Compliance and navigation specialist OneOcean has announced that its digital logbook solution, LogCentral, has now been officially certified by Lloyd’s Register paving the way for it to gain acceptance from flag states that required this step from a classification society. LogCentral has already become widely accepted across many flag states around the world, providing a simple, standardised, and efficient means of record-keeping.
Following a series of stringent tests, the Lloyd’s Register certification now classifies LogCentral as a product that conforms to all current regulations, including those instituted by the IMO and MARPOL. This certification signifies that the solution has been legally recognised as a comprehensive alternative for paper record books.
Shoreside teams can benefit from a new level of insight into vessel operations through remote access to records that are up to date and intelligently validated. Management personnel on shore can access vessel data almost as soon as details have been logged and approved. This level of oversight reduces risk of error and provides assurance that logbooks can easily be submitted to authorities. As an electronic logbook solution, it has proven to be extremely useful under the current circumstances, where Covid restrictions can cause real difficulties in validating paper logbooks by head offices or authorities.
Shoreside teams will now be able to analyse and leverage data more quickly, with a clear picture of what equipment and system checks need to be carried out, and when. LogCentral’s built-in analytical capabilities enable benchmarking and trend analysis to be carried out both on individual vessels and across fleets. This reduces vessel downtime as maintenance work can be planned well before potential component failures occur. This data can also be used to provide more accurate estimates and assessments to stakeholders, including ship owners, managers, or charterers and as a feed into Vessel Performance analysis.
LogCentral is simple and intuitive to use. All daily operational information, including disposals and emissions, can be precisely recorded. This facilitates and proves compliance with MARPOL and other environmental regulations for pollution prevention and control in any given region. In addition, the solution helps to reduce the likelihood of errors by linking records, providing comprehensive validation mechanisms, and using auto-fill areas to issue visual alerts if inaccurate data is entered. OneOcean has the only truly global database of environmental regulations.
“We are very proud to have officially obtained the Lloyd’s Register classification,” said Martin Taylor, OneOcean CEO. “This approval is an official affirmation of LogCentral’s importance as an easily-applicable digital solution that will generate ongoing efficiencies for shipping companies worldwide. Shoreside teams can compare and analyse historical vessel data alongside real-time monitoring of ship activity to identify trends and gain insight needed to optimise operations. This will lend a whole new certitude to decision-making. LogCentral is the latest step in helping our customers through their digital journey.”
The state port authority of Alabama has initiated work on the Mobile Ship Channel. This up-gradation is part of the $365.7 million Mobile Harbor project which is due for completion in 2025. The work has been started with the deepening and widening of the Mobile ship channel.
Mobile is the only deepwater port in Alabama and has a number of bulk and breakbulk piers. It also houses a cruise terminal and APM terminals. The port authority has stated that the bay channel will be widened by 100ft for the length of about three nautical miles. This among other safety improvements will make two-way traffic along the channel possible. In addition to this the bar, bay, and river channels will be deepened by about 50ft, the wave allowances and advanced maintenance will also be taken into consideration and depth increased accordingly.
Senator Richard Shelby stated that he was pleased that the construction aimed to deepen and widen the Port of Mobile was finally becoming a reality. He also stated that this had been his highest priority for many years. The port has been making significant investments anticipating the construction of a deeper channel. Just over the previous year, 20 acres of container handling yard have been added to the port and the existing docks have been extended to accommodate two post-Panamax boxships. The project cost the port authority over $50 million.
Senator Richard Shelby has been an ardent advocate for harbor improvements. He has stated that the project would improve Alabama’s fortunes, providing greater economic opportunities and that the modernization of this port will pay off, giving a competitive edge to the United States in the global market. Alabama is providing financial support to the project by the issuance of a $150 million bond.
Cosco shipping ports has signed an agreement with the Chinese group CHEC SAC – CCCC4TH for the development and construction of a new multipurpose port in Chancay, Peru. The contract was awarded through a tender and the cost of the project is estimated to be about $600 million. The contract also includes docks, storage space, breakwaters as well as maintenance of operational areas.
