1, 1, 8, 6, 4,, Average Vessel Capacity and Berth Times by Port and Alliance M CKYHE G6 O3 M CKYHE G6 O3 M CKYHE G6 O3 M CKYHE G6 O3 Long Beach Seattle Savannah New York-New Jersey West Coast Average Capacity (TEUs) East Coast Average Berth Times (Hours) Figure 4: The average vessel capacity and berth times at four US ports from August 15 to September 15, 15 1 1 8 6 4 4 3 1 34.6 1.3 15.7 16. 11.1 5.4 3.8 4.1 5.6 6.1 1.1.4... M CKYHE G6 O3 M CKYHE G6 O3 M CKYHE G6 O3 M CKYHE G6 O3 Long Beach Seattle Savannah New York-New Jersey 4 3 1 West Coast East Coast Average Delay of Vessels (Hours) Overall Delay of All Alliance Services (Hours) Figure 3: The average vessel arrival delays at four US ports by alliance from August 15 to September 15, 15 PORT PERFORMANCE: TOP-SEARCHED ASIA PORTS OF ORIGIN In August and September, the top five searched ports of origin through the Big Schedules (www.bigschedules.com) sailing schedule search engine were Shanghai, Hong Kong, Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Kaohsiung. After reviewing the performance of the ports of Shanghai and Hong Kong in the September issue of Innovating, CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) analyzed the performance of the ports of Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Kaohsiung in this month s issue. For the ports of Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Kaohsiung, the GVVMC analyzed the average vessel arrival delays, average vessel berth times, and the number and sizes of the vessel arrivals from August 1 to September 3 to review the port performance. 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3
Ningbo- Zhoushan 18 15 Average Vessel Berth Times Among 3 Ports 1 Hours 9 6 August September 3 Yantian Kaohsiung Yantian Ningbo-Zhoushan Kaohsiung Figure : Average vessel berth times at the ports of Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Kaohsiung from August 1 to September 3 Port of Yantian Served the Most Mega Vessels Among the Three Ports The Port of Yantian, located in Shenzhen, China, handled over 11 million TEUs in 14. The port is currently equipped with 15 berths to handle container operations and more are under construction. As shown in Figure 1, the average vessel arrival delays at the Port of Yantian improved from 6.7 hours in August to 4.6 hours in September. In both months, the port had the shortest vessel arrival delays among the three ports. Hours 1 8 6 4 Average Vessel Arrival Delays Among 3 Ports Yantian Ningbo-Zhoushan Kaohsiung August September Figure 1: Average vessel arrival delays at the ports of Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Kaohsiung from August 1 to September 3 At the same time, the Port of Yantian had the longest average vessel berth times among the three ports. Average berth times decreased from 16.5 hours in August to 16 hours in September, as shown in Figure. In terms of the number of vessels visiting the Port of Yantian, 431 vessels visited in August and 36 vessels in September. Among the three ports, Yantian had the fewest visiting vessels. However, despite the small number of vessels, the Port of Yantian served 14 vessels with a capacity of over 1, TEUs in August, and 18 vessels with a capacity of over 1, TEUs in September, topping the number of mega vessels among the three ports. The vessel distributions at the ports are shown in Figure 3. Vessels 4 35 3 5 15 1 5 <4, Vessel Size Distribution Among 3 Ports 4,-6,999 August 7,-9,999 1, TEUs <4, Figure 3: Number and size distribution of vessel arrivals at the ports of Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Kaohsiung from August 1 to September 3 Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan Longest Vessel Arrival Delays Among the Three Ports The Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan is one of the busiest ports in the world in terms of container throughput. In 14, it handled over 19 million TEUs and was ranked as the world s fifth largest container port. The port has 191 berths, including 39 deep-water berths. As shown in Figure 1, the average vessel arrival delay at the Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan was around eight hours in August and September. It had the longest average vessel arrival delays among the three ports. In terms of average vessel berth times, the Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan had the shortest times among the three ports. The average berth times in August and 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 September 1, Yantian Ningbo-Zhoushan Kaohsiung 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 4
