Tag Archives: alliances

2M Alliance will end in 2025, say Maersk and MSC

With all the talk of breaking up the alliances, this decision by Maersk and MSC is smart. Each line now has a ready answer for regulators, both in the EU and the US.

The decision is reminiscent of what happened with IBM and ATT. In those cases, the US regulators sued these two giant companies on antitrust grounds. At the time, IBM was dominant in computers, and ATT was dominant in telephones, and there were concerns of price fixing with both companies. In each of these cases, the government had to take legal action against the firms. But the lawsuits dragged on and on; giant companies can easily afford large legal entourages that can string out a proceeding forever.

One of my good friends and former bosses led the IBM antitrust management team.

Somewhere in the proceedings, while imagining life after the breakup, each of these firms came to the conclusion they would be better off broken up. So each of them proposed a split-up. The proposal itself was enough to defuse the lawsuit’s consequences, and reduce concerns the regulators had.

For a short while, I worked for Lucent, which was one of the spinoffs of ATT; it was the Western Electric manufacturing division, and included Bell Labs and other electronics manufacturers. Other ATT spinoffs were the ‘baby Bells’, the regional telephone companies. Now, 40 years later, they are all gone too. So is local phone service, replaced by cell phones, so a monopoly in local landline service is not a concern. Lucent is also gone, merged into Alcatel, a large European concern with partial Chinese ownership, and is called Alcatel-Lucent. It’s a private concern.

IBM spun off its printer and PC division into Lenovo, also a Chinese company, and while they still support mainframe computing today, are now more of a software company.

I think it’s a smart move to defuse regulatory concern about alliances. The political atmosphere right now would definitely support breaking them up. Huge profits in times just past, and terrible service for customers in the past and right now make the alliances an easy political target. But saying it’s going to end anyway should buy Maersk and MSC some negotiating room with the regulators. The only issues then will be how they preserve service; these are easily dealt with by making some kind of plans that man or may not ever be implemented.

I think the big question for Maersk and MSC will be the effect on their capital expenses and on their service guarantees. The rationale for alliances was that more regular service could be offered on an alliance route because the carriers covering it would share the job of providing regular ship sailings. That would reduce the need of each firm for more ships. That’s much lower capital expense.

Alliances are a great example of business collaboration to reduce costs, here capital costs (since the voyage operating costs are ‘covered’ by the cargo). Capital is expensive; no one can buy enough ships without borrowing, or using up cash on hand, or asking for more investment.

But in recent times, carriers are blanking sailings when they don’t have full ships. Service, even on alliance routes, has deteriorated to an awful level for container shipping.

It’s hard to see how Maersk, for instance, can cover a 2M alliance route adequately for a large customer, who may require weekly shipments. Some of the business will have to go to another carrier. And then the scheduling will not be straightforward. Throw blanked sailings into the mix, and customers will suffer.

But the regulators will be appeased; they can’t regulate as much when the alliance is gone.

I think the big problem of long-term success for ocean container carriers is customer service. They have to figure out how to set delivery expectations for customers and then deliver to them reliably. Hopefully at a profit.

Another take from Drewry is posted below.\, via Nick Savvides and Loadstar.

Update 1/27/2023: another thoughtful article from Greg Miller·Wednesday, January 25, 2023 in American Shipper.

By Nick Savvides 25/01/2023

2M Alliance will end in 2025, say Maersk and MSC – The Loadstar

Container Insight 25 Jan 2023

Your move, Maersk

American Shipper Logo

Greg Miller·Wednesday, January 25, 2023

How will Maersk-MSC split redraw container shipping landscape?

Forwarders fear ‘shut-out’ as other major lines emulate Maersk strategy

This complaint from freight forwarders is starting to resonate. It appears the major container carriers are gradually refusing to sell bulk space on container ships to brokers and forwarders, instead making them buy on the spot market.

One of the issues is to determine whether the liner companies are favoring large brokers and forwarders with discounted contracts, to the disadvantage of smaller brokers. Are there sweetheart deals? I am betting that for sure there will be space available from large brokers to smaller brokers. Price discipline is notoriously hard to enforce.

Is it anti-competitive to offer spot prices? No, I think not. Is it anti-competitive to offer different prices to different groups? Quite possibly. It’s worth a review by government agencies and regulators.

In competitive economics, fairness is not a principle; however, in political life it could be seen as unfair to drive out of business a group of substantial size who provide customized services of a very precise nature in a niche, to some shippers. Those skills may have value to society as a whole that are not captured in prices. That’s where regulation comes in.

By Alex Lennane and Ian Putzger 20/01/2022

Forwarders fear ‘shut-out’ as other major lines emulate Maersk strategy – The Loadstar

NITL claims alliances create ‘super-carrier distortion’ to liner shipping market

Liner shipping alliances were created years ago when there wasn’t enough containerized cargo for many competing ocean container carriers (sometimes called liners). They have evolved through time, a bit, but still allow several ocean carriers to band together to serve a particular route.

For instance, from Shanghai to LA and return, an alliance might provide weekly service. The companies then rotate in providing that ship for the service. If you book with one of thecompanies, you don’t know whose ship will be carrying the cargo, but it will be one of the members of the alliance. If everything goes smoothly and there are no delays, it should notmatter to the shipper whose ship they are on.

Alliances go by clever names such as THE Alliance (Hapag-Lloyd, ONE, & Yang Ming). Here’s a summary of facts about alliances, including who’s in each.

But when disruptions occur, as now, and ships don’t sail on schedule either because they are postponed by the line, or because of congestion in either the loading port or the unloading port, it becomes a problem.

The article outlines some of the complaints. Alliances have to be authorized by the specific counbtry they dock in. There is actually a bill in the US Congress to suggest that the FMC (Federal Maritime Commission) be given stronger powers to investigate problems and push the alliances to provide fair service to all customers.

By Nick Savvides 06/09/2021

NITL claims alliances create ‘super-carrier distortion’ to liner shipping market – The Loadstar