Innovating. Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility. Issue 52 February 2017

Transcription

1 Issue 52 February 2017 Shipment Success Through Intelligent Visibility WELCOME to the February issue of CargoSmart s, a monthly, complimentary e-newsletter for the ocean shipping industry. is designed to provide insights about cargo delays around the globe that you may find useful to improve your daily operations and strategic planning. On February 26, the 2017 TPM Conference will start in Long Beach, California. CargoSmart is a silver sponsor, hosting an exhibit table. With our focus on the trans-pacific trade at TPM, this month s features alliance changes and reliability trends for the trans-pacific trade. Our first article is a special report analyzing the two new ocean carrier alliances, OCEAN and THE, and their impact on services, routes, and port stops. Although shippers can anticipate shorter transit times when the new alliances begin operating in April, our findings reveal that the new alliances will offer 18% fewer direct trans-pacific trade routes. Next, we reviewed schedule reliability, which continued its six-month decline. In fact, the average sailing schedule reliability dropped to its lowest level in 15 months in January We focused our analysis on the trans-pacific trade route schedule reliability for the past year and found that K Line ranked as the best performing carrier on the trans-pacific trade, while Tokyo and Long Beach were the best performing ports. ABOUT INNOVATING CargoSmart is creating a whole new visibility model for ocean shippers and logistics service providers to monitor their shipments. The rules of the game are changing in the global shipping and logistics industry. CargoSmart s innovative methods offer insights for the industry to manage their shipments. CargoSmart s monthly, complimentary newsletter delivers refreshing insights for you to make intelligent decisions for your supply chain. Lastly, for our Incidents Around the World column featuring vessel and port disruptions, we looked at the impact of Winter Storm Helena on the Port of Virginia on January 6. Although a state of emergency was declared and terminals were closed, port operations resumed quickly after the storm. We invite you to monitor current events affecting your shipments and to share your delay experiences with us on our visibility blog at visibility.cargosmart.com/blog or by at innovating@cargosmart.com. Kim Le Executive Editor CONTENTS New Alliance Impact Analysis 2 : Trans-Pacific Trade 7 World Incidents: Winter Storm Helena 10 Contact 11 CargoSmart 1

2 NEW ALLIANCE IMPACT ANALYSIS Two new ocean carrier alliances, OCEAN Alliance and THE Alliance, will begin operating in April. They have started to reveal their new service networks. Carrier service changes can have a widespread effect on the smooth flow of transportation. This month, we took a deep dive into the alliance changes what are the most recent changes, why they matter, and how we expect the changes to impact shippers planning. Services for carriers and alliances are changing almost daily. In this study, we analyzed carrier and alliance proforma schedules as of February 10. When the carriers publish their schedules for the new services in April, we will have more insight into service frequency, vessel capacity, and vessel operator information. 71% of Routes Covered by Only One Alliance As the new contract season approaches, there will be fewer carrier and alliance options for shippers. Figure 2 shows the direct routes offered by the 2M, OCEAN, and THE carriers. Each of the alliances have unique offerings and overlapping services, but a large portion of the routes, 71%, will be operating by only one alliance. Although carriers may offer separate services that are not part of their alliance, overall, shippers may have fewer choices on their routes. With fewer options, it may affect shippers contract negotiations for how to spread risk across carriers or ports, as well as the transit times that shippers rely on for supply chain optimization. Dramatic Shift Carriers and Alliances Figure 1 shows how the carriers and alliances have changed in less than a year, from four major alliances down to three. We have also seen numerous mergers. Some have gone into effect, such as COSCON with China Shipping, and CMA CGM with APL. Others such as Maersk with Hamburg Sud, and the Big 3 Japan carriers merging together, will go into effect in In the following figure, the colors represent the current ocean alliances. Starting this April, when the new OCEAN and THE alliances take effect, many carriers are changing partners to form the new alliances. In the case of 2M, Hyundai and Hamburg Sud will utilize space on Maersk and MSC vessels. OCEAN Only 19.7% 706 Routes OCEAN/2M 11.9% 428 Routes OCEAN/THE 4.6% 163 Routes OCEAN/2M/THE 9.1% 326 Routes 2M/THE 3.6% 128 Routes THE Only 11.1% 399 Routes 2M Only 40. 1,432 Routes Figure 2: Direct route distribution for the 2M, OCEAN, and THE alliances after April 1 2M CKYHE G6 June 2016 April 2017 Maersk Maersk MSC MSC HMM COSCON Evergreen CMA CGM Hanjin COSCON K Line Evergreen Yang Ming OOCL APL Hapag-Lloyd Hapag-Lloyd K Line HMM MOL MOL NYK 2M OCEAN Alliance THE Alliance OCEAN Will Deploy Most Vessels with More Services The three mega alliances have competing services on the trans-pacific and trans-atlantic trade lanes. Currently, the OCEAN alliance has the most vessels planned for deployments and the most Asia to the US East and West Coast services, as shown in Figure 3. However, as shown in Figure 2, many routes will not overlap between the alliances. NYK Yang Ming OOCL CMA CGM O3 CSCL UASC Figure 1: Carrier and alliance changes from June 2016 to April 2017 CargoSmart 2

