Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
European Commission
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
October 2009
COMPETITION REPORTS
European Commission
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
October 2009
COMPETITION REPORTS
Brussels, 2009
DISCLAIMER: Raven Trading Limited and its representatives carrying out contracted work shall not have any liability for any errors in the information. The information is an estimate and subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. No warranties or representations of any kind can be given with respect to the accuracy of said information. Any use of the information provided is at the discretion of the Client and any decision reached is the sole responsibility of the Client. This report was produced by Ben Hackett, on behalf of Raven Trading Limited, for the European Commission and represents its authors views on the subject matter. This report does not necessarily reflect the European Commissions views and cannot be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. The European Commission do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report and do not accept responsibility for any use thereof.
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era 5 October 2009 This electronic publication is available on the Competition website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/transport/reports/index.html Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. More information on competition publications, including how to subscribe to mailing lists is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/ Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2009 ISBN 978-92-79-14547-6 (pdf) doi 10.2763/34537 (pdf) European Union, 2009. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of text of other materials, such permission shall cancel the above-mentioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use.
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Contents
Executive Summary Introduction Defining Terminal Handling Charges Background Defining THCs History of THC Changes THCs and Freight Rates Terminal Handling Charges by Carrier and Terminals Analysis of Terminal Handling Charges Terminal Handling Charges By Port, Trade and Carrier Post Conference THC Rates Carriers Response to the Post Conference System Impact of the Repeal on THC Levels Database Updating Post October 2008 Conclusions Appendix A: Pre October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators Appendix B: Post October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators Appendix C: Data Sources 1 3 3 3 4 7 8 10 14 17 19 19 20 27 28 29 35 41
Contents
Tables
Table 1: CENSA THC Formula Cost Elements .......................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Split of THC Charges between Shipper and Ship Operator ....................................................... 6 Table 3: Hong Kong Terminal Handling Charges History ....................................................................... 8 Table 4: Far Eastern Freight Conference Table 5: India Pakistan Bangladesh Ceylon Conference ..12 Table 6: Europe Mediterranean Trade Agreement Table 7: East Coast South America (No Conference existed on this trade) 12 Table 8: Transatlantic Conference Table 9: Europe Middle East Rate Agreement ...........................13 Table 10: Europe Canary Islands Conference Table 11: South Africa Conference (No Conference existed on this trade) 13 Table 12: Europe West Africa Trade Agreement ..................................................................................13 Table 13: European Port Terminal Handling Charges by Trade Route (August- September 2008)......15 Table 14: Africa & Americas Port Terminal Handling Charges by Trade Route (September 2008)......16 Table 15: Asian Port Terminal Handling Charges by Trade Route (September 2008) ..........................17 Table 16: THC Rates at Southampton for Ten Largest Carriers During Conferences............................18 Table 17: THC Rates at Rotterdam for Ten Largest Carriers During Conferences ................................18 Table 18: THC Rates at Genoa for Ten Largest Carriers During Conferences .......................................18 Table 19: THC Rates at Singapore, Shanghai, and Tokyo for Ten Largest Carriers During Conferences ..............................................................................................................................................................19 Table 20: Average Charges and Range of Charges for Combined Containers: Europe Post April 200921 Table 21: Range of Rates by Container Size: Europe ............................................................................22 Table 22: Average Rates and Percent Increase for Combined Containers: Europe..............................23 Table 23: Average Rates and Range of Rates for Combined Containers: Asia .....................................24 Table 24: Range of Rates by Container Size: Asia .................................................................................25 Table 25: Average Rates and Percent Increase by Container Size: Asia ...............................................26 Table 26: Average Rates and Range of Rates for Combined Containers: North/South America .........27 Table 27: Range of Rates by Container Size: North and South America...............................................27 Table 28: Average Rates and Percent Increase for Combined Containers: North and South America 27
Charts
Chart 1: Freight Rates for Asia/Europe/Asia....9 Chart 2: Freight Rates for Transatlantic...9 Chart 3: Supply versus Demand, 2012..10
ii
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Executive Summary
1. Regulation (EC) No 1419/2006 was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 25 September 2006. This repealed the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 which had notably allowed block exemption from EC competition rules for liner shipping conferences. This took effect on 18 October 2008. 2. The European Commission is seeking to establish the impact of the end of the liner conference block exemption on the various elements of the price of the transport services. This study addresses the charges related to the handling of containers in ports and terminals, that is, the Terminal Handling Charge (THC) applied by all container carriers in most ports. 3. The purpose of the study is to identify the THCs that were applied prior to October 18th, and to compare these with those applicable after the repeal of the liner conference block exemption. It is also the intent of this study to compare the level of THCs across different trades and different carriers. This, in order to be better able to assess the changes in the level of the charges after October 18th, both by carrier and by trade. 4. A common formula for assessing the terminal handling charges to be charged was developed in 1989 by the Council of European and Japanese National Shipping Association (CENSA) which was initially agreed by the European Shippers Council. It structured the formula on an 80/20 basis, with the carriers being responsible for the 20 percent. 5. The survey of the terminal handling charges at 44 ports prior to the elimination of the liner block exemption highlighted a broad and consistent homogeneity in most ports around the world with exceptions in Africa and South America. The conference carriers all applied the same charge per port, by trade, irrespective of their own costs which may have been higher or lower. Non conference carriers appeared to have followed the conference lead and applied the same charges. 6. Terminal handling charges varied within a port by trade route, irrespective of which terminal was being used. 7. The validity of the terminal handling charges addressed in this study relates to the period July-September, 2008, and April-June 2009. 8. Container lift charges are negotiated between individual carriers and terminal operators. The commercial pricing is dependent upon volume throughput and longevity of the contract. In return the terminal operator provides guarantees with regard to vessel docking and number of box moves per hour. As far as can be ascertained, contracts are based on a per lift basis, irrespective of box size. Rates per move do vary based on whether the box is full or empty or destined for transshipment (i.e. moving only from ship to stack to ship, without exiting the gate). 9. Terminal handling charges, as a ratio to the freight rates, is variable over time depending on the state of freight rates and all in charges. During high freight rates they are an insignificant part of the pricing mix, but during a freight rate collapse, such as in 2009, they are a higher percentage of the total transportation bill. Terminal handling charges are usually a negotiable item, at least for large customers.
