South East Shipping News

What the POMTOC and South Florida Container Terminal deal is likely to mean

Better together: There is a logic behind terminals looking to work together in order to cope with bigger volumes It's high time that terminals followed lines and ports and get in on the partnerships act finds Felicity Landon The US Federal Maritime Commission's decision allowing two Miami terminal operators 'to seek cooperation and commonality in both business and operating matters' certainly caused a stir. Does it pave the way for other terminals to seek close partnerships? Is it the turn of terminal operators to set up alliances that match up to the oversize alliances of their customers? And are they really free to go ahead? The FMC gave its blessing for the Miami Marine Terminal Conference Agreement to take effect, allowing the South Florida Container Terminal Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company (POMTOC) to establish 'a variety of common rates, rules and practices, as well as to meet to discuss these matters'. It also went as far as suggesting that this agreement could form a template for terminal alliances to create framework service agreements with shipping line alliances. Miami is the first high-profile example and every case will be different, says Neil Davidson, Drewry's senior analyst - ports & terminals. However, he adds: “The FMC are normally pretty cautious in terms of allowing parties to work together, and don't give their permission lightly. The fact that they also made a very general statement that they expect to see more terminals doing this is quite an interesting comment from the regulatory side. Having said that, the EU has its own set of rules and ways of weighing this up, of course.” Reducing fragmentation of capacity is necessary in order to handle volumes that are so much bigger than they were, says Mr Davidson. There is a logic behind terminals looking to work together in order to cope with what is being thrown at them by their customers, he says - and there is scope for alliances to happen, but there are operational and regulatory challenges, and risks attached to such a partnership. “Because of the peaks and pressures created by the bigger ships in port, the natural reaction might be to say I should work with my next-door-neighbour terminal rather than against him, to join forces for practical reasons and commercial reasons - the client has got bigger and more powerful, therefore I need to do the same. “There are lots of sensible operational reasons for doing that, which would also benefit the shipping lines. But the dilemma is that the regulatory authorities would always be in the background - perhaps saying you are colluding or you are a cartel or too close together. So the formation of more terminal alliances is dependent to an extent on the competition in the port or with neighbouring ports, and on the attitude of the authorities towards competition.” Talking practicalities The other issue to consider, says Mr Davidson, is how it works in practice. “Yes, you can sign the document to say you will work together with your neighbouring terminal - but to really make it work, you may need to buy or merge, in order to bring in the same rules in terms of strategy, profitability and shareholding, and have a completely uniform approach. “Shipping lines can have alliances because they will have similar capacity vessels and share schedules and rotations. However one terminal in a port could be very different from another, so it is not aligning like with like. The chances are the one of the two terminals just isn't as good as the other one, so you would always have a weaker terminal of the two which is difficult to overcome. The proliferation of mega container ships means massive surges of containers when they do call. A terminal alliance might sound like the answer - but Mr Davidson points out: “The alliance idea doesn't address the fact that usually everyone in the port has the same peaks. So even if you work together, you are still suffering the same peaks.” It is difficult for terminals to form successful working alliances if they are not immediately next door to each other, he points out. “If you share a quay line, you can cooperate more easily. If you are across the bay from each other, it is much harder.” In the case of the Miami partnership, the two terminals are, as pointed out by the FMC, in close proximity to each other. “The alternative is what you see in Los Angeles/Long Beach, where the volumes of an alliance get spread over numerous terminals and there are lots of inter-terminal transfers. Clearly it would be better to merge neighbouring terminals so you don't need to split the volumes so much. In Asian ports perhaps there is more port authority ability to make these things happen but in North America and Europe, where private operators are more independent in their outlook, it is more difficult for the authorities.” Space premium Despite recent expansions, true deepwater capacity for vessels of 18,000 teu and above is still at a premium in Northern Europe, says Andrew Penfold, director - global maritime at WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff. “At first you think the (liner) consolidation means the common user terminal operators are scrapping around for business - but not really. The point should be made that the mergers and consolidation situation in the shipping lines certainly wasn't driven by wanting to cut bunker prices or handling prices - it was driven by their own self-inflicted problems of overcapacity. The question of which port choice or which terminal you use has been almost an afterthought and is only now receiving the attention it needs.” The challenges of handling the volumes of alliance partners are emerging in the developing world too, he says. Again, terminals will struggle to handle the sheer volumes involved; there are already instances where the demands of the big caller are so huge that the terminal operator has to push out the smaller shipping lines. “That provides an opportunity for smaller terminal operators to get in. “Economies of scale? Yes, on the water, driven by the shipping lines' problems. But with the higher consignment size to push through the terminal, generally speaking you hit the point when the efficiency of the terminal starts to decline. I think there will be some scope for more terminals to work together in response to their customers' consolidation - but they don't need to do that - at the moment the terminal operators aren't in distress from all of this.” The Port of Long Beach has been addressing congestion caused by ever-long dwell times of containers across terminals. Michael Christensen, senior executive lead, supply chain optimisation, points out that while there is so much opportunity for ocean carrier alliances to use multiple terminals, once one terminal gets congested and a vessel switches to another, the congestion moves among terminals and spreads through a port very quickly. “Terminals are so interlinked these days,” he says. “When we had a big labour-driven congestion problem two years ago, there was an interesting metric we noted; any time a terminal reached about 80% of capacity, the fluidity of the terminal and efficiency of the operation degraded very quickly.” ALLURE OF BETTER BARGAINING POWER Will the creation of alliances give terminals better bargaining power when dealing with their ever stronger and larger customers? WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff's Andrew Penfold says despite expectations, terminal operators have seen only a marginal impact on prices for handling containers, and most are not 'in distress'. "If you take the volume of containers that CMA CGM would be wishing to handle with their partners and associates, it becomes quite difficult to put that all in one terminal - even Rotterdam World Gateway with its capacity will be sorely tested to handle all the demand. So you have a situation whereby the new alliances will have to make some sort of deal involving one or more other terminals. So while Maersk will be putting all its business through APM in the Maasvlakte, it is quite likely they will have overflow cargo that may have to be placed elsewhere.” A large shipping line serving Northern Europe will have a certain amount of business that must go into Antwerp and into Rotterdam, says Mr Penfold - it is the 'debatable' business that could be switched into either that is where the real questions are. “In response to that, the stevedores have continuously added new features and new value-added - for example, barge terminals, investment in intermodal trains. The independent terminal operator is in a better position to make this kind of investment than a shipping line owned terminal would be, because of the money available.” It might be good for the shipping line to play one terminal off against another in order to secure the lowest possible price, but it isn't good for the shipping lines if they create a situation where none of the terminals can meet their needs, adds Drewry's Neil Davidson. “If none of the terminals has the capacity or ability to cope with the surges and associated challenges, then having a choice means nothing.” - See more at: http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/port-operations/planning-and-design/finding-allies#sthash.yJx0u3Jk.dpuf

