gridlock customs

Should I use a Freight Forwarder?


Supreme Freight assists companies in the process of transporting goods from one place to another. We use the most cost-effective methods with a suitable shipping company to ensure that every point of the journey goes smoothly.

At Supreme we contract with specialist companies covering sea, air or road to transport goods on behalf of their clients. We are the experts that can lead on your logistics needs and arrange a smooth process that will give you piece of mind that your goods will be delivered.


Why do Businesses Use Freight Forwarders?

Freight forwarders are seen as a necessary extension to many businesses. Mistakes made in shipping processes can be costly and delay goods getting to the places they need to go.

The wealth of knowledge and expertise we have on the process of importing and exporting is invaluable to companies and saves them both time and money.


What Can you Expect from a Freight Forwarder?

As a freight forwarder we will be able to listen to the shipping needs of your business and be able to tailor those to a logistically sound plan. Tailoring a logistics plan to meet your budget and time requirements, Supreme Freight will able to recommend you the best method of transportation, whether by road, air or sea. As well as this we will be able to make recommendations on:

  • Customs Clearance – From origin to destination, forwarders should be able to deal with all customs processes. This includes handling all paperwork and fees on your company’s behalf.
  • Shipping Documentation – Forwarders should be able to deal with all shipping documentation including Bills of Lading, Certificates of Origin, letters of credit or any documents required by banks before payment is released.
  • Insurance – A reputable freight forwarder will be able to recommend insurance services that will cover a shipment for loss or damage.
  • Logistics and Supply-Chain Management – Which can include but is not limited to fulfilment, customs consultancy and contract logistics services.

What are the Advantages of a Freight Forwarder?

  • The transportation of goods can be a logistical nightmare especially when you are dealing with importing or exporting to countries that you have not dealt with before. Different countries have different customs regulations, shipping restrictions and fees and a mistake could not only be costly in terms of fines but could delay your shipment reaching its destination and have a dramatic impact on your business. It’s important that companies get this right first time. Along with saving you time, freight forwarders provide you with the peace of mind that your shipments will arrive in the desired place, in the desired time in a method that meets your needs and is cost-effective.
  • Supreme Freight have been supporting their clients with their logistics needs since 1986 and in doing this we have built up an excellent reputation with customers and partners alike. The relationships we have formed with are logistics partners allows us to negotiate the best rate for are clients. Using these relationships and are expert knowledge as freight forwarders we can plan and deliver in a timely and cost-effective manner every time.
  • With the logistical side of shipping being taken care of externally, business owners have the time to focus their time and efforts on other parts of the business that require their attention. If importing and exporting goods is something that is happening quite regularly this could result in a significant increase in productivity.
  • As a company that deals with freight services all the time, Supreme Freight have the experience that will be invaluable to our clients. This knowledge and expertise will ensure that freight forwarders will be able to tailor their services to your specific requirements.
  • Working with a freight forwarder can open opportunities to businesses they didn’t know were possible. With extensive knowledge of the different markets internationally, it could see your business being taken to places you had only dreamed of.

When you work with Supreme Freight you will have over three decades of expertise on your side supporting you with your freight forwarding requirements. To discuss your logistics needs, contact Supreme Freight on +44 (0)23 8033 7778.

 

sea freight

What is Sea Freight Import?


If you are considering the logistics of Importing goods into the United Kingdom for your business, sea freight will naturally be an option you will consider. Sea freight is a good choice for those businesses that are looking to import a large amount of consumer goods and is most often used when importing from Far East Asia. One of the main reasons for this is because sea freight is a cost-effective option that has been a preferred method for many industries for decades.

Sea freight is the method of transporting a large quantity of goods using cargo ships. These come in the following forms:

  • Full Container Load (FCL) – In which a company fills a whole container with their own goods. Containers can be from 20 – 45 feet long.
  • Less than Container Load (LCL) – Where different companies share the same container and load their shipments into it. This would then get split once it reaches port.
  • Roll On Roll Off (RORO) – Where lorries or other vehicles are packed with shipments, drive onto the cargo ships and drive off once they have reached their destination.
  • Dry Bulk Shipping – Where materials such as metals or aggregates can be poured into the ships hold rather than being loaded into containers.

What are the Advantages of Sea Freight?

