Issue 37 November 215 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the November 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. This month s issue marks our thi anniversary. For this special issue, we reviewed the schedule reliability of the three main east-west trade lanes over the past year Asia-Europe, trans-atlantic, and trans-pacific. We measured over 14, schedules among 2 ocean container carriers and found that the Asia-Europe trade lane had the highest reliability with 73% average reliability, while the trans-pacific trade lane had the lowest reliability over the past year of 56%. Next, we analyzed the performance of the top five searched European ports through the Big Schedules (www.bigschedules.com) sailing schedule search engine Hamburg, Rotteam, Antwerp, Felixstowe, and Bremerhaven. Over the last three months, our findings revealed that Rotteam served the most mega vessels, Felixstowe had the fewest vessel arrivals, and Bremerhaven had the shortest average vessel berth times. As ocean carriers have reduced capacity on the Asia to South America East Coast trade, we reviewed the vessel arrival delays over the last two months. We analyzed vessel arrivals at the six South America East Coast ports with the most services Santos, Paranagua, Navegantes, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, and Rio Grande. We found the number of services and average vessel capacity decreased from September to October at the ports. For our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we looked back at 279 incidents recoed from July 213 through September 215. We reviewed the trends in frequency and types of vessel, port, and weather incidents affecting cargo over the last three years. 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 Schedule Reliability: 3 Major Trade Lanes 2 Port Performance: European Ports 4 Vessel Study: Asia to South America East Coast 6 World Incidents: 3-Year Analysis 8 Contact 1 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1
SCHEDULE RELIABILITY: ONE-YEAR REVIEW For our thi anniversary issue, we reviewed the schedule reliability of the three main east-west trade lanes over the past year. The three studied trade lanes are: Asia-Europe, trans-atlantic, and trans-pacific. The carrier performance analysis covers 12 months from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215. We measured over 14, schedules among 2 ocean container carriers. 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% Schedule Reliability - Asia-Europe Trade 85% 79% 78% 73% Asia-Europe Trade: Overall Performance Was 73% In the Asia-Europe trade, we measured 119 port pairs with over 88, schedules among 2 carriers. First, we analyzed schedule reliability by direction in this trade. The reliability of Asia to Europe westbound routes had its lowest score in January 215. After the low point, it improved gradually starting in February and maintained reliability around 8% for the rest of the months during the studied period. The Europe to Asia eastbound routes had a more stable performance during the whole studied period, with a slight improvement from August to September 215. The results are shown in Figure 1. % Maersk COSCON K-Line Average Figure 2: Schedule reliability performance in the Asia-Europe trade from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 We further drilled down to study the monthly performance of the market average and the top three carriers. As shown in Figure 3, the top three carriers, Maersk, COSCON, and K-Line, had a stable performance, fluctuating around 8% schedule reliability during the studied period. The market average reliability had the lowest score in January 215 and recovered to a stable performance in March 215. 1% Asia-Europe Trade Monthly Schedule Reliability Performance (by Direction) 8% 6% 4% 2% % Westbound (Asia-Europe) Eastbound (Europe-Asia) Figure 1: Monthly schedule reliability in the Asia-Europe trade by direction from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 Next, we studied the overall reliability score during the past year and summarized the top three ranking carriers in this trade. Maersk was the most reliable carrier with 85% reliability during the studied 12 months. Next was COSCON with 79% reliability, ranking in second place. It was followed closely by K-Line with only 1% less, scoring 78% schedule reliability. As shown in Figure 2, the average performance in this trade was 73%. Figure 3: Monthly performance of the Asia-Europe trade from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 Trans-Atlantic Trade: Experienced Low Reliability in First Six Months In the trans-atlantic trade, we measured 19 port pairs with over 6,6 schedules among 17 carriers. After increased port congestion and severe winter weather at North America East Coast ports at the end of 214 and beginning of 215, both the westbound and eastbound routes experienced low reliability scores during the first six months. 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2