Two out of three Miami terminals seek alliance to negotiate with container lines

Reynolds Hutchins, Associate Editor | Dec 08, 2016 3:54PM EST
Additional reporting Rick Eyerdam

An agreement between the South Florida Container Terminal and Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company could be the first of many at US ports.

WASHINGTON — US regulators are reviewing a proposed agreement between two marine terminal operators at the Port of Miami that would allow the terminals to jointly negotiate terms and conditions with container lines — a first for the United States.

Although the port of Seattle and Tacoma came together operationally as the Northwest Seaport Alliance in 2015, this is the first time two marine terminals have sought the Federal Maritime Commission’s blessing to create their own alliance. Miami’s South Florida Container Terminal and Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company want to jointly negotiate, set, and approve terminal rates, charges, rules, and regulations, and rates of return between the terminals.

South Florida Container Terminal is an APM terminal, in essence, with the added benefit of a common user terminal designation. POMTOC was PortMiami’s only common user terminal until the port made all three terminals common user, including the Sealand Terminal.

But as Maersk withdrew from its APM terminals and sold interests in them, the benefit of Maersk’s exclusive calls at it’s terminals was displaced by a need for greater warf space and increased need for limited SuperpostPanamax cranes. Rather than compete for the limited resources at PortMiami and drive down costs in the competition the two adjacent terminals decided it would be easier to collaborate.

The terminals’ request parallels the vessel-sharing agreements container lines have formed to pool their cargo in larger ships in order to mitigate overcapacity and broaden their networks. Through the alliances, the container lines still compete with fellow members, and are forbidden from jointly marketing, selling, or contracting with third-parties, such as tug operators and stevedores.

