Issue 64 February-March 218 Innovating Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the combined February and 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. If you track vessels live locations, you may see vessels waiting in groups near their destination terminals. This month, CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) investigated to see whether long vessel waiting times in ports' nearby waiting areas is an indicator of late vessel arrivals or longer berth times. We reviewed three of the busiest ports in Asia Busan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai over the last six months. We analyzed vessels waiting times, arrival delays, and berth times at each of the ports. Overall, Shanghai experienced prolonged waiting times and prolonged vessel arrival delays. Its berth times were slightly longer than the berth times for Busan and Hong Kong. When comparing the vessel waiting times of Busan and Hong Kong to the arrival delays and berth times, we did not find a clear correlation. In fact, vessel waiting times and arrival delays may also depend on whether a vessel arrives early, the carrier, and the efficiency of berthing vessels by terminal. CargoSmart analyzes schedule reliability each month to provide insights about ocean carriers' performance. This month, we reviewed the schedule reliability of 22 ocean carriers across 12 trade lanes in February. On-time schedule reliability remained quite low overall, increasing slightly, from 59.4% in January 218 to 59.6% in February 218. In our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we reviewed the impact of the winter storm at the Port of Baltimore on January 3. Due to heavy snow and high winds, the port closed for three days. Despite the disruption, we did not find a major impact on vessel berth times once the port re-opened. 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 Asia Port Performance: Vessel Waiting Time Review 2 Carrier Reliability Report 4 World Incidents: Baltimore Winter Storm 6 Contact 8 Kim Le Executive Editor 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 1
ASIA PORT PERFORMANCE: VESSEL WAITING TIME REVIEW A vessel s arrival time is a key value for a wide range of related vessel activities, including sailing management and terminal operations. The arrival time can lead to a short or a long waiting time near its destination port. If you track vessels live locations, you may see vessels waiting in a groups near their destination terminals. This month, CargoSmart s Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) investigated to see whether long vessel waiting times at ports' nearby waiting areas is an indicator of late vessel arrivals or longer berth times. We reviewed three of the busiest ports in Asia Busan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai over the last six months. We analyzed vessels waiting times, arrival delays, and berth times at each of the ports. Shanghai Had the Longest Average Vessel Waiting Times When container vessels approach a port, they stay in the port s waiting area until it is their turn to berth. We studied the vessels that arrived at the waiting areas in Shanghai, Busan, and Hong Kong from September 217 to February 218. We calculated a vessel s waiting time by comparing its arrival time at the waiting area to the time it departed from the waiting area, based on Automatic Information System (AIS) live vessel data. In addition, we defined the port waiting areas by reviewing the historical data of where vessels stop outside of the terminals as well as anchorage location areas on marine charts. We started measuring a vessel s waiting time when it entered the waiting area and its speed was below.5 knots. ATA at Waiting Area Waiting Area ATD at Waiting Area Carrier ETA (based on vessel arrival at the port area or at berth, varies by carrier) ATA at Berth Figure 1 shows that Shanghai had the longest average waiting times for approaching vessels, of approximately 16 hours over the last six months. One of the main reasons for the long waiting times in Shanghai was the terminal operations. The port did not have sufficient availability of assigned berths for the waiting vessels, which caused port congestion and increased waiting times. Hong Kong had slightly longer waiting times than Busan. Hours 25 2 15 1 5 Average Vessel Waiting Times (Hours) 217 / 9 217 / 1 217 / 11 217 / 12 218 / 1 218 / 2 Busan Hong Kong Shanghai Figure 1: Average vessel waiting times in the waiting areas of the ports of