3 Alliance Vessels Asia-US West Asia-US East Coast Services Coast Services Services Trans-Atlantic 2M OCEAN THE Figure 3: Number of services and vessels deployed in trans-pacific and trans-atlantic trades by the 2M, OCEAN, and THE alliances after April 1 Trans-Pacific Routes Will Decrease by 18% After reviewing the new mega alliance landscape for April, we analyzed the changes before and after the new alliance formations. First, we compared the number of direct route options among the existing alliances, namely CKYHE, G6, and O3, and the two new alliances for the trans-pacific trade. Currently there are 635 direct routes, and starting in April, there will be 519 direct routes. This means that OCEAN and THE alliance members will be offering 116 fewer trans-pacific trade routes, which is 18% fewer routes. As shown in Figure 5, the OCEAN alliance will cover 108 ports. Among the OCEAN alliance carriers, OOCL will add the most new ports to its network. Of OOCL s 28 new ports, half of them are in Europe. For CMA CGM, 44% of its new ports are in Asia. Similar to OOCL, over 3 of Evergreen's and COSCO SHIPPING's new ports are in Europe. Port Stops for OCEAN Alliance Carriers OOCL 74% 80 26% Taking a closer look at the changes, 185 routes will be dropped, 450 will stay the same, and 69 new routes will be added (Figure 4). Of the routes being dropped, 17% of them are China-to-US and US-to-China trade routes. Of the 69 new routes to be added, 3 of them are China-to-US and US-to-China routes. We anticipate that there may be quite a few port of call changes to the China-US trade routes. Evergreen COSCO SHIPPING Lines CMA CGM % 87 19% % 90 17% Before OCEAN With OCEAN Figure 5: Percentage of OCEAN Alliance port stops the member carriers visited before the alliance and percentage of ports stops that will be new for the member carriers Existing Alliances CKYHE, G6, O3 69 New Routes 450 Same Routes New Alliances OCEAN, THE The THE alliance will cover 71 ports on its routes. As shown in Figure 6, K Line will add the most new ports. Of K Line s 25 new ports, of are in North America. Hapag Lloyd currently offers 65 of the 71 ports covered by the alliance, with six new ports added to its network. 185 Dropped Routes Figure 4: Direct trans-pacific route changes OOCL and K Line Will Add Most Ports Next, we reviewed the number of new ports that carriers will be visiting. These ports will open up new route options for shippers preferred carriers. The three largest Japanese carriers are in the THE alliance. In fact, the THE alliance offers the most routes with the port of loading in Japan. Individual carriers offer their own exclusive routes from Japan, but when looking at the new alliance services, THE offers the most routes to Japan. As shippers work on their shipment plans this season, they should research and compare the new route possibilities of their preferred carriers. CargoSmart 3

