Issue 41 March 216 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the March 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. According to a survey we ran for viewers of CargoSmart s Innovating Insights webcast series in and, Asia, Southeast Asia, and North America, are the regions they are most interested in learning more about. This month s feature article investigates one of those regions, Southeast Asia, from December 215 through 216. We analyzed three of the region s fastest growing ports,,, and. Our study s findings reveal whether the Chinese New Year had an impact on port performance, which port had the shortest vessel arrival delays, and whether vessel size impacted performance. Next, we reviewed 19 ocean carriers schedule reliability in three trades by alliance from December 215 through 216. Our findings showed that the 2M carriers had the highest reliability on the Asia-Europe and trans-atlantic trades, while the CKYHE carriers had the highest reliability in the trans-pacific trade. Are you aware of how frequently sailing schedules change each month? Schedule changes may impact your shipment plans and downstream activities. This month, we are excited to share our first Sailing Schedule Change Index report. Each month we will measure the number of schedule changes with a change in arrival or departure times for three top ports Shanghai, Rotterdam, and Los Angeles. For and, we found that over 26% of the schedule changes were more than 24 hours long and that the number of schedule changes per schedule increased from to. Lastly, for our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we looked at the impact of the strikes at the Port of Piraeus in Greece throughout and. We did find prolonged berth times followed by days of no vessel arrivals, revealing the impact of the strikes. 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 Port Performance: Southeast Asia 2 Schedule Reliability: Alliances 4 Sailing Schedule Change Index 6 World Incidents: Greece Strikes 8 Contact 9 Kim Le Executive Editor 216 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1
PORT PERFORMANCE: SOUTHEAST ASIA According to a survey we ran for viewers of CargoSmart s Innovating Insights webcast series in and, Asia, Southeast Asia, and North America, are the regions they are most interested in learning more about. This month s feature article investigates one of those regions, Southeast Asia and reviews its port performance and the impact that vessel size has had on the performance. We reviewed and the Port of in Malaysia and the Port of in Vietnam. According to the 216 issue of the Alphaliner Monitor, these three ports were some of the fastest growing ports in the region, increasing their TEU volume by 3% to 8.7% over the past year. We analyzed three months of data, from December 215 to 216, and analyzed the number of vessel arrivals, average berth times, and average vessel arrival delays along with the vessel size distribution. increasing delays. It had the shortest arrival delays among the three ports, with about half the duration of average vessel arrival delays as. The average vessel arrival delay rose from 7.6 hours in December to 8.7 hours in, and then further increased to 9.8 hours in. Hours 25 2 15 1 5 Average Vessel Arrival Delays Among 3 Ports in Southeast Asia 18.2 19.4 12.3 12.2 7.6 8.7 Figure 1: Average vessel arrival delays at,, and from December 215 to 216 21.6 17.8 December 215 216 216 9.8 Experienced the Shortest Arrival Delays As shown in Figure 1, the three ports,, Tanjung Pelepas, and, experienced an increasing arrival delay trend from December through. Port Klang, with the highest average vessel arrival delays, increased its average arrival delay from 18.2 hours in December to 19.4 hours in, and further increased to 21.6 hours in. experienced slightly decreased average arrival delays from 12.3 hours in December to 12.2 hours in, and then surged to 17.8 hours in. Ho Chi Minh City experienced a similar trend to with Had the Longest Berth Times Next, we analyzed the average vessel berth times at the three ports. As shown in Figure 2, berth times fluctuated over the three months. The average vessel berth time at first dropped from 22.6 hours in December to 2.4 hours in, and then bounced back to 23 hours in. At, the average vessel berth times stayed at a stable level, with 15.7 hours in both December and and a slight increase to 15.9 hours in. had a decreasing trend in average vessel berth times with an average berth time of 17.5 hours in December and and then a shorter average berth time of 15.4 hours in. Hours 24 22 2 18 16 14 12 1 Average Vessel Berth Times Among 3 Ports in Southeast Asia 22.6 2.4 17.5 17.5 15.7 15.9 15.7 Figure 2: Average vessel berth times at,, and from December 215 to 216 15.4 23. December 215 216 216 216 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2
