Issue 7 July 217 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the July 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 June 27, 217, A.P. Moller-Maersk Group announced that the Petya cyber attack impacted its computer systems at several of its business units around the world. Maersk s container shipping, logistics, and terminal operations were greatly affected. The cyber attack impacted several of Maersk s 76. This month, we reviewed vessel arrival trends, waiting times, arrival delays, and berthing times before and after the cyber attack. We reviewed data from June 1 through July 13 for the at the ports of Pipavav, Tangier, Los Angeles, New York-New Jersey, Rotterdam, and Zeebrugge. We found that the impact varied by terminal. Our results revealed that the cyber attack affected operations in different ways at the terminals. Tangier and Maasvlakte 2 experienced fewer vessel arrivals as vessels were diverted to other terminals. At the same time, Tangier, Pier 4 Los Angeles, and Pipavav had increased arrival delays in the days following the cyber attack. CargoSmart analyzes schedule reliability each month to provide insights about ocean carriers performance. This month, we reviewed the schedule reliability of 24 ocean carriers across 12 trade lanes in June. Overall, on-time schedule reliability improved 6.8%, increasing from 63.3% in May to 7.1% in June. In our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we reviewed the impact of the intermittent strikes at the ports in Spain in May and June. Overall, we found a gradual decline in operation efficiencies in mid and late June with longer waiting times and fewer vessel visits. 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. 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 Petya Cyber Attack: Impact at 2 Carrier Reliability Report World Incidents: Spain Port Strikes 7 Contact 9 Kim Le Executive Editor 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1
PETYA CYBER ATTACK: IMPACT AT APM TERMINALS On June 27, 217, A.P. Moller-Maersk Group announced that the Petya cyber attack impacted its computer systems at several of its business units around the world. Maersk s container shipping, logistics, and terminal operations were greatly affected. The cyber attack impacted several of APM Terminals 76 terminals located in 9 countries. The Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) selected six in three regions to analyze Asia and Africa, North America, and Europe. We collected and reviewed data from June 1 through July 13 to determine the impact on the berthing status and terminal handling efficiency by reviewing vessel arrival trends, waiting times, arrival delays, and berthing times before and after the cyber attack. The six we reviewed and their locations are: Asia and Africa Pipavav - Port of Pipavav, India Tangier - Port of Tangier, Morocco North America Pier 4 Los Angeles - Port of Los Angeles, US Newark - Port of New York-New Jersey, US Europe Maasvlakte 2 - Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands Zeebrugge - Port of Zeebrugge, Belgium Vessel Arrivals Dropped at Tangier and Maasvlakte 2 Terminals After the Cyber Attack As shown in Figure 1 for the selected in the Asia and Africa regions, Tangier used to have 2 to vessels berthing before June 27, and the arrival count had a sudden decrease to zero on June 27. Pipavav had no vessels berthing from June 28 through July 2, although days without vessel arrivals throughout June was not unusual. Figure 2 shows the selected in the North America region. On the West Coast, Pier 4 Los Angeles had no vessels berthing from June 27 to June 29, and this was expected during the timeframe. The terminal changed to manual operations according to an official Maersk announcement on its terminal status. On the East Coast, Newark was also not affected in terms of its vessel arrival count. 