The advantages of importing using sea freight include:

  • Can be highly cost effective for businesses looking to import large quantities of goods. Sea freight has been known to be 4 – 6 times cheaper than air freight. Additionally, duty and VAT are calculated at a cheaper rate than air freight keeping the costs down
  • Supreme freight can also organise container sharing for smaller loads that can keep costs down for their clients.
  • Sea freight is a global business and is accessible from most countries around the globe.
  • Sea freight importing is much better for the environment than other methods.

What Will you Need to Pay for?

When importing into the UK, businesses not only need to consider the cost of the goods and the fee they are going to pay to the shipping company to transport them, they must also consider the duty and the taxes incurred on the goods as they pass through customs processes.

The price of these costs depends a lot on where the shipment is coming from. Currently, importing from the EU typically costs less than from outside as there normally isn’t duty to be paid. This may change as the United Kingdom goes through the process of leaving the European Union and businesses will need to consider this when pricing up their shipment.

Shipping costs depend a lot on the size of the shipment and what it is. Other costs excluding the shipping cost could include:

  • Cost of goods
  • UK import duty
  • UK VAT (There are some cases where businesses can claim this back.)

How Sea Freight Works

Arranging a shipment can generally be done using these steps:

  • Contact Supreme to discuss your logistic requirements and agree a plan.
  • The goods will be collected by the shipping company from the supplier.
  • The shipment will be transported to the port and proceed through customs.
  • Goods are loaded into an FCL or LCL container and loaded onto a cargo ship.
  • Once the shipment has arrived into the UK, the shipment is met by customs and released when duty and taxes are paid.
  • Goods are delivered to your business.

When you work with Supreme you will be working with a reputable, cost effective shipping company who will ensure that the process runs smoothly. Planning and organisation will be key as shipments can take a long time to reach their final destinations especially if delays occur. To discuss your sea freight needs or any other freight requirements contact the expert team at Supreme Freight on +44 (0)23 8033 7778.

Suez Canal

Suez Canal bans open loop scrubbers

Despite the recent introduction of  low-sulphur regulations, the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) will continue to allow ships transiting the waterway to burn heavy fuel oil (HFO) without the need for scrubbers.

Adding to the confusion for ship managers is a ban by the SCA on the discharge of wash water – used in the open-loop scrubber process – while vessels make the passage.

In effect, this means ships with scrubbers installed must switch off the exhaust gas cleaning systems during the 12-hour passage, thus releasing pollutants into the atmosphere.

In circular 8/2019 issued on Sunday, the SCA it said it puts “no restrictions on fuel oil” for ships using the canal “until ratification of MARPOL Annex V1″ by  Egypt.

The same circular also states it is “forbidden” to discharge sea water into the canal during transit “in any circumstances”.

The IMO 2020 0.5% global sulphur cap on marine fuel for ships not fitted with scrubbers came into force on 1 January, having been agreed by all member states, including Egypt. However, governments officially need to pass laws in their own countries for the regulation to become enforceable.

Around 80% of the scrubber systems installed on ships are of the open-loop type that use seawater to separate the sulphur content from the fuel before it enters the ships’ exhaust funnel.

There are a limited number of ships with closed-loop scrubbers, which keep the wash water on board for later discharge, and there is hybrid equipment that can switch between the two operations, but both are expensive to install and operate.

A number of independent studies have sought to prove that the use of open-loop scrubbers is a “safe and effective means of complying with IMO 2020”, but ship operators have struggled to get the message across. Indeed, more than 80 ports around the world have prohibited the use of open-loop scrubbers in their territorial waters.

The Clean Ship Alliance (CSA), a pro-scrubber lobby, told The Loadstarrecently it was “actively engaging” with port authorities over their concerns, but suggested the bans had been put in place after “very little hard research”, with many ports deciding to prohibit their use on the back of bans by others.

Vessels fitted with open-loop scrubbers calling at ports with ban need to switch tanks to compliant fuel before entering the jurisdiction, as is the case for the ultra-low ECAs (emission control areas) of North Europe and the US.

Source: The Loadstar

container port

Guidelines Published to help reduce Container fire risk

A container shipping group, set up to increase safety levels in the industry following a string of sometimes fatal box ship fires, has produced its first set of guidelines to help operators prevent further incidents.

