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.
The SCA has suggested the ship was travelling too fast. AIS playbacks of the incident do show the ship, travelling in very blustery conditions, was speeding through the waterway at 13 knots at the time it ran into difficulty, four or five knots above standard speeds for transits.
Canal transit within a convoy is controlled by the Suez Canal pilots and SCA vessel traffic management services
Blame for the ship’s speed ought not to lie with the master of the vessel, the UK Club argued yesterday as both sides battle on a compensation figure, which potentially could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
“Critically it is important to clarify that whilst the master is ultimately responsible for the vessel, navigation in the Canal transit within a convoy is controlled by the Suez Canal pilots and SCA vessel traffic management services. Such controls include the speed of the transit and the availability of escort tugs,” the club claimed.
The Shoei Kisen-owned ship is under arrest in the Great Bitter Lake awaiting a final court verdict on compensation, a hearing that has dragged on and on, and is now set for June 20.
Alexa Rios, Regional Product Expert at TradeLens, discusses the most important challenges of supply chain data connection.
It is well known for any cargo owner or freight forwarding company that having data to monitor the supply chain is key to any type of operation. For some companies the persistent challenge is to connect the end-to-end information, for others who have completed the puzzle, the challenge becomes knowing if they have enough data and if they have high-quality data that can be fully utilised. For cargo owners and freight forwarders, who need a helicopter view of the supply chain information and flow, understanding the available data and running scenarios on possible benefits from their data, is key for supply chain optimisation, continuous improvement and innovation.
Limited, partial and hard-to-access data has a direct impact on two fronts for cargo owners and freight forwarders: operations and innovation. On the operations side, having blind spots on the end-to-end process can result in high unexpected costs for the company. The lack of visibility can increase; demurrage costs, if the container has been discharged and the consignee has not been notified, or add trucking wait fees, if the container has not arrived as planned or is still within an ongoing release process. When thinking about the presence of data and how to make it more complete or less costly, there are a few questions you should ask about your data
Do I have access to the key data I need from all my logistic service providers?
Mapping out all your logistics providers and what milestones and documents are critical is an initial step.
For companies that want to take the lead on supply chain optimisation and innovation, having proper data feeds in place and easily accessible becomes even more important. Supply chain data is not only a source of information for day-to-day decision-making and visibility, but a strategic tool for improving the bottom line through increased profitability and reduced costs, and elevating the end-customer service level.
To help you gain insights on how supply chain data can make the transportation black box a more tangible and transparent source for data, these series of blog posts will address points related to the process of structuring and evaluating your data. Independently of where you are in this process, using manual information gathering via websites or already owning and controlling the end-to-end view, creating trusted insights when structuring supply chain data is a strategic requirement to make better and more proactive decisions.
How many hours are spent gathering manual data on websites and emails to fill gaps in my data that I still deem as critical?
It is a reality in our industry that data is incomplete or simply not accessible. If all data is not available and maintained via automatic connections, there is a high level of manual work required to ensure data completeness. Visiting websites, receiving emails or evaluating separate reports on excel is an additional source of cost and inefficiencies.
For most importers or exporters, the ocean leg is only the middle part of a complex journey that involves a series of logistic providers. Each of them have responsibilities within a specific leg or service and use their own systems and data standards. This gives rise to a highly fragmented digital landscape with multiple data streams that are difficult to integrate with one another. Combining data from all these parties has always been a challenge.
How much work is necessary to combine different reports into one and make it available to all the parts of the organization that need it?
If all information is captured to provide the day-to-day visibility for operations, it’s also needed to evaluate how this data is organized, stored and retrieved for detailed analysis and scenario work.
This process becomes even more problematic when considering that each logistics provider may have different types of information to share, an uneven level of technical capability, and use different formats to provide the desired files and data.
Adding more entities to this data capture only exacerbates the issues. While the data provided by ocean carriers follow similar standards, first and last mile extended visibility are a well-known pain point across all company sizes and industries. The data related to rail, trucking, inland gate-in or gate-outs are often unavailable or hard to access, requiring a high level of manual work, where data still might not be available.
How much do I spend on creating and maintaining Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) or Application Programming Interface (API) connections?
Allocating resources internally or hiring third parties to manage Information Technology (IT) connections have a cost. Understanding exactly what this spend is contributes to the transparency on the overall operational costs.