Executive Summary
10. Following the abolition of the conferences, terminal handling charges underwent significant simplification and were structured on a country basis rather than a port basis. Terminal handling charges that had remained virtually unchanged for nearly 15 years in Europe changed almost overnight. 11. Significant differences in pricing between the carriers appeared following the elimination of the carriers and the subsequent increase in competition. This competition has led many carriers to begin posting current terminal handling charges on their websites (primarily for Europe, although in some cases for Asia as well). 12. Current charges are supposedly based solely on cost recovery, although this may not always be the case due to variance in charges that do not correlate with volume throughput. The new charges appear to be cost plus, that is, cover all container related costs from vessel cell to gate and in some cases the costs also make allowances for the return of empty containers. Individual lines appear to have different interpretations of what could, or should, be included in THCs, as rates attempt to recover cost of moving empty containers in some instances. 13. Charges vary by container size in Asia and the Americas, while in Europe charges are per container. This may not be directly correlated to the terminal cost structure in all the ports. 14. Changes to terminal handling charges were geographically related: with only a few exceptions, charges in Europe and Australia increased or were newly introduced, while Asia excluding China underwent only slight increases. Charges in China typically decreased, with the exception of Shenzen which had significant rate increases. In the Americas the charges appear to have decreased in Canada, increased in the U.S. and with little change in Santos. 15. The increased use of annual freight contracts with individual shippers has created all-in rates that incorporate the terminal handling charges into the total cost, making the charges largely irrelevant. 16. Terminal handling charges appear to be negotiable between shippers and carriers particularly with all-in freight rates that obscure the level of individual charges. The level of THCs are likely to change annually in the future as cost recovery needs shift and larger shippers negotiating powers evolve. Larger carriers are certainly able to negotiate with terminal operators to achieve a better contract deal than small carriers, particularly if they were also willing to sign up for a long term contract.
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Introduction
17. Regulation (EC) No 1419/2006 was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 25 September 2006. This repealed the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 which had notably allowed block exemption from EC competition rules for liner shipping conferences. This took effect on 18 October 2008. 18. The European Commission is seeking to establish the impact of the end of the liner conference block exemption on the various elements of the price of the transport services. This study addresses the charges related to the handling of containers in ports and terminals, that is, the Terminal Handling Charge (THC) applied by all container carriers in most ports. 19. The purpose of the study is to identify the THCs that were applied prior to October 18th, and to compare these with those applicable after the repeal of the liner conference block exemption. It is also the intent to assess the changes in the level of the charges after October 18th, both by carrier and by trade. 20. The structure of the database has been developed to allow for regular updates across ports, trade routes and by carrier. 21. This report is in two parts, the first providing background to the THCs and, via direct market research, tabulating the pre 18 October 2008 terminal charges. The second part consists of the post 18 October charges and a comparison of the two sets of figures.
on commercial negotiations and is usually based on volumes. Most contracts are multi year, with break clauses. They commit the carrier to a minimum guaranteed volume and in exchange the carrier is usually provided with guaranteed time slots for vessel berthing and numbers of containers handled per hour. In virtually all cases, the terms of the contract are based on container moves, irrespective of size or type. There is usually a price differentiation between full and empty containers as well as a special allowance for transshipment boxes. 25. Contract terms between the carrier and the terminal operator are confidential. There is an increasing trend for carriers and terminal operating companies to enter into joint ventures for the development of new facilities, the rationale being efficient terminal management and volume commitments that will make the venture profitable. 26. Terminal handling charges (THC) are effectively charges collected by shipping lines to recover from the shippers the cost of paying the container terminals for the loading or unloading of the containers and other related costs borne by the shipping lines at the port of shipment or destination. For containers shipped on an FOB (Free-On-Board) terms, which specifies which party (buyer or seller) pays for which shipment and loading costs, and/or where responsibility for the goods is transferred. The shippers at the origin port of shipment are responsible for paying the THC at the port of loading. This is defined as the Origin THC. The consignees, or buyers of the cargo are responsible for paying the freight rate and the THC (or equivalent) on the discharge port of destination, known as the destination charge. This is consistent with the Incoterms (International Chamber of Shipping) definition. Since 1990, most shipping lines have introduced separate charges for the freight rate and THC. 27. Consequently, the Council of European and Japanese National Shipowners Association (CENSA) entered into discussions with the European Shippers Council and the conferences, to reach an acceptable formula for the distribution of cargo (container) handling costs at terminals. The European Shippers Council initially accepted that they should pay for certain activities performed and services provided either by the port or terminal operator for the movement of containers from the dock gate to the ships hold and vice versa. However in 1991 they withdrew their agreement. CENSA, on the other hand continued to adhere to the formula, at least at face value in claiming that the share of costs was apportioned according to the rules. The ESC also considered that it was part of the UNCTAD Liner Code of Conduct. This was not the view of various shippers councils. Defining THCs 28. THCs are defined, by shipping lines, as ancillary charges. They are not seen as surcharges. They represent the additional increase in costs that are associated with the operation of moving containers, i.e. they are ancillary to the service provided by the lines. 29. To be clear, before containerisation the shipper paid a share (or all) of the costs of loading and stowing his cargo onboard a ship. Usually, the terminal operator (stevedore) was paid for accepting the cargo on the quay and moving it under the ships tackle. On the introduction of containerisation this procedure was no longer followed, and it became apparent that the terminal operator was charging the carrier instead for all costs involved in transferring cargo from the terminal gate to onboard the ship and vice-versa. 30. The shipping lines had originally incorporated the stevedoring charges into the sea freight, but the European Shippers Council (ESC) in the late 1980s had requested that charges be disaggregated so as to provide more transparency. The conference response was a general
4
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
movement towards the three and the five-part tariff. The three part tariff related to port costs at both ends of the trade, plus the ocean freight. The five part tariff included pricing for inland transportation at either end of the trade. The final formula that was agreed became known as the 80/20 split. 31. The following cost elements are taken from the CENSA formula (dated 2.8.89) for calculating THCs. The first 17 elements relate to general purpose containers of which items 1 to 11 and 15 are the 80 percent accountable to the cargo owner and items 12 to 14 for the liner company.