4 Yang Ming NYK Port Stops for THE Alliance Carriers 75% 53 25% % 58 18% New Alliances Will Drop 16 Ports Next, we looked at the new services the three mega alliances will be offering in April to see which ports are being added and dropped on the trans-pacific and trans-atlantic trade lanes. MOL K Line Hapag-Lloyd 77% 55 23% % 46 37% % 65 9% 6 71 Before THE After THE Figure 6: Percentage of OCEAN Alliance port stops the member carriers visited before the alliance and percentage of ports stops that will be new for the member carriers The new alliances are dropping 16 ports that used to be part of the 2M, CKYHE, G6, and O3 network and they are adding 11 new ports, as shown in Figure 7. In the trans-pacific trade, 11 ports will be dropped and six new ports will be added. In the trans-atlantic trade, five ports will be dropped and added. Carriers may still offer exclusive services to these ports. For example, the Port of Jeddah is not part of an alliance service, but carriers will continue to offer their own services through the port. Dropped Ports [OCEAN & THE] New Ports Trans-Pacific Da Chan Bay Dalian [THE] Damietta Gwangyang Jeddah Karachi Mundra Sendai [THE] Jakarta [OCEAN] Lianyungang [OCEAN] Taipei Port [OCEAN] Osaka [OCEAN] New Orleans Nhava Sheva Port Qasim Port Said Shimizu Trans-Atlantic Cagliari Marsaxlokk [OCEAN] Damietta Hamburg Malta Freeport Tacoma Figure 7: Dropped and new ports in the new trans-atlantic and trans-pacific alliance routes Salemo [OCEAN & THE] Philadelphia [THE] Seattle [THE] Vancouver [THE] CargoSmart 4

5 Fewer Services Through the Suez Canal We also examined if the alliance services are shifting their routes through the canals. Today, the east-west alliance services have a similar number of routes going through the Panama and Suez canals. Starting in April, although the number of services through Panama will remain the same, there will be fewer alliance services offered through the Suez Canal, as shown in Figures 8 and 9. Trans-Pacific Trade Transit Time Changes No Change 18% Faster 5 Slower 32% Existing Alliances Canal Usage Distribution Suez 15% Figure 10: Transit time changes for direct trans-pacific trade routes before and after April 1 Panama 19% Not Using Canals 66% Looking further into the transit time changes, we found that 67% of the routes on the trans-pacific trade had average transit times within two days. The remaining 33% of the routes actually had an average transit time difference of three or more days, as shown in Figure 11. Figure 8: Distribution of canal usage for existing 2M, CKYHE, G6, and O3 trans-pacific and trans-atlantic services New Alliances Canal Usage Distribution Panama 19% Suez 8% Not Using Canals 73% Number of Routes Trans-Pacific Trade Average Transit Time Difference Existing Alliances Faster Existing Alliances Slower Same Average Transit Time Difference Per Route Figure 11: Average transit time difference for direct trans-pacific trade routes before and after April 1 1 Figure 9: Distribution of canal usage for new 2M, OCEAN, and THE trans-pacific and trans-atlantic services Shorter Transit Times Ahead After reviewing the new alliance routes and port coverage, we looked at changes to transit times. For the trans-pacific trade lane, we compared the OCEAN and THE alliance routes with the current CKYHE, G6, and O3 alliance routes. We found that half of the routes will have faster average transit times than before, 18% will have the same transit times, and 32% will have slower average transit times, as shown in Figure 10. We also looked at the transit time changes for the alliance services on trans-atlantic routes. Similar to the trans-pacific trade, nearly half of the trans-atlantic routes will have faster average transit times, as shown in Figure 12. CargoSmart 5

6 Trans-Atlantic Trade Transit Time Changes No Change 11% Faster 47% Slower 42% Fewer Services in Top Trade Routes Next we looked at the top trans-pacific trade lanes. We selected these based on the top five most searched trans-pacific port pairs in CargoSmart s Big Schedules website. The top five routes are Shanghai to Los Angeles, Shanghai to Long Beach, Shanghai to New York, Yantian to Los Angeles, and Ningbo to Los Angeles. Overall, after April 1, the alliances will offer fewer services but the services will have faster transit times. Figure 12: Transit time changes of direct trans-atlantic trade routes before and after April 1 Currently, 37% of the trans-atlantic alliance service routes will have an average transit time difference of three or more days, as shown in Figure 13. Number of Routes Trans-Atlantic Trade Average Transit Time Difference Average Transit Time Difference Per Route Existing Alliances Faster Existing Alliances Slower Same 3 Although we can see that there will be fewer services, we do not yet know the frequency of these services. As the carriers begin to publish their schedules for the new alliances, we will have greater insight into how often the services are running, the vessel operators, the vessel sizes, and the terminal level details. During typhoon season from July to October, the China ports of Yantian, Shanghai, and Ningbo are often impacted by the weather. When reviewing vessel data from last year, we noticed that vessel waiting times tripled and schedule reliability went down following the typhoons. How the alliances plan their services and update their schedules around typhoon season will be another aspect to monitor when the alliances implement their schedules over the coming year. Figure 13: Average transit time difference for direct trans-atlantic trade routes before and after April 1 Port of Load Port of Discharge Service Routes Transit Time Difference Shanghai Los Angeles From 5 to 3 services 3 days shorter Shanghai Long Beach From 6 to 5 services Unchanged Yantian Los Angeles From 4 to 5 services Unchanged Shanghai New York From 7 to 5 services 2.5 days shorter Ningbo Los Angeles From 4 to 3 services 0.5 days shorter Figure 14: Service changes for the top five trans-pacific trade routes CargoSmart 6