September were around 1 hours, as shown on Figure. The Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan was the busiest port of the three, serving over 1,4 vessels during August and September. The port also served the most vessels with a capacity of 4, 6,999 TEUs. Port of Kaohsiung Served the Most Vessels of Fewer than 4, TEU Capacity The Port of Kaohsiung is the largest harbor in Taiwan and handled over 1 million TEUs in 14. The Port of Kaohsiung has 3 berths with a total length of 6,897 meters. The lengths of the berths are within 1 to 44 meters and the depths range from 1.5 to 15 meters. The Port of Kaohsiung experienced average vessel arrival delays of 7.3 hours in August and improved to five hours in September, as shown in Figure 1. The port had an average berth time of 13 hours in August and 1.5 hours in September. Approximately 1, vessels visited the Port of Kaohsiung in August and September. The port had the most vessel arrivals of vessels with a capacity of fewer than 4, TEUs. Decreasing Arrival Delays, Berth Times, and Vessel Arrivals Overall, we found a decreasing trend in vessel arrival delays, berth times, and vessel arrivals at the ports of Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan, and Kaohsiung from August to September. The only exception was a slight increase in vessel berth times at the Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan. The overall trend may reflect the continuing sailing cancellations in the Asia-Europe trade. 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. TRANS-PACIFIC SCHEDULE RELIABILITY This month, we analyzed the schedule reliability of routes on trans-pacific trade lanes. The carrier performance analysis covers a total of eight weeks from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37). First, we analyzed the overall schedule reliability among 19 ocean container carriers and over 7,7 schedules in the trans-pacific trade. As shown in Figure 1, schedule reliability increased during the first three weeks of the studied period, from Week 3 to Week 3. Then, it dropped in Week 33. Reliability recovered in Week 34 and maintained stable performance at 66%-74% through Week 37. We further analyzed schedule reliability by direction on the trans-pacific trade. The reliability of the Asia to North America eastbound routes improved slightly during Week 3 and Week 3, dropped in Week 33, and recovered to a relatively stable performance through Week 37. The trend was similar to the overall trade's trend. The North America to Asia westbound routes had a stable performance with a slight increase throughout the period. The results are shown in Figure. 1% Trans-Pacific Trade Weekly Schedule Reliability Performance (by Direction) 8% 1% Trans-Pacific Trade Weekly Schedule Reliability 6% 4% % 8% 6% 54% 6% 69% 57% 66% 74% 69% 69% % Week 3 Week 31 Week 3 Week 33 Week 34 Week 35 Week 36 Week 37 Asia-North America North America-Asia 4% % Figure : Weekly schedule reliability in the trans-pacific trade from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) % Week 3 Week 31 Week 3 Week 33 Week 34 Week 35 Week 36 Week 37 Figure 1: Weekly schedule reliability performance in the trans-pacific trade from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 5
Next, we measured the schedule reliability of four popular trans-pacific trade routes on different bounds: Eastbound: I) Singapore to New York-New Jersey II) Yantian to New York-New Jersey Westbound: III) New York-New Jersey to Singapore IV) Los Angeles to Busan Singapore to New York-New Jersey: CKYHE Alliance Carriers Performed Best Along the route from Singapore to New York-New Jersey, the top carriers were the five CKYHE alliance carriers. Hanjin was the most reliable with 94% schedule reliability, followed by COSCON, Evergreen and Yang Ming, with 81% schedule reliability. Next was K-Line with 75% reliability. As shown in Figure 3, the average performance on the route was 56%. 1% 8% 6% 4% % 94% Schedule Reliability Singapore to New York-New Jersey 81% 81% 81% 75% 56% Figure 4: Weekly performance of the Singapore to New York-New Jersey route from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) Yantian to New York-New Jersey: Hanjin Ranked Highest On the eastbound port pair from Yantian to New York-New Jersey, Hanjin ranked highest, scoring 1% schedule reliability. Evergreen was in the second place with 93% reliability. COSCON, K-Line, and Yang Ming followed closely with 88% reliability, ranking in third place. As shown in Figure 5, the average performance on the route was 67%. 1% 8% 6% 4% 1% Schedule Reliability Yantian to New York-New Jersey 93% 88% 88% 88% 67% % Hanjin COSCON Evergreen Yang Ming K-Line Average % Figure 3: Schedule reliability performance on the Singapore to New York-New Jersey route from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) As shown in Figure 4, the first ranking carrier, Hanjin, had a strong performance of 1% reliability during the whole period except for Week 34, which dropped to 5% reliability. The second and third ranking carriers had a similar trend: reliability dropped in Week 33 and recovered through Week 37. The market average trend fluctuated and decreased throughout the period. % Hanjin Evergreen COSCON K-Line Yang Ming Average Figure 5: Schedule reliability performance on the Yantian to New York-New Jersey route from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) During the studied period, Hanjin kept a stable and perfect performance of 1% reliability throughout the eight weeks. The other top carriers performance trends were similar. They each dropped during Week 35 and resumed to 1% in Week 36. The overall trend of the market performance decreased during the eight weeks. The results are shown in Figure 6. 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 6