Table 1: CENSA THC Formula Cost Elements
01 Current Delivering empty container and receiving full container at the terminal, and all clerical work and reporting associated with delivering and receiving Inspection and reporting condition of container and completion of interchange receipt Inspection and reporting of seals and wiring including removal of invalid labels and resealing as appropriate Movement of container on / from chassis, barge or railcar Internal transport of container from/to/from stack 01 Proposed Delivering empty container and receiving full container at the terminal gate Container inspection Seals and wiring inspection Placing/removing container on delivery vehicle Move to/from stack
02 03 04 05
02 03 04 07 05 06 09
06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Handling container out of/into/out of stack Reporting of chassis, barge and railcar activities into/out of the terminal Storage of full container within the time limits defined in the conference tariff Take laden box out of stack Internal transport of container from stacking area to ships side under hook Move of container from ships side under hook to ships rail Move of container from ships rail into ships cell (including ships hold or deck) including unsecuring and securing, and movement of hatchcovers from bay to bay or to quayside or vice-versa Lashing of container Wharfage charges and quay dues, etc. where related to cargo Physical and clerical terminal planning plus reporting of container activities into vessel, including damage reporting and inspection of seals, wiring and labels. Overtime or public holiday extra working costs The following elements are additional to GP containers and can either be incorporated into the GP costs to produce an average THC, or can be used to justify a higher THC for temperature-controlled cargo. Pre-trip container inspection Connecting of container cables, clip-on units and/or generating sets Electric power supply, liquid nitrogen, etc. Monitoring of temperatures Administration including reporting of defective units and reporting equipment into/out of terminal Temperature-controlled container costs in excess of GP items 8,9,10,11 and 12 Temperature-controlled container costs in excess of GP items 13 and 18
08
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Move from ships side to cell and v.v. Opening and closing of hatch-covers Lashing of container Wharfage Planning
17
Overtime
18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24
25
26 NOTE
Terminal Cost Elements for non-standard ISO containers The following element is additional to GP containers and can either be incorporated into the GP costs to produce an average THC, or can be used to justify a higher THC for special containers For loading overheight or other non-standard containers involving the use of special spreaders or equipment Terminal Cost Elements for dangerous cargo The following element is additional to GP containers and can either be incorporated into the GP costs to produce an average THC, or can be used to justify a higher THC for containers carrying dangerous cargo Additional physical and administrative costs associated with the handling of dangerous goods (IMO) at terminals Physical and administrative costs associated with the handling of non-ISO containers or uncontainerisable cargo will be charged separately to a THC Items 16 and 17 to be equally divided
25
26
32. The structure of the seventeen items is defined more clearly in the table below, which shows the 80/20 split between shipper and ship operator. The formula is clear in that the carriers responsibility for cost remains aligned to the old break bulk mode of transportation, that is, lifting the cargo from alongside ship to the hold. For all intents and purposes, this formula has not changed in the intervening years despite numerous discussions between shippers and carriers as to where the responsibilities lie. Carriers, for example, would somehow like to incorporate the increasing costs associated with empty containers into the THC, thereby passing the cost on to the shipper. Within the THC there are a number of free days storage provided which is variable depending upon the carrier and the port, however when the cargo receiver goes over the free days then a demurrage fee is raised. This is effectively a storage fee. Typically, carriers are also charged a fee by the terminal operator when they go outside the agreed limits of their contracted free storage days but this is a commercial issue and can be negotiated.
Table 2: Split of THC Charges between Shipper and Ship Operator
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
b. North West Continent and EU Mediterranean 1992, i. except Gothenburg 1993 39. A study commissioned by the Economic Services Bureau of the Hong Kong Government in 1998 did indicate significant increases in charges in Hong Kong. However, the document makes clear that part of this increase expressed in Hong Kong dollars was due to exchange rates differences. The Government document also notes that Hong Kong rates are higher than their regional counterparts because the operations are not subsidized. The following extracted table highlights the increases in costs that were recorded:
Table 3: Hong Kong Terminal Handling Charges History
40. In summary, there is no evidence that terminal handling charges have been increased significantly since the advent of the CENSA formula, nor is there evidence that reduced costs through productivity gains have been passed on either, but it is not clear that carriers costs on a per container basis have move either up or down. There is no transparency between the commercial stevedoring cost and the pricing of the terminal handling charges.
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
43. A similar situation emerges on the Transatlantic trade, as illustrated in the graph below. Terminal handling charges were relatively stable over the time period, yet freight rates moved up and down over the 13 plus year time period, again creating a THC to freight rate ratio that varies according to the movement of freight rates.
Chart 2: Freight Rates for Transatlantic
44. Freight rates are driven by the relationship of supply and demand for shipping and the available capacity, combined with the state of the global economy. In the illustration below there is a clear relationship between demand and supply which translates into freight rate volatility. The 1991 and 2001-2 recessions with their consequent drop in cargo demand coinciding with excess shipping capacity supply resulted in declining freight rates. Equally, the end of the recession saw sharp increases in freight rates. 45. Increasingly shippers are negotiating All-In rates and insisting that this includes the three elements of basic sea freight, surcharges and terminal handling charges.
Source: Drewrys Annual Container Market Review 2007-2008, supplemented by AXS Liner 2008 onwards
46. In the current recession of 2008-9(?) we can identify a repeat of this, only worse. Freight rates have collapsed with spot rates from Asia to North Europe reported as low as US$100 or less, with only surcharges and ancillary charges being applied. In this case, the THC will be a relatively high proportion of the all-in rate. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that THCs are not an appropriate measure of relative freight rate movements, and based on industry information, large shippers are in a position to negotiate THCs as part of their overall contract.