7 We also looked at the top five most frequently searched schedules in the trans-atlantic trade. The most searched port pairs are Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, and Bremerhaven to New York and Bremerhaven to Charleston. Port of Load Port of Discharge Service Routes Difference Transit Time Difference Rotterdam New York From 5 to 3 services 0.5 day shorter Antwerp New York From 4 to 3 services 1 day shorter Hamburg New York No direct service from Proforma No direct service from Proforma in new alliances in new alliances Bremerhaven Charleston From 4 to 5 services 1 day shorter Bremerhaven New York No change No change Figure 15: Service changes for the top five trans-atlantic trade routes Changes Are Still Ongoing The carriers and alliances will likely make ongoing service and schedule adjustments. It is important for shippers to monitor route changes and optimize their selections accordingly to improve their supply chain planning. Shippers should consider not just the carriers, but also the changing alliances, transit times, port pairs, reliability, cost, and even the preferred shipping days of the week. As a result, shippers may need to adjust their carrier and alliance mix to reduce risk and increase performance. SCHEDULE RELIABILITY STUDY: TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE With the 2017 TPM Conference starting February 26, our focus this month is on the trans-pacific trade s schedule reliability. by Trade First, we analyzed the overall schedule reliability of the three major trades over the past 13 months. We reviewed carrier performance from over 540,000 schedules and covering 18 ocean carriers during the January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 time period. Next, we further analyzed the schedule reliability of the trans-pacific trade, mainly from carrier and discharging port sides. Last according discharging port continent, we selected four popular routes in each continent to compare their schedule reliability with the top three performers. Overall : Trans-Pacific Ranked Second As shown in Figure 1, the trans-atlantic trade performed the best with 71% reliability from January 1, 2016 to January 31, The trans-atlantic trade was followed closely by the trans-pacific trade, with 69% reliability, while the Asia-Europe trade s reliability was 66%. The average schedule reliability for all trade was 68%. 71% 69% 66% 68% Trans-Atlantic Trans-Pacific Asia-Europe Average Figure 1: Overall schedule reliability for trans-pacific, Asia-Europe and trans-atlantic trades from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 Trans-Pacific Reliability Continued Its Decline Since August As shown in Figure 2, the monthly schedule reliability on the trans-pacific trade increased steadily from January 2016 to August 2016, reaching a high of 82% reliability in August. After that, the overall schedule reliability on the trans-pacific trade decreased continually, falling to 47% reliability in January Compared with the Asia-Europe and trans-atlantic trades, all CargoSmart 7