Had the Most Vessel Arrivals Next, we compared the number of vessel arrivals at the three ports. The largest port among the three,, had the most vessel arrivals each month, despite its decreasing trend from 88 vessels in December to 796 in and a further reduction to 79 in. and had a similar trend. Their vessel arrivals increased slightly from December to and then experienced a large decrease in. For, the number of vessel arrivals climbed from 35 in December to 314 in, and then dropped to 288 in. For, the number of vessel arrivals slightly increased from 242 in December to 258 in, and then fell 31.8% to 176 in. had the fewest vessel arrivals among the three ports across the period. The results are shown in Figure 3. Vessels 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of Vessel Arrivals at 3 Ports in Southeast Asia December 215 216 216 Figure 3: Number of vessel arrivals at,, and from December 215 to 216 Served the Most Vessels of Each Size Taking a closer look at the vessel capacity distribution, we compared the sizes of vessels visiting the three ports. The number of vessels in each size category decreased over the three months at the ports. However, the proportion of vessels in each size category varied across the ports. With the greatest number of vessel arrivals, served more than 38 vessels with a capacity of fewer than 4, TEUs and more than 23 vessels with capacity of 4,-6,999 TEUs each month. More than 85% of all vessel arrivals at the port had a capacity of fewer than 7, TEUs. also served the most vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs, more than 4 each month. For, although it served more than 17 vessels with a capacity of fewer than 4, TEUs each month, it also served more than 3 vessels with a capacity of 7,-9,999 TEUs and more than 3 vessels with a capacity of 1, TEUs each month., on the other hand, relied heavily on serving vessels with a capacity of fewer than 4, TEUs. More than 98% of all vessel arrivals at had a capacity of <4, TEUs. No. of Vessels 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Vessel Capacity Distribution Among 3 Ports <4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, <4, 4,-6,999 December 215 216 216 Vessel Capacity (TEUs) 7,-9,999 Figure 4: Number of vessels by TEU capacity berthing at,, and from December 215 to 216 Chinese New Year Effect In conclusion, we can see that vessel arrival delays increased and the number of vessels visiting each of the three ports decreased in 216 compared to December 215 and 216. The Chinese New Year in early, when ocean carriers frequently reduce vessel capacity, likely had an impact on port performance. When comparing the overall performance of the three ports, stood out for having both the shortest vessel arrival delays and steady average berth times. mostly handled vessels with a capacity of fewer than 4, TEUs while the other two ports handled vessels with a capacity of over 1, TEUs. Despite handling large vessels and nearly three times the number of vessels as, maintained similar berth times to. The GVVMC shares statistics on different ports performance so that you can better plan your shipments to select appropriate schedules and routings to avoid delays. The statistics reflect the general situation in the past. The actual performance of the vessels and ports will depend on the actual situation affected by weather, vessel delays and other factors. 1, <4, 4,-6,999 7,-9,999 1, 216 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3