According to FMC Commissioner William Doyle, agreements such as that in Miami are a direct response to the Ocean Alliance, a VSA between China Cosco Lines, Evergreen Line, CMA CGM, and Orient Overseas Container Line set to take sail in April.

The Miami terminals did not respond to requests for comment from JOC.com.

“Since the Ocean Alliance is allowed to jointly negotiate as an alliance with marine terminals who agree to do so, some marine terminal operators and port authorities may want to explore options for entering into their own alliances where they could jointly negotiate terms and conditions with the ocean carriers,” Doyle said at a North Atlantic Port Association meeting outside of Washington, DC. last week.

FMC commissioners say they have also been approached by others, including the South Carolina Ports Authority, regarding a potential partnership with another Southeast port operator.

“We’re absolutely going to have more agreements,” FMC Chairman Mario Cordero told JOC.com this week.

Doyle said the Miami terminals’ discussion agreement is a step beyond that of the Northwest Seaport Alliance, which gained the FMC’s green light in July 2015, because it will also allow those terminals to jointly negotiate terms and conditions for services with the ocean carriers.

Language in the proposed agreement includes conference and rate-setting authority that would allow the terminals to discuss and agree on matters of rates, charges, rules, and regulations through joint or individual marine terminal operator agreements with ocean common carriers. Additionally, the proposal would authorize the terminals to meet individually or as a group with one or more users, including ocean common carriers, to discuss any matters related to rates, charges, rules, and regulations.

The agreement appears to allow the terminals to jointly meet with a group of ocean common carriers, like an alliance grouping, and come to a joint agreement for services, Doyle said.

The draft agreement submitted on Nov. 16 is still under review, but has received some positive feedback from the likes of Doyle and Cordero. As with vessel-sharing agreements and the agreement for the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the FMC is expected to publish the language of the agreement for a public comment period. The FMC will then have 45 days to request additional information before making a decision.

“At the end of the day, you can’t have major ports in the same region independently trying to address issues in the supply chain,” Cordero said. “This agreement allows the FMC to monitor this in such a way that it doesn’t border collusion or anticompetitive behavior.”

Contact Reynolds Hutchins at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter: @Hutchins_JOC.

Cuba Despierta – Cuba’s markets awaken

Oct 27, 2016

Cuba in the 40s and 50s was a playground for the rich and famous. The country’s economy was fueled by U.S. investment: some legal, some not so legal. A rich trade in coffee and tobacco found its way to America and the Cuban middle class imported everything from wearing apparel to washing machines. All that ended in 1959 when rebels under Fidel Castro tossed out Batista and threw Cuba into the dark ages.

Castro and Cuba’s Economy

Upon seizing power, the government nationalized factories and plantations; cutting free enterprise and reducing trade with the West. Commerce with the United States ceased to exist. During the next five decades policies of isolationism and heavy reliance on aid from China and Venezuela further reduced Cuba’s trade with the outside world. A once vibrant import and export market shrunk, taking infrastructure with it and placing the nation’s transportation resources far below those of the West.

Cuba’s Emerging Market

Economic reform begun under Fidel’s brother Raul led to increased privatization of business and growth within the middle class. A 2013 Brookings Institute study indicated 30 to 40% of Cuba’s population could be considered middle class when judged against other Latin nations. The report further acknowledged that consumption of foreign goods hampered by trade restrictions with the U.S. would change once embargos were lifted. Cubans aspire to own many of the products other middle class societies take for granted.

The Healing Process Continues

In December of 2014 President Obama and President Raul Castro announced the normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States. This step marking the beginning of trade recovery comes at a time when ocean carriers are placing larger vessels directly in Cuba’s path. What this will mean to Cuba’s economy depends on how much development ports and infrastructure will need to be accomplished to bring the nation up to speed.

