The recent decision of Maersk Line, MSC and CMA CGM to form a mammoth vessel sharing alliance in the three major east-west trades has stirred up shippers, but the port sector must be equally concerned.
As announced last week, Maersk Line, MSC and CMA CGM intend to share vessels in the Asia-Europe, Transpacific and Transatlantic trades from 2Q 14. A total of 255 ships will be operated in 29 loops with a combined capacity of 2.6 million teu.
The recent decision of Maersk Line, MSC and CMA CGM to form a mammoth vessel sharing alliance in the three major east-west trades has stirred up shippers, but the port sector must be equally concerned.
As announced last week, Maersk Line, MSC and CMA CGM intend to share vessels in the Asia-Europe, Transpacific and Transatlantic trades from 2Q 14. A total of 255 ships will be operated in 29 loops with a combined capacity of 2.6 million teu.
The ramifications of the consolidation for the port industry are enormous. Each of the three carriers already operates more ULCVs than anyone else, so catering for their combined cargo handling requirements will be on a scale never seen before.
Not surprisingly, views are divergent on whether the three will consolidate/rationalize their port calls, therefore. Whilst economies of scale are there for the taking, it will result in tampering with the well-established berthing windows of each schedule, and the feeder/intermodal connections of each carrier, which will, presumably, remain separate.
Moreover, all three have ‘family connections’ to terminal operating companies, so choosing the best port and terminal will not only come down to the best for each job. Maersk is connected to APM Terminals, MSC to Terminal Investments Limited (TIL), and CMA CGM to Terminal Link, and each has particular port preferences. For example, APM Terminals has a presence in Bremerhaven, where Maersk has more than 10 port calls a week, but not Hamburg, and MSC prefers Antwerp over Rotterdam. The following table shows this picture in more detail in the Far East, Europe and North America.
The P3 Alliance1
For ports and terminals to be selected for the P3 network, the main criteria will be the ability to handle ULCVs efficiently, with little margin for error. Quays will have to be long and deep, and each terminal will have to be equipped with cranes capable of spanning around 21-22 rows across deck. Moreover, a minimum of three to five of these are required for the efficient handling of the large box ships. The following table indicates what is currently available at present in this respect.
The P3 Alliance2
Apart from ship-to-shore operations, each terminal will have to have a container yard capable of evacuating large container volumes to the hinterland, which normally requires good intermodal connections.
Ports will be more impressed, as each carrier’s schedules should be better co-ordinated, thereby improving vessel turnaround times. The following chart shows how this presently varies in Hong Kong, Rotterdam and Hamburg.
The P3 Alliance 3
In conclusion, rationalisation of ports and terminals within the P3 network may be a bridge too far, at least initially, which may explain why the number of services to be offered between Asia/Europe and Asia/North America looks very similar to what is on offer at present. In other words, the schedules may remain the same, only with port pair and vessel adjustments as needs dictate. If so, then each carrier’s containers may find themselves headed towards unusual ports and terminals at times.
Rotterdam’s Maasvlakte 2 terminals are due to open at the end of next year. They tick all the boxes for P3′s vessels, but will they tick all the boxes of each member?
Discussion about this post