SCHEDULE RELIABILITY: ALLIANCES This month, we reviewed ocean carriers schedule reliability in three trades by alliance. We grouped the carriers by alliance to study the general performance of the carriers within each alliance. We included both alliance and non-alliance services. As of March 216, the alliances and their members are: During the whole studied period, the reliability of the G6, CKYHE and O3 alliances decreased slightly from December to. The top ranked alliance, 2M, maintained its reliability in December and, then decreased in. The results are shown in Figure 2. 2M: Maersk and MSC CKYHE: COSCON, K Line, Yang Ming, Hanjin, Evergreen G6: APL, Hapag-Lloyd, HMM, MOL, NYK Line, OOCL Ocean 3 (O3): CMA CGM, United Arab Shipping, China Shipping The carrier performance analysis covered 19 ocean carriers, including carriers that are not part of an alliance, over three months from December 1, 215 through 27, 216. We reviewed the schedule reliability of three main east-west trade lanes: I) Asia-Europe trade II) Trans-Atlantic trade III) Trans-Pacific trade Asia-Europe Trade: 2M Performed the Best We identified over 17,3 schedules from 17 ocean carriers covering 114 port pairs on the Asia-Europe trade. As shown in Figure 1, the overall schedule reliability of the Asia-Europe trade was 64%. 2M alliance members ranked highest with 73% reliability. G6 alliance members ranked second with 69% reliability, and then followed by CKYHE and O3 alliance members with 61% and 59% reliability respectively. 1% 8% 6% 4% 73% Asia-Europe Trade Schedule Reliability by Alliance 69% 61% 59% 64% Figure 2: Schedule reliability performance on the Asia-Europe trade from December 1, 215 to 27, 216 Trans-Atlantic Trade: Overall Reliability Was 52% We analyzed schedule reliability among 17 ocean container carriers and over 1,1 schedules covering 18 port pairs on the trans-atlantic trade. From December to, the overall reliability of the trans-atlantic trade was 52%. Among the four alliances, the 2M alliance members performed the best with 7% reliability and next was CKYHE with 63% reliability. The third and fourth ranked alliances were O3 and G6 with 56% and 4% reliability respectively. The results are shown in Figure 3. 1% 8% 6% 7% Trans-Atlantic Schedule Reliability by Alliance 63% 56% 52% 2% 4% 4% % 2M G6 CKYHE O3 Average Figure 1: Schedule reliability on the Asia-Europe trade from December 1, 215 to 27, 216 2% % 2M CKYHE O3 G6 Figure 3: Schedule reliability on the trans-atlantic trade from December 1, 215 to 27, 216 Average 216 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 4
As shown in Figure 4, the reliability of the 2M alliance increased during the whole studied period, especially from December to. The other three alliances, CKYHE, O3 and G6, experienced a similar fluctuating trend: dropping sharply from December to and then increasing in. Two alliances, CKYHE and O3, dropped slightly from December to. The 2M alliance decreased in, and then increased in. The G6 alliance decreased in and maintained its reliability in. Figure 4: Schedule reliability performance on the trans-atlantic trade from December 1, 215 to 27, 216 Figure 6: Schedule reliability performance on the trans-pacific trade from December 1, 215 to 27, 216 Trans-Pacific Trade: CKYHE Alliance Ranked Highest We analyzed schedule reliability among 19 ocean container carriers and over 9,7 schedules covering 71 port pairs on the trans-pacific trade. As shown in Figure 5, from December to, the overall reliability was 69%. The CKYHE alliance performed the best with 75% reliability. The 2M alliance ranked second with 71% reliability. The O3 and G6 alliances ranked third with 66% reliability. 1% Trans-Pacific Schedule Reliability by Alliance 8% 75% 71% 66% 66% 69% 6% 4% 2% % CKYHE 2M O3 G6 Average Figure 5: Schedule reliability on the trans-pacific trade from December 1, 215 to 27, 216 5 216 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
