Issue May 17 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the May issue of CargoSmart s, a monthly, complimentary e-newsletter for the ocean shipping industry. 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 April 1, the three mega alliances, 2M, OCEAN, and THE, started their new services. We took the opportunity to review and compare the impact of the alliance service changes on port performance at three US East Coast and three US West Coast ports over the past three and a half months. We found that, overall, vessel arrivals increased on the East Coast but not on the West Coast. Next, we examined the impact of the recent alliance changes on schedule reliability. We focused our analysis on the performance of over 1,4 routes, with a close look at the trends in on-time reliability, transit time reliability, and waiting times since April 1. Our findings show that on-time and transit time reliability decreased in April while waiting times increased. Lastly, for our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we looked at the impact of severe congestion at the Port of Shanghai, which was forced to close for three days. 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 newsletter delivers refreshing insights for you to make intelligent decisions for your supply chain. 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 CONTENTS Alliance Service Changes: Impact on US Ports 2 Schedule Reliability: Before and After April World Incidents: Shanghai Port Congestion 9 Contact 1 CargoSmart 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1
ALLIANCE SERVICE CHANGES: IMPACT ON US PORTS On April 1, the three mega alliances, 2M, OCEAN, and THE, started their new services. The new alliance services caused a major rearrangement of carriers vessels to the new services and changes to the ports that the new schedules cover. Based on the initial proforma schedules the carriers published, we expected fewer visiting vessels at US ports, although the average vessel size would increase. The alliances have made steady progress rolling out the new services in April and early May. As of May 19, 91% of the vessels have been rolled out on the three mega alliance services for the trans-pacific trade and 94% of the vessels have been rolled out on the three mega alliance services on the trans-atlantic trade. While the first vessels started running on the new services, we took the opportunity to review and compare the impact of the alliance service changes on port performance at three US East Coast and three US West Coast ports over the past three and a half months. In this study, we reviewed the performance of the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland on the West Coast and New York-New Jersey,, and on the East Coast. We analyzed the vessel data of 28 ocean carriers from February 1, 17 to May 1, 17 in the following aspects: Vessel arrival count vessel berth times Vessel size distribution vessel arrival delays vessel departure delays Vessel Arrivals Increased at East Coast Ports From February 1 to May 1 on the West Coast, we found a total of 19 vessels berthed in Los Angeles in February. The number increased to 127 in March, but only 11 vessels berthed in April. In Long Beach, the number of vessel arrivals was steady, ranging from 66 to 69 from February to April. In Oakland, the vessel arrival count increased from 124 in February and to 131 and 132 in March and April, respectively. The results are shown in Figure 1. On the East Coast, we found that all three ports we reviewed had consecutive increases in the vessel arrival count. The figures for New York increased from 17 in February to 174 in March and then surged to 188 in April. The figures for rose from 127 in February to 136 in March and then to 139 in April. also had a steady increase of vessel arrivals each month, starting with 14 in February and increasing to 1 in March, and then reaching 6 in April. Overall, the number of vessel arrivals increased on the East Coast after April 1, while the number went down on the West Coast. 18 16 14 1 1 8 6 4 Vessel Arrival Count Los Angeles Long Beach Oakland New York- New Jersey Apr 1-3 May 1-1 Figure 1: Vessel arrival count at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, New York-New Jersey, and from February 1 to May 1, 17 Berth Times Longest at Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports Next, we reviewed the average vessel berth times, as shown in Figure 2. Berth times in Los Angeles increased from 49.9 hours in February to. hours in April. The berth times further increased to 6.1 hours in the first 1 days of May. In Long Beach, berth times also rose from. hours in March to 8.6 hours in April, and they further increased to 6.4 hours in the first 1 days of May. In Oakland, however, the average berth times dropped from 23.2 hours in February to 22.3 hours in March, and they declined further to.7 hours in April. The increases at Los Angeles and Long Beach ports reflect longer container handling times. On the East Coast, the average vessel berth times at the three ports were relatively stable compared to the West Coast ports we reviewed. The fluctuation in berth times did not exceed three hours during the studied period. The average vessel berth times ranged from 2.3 to 27.6 hours in New York, 16. to 18.6 hours in, and 17.8 to.8 hours in. CargoSmart 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2