1 to 2 vessels continued to berth during the period after the cyber attack. Figure 3 shows the selected in the Europe region. Maasvlakte 2 at the Port of Rotterdam was one of the hardest hit terminals with only 1 vessel berthing between June 28 and July 6. During the days following the cyber attack, the terminal stopped all loading and discharging activities. Zeebrugge, on the other hand, had no vessel arrivals on 29 June and continued to maintain operations after the cyber attack. Newark Pier 4 Los Angeles Zeebrugge Tangier Maasvlakte 2 Pipavav Terminal locations for Pipavav, Tangier, Pier 4 Los Angeles, Newark, Maasvlakte 2, and Zeebrugge 4 3 2 1 Vessel Arrival Count at (Asia and Africa) 1-Jun 2-Jun 3-Jun 4-Jun -Jun 6-Jun 7-Jun 8-Jun 9-Jun 1-Jun 11-Jun 12-Jun 13-Jun 14-Jun 1-Jun 16-Jun 17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 2-Jun 21-Jun 22-Jun 23-Jun 24-Jun 2-Jun 26-Jun 27-Jun 28-Jun 29-Jun 3-Jun 1-Jul 2-Jul 3-Jul 4-Jul -Jul 6-Jul 7-Jul 8-Jul 9-Jul 1-Jul 11-Jul 12-Jul 13-Jul Pipavav Tangier Figure 1: Vessel arrival count at Pipavav and Tangier from June 1 to July 13 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2
4 3 2 1 Figure 2: Vessel arrival count at Pier 4 Los Angeles and Newark from June 1 to July 13 4 3 2 1 Vessel Arrival Count at (North America) 1-Jun 2-Jun 3-Jun 4-Jun -Jun 6-Jun 7-Jun 8-Jun 9-Jun 1-Jun 11-Jun 12-Jun 13-Jun 14-Jun 1-Jun 16-Jun 17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 2-Jun 21-Jun 22-Jun 23-Jun 24-Jun 2-Jun 26-Jun 27-Jun 28-Jun 29-Jun 3-Jun 1-Jul 2-Jul 3-Jul 4-Jul -Jul 6-Jul 7-Jul 8-Jul 9-Jul 1-Jul 11-Jul 12-Jul 13-Jul Pier 4 Los Angeles Newark Vessel Arrival Count at (Europe) 1-Jun 2-Jun 3-Jun 4-Jun -Jun 6-Jun 7-Jun 8-Jun 9-Jun 1-Jun 11-Jun 12-Jun 13-Jun 14-Jun 1-Jun 16-Jun 17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 2-Jun 21-Jun 22-Jun 23-Jun 24-Jun 2-Jun 26-Jun 27-Jun 28-Jun 29-Jun 3-Jun 1-Jul 2-Jul 3-Jul 4-Jul -Jul 6-Jul 7-Jul 8-Jul 9-Jul 1-Jul 11-Jul 12-Jul 13-Jul Maasvlakte 2 Zeebrugge Figure 3: Vessel arrival count at Maasvlakte 2 and Zeebrugge from June 1 to July 13 Vessel Waiting Times Surged at Tangier and Zeebrugge Terminals After the Cyber Attack The GVVMC examined how the six terminals performed on the days following the cyber attack in terms of average vessel waiting times outside of the port. Figure 4 shows the average waiting times for the terminals before and after June 27. Tangier had a great increase from 26. hours before June 27 to 3.68 hours after June 27. The average waiting time at Zeebrugge also surged from 2.6 hours before June 27 to 2.9 hours after June 27. At Pipavav, the average vessel waiting time increased slightly to.9 hours. Although the other three terminals Newark, Maasvlakte 2, and Pier 4 Los Angeles showed a decreasing trend, it does not mean these terminals had improving performance. Vessels that were scheduled to berth at these terminals may have waited outside the port and ultimately decided to skip the port. For example, operations stopped at Maasvlakte 2 for almost 1 days after the cyber attack, however the vessel waiting time after the cyber attack actually decreased. Hours 6 4 3 2 1 Average Vessel Waiting Times at 6 Terminals Before and After the Cyber Attack Before Cyber Attack: June 1 June 27 After Cyber Attack: June 28 July 13 Pipavav Tangier Pier 4 Los Angeles Newark Maasvlakte 2 Zeebrugge Figure 4: Average vessel waiting times at six before and after the cyber attack Vessel Arrival Delays Increased at Tangier, Pier 4 Los Angeles, and Pipavav Terminals After the Cyber Attack Based on Maersk s sailing schedules and actual vessel locations, the GVVMC compared the estimated times arrival and the actual times of arrival of the vessels that successfully berthed in the terminals. As shown in Figure, Tangier had the largest increase following the cyber attack. It had an average delay of only 1.6 hours before the cyber attack and increased to 48.3 hours afterwards. One point to note is that there were only vessels berthing at Tangier from June 28 to July 13, so the sample size is quite small for direct comparisons. At Pier 4 Los Angeles, the average vessel arrival delay before June 27 was 2.1 hours, and then rose to 12.9 hours after June 27. APM