Cuba’s Railroad

Under Fidel, Cuba relied heavily on Russian aid to help keep her railway running. After the breakup of the Soviet Union and waning interest from socialist trading partners in Europe, Cuba’s railroad fell into disrepair. In the early 1960s British Rail began funding the purchase of locomotives to upgrade the system. This endeavor was halted by the U.S. embargo. During the early 21st century China and Venezuela invested in the system and modest improvements were made. In preparation for an economic boom that trade with the West might bring, the government is investing $1.3 billion through 2021 to modernize its railroad. In addition to track work and new engines, the national railway will add computers and upgrade its communications with a fiber optic network.

Are Cuban Sea Ports ready for Big Ships?

As trade between Cuba and the Western Hemisphere increases, containers will hit the quays at the nation’s ports. There are three container ports in Cuba: Santiago de Cuba, Havana and Mariel.

Santiago de Cuba, a Traditional Port

The City of Santiago de Cuba was established by conquistadors in 1516. The port grew as the city prospered and modernized to handle cargo as needed. In 2015 Chinese investments totaling $120 million funded expansion of the Guillermón Moncada Port to create a multipurpose facility. Scheduled for completion in 2018, the new terminal will feature 758 linear feet of pier capable of handling smaller Panamax class vessels up to 40,000 dwt.

Port Havana Maintains its Footprint

Looking at the profile for Havana, it becomes evident the government is content to maintain status quo. Port of Havana Container Terminal features 1476 feet of berth with a 32-foot depth alongside. Three gantry cranes and one mobile shore side crane are Panamax class. Operating on 45 acres, the port appeals to local business because of its proximity to the city center and liberal hours of operation. Yard equipment is sufficient to handle what will soon be considered small container ships operating in the Caribbean trade. It becomes obvious that the Port of Mariel located less than 35 miles from Havana will receive funding needed to bring that facility up to speed.

Mariel, a rising star on Cuba’s Map

Nine hundred and sixty three nautical miles north/northwest of Cristobal lies the Port of Mariel Cuba. Interestingly enough it is only 43 miles north of the Dominican load center of Santo Domingo. In terms of serving the Caribbean, Mariel is in range. Built on the site of an old submarine base, Mariel is big ship ready and the government is aggressively promoting expansion to maximize trans-load cargo. Built in 2014 by the Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht S.A., the port is operated by PSA Ports International. Four Post Panamax cranes cover 2,296 feet of quay giving the port an annual capacity of 800,000 TEUs. Within the next four years an additional 984 feet of berth will be added supported by two Neo-Panamax cranes. The main channel currently deep enough for Panamax ships will be dredged by 2017 to accommodate VLCS class Neo Panamax vessels. Brazil has helped to finance just under $600 million of the ongoing construction, which will add an additional 5,577 feet of quay and facility upgrades boosting the annual capacity to over 3 million TEUs.

Cuba Emerges

Closer to the U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic than other trans-load points in the region, Cuba will be an asset for carriers looking to connect cargo from intermediary ports to the U.S.

This year the Cuban government and the Virginia Port Authority signed a cooperative agreement to increase trade and establish a direct service between Virginia and Cuba. With deep water, a sizable throughput capacity and Super Panamax Cranes, Mariel’s transition from national to international port is assured. Who will be the first to offer direct container service from Mariel to the United States?

Mariel Now Allowed to Compete in Transshipment

By Gavin van Marle
24/10/2016
Prospects of the Cuban port of Mariel capturing US transhipment volumes have significantly improved since the US government last week lifted a ban on foreign vessels calling at US ports within 180 days of calling at Cuba.
The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a general licence, waiving the restriction as part of the ongoing programme to restore relations between the two countries.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said: “President Obama’s historic announcement in December 2014 charted a new course for a stronger, more open US-Cuba relationship. The treasury department has worked to break down economic barriers in areas such as travel, trade and commerce, banking, and telecommunications.
“Today’s action builds on this progress by enabling more scientific collaboration, grants and scholarships, people-to-people contact, and private sector growth. These steps have the potential to accelerate constructive change and unlock greater economic opportunity for Cubans and Americans.”
Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker added: “These amendments will create more opportunities for Cuban citizens to access American goods and services, further strengthening the ties between our two countries.
More commercial activity between the US and Cuba benefits our people and our economies.”
The lifting of these restrictions is also key to the development of the deepwater container terminal at Mariel, close to the Cuban capital of Havana, which has set itself the target of winning US transhipment cargo from the new neo-panamax vessel sizes now using the enlarged Panama canal.
At the recent TOC Americas Container Supply China event, Charles Baker, general director of TC Mariel, the PSA International-managed container terminal at the port, said lifting the embargo would “allow shippers and their 3PLs to reconsider the overall cost of their deepsea supply chains”.
While some ports on the US east and Gulf coasts have invested heavily in dredging access channels to accommodate the larger ship sizes, others that have yet to complete these programmes, and Mr Baker claimed the Cuban port was ideally located to serve as a first port of call on Asia-US east coast services and act a as a feeder point for ports such as Mobile and New Orleans.
“The normalisation of trade between Cuba and the US is something that is good for the entire region because more investment will come into the region from US companies,” he added.