7 6 4 3 1 Berth Times Los Angeles Long Beach Oakland New York- New Jersey Apr 1-3 May 1-1 Figure 2: berth times at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, New York-New Jersey, and from February 1 to May 1, 17 Visiting Vessel Size Increased at West Coast Ports Next, we reviewed how the rearrangement of vessels deployed on the new services in April affected the distribution of vessels by TEU capacity at each port. As shown in Figure 3, for Los Angeles, the number of vessels with less than a 4, TEU capability dropped from 26 in February to 18 in April, which means vessels with a smaller capacity decreased. At the same time, the number of vessels with more than a 1, TEU capacity increased % from 8 in February to 12 in April. For Long Beach, the number of vessels with less than a 6,999 TEU capacity dropped from 3 in March to 31 in April, while the number of vessels with more than a 7, TEU capacity increased from 3 in March to 38 in April. In Oakland, vessels with a capacity of less than 4, TEUs decreased from February to April, while the number of visiting larger vessels increased. On the East Coast, we found vessel size increases for a variety of capacities. In New York, there was a 4% increase in vessels with more than a 1, TEU capacity, increasing from in February and March to 7 in April. There were also consecutive increases in vessels with less than a 4, TEU capacity, increasing from 46 in February to 4 in March and then to 9 in April. had more small vessels berthed during the sample period. The number of vessels with less than a 4, TEU capacity and a 4, to 6,999 TEU capacity increased from 8 in February to 96 in April. In, there was an increasing trend from 27 in February to 34 in April for the number of vessels with less than a 4, TEU capacity. 9 8 7 6 4 3 1 Vessel Size Distribution 4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, 4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, 4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, 4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, 4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, 4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, Los Angeles Long Beach Oakland New York-New Jersey TEUs Apr 1-3 May 1-1 Figure 3: Vessel size (by TEU capacity) distribution at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, New York-New Jersey, and from February 1 to May 1, 17 Figure 4 shows the average visiting vessel size over the three-and-a-half-month period at each of the six ports. On the West Coast, the average vessel size increased from February through April while the East Coast ports experienced relatively small monthly fluctuations in average vessel size. 9, 8, 7, 6,, 4, 3, 2, 1, - Vessel Size Los Angeles Long Beach Oakland New York- New Jersey Apr 1-3 May 1-1 Figure 4: visiting vessel size by TEU capacity at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, New York-New Jersey, and from February 1 to May 1, 17 Vessel Arrival Delays Surged in Oakland and Figure shows the average vessel arrival delays at the six US ports we reviewed. In Los Angeles, average vessel arrival delays decreased from 18.7 hours in February to 14. and.8 hours in March and April, respectively. In Long Beach, the same trend occurred with average arrival delays decreasing from 29. hours in February, to.8 hours in March, and then to 17.3 hours in April. Oakland had a slight decrease from 19.3 hours in February to 18.3 hours in March and then delays increased by % to 27.3 hours in April. CargoSmart 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3
On the East Coast in New York, the average arrival delay slightly increased from 22.6 hours in February to 24. and 24.2 hours in March and April, respectively. In, the same trend occurred with arrival delays of 19.2 hours in February, increasing to 23.2 hours in March and then to 26.1 hours in April. In, the average arrival delays increased from 24. hours to 2. hours from February to March, and then delays surged to 32. hours in April and further increased to 34.7 hours in May with the first 1 days of vessel arrivals and departures. Please note that we only included vessels for which we had estimated times of arrival and departure along with the actual times of arrival and departure when calculating the average vessel arrival and departure delays. Therefore, the vessel figures may vary slightly from the number of vessels shown in the first four figures, which are based on all vessels that visited the ports. delays from 13.6 hours in February to 22.4 hours in April., which shared the same trend, had an increase in its average departure delays from.1 hours in February and 21.8 hours in March to 31.7 hours in April. 