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
they had over 13 different charges for the same port. There was also a lack of clarity as to what level of recovery the THC was aimed. Due to the fact that the formal conference THC was an average rate, some carriers were in fact over recovering whilst others were under recovering. 50. In virtually all cases, the Non-Conference carriers aligned themselves with the published Conference THC. There were some minor exceptions to this. 51. The THCs at transshipment ports such as at Algeciras, Malta, Gioia Tauro, and Las Palmas were unclear, as in most cases there was no shipper involved and the cargo was shifted from vessel to dock and back to another vessel for the operational convenience of the carrier. 52. In the cases where ports are the final destination after a transshipment move, such as in the Baltic and the Black Sea, there was often no terminal handling charge applicable or the port in question did not apply standard container handling fees. In these cases carriers normally include an extra charge within the sea freight that covers the additional terminal costs incurred. There were exceptions to this as well with some carriers advertising proper terminal handling charges, particularly for the Baltic ports. 53. Twelve European based trade routes were investigated. The carriers active on these routes are itemized below, categorized by conference and non-conference status. The analysis of the terminal handling charges, by port can therefore be assessed by carrier, by trade and by port. The conferences taken into consideration were:
List of Conferences that also link to trade routes Far Eastern Freight Conference (FEFC) India Pakistan Bangladesh Ceylon Conference (IPBCC) Europe Mediterranean Trade Agreement (EMTA) Europe Middle East Rate Agreement (EMERA) Mediterranean Arabia Conference (MARCO) Europe West Africa Trade Agreement (EWATA) Europe Canary Islands Conference (ECIC) Transatlantic Conference (TACA)
11
Table 7: East Coast South America (No Conference existed on this trade)
12
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
13
14
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Table 13: European Port Terminal Handling Charges by Trade Route (August- September 2008)
56. There appears to be little rationale in the level of charges given the variance within ports by trade route, assuming that most carriers will be using the same terminals within a port, although this is not always the case. 57. Outside of Europe and Asia, as is illustrated in the table below, we see a somewhat different picture with some variance in rates. Other than the two North American ports, the remainder are non-conference. It would appear that without a Conference reference point the carriers have applied their own THCs. This is evident in all three trades.
15
Table 14: Africa & Americas Port Terminal Handling Charges by Trade Route (September 2008)
58. The Asian ports however show a return to a consistent level of charges, whether carriers are conference members or not. Part of this is due to the political pressures from the national governments who express their views on the level of charges. The market research was carried out against the services linked to the European trades. It may be that the THC levels for other trades may vary from those reported below. We know, for example, that in the Transpacific trade the THC is not always charged as it forms part of the all in contract rate. Certainly in the U.S. West Coast there is no charge levied. Approximately 95 percent of this trade operates under contract. 59. The rates, by port, are illustrated below. The THC for Nhava Sheva is for the JPNT terminal. The structure of the charging elements differs from Europe and Asia and the THC must be seen as indicative only. It is the charge reported by the Conference in a somewhat complicated charging sheet.
16
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Table 15: Asian Port Terminal Handling Charges by Trade Route (September 2008)
60. As noted above, the Asian port terminal handling charges are consistent in differentiating between container size with different 20 foot and 40 foot rates. The charges do not appear to differ based on conference versus non conference.
17
Table 16: THC Rates at Southampton for Ten Largest Carriers During Conferences
63. The European North Range Ports (Le Havre-Hamburg range) all exhibit similar patterns in the level of charges applied by the shipping lines. Whilst the actual rates vary across the ports, the same consistency of a charges by trade route apply, irrespective of whether the carrier is a conference member or not. Rotterdam illustrates this clearly. Hamburg and Bremerhaven replicate this, only with a different charge, although the THCs for both these ports are the same per trade route.
Table 17: THC Rates at Rotterdam for Ten Largest Carriers During Conferences
64. A similar picture emerges in the Mediterranean ports, with the exception of the transshipment ports which are not specifically shipper related. As in Northern Europe, charges are consistent within a country but vary by trade route. The table below, of Genoa, is illustrative.
Table 18: THC Rates at Genoa for Ten Largest Carriers During Conferences
65. In Asia the THCs are consistent across the carriers, but they do differentiate by container size.
18
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Table 19: THC Rates at Singapore, Shanghai, and Tokyo for Ten Largest Carriers During Conferences
70. In the case of joint services such as vessel sharing agreements and slot charters, each carrier, whether a vessel operator or not, negotiated their own terminal costs. Issues such as congestion were not part of terminal handling costs. They are treated as a separate surcharge when the need arises. 71. Since the abolition of the conferences more information has become available on the carriers websites, although this is far from universal. Nevertheless, many of the top carriers as well as some of the smaller ones do publish their THCs on their websites, or provide them in the form of a press release or notice to shippers. This has made them more transparent to shippers although there is now a variation across the carriers as to what their official charges are. The THCs must be taken as a market price indication only. For shippers that negotiate annual contracts that are normally based on an all-in format which includes the sea freight as well as surcharges and fixed ancillary charges such as the THC, the latter may well be discounted. Certainly it is fair to say that THCs are negotiable, at least for the larger customers. 72. What has not changed since the abolition of the conferences is the Terminal-Carrier client relationship. To date, terminal handling remains within the domain of this relationship. Two of the worlds major terminal operators responded to the question whether it might be forseeable in the future that shippers rather than carriers be the contracting client. Neither company favoured this approach as it would mean a totally different approach to the commercial relationships. It is the carriers that make the port and terminal decisions and that control the volumes. To change to a shipper related contracting system was seen as diffusing the contract administration and the pricing. Both did however suggest that in this type of situation, the larger shippers with significant volumes would benefit due to their size. It is therefore not expected that the terminal operators will approach shippers from a pricing point of view. It can be expected that terminals will reach out to shippers to provide related logistics services either at the terminal or inland that would encourage them to nominate one port over another. We can see this in the investments being made at places such as Duisport in Germany by both carriers and terminal operators in the Antwerp-Rotterdam range. Impact of the Repeal on THC Levels 73. The impact of the repeal of the block exemption has been clearly felt in regards to the terminal handling charges. As noted above, they have been simplified to create a single charge on a country basis and across all trades in Europe. This has been done by all the carriers. Outside of Europe the structure did not change much as most charges were based on a country basis in any case, with the exception of China. Also, the container size differential has been kept outside of Europe. The actual charges however did change to some extent as the conference 80/20 rule was dropped in favour of market cost recovery.
European THCs
74. The terminal handling charges in the European ports virtually all increased from their conference levels. All charges are based on a container, irrespective of whether it is a 20 or 40 foot box. This is in fact in line with the cost structure as charged by the terminal operators. The table below compares the pre and post October 18, 2008 THCs. The new rates are based primarily on data collected between April and the end of June, 2009.