Up for Grabs Transloading in the Caribbean

Up for Grabs - Trans-loading in the Caribbean

Before its expansion, the Panama Canal was sending 4,500 TEU ships into the Caribbean with containers for trans-loading and final destination. Larger 8,500 TEU vessels transiting the Suez brought a little more volume to island hubs.

Terminals in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic became trans-load centers for the Caribbean and US port range, while facilities in Colon could swing cargo to a wide range of destinations including South America.

Trans-shipment in the Caribbean Sea

Jamaica

The port of Kingston, Jamaica is getting a facelift with the infusion of $600 million for upgrades and expansion to Kingston Container Terminal (KCT). Terminal Link, a subsidiary of CMA CGM and the Jamaican Government, entered into a partnership called Kingston Freeport Terminal Ltd. (KFTL). KFTL will operate the port jointly for 30 years before turning the facility back to Jamaica. Terminal Link will invest $460 million on reinforcing 394 feet of the wharf to meet Euro Code standards and dredging alongside 2,625 feet of the quay to 51 feet. The remaining funds will be spent on terminal expansion and upgrades. In addition the government will seek private partnerships to spend $130 million to dredge Kingston’s harbor to accommodate Neo-Panamax vessels arriving from the canal. The government believes partnering with Terminal Link will bring a major dynamic to the table through CMA CGM’s world-class service with strong ties to Caribbean and Latin Markets.

The Dominican Republic

Prior to the canal’s expansion, the Port of Rio Haina in the Dominican Republic was capable of handling trans-load traffic for the region. With just under 1,731 linear feet of usable wharf face, the Puerto Hiana Oriental facility could accommodate one Panamax vessel working it with two shore-mounted cranes. Thirty minutes east of Santo Domingo lay the suburbs of Boca Chica and Andres. On the adjoining coast sits the Port of Caucedo. Operated by DP World this facility is fully capable of handling the largest ships the Panama Canal can throw at it. Opened in 2002 the port had from its inception counted on the growth in traffic an expanded canal would bring to the Dominican Republic. A 3,280-foot quay comprising three berths with 49.2 feet of water alongside each is sheltered from the open sea by 2,952 feet of breakwater. DP World holds a 50-year concession on the facility and intends to expand its capacity from 700,000 TEUs to over one million containers. The consortium of NYK, Evergreen and Hyundai operating joint services in the Caribbean have spent $15 million to create a Caucedo Logistics Center to improve their competitiveness in the region. The Center will coordinate the discharge and trans-loading of containers destined to various ports served by the three partners.

The Colon Connection

While port expansion in Balboa has taken center stage in recent years, the three terminals comprising the Atlantic port of Colon should not be overlooked.

Hutchinson Port Holdings (HPH) Cristobal: HPH operates two terminals in Panama, one on each coast.

Placing emphasis on the cruise industry, Hutchinson added a state of the art berth number 6 to Cristobal Port, which can handle two of the largest ships, which enter or exit the canal. The container terminal has 11 berths with a total of 14,468 feet of wharf. Thirteen Panamax and Post Panamax cranes handle vessels drawing up to 42 feet of water. The facility’s annual capacity is 2 million TEUs.

Manzanillo International Terminal (MIT): Built on the old Coco Solo Sur Naval Base, MIT is operated jointly by Carrix Inc. (SSA Marine) and the Motta and Heilbron families. A multimodal facility, the container terminal is equipped with 19 Post and Neo Panamax cranes on 5,380 linear feet of quay. The current depth alongside is 42 feet but can be dredged to 49 feet in the future. MIT has an onsite logistics park adjacent to the FTZ (Free Trade Zone) and easy access to the Panama Canal Railway. The terminal handles around 3.5 million TEUs per year.