3 3 2 1 Vessel Departure Delays Los Angeles Long Beach Oakland New York- New Jersey Apr 1-3 May 1-1 Figure 6: vessel departure delays at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, New York-New Jersey, and from February 1 to May 1, 17 4 3 3 2 1 Vessel Arrival Delays Apr 1-3 May 1-1 Alliances Continue to Deploy Vessels The mega alliances are continuing to deploy vessels on their new services, including some of the largest vessels ever to visit US ports. In addition, the Port of New York and New Jersey will begin receiving very large vessels on June 3. The GVVMC will continue to monitor the performance of the US ports as the new services continue to go into effect. Los Angeles Long Beach Oakland New York- New Jersey Figure : vessel arrival delays at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, New York-New Jersey, and from February 1 to May 1, 17 CargoSmart recently launched an ocean route planning tool, Route Master, that lets you compare route options. You can use the tool to find alternative routes to avoid potential shipment delays at US ports. Vessel Departure Delays Increased on Both Coasts For average vessel departure delays, all three ports on the West Coast had increasing delays, as shown in Figure 6. Los Angeles had an increase in average departure delays from 9.3 hours in March to 12.8 hours in April. Long Beach also experienced an increase in average departure delays from 11.8 hours in March to 14.9 hours in April. Oakland, which shared the same trend, had an increase in its average departure delays from.8 hours in February and.2 hours in March to 17.8 hours in April. 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. All three East Coast ports had increasing departure delays over the studied period. New York had an increase in its average departure delays from 16.4 hours in February to.6 hours in April. also had an increase in its average departure CargoSmart 4 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
SCHEDULE RELIABILITY: BEFORE AND AFTER APRIL The mega ocean shipping alliances, 2M, OCEAN, and THE, started their new services on April 1. A great migration of vessels from their previous routes to their new routes has been occurring since then. This month, we reviewed schedule reliability before and after April to determine the impact of the alliance changes on schedules. In addition to the reliability of on-time arrivals, we studied two new measurements transit time reliability and average waiting time to assess carrier performance during the service transition. Transit time reliability is determined by comparing the vessel s estimated transit time and actual transit time. A vessel s estimated transit time is initially captured from the carrier when the vessel departs from the port of loading (POL). If the actual transit time is within plus or minus 24 hours of the estimated transit time, then the vessel s transit time is considered to be on time. Transit time accuracy is calculated by dividing the number of on-time vessel arrivals by the total number of vessel arrivals within the measurement period. waiting time refers to the average duration between the vessels arriving at the waiting area and the berth. If the system does not detect a vessel slowdown or stoppage, or if the average waiting time duration is less than 7.2 minutes, the average waiting time is considered to be zero. We analyzed the schedule reliability performance of over 1,4 routes from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17, covering over 46, schedules from 24 ocean carriers. Overall On-Time and Transit Time Reliability Decreased in April Compared with the previous month, the on-time reliability in April decreased to 9% from 63% in March 17. During the six-month period, January experienced the lowest reliability of 6%, while November had the highest reliability of 7%. April also decreased in transit time reliability, dropping to 2% from 3% in March. In the past six months, the highest transit time reliability was 63% in November, while the lowest was 47% in February. The longest average waiting time occurred in April with 1.3 hours, which increased from 8. hours in March. November had the shortest average waiting time of 6.2 hours. Details are shown in Figure 1. 1% 8% 6% 4% % % 7% 63% 68% 61% 6.2 7. 