20
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
75. The range of the charges in the pre-October data set refer to the different charges applied to different trade routes, whereas the range in the post October data refers to the variation in charges by different carriers, highlighting a mix of commercial strategy and probably different levels of costs. 76. The post October price differentiations are fairly substantial across the carriers in all of the ports. THCs are now a matter for individual company consideration, rather than part of a collective agreement.
Table 20: Average Charges and Range of Charges for Combined Containers: Europe Post April 2009 Port Southampton Felixstowe Antwerp Zeebrugge Rotterdam Bremerhaven Hamburg Goteborg Klaipeda ST. Petersburg Algeciras Valencia Barcelona Le Havre Genoa La Spezia Gioia Tauro Piraeus (Import)* Istanbul Constanza (Import) Pre-October 2008 Average Rate 96 96 119 115 143 163 163 Kr 1,053 69 $ 207 131 132 134 135 143 143 151 188 $ 97 $ 110 Range 69-114 69-114 89-174 89-140 120-170 152-191 152-191 Kr 740-1,400 50-88 $ 200-220 119-140 119-144 119-153 122-176 132-155 132-155 132-165 112-264 $ 85-108 111 112 144 144 171 193 195 Kr 1,128 88 $ 257 170 167 163 178 148 148 144 112 $ 135 $ 159 Post-October 2008 Average Rate Range 80-140 96-140 88-170 88-170 129-200 138-210 170-210 Kr 550-1,240 50-147 $ 200-370 130-255 125-255 80-255 150-240 111-180 111-180 111-180 112-112 $ 50-219 $ 40-382
*For many lines there is no THC charge in Piraeus. It is treated as Free In/Free Out, that is part of the freight rate.
77. The carriers took the opportunity of change to introduce terminal handling charges in ports where they had not been charged before such as in Klaipeda (where the THC was part of the ocean freight for both the shipper and the carrier) and in Pireaus and Istanbul where some carriers had a free in/free-out policy before. 78. In the table below, the terminal handling charges by container size in the pre October 2008 period highlight that there was at least one conference that differentiated by the size of the box, even if its own costs were based on a container move. In the post conference era, this size differentiation disappeared and all carriers, across all their trades switched to a single terminal handling charge irrespective of the box size. The exception is in Goteborg where the Shipping Corporation of India appears to charge an extra SEK50 for a 40 foot box. No other carrier that reported data had such a differentiation.
21
Table 21: Range of Rates by Container Size: Europe Port Southampton Felixstowe Antwerp Zeebrugge Rotterdam Bremerhaven Hamburg Goteborg Klaipeda ST. Petersburg Algeciras Valencia Barcelona Le Havre Genoa La Spezia Gioia Tauro Piraeus (Import) Istanbul Constanza (Import) Size 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft Pre-October 2008 44-114 60-146 44-114 60-146 79-174 89-174 79-140 89-158 113-156 120-226 127-170 152-254 127-170 152-254 Kr. 740-1,400 Kr.740-1,400 50-85 50-90 US$ 200-220 US$ 200-220 111-140 126-144 111-140 126-174 111-140 126-180 117-143 122-234 119-155 132-155 119-155 132-155 132-165 132-165 92-220 132-308 $ 85-108 $ 85-108 $ 90 $ 130 Post-October 2008 80-140 80-140 96-140 96-140 88-170 88-170 88-170 88-170 129-200 129-200 138-210 138-210 170-210 170-210 Kr.1,000-1,240 Kr.1,050-1,240 50-147 50-147 US $ 200-370 US$ 200-370 120-255 140-255 120-255 125-255 120-255 125-255 150-225 150-255 111-180 111-180 111-180 111-180 111-180 111-180 112 112 $ 100-219 $ 219 $ 30-345 $ 50-418
22
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
79. In North Europe the increase in the THC charges ranged from 7 percent in Goteborg to 25 percent in Zeebrugge and 27 percent in Klaipeda. The average increase across the northern European ports has been 20 percent. The three hub ports on the Continent North Range increased 20-21 percent.
Table 22: Average Rates and Percent Increase for Combined Containers: Europe Port Southampton Felixstowe Antwerp Zeebrugge Rotterdam Bremerhaven Hamburg Goteborg Klaipeda ST. Petersburg Algeciras Valencia Barcelona Le Havre Genoa La Spezia Gioia Tauro Piraeus (Import) Istanbul Constanza (Import) Pre-October 2008 96 96 119 115 143 163 163 Kr 1,053 69 US$ 207 131 132 134 135 143 143 151 188 $ 97 $ 110 Post -October 2008 111 112 144 144 171 193 195 Kr 1,128 88 US$ 257 170 167 163 178 148 148 144 112 $ 135 $ 159 Percent Change 16% 17% 21% 25% 20% 18% 20% 7% 27% 25% 30% 27% 21% 32% 3% 3% -5% -40% 39% 44%
80. The Mediterranean terminals in Spain and France had higher percentage increases than their northern counterparts, although perhaps in a policy to align more closely with charges in the north. Italy had the lowest increase and remained most competitive vis--vis other ports. 81. The conclusion that can be drawn from the post October 2008 level of terminal handling charges is that the carriers appeared to have abandoned the old CENSA 80/20 Rule in a post conference world and that based on their individual cost analysis they have both simplified and increased the rates being charged. However, when comparing the individual carriers there is little relationship to size or market share in the level of their charges. For example in Hamburg APL are charging 210 whereas Hyundai (HMM) charge 170. In Rotterdam Hapag Lloyd and MOL are at the top end with 200 and COSCO is the cheapest at 140. It can therefore be assumed the new charges are based on commercial considerations being made up of a mix of cost recovery and market positioning. The larger lines appear to be at the higher end of the scale overall.
23
Asia/Australia 82. The average level of charges in the Far East and India did not alter much, but this hides the introduction of individual charges by the carriers. Whereas there was no differentiation in pricing pre October 2008, the post October figures shows evidence of price differentiation as can be seen in the table below. The minimum and maximum charges are quite significant in most of the ports, but this is primarily due to the fact that the price differentiation between 20 and 40 foot containers remains. 83. The THCs being charged in China have changed mainly in a downward direction, with the exception of Shenzen where the average rate trebled. It may well be that Government pressure caused these changes in China.