The westbound routes from Europe to North America had the lowest score in December 214 while the eastbound routes from North America to Europe had the lowest score through February and March 215. During the remaining six months from April to October 215, both the two bounds reliability recovered gradually. The results are shown in Figure 4. 1% 8% 6% Trans-Atlantic Trade Monthly Schedule Reliability Performance (by Direction) Figure 6: Monthly performance of the trans-atlantic trade from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 4% 2% % Westbound (Europe-North America) Eastbound (North America-Europe) Trans-Pacific Trade: Reduced Reliability from Port Congestion In the trans-pacific trade, we measured 81 port pairs with over 45,6 schedules among 19 carriers. Figure 4: Monthly schedule reliability in the trans-atlantic trade by direction from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 As shown in Figure 5, the top three ranking carriers in the trans-atlantic trade were ZIM, Maersk, and K-Line, with 82%, 76%, and 75% respectively. The overall schedule reliability was only 57% in the market. 1% 8% 6% 4% Schedule Reliability - Trans-Atlantic Trade 82% 76% 75% 57% Among the three studied trade lanes, the trans-pacific westbound and eastbound routes suffered the most severe vessel delays. The North America West Coast labor situation resulted in lower reliability performance. The overall trend of the two bounds performance steadily improved after January 215, from around 2% to 5% reliability to nearly 8% reliability. The results are shown in Figure 7. 1% 8% 6% Trans-Pacific Trade Monthly Schedule Reliability Performance (by Direction) 4% 2% % ZIM Maersk K-Line Average 2% % Figure 5: Schedule reliability performance in the trans-atlantic trade from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 Over the past 12 months, the monthly performance of the top carriers fluctuated. The market average reliability had a relatively stable performance with a gradually improving trend. The results are shown in Figure 6. Westbound (North America-Asia) Eastbound (Asia-North America) Figure 7: Monthly schedule reliability in the trans-pacific trade by direction from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 As shown in Figure 8, the average performance of the trans-pacific trade was 56%. Maersk performed the best with 75%, which was 14-15% higher than the second and thi ranked carriers. The second ranked carrier was MOL, scoring 61%. The thi ranked carrier was OOCL with 6%. 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3
1% Schedule Reliability - Trans-Pacific Trade 8% 75% 6% 61% 6% 56% 4% 2% % Maersk MOL OOCL Average Figure 8: Schedule reliability performance in the trans-pacific trade from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 Figure 9: Monthly performance of the trans-pacific trade from November 1, 214 to October 17, 215 The monthly performance of the top three carriers and market average increased during the studied period. The results are shown in Figure 9. PORT PERFORMANCE: TOP 5 SEARCHED EUROPEAN PORTS In the October issue of CargoSmart s Innovating, CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) reviewed the performance of the top three searched Asia ports of origin through the Big Schedules (www.bigschedules.com) sailing schedule search engine Yantian, Ningbo-Zhoushan and Kaohsiung. Similarly, this month the GVVMC analyzed the performance of the top five searched European ports though Big Schedules Hamburg, Rotteam, Antwerp, Felixstowe, and Bremerhaven. The GVVMC collected data from mid-july to mid-october for the five European ports and analyzed vessel arrival delays, berth times, and the size of vessels arriving and berthing at the ports. Bremerhaven Hamburg Rotteam Experienced an Increase in Average Vessel Arrival Delays As shown in Figure 1, each of the ports experienced a decrease in vessel arrival delays between July 15 August 14 and September 15 October 14, except for the Port of Rotteam. The average vessel arrival delay at the Port of Rotteam dropped from 15.8 hours for July 15 August 14 to 