As shown in Figure 8, Maersk s schedule reliability was 1% during the period, except for Week 33 when it dropped to %. The trends of the other top ranking carriers and the overall average fluctuated during the first six weeks and increased during the last two weeks. Figure 6: Weekly performance of the Yantian to New York-New Jersey route from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) New York-New Jersey to Singapore: Overall Performance Was 73% On the westbound route from New York-New Jersey to Singapore, the overall schedule reliability was 73%. Maersk ranked first with 94%. The two carriers, Hapag-Lloyd and MOL, followed in second place, scoring 81% schedule reliability. Zim Lines ranked third with 77%. The results are shown in Figure 7. Los Angeles to Busan: Overall Reliability Was 48% Along the route from Los Angeles to Busan, Hanjin achieved the highest score, with 73% schedule reliability, which was much higher than the other top carriers scores. Hyundai and OOCL ranked second with 56% reliability. NYK and APL followed closely with 53% schedule reliability. The overall schedule reliability was only 48% in the market. The results are shown in Figure 9. 1% 8% 6% 73% Schedule Reliability Los Angeles to Busan 56% 56% 53% 53% 48% Schedule Reliability New Yor rk-new Jersey to Singapore 4% % 1% 94% 8% 81% 81% 77% 73% % Hanjin Hyundai OOCL NYK APL Average 6% Figure 9: Schedule reliability performance on the Los Angeles to Busan route from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) 4% % As shown in Figure 1, over the studied eight weeks, the % Maersk Hapag-Lloyd MOL Zim Lines Average market average and top carriers performance fluctuated. Figure 7: Schedule reliability performance on the New York-New Jersey to Singapore route from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) Figure 1: Weekly performance of the Los Angeles to Busan route from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) Figure 8: Weekly performance of the New York-New Jersey to Singapore route from July 19, 15 (Week 3) to September 1, 15 (Week 37) 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 7
GVVMC VISITS CONTAINER PORTS AND TERMINALS Frequent sailing schedule changes impact the shipment planning of shippers and logistics service providers and create challenges for the operations of container ports and terminals. In the past few months, CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) made several visits to major ports and terminals in Asia, Europe, and North America to understand more about their business needs. The ports and terminals shared current practices on strategic planning and challenges to their operations. Below are four areas that the ports and terminals insights. 1. What are the current practices of terminal planning and operations? 3. How do ports and terminals assess and improve their competitiveness? Initially, the terminals include all the vessels in the schedules even though some of the arrival or departure times have conflicts. Later, terminal staff prepare more feasible schedules based on the port stays and the length of the vessels. In general, on-time vessels can berth according to the planned berth window. If vessels are delayed, they may be served on a first come first served basis. For cargo operations, the containers to be transshipped may be discharged first so that the second leg vessel can be loaded in time. If a vessel that is to be fully loaded and a vessel that is to be fully discharged come to the terminal at the same time, the vessel to be fully loaded will berth first so as to avoid congestion at the container yard.. What are the current challenges of berth schedule planning? Terminals rely on vessels estimated time of arrivals (ETAs) for their berth schedule planning and adjustments. However, the ETAs provided by carriers or agents are often not up-to-date. In the case of schedule changes or incidents, terminals may not have sufficient buffer time to adjust their berth plan or to implement other recovery plans. When assessing their competitiveness, ports and terminals would need their own and their competitors data to create KPIs and benchmarking reports to monitor their own performance in different aspects, such as port productivity and schedule reliability. However, it is difficult to gather and maintain the information for benchmarking. Therefore, in the current competitive market, ports and terminals need analytical tools to measure multiple ports in order to sustain and improve their competitiveness. 