Busan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai Busan Had Longer Average Vessel Arrival Delays Than Hong Kong Late vessel arrivals are common due to unforeseen events that happen at sea. Normally, we measure the actual time of arrival (ATA) of vessel arrivals at ports using AIS when the vessels reach the berth. For this article, we calculated arrival delays to the port waiting area as well as when vessels berthed. We then compared the ATAs with the carrier s last provided estimated time of arrival (ETA) before its arrival at the port. Carriers ETAs might be based on the ETA at the general port area or at berth it varies by carrier. First, we measured the average vessel arrival delays to the port waiting areas. Figure 2 shows the average arrival delay for vessels arriving at the waiting areas of the ports of Busan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. Shanghai had the longest average vessel arrival delays among the three ports. Busan and Hong Kong had similar average vessel arrival delay times, with Busan having slightly longer average vessel arrival delays than Hong Kong over the six months. Comparing waiting times and vessel arrival delays to the port waiting areas, the long waiting times and longer arrival delays appear correlated for Shanghai. In the case of Busan and Hong Kong, longer average waiting times did not correlate with longer average vessel arrival delays. 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 2
Hours 12 1 8 6 4 Average Vessel Arrival Delays to the Port Waiting Areas (Hours) Comparing Busan and Hong Kong, Hong Kong actually had longer average vessel waiting times and shorter vessel berth times. Busan had shorter average vessel waiting times and longer average vessel berth times than Hong Kong. For Busan and Hong Kong, longer average vessel waiting times did not appear to be correlated with longer berth times. 2 217 / 9 217 / 1 217 / 11 217 / 12 218 / 1 218 / 2 Busan Hong Kong Shanghai Figure 2: Average vessel arrival delays to the waiting areas at the ports of Busan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai Next, we measured the average vessel arrival delays at berth. We compared the carrier's last provided ETA before its arrival at the port to the ATA at berth based on AIS data. Figure 3 shows the average arrival delay for vessels arriving at berth for the ports of Busan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. While the total number of delay hours was longer for delays at berth compared to delays at the waiting area, the trend of delays was similar. Shanghai had the longest average vessel arrival delays and Hong Kong had the shortest average vessel arrival delays over the six months. While vessel waiting times and arrival delays appear to be correlated for Shanghai, they do not appear to be correlated for Busan and Hong Kong. Hours 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Average Vessel Arrival Delays to Berth (Hours) 217 / 9 217 / 1 217 / 11 217 / 12 218 / 1 218 / 2 Busan Hong Kong Shanghai Figure 3: Average vessel arrival delays to berth at the ports of Busan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai Hong Kong Had the Shortest Berth Times Figure 4 shows the monthly average vessel berth times, an indicator of the efficiency of container operations. We found that the longest average berth times were in Shanghai, where vessels spent the most time loading and discharging cargo. Hong Kong had the shortest berth times among the three ports. Comparing average vessel waiting times and berth times at the three ports, Shanghai had both the longest waiting times and the longest berth times. Hours 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Average Vessel Berth Times (Hours) 217 / 9 217 / 1 217 / 11 217 / 12 218 / 1 218 / 2 Busan Hong Kong Shanghai Figure 4: Average vessel berth times at the ports of Busan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai Vessel Waiting Times Could Vary by Carrier and Terminal Overall, Shanghai experienced prolonged waiting times and prolonged vessel arrival delays at the waiting area and at berth. Its berth times were slightly longer than the berth times for Busan and Hong Kong. When comparing the waiting times of Busan and Hong Kong to the arrival delays and berth times, we did not find a clear correlation. The average vessel arrival delays to the waiting area at Shanghai was relatively stable, ranging from 7 to 1 hours, but its average vessel waiting times fluctuated from 13 to 2 hours over the past six months. In other words, some vessels may arrive early, wait briefly, and then be able to berth early. Other vessels may arrive early and still have to wait a long time before berthing. And, other vessels may arrive late and need to wait even longer before berthing. While we did not find a clear correlation between waiting times and arrival delays, it might be due to the fact that the efficiency of berthing vessels may vary by carrier and by terminal. 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. 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 3