Table 23: Average Rates and Range of Rates for Combined Containers: Asia Port Dubai Bangkok Singapore Shenzen Ningbo Shanghai Qingdao Quangzhou Tianjin Hong Kong Kaoshiung Pusan Yokohama Tokyo Nhava Sheva/J. Nehru Sydney Pre-October 2008 Average Rate AED 635 3,250 SGD 226 RMB 403 RMB 584 RMB 964 RMB1,344 RMB1,724 RMB2,104 HK$ 2,611 NT$ 5,925 Range Post-October 2008 Average Rate AED 673 3,269 SGD 224 RMB 1,120 RMB 641 RMB 681 RMB 681 RMB 741 RMB 648 HK$ 2,347 NT$ 6,120 Range AED 560-825 3,150-3,400 SGD 170-235 RMB 465-1,850 RMB 465-1,403 RMB 465-1,403 RMB 465-1,403 RMB 465-1,427 RMB 440-1,297 HK$ 1,700-2,500 NT$ 4,200-6,400
118,000
34,737 34,737 Rs. 5,578 A$ 207
123,257
32,163 31,739 Rs. 5,777 A$ 318
117,500-180,000
13,750-40,000 13,750-40,000 Rs. 3,900-9,195 A$ 223-413
84. The THC charges by container size are highlighted in the table below. China, Taiwan and Hong Kong stand out in the pre October 2008 period as having differential charges levied by the various lines. The other countries had rates consistent with conference tariffs. In the post October period we observed that all ports now had a range of charges and in China, this range was actually wider than it had been under the previous regime. 85. The differentiation in container size has been maintained as noted above, as has the price differential relationship. There does not appear to be any indication that this differential will disappear and come into line with the norm in Europe.
24
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Table 24: Range of Rates by Container Size: Asia Port Dubai Size 20ft 40ft 20ft Bangkok Singapore Shenzen Ningbo Shanghai Qingdao Quangzhou Tianjin Hong Kong Kaoshiung Pusan Yokohama Tokyo Nhava Sheva/J. Nehru Sydney 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft Pre-October 2008 AED 513 AED 756 2,600 3,900 SGD 182 SGD 270 RMB 300-370 RMB 450-560 RMB 370-750 RMB 560-940 RMB 750-1,130 RMB 940-1,320 RMB 1,130-1,510 RMB 1,320-1,700 RMB 1,510-1,890 RMB 1,700-2,080 RMB 1,890-2,270 RMB 2,080-2,460 HK$ 2,065-2,595 HK$ 2,750-2,813 NT$ 5,200-5,600 NT$ 6,600-7,000 100,000 136,000 28,491 40,982 28,491 40,982 Rs. 4,235 Rs. 6,920 $ 195-226 A$ 195-226 Post-October 2008 AED 450-703 AED 670-946 2,500-2,700 3,800-4,200 SGD 170-190 SGD 170-280 RMB 370-1,400 RMB 560-2,300 RMB 370-1,297 RMB 560-1,849 RMB 370-1,297 RMB 560-1,849 RMB 370-1,297 RMB 560-1,849 RMB 370-1,297 RMB 560-1,849 RMB 370-1,297 RMB 440-1,300 HK$ 1,400-2,100 HK$ 2,000-2,900 NT$ 3,700-5,800 NT$ 4,700-7,000 100,000-150,000 135,000-210,000 11,000-32,000 16,500-48,000 11,000-32,000 16,500-48,000 Rs. 3,465-6,950 Rs. 3,900-11,440 $ 222-400 A$ 224-456
86. The percentage increase in the level of charges highlighted in the table below is dramatically different from the conference era. With the exception of China and Australia, there have been only marginal single digit increases or decreases in the charges, ranging from an 8 percent increase in Nhava Sheva (which must have one of the most confused set of tariff rules of all ports outside of India), to minus 9 percent in Tokyo.
25
Table 25: Average Rates and Percent Increase by Container Size: Asia Port Dubai Size 20ft 40ft 20ft Bangkok Singapore Shenzen Ningbo Shanghai Qingdao Quangzhou Tianjin Hong Kong Kaoshiung Pusan Yokohama Tokyo Nhava Sheva/J. Nehru Sydney 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft Pre-October 2008 AED 513.00 AED 756.00 2,600 3,900 SGD 182 SGD 270 RMB 322 RMB 485 RMB 489 RMB 679 RMB 869 RMB 1,059 RMB 1,249 RMB 1,439 RMB 1,629 RMB 1,819 RMB 2,009 RMB 2,199 HK$ 2,430 HK$ 2,793 NT$ 5,225 NT$ 6,625 100,000 136,000 28,491 40,982 28,491 40,982 Rs. 4,235 Rs. 6,920 $ 207 A$ 207 Post-October 2008 AED 566.44 AED 780.33 2,601 3,938 SGD 183 SGD 264 RMB 875 RMB 1,463 RMB 544 RMB 787 RMB 544 RMB 819 RMB 544 RMB 819 RMB 651 RMB 1,005 RMB 545 RMB 751 HK$ 1,994 HK$ 2,700 NT$ 5,447 NT$ 6,794 104,011 142,503 26,336 37,991 25,990 37,488 Rs. 4,588 Rs. 6,966 $ 300 $ 335 Percent Change 10% 3% 0% 1% 0% -2% 172% 202% 11% 16% -37% -23% -56% -43% -60% -45% -73% -66% -18% -3% 4% 3% 4% 5% -8% -7% -9% -9% 8% 1% 45% 62%
87. Turning to China, there have been some dramatic changes as was apparent in the earlier table highlight the range of charges. The rates in Tianjin dropped by 73 percent and 66 percent respectively for 20/40 foot containers, whereas in Shenzen they went up by 172 and 202 percent respectively. Similarly in Sydney there is evidence indicating a dramatic increase. Whether this reflects the shift to cost recovery or commercial opportunity is not known.
26
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
North and South America 88. The table below highlights the impact of the conference era where the pre October 2008 did not have any variation across the carriers, but the post October period does show that there is variation in the level of fees charged.