4. How do ports and terminals determine whether to upgrade their facilities? In the dynamic shipping market, apart from their own performance, ports and terminals need to review extensive market information before they can determine if they will need to upgrade their facilities over and above their current investment. Such market data includes the carrier network, carrier coverage trends, vessel capacity, trade statistics, and the overall economic environment. The GVVMC will continue to deliver insights and services for the shipping industry, including ports and terminals, to improve operational efficiency, strategic planning, and decision making. Therefore, terminals revealed that tracking the current position, departure delays from previous ports, and the ETAs of upcoming vessels is critical to their planning. 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 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 September September September 6 September 7 September 8 September 1 September 13 September 16 September 3 September 3 September 14 September 16 September 18 September 3 HANSA MAGDEBURG, suspected to be involved in a hit and run accident, Mokpo, South Korea MERATUS BANJAR, sank in Java Sea, Surabaya RANIA H, mechanical problem in Buyukdere, Istanbul BARZAN, fire in cargo, Spain NELE MAERSK, oil spill, off the coast of Barcelona, Spain CAPE MORETON, caught fire at Manila International Container Terminal, Philippines GRACE BRIDGE, collided and sank fishing vessel, Vung Tau, South China Sea MAERSK NEWCASTLE, fairlead broke in Bremerhaven, Germany CHILEAN REEFER, collided with cement carrier HAE JUNG, Busan, South Korea Mumbai port strike, India Fire at Oceanex Terminal, St. John s, Canada Ports closed after 8.3 magnitude earthquake, Chile Port strikes, Finland Port Botany operation halted due to adverse weather, Sydney, Australia Earthquake: Chile Ports On the night of September 16, a massive 8.3 magnitude earthquake struck Chile that caused serious damage and casualties in the country. It was the strongest earthquake in Chile since 1 and the most powerful in the world this year. Right after the earthquake, the Chile government declared a state of emergency. With the threat of tsunami waves, all terminals in Chile were immediately shutdown and gradually re-opened after 1- days. During this period, we closely monitored all container vessel movements at the major container ports in Chile, including: Iquique, Valparaiso, San Antonio, San Vicente, and Arica. We measured the number of vessel arrivals and daily average berth times at the Chile ports during September, as shown in the chart. Although only three vessels arrived on September 16th and eight vessels arrived on the 18th, these figures were within the normal range for the month. For berth times, the daily average berth time ranged from 7.17 to 44.31 hours and had an overall average of 6.44 hours. The average berth time for vessels arriving the day after the earthquake was 14.13 hours. The earthquake did not have Chile Ports - a significant impact on average berth times. Vessel Arrivals and Berth Times Iquique, Valparaiso, San Antonio, San Vicente, and Arica Ports Vessel Arrivals: 15 Date Range: September 1 3, 15 Average Berth Time: 6.44 Hours Longest Berth Time: 87.18 Hours 5 45 4 35 3 5 15 1 5 1-Sep -Sep 3-Sep 4-Sep 5-Sep 6-Sep 7-Sep 8-Sep 9-Sep 1-Sep 11-Sep 1-Sep 13-Sep 14-Sep 15-Sep 16-Sep 17-Sep 18-Sep 19-Sep -Sep 1-Sep -Sep 3-Sep Vessel Arrival Count Average Berth Time (Hours) 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 9
HAVE YOU TRIED BIG SCHEDULES? Big Schedules is the sailing schedule search engine that delivers live schedules and insightful results for you. Leveraging big data sources, Big Schedules delivers up-to-date and optimized schedule search results for 3 major ocean carriers, over 46, port pairs, and nearly 5, vessel services that cover 9% of the world's container capacity. The intelligent features include: Vessel Position - See if the vessel is on track to meet its schedule. Personalized Search - System remembers recent and favorite searches and other users' most popular port-pair searches to help you search faster. Schedule Reliability - Review carriers' on-time performance for five popular port-pairs. It's time to elevate shipment planning with the next revolution in big data management. It's fast. It's free. Start searching today to improve your shipment planning at www.bigschedules.com. 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 1, the GVVMC monitors and analyzes 7, vessels' movements covering 9% of the world's container capacity and over 1,1 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. 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. 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 email, please subscribe at www.cargosmart.com/innovating. 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 +86-756-363398 Germany +49-41-318798 Hong Kong +85-33-898 United Kingdom +44-1473-65439 United States +1-48-35-7693 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1