6% 9.7 1% Figure 1: Overall monthly on-time reliability, transit time reliability, and average waiting times for November 1, 16 through April 3, 17 Next, we analyzed the monthly on-time reliability, transit time reliability, and average waiting time by trade. On-Time Reliability in Asia-Middle East Decreased by 13% As shown in Figure 2, compared with March, the on-time reliability for the Asia-Middle East trade showed the sharpest reduction, from 73% in March to 61% in April, while the Europe-Oceania trade achieved the biggest increase, from 9% in March to 78% in April. 9% 8% 7% 6% % 4% 3% Overall Monthly Schedule Reliability Figure 2: Monthly on-time reliability by trade from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 9% 7.2 47% 63% 8. 3% 9% Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 1.3 12 1 8 2% 6 Transit Time Reliability (%) Waiting Time (Hours) Monthly On-Time Reliability by Trade Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Asia-Africa Asia-Europe Asia-Middle East Asia-Oceania 4 2 Asia-South America Europe-Middle East Europe-Oceania Hours Europe-South America Intra Asia North America-Oceania Trans-Atlantic Trans-Pacific CargoSmart 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
Asia-Oceania Transit Time Reliability Decreased by 13% Compared with March, the transit time reliability for the Asia-Oceania trade decreased the most from 84% in March to 71% in April, while reliability for the Europe-Oceania trade increased the most from 7% in March to 74% in April. Details are shown in Figure 3. On-Time Reliability of Most Carriers Decreased in April The average on-time reliability for April was 9%, and 13 carriers achieved higher-than-average reliability. However, when compared with March, 21 out of 24 carriers experienced varying degrees of decrease in April. Only Maersk Line, MSC, and Safmarine showed improvement in on-time reliability during April. Details are shown in Figure. 9% 8% 7% 6% % 4% 3% Monthly Transit Time Reliability by Trade Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Asia-Africa Asia-Europe Asia-Middle East Asia-Oceania Asia-South America Europe-Middle East Europe-Oceania Europe-South America Intra Asia North America-Oceania Trans-Atlantic Trans-Pacific Figure 3: Monthly transit time reliability by trade from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% % 4% Monthly On-Time Reliability by Carrier (Part 1) Alianca ANL Container Line APL CCNI CMA CGM CNC Line COSCO SHIPPING Lines Evergreen Hamburg Sud Hapag-Lloyd Hyundai K Line Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Intra-Asia Waiting Time Increased by 41% As shown in Figure 4, compared with the previous March, 1 of the 12 trades had average waiting times with varying degrees of incremental changes from March to April. The Intra-Asia trade experienced the sharpest climb in reliability 41%, from 8.7 hours in March to 12.3 hours in April. 2 1 Monthly Waiting Time by Trade Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Figure 4: Monthly average waiting time by trade from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 Asia-Africa Asia-Europe Asia-Middle East Asia-Oceania Asia-South America Europe-Middle East Europe-Oceania Europe-South America Intra Asia North America-Oceania Trans-Atlantic Trans-Pacific Next we analyzed the monthly on-time reliability, transit time reliability, and average waiting time by carrier. 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% % 4% Monthly On-Time Reliability by Carrier (Part 2) Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Maersk Line Figure : Monthly on-time reliability by carrier from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 Half of the Carriers Transit Time Reliability Decreased in April Twelve out of 24 ocean carriers experienced a decrease in transit time reliability in April compared with March. Hapag-Lloyd experienced the largest decrease by 12%, from 7% in March to 4% in April. APL showed the biggest improvement, from 46% in March to % in April. Details are shown in Figure 6. MCC MOL MSC NYK OOCL PIL Safmarine UASC Wan Hai Yang Ming ZIM CargoSmart 6 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
7% 7% 6% 6% % % 4% 4% 3% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% % % 4% 4% 3% Monthly Transit Time Reliability by Carrier (Part 1) Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Figure 6: Monthly transit time reliability by carrier from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 Alianca ANL Container Line Waiting Time of Most Carriers Increased in April As shown in Figure 7, compared with March, only two carriers showed a reduction in average waiting time. They were ZIM, whose waiting time dropped from 11.6 hours in March to 1.8 hours in April, and MCC, whose waiting time dropped from 7.3 hours in March to 7. hours in April. The overall average waiting time in April was 1.3 hours. 