Table 26: Average Rates and Range of Rates for Combined Containers: North/South America Port Montreal NYNJ Santos $ $ R$ Pre-October 2008 Average Rate 460 460 430 Range $ $ R$ Post-October 2008 Average Rate 414 507 426 Range $ 330-550 $ 390-803 R$ 278-516
89. The growth of annual contracts between carriers and shippers has made it more difficult to identify terminal handling charges separately but the container size differential has remained firmly in place, as it has in Asia. The charges appear to have softened in favour of the shippers as indicated by the range of fees by different carriers.
Table 27: Range of Rates by Container Size: North and South America Port Montreal NYNJ Santos Size 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft 20ft 40ft Pre-October 2008 $ 420 $ 500 $ 420 $ 500 R$ 390-445 R$ 390-495 Post-October 2008 $ 220-500 $ 333-600 $ 390-535 $ 390-1,070 R$ 401-555 R$ 401-516
90. The table below indicates a mixed result, with the average THC down by ten percent in Montreal and up by 10 percent in New York. Santos is basically unchanged.
Table 28: Average Rates and Percent Increase for Combined Containers: North and South America Port Montreal NYNJ Santos Pre-October 2008 $ $ R$ 460 460 430 Post-October 2008 $ $ R$ 414 507 426 Percent Change -10% 10% -1%
Database Updating 91. The primary source of information regarding the terminal handling charges are the carrier websites. These contain either a web page dedicated to the charges or alternatively announcements via the press releases or notice to shippers. The European data is the main one available whereas information regarding Asia or the Americas is less commonly available. The alternative to the website is to contact the carriers direct, but in many cases only local information is readily available. As a result contact with a number of geographic regions is required but responses are not guaranteed. The only other alternative source is industry contacts either within the carriers or shippers.
27
92. Carriers introduced new terminal handling charges immediately upon the termination of the conferences or slightly earlier. Since then there have been further changes effective January, April and July 2009. One would expect future changes to coincide with changes in terminal costs to carriers, which normally occur on an annual basis. Other changes might be driven for commercial reasons as cost structures may alter. Post October 2008 Conclusions 93. The repeal of the block exemption for conferences caused a major change in the pricing strategy of terminal handling costs by the shipping lines, both those formerly within the conference as well as the non-conference lines. The following key changes could be observed:
a. b. c. d. e. The terminal handling charges were significantly simplified as trade route specific charges were dropped; In Europe the terminal handling charges are structured on a country basis, not on a port basis; Carriers dropped the UNCTAD Liner Code 80/20 rule and appeared to go for cost recovery, although this could be disputed based on the level of charges which do not appear to be related to volume throughput, based on a carriers market share of capacity; There is a clear range of charges with significant differences between the carriers indicating that THCs are now set by individual players rather than collectively as was the case during the conference era; It appears that many of the carriers carried out internal exercises to determine what the terminal handling costs were for box movements. This was used to help set the new charges, but it cannot be ascertained to what level these reflect actual costs. In addition, the setting of country based THCs does suggest that there is an element of averaging across ports in cases where more than one port of call exists. In Europe the charges are per container, not size related, but in Asia, and in the Americas they have remained linked to the box size. This may not be directly correlated to the terminal cost structure in all the ports; The terminal handling charges in Europe increased virtually across the board, with only few minor exceptions. New charges were introduced where none had consistently existed before; In Asia, outside of China, terminal handling charges did not increase significantly. In China they mostly decreased with the exception of Shenzen were they increased significantly. Australian charges also increased. In the Americas the charges appear to have decreased in Canada, increased in the U.S. and with little change in Santos. The increasing occurrence of annual freight contracts with individual shippers has created all-in rates that incorporate the terminal handling charges making them irrelevant; Terminal handling charges are negotiable between large shippers and carriers; Terminal handling charges are likely to change annually in the future as carriers will attempt to mirror their own terminal costs by passing on the increases ; For many of the carriers, the current terminal handling charges can be found on their website, primarily for Europe and in some instances for Asia.
f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m.
28
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Appendix A: Pre October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
The following tables present the collected THC charges by port for the ten largest shipping operators (based on TEU capacity of existing fleet and orderbook), as detailed by AXSAlphaliner in February 2009. THC data was collected during the period July through September, 2008.
29
Appendix A: Pre October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
30
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
31
Appendix A: Pre October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
32
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
33
Appendix A: Pre October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
34
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Appendix B: Post October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
THC data was collected during the period April-June, 2009.
Southampton 20ft 40ft 120 120 110 110 110 110 110 110 120 120 110 110 110 110 115 115 110 110 110 110 Felixstowe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 120 110 110 110 120 110 110 115 110 110 40ft 120 110 110 110 120 110 110 115 110 110
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
Antwerp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 155 150 150 140 160 115 170 150 150 160 40ft 155 150 150 140 160 115 170 150 150 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 155 150 140 160 115 170 150 150 160
Zeebrugge 40ft 155 150 140 160 115 170 150 150 160
Rotterdam 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 185 175 160 160 200 140 190 170 160 200 40ft 185 175 160 160 200 140 190 170 160 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