SAILING SCHEDULE CHANGE INDEX Are you aware of how frequently sailing schedules change each month? Schedule changes may impact your shipment plans and downstream activities. This month, we reviewed the schedule performance of three major ports that span three continents the ports of Shanghai, Rotterdam, and Los Angeles. The data scope covered 22 ocean container carriers from 216 through 216. This month s index includes the number of schedule changes, the number of changes greater than 24 hours, and the average length of changes that were over 24 hours. In the future, we will continue to monitor the schedule changes to see the trends over time. 45, 4, 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Number of Schedule Changes at 3 Top Ports Shanghai Rotterdam Los Angeles Schedule Changes Schedule Changes > 24 Hours Figure 1: Number of schedule changes and schedule changes over 24 hours at the ports of Shanghai, Rotterdam, and Los Angeles from to 216 Sailing Schedule Changes Increased in First, we analyzed the schedule changes with an arrival or departure time change at the three ports. As shown in Figure 1, all three ports showed a similar trend from to with increased schedule changes. Shanghai had the most schedule changes with over 4, changes each month, while Los Angeles had the fewest schedule changes with around 5, changes each month. We also reviewed schedule changes of more than 24 hours. The results also reflect an increased trend from to across all three ports. Changes Per Schedule Increased in While the number of sailing schedule changes increased from to, the number of sailing schedules for the three ports increased as well. Drilling down to the number of changes per schedule, the average changes per schedule increased at each of the ports in. The number of schedules and schedule changes by port are shown in Figure 2. Over 26% of Schedule Changes Were More than 24 Hours Long Next, we looked into the schedule changes of more than 24 hours among the total number of schedule changes at the three ports. As shown in Figure 3, Shanghai had the highest percentage of schedule changes of more than 24 hours of around 31-32%, while Los Angeles had the lowest percentage of around 26% during and. Among the three ports, only the percentage of schedule changes of more than 24 hours at Shanghai increased, while the other two ports had a lower percentage of changes of more than 24 hours in. Number of Schedules Average Changes per Schedule Port Shanghai 11,444 11,519.7% 3.6 3.7 2.8% Rotterdam 5,572 6,77 9.1% 5.4 5.6 3.5% Los Angeles 1,585 1,656 4.5% 3.1 3.3 4.1% Figure 2: Number of sailing schedules and their average changes per schedule from to 216 216 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 6
For the schedule changes of more than 24 hours, we further measured the average deviation. We calculated the average deviation by determining the schedule change time by hours as an absolute number, including early and late departure and arrival times of more than 24 hours. The average deviation of the schedule changes of more than 24 hours at Shanghai decreased from 43.7 hours in to 43.5 hours in. At the same time, both Rotterdam and Los Angeles had an increased average deviation. In particular, the average deviation of Los Angeles increased by 11.4% from to. Percentage of Schedule Changes > 24 Hours (%) Average Deviation of Schedule Changes > 24 Hours (Hours) Port Shanghai 31.7% 32.7% 1.1% 43.7 43.5 -.4% Rotterdam 3.8% 29.8% -1.% 47.9 48.3 1.% Los Angeles 26.2% 26.% -.2% 42.8 47.6 11.4% Figure 3: Percentage and average deviation of schedule changes over 24 hours at the ports of Shanghai, Rotterdam, and Los Angeles and the monthly change percentage from to 216 Prolonged Average Arrival Delay Deviations Varied by Country and Port Lastly, among the schedule changes of more than 24 hours, we analyzed the average arrival deviations for the three ports by trade. We measured the schedules from four major continents to the three ports. We found that the average arrival deviation in hours for schedules to Shanghai had an overall decrease, except for the schedules from Europe to Shanghai, where there was an 18.4% increase in the average arrival deviation from 32.7 hours in to 38.7 hours in, as shown in Figure 4. For Rotterdam, schedules from Asia and Europe had a dramatic increase in the average arrival deviation by 47.9% and 74.1% respectively. For Los Angeles, the average arrival deviation of the schedules from Asia also increased by 2.8%. Average Arrival Deviation (Hours) of Schedule Changes > 24 Hours From / To Shanghai Rotterdam Los Angeles Asia 56.9 47.2-17.% 27.3 4.4 47.9% 48.5 58.5 2.8% Europe 32.7 38.7 18.4% 29.3 5.9 74.1% 32.5 31.1-4.5% North America 54.6 54.6.