13 11 9 7 3 Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 APL CCNI CMA CGM CNC Line COSCO SHIPPING Lines Evergreen Hamburg Sud Hapag-Lloyd Hyundai K Line Monthly Transit Time Reliability by Carrier (Part 2) Maersk Line MCC MOL MSC NYK OOCL PIL Safmarine UASC Wan Hai Yang Ming ZIM Monthly Waiting Time by Carrier (Part 1) Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Alianca ANL Container Line APL CCNI CMA CGM CNC Line COSCO SHIPPING Lines Evergreen Hamburg Sud Hapag-Lloyd Hyundai K Line 13 11 9 7 3 Monthly Waiting Time by Carrier (Part 2) Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Maersk Line Figure 7: Monthly average waiting time by carrier from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 Lastly, we reviewed six major discharging ports performance in terms of on-time reliability and average waiting time. I. Shanghai II. Singapore III. Los Angeles IV. New York-New-Jersey V. Rotterdam VI. Antwerp Shanghai: Waiting Time in April Increased to 41 Hours Figure 8 illustrates that Shanghai experienced the highest on-time reliability of 6% in December 16 and the lowest on-time reliability of 29% in April. The longest average waiting time of Shanghai was 41. hours, which also occurred in April. The results reflect the impact of the port s recent serious congestion on vessel schedules. 1% 8% 6% 4% % % % 6% 14.4 14.2 34% Figure 8: Shanghai monthly on-time reliability and average waiting time from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 18.6 3% 11.3 41% 26.7 MCC MOL MSC NYK OOCL PIL Safmarine UASC Wan Hai Yang Ming ZIM Shanghai Monthly Reliability by On-Time and Waiting Time Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Waiting Time (Hours) 29% 41. 4. 4. 3. 3. 2... 1. CargoSmart 7 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
Singapore: On-Time Reliability in April Decreased to 66% For Singapore, both November and December ranked the highest on-time reliability of 8%, while the lowest on-time reliability of 66% occurred in April. The average waiting time at Singapore slightly increased in April to 1.4 hours from 1.1 hours in March. The results are shown in Figure 9. 1% 8% 6% 4% % New York-New Jersey Monthly Reliability by On-Time and Waiting Time 7% 1. 7% 2. 1% 3.7 44% 2. 4%.4 8% 6.. 4. 3. 2.4 2. 1. 1% 8% 6% 4% % % Singapore Monthly Reliability by On-Time and Waiting Time 8% 8% 1. 1. 2.4 71% Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Figure 9: Singapore on-time reliability and average waiting time from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 Los Angeles: On-Time Reliability in April Decreased by % Figure 1 illustrates that the highest on-time reliability for Los Angeles was 76% in March, which decreased by % in April to 61%. The good news is that the average waiting time slightly decreased from 1.2 hours in March to.9 hours in April. 1% 3.6 68% 1.2 7% 1.1 Waiting Time (Hours) Los Angeles Monthly Reliability by On-Time and Waiting Time 66% 1.4 3. 2. 2. 1. 1... 4. % Rotterdam: On-Time Reliability Increased in April As shown in Figure 12, Rotterdam experienced the highest on-time reliability of 6%, which increased from 4% in March. The average waiting time decreased from 8.3 hours in March to 7.2 hours in April. November reported the shortest average waiting time for Rotterdam with 1.1 hours. 1% 8% 6% 4% % % Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 61% 63% 1.1 Rotterdam Monthly Reliability by On-Time and Waiting Time 3.1 1% Figure 12: Rotterdam monthly on-time reliability and average waiting time from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 3. 44% 3.6 4% 8.3 7.2 6% Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Waiting Time (Hours) Figure 11: New York-New Jersey monthly on-time reliability and average waiting time from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 Waiting Time (Hours). 9. 8. 7. 6.. 4. 3. 2. 1.. 8% 6% 4% % % 76% 68% 64% 2.8 61% 2% 2% 1.4 1.2 1.1.9 Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 3. 2. 1.. Antwerp: On-Time Reliability Decreased to 46% in April As shown in Figure 13, the on-time reliability of Antwerp slightly decreased in April to 46% from 48% in March. However, the average waiting time in April decreased from 21.9 hours in March to 18.2 hours. Waiting Time (Hours) Figure 1: Los Angeles monthly on-time reliability and average waiting time from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 New York-New Jersey: On-Time Reliability Increased in April New York-New Jersey s on-time reliability ranked highest in November with 7% reliability. The on-time reliability of New York increased in April 17 to 8% from 4% in March. November reported the shortest average waiting time for New York-New Jersey with 1. hours. The results are shown in Figure 11. 1% 8% 6% 4% % % Antwerp Monthly Reliability by On-Time and Waiting Time 66% 6.1 7% 1.3 43% 24.6 Figure 13: Antwerp monthly on-time reliability and average waiting time from November 1, 16 to April 3, 17 7% 9.2 21.9 18.2 48% 46% Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 Waiting Time (Hours) CargoSmart 8 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3. 2... 1...
