Tag Archives: ocean shipping

US importers using box ships to store cargo

US importers are not so worried about cargo waiting offshore to be unloaded. As long as they have enough for their sales or manufacturing, the cargo can sit on a container ship and the principal cost to the shipper is the interest cost. With interest rates at historic lows, that isn’t much.

The graph below from project44, a Chicago, I- based visibility platform, shows the number of TEUs at anchor by month from January through November 2020, on the left. The rise starting in August is significant. Using data from HSBC, which show a 3.2% annual interest rate, using an average container value of $40,000, they calculate almost $50M per month in new delay costs, and cumulative inventory interest costs over $850 million.

The point is that these costs are a lot lower than inventory costs at warehouses. While the cargo is held at sea under riskier conditions, in the warehouse other costs kick in, not the least of which is space required. Insurance charges on the financed inventory also accumulate. And there’s the work, both labor and mechanical, of shuffling the inventory around; it’s very variable given the specific warehouse layout, but can be significant also.

So shippers are using the offshore jam-up rather than wishing it away. Only when the demand for products ratchets up so that the offshore inventory is needed will the stakes change. While we have significant COVID likelihood today, that isn’t likely to change much.

It’s always interesting to look at the overall question of inventory cost in the supply chain. Advantages to shippers can come from unlikely places.

By Nick Savvides 12/01/2022

US importers using box ships to store cargo – cheaper than warehouses – The Loadstar

How to sue a carrier for delays, blanked sailings and D&D overcharges

It’s not going to be easy to sue a carrier for delays and blanked sailings. But whatever your taste, you have to document everything. The author, a lawyer, points to many types of documentation required to substantiate your claim.

I believe that the threat of many suits may well be useful to annoy carriers. They’re less likely to engage in reprehensible behavior like blanking if they know a bunch of shippers are going to be suing them. Those little lawsuits are annoying because each has to be dealt with somehow, and if the plaintiffs (shippers) are persistent, the annoyance may be enough to get the carrier’s attention.

Now there are two ways that attention can go. One way is that the carrier offers to settle and doesn’t complain too much. This may be a sign they care about your future business– at least a bit– or that they are taking a generous attitude toward customer service. The other way is hardball. They may deny everything and threaten you back. That is a sign they don’t want your future business, and just want to dispose of this claim to be able to tell authorities they have dealt with it. In this case, you probably won’t get anything, unless you have deep pockets for the law, and can pursue a case for which you are unlikely to recover your expenses.

And whatever action you take, don’t expect prompt resolution. One thing companies do is try to string out a case hoping the plaintiff loses interest or has a need to move on and not spend the time. That manages to get a lot of complaints off their back.

However, company lawyers are expensive too, and a stream of annoying lawsuits is not how the company wants its lawyers spending their time. So harassing the company with a lawsuit might get you some attention.

By Tiffany Comprés 07/12/2021

How to sue a carrier for delays, blanked sailings and D&D overcharges – The Loadstar

FedEx will sell space on empty container imports as a congestion-bypass service

And much more!

One thing that captured my attention in this nice article by Max Garland is the increasing use of 53 foot containers for imports to the US. This is a natural development, too long in coming as long as the US imports so much stuff. It saves the transloading step in SoCal once 40-foot containers get here; they can be moved immediately. A 53-foot container has 30% more cargo per truck move, and can be taken straight to a destination. No longer a reason to transload.

Another interesting point highlighted in the headline is FedEx’s offer to transport cargo in the new containers they are having built in China. I understand 53-foot containers are often being moved on refitted bulk ships rather than standard container ships which have slots for 40-foot containers. And these ships would move outside standard liner routes, which means they can choose where to drop off the containers. Perhaps they can go to ports that would avoid high congestion points. Often they are smaller as well, and take a shorter time to unload.

The article also discusses the jawboning that is taking place to get players in supply chains to move cargo quicker. Apparently the move toward 24-hour service in the supply chain has not gone too far, but some big players are already adopting the idea of it. Maybe the port terminals in LA and Long Beach won’t be able to do it, but the warehouses, trucking firms, and gate access points can, and even that will improve the flow of goods.

When people understand the whole problem and put their heads together, the congestion will abate. And they will figure out how to share the cost pain of doing so. It’s a lot more costly when you don’t have goods for sale on time.

Published Dec. 6, 2021

Max Garland Reporter

FedEx will sell space on empty container imports as a congestion-bypass service | Supply Chain Dive