The choice of port call by liner alliances is often not in line with the interests of carriers with stakes in container terminals, according to a new report by Drewry.
The global shipping consultancy in its recently launched “Ports and Terminals Insight” said the correlation between carrier terminal ownership and the choice of port calls by the 2M and upcoming Ocean Alliance and THE Alliance liner consortia is not as clear-cut as it should be.
The report analyzed the relationship between the extent of interests in terminals that carriers have in ports in selected gateway and transhipment port markets, and the ports of call in these markets, as selected by the three major alliances that will be in place from second-quarter 2017.
Gateway markets included Benelux ports, the Pacific South West and South China/Hong Kong, while transhipment markets covered hubs in Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Central America/Caribbean.
“Our analysis shows that even when a shipping line has a significant stake in a terminal, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the port is selected for the network schedule,” Drewry’s senior analyst for ports and terminals Neil Davidson said. “The picture is very varied: in some cases the correlation is tight, in others there is no obvious logic at all.”
He said that for gateway ports, the choice of port by carriers is influenced by other factors, such as the port preferences of shippers. “But what was particularly surprising was that for the choice of transhipment hub, which is entirely within the control of a carrier, the correlation was also weak in a number of cases.”
In the Benelux gateway port market, the port choices made by the Ocean Alliance and THE Alliance correlate very closely to the member lines’ terminal interests, but for 2M the opposite is true.
“What this analysis shows is that individual lines are not entirely in control of their own destinies when it comes to port choices, as partner lines in their alliances may have conflicting port choice preferences and particular idiosyncrasies,” continued Davidson.
“Moreover, even if alliance partners have corresponding port preferences, there is still potential for conflict at the terminal level if more than one line in an alliance has interests in different terminals in the same port, as is the case with the Ocean alliance in Rotterdam for example.”
He said that negotiations between alliance members extend beyond port choices and into the choice of specific terminals within any given port. “This illustrates the fact that even if a terminal operator brings in a shipping line as a joint venture partner, this is no absolute guarantee of securing an alliance’s volume.”
Photo: pete