14.3 hours for August 15 September 14, but increased to 16.1 hours for September 15 October 14. It had the longest average vessel arrival delay for September 15 October 14. At the same time, the Port of Felixstowe had the longest average vessel arrival delays for July 15 August 14 and August 15 September 14, with 15.9 hours and 18 hours respectively. However, it dropped to having the second highest average vessel arrival delay among the five ports with an improvement of 3.8 hours for September 15 October 14. Felixstowe Rotteam Antwerp The Port of Bremerhaven had the lowest number of average vessel arrival delays for September 15 October 14. Its average vessel arrival delay improved over the three months. For September 15 October 14, its average vessel arrival delay was 7.6 hours, dropping nearly 4% from the prior month. 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 4
Hours 2 15 1 5 Figure 1: Average arrival delays at the ports of Hamburg, Rotteam, Antwerp, Felixstowe, and Bremerhaven from July 15 to October 14, 215 Bremerhaven Had the Shortest Average Vessel Berth Times Next, we analyzed the performance of the average vessel berth times at each port, as shown in Figure 2. The five ports experienced the same trend during the three months. They recoed an increase from July 15 August 14 to August 15 September 14 and a decrease in the following month. Although there was a decrease during September 15 October 14, the ports of Hamburg and Felixstowe experienced longer berth times over the three-month period. On the other hand, the average vessel berth times for the ports of Rotteam and Bremerhaven improved by.7 hours and 1.3 hours respectively over the three-month period. The average vessel berth time for the Port of Bremerhaven was the lowest among the five ports. Its average berth time was 7.2 hours shorter than the average berth time for the Port of Felixstowe from September 15 October 14. Moreover, the Port of Antwerp s average vessel berth time remained unchanged at 22.7 hours between July 15 August 14 and September 15 October 14. 3 25 2 Average Vessel Arrival Delays Hamburg Rotteam Antwerp Felixstowe Bremerhaven Average Vessel Berth Times July 15 - August 14 August 15 - September 14 September 15 - October 14 Felixstowe Had the Fewest Vessel Arrivals To further study the performance of the top five searched European ports, we analyzed the number of vessel arrivals between July 15 August 14 and September 15 October 14. Accoing to Figure 3, the Port of Rotteam had the most vessel arrivals. The number of vessel arrivals at the Port of Rotteam dropped from 477 vessels in July 15 August 14 to 457 vessels in August 15 September 14, and it also recoed 457 vessel arrivals during September 15 October 14. It had over 1 more visiting vessels than the ports of Hamburg and Antwerp, which had the second and thi highest number of vessel arrivals. Although the number of vessel arrivals at the Port of Felixstowe increased 14.6% over the three months, Felixstowe had the fewest vessel arrivals among the five ports. During September 15 October 14, its number of vessel arrivals was only one-thi of the number of vessels arrivals at the Port of Rotteam. 5 4 3 2 1 Number of Vessel Arrivals Hamburg Rotteam Antwerp Felixstowe Bremerhaven July 15 - August 14 August 15 - September 14 September 15 - October 14 Figure 3: Number of vessel arrivals at the ports of Hamburg, Rotteam, Antwerp, Felixstowe, and Bremerhaven from July 15 to October 14, 215 Rotteam Served the Most Mega Vessels Lastly, we reviewed the vessel size distribution among the five ports. The results are shown in Figure 4. The Port of Rotteam had the most visiting vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs. The visiting vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs reached 13 in August 15 September 14. Although the number of vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs dropped to 117 during September 15 October 14, the Port of Rotteam still had the most vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs among the five ports. Hours 15 1 5 July 15 - August 14 August 15 - September 14 September 15 - October 14 In addition, Antwerp had the most vessels with a capacity of 4,-6,999 TEUs among the five ports. Approximately 1 vessels with a 4,-6,999 TEU capacity visited each month. Hamburg Rotteam Antwerp Felixstowe Bremerhaven Figure 2: Average vessel berth times at the ports of Hamburg, Rotteam, Antwerp, Felixstowe, and Bremerhaven from July 15 to October 14, 215 The Port of Felixstowe had a different service distribution compared to the other four ports. Felixstowe mostly served vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs. The number of vessels 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 5