% 69.1 58.7-15.1% Oceania 34.5 32.7-5.3% Figure 4: Average arrival deviation of schedule changes over 24 hours from 4 major continents to the ports of Shanghai, Rotterdam and Los Angeles from to 216 Overall, schedule changes happen frequently in each of the regions and trade lanes. It is important to have accurate and up-to-date schedule information to manage shipments schedules. Moreover, monitoring schedule changes is critical to discover potential disruptions earlier and to help keep cargo delivered according to plans. 216 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 3 5 9 1 11 13 14 14 2 2 28 4 16 CSCL INDIAN OCEAN, ran aground in Elbe River, Hamburg, Germany SAFMARINE KURAMO, was attacked, hijacked and released in Nigerian waters SEASPAN HAMBURG, experienced mechanical problems in the Port of Genoa, Italy MAERSK DETROIT, two containers fell overboard and hit a bunker barge, Algeciras, Spain HERBILAN SUCCESS, experienced mechanical problems in the Bay of Bengal APL VANDA, ran aground near Southampton, UK EMMA MAERSK, experienced problems anchoring off the harbor of Brest, France XETHA BHUM, collided with the embankment on Chao Praya river, Bangkok, Thailand HELGAFELL, lost containers overboard in the North Atlantic Ocean DELPHINUS, experienced mechanical problems in the Yucatan Channel, Cuba SHIN CHUN, collided and sunk fishing boat, near Kaohsiung, Taiwan 48-hour port strikes in Greece 48-hour port strikes in Greece Port Strikes: Greece It has been a challenging year for terminals in Greece, with port labor actions occurring since late 215. Under unfavorable economic status, the push to port privatization and expense cutting has increased. Port workers have been concerned about job security and support from government, which resulted in continuous strikes and work stoppages throughout the country. To express their disaffection, starting in late 215, port workers held strikes nearly every one or two weeks, that lead to port congestion and cargo backlogs. The Port of Piraeus, the largest container port in Greece, experienced the most impact on its port performance. A domino effect of vessel delays widely spread over shippers and carriers and numerous vessels skipped the port during the strikes. We reviewed the average vessel berth times at the Port of Piraeus in and 216. As expected, we observed unstable berth durations. The chart reveals the days when port operations came to a halt, with a pattern of extremely long average berth times followed by a day of zero vessel arrivals. Port of Piraeus Vessel Arrivals: 45 Duration: 1 29, 216 Longest Berth Time: 319.3 Hours Average Berth Time: 21.4 Hours 6 5 4 3 2 1 Piraeus Average Berth Times and Vessel Count ( 1-29) 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 2-Jan 21-Jan 22-Jan 23-Jan 24-Jan 25-Jan 26-Jan 27-Jan 28-Jan 29-Jan 3-Jan 31-Jan 1-Feb 2-Feb 3-Feb 4-Feb 5-Feb 6-Feb 7-Feb 8-Feb 9-Feb 1-Feb 11-Feb 12-Feb 13-Feb 14-Feb 15-Feb 16-Feb 17-Feb 18-Feb 19-Feb 2-Feb 21-Feb 22-Feb 23-Feb 24-Feb 25-Feb 26-Feb 27-Feb 28-Feb 29-Feb Berth Time (Hours) Vessel Arrival Count 216 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 8
IMPROVE VISIBILITY TO SAILING SCHEDULE CHANGES Are you aware of how frequently sailing schedules change each month? Greater visibility to schedule changes is more important than ever for shippers and logistics service providers to improve shipment planning to meet customers expectations of on-time deliveries. CargoSmart s Schedule Delay Alert leverages high quality, consolidated sailing schedule data from multiple sources and uses intelligent tools to help shippers and logistics service providers identify schedule changes that may impact their shipments. CargoSmart provides daily schedule change reports based on the schedules of your shipments so that you can respond faster to potential supply chain disruptions. The reports include schedule change details for over 2 ocean carriers vessels that have an estimated time of departure (ETD) or estimated time of arrival (ETA) change of more than 24 hours. To learn more about the solution, visit: www.cargosmart.com/en/solutions/schedule-delay-alert.htm 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 +86-756-363398 Germany +49-421-318798 Hong Kong +852-2233-898 United States +1-48-325-7693 9 216 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.