The construction of the first pier is expected to be completed by the first half of 2023. Machinery is being mobilized and the preparations to begin constructions are in the final phase.
The port is located about 60 kilometers north of the financial and business capital Lima. It is designed to receive general cargo with the exclusion of bulk minerals and containerized goods. The construction of this port will create a direct route from Asia to Peru and the surrounding region. It is expected that the port will have a receiving capacity of 6 million tonnes of general cargo and about 1.5 million TEU’s per year.
The Ministry has stated that the construction of this port will considerably boost the economy and encourage exports. It will generate business opportunities and employment for over 9000 people, 90% of which will be taken up by local people.
Another salient feature of the port will be the connecting tunnel that will connect the port entrance and the port’s operational area. This tunnel will be about 1.8 km long and will be exclusively used for cargo traffic thus reducing congestion on public roads.
The deal for this terminal was signed in May 2019, followed by protests by the local public, stating that the emission of toxic pollutants, noise pollution, large-scale alteration of the coastline, and the destruction of flora and fauna of the area would irreparably damage the local ecosystem. In addition to this, the locals feared the displacement of their homes. The protest was followed by some changes in the plans presented by Cosco and Volcan, and despite the criticism, the project was approved in December 2020. Cosco representatives have claimed that they have the public’s support and that the project is in full compliance with necessary procedures. They further stated that they have obtained permits and licenses and are working in tandem with Peruvian ministries and agencies.
The United Nations uses June 5 every year as an opportunity to draw public attention to the negative impacts of IUU, which undermine its sustainable development goals to ensure fisheries can provide food and jobs. This year, questions over sustainability and the consumption of seafood have found their way into mainstream debate following a controversial Netflix documentary, Seaspiracy.
More than a third of the world’s fish stocks are overfished, meaning taken at a rate where they cannot replenish themselves. Illegal activity adds even more pressure, degrading the marine environment, making it harder to determine fish numbers, and harming the prospects of legal fishers and people in the poorest parts of the world.
What is IUU fishing?
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) includes all fishing that breaks fisheries laws and regulations or occurs outside their reach.
Illegal fishing usually means without a licence, in an area where fishing is banned, with prohibited gear, over a quota, or for protected species. Very often it’s a vessel entering a nation’s water with no fishing licence, or fishing with a licence but catching more than is allowed.
Then there is the problem of unreported and under-reported catches by licensed vessels looking to flout quotas or catch prohibited species.
Though most of the world’s fish are caught in the national waters of coastal states – within 200 nautical miles of their shorelines – a lot of unregulated fishing occurs beyond that on the high seas, which cover almost 45 percent of our planet. Patchy regulation and enforcement in this vast area allow rampant IUU.
Where does it happen?
IUU occurs everywhere, from shallow coastal or inland waters to the most remote stretches of the ocean. It particularly affects nations in the global south where fisheries management may be poorly developed, or where there are limited resources to oversee their waters or enforce regulations. West Africa and the Western Central Pacific are assessed as having the highest rates of illegal fishing, followed by the Bering Sea and the Southwest Atlantic.
How much fish is caught illegally?
There are no reliable figures on global IUU – but experts estimate that more than one in five (22%) landed fish is caught illegally, with this figure rising as to one in four off Africa. Every year, an estimated $26-50 billion worth of revenue is lost to IUU.
Why is IUU such a serious threat?
IUU contributes to the over-exploitation of fish populations, hinders their recovery and damages the marine environment. Thousands of marine species die as bycatch and delicate habitats are destroyed by the unregulated use of harmful practices like bottom-trawling.
IUU adversely affects the wellbeing of fishing communities, especially in the global south where many people rely on fish for food and revenue. It exacerbates poverty and contributes heavily to food insecurity. It also has direct ties to organized crime including human trafficking, drug smuggling, and slavery.
Why does IUU fishing happen?
The main driver is money – fishers pay no taxes or duties on their illegal catches. But IUU only happens because offenders can get away with it. It is most common in countries unable to set up or enforce effective fisheries controls.