Bremerhaven 20ft 40ft 190 190 180 180 185 185 200 200 210 210 180 180 210 210 200 200 200 200 210 210
35
Appendix B: Post October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
Hamburg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 190 180 185 200 210 180 210 200 200 210 40ft 190 180 185 200 210 180 210 200 200 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
Goteborg 20ft 40ft SEK 1,240 SEK 1,240 SEK 1,050 SEK 1,050 SEK 1,050 SEK 1,050 SEK 1,125 SEK 1,150 SEK 1,125 SEK 1,130 SEK 1,200 SEK 1,125 SEK 1,125 SEK 1,150 SEK 1,125 SEK 1,130 SEK 1,200 SEK 1,125
Klaipeda 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 60 91 75 70 100 120 50 145 40ft 60 91 75 70 100 120 50 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
ST. Petersburg 20ft 40ft $ 290 $ 290 $ 370 $ 250 $ 220 $ 200 $ 300 $ 300 $ 250 $ 220 $ 370 $ 250 $ 220 $ 200 $ 300 $ 300 $ 250 $ 220
Algeciras 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 155 170 160 120 255 150 210 40ft 155 170 160 140 255 150 210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 155 170 160 120 125 255 150 210 160
Valencia 40ft 155 170 160 140 125 255 150 210 160
Le Havre 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 195 150 160 170 175 152 225 170 190 215 40ft 195 150 160 170 175 152 255 170 190 215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 155 170 160 120 125 255 150 210 160
Barcelona 40ft 155 170 140 125 255 150 210 160
36
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Genoa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 125 0 111 155 180 132 165 150 160 165 40ft 125 0 111 155 180 132 165 150 160 165
Gioia Tauro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 125 111 180 132 165 150 160 165 40ft 125 111 180 132 165 150 160 165
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
La Spezia 20ft 125 0 111 155 180 132 165 150 Piraeus 160 20ft 165 Free in 112
40ft 125 0 111 155 180 132 165 150 160 40ft 165 Free in 112
FIO
FIO
Istanbul 20ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 40ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft $ 200 $ 75 $ 345 $ 90 $ 130 $ 40
Free in $ 219
FIO Free in
Durban 20ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 40ft
1 2 3 4 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL AED 450 AED 513 AED 513 20ft
Dubai 40ft
R 855
R 1,264
5 6 7 8 9 10
37
Appendix B: Post October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
Bangkok 20ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 2,600 2,600 4,200 3,900 2,600 3,900 2,600 2,600 2,600 3,900 3,900 3,900 2,560 40ft 3,900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL Singapore 20ft 40ft SGD 190 SGD 270 SGD 182 SGD 182 SGD 182 SGD 182 SGD 170 SGD 182 SGD 270 SGD 270 SGD 270 SGD 270 SGD 170 SGD 270
Shenzen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft RMB 958 RMB 1,297 RMB 370 RMB 965 RMB 476 RMB 1,400 RMB 965 40ft RMB 1,849 RMB 0 RMB 560 RMB 1,842 RMB 750 RMB 2,300 RMB 1,842 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft RMB 475
Ningbo 40ft RMB 750 RMB 0 RMB 560 RMB 720 RMB 750 RMB 1,300 RMB 720
RMB 1,297 RMB 370 RMB 460 RMB 476 RMB 880 RMB 480
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
Shanghai 20ft 40ft RMB 475 RMB 750 At cost At cost RMB 1,297 RMB 1,297 RMB 370 RMB 560 RMB 460 RMB 720 RMB 374 RMB 564 RMB 476 RMB 750 RMB 880 RMB 480 RMB 1,300 RMB 720
Qingdao 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft RMB 475 RMB 1,297 RMB 370 RMB 460 RMB 476 RMB 880 RMB 480 40ft RMB 750 RMB 1,297 RMB 560 RMB 720 RMB 750 RMB 1,300 RMB 720
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
Quangzhou 20ft 40ft RMB 475 RMB 750 RMB 1,297 RMB 370 RMB 460 RMB 476 RMB 880 RMB 480 RMB 1,297 RMB 560 RMB 720 RMB 750 RMB 1,300 RMB 720
Tianjin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft RMB 475 RMB 0 RMB 1,297 RMB 370 RMB 460 RMB 0 RMB 476 RMB 0 RMB 880 RMB 480 40ft RMB 750 RMB 0 RMB 1,297 RMB 560 RMB 720 RMB 0 RMB 750 RMB 0 RMB 1,300 RMB 720
38
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
Hong Kong 20ft 40ft HK$2,050 HK$2,750 HK$2,065 HK$2,065 HK$2,065 HK$1,800 HK$1,400 HK$2,065 HK$2,750 HK$2,750 HK$2,750 HK$2,650 HK$2,000 HK$2,750
Kaoshiung 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft NT$5,800 NT$0 NT$5,600 NT$5,600 NT$5,600 NT$0 NT$5,600 NT$0 NT$3,700 NT$5,600 40ft NT$7,000 NT$0 NT$7,000 NT$7,000 NT$7,000 NT$0 NT$7,000 NT$0 NT$4,700 NT$7,000
Pusan 20ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 100,000 101,000 100,000 101,000 101,000 150,000 100,000 40ft 135,000 137,000 136,000 137,000 137,000 210,000 136,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
Yokohama 20ft 40ft 21,000 29,000 21,000 28,490 28,491 11,000 32,000 28,491 29,000 40,982 40,982 16,500 48,000 40,982
Tokyo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft 21,000 21,000 28,490 28,491 11,000 32,000 28,491 Sydney 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft AUS$354 AUS$292 AUS$303 AUS$251 AUS$400 40ft AUS$456 AUS$373 AUS$391 AUS$251 AUS$400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 40ft 29,000 29,000 40,982 40,982 16,500 48,000 40,982 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL
Nhava Sheva /J. Nehru 20ft 40ft Rs. 4,410 Rs. 6,440 Rs. 3,894 Rs. 4,575 Rs. 3,900 Rs. 4,200 Rs. 6,950 Rs. 5,978 Rs. 6,985 Rs. 3,900 Rs. 6,300 Rs. 11,440 Montreal 20ft $412 40ft $412
39
Appendix B: Post October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
NYNJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft $390 40ft $390 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maersk/SAF MSC CMA CGM Evergreen Hapag Lloyd COSCO APL China Shipping NYK MOL 20ft R$ 430 R$ 401 R$ 420
40
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
41
Other
CAP Analysis CAS Conference Secretariat China Shipping Agent Containerisation International Yearbook, 2008 EMERA European Middle East Rate n.a. Agreement Tariff EMTA Europe ~Mediterranean Trade n.a. Agreement Europe West Africa Trade Agareement n.a. Far East Freight Conference n.a. IPBCC Tariff Nov. 2007 n.a. K Line Agent www.kline.com.hk/newws/newsfile Port Strategy: Port Tariffs and THCs: The www.portstrategy.com Pepetual Controversy 1/7/2005 South African Port Handling Charges www.fullships.com UASC Agent www.europacific.si Various telephone interviews with Lines agents in Europe, Asia, Australia Ancillary Charges and Surcharges, Report for the ELAA, July 2003 n.a. www.chinashipping.de/sales.aspx
42
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
European Commission
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era 5 October 2009 Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2009 2009 52 pp. 21 x 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-79-14547-6 (pdf) doi 10.2763/34537 (pdf)
KD-80-09-152-EN-N 10.2763/34537
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/