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 4 April 4 April 6 April 6 April 9 April April April April 22 April -17 MAERSK GENOA, collided with DAN FIGHTER, Westerscheldt, Netherlands MSC DANIELA, caught fire in India Ocean west of Sri Lanka UMM SALAL, ran aground in Malacca Strait, off Port Klang, Malaysia VAN MANILA, collided with freighter XIANG ZHOU, Yangtze, China MSC DONATA, collided with IAPETOS, Thessaloniki, Greece MSC MIRELLA, engine trouble near Milos Island, Greece CALA PALMA, cocaine found in a container on board, Turbo, Colombia CPO JACKSONVILLE, engine trouble in Pulau Tidung Island, Indonesia CONMAR BAY, collided with CITY OF AMSTERDAM, Kiel Canal Port of Shanghai closure due to dense fog Port Congestion: Shanghai After the shuffle of carriers among the three mega alliances in April, cargo traffic at ports was redistributed. Since the middle of April, the Port of Shanghai has been experiencing serious congestion due to dense fog and high container volumes. A long queue of vessels waited for at least one day to berth. delays for vessels arriving at the port increased over 4% to 3 hours between April 16 and 18 compared to the first two weeks in April, forcing many carriers to skip the port and re-route their cargo. We studied vessel arrivals at the Port of Shanghai and observed the amount of time that vessels spent berthed at the terminals. Aside from the port closure April through 17 caused by dense fog, average berth times and vessel arrivals were relatively stable, with vessel arrivals slightly increasing toward the end of the month. Port of Shanghai Duration: April 1-3, 17 Vessel Arrivals: 1,49 Berth Time: 14.3 Hours Longest Berth Time: 47.3 Hours Berth Times (Hours) 3 2 1 Shanghai Berth Times and Vessel Arrival Count (April 1-3, 17) 6 4 3 1 Vessel Arrival Count 1-Apr 2-Apr 3-Apr 4-Apr -Apr 6-Apr 7-Apr 8-Apr 9-Apr 1-Apr 11-Apr 12-Apr 13-Apr 14-Apr -Apr 16-Apr 17-Apr 18-Apr 19-Apr -Apr 21-Apr 22-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 2-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 29-Apr 3-Apr Berth Times (Hours) Vessel Arrival Count CargoSmart 9 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
Gain Actionable Insights from Big Data Big Schedules Analytics is a new feature in Big Schedules that provides an interactive dashboard to measure and analyze carrier performance and gain market intelligence for better decision making. You can set up port pairs to compare their performance based on your business needs. The powerful analytics include: On-Time Reliability Transit Time Reliability Vessel Waiting Time Analysis Subscribe to Big Schedules Analytics today at www.bigschedules.com to improve your shipment planning! 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 12, 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 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 CargoSmart 1 17 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.