What enables IUU?
One major obstacle in the fight against IUU is flags of convenience – flown by foreign fishing vessels to take advantage of minimal regulation, cheap registration fees, low or no taxes and the ability to employ cheap labor. While the practice is not illegal, using a flag of convenience allows IUU fishers to conceal their operations or avoid international laws designed to conserve marine resources. Thirty-five nations have open registries where an owner doesn’t need to meet any nationality or residency requirements. Open registries conceal the true owners of a vessel; facilitate tax avoidance and appalling working conditions for seafarers; and are linked to devastating oil spills.
Another common IUU practice is transshipment – where vessels fishing in the high seas for high-value species like tuna offload their catch onto refrigerated transport vessels known as “reefers.” The reefers bring food, fuel, bait and labor and take away the catch as boxes of frozen fish. It is technically legal and a cost-effective way for vessels to remain at sea for longer. But because the vessels do not come into port, it is hard to determine whether the catch is legal.
How can IUU fishing be stopped?
A number of mechanisms exist or are being negotiated over in an attempt to bring an end to this damaging black market.
The UN has chosen June 5 as Fight against IUU Day because it’s the anniversary of when the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) came into effect in June 2016. This is the first binding international agreement to stop illegally caught fish entering markets through ports. To date, 68 nations plus the European Union are party to the PSMA. China, as the world’s fishing superpower, is key, and it is hoped it will ratify it soon.
The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 14, “Life Below Water,” calls for an end to harmful subsidies that contribute to overcapacity, overfishing and IUU. The World Trade Organisation has been trying to resolve this issue for nearly 20 years, and last year it failed to meet its 2020 deadline, partly due to COVID-19. But there are signs a deal may finally be in sight: the new director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria, has made fisheries subsidies a priority, and is convening a ministerial conference in July with the aim of finalizing negotiations.
Better monitoring, control and surveillance are defending marine protected areas globally and there are industry and national efforts to increase the traceability of seafood throughout the supply chain. Technology such as vessel monitoring systems (VMS), automatic identification systems (AIS) and on-board Electronic Monitoring is helping authorities spot vessels fishing beyond legal limits.
What can consumers do?
Ultimately, IUU fishing is a response to the ever-increasing global appetite for seafood. Consumers can play their part alongside international efforts by making informed choices where possible. Look for trusted labels such as the international Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) which verifies your fish was caught transparently. Or use online resources to learn about which species are best to buy and which to avoid. You can also put pressure on your country’s representatives to reach an ambitious deal at the WTO subsidies negotiations.
Jessica Aldred is special projects editor for China Dialogue, focusing on globally important environment themes including the ocean and biodiversity. She spent 10 years as deputy environment editor at the Guardian, and has nearly 20 years’ experience working in the newsrooms of major media organizations in London, Sydney and Melbourne.
Jun 6 UPDATE: As of 0330 UTC Jun 6, the ship is still aground with CG boat nearby.
Jun 5: General cargo ship RAMONA ran aground at around 0100 UTC Jun 5 on a western coast of Faro island, Gotland, Sweden, looking like she sailed straight to the coast, probably officer on watch falling asleep. The ship’s en route from Klintehamn Gotland to Riga Latvia, with cargo of logs. CG boat nearby.
I have something to confess. I am, and have been for some time, obsessed with port call optimization. It was the simplicity of it all that attracted me, the idea that if we all shared our data and worked together, we could achieve great things for the benefit of an entire community.
Of late, that beautiful paragon appears to have all but dissipated and we’re left with a slew of companies each proclaiming to have the answer to all of our port call problems. I’ll admit we fit into that category too, but more on that later. Has the commercialization of port call optimization steered us away from its original path or was the scope of the problem too great, with commodification being the only clear way to tackle it?