Even within very sophisticated supply chains systems, there is strong reliability on customised and costly EDI connections which are still peer-to-peer integrations and create silos. When direct connections are not available, manual input that requires hours of work or other types of reports that must be incorporated to the main system is a common alternative.
All these options have an impact and force companies to allocate resources, time and investment in non-core activities. They also affect the ability of companies to react to exceptions in a timely manner due to the manual flows created.
How do I share this data back outside my four walls to realize true collaborative efficiencies?
In a journey that includes multiple modalities of transport and services provided by different entities the coordination and timeliness between them is key. Making information available to different partners facilitates their work and handover between entities, driving gains in timeliness, efficiency and increasing trust.
Supply chains are complex systems. While working to simplify and gain operational efficiencies, considering how to connect all parts of this process for proper information access and sharing is key to implementation, execution and performance analysis.
Having access to all the data is only the first step. Be sure to watch this space.
Mediterranean Shipping Co (MSC) has joined other liners to support the call for global carbon taxation for shipping and an initiative to set up a worldwide fund for decarbonisation research.
Soren Toft, CEO of MSC, believes that carbon pricing could help the industry to decarbonise by reducing the price gap between fossil fuels and zero-carbon fuels as they become available.
He said that scalable long-term solutions simply do not currently exist for MSC to deploy on its ships.
“There is a gap in R&D to bring these alternative fuels and technologies to the market and the industry wide research fund will help us achieve the UN IMO’s policy targets,” said Toft, formerly with 2M partner Maersk.
Maersk has made its own views clear on the matter too with CEO Skou saying this week he favoured a global tax of at least $450 per tonne of fuel oil.
MSC stated on Friday that the industry urgently requires a diverse range of alternative fuels on a large scale.
The world’s second largest carrier highlighted the importance of determining the right combination of new fuels and technologies and implementing viable industry-wide proposals to invest in R&D to achieve those goals, and, ultimately, the zero-carbon future.
In an open letter yesterday, signed by the CEOs of 17 World Shipping Council members, MSC has joined an industry call to action to UN IMO member states to support the proposal for a R&D fund that would help catalyse new technologies and zero-carbon fuels to decarbonise the industry.
Hobbled by growing congestion at Chinese export gateway Yantian and key receiving terminals such as Oakland and Hamburg, the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index shot up by another 3.3% today to hit new records. The box spot index operated by the Shanghai Shipping Exchange climbed 117 points to close the week on 3,613 points, up 157% year-on-year.
Similarly Drewry’s weekly World Container Index, published yesterday, showed more steep price climbs for shippers to contend with. The average global price to move an feu now stands at $6,473.78, more than three and a half times the price this time last year.
Analysts contacted by Splash today suggest the box freight rate ceiling is still a way off.
Local events tend to deliver global ripples
“There aren’t currently any barriers preventing rates from continuing their ascent,” said Simon Heaney, senior manager of container research at UK consultants Drewry. “Demand is still surging and port productivity and equipment availability is worsening. Unless those conditions change – we don’t think they will until 4Q21 at the earliest – then prices will go up and up.”
“The elevated SCFI rate level seems here to stay for a while,” commented Jan Tiedemann, a shipping analyst at Alphaliner, suggesting that longer term most carriers expect rates to return to a “new normal” that is some 10-20% above the pre-Covid level.
There aren’t currently any barriers preventing rates from continuing their ascent
Peter Sand, BIMCO’s chief shipping analyst, said the next general rate increases, due on June 15, would likely push rates up further.
“The current crunch in supply chains is the catalyst; local events tend to deliver global ripples,” Sand said, going on to mention the Covid-19 outbreak that has hampered productivity in Yantian with more than 40 ships waiting to berth (see map below) and yesterday’s dramatic double crane collapse at Kaohsiung, Taiwan’s largest port.
“It is clear that the pricing of spot cargo presently is governed by the fact that there is insufficient capacity,” commented Lars Jensen, the CEO of Danish consultancy Vespucci Maritime. Jensen suggested a ceiling could be reached when enough shippers are priced out of the market.
“Pricing is now directly linked to the value of the cargo being moved – or more aptly the impact on the importer if cargo does not move,” Jensen said, adding: “The upper limit of this being determined by the point where sufficiently many shippers become priced out of the market and will abstain from booking.”
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.
