Issue 63 January 218 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the January 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. In 217, ocean carriers deployed hundreds of mega vessels, with a capacity of 1, or more TEUs, to ship cargo around the globe. This month, CargoSmart's Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) compared mega vessel and non-mega vessel arrival and departure delays to see if the large vessel size had an impact on port performance in 217. We reviewed the ports of Los Angeles, Rotterdam, and Shanghai for the study. Despite the strains that very large vessels may put on port operations, we found that mega vessels did not experience significantly longer than average arrival and departure delays than non-mega vessels at these ports in 217. In fact, mega vessels had shorter vessel arrival delays than non-mega vessels at the ports of Los Angeles and Rotterdam in 217. CargoSmart analyzes schedule reliability each month to provide insights about ocean carriers performance. This month, we reviewed the schedule reliability of 23 ocean carriers across 12 trade lanes. Overall reliability increased slightly from November to December 217. We also reviewed schedule reliability for the full year of 217. The monthly schedule reliability ranged from.7% to 7.1%, with the lowest reliability in January and the highest reliability in June. Among the 23 ocean carriers we reviewed, CCNI and MCC Transport had the highest monthly average reliability in 217. In our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we reviewed the impact of the labor dispute at the Victoria International Container Terminals in Melbourne, Australia from the end of November through mid-december. We found that compared to October, the average berth times in November and December were prolonged. 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 Mega Vessel Performance Review 2 Carrier Reliability Report World Incidents: Melbourne Labor Dispute 7 Contact 8 Kim Le Executive Editor 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1
MEGA VESSEL PERFORMANCE REVIEW In 217, ocean carriers deployed hundreds of mega vessels, with a capacity of 1, or more TEUs, to ship cargo around the globe. This month, CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) compared mega vessel and non-mega vessel performance to see if the large vessel size had an impact on port performance in 217. We reviewed the ports of Los Angeles, Rotterdam, and Shanghai from North America, Europe, and Asia respectively for the study. Shanghai Had the Most Mega Vessel Arrivals First, we reviewed the number of vessel arrivals at the three ports. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the number of mega vessel and non-mega vessel arrivals by month. Shanghai was the busiest port, serving the most mega vessels and the most vessels overall among three ports. Rotterdam served the most vessels with a capacity of less than 1, TEUs. Count Figure 1: Number of mega vessel and non-mega vessel arrivals in Los Angeles Count 1 8 6 4 2 8 7 6 4 3 Vessel Arrival Count (Los Angeles) Non- 217 Vessel Arrival Count (Rotterdam) Non- Count Figure 3: Number of mega vessel and non-mega vessel arrivals in Shanghai Vessel Arrival Delays Were Shorter for at Los Angeles and Rotterdam Next, we analyzed vessel arrival delays for mega vessels and non-mega vessels at the three ports. The findings are shown in Figures 4,, and 6. Throughout the year, mega vessels and non-mega vessels had shorter and longer vessel arrival delays at each of the ports. Mega and non-mega vessel arrival delays followed a similar trend at Rotterdam and Shanghai, while the performance varied more at Los Angeles. 8 7 6 4 3 2 1 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 Vessel Arrival Count (Shanghai) Non- Figure 4: Average duration of mega vessel and non-mega vessel arrival delays in Los Angeles 217 Average Arrival Delays (Los Angeles) 217 Non- 2 1 217 Figure 2: Number of mega vessel and non-mega vessel arrivals in Rotterdam 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2
4 4 3 2 2 1 1 Average Arrival Delays (Rotterdam) Taking a closer look at the overall average vessel arrival delays at the ports for the year, we found that mega vessels at Los Angeles and Rotterdam had shorter vessel arrival delays than non-mega vessels. At Shanghai, mega vessels had longer vessel arrival delays than non-mega vessels. While the difference in performance between mega vessels and non-mega vessels was 1.1 hours for Rotterdam and Shanghai, the performance difference was greater at Los Angeles. On average for the year, mega vessels had 2.7 hours shorter arrival delays than non-mega vessels at Los Angeles. The findings are shown in Figure 7. 