Almost fifteen years ago to the day, the International Harbour Masters Association embarked upon a quest that would spark the imagination of the entire maritime industry, creating a maelstrom of ideas, strategies, and concepts ensuring the sustainability of commercial shipping. If we go back to the very beginning, the four key deliverables were to bring about lower costs, a cleaner environment, increased reliability and better safety for ports, terminals and shipping lines service providers. Or in other words, shipping utopia.
Firstly, there was the question of master data sharing, enhancing the safety of arrival and departure from port in relation to vessel and berth compatibility, and secondly, sharing of information relating specifically to the port call itself, including cargo operations completion timings. Put together, these two data streams, which arise from numerous different sources at all times of the day and night in any given port worldwide, should theoretically allow vessels to undertake each port call in a timely fashion. This would lead to reduced fuel consumption and emissions as well as keeping the fleet on schedule.
The International Taskforce for Port Call Optimization was established but, from the very start of the project, there was a commercial aspect at play, with one very large group taking the helm and indeed responsibility for a port’s rendezvous of nautical and terminal operations. It’s no secret that originally Pronto, an initiative born from the Avanti project and using IMO FAL standards, was developed as a non-commercialized entity; an idea of best practice if you will. But, as well as being industry partners of the International Taskforce for Port Call Optimization, the Port of Rotterdam, were commercial visionaries and one of the first businesses to capitalize on port call optimization with Pronto.
Did that action set a new course for the journey of port call optimization and could it be argued that in doing so, the very data we set out to share has become even more siloed, wrapped up in mysterious fortresses of products and services all competing with each other? The Taskforce states itself that “ports tend to develop projects for one port only, as they might be in competition with other ports”, and this is precisely what has happened. Ports and terminals that are now far advanced in digitalization have been able to work directly with solution providers to create bespoke services that meet their specific needs. The future cannot be predicted but one can imagine the challenge ahead for those ports that are not early adopters.
On the other hand, there is the continued and valued efforts of a committed group of individuals, who together and individually have researched white papers, articles and a whole host of other documentation for the sole purpose of advocating and progressing the port call optimization initiative. The recent UNCTAD paper stressing the importance of the digitalization of port calls has been shared and quoted numerous times over the past year. Furthermore, a team of authors led by Mikael Lind have written two academic books focusing on maritime informatics as an “emerging discipline for a digitally connected efficient, sustainable and resilient industry.” This blueprint and the many supporting papers and articles that relate to it and port call optimization as a discipline are proof that the requirement for structure and guidance is still very much a continuing work.
It is clear that there are individuals and organizations that are unbiased and will promote the core themes of port call optimization; collaboration being one of the most prominent, but possibly the most neglected. In 2019, Intelligent Cargo Systems delivered the first of its Guides to Port Call Optimization and within it, a selection of innovative companies operating in that space were featured. There weren’t, and still aren’t, any partnerships or promotional quid pro quo arrangements in place with any of the companies; it was all done on the basis of working together for a common goal. So, whilst we are very much in the business of providing our own solutions to port call optimization, we are still very much mindful of the reasons why we’re doing it, which is to work together towards sustainability for our industry and the world we live in.
Perhaps a lack of outward guidance from the IMO has enabled port call optimization to be commercialized? Without definitive direction, the industry and its key players must make their own decisions and this eliminates the opportunity for cohesion. The IMHA has presented nine stages to its development plan of port call optimization, the final stage being to connect to IMO and IHO programs. According to their website, only the first three have been completed.
This is not to say that the IMO have been inert regarding port call optimization initiatives. The IMO-GloMEEP Global Industry Alliance has tested and demonstrated the benefits of port call optimization in a series of tabletop exercises, under a voluntary public-private cooperation.
History demonstrates that implementing new policies and procedures within the shipping industry is a slow process and one that requires careful consideration and compliance from all stakeholders, but surely this has already been achieved? The IMO’s Sulphur Cap mandate of a 50% reduction in GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from 2008 levels by 2050 falls directly in line with one of the primary objectives of port call optimization; to reduce emissions and create a cleaner environment. With shipping companies and ports onboard, it is not unreasonable to expect a more direct approach in regards to the implementation and standardization of port call optimization from the IMO.
