Issue 28 February 15 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the February 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. As we celebrate the Chinese New Year, year of the goat, we took the opportunity to review the performance of the three largest mainland China ports,,, and -Zhoushan. Ports often experience a surge in activity as shippers export products before the Chinese New Year holiday week. Leading up to this year s holiday, we found delays to be longest at the Port of, shortest at the Port of, and increasing the most at the Port of. Following Australia and China signing a Declaration of Intent for a free trade agreement in November, we reviewed the performance of five Australia ports. This month, we present the findings of berth times and vessel size in a new scatterplot chart to show the relationship between the two factors. Continuing our study of schedule reliability around the globe, we analyzed reliability along four routes between China and Europe over the last two months. Overall, we found the performance on the westbound routes to be slightly better performing than the eastbound routes. 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. In this month s Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we investigated the impact of protests at India s largest port, Nhava Sheva. While berth times were prolonged during the protests, they quickly returned to normal levels when the protests ended. 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 email at innovating@cargosmart.com. Graham Collins Executive Editor CONTENTS Port Performance: Mainland China 2 Australia Arrival Delays 4 China-Europe Reliability 5 World Incidents: Nhava Sheva Protests 8 Contact 9 CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1
PORT PERFORMANCE: TOP 3 PORTS OF MAINLAND CHINA This month, the Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) reviewed the performance of the top three ports in mainland China,, and -Zhoushan. Ports often experience a surge in activity as shippers export products before the Chinese New Year holiday week. As we approach the Chinese New Year on February 19, 15, we investigated the performance of the three ports. To summarize, each port had a different trend in average vessel arrival delays over the three months. During the final month, the average arrival delays increased in and and decreased in. Average Vessel Arrival Delays 18.7 The data scope covered 2,727 vessels from the top 21 carriers that visited the three ports from October, 14 to January 19, 15. Hours 16 12 8 15.7 12. 1.2 11. 1.6 17. 15.2 11.8 The GVVMC analyzed: Average vessel arrival delays Average berth times Average arrival delays and berth times by vessel capacity Experienced the Longest Arrival Delays To review the performance of,, and ports, we analyzed the average vessel arrival delays for three months from October, 14 through January 19, 15. The results are shown in Figure 1. Collectively, the average delays at each of the ports were more than 1 hours. The average delays in rose slightly from 1.2 to 11 hours in the first two months, and then climbed sharply to 15.2 hours in January. In contrast, s delays were relatively stable with a decline in the middle period before rising back to 11.8 hours in the last month. saw the longest delays among the three ports. The delays rose gradually from 15.7 to 18.7 hours, and then fell to 17 hours in January 15. 4 1//14-11/19/14 11//14-12/19/14 12//14-1/19/15 Figure 1: Average vessel arrival delays from October 14 through January 15 and Experienced Shorter Berth Times Next, we measured the average berth times at the three ports as shown in Figure 2. Over the three months, and experienced opposite trends in berth times. The average berth time increased steadily from 12.1 to 15.6 hours in, while it reduced gradually from 14.2 to 13.2 hours in. experienced its highest average berth time of 18.8 hours from mid-november to mid-december after a slight increase from the previous month, and then declined to 17.7 hours in the last month. Overall, the average berth times in and ranged from approximately 12 to 16 hours, several hours shorter than the average berth times in. Hours 16 12 8 4 18.3 18.8 14.2 12.1 1//14-11/19/14 Average Berth Times 14. 13.4 11//14-12/19/14 Figure 2: Average berth times from October 14 through January 15 17.7 15.6 13.2 12//14-1/19/15 CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2
Performed Best for All Vessel Sizes Next, the GVVMC reviewed the difference in performance by vessel capacity (TEUs) among the three ports. We first analyzed the average vessel arrival delays over the past three months grouped by <4, TEUs, 4,-6,999 TEUs, 7,-9,999 TEUs, and 1, TEUs. As shown in Figure 3, we found that the performance in was best when compared to and among each of the vessel size groups. had the longest average vessel arrival delays for vessels with a capacity of more than 1, TEUs. experienced the longest vessel arrival delays for vessels with a capacity of fewer than 1, TEUs. Lastly, we looked at the distribution of mega vessel calls at the three ports. More than half of the mega vessels went to, 3% to, and % to. The pie chart in Figure 5 shows the results. Vessel Call Distribution (for Vessel Capacity > 1, TEUs) 5% % 25 Average Arrival Delay by Vessel Size Figure 5: Vessel call distribution among three ports (for vessels with a capacity over 1, TEUs) 3% Hours 15 1 5 <4, 4, - 6,999 7, - 9,999 1, Vessel Size (by