217 Non- Figure : Average duration of mega vessel and non-mega vessel arrival delays in Rotterdam 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 Average Arrival Delays (Shanghai) Figure 6: Average duration of mega vessel and non-mega vessel arrival delays in Shanghai 217 Non- Vessel Departure Delays Were Longer for Mega Vessels Next, we reviewed vessel departure delays at the three ports. The performance trends were similar to the vessel arrival delays. The monthly average vessel departure delays by vessel size and port are shown in Figures 8, 9, and 1. Figure 8: Average duration of mega vessel and non-mega vessel departure delays in Los Angeles 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 Average Departure Delays (Los Angeles) Figure 9: Average duration of mega vessel and non-mega vessel departure delays in Rotterdam 217 Non- Average Departure Delays (Rotterdam) 217 Non- Average Vessel Arrival Delays () Non- Overall Average Los Angeles 13. 16.2 1.8 Rotterdam 19.7 2.8 2.7 Shanghai 31.4 3.3 3.4 Figure 7: Average arrival delays of mega vessels and non-mega vessels in Los Angeles, Rotterdam, and Shanghai in 217 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3
4 4 3 2 2 1 1 Average Departure Delays (Shanghai) Figure 1: Average duration of mega vessel and non-mega vessel departure delays in Shanghai Taking a closer look at the average vessel departure delays for the year at each of the ports, we found that mega vessel departure delays were longer than non-mega vessel departure delays at each of the ports. However, the difference between the mega vessel and non-mega vessel delays only deviated by about one hour at each of the ports. The findings are shown in Figure 11. 217 Non- Did Not Reveal a Big Impact on Performance Despite the strains that very large vessels may put on port operations, we found that mega vessels did not experience significantly longer than average arrival and departure delays than non-mega vessels at Los Angeles, Rotterdam, and Shanghai in 217. In fact, mega vessels had stronger arrival performance than non-mega vessels at Los Angeles and Rotterdam in 217. The GVVMC will continue to monitor port performance by vessel size for changes in performance over time. 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. We also observed that the longest average departure delays were at Shanghai for both types of vessels, with an average departure delay of 26.9 hours for mega vessels and 2.4 hours for non-mega vessels in 217. Average Vessel Departure Delays () Non- Overall Average Los Angeles 2.4 19.7 19.8 Rotterdam 22.2 21.1 21.1 Shanghai 26.9 2.4 2.6 Figure 11: Average departure delays of mega vessels and non-mega vessels in Los Angeles, Rotterdam, and Shanghai in 217 4 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
SCHEDULE RELIABILITY INCREASED TO 67.9% IN DECEMBER 217 CargoSmart analyzes schedule reliability each month to provide shippers and logistics service providers with insights about their ocean carriers performance. This month, we reviewed the schedule reliability of 23 ocean carriers across 12 trade lanes. Overall, on-time schedule reliability increased by.9%, from 67.% in November 217 to 67.9% in December 217. From the vessel discharging region perspective, as shown in Figure 2, the South Asia region, which had the highest reliability in October and November, experienced the largest decrement in reliability, decreasing by 9.7%, from 86.6% in November 217 to 76.8% in December 217. The South America region had the highest reliability, with 86.7% reliability in December 217. Reviewing schedule reliability by trade, five of the 12 trades increased from November 217 to December 217. The Asia-South America trade experienced the largest improvement in reliability, increasing by 1.4%, from 71.4% in November 217 to 81.8% in December 217, which was also the highest reliability among the 12 trades. The trans-atlantic trade experienced the largest decrement in reliability, decreasing by 18.8% from 71.4% in November 217 to 2.6% in December 217. Details are shown in Figure 1. Monthly Schedule Reliability by Trade % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% Asia-South America 71.4% 81.8% Asia-Oceania Intra Asia Asia-Europe 63.6% 69.4% 67.2% 7.8% 67.9% 71.3% Europe-Middle East Asia-Middle East Trans-Pacific Europe-South America 73.1% 7.4% 7.% 69.7% 63.4% 9.3% 83.8% 79.3% Europe-Oceania 1.4% 43.% North America-Oceania 49.8% 61.4% Asia-Africa 27.% 4.8% Trans-Atlantic 2.6% 71.4% South America South Asia Middle East Europe Oceania Asia North America Africa Monthly Schedule Reliability by Port of Discharge Region % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% 32.% 27.% November 217 December 217 8.6% 86.7% 86.6% 76.8% 77.2% 74.% 76.2% 69.9% 6.2% 68.7% 62.6% 68.2% 4.6%.% Figure 2: Monthly schedule reliability by port of discharge region from November 1 to December 31, 217 13 of the 23 carriers experienced varying degrees of increasing schedule reliability from November 217 to December 217. As shown in Figure 3, the top five most reliable carriers in December 217 were CCNI, MCC, Evergreen, CNC, and OOCL with an average on-time performance of 86.3%, 76.9%, 7.9%, 7.6%, and 74.1% respectively. November 217 December 217 Figure 1: Monthly schedule reliability by trade from November 1 to December 31, 217 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.