Ultimately, somewhere between those heady days in 2006 and today, the very premise of port call optimization, so elegantly epitomized by the IHMA seems to have been lost at sea: “Shipping (companies), their agents and ports are sitting down together to work on a solution that can work for every trade, for every port, from port to port and end to end.” As the race to reduce emissions and improve our sustainability with smarter and cleaner shipping becomes increasingly critical, we have to remember that this race is one that cannot be won alone.
The mediator in the lawsuit brought by the state of Florida seeking to force the immediate restart of cruises informed the US District Court judge that Florida and the US Centers for Disease Control are deadlocked. By declaring an impasse in the mediation, the case has been sent back to the court to decide the issue.
Both sides in the case made new filings with the court renewing the argument over the CDC’s jurisdiction and actions under its current Conditional Sail Order and the framework by which cruise lines are permitted to apply for a return to service. Filing the case in April, Florida, which was later joined by Alaska and Texas in the suit, contended that the CDC had overstepped its authority and was unfairly singling out the cruise industry causing significant harm to the state.
Since the filing of the case, the CDC has proceeded with its framework and granted approvals for the first cruises and simulated test cruises on the path to the restoration of cruises from US ports. In addition, President Joe Biden signed into law the Alaska Tourism Restoration Act, which exempted large ships from US sabotage regulations to permit 2021 summer cruises to Alaska while Canadian ports remain closed.
In addition to telling the court that the CDC is following protocols designed to ensure the health and safety of Americans, the CDC is asking the court to permit the filing of a supplemental briefing on the Alaska act and the potential impact a decision in the Florida case might have on the resumption of cruising in Alaska. The Congressional act says that foreign flag cruise ships can resume sailing to Alaska abiding by the rules and restrictions of the CDC. Lawyers for the CDC contend that if the court voids the Conditional Sail Order it would put this summer’s Alaska cruises in jeopardy.
“Florida is, however, concerned that further briefing will only serve to delay a ruling on Florida’s motion for a preliminary injunction. With each passing day that cruises – a singled-out industry – cannot operate, Florida suffers irreparable harm,” they write in their response to the court. Florida’s lawyers contended that the act confirms Florida’s case in that the CDC required Congress’s authorization and that by not mentioning Florida in the act, “that Congress decided not to ratify the CDC’s conduct as to Florida.”
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis speaking after the impact was declared said, “Unfortunately, the CDC has opted to continue its ridiculous and unlawful regulations that target a single industry by imposing vaccine requirements — something no other business or industry must do.” DeSantis in his attacks on the CDC said that it is discriminating against families and children with its masking and vaccine mandates for cruises and imposing burdensome requirements that are continuing to change and that are delaying the resumption of cruising.
“The CDC did almost nothing to re-open sailing until Florida filed suit,” said DeSantis. “While it is a positive sign to see the CDC begin to green light ‘conditional cruises’ following Florida’s lawsuit, there is still no set date upon which cruises can resume business operations. The CDC has no excuse for ruining two summers of sailing, and it is well past time to end the CDC’s desperate attempt to prolong its power trip over America. Floridians are ready for a real trip on our waters.”
While the court continues to hear the arguments in the case, the CDC is, however, also moving forward with its framework for the resumption of cruising. After giving Royal Caribbean International approval for the first simulated cruise and Celebrity Cruises permission to resume restricted revenue service, the CDC has now approved 10 cruise ship applications with one additional pending approval. Celebrity Cruises received approval for a second ship to resume service operating with fully vaccinated passengers and crew, while Disney Cruise Line gained approval for a test cruise and was the first approved for Port Canaveral, Florida. Carnival Cruise Line has also received approval for two of its cruise ships to operate simulated a cruise from Miami and Galveston, while Royal Caribbean received approval for four additional cruise ships to operate simulated voyages. Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line currently has provisional approval for a test cruise. Once the cruise lines have demonstrated to the CDC the effectiveness of their health and safety protocols those ships should receive conditional sail orders.