TEUs) Figure 3: Average arrival delay by vessel capacity from October, 14 through January 19, 15 When we analyzed average berth times over the three-month period by vessel size, we found that the average berth times increased with vessel size at each of the ports. The results are shown in Figure 4. The findings reflect the challenges large ports face for requiring greater berth windows for mega vessels. Similar to the vessel arrival delay findings, we found that performed better than and for vessels in each size category. Preparing for Chinese New Year As the Chinese New Year holiday approaches, the Port of has been experiencing significant increases in vessel arrival delays and berth times. The rapid growth in average arrival delays in since early December of last year may indicate more challenges for shippers as we approach the upcoming holiday. 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. 3 Average Berth Times by Vessel Size 25 Hours 15 1 5 <4, 4, - 6,999 7, - 9,999 1, Vessel Size (by TEUs) Figure 4: Average berth time by vessel capacity from October, 14 through January 19, 15 CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3
AUSTRALIA PORT PERFORMANCE On November 17, 14, China and Australia signed a Declaration of Intent for a free trade agreement that is expected to unlock substantial benefits for both economies and increase their trading activities. This month, we reviewed the performance of five major ports in Australia over the last two months. 28.2 % of Vessel Arrivals Delayed More Than a Day We analyzed the vessel arrival schedules for 19 ocean carriers at the ports of Adelaide, Brisbane, Fremantle, Melbourne, and Sydney from November 15, 14 to January 15, 15. By analyzing the schedule data and comparing the actual time of arrivals (ATAs) with the estimated time of arrivals (ETAs) of the coastal schedules provided by the carriers, we observed 625 unique vessel arrivals at the five ports. Within this period, 52.6% of the vessels arrivals were delayed more than 12 hours, while more than 28.2% were delayed over 24 hours. A summary of the results is shown in Figure 1. Total Unique Vessel Arrivals 625 Number of Delayed Vessels (Delay > 12 Hours) 329 (52.6%) Number of Delayed Vessels (Delay > 24 Hours) 176 (28.2%) Figure 1: Abstract result of vessel arrivals from 19 carriers from November 15, 14 to January 15, 15 Figure 2 shows the details of the container vessel arrival delays at the five ports. The results show that the busiest ports, Sydney and Melbourne, had an average delay of more than 19 hours. Vessel Arrivals Arrival Delay (Hours) Percentage of Vessel Delays (> 1 Day) Adelaide 49 17.2 28.6% Brisbane 159 13.3.8% Fremantle 81 17.4 22.2% Melbourne 165 19 31.5% Sydney 171 23.6 34.5% Figure 2: Australia port performance from 19 carriers from November 15, 14 to January 15, 15 We further analyzed the vessel berth times for the 625 vessels at the five ports. The results are summarized in Figure 3. The results show that the longest average berth times were also at the two busiest ports, Sydney and Melbourne. Vessel Arrivals Average Berth Time (Hours) Adelaide 49 21.8 Brisbane 159 24 Fremantle 81 26.7 Melbourne 165 33.5 Sydney 171 38.7 Figure 3: The average berth time of 5 Australia ports from 19 carriers from November 15, 14 to January 15, 15 CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 4
9 8 7 Next, we compared vessel size and berth times. Figure 4 reveals that the majority of the vessels deployed to Australia ports had a capacity between 4, and 5, TEUs. It also shows a pattern of larger vessels having longer berth times. Vessel Berth Time (Hours) 6 5 4 3 1 5 1 15 25 3 35 4 45 5 55 6 65 Vessel Size (TEUs) Figure 4: Vessel berth time by vessel size at 5 Australia ports from 19 carriers from November 15, 14 to January 15, 15 SCHEDULE RELIABILITY: CHINA-EUROPE ROUTES After reviewing the schedule reliability of routes between China and the US West Coast last month, this month we analyzed the schedule reliability of four routes between China and Europe. The carrier performance analysis covers ocean carriers over eight weeks from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15. We reviewed four popular routes: 1% 8% 6% 4% Schedule Reliability - Qingdao to Hamburg 86% 86% 83% 76% 62% Westbound: China to Europe I) Qingdao to Hamburg II) Yantian to Rotterdam Eastbound: Europe to China III) Rotterdam to IV) Hamburg to Shekou Qingdao to Hamburg: CMA CGM and MSC Were Most Reliable On the westbound route from Qingdao to Hamburg, the two carriers CMA CGM and MSC achieved 86% reliability and were the most reliable carriers on this route. Maersk followed closely with 83% reliability, ranking in second place. COSCON was in the third place with 76%. The overall schedule reliability was 62% in the market. % % CMA CGM MSC Maersk COSCON Average Figure 1: Schedule reliability performance on the Qingdao-Hamburg route from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15 As shown in Figure 2, the historical trend of the Qingdao-Hamburg route fluctuated during the eight weeks. The overall performance encountered a significant drop at the end of 14, starting from Week 52. Maersk had no schedules for the route during Weeks 2 and 3. CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 5