with a capacity of 1, TEUs increased from 42 vessels in August 15 September 14 to 57 vessels in September 15 to October 14. The other four ports mainly served vessels with a capacity of <4, TEUs. 3 25 2 15 1 5 <4, 4,-6,999 Vessel Size Distribution Among 5 Ports 7,-9,999 1, <4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 July 15 - August 14 August 15 - September 14 September 15 - October 14 Figure 4: Vessel size distribution at the ports of Hamburg, Rotteam, Antwerp, Felixstowe, and Bremerhaven from July 15 to October 14, 215 1, <4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, Hamburg Antwerp Rotteam Felixstowe Bremerhaven Bremerhaven Had the Most Improved Performance Overall, the performance of the five ports varied over the three months. One exception was Bremerhaven. When comparing the performance of July 15 August 14 to September 15 October 14, it experienced shorter average vessel arrival delays and shorter vessel berth times. At the same time, it was able to improve its performance while it experienced an increase in visiting mega vessels. 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. VESSEL DELAY STUDY: ASIA TO SOUTH AMERICA EAST COAST TRADE This month, we studied vessel arrival delays on the services in the Asia to South America East Coast trade during the past two months, from September 1 to October 27, 215. We selected the six South America East Coast ports with the most services to review Santos, Paranagua, Navegantes, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, and Rio Grande. More Services Visited Port of Santos In total, we measured six services that sailed along the Asia to South America East Coast trade. As shown in Figure 1, among the six measured services, all of them visited Santos; five services visited Paranagua; four services visited Navegantes; and three services visited Buenos Aires, Montevideo, and Rio Grande. Paranagua Santos Port Name Santos 6 Service Count Navegantes Rio Grande Buenos Aires Montevideo Paranagua 5 Navegantes 4 Buenos Aires 3 Montevideo 3 Rio Grande 3 Figure 1: The service count for the top six South America East Coast ports 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 6
Fewer Vessels Deployed and Fewer Vessel Arrivals in October Next, we compared the number of vessels deployed and the number of unique vessel arrivals between September and October. As shown in Figure 2, as of October 27, fewer vessels were deployed in October than in September. October also had fewer unique vessel arrivals at the six ports than in September. Industry analyst reports have stated that ocean carriers started to reduce capacity on the trade lane in October due to overcapacity. The reduced figures in October support the direction provided in the reports. September 1-3, 215 October 1-27, 215 Vessels Deployed 41 36 Unique Vessel Arrivals 119 11 Figure 2: Number of vessels deployed and vessel arrivals at the six South America East Coast ports from September 1 to October 27, 215 More Vessel Delays in October Next, we analyzed the vessel arrival schedules for 15 ocean carriers from September 1 to October 27. By analyzing the schedule data and comparing the actual time of arrivals (ATAs) to the estimated time of arrivals (ETAs) of the coastal schedules provided by the carriers, we observed 22 unique vessel arrivals at the six South America East Coast ports. We further compared the vessel delays between September and October. We found that the schedules arriving in October experienced a higher percentage of vessel arrival delays. A summary of the results is shown in Figure 3. September 1-3, 215 October 1-27, 215 Unique Vessel Arrivals 119 11 Delayed Vessels (Delay > 12 Hours) 3 (25.2%) 46 (45.5%) Delayed Vessels (Delay > 24 Hours) 12 (1.1%) 27 (26.7%) Figure 3: Abstract result of unique vessel arrivals from 15 carriers from September 1 to October 27, 215 Average Vessel Capacity Decreased in October Next, we analyzed the vessel arrivals by port and vessel size. Figures 4 and 5 show the details of the container vessel arrival delays at the six ports. The results show that the most visited port was Santos. Compared with September, the average visiting vessel capacity decreased in October for each port, which showed that carriers were cutting surplus capacity. September 1-3, 215 October 1-27, 215 Unique Arrivals Average Vessel Arrival Delay (Hours) Average Visiting Vessel Capacity (TEUs) Unique Arrivals Average Vessel Arrival Delay (Hours) Average Visiting Vessel Capacity (TEUs) Santos 4 19.1 7,54 39 25.5 7,535 Paranagua 3 29.6 8,126 2 28.8 7,881 Navegantes 12 2.5 6,569 7 54.5 6,164 Buenos Aires 12 31.5 8,879 11 15.4 8,83 Montevideo 16 11.4 8,652 14 9.1 8,546 Rio Grande 9 8.1 8,958 1 35. 8,631 Figure 4: The vessel arrivals, average arrival delays, and vessel size at six South America East Coast ports from September 1 to October 27, 215 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 7