The major challenge for the cruise lines is the CDC’s requirement for face coverings for non-vaccinated passengers and in large gatherings, and the cruise lines’ requirement to certify that passengers are vaccinated. Florida outlawed the use of vaccine passports and has threatened to fine the cruise lines if they proceed to ask for proof of vaccination status. Florida’s governor declined a suggestion that cruise lines be exempted from the ordinance permitting them to follow CDC restrictions once passengers boarded their ships.
Florida in its legal case is continuing to press the court to issue an immediate injunction against the CDC. They argue the injunction is necessary so that the cruise lines could resume sailing this summer, while the cruise lines have cautioned that it will require time to restaff and restart the broader fleet of cruise ships that have been idled and in many cases destaffed for nearly a year.
CMA CGM, one of the world’s largest container shipping groups, on Friday posted a jump in first-quarter earnings and said it expected strong demand for transporting consumer goods to continue for the rest of the year.
French-based CMA CGM’s net profit rose to $2.1 billion in the first quarter from $48 million in the same period last year, while core EBITDA earnings rose to $3.2 billion from $973 million, the group said in a statement.
Container lines such as market leader Maersk have seen a boom in demand as the COVID-19 crisis has stoked buying of packaged goods by locked-down consumers, while supply chain disruption during the pandemic has further fueled freight rates.
“The sustained demand for the shipping of consumer goods seen since the summer of 2020 is expected to continue in the second half of 2021,” CMA CGM said.
The privately owned group said its shipped volumes climbed 10.7%, also reflecting a favorable comparison with the first quarter of last year when the start of the pandemic hit activity in China.
To meet demand and adapt to supply chain congestion, CMA CGM added more vessels during the first quarter while continuing to expand its number of containers, which has risen by 8% over the past year, it said.
The group said it also relied on its growing non-maritime business, including a new air cargo division.
Its logistics business saw core earnings rise by 25.5% to $172 million, and remained slightly positive in net profit as CMA CGM pursued a turnaround of CEVA Logistics, acquired two years ago.
Group earnings in the second quarter should at least reach the first-quarter levels, CMA CGM said.
The group also announced the early reimbursement of $1.7 billion in loans, including the outstanding portion of a 1.05 billion euro ($1.3 billion) loan backed by the French state.
Its net debt fell by $1.2 billion compared with the end of 2020 to $15.7 billion as of March 31.
author paints the picture we are seeing a thousand fold in the current ocean shipping marketplace in the inbound/outbound Asia trade lanes which underscores the serious disconnect currently between ocean common carriers and shippers in these U.S trade lanes:
“Carlos:
We are seeing examples where there was a rate agreed upon and the cargo was tendered to the carrier. In many cases the freight gets rolled and sits at the original terminal for an additional 1-2-3 weeks. When the cargo finally sails the carrier advises that the rate has increased and if the higher rate is not accepted the cargo will not move – keep in mind this is after the cargo is in-gated to the carrier.
Below is an example from (shipper) with (name of ocean carrier removed). (Shipper) is worried about filing a formal complaint with the FMC or the carriers as there are concerns that there could be unintended repercussions so they are asking if we can check with you to see if you have an example of a pervious suit or something that they could provide to their clients when these situations come up.
Let me know and thank you for your help.”
The disappearance of service contracts
The above is what we are seeing repeatedly from both beneficial cargo owner shippers and Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) as shippers. It seems that the service contract has diminished as a serious legally binding document, and its regulatory status seems to be losing ground in view of shipper reluctance to seek legal regulatory remedies. There is an inherent trepidation by shippers in this situation in view of a real fear of retaliation in a very fragile supply chain at the moment spearheaded by rolled cargo, equipment shortages, spot markets (as noted above), and port congestion. Spot pricing circumstances are such that they could theoretically be dealt with in a service contract context. For example, in a rolled cargo context a reasonable ceiling rate could be agreed to in advance in the service contract in case of accumulated rolled cargo issues at the various ports. However, usually there are no such terms in service contracts. My sense is that the auction alternative, which gives rise to
elevated freight rates, is more financially attractive than negotiating a reasonable rate ceiling to create a stable shipping environment.