Terminal Pipavav also had an increasing trend from an average of 2. hours before June 27 to.2 hours after June 27. At Zeebrugge, the average arrival delays decreased from 1.8 hours before June 27 to 2. hours after June 27. Maasvlakte 2 in Rotterdam also had a drop in its average arrival delay from. hours before June 27 to 1. hour after June 27. On June 29, Maersk announced that Zeebrugge could not load containers and shifted to manual operations for discharging, while all loading and discharging activities stopped in Maasvlakte 2. By that time, some vessels likely planned to skip port and so the average arrival delays decreased. During the whole period, Newark did not have a significant change in average arrival delays before and after the cyber attack. 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3
Average Vessel Arrival Delays at 6 Terminals Before and After the Cyber Attack Average Vessel Berth Times at 6 Terminals Before and After the Cyber Attack 6 Pipavav 4 Pipavav Tangier 3 Tangier Hours 4 3 2 1 Before Cyber Attack: June 1 June 27 After Cyber Attack: June 28 July 13 Pier 4 Los Angeles Newark Maasvlakte 2 Zeebrugge Figure : Average vessel arrival delays at six before and after the cyber attack Hours 3 2 2 1 1 Before Cyber Attack: June 1 June 27 After Cyber Attack: June 28 July 13 Pier 4 Los Angeles Newark Maasvlakte 2 Zeebrugge Figure 6: Average vessel berth times at six before and after the cyber attack Average Vessel Berth Times Varied at the Six Terminals After the Cyber Attack Next, the GVVMC reviewed the berth times of the vessels that arrived at the terminals after the cyber attack. As shown in Figure 6, Tangier and Newark did not have significant changes in berth times. Tangier had an average vessel berth time of 16.7 hours before June 27, and had a slight decrease to 16.2 hours after June 27. Newark had an average vessel berth time of 23. hours before June 27 and the figure slightly increased to 24.8 hours after June 27. Cyber Attack Impacted Vessel Schedules at Several Terminals While it may not have been the first cyber attack to affect terminal operations, the cyber attack in June had the biggest impact to date. Our results reveal that the cyber attack affected operations in different ways at the terminals. Tangier and Maasvlakte 2 experienced fewer vessel arrivals as vessels were diverted to other terminals. At the same time, Tangier, Pier 4 Los Angeles, and Pipavav had increased arrival delays in the days following the cyber attack. Maasvlakte 2 also had little change in its average berth time, with vessels only berthing at the terminal after the normal operations resumed at the terminal. Pier 4 Los Angeles, however, had a decreasing trend of average berth times from 34. hours before June 27 to 28.2 hours afterwards. Pipavav had an average berth time of 14.8 hours before June 27 and rose to 2.6 hours after June 27. Zeebrugge also had an increase, with its average berth time increasing from 18.9 hours before June 27 to 26.6 hours after June 27. It is worth noting that Zeebrugge stopped loading containers and changed to manual operations for discharging containers on June 29. The GVVMC shares statistics on port performance so that you can better plan your shipments to select schedules and routings to avoid delays. The statistics reflect the general situation in the past. The future performance of the vessels and ports will depend on the actual situation that could be affected by weather, vessel delays, and other factors. 4 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