Monthly Schedule Reliability by Carrier % 1% 2% 3% 4% % 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% CCNI MCC Evergreen CNC OOCL COSCO ANL CMA CGM Safmarine Maersk Line Hamburg Sud Alianca Wan Hai APL Hapag-Lloyd Hyundai MOL PIL NYK Yang Ming K Line ZIM 77.8% 86.3% 72.4% 76.9% 73.9% 7.9% 7.% 7.6% 74.3% 74.1% 73.% 73.8% 71.6% 73.4% 72.9% 73.3% 7.4% 72.8% 71.6% 7.9% 68.4% 67.% 68.7% 67.4% 69.9% 6.8% 6.8% 6.7% 64.3% 64.8% 63.% 63.4% 9.% 62.% 63.% 61.4% 6.% 6.6% 8.% 9.% 8.8% 8.7% 9.6%.6% MSC 44.3% 4.9% November 217 December 217 Figure 3: Monthly schedule reliability by carrier from November 1 to December 31, 217 Methodology: CargoSmart provides schedule reliability information for up to 23 leading ocean carriers, covering over 19, vessel schedules, over 7 services, 77 major container ports, and over 1,4 port pairs around the world each month. The schedule reliability is determined by comparing the estimated time of arrival (ETA) and actual time of arrival (ATA) at the discharging port. A vessel s ETA at the port of discharge (POD) is initially captured from the carrier when the vessel departs from the port of loading (POL). If the ATA is within plus or minus 24 hours of the ETA, then the vessel is considered to be on time. Reliability is calculated by dividing the number of on-time vessel arrivals by the total number of vessel arrivals within the measurement period. 217 Schedule Reliability Review Taking a look back at the entire year of 217, the overall schedule reliability ranged from.7% to 7.1% with the lowest reliability in January and the highest reliability in June. The reliability was quite stable in the second half of the year. Details are shown in Figure 4. Overall Schedule Reliability in 217 1% 9% 8% 7.1% 69.9% 7% 63.3% 63.3% 68.8% 64.3% 67.6% 67.% 67.9% 6%.7% 8.7% 8.6% % 4% 3% 2% 1% % Figure 4: Overall monthly schedule reliability in 217 Reviewing the schedule reliability by carrier, Figure shows the top 1 most reliable carriers in 217. CCNI was at the top of the list as it had the highest monthly average reliability of 8% in 217. It was followed by MCC, which had an average reliability of 79.4% in 217. Evergreen was in third place with an average reliability of 71.1% in 217. The 4th to 1th ranked reliable carriers were COSCO, Safmarine, CMA CGM, OOCL, ANL, Wan Hai, and Maersk Line respectively. Top 1 Most Reliable Carriers in 217 8% 8% 8.% 79.4% 7% 71.1% 69.9% 69.7% 69.6% 69.4% 7% 68.9% 68.% 68.% 6% Would you like to review the carrier performance of your specific shipment routes? Subscribe to Big Schedules Analytics today to improve your shipment planning. Learn more. 6% % % Figure : Top 1 reliable carriers in 217 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 6
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 December 2 December 2 December 6 December 6 December 8 December 11 December 17 December 21 December 3 December 3 December 31 December 31 November - December MSC NEDERLAND, six containers fell overboard, Puerto de la Luz, Las Palamas, Spain KATHARINA SCHEPERS, collided with dolphin, Kiel Canal JORK RULER, hit the middle wall of the New Southern Lock, Kiel Canal HELSINKI BRIDGE, broke loose from moorings, Conley Terminal, Boston, US LEONIE P, lost 24 containers overboard, North Sea MSC LEANNE and GREAT, collided at the Port of Busan, South Korea BORE SEA, experienced engine trouble in the English Channel MIAMI TRADER, deck crane damaged while offloading containers, Male, Maldives ADAMASTOS, damaged by storm and containers lost, Manzanillo, Mexico CAP PALLISER, drugs found on board, Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico MSC ALGECIRAS, lost three containers in storm, Pointe du Raz, France MAX VENTURE, experienced engine trouble, Thessaloniki, Greece Dispute at the Victoria International Container Terminal (VICT), Melbourne, Australia Labor Dispute: Melbourne, Australia Triggered by the termination of one dock worker, union supporters held a series of labor actions starting in late November at the Victoria International Container Terminals (VICT), Melbourne, which is dedicated to mid- and large-size container vessels. During an examination, the terminal operator found a group of workers without proper security clearance and even fired one worker due to his criminal record. Strikes and road blockages lasted for almost three weeks, until December 1. Although the vessel arrival rate at VICT is relatively low as compared to other terminals in Melbourne, the terminal experienced a long backlog of over 1, containers and carriers discharged cargo at other ports. We studied the number of vessel arrivals and average berth times at the Port of Melbourne s terminals from October through December 217. From October to December, we observed slightly fewer vessel arrivals and we observed prolonged berth times, likely caused by the labor actions at VICT. We did not find much of an impact at the other terminals. Port of Melbourne Duration: October December 217 Vessel Arrivals: 39 Average Berth Time:.9 Longest Berth Time: 12. Vessel Arrival Count 8 7 6 4 3 2 1 1 8 6 4 2 Melbourne Average Berth Time by Terminal (October - December 217) P & O Swanson VICT Webb Melbourne Vessel Arrival Count by Terminal (October - December 217) October November December October November December P & O Swanson VICT Webb 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 7
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 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 +86-76-363398 Germany +49-421-318798 Hong Kong +82-2233-8 United States +1-48-32-76 8 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.