SCHEDULE RELIABILITY INCREASED TO 59.6% IN FEBRUARY 218 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 22 ocean carriers across 12 trade lanes. Overall, on-time schedule reliability increased by.2%, from 59.4% in January 218 to 59.6% in February 218. Compared to the same period last year, the average schedule reliability in February 218 was higher than in February 217, which was 58.7%. Regarding schedule reliability by trade, seven of the 12 trades increased from January 218 to February 218. The Asia-Africa trade experienced the largest improvement in reliability, increasing by 16.%, from 31.9% in January 218 to 47.9% in February 218. The Asia-Middle East trade experienced the largest decrement in reliability, decreasing by 4.7% from 7.4% in January 218 to 65.7% in February 218. The North America-Oceania trade had the highest reliability with 77.7% in February 218. Details are shown in Figure 1. Monthly Schedule Reliability by Trade % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% North America-Oceania 63.3% 77.7% Asia-South America 72.4% 73.7% Asia-Oceania 66.9% 7.4% Europe-South America 57.4% 69.% Europe-Middle East Asia-Middle East Intra Asia Asia-Europe 59.3% 68.% 7.4% 65.7% 68.5% 64.2% 57.4% 58.1% Asia-Africa Trans-Atlantic 31.9% 32.3% 47.9% 47.1% Trans-Pacific 49.9% 46.3% Europe-Oceania 33.% 41.6% From the vessel discharging region perspective, as shown in Figure 2, the Africa region experienced the largest improvement in reliability, increasing by 22.7%, from 26.3% in January 218 to 49.% in February 218. The North America region had the lowest reliability with 38.5% reliability in February 218. South America South Asia Middle East Oceania Europe Asia Africa North America Monthly Schedule Reliability by Port of Discharge Region % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% 77.9% 88.3% 88.2% 79.5% 72.% 74.1% 77.% 73.6% 54.3% 62.5% 6.7% 55.3% 26.3% 49.% 32.% 38.5% January 218 February 218 Figure 2: Monthly schedule reliability by port of discharge region from January 1, 218 to February 28, 218 1 of the 22 carriers experienced varying degrees of increasing schedule reliability from January 218 to February 218. As shown in Figure 3, the top five most reliable carriers in February 218 were MCC, Safmarine, ANL, CMA CGM, and Evergreen with an average on-time performance of 74.5%, 69.3%, 65.9%, 65.9%, and 65.7% respectively. January 218 February 218 Figure 1: Monthly schedule reliability by trade from January 1, 218 to February 28, 218 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 4
Monthly Schedule Reliability by Carrier % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% MCC Safmarine ANL CMA CGM CNC COSCO Wan Hai Evergreen OOCL APL Maersk Line PIL Hapag-Lloyd MOL Hamburg Sud NYK K Line Hyundai Yang Ming Zim Alianca MSC 71.9% 74.5% 69.4% 69.3% 68.4% 65.9% 67.4% 65.9% 7.7% 65.7% 64.8% 65.4% 66.5% 65.2% 68.% 64.2% 66.6% 63.5% 59.5% 58.9% 61.9% 58.8% 58.4% 58.4% 53.3% 57.4% 5.8% 55.2% 53.2% 55.% 46.7% 53.% 48.2% 52.4% 53.9% 51.9% 47.7% 51.7% 52.8% 49.8% 47.8% 49.% 4.3% 42.9% January 218 February 218 Figure 3: Monthly schedule reliability by carrier from January 1, 218 to February 28, 218 Methodology: CargoSmart provides schedule reliability information for up to 22 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. 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. 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 5