8 trades have shown a similar trend, achieving their best performance between July and August 2016 and then dropping to their worst reliability at the end of % Discharging Ports in Asia 79% 79% 76% 75% 74% 74% 73% 72% 71% 71% Monthly by Trade Figure 4: Overall schedule reliability of discharging ports in Asia from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 Asia-Europe Trans-Atlantic Trans-Pacific Figure 2: Monthly schedule reliability for trans-pacific, Asia-Europe, and trans-atlantic trades from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 K Line Performed Best in Trans-Pacific Trade As shown in Figure 3, during the period of January 2016 to January 2017, K Line ranked as the best performing carrier on the trans-pacific trade with 75% schedule reliability. K Line was followed by Evergreen, COSCON SHIPPING Lines, and Maersk with 74% reliability. Next was MOL with 72% reliability. The overall average schedule reliability was 69%. Discharging Ports in North America: Long Beach Performed Best As shown in Figure 5, the average reliability of discharging ports in North America was 67%, and four ports achieved reliability higher than the average reliability. Three of those four ports belong to the United States Long Beach, Los Angeles, and New York-New Jersey with 79%, 73%, and 7, respectively. The remaining port was Canada s Vancouver with 69% reliability. Discharging Ports in North America Trans-Pacific by Carrier 79% 73% 7 69% 67% 75% 74% 74% 74% 72% 69% K Line Evergreen COSCO SHIPPING Lines Maersk MOL Average Figure 3: Overall schedule reliability for trans-pacific trade by carrier from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 Discharging Ports in Asia: Tokyo Ranked Highest As shown in Figure 4, the average reliability of discharging ports in Asia was 71%, and 11 ports achieved reliability higher than the average reliability. Those 11 ports were Tokyo with 84% reliability, Singapore with reliability, Yantian and Hong Kong with 79% reliability, Kaohsiung with 76% reliability, Port Kelang with 75% reliability, Kobe and Tanjung Pelepas with 74% reliability, Xiamen with 73% reliability, Chiwan with 72% reliability, and Shekou with 71% reliability. Long Beach Los Angeles New York-New Jersey Vancouver Average Figure 5: Overall schedule reliability of discharging ports in North America from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 Our analysis of schedule reliability for discharging ports by continent reveals that Tokyo and Long Beach were the best performing ports in their continents. We measured the schedule reliability for the two routes on each of these ports: Tokyo: 1. Oakland to Tokyo 2. Los Angeles to Tokyo Long Beach: 1. Shanghai to Long Beach 2. Hong Kong to Long Beach CargoSmart 8

9 Oakland to Tokyo: Evergreen Ranked First From January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017, the average schedule reliability for the Oakland to Tokyo route was 86%. Evergreen ranked first with 98% reliability. COSCO SHIPPING Lines ranked second with 95% reliability, and K Line and CMA CGM ranked third with 94% reliability, as shown in Figure 6. reliability, respectively. The average schedule reliability for this route was 78%. 93% Shanghai to Long Beach 89% 86% 86% 78% 98% Oakland to Tokyo 95% 94% 94% 86% Hamburg Sud UASC Maersk Line OOCL Average Figure 8: Schedule reliability for the Shanghai to Long Beach route from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 Evergreen COSCO SHIPPING Lines K Line CMA CGM Average Figure 6: Schedule reliability for the Oakland to Tokyo route from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 Los Angeles to Tokyo: COSCO SHIPPING Lines and K Line Performed Best As shown in Figure 7, COSCO SHIPPING Lines and K Line performed the best with 98% reliability. They were followed closely by Evergreen and CMA CGM with 97% and 96% reliability, respectively. The average schedule reliability for this route was 85%. Hong Kong to Long Beach: MSC Ranked First MSC achieved reliability for their schedules on this route. They were followed by Yang Ming with 93% reliability and Wan Hai with 9 reliability. The average rate for this route was 83% reliability, as shown in Figure 9. Hong Kong to Long Beach 93% 9 83% Los Angeles to Tokyo 98% 98% 97% 96% 85% MSC Yang Ming Wan Hai Average Figure 9: Schedule reliability for the Hong Kong to Long Beach route from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 COSCO SHIPPING Lines K Line Evergreen CMA CGM Average Figure 7: Schedule reliability for the Los Angeles to Tokyo route from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 Shanghai to Long Beach: Average Schedule Reliability of 78% Figure 8 shows that Hamburg Sud was the most reliable carrier on this route from January 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017 with 93% reliability. UASC, Maersk, and OOCL had 89%, 86%, and 86% CargoSmart 9