CARRIER RELIABILITY IMPROVED 6.8% IN JUNE 217 CargoSmart analyzes schedule reliability each month to provide shippers and logistics service providers with insights about their ocean carriers performance. This month, we reviewed the schedule reliability of 24 ocean carriers across 12 trade lanes. Overall, on-time schedule reliability improved 6.8%, increasing from 63.3% in May 217 to 7.1% in June 217. Reviewing schedule reliability by trade, nine of the 12 trades improved from May 217 to June 217. The three trades with decreasing schedule reliability were Asia-Africa, Europe-South America, and Europe-Oceania, decreasing by 13.7%, 6.6%, and 1.1% respectively. The Europe-Middle East trade experienced the largest improvement in reliability, improving by 1.4%, from 6.7% in May 217 to 71.1% in June 217. The North America-Oceania trade had the highest reliability with 96.1% in June 217. Details are shown in Figure 1. Monthly Schedule Reliability by Trade % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% North America-Oceania Asia-Oceania Europe-Oceania Asia-South America Trans-Pacific Trans-Atlantic Intra Asia 94.4% 96.1% 78.7% 86.9% 84.8% 83.6% 7.9% 7.9% 64.3% 73.2% 68.2% 73.1% 6.4% 71.2% Europe-Middle East 6.7% 71.1% Europe-South America 7.9% 69.2% Asia-Middle East Asia-Europe 9.6% 68.3% 3.9% 62.2% Asia-Africa 41.8%.6% Oceania South Asia South America North America Middle East Asia Europe Africa Monthly Schedule Reliability by Port of Discharge Region % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% 8.6% 94.2% 77.% 77.9% 81.9% 76.6% 69.3% 73.8% 61.4% 73.8% 6.% 68.8% 62.7% 62.% 46.3% 37.3% May 217 Jun 217 Figure 2: Monthly schedule reliability by port of discharge region from May 1 to June 3, 217 Most of the carriers experienced varying degrees of improved schedule reliability from May 217 to June 217. As shown in Figure 3, CCNI, OOCL, Wan Hai, Alianca, and Hyundai showed the most improvement in schedule reliability with 11.9%, 11.%, 1.7%, 1.1%, and 1.1% from May 217 to June 217. The top five most reliable carriers in June 217 were CCNI, MCC, OOCL, Evergreen, and CMA CGM, with an average on-time performance of 86.%, 8.3%, 77.4%, 76.3%, and 76.2%, respectively. May 217 Jun 217 Figure 1: Monthly schedule reliability by trade from May 1 to June 3, 217 From the port of discharge by region perspective, the Oceania region continued to rank the highest with 94.2% reliability in June 217 as shown in Figure 2. Africa had the lowest reliability of 37.3% in June 217. The Middle East region experienced the largest improvement in reliability, improving by 12.3%, from 61.4% in May 217 to 73.8% in June 217. 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
Monthly Schedule Reliability by Carrier % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% CCNI 74.7% 86.% MCC 78.1% 8.3% OOCL 6.9% 77.4% Evergreen CMA CGM ANL Container Line Maersk Line COSCO SHIPPING Lines Safmarine 67.% 76.3% 68.2% 76.2% 68.% 76.% 67.% 7.9% 66.7% 74.6% 71.7% 74.4% Wan Hai Hamburg Sud 62.% 61.% 73.2% 71.2% CNC Line 63.8% 7.1% APL 9.6% 69.6% Hapag-Lloyd Zim NYK K Line 62.7% 67.7% 6.2% 67.3% 63.2% 66.3% 6.3% 6.6% Alianca Hyundai.3%.1% 6.4% 6.1% Yang Ming MOL PIL UASC 6.% 6.1% 9.6% 63.9% 61.% 63.% 61.7% 6.9% MSC 44.8% 46.6% Average 63.3% 7.1% May 217 Jun 217 Figure 3: Monthly schedule reliability by carrier from May 1 to June 3, 217 Methodology: CargoSmart provides schedule reliability information for up to 24 leading ocean carriers, covering over 19, vessel schedules, over 7 services, 76 major container ports, and over 1,4 port pairs around the world each month. The schedule reliability is determined by comparing the estimated time of arrival (ETA) and actual time of arrival (ATA) at the discharging port. A vessel s ETA at the port of discharge (POD) is initially captured from the carrier when the vessel departs from the port of loading (POL). If the ATA is within plus or minus 24 hours of the ETA, then the vessel is considered to be on time. Reliability is calculated by dividing the number of on-time vessel arrivals by the total number of vessel arrivals within the measurement period. Would you like to review the carrier performance of your specific shipment routes? Subscribe to Big Schedules Analytics today to improve your shipment planning. Learn more. 6 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