The Cargo Incident Notification System (CINS) today published Safety Considerations for Ship Operators Related to Risk-Based Stowage of Dangerous Goods on Containerships, specifically in response to “a number of serious fire incidents in recent years, often caused by deficiencies in cargo declaration and cargo packing”.

A copy of the publication can be downloaded here.

CINS chairman Uffe Ernst-Frederiksen said: “Cargo-related incidents which result in fire and explosions are rooted in cargo problems. Subsequent investigations demonstrate a wide range of deficiencies relating to cargo presented for shipment.

“These deficiencies include erroneous classification and declaration, packing, segregation and securing, not complying with IMDG or not following the CTU Code and packaging not complying with IMDG. This new best-practice guidance for DG stowage is intended to help improve fire safety in our industry,” he added.

The group stressed that the guidelines “complement – but do not replace – the existing measures already developed and implemented by ship operators for the carriage of properly declared dangerous goods. Likewise, they do not replace the SOLAS and IMDG requirements for stowage and segregation – in fact, they will enhance the requirements of these regulations”.

Investigations into deadly fires on board containerships in recent years have demonstrated that there is a class of cargo which, although not classed as dangerous goods, is thought to have increased the severity of some of the fires.

“Such commodities include, but are not limited to, charcoal, wood pellets, metal scrap, borings, shavings, turnings and seed cake,” advises the publication, which also includes stowage plan strategies to mitigate the risk of this type of cargo escalating a blaze into a severe fire.

CINS was established in in 2011 and its board comprises five of the world’s largest container shipping lines – Maersk, Hapag Lloyd, MSC, CMA CGM and Evergreen – together with three advisory board members, International Group of P&I Clubs, TT Club and Exis Technologies.

Its membership comprises over 85% of the world’s container slot capacity.

Source: The Loadstar

emissions

IMO have a lack of urgency to clear up shipping

The IMO has decided on a goal-setting approach by member states to decarbonise shipping, rather than progress the proposals put forward by some members for a mandatory speed reduction on vessels.

The strategy, decided last week in London, not to opt for speed restrictions has angered the members of the Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) who blasted the IMO for its “bureaucracy” and “lack of urgency”.

An IMO working group agreed a draft text that will be put forward to the next Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in March.

The text urges member states to develop and update a voluntary national action plan, which includes an improvement in the domestic and legislative implementation of existing regulations and a commitment to develop activities to further enhance the energy efficiency of ships, along with initiating the research and the uptake of alternative low- and zero-carbon fuels.

The IMO said that during the working group sessions “a number of proposals were discussed”, including an Energy Efficiency Ship Index (EEXI), mandatory power limitations on ships, measures to optimise speed on a voyage and speed limiters.

According to the UK Chamber of Shipping,“after lengthy discussions it was clear that there was no appetite for prescriptive speed reduction regulation”.

However, the UK Chamber, which is against the implementation of speed restrictions on shipping, arguing among other things that it would require more ships to be built with ‘old’ technology to take up the slack, said there was a “positive outcome” from the meeting.

Shipping policy director Anna Ziou said: “The progress made sets the right direction of travel and is a good foundation for the IMO’s work to put the strategy into action.”

Meanwhile, the CSC said measures were “urgently needed” if the IMO’s plan, agreed in April last year to half emissions from shipping by 2050 was to be met.

Bill Hemmings, shipping director of CSC member, transport & environment, said: “Time is running short but that’s not the feeling you get inside the room. The commitment last April to agree and implement in the short-term immediate emissions reduction measures has fallen foul of procedure, bureaucracy and delay spearheaded by countries that were never really on board.”

Mr Hemmings named the key member states as the US, Saudi Arabia and Brazil that “spearheaded” the movement against mandatory speed restrictions.

And John Maggs, senior policy advisor at fellow CSC member Seas at Risk, was equally damming of the IMO’s decision not to implement vessel speed restrictions at this time.

“Ships have deployed slow-steaming over the past decade in a way that has seen dramatic reductions in emissions. The world is not blind to this,” said Mr Maggs.

He said that the speeds of ships “must initially be capped” and “then progressively lowered” and suggested that the “commitment of many at the IMO to genuinely reduce ship emissions” was absent.

Nevertheless, several shipowners and operators The Loadstar has spoken to in recent weeks argued that they were already operating their vessels at the lowest speeds recommended by engine manufacturers, in order to conserve fuel and cut voyage costs to the bone.

