Wednesday, April 15, 2015

CONTAINER LINE ORDERING MORE SHIPS

The chaos continues. Do these carriers really know how and where to use these ultra-large ships?  Or is it more throwing capital away given supply and demand?  How do they fill these ships?

Container carriers in big ship ordering 'frenzy'

Forty ultra-large containerships have been ordered since January and more are expected from Maersk and COSCO.

Drewery says container carriers in big ship ordering 'frenzy'.   There is “no let-up to the ordering frenzy” for large container ships, says Drewry Maritime Research, which forecasts 2015 will be “another year of excess growth in relation to demand...This will make it harder for carriers to repeat the estimated 92 percent load factors across the main headhaul East-West trade lanes achieved in 2014.”
   As it announced the latest edition of its Container Forecaster, the London-based consultants said new orders for Ultra Large Container Vessels with capacity for 18,000 TEUs or more “are pushing back the date when supply and demand can be expected to meet and at the individual trade route level this is now seemingly unachievable."
   "There have been around 40 ULCVs ordered since January, mainly for 2017 delivery and this does not include any provision for Maersk and COSCO orders yet to be finalized,” said Drewry.
   Neil Dekker, director of container research at Drewry, added, “The industry paid a heavy price for the huge ordering it undertook in 2006/07 and it seems that four years after Maersk spent $3.8 billion on its Triple Es, history is repeating and many lines are entering or are about to enter this now not so exclusive club. The one difference this time around is that the operational agreements should mean that not all top 20 lines will make this big step.”
   On another subject, while the tentative settlement between the PMA and ILWU is positive for the liner industry, Drewry said “our estimates are that it cost a combined $150 million during the last three months of 2014. He said this was Drewry's estimate of what the congestion at West Coast ports cost carriers in the fourth quarter and said it did not include shipper costs for air freight, lost orders or other associated supply chain impact, which he noted "cannot necessarily be measured in dollars.”
   The London-based research firm said, “The 30 percent fall in bunker prices has also been an unexpected boon, but most carriers still recorded lower average freight rates last year. Irrespective of lower BAFs, why did the strong load factors not align with improving freight rates given the constant monthly GRIs from the carriers? This shows there is still a disconnect in the industry and the most recent indicators in 2015 highlight that spot freight rates are in serious decline."
   It said current spot rates of $1,000 per FEU from Asia to North Europe “are below break-even levels for the carriers and consistent declines over the last ten weeks will concern volume shippers that have signed up for higher contract rates this year.”
   "The Chinese New Year period always tends to skew volume comparisons, but the delivery of over 60 ULCVs this year with an average nominal capacity of over 15,000 TEUs will cause a headache for trade route managers," said Drewy.
   It also said the underperformance of trades to East Coast South America is another concern for the global cascade of vessels over 8,000 TEUs.
   “The decision by Maersk and MSC to downgrade the average size of ships on one of their European strings to the East Coast of South America from 9,000 TEUs to 5,500 TEUs may not seem particularly important in the grand scheme of things. But all ocean carriers have argued that deploying new and big ships across every trade route is strategically critical. This is the first sign that on routes where trade growth is weak, the lower slot cost per unit argument is simply not enough because freight rates dive to well below sub-economic levels,” said Dekker.