Figure 2: Weekly performance of the Qingdao-Hamburg route from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15 Figure 4: Weekly performance of the Yantian-Rotterdam route from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15 Yantian to Rotterdam: Maersk Achieved 1% Reliability Along the route from Yantian to Rotterdam, the overall schedule reliability was 55%. Maersk was the most reliable carrier with 1% reliability. Next was COSCON with 74% reliability, and then followed by APL with 68% reliability. Rotterdam to : Maersk Performed Strongest On the eastbound port pair of Rotterdam to, the average schedule reliability was 51%. Maersk was the most reliable carrier with 1%. MOL and OOCL ranked second and third respectively with 86% and 71% reliability. The results are shown in Figure 5. 1% Schedule Reliability - Yantian to Rotterdam 1% Schedule Reliability - Rotterdam to 8% 74% 68% 1% 1% 86% 6% 55% 8% 71% 4% 6% 51% % 4% % Maersk COSCON Figure 3: Schedule reliability performance on the Yantian-Rotterdam route from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15 As shown in Figure 4, the overall performance of reliability started to take a downturn in Week 52. In Week 52, the average reliability for the G6 alliance was 6%, which dragged down the overall performance to 28%. In Week 1, the average reliability for the G6 stayed low with 6% and the CKYHE alliance carriers also had poor performance with 7%, which was the cause of the decline of the overall score to 8%. APL Average % % Maersk MOL OOCL Average Figure 5: Schedule reliability performance on the Rotterdam- route from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15 As shown in Figure 6, there were significant drops in reliability during weeks 51 and 1. The overall performance during the other weeks fluctuated. CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 6
In Week 49, the G6 carriers had no reliability records as they encountered serious delays. A vessel that was expected to arrive in Week 49 arrived in Shekou in Week 5, causing the poor reliability in that week with %. The results are shown in Figure 8. Figure 6: Schedule reliability performance on the Rotterdam- route from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15 Hamburg to Shekou: G6 Carriers Achieved Top 3 Rankings Along the route from Hamburg to Shekou, the top three carriers were G6 alliance carriers. APL was the most reliable with 87% schedule reliability, followed by MOL and OOCL, achieving 75% and 73% respectively. As shown in Figure 7, the average performance on the route was 51%. Figure 8: Weekly performance of the Hamburg-Shekou route from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15 1% 8% Schedule Reliability - Hamburg to Shekou 87% 75% 73% 6% 51% 4% % % APL MOL OOCL Average Figure 7: Schedule reliability performance on the Hamburg-Shekou route from November 23, 14 (Week 48) to January 17, 15 CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 7
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 January 1 January 8 January 11 January 19 January January 22 January 2 January 18 January 26-27 January 27 MEJANA collided with MONTANA in Neuss, Germany HANSE VISION suffered storm damage with collapsed container racks in Aarhus, Denmark MOL EXPRESS ran aground in Tateyama, Japan HORST B encountered engine failure during a voyage from Rotterdam to Reykjavik ATLANTIC COMPANION suffered an engine breakdown near the Fastnet Rock in the north Atlantic Ocean DETTIFOSS had a fire at the Kattegat Port of Halmstad, Sweden Dockworkers protested with a partial work stoppage at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, USA Truck drivers protested in Nhava Sheva, India Marine terminals closed during a snowstorm at the Port of New York and New Jersey, USA Dockworkers protested, shutting down the Port of Portland, USA Trucker Protest: Port of Nhava Sheva, India In mid-january, crane operators involved in a labor dispute caused intermittent gate closings at the port of Nhava Sheva (Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust), the largest port in India. On January 18, truckers waiting in long queues at the gates protested. Riots and violent acts against police occurred at the terminal gates. The gates were forced to close for the day, causing further cargo backlogs. On January 21, the labor disputes resolved. The chart shows the average berth times at the Port of Nhava Sheva from January 1 to January 25. Date Range: January 1 25 Vessel Arrivals: 122 Longest Berth Time: 76. Hours Average Berth Time: 26.9 Hours 45 4 35 3 25 15 1 5 Nhava Sheva Average Berth Times (Hours) 1-Jan 2-Jan 3-Jan 4-Jan 5-Jan 6-Jan 7-Jan 8-Jan 9-Jan 1-Jan 11-Jan 12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan -Jan 21-Jan 22-Jan 23-Jan 24-Jan 25-Jan In addition to the delays clearing cargo in and out of the port, the chart reveals that the average vessel berth times were prolonged during the protest period. When the labor actions ended, the average berth times returned to normal. CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 8
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 www.cargosmart.com/en/solutions/mobile.htm 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 12, the GVVMC monitors and analyzes over 5,5 vessels' movements covering 9% of the world's container capacity and over 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. 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 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 +49-421-318798 Hong Kong +852-2233-898 United Kingdom +44-1473-65439 United States +1-48-325-7693 CargoSmart 15 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 9