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 June 1 June 6 June 6 June 13 June 13 June 17 June 2 June 21 June 24 June 27 June 1 June, 7, 9, 14-16, 19, 21 June 14 June 27 MARY ARCTICA collided with iceberg near Nanortalik, Greenland F. ARSLAN V experienced engine trouble and ran aground near Lavernock Point, UK CLIFFORD MAERSK had drugs that were found on board in Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico MSC DONATA had drugs that were found on board in Ambarli, Istanbul, Turkey GERNER MAERSK had five containers that fell overboard in Koper, Slovenia ACX CRYSTAL collided with USS FITZGERALD in Yokosuka, Japan THALASSA TYHI was damaged by a crane in Hamburg, Germany VECCHIO BRIDGE had chemicals leak from a container in Southampton, UK MSC ALICE cut a submarine fiber optic cable in Mogadishu, Somalia GREETJE experienced engine trouble in the Kiel Canal MAERSK PATRAS had 1 stowaways who were found on board in Algeciras, Spain SPIRIT OF SHANGHAI had drugs that were found on board in Melbourne, Australia X-PRESS SUEZ damaged a crane at the Port of Chittagong, Bangladesh COSCO PRIDE experienced engine trouble in the English Canal, UK The Port of Itajai closed for one week due to rainstorms and strong currents, Brazil Dockworker strikes, Spain False bomb threat at the Port of Charleston, US Crane damage slowed port operations, Chittagong, Bangladesh Several closed around the world due to the Petya cyber attack Port Strikes: Intermittent Strikes at Spanish Ports Since early this year, numerous labor actions at the ports in Spain have caused many headaches to both port authorities and carriers. Port reforms are changing the recruitment policies, allowing ports and terminal operators to hire non-union workers. Under the new policies, union workers not only lose their job security, but also have their bargaining power weakened. Nationwide labor actions, including strikes, work slowdowns, and reduced work time, have been occurring on and off since February. Algeciras, Barcelona, and Valencia, the three largest ports in Spain which employ 6% of the country s dockworkers, are most impacted by the new law and showed their strong protest against it. One-day and two-day intermittent strikes hit the ports and led to interrupted port operations. We studied vessels average waiting times at the three ports, from May to June. Overall, we found a gradual decline in operation efficiencies in mid and late June with longer waiting times and fewer vessel visits. 7 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
Ports of Algeciras, Barcelona, and Valencia Duration: May 1 June 3, 217 Algeciras Vessel Arrivals: 622 Barcelona Vessel Arrivals: 429 Valencia Vessel Arrivals: 692 Average Waiting Time (Hours) 2 2 1 1 Algeciras, Barcelona, and Valencia Average Vessel Waiting Time (Hours) Date Range Algeciras Barcelona Valencia Overall Vessel Arrivals 2 2 1 1 Algeciras, Barcelona, and Valencia Vessel Arrival Count Date Range Algeciras Barcelona Valencia Overall 8 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
Customize Your Route Planning with Route Master Premium Route Master, powered by CargoSmart, is an ocean route planning tool that helps you visualize and compare carriers routes, transit times, vessel operators, and reliability. Route Master covers over 86 ports and 3,8 services offered by 29 carriers. The interactive tool helps you: Find the optimal routes according to your defined goals and parameters See the latest service offerings and updated sailing schedules from 29 major carriers Discover new possible transshipment routes and their total estimated transit times Get timely updates of supply chain disruptions that may affect vessel schedules Compare route transit times in an aggregated timeline and identify potential delays Identify the vessel operator on your routes to mitigate risk We invite you to enjoy a 14-day free trial of Route Master Premium. Register now to experience the premium features free for a limited time. 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 212, 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 +86-76-363398 Germany +49-421-318798 Hong Kong +82-2233-8 United States +1-48-32-76 217 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 9