Indeed, one executive from a major container carrier said: “Our masters are under strict instructions not to ‘put their foot down’ unless it is a matter of safety; if we miss a berth window so be it, we have a network that can adjust to that and it is generally cheaper than burning the extra fuel.”

Source: The Loadstar

MSC

MSC tipped to overtake Maersk as the worlds biggest box carrier

MSC is on course to overtake alliance partner Maersk as the biggest ocean carrier by capacity within the next two years.

A new order for five 23,000 teu ULCVs from the South Korean Daewoo yard will take the Geneva-based carrier’s orderbook to 16 vessels, for a massive 305,352 teu, according to Alphaliner data.

A disclosure from Daewoo this week valued the order at $152m per ship, with delivery of the five by August 2021.

This will propel MSC’s fleet, including current chartered tonnage, to just under 4m teu, a capacity level Maersk has said it wants to stick at.

During the second-quarter earnings call in August, Maersk chief executive Soren Skou confirmed this, adding: “We want to remain disciplined on capacity and stick to our guidance of around 4m teu of deployed capacity because it helps us drive utilisation up and unit costs down.”

Currently the Danish carrier’s fleet stands at some 4.2m teu, however Mr Skou attributed the above-guidance figure to be due to a number of ships dry-docking for scrubber installation, obliging a higher than normal level of chartered-in tonnage.

Unlike its 2M partner, Maersk has for some time taken a bearish view on ordering, and currently has an orderbook of just 45,000 teu. It has long since ceased to be the ocean carrier operating the biggest  box ship; MSC is the current leader with its 23,765 teu scrubber-fitted MSC Gulsun, in service between Asia and North Europe.

With MSC threatening to end its long reign as the industry’s biggest carrier, Maersk’s board could be put under pressure to reconsider its capacity strategy, which in turn could lead to it identifying new acquisition targets in order to support its growth.

In contrast, MSC’s family-influenced strategy to only grow its liner business organically means it needs to be more aggressive in its markets to underpin the injection of additional capacity.

Teaming up with Maersk in the 2M alliance in January 2015 has seen stronger growth organically for MSC than its VSA partner has managed via acquisition, and there are some concerns emerging that it is lagging.

Source: The Loadstar

emissions

The UK should include aviation and shipping in net zero emission goal

The aviation and shipping sectors should formally be included in Britain’s target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, the government’s climate advisers said on Tuesday.

Britain earlier this year became the first G7 country to set a net zero emission target although the shipping and aviation sectors were not explicitly included in the goal.

Combined the two sectors account for around 5% of global greenhouse emissions but if left unchecked this is expected to grow significantly, particularly as passenger flying numbers increase.

“Now is the time to bring the UK’s international aviation and shipping emissions formally within the UK’s net-zero target. These are real emissions, requiring a credible plan to manage them to net-zero by 2050,” Chris Stark, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), said in an email.

The CCC said, in a letter to Britain’s transport minister, Grant Shapps on Tuesday, emissions from aviation could be reduced by around a fifth by 2050 by using sustainable biofuels, improving fuel efficiency and limiting demand growth to at most 25% above current levels.

It said zero-carbon aviation is unlikely to be feasible by 2050 and that greenhouse gas removal methods would be needed to offset remaining emissions.

The CCC said the government said could establish a market for scalable greenhouse gas removal solutions, such as bioenergy carbon capture and storage, which sees emissions from lower carbon biofuels captured and stored to prevent them going into the atmosphere.

In the shipping sector zero carbon or near zero carbon could be feasible by 2050 the CCC said, if there is a widespread adoption of cleaner and as yet mostly so far untried fuels such as hydrogen or ammonia.

The CCC advice came as several ports, banks, oil and shipping companies on Monday launched an initiative which aims to have ships and marine fuels with zero carbon emissions on the high seas by 2030.

The International Civil Aviation Organization has committed to a target of halving net emissions by 2050, compared to 2005 levels and is working on a Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for (CORSIA) which requires most airlines to limit emissions or offset them by buying credits from environmental projects.

The CCC, which is independent of the government, is chaired by former British environment secretary John Gummer and includes business and academic experts.

Source: Reuters.com

hapag lloyd

Global container fleet breaches 23m teu

A wave of ULCV deliveries this year has pushed the total containership fleet capacity over the 23m teu mark, with the last million slots added in a breath–taking 14 months, according to an Alphaliner report. 