As shown in Figure 5, among the studied six ports, Rio Grande experienced the shortest average vessel arrival delays in September, while Navegantes experienced the longest delays in October. 6 5 Average Vessel Arrival Delay (Hours) - Asia to South America East Coast Trade 54.5 4 3 2 1 19.1 25.5 29.6 28.8 2.5 31.5 15.4 11.4 9.1 8.1 35. Santos Paranagua Navegantes Buenos Aires Montevideo Rio Grande September 1-3, 215 October 1-27, 215 Figure 5: The average vessel arrival delays at six South America East Coast ports from September 1 to October 27, 215 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 October 1 October 2 October 2 October 4 October 5 October 6 October 8 October 16 October 17 October 22 October 24 October 26 October 27 October 29 October 29 October 1 October 4 October 22 October 23 KAPITAN YAVOKLEV, ran aground in the Wester Scheldt, Antwerp, Belgium EL FARO, sank during hurricane, near Crooked Island, Bahamas BAY BRIDGE, collided with BIG BANG on the Yangtze River near Shanghai, China BERNHARD SCHEPERS, ran aground in the Kiel Canal, Germany TRIPOLI, collided with Merwede Bridge, Netherlands CORAL MERMAID, oil spilled in St. Petersburg, Russia HEIKE P, oil spilled in Laem Chabang, Thailand SABINA, ballast tank damage in Norrekas, Sweden MSC CHANNE, mechanical failure in sea trials, China BF FORTALEZA, ran aground at Skatestraumen in Bremanger, Norway CONMAR HAWK, containers shifted on boa, Rotteam, Netherlands THETIS D, mechanical failure near Kiel, Germany APL TEMASEK, damaged gantry crane, Port Said, Egypt HONG KONG EXPRESS, collided with BBS SKY, in West Frisian Sea, Netherlands MAERSK LEON, breached in Bremerhaven, Germany ECT City Terminal ends service, Rotteam, Netherlands Chittagong port congestion, Bangladesh Dock worker strike, Greece Workers shut down all ports, Nigeria 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 8
Review: Incidents Around the World We have reported on a wide variety of vessel and port incidents around the world over the last three years, from vessel accidents to nationwide strikes. With our monitoring tools, we not only recoed the occurrences, we also tracked the impact. In this issue, we reviewed the major happenings from July 213 to September 215 by three main categories: vessel accidents, port activities, and weather events. 6 5 4 Quarterly Vessel and Port Incidents - Distribution (213-215) Port Events - Distribution (213-215) Explosion 2% Slowdown 3% Protest 5% Chemical Leak 1% Congestion 1% 3 2 1 Weather Port Activity Vessel Accident Closure 26% Strike 62% 213-Q3 213-Q4 214-Q1 214-Q2 214-Q3 214-Q4 215-Q1 215-Q2 215-Q3 First, we reviewed the overall number of incidents by quarter over the last three years. We found that in general, an increasing rate of incidents occurred, especially in the thi quarter of 215. As shown in the chart, mid-215 had the highest number of incidents in last three years. Marine safety was the key cause of incidents during this period, followed by port activities and weather. Weather Events - Distribution (213-215) Flooding 6% Wind 6% For port incidents, strikes were the most common type of activity impacting operations. From Q3 of 213 through Q1 of 214, port activities were the most frequent incidents affecting operations. Beginning in Q2 of 214, vessel accidents have taken over as the most frequent type of incident. Statistics: Incidents Recoed: 279 Duration: July 213 September 215 Earthquake 6% Storm 44% Typhoon/Hurricane 38% Next, we reviewed the weather situations, including storms, typhoons, wind, earthquakes, and flooding, affecting vessel and port operations. The most popular weather events affecting operations were storms. The storms mostly impacted countries in Asia. 215 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, forwaers, 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 8 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 +49-421-318798 Hong Kong +852-2233-898 United States +1-48-325-7693 215 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1