|
Page
2 of 2
It
will be interesting to see how the market
will respond. Will we see a collection of
smaller carriers join together to offset
the impact of the Big 3 alliance, or will
we simply see the gradual phasing out of
smaller carriers from the trade lanes?
In
recent years it has been said on more than
one occasion that in order to compete on
the Asia-Europe trade, in particular, you
cannot operate anything under 10,000 TEU.
This is because it becomes too difficult
to compete with the bigger players based
on the average per unit operating cost.
Not
only do the Big 3 lines command a large
market share of today's fleet, they also
operate the largest ocean going vessels
in the industry. Maersk has just taken delivery
of the first of its 18,000 TEU ships. CMA
CGM has 16,000 TEU vessels, while MSC is
no stranger to the mega ship craze either.
The
shipping lines outside of the top three
may have a few 14,000 TEU ships here and
there, but even if a number of these lines
combined, it would be hard to imagine how
they will be able to compete against the
proposed alliance of Maersk, MSC and CMA
CGM.
While
these three carriers may claim that the
move is all about creating greater efficiencies
and improving customer service, which they
will no doubt aim to do through this alliance,
one cannot help but wonder if another motivation
behind this is to force some smaller rivals
out of the market in the hopes it will help
to stabilise these mainline trades.
After
all it has been a very turbulent few years,
particularly on the Asia-Europe and transpacific
trades.
Is
there more to the Big 3 alliance than meets
the eye? At this point we can only speculate
of course. But the fact that it is the Big
3, all major rivals, rather than Maersk
or MSC and a number of smaller lines raises
the suspicion that there is.
Page 1 2
|