However, the newbuilds, mostly consisting of ULCVs, have arrived at a time of softening demand growth across the major tradelanes of the world, which is already forcing carriers to blank a significant amount of headhaul voyages. 

In fact on Monday the 2M partners, Maersk and MSC advised that the “temporary suspension” of their AE2 / Swan Asia – North Europe loop would commence one week earlier than planned, with the final schedule sailing from Qingdao on 25 September also being cancelled. 

While the new ULCVs will in most cases immediately be deployed on the Asia – Europe tradelane the cascading impact of the incumbent tonnage being reassigned to secondary routes will have negative consequences on freight rates in those markets. 

Ocean carriers received some 91,000 teu of newbuild tonnage in the last week alone, including two further MSC Gulsun-series 23,000 teu + vessels; the 21,230 teu Cosco Shipping Planet and the 20,240 teu Ever Globe.

According to the Alphaliner data, 826,000 teu of cellular capacity on some 108 vessels has been received by liner operators so far this year. 

However, in contrast the scrapping of older ships has stalled, with only 165,000 teu reported to have been sold for demolition to date, due to a strong charter market driven by the demand for substitute vessels to cover scrubber installations on the existing fleet. 

 “A strong charter market gives owners little incentive to recycle ships, and several vessels that were initially bound for the breaking yards are now being kept in active service,” said the consultant. 

Indeed, London shipbrokers Braemar ACM reported this week that there have been only three demolition sales in the past 30 days. 

“Some of the demand increase since June is related to vessel downtime for scrubber installations. A total of 44 ships with an overall capacity of 465,000 teu are currently undergoing retrofit work at various shipyards,” said Alphaliner. 

However, this artificial charter market demand, caused by the looming IMO 2020 0.5% sulphur cap regulations on marine bunkers, is masking the weakening fundamentals of global trade. 

Earlier in the week, shipping association Bimco reiterated its expectation for containership scrapping at some 200,000 teu for the full year but warned that the “fundamental balance of the container shipping market will worsen this year”. 

Alphaliner said that it expected that the low scrapping rate would “persist for the remainder of the year” and as a consequence has lowered its recycling forecast to less than 250,000 teu from its previous estimate of 350,000 teu. 

Source: Alphaliner / The Loadstar

future of shipping

Scrubbers integral for IMO 2020 compliance

Scrubbers will be vital to ensure compliance to the International Maritime Organization’s low sulfur mandate despite facing skepticism from some quarters about their limitations, delegates said at an industry event this week.

By January, 1, 2020, when the IMO 2020 rule is implemented, S&P Global Platts Analytics predicts around 2,400 scrubbers to be operational worldwide. This figure is expected to ramp up to over 3,500 by the end of 2020, with more upside potential post 2020, Platts Analytics said.

Close to 70% of the VLCCs under construction and around a fourth of the overall global fleet of this category are expected to have scrubbers, according to shipping industry estimates.

Exhaust gas cleaning systems, or scrubbers, are an alternative method of compliance and ever since MARPOL Annex VI came out in 1997, regulation 4 has allowed alternative methods of compliance, Ian Adams, executive director Clean Shipping Alliance (CSA) 2020 said Wednesday at the 35th annual Asia Pacific Petroleum Conference in Singapore.

“We’ve (the industry) been using scrubbers since 2006 … so, we’ve got a lot of knowledge,” Adams said.

Scrubbers can help remove up to 99% sulfur dioxides, up to 94% of particulate matter, up to 60% of black carbon, and significant amounts of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, or PAH.

A recent study by Norway’s SINTEF, one of Europe’s largest independent research organizations, showed that the continued use of residual fuels with a scrubber can help towards global CO2 reduction.

The science behind EGCS is “absolutely sound,” Adams said.

Danish refined oil products tanker group Torm is set to use scrubbers as part of its IMO 2020 compliance strategy.

“In Torm, we don’t believe in a one-solution-fits-all approach,” Jesper Jensen, head of the technical division at the company, said, adding that Torm aims to retrofit 34 ships with scrubbers while about 48 ships will use compliant fuels.

Retrofit installations are usually more complicated than installing scrubbers on newbuildings while installation costs are creeping up at the shipyard as their capacity runs out, he said.