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 January 2 January 5 January 5 January 6 January 6 January 7 January 8 January 9 January 9 January 1 January 11 January 12 January 13 January 13 January 13 January 16 January 17 January 18 January 18 January 21 January 21 January 23 January 24 January 27 January 3 January 31 February 4 February 5 February 6 February 11 February 12 February 15 February 15 February 17 February 18 POZNAN, ran aground on the Scheldt, Melle, Belgium COSCO SHIPPING KILIMANJARO, ran aground, Hong Kong MSC ELOANE, lost containers off the Galician coast, Spain ANDROMEDA, arms trading found on board, Greece EVER LAUREL, collided with ORION HIGHWAY, Baltimore, US SAMSKIP HOFFELL, experienced mechanical failure, Reydarfjordur, Iceland HANSA MEERSBURG, collided with gantry crane at Keelung, Taiwan SVENDBORG STRAIT, collided with southern locks, Kiel Canal MAERSK KARACHI, collided with OGUZ SOFUOGLU, Constantza, Romania CAP SAN TAINARO, hit by gantry crane, Valparaiso, Chile CAMILLA and MAJESTIC, arrested by local High Court for outer anchorage, Chittagong, Bangladesh SAMSKIP EXPRESS, chief engineer died in accident, Dublin, Ireland MARSTAL MAERSK, ran aground in Suez Canal SALAHUDDIN, experienced engine trouble off Portland, UK CAP PALMERSTON, drugs found in the hull, Caldera, Costa Rica MSC KATYA R., lost port side anchor, Rotterdam, Netherlands KALAMATA TRADER, arrested by local High Court for outer anchorage, Chittagong, Bangladesh PRETTY IVY, broke loose from moorings, IJmuiden, Netherlands NYK RIGEL, lost containers overboard, Hook of Holland, Netherlands KOTA BAHAGIA, broke loose from moorings, Zonguldak, Turkey SATSUKI, collided with Chinese fishing vessel, Jiuzhou, China E.R. SANTA BARBARA, experienced engine trouble, Antwerp, Belgium JAMILA, collided with fishing vessel off Peru coast ROTTERDAM EXPRESS, invaded by drug traffickers, Cartagena, Colombia GRETA, experienced engine trouble, UK MOL PRESTIGE, caught fire in engine room off Haida Gwaii, Canada NOLHAVANA, had mechanical problems, Halifax, Canada SAMSKIP HOFFELL, had mechanical problems, Orkney, UK VLCS CAUTIN, drugs found attached to hull, Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico KRISTIN SCHEPERS, had mechanical problems, Rotterdam, Netherlands MSC ATLANTIC, reefer containers lost overboard, Rotterdam, Netherlands EVER PROSPERITY, collided with EF ELENA, Seto Inland Sea, Japan DIMITRIS C, drugs found on board, Genova, Italy MARTIE, caught fire on board, Waalwijk, Netherlands THIRA, experienced engine trouble, Le Havre, France 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved. 6
Vessels Ports February 18 February 19 February 19 February 2 February 22 February 24 February 25 February 26 February 27 February 28 February 28 February 28 January 3-5 January 18 MAERSK ARAS, experienced engine trouble, Manzanillo, Mexico HOLLANDIA, crane crashed into cargo hold, Barcadera, Aruba AKACIA, collided with the Great Northern Lock in the Kiel Canal BBC SWITZERLAND, had mechanical problems Zeebrugge, Belgium RICKMERS HAMBURG, experienced engine trouble, near Dover, UK KOTA SAHABAT, pirate attack, Bonny, Nigeria RIO BRAVO, ran aground, Port Said, Egypt MUSIC, collided with pier, St. Petersburg, Russia MY VIOLET, had mechanical problems, Antalya, Turkey SINGAPORE EXPRESS, pilot fell overboard, Lisbon, Portugal SPICA, damaged by WEST TAURUS that broke off mooring, Tenerife, Spain MSC PERLE, drugs found onboard, Puerto Angamos, Chile Port of Baltimore closed due to winter storm, US Port of Constantza closed due to strong winds, Romania Port Closure: Baltimore, US Due to a severe winter storm with heavy snowfall and strong winds, the Maryland government declared a state of emergency in several countries starting on January 3. With several inches of snow, schools and state offices were closed and highway crews were under full rotation clearing the snow off the roads. Citizens were advised to stay safe inside and avoid unnecessary travel. In view of the coming strong winds, the U.S. Coast Guard suspended the entrance of vessels to the bay of Baltimore. The weather conditions improved on January 5. The Port of Baltimore re-opened and resumed operations in the late evening. Although the port had a few days of port closures and a backlog of five waiting container vessels, we did not observe a major impact on the cargo handling times. Freezing weather continued through the weekend, but urban activities gradually resumed. Port of Baltimore Duration: January 1 31, 218 Vessel Arrivals: 64 Average Berth Time: 27.4 Hours Longest Berth Time: 237.3 Hours Average Berth Times 12 1 8 6 4 2 Port of Baltimore Vessel Arrival Count and Average Vessel Berth Times (January 1-31, 218) 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 Average Berth Times (Hours) Vessel Arrival Count 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Vessel Arrival Count 7 218 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 212, the GVVMC monitors and analyzes 12, 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 +852-2233-8 United States +1-48-325-76 8 218 CargoSmart Limited. All rights reserved.