The resurgence of ocean tramps
The above and below is not being provided as a criticism of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), but rather it is being provided as an observation of the current state of affairs which we are sure are already abundantly clear to the FMC. The situation might be calling for a more energetic investigation of these issues, but on the other hand, at this time where inventories are still dramatically low, shipper requirements have very immediate exigencies which creates a necessity to solve these issues immediately, even if it means paying exaggerated rates for their resolution. It seems that ocean carriers are acting more like ocean tramp vessels which are specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of the Shipping Act of 1998, as amended (the Shipping Act). Ocean common carriers are seeking cargo on the basis of pricing incentives rather than on scheduled (offered) port calls at negotiated price levels, notwithstanding that as ocean common carriers as defined in the Shipping Act, they must hold out to provide services at set pricing at the very ports where they then subsequently cancel sailings, even after having received cargo to be shipped from those ports. The Shipping Act demands that failing to transport at the applicable rates, once cargo is tendered and accepted by the ocean common carrier, would result in a Shipping Act violation, but as simple as that sounds, that has been an untested issue so far.
The other salient ocean tramp vessel operator trait which is visible at this time in ocean common carriers is the refusal to load agricultural export cargo from the U.S. destined to Asia. The so-called ocean common carriers, are more motivated to quickly position empties for the Asia inbound trades, where the highest bidders are present, than to service the export to the Asia market. The Shipping Act laws and regulations are clearly not intended for tramp operations, but that seems to be where we are at this time with so-called ocean tramp-like “ocean common carrier” operations. Traditional ocean common carriers, which receive all the benefits of the Shipping Act by obtaining anti-trust immunity which allows for collaborations with their otherwise competitors in anti-competitive Alliances, now run rampant over those Shipping Act regulations in seeking the pricing benefits of the traditional ocean tramp operators, while still receiving the anti-trust benefits of ocean common carriers pursuant to the Shipping Act.
As a direct consequence of these new found revenue streams, robust financials have prevailed, reflecting a very successful shipping year for most of the so-called ocean common carriers. On the shipper side, there are no corresponding short term solutions on the horizon. These carriers have now discovered the lucrative ocean common carrier/ocean tramp hybrid and will not easily let go. We nevertheless still think the FMC and the Shipping Act, perhaps the latter with some meaningful amendments related to defining the boundaries of ocean common carriers vis a vis ocean tramps, and other reforms, might still be the road to a more viable playing field for all parties.
Conclusion
At the moment there are real problems for the shipper segment of this industry for which there are only FMC traditional remedies either via Complaint cases in the federal courts, perhaps even class actions, or with the FMC or, hopefully, pursuant to FMC formal investigations, which can provide some badly needed attention to these glaring issues of national concern. However, in terms of more permanent solutions, serious amendments to the Shipping Act should be sought with U.S. shippers (importers/exporters) and the overall U.S. economy in mind.
MSC has announced schedule updates on 2M Alliance’s services from Asia to West Coast US and Canada.
Due to the current challenging market situation impacting port activities, generating congestion and schedule delays across the supply chain, 2M Alliance is planning to adjust the sailing programme on its Transpacific West Coast US & Canada network.
With the schedule’s changes, Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), which comprises 2M Alliance with Maersk Line, said it aims to match the actual departure dates from Asia.
Therefore, the Swiss-based container line has announced the revision of the voyage numbers on the following services to provide better schedule reliability:
Asia to West Coast US and Canada
SERVICE
VESSEL NAME
CURRENT VOYAGE NUMBER
NEW VOYAGE NUMBER
POL
NEW ETA
TP8/Orient
Cap San Vincent
123N
126N
Qingdao
28 June
TP9/Maple
Northern Julie
UM124N
UM125N
Nansha
25 June
MSC added it is arranging a contingency plan with alternative services to give its customers the possibility to continue bookings placement.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