10 INCIDENTS AROUND THE WORLD Vessel casualties, port strikes, facility shutdowns, and extreme weather can all affect vessel schedules and potentially delay shipments. In this column, we cover incidents around the world that caught our attention during the previous month and their impact on shipment delays. Vessels Ports January 3 January 3 January 3 January 4 January 6 January 7 January 11 January 11 January 19 January 21 January 22 January 24 January 27 January 28 January 30 January 31 January 5 January 6 January 12 January 20 January 24 January 27 JING FENG 7, ran aground off Ma Wan, Hong Kong OCEAN KINGDOM, attacked by armed speedboats, Zamboanga, Philippines WAN HAI 301 & APL DENVER, collided and oil spilt, Pasir Gudang, Malaysia MSC CLORINDA, ran aground in Suez Canal YM UTOPIA, containers caught fire on board, Shanghai, China SEVILLA CARRIER, collided with fishing vessel, Philippine Sea GUSTAV MAERSK, ran aground near Messina, Italy RED CEDAR, lost 15 containers near Texel, Netherlands MANHATTAN BRIDGE, engine room explosion, Felixstowe, UK CONTAINERSHIPS VIII, engine trouble in Kiel Canal CONMAR GULF, engine trouble in Kiel Canal PDZ MEWAH, arrested in Malaysia FREYA, engine failure near Kiel Canal CROWN OPAL, drugs found on board, Colombia NILEDUTCH OSPREY, master and engineer arrested, Newark, US ELBSAILOR, ran aground in Kiel Canal Port of Santos closed due to an explosion, Brazil Port of Virginia shut down due to Winter Storm Helena, US Traffic halted by oil spill in Izmit Bay, Turkey Oakland International Container Terminal shut down by protest, US Dockworkers held a port strike in Gothenburg, Sweden Labor staged a work slowdown at the Port of Charleston, US Port Closure: Virginia At midnight on January 6, the Port of Virginia closed all of its terminals in view of the threat from Winter Storm Helena. The storm brought heavy snow, wind, and ice across the South and impacted highway, air, and sea traffic. A state of emergency was declared and citizens were alerted about the icy conditions. Terminals at the Port of Virginia received the shutdown order from the US Coast Guard, because of low visibility and strong winds. Operations halted and all berthed vessels stayed at port until the storm passed on January 9. Port operations quickly resumed after the storm, and no backlog was observed. Port of Virginia Duration: January 1 31, 2017 Vessel Arrivals: 113 Average Berth Time: 20.1 Hours Longest Berth Time: 83.7 Hours Average Berth Times (Hours) Virginia Average Berth Times and Vessel Arrival Count (January 1-31, 2017) 1-Jan 2-Jan 3-Jan 4-Jan 5-Jan 6-Jan 7-Jan 8-Jan 9-Jan 10-Jan 11-Jan 12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 20-Jan 21-Jan 22-Jan 23-Jan 24-Jan 25-Jan 26-Jan 27-Jan 28-Jan 29-Jan 30-Jan 31-Jan Average Berth Times (Hours) Vessel Arrival Count Vessel Arrival Count CargoSmart 10

11 Manage SOLAS VGM Flexibly, Free of Charge CargoSmart offers free solutions for shippers to provide the verified gross mass (VGM) of their cargo to their carriers to comply with the new requirements from the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. CargoSmart works closely with ocean container carriers and terminals to provide shippers with flexible and integrated solutions to manage the SOLAS VGM submission process effectively and smoothly. Available through online, EDI, and mobile platforms, the VGM solutions allow shippers and designated parties to: Minimize changes to existing shipping execution processes Submit the VGM in shipping instructions or a separate form (VERMAS) Improve collaboration with related parties to submit the VGM on your behalf Have clear visibility to submission status Minimize the risk of late submissions Control costs for complying with the new requirements To learn more about how CargoSmart s solutions can help you comply with the SOLAS container weight requirements, visit: DATA METHODOLOGY CargoSmart established the Global Vessel Voyage Monitoring Center (GVVMC) to detect and analyze exceptions as they are happening so that shippers, forwarders, and NVOCCs can be informed earlier. Opened in Hong Kong in October 2012, the GVVMC monitors and analyzes 7,000 vessels' movements covering 9 of the world's container capacity and over 1,100 global container ports. Using advanced analytical software tools, the center analyzes vessel patterns, to detect deviations that have the potential to cause shipment-plan exceptions and monitor live vessel schedules to measure carriers reliability. The GVVMC obtains data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS), ocean carrier websites, marine terminals, and shipment data. The center ensures high data quality by observing and reconciling multiple data sources. VISIBILITY BLOG - JOIN THE DISCUSSION Follow updates and share your insights about vessel delays on CargoSmart's blog at visibility.cargosmart.com/blog. To receive the monthly newsletter for the shipping industry by , please subscribe at We value your feedback and want to continue to improve our service and information that we provide to you. To provide feedback or ask questions, please contact us at innovating@cargosmart.com. China Germany Hong Kong United States CargoSmart 11