“Still, in my opinion it is quite an attractive solution to install scrubbers by retrofits on ships of certain types,” Jensen said.

Torm, for its part, has already inked a joint venture with ME Production, a leading scrubber manufacturer, and Guangzhou Shipyard International, part of the China State Shipbuilding Corporation Group, to provide it the flexibility to make timely decisions on retrofit installations.

Maersk, too, sees scrubbers as a part of its IMO 2020 strategy.

“We as Maersk have been pretty clear for [about] two years now on our view that the industrial logic for the best place to remove sulfur is onshore a refinery, and not onboard a ship,” Savvas Manousos, global head of trading at Maersk Oil Trading, said Monday.

“Having said that, we have installed a number [of scrubbers] on our own ships, partly as a following tactic to our competitors because others have chosen [them] and therefore we were obliged to follow to an extent,” he said.

Ultimately, some shipowners are going to take a wait-and-see approach and see what happens to the price spread, he said.

“As for owners, from our discussion, most of them are still installing open loop scrubbers on their ships based on the economics of fuel consumption at sea, and also on the price differential,” Goh Chung Hun, director (shipping), Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore said Monday.

This is despite Singapore’s announcement last year to ban the use of wash water discharge from open loop scrubbers from January 1, 2020, in its port waters.

“There is a marked preference for installing scrubbers in new rather than existing ships, and in bigger instead of smaller ships,” an executive said.

While the scrubber manufacturers are making a very strong pitch to highlight their benefits, not all shipowners are convinced or opting for them.

There are several tankers’ owners such as Ardmore Shipping and Euronav which have stayed away from installations, at least for the time being.

Euronav in early September said it had purchased VLSFO at a premium of only $47/mt to the bunker price for heavy fuel oil 3.5% sulfur content over the same procurement period, making VLSFO economics viable.

Still, Euronav said it did not dismiss scrubbers completely and continued to assess the potential retrofitting of part of its fleet with them.

“Owners do not want to put all their eggs in one basket as none is sure about the differential between low and high sulfur marine fuels” early next year, said an executive with another tankers company.”

Source: Hellenic Shipping News

Maersk and MSC to suspend AE2 Asia-North Europe loop for the second time

Alliance partners Maersk and MSC are to “temporarily suspend” their AE2/Swan Asia-North Europe loop from the end of the month until mid-November, removing up to 20,000 teu a week from the trade.

Weakening demand and plummeting freight rates have so far obliged Asia-North Europe carriers to blank two-thirds more sailings than during the same period of last year, and now the 2M alliance is to suspend the loop for the second consecutive year.

Moreover, Maersk said it would also “balance its network to match reduced market demand for the upcoming [Chinese factory shutdown] Golden Week” and withdraw its AE7, MSC’s Condor, headhaul string in week 41, thus removing around another 17,000 teu of capacity from the market that week.

MSC said the AE2/Swan suspension would “help us to match capacity with the expected weaker demand for shipping services”, and in a customer advisory, Maersk said the  service would resume “in line with demand pickup”, suggesting that the suspension could be extended if demand on the route continued to be soft.

The 2M adopted a similar strategy last year, suspending the AE2/Swan from September to December, rather than using the blanked voyage tool favoured by the Ocean and THE alliances. It  said mothballing loops was “a better option for shippers”.

However last year rival carriers took commercial advantage of the service suspension. Indeed, one rival carrier source told The Loadstar the 2M suspension was the “best news we have had in a long time”.

This year, according to Alphaliner data, a total of 42 Asia-North Europe headhaul sailings were blanked in the first three quarters, compared with just 16  in the first nine months of 2018.

Also, at the end of last month, HMM terminated its AEX service, which it operated separately to its slot charter arrangement with the 2M. This removed some 4,800 teu of weekly capacity from the trade, albeit that the South Korean carrier replaced its ‘independent’ service with a slot charter deal with THE Alliance ahead of it joining the vessel sharing group as a full member in April next year.

Until now, the 2M partners have not voided any sailings, despite the peak season proving to be a damp squib and spot rates having slumped to $757 per teu as of last week, according to the reading of the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) – a startling 19% below the level of a year ago and an alarming 24% drop from early January.

The planned six-week suspension of the AE2/Swan loop will see 12 17,800-20,500 teu vessels idled.

Source: The Loadstar