Colon Container Terminal (CCT)

Operated by Evergreen Marine, CCT can handle 2.4 million containers per annum. The depth at the newly completed Berth 4 is 54 feet. Three Neo Panamax cranes discharge vessels loaded with 23 containers across their beam. Plans to deepen Berth 3 and extend both 3 and 4 will bring the total useable wharf up to 2,559 feet allowing the facility to handle two 13,000 TEU ships at the same time. CCT has easy access to the FTZ and near dock connection to the railway.

The Next Generation of Hub and Spoke Shipping

As the Caribbean gears up for Very Large Container Ships (VLCS), ports will have to become more competitive. The winners will be those terminals, which can turn boxes quickly and efficiently. It will require a combination of deep draft, available cranes and skilled labor. Wider beam VLCSs will need cranes with greater out-reach. Crane operators will also have to be conscious of lift and discharge time. Today’s facilities are only achieving 28 to 32 lifts per hour. To turn transition cargo quickly the terminal will need to either increase lifts per hour or add additional cranes to each vessel worked. The container boom is just beginning in the Caribbean Basin. Will that momentum reach the trans-load ports of Latin America?

PortaMiami beware, Florida East Coast Railroad considering sale

 Intermodal Fortress Investment Group LLC is exploring a sale of Florida East Coast Railway Corp., the coastal freight operator it took private in 2007, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

 

Asset manager Fortress is working with Barclays Plc and Morgan Stanley to weigh options for Jacksonville-based Florida East Coast Railway, the people said, asking not to be named as the details aren’t public. The company is likely to attract interest from other private equity firms, infrastructure firms and railway operators, the people said.

A spokesman for Barclays declined to comment.

Representatives for Fortress and Morgan Stanley didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The holding company of Florida East Coast Railway—Florida East Coast Industries Inc.—was taken private in 2007 by funds managed by Fortress in a transaction valued at about $3.5 billion.

The fund later spun off the railway operations into a separate company, leaving real estate, logistics and telecommunications assets under the FECI umbrella. Fortress, based in New York, had about $70.2 billion in assets under management as of June 30, according to its website.

Florida East Coast Railway can trace its roots back to 1895, when industrialist Henry M. Flagler bought the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, Halifax, and Indian River railroads to create a transportation route along the state’s coastline. It now operates about 350 miles of freight rail.

With Panama Canal open CMA CGM will advance Kingston hub

A statement from CMA CGM said: “Reflecting on new possibilities, maritime companies can rethink their routes, including that from Asia to the US east coast. For example, on the journey between New York and Hong Kong, the choice to sail by Panama or Suez canal is subtle: there is just one day difference. “Until now, the canal dimensions limited the size of ships and impacted the region’s technological and commercial strategies. With the lifting of such constraints the evolution of vessels is probable, initially from 5,000 to 9,000 or to 10,000 teu or even larger. The traffic is not likely to rise, but volumes in transit will probably increase.” The line added it would now look to develop the Jamaican port of Kingston as its central hub in the region. Last year it signed a $509m deal worth with Port Authority of Jamaica that transferred ownership of its container terminals to CMA CGM on a 30-year build-operate-transfer model. This will see the terminal expanded in two phases, with capacity taken successively up to 3.2m teu and 3.6m teu, and the port’s draught deepened to 14.2 metres by the end of 2016, and then to 15.5 metres. CMA CGM has formed a special purpose vehicle to bid for the project – Kingston Freeport Terminal – comprising its remaining port business, CMA Terminals, and Terminal Link, its container terminal operating company in which China Merchants has a 49% stake. Luc Portier, CMA CGM’s director of studies, projects and development, said: “A widened canal will bring new opportunities for world trade. CMA CGM has foreseen these changes and made Kingston a strategic base: modernisation works will allow the group to operate all larger vessels sailing in the area, and make Jamaica a transhipment hub for the whole sub region.”

Crowley focuses LCL shipments to Caribbean at Houston

HOUSTON, Texas - Crowley Maritime Corporation announced today that it will begin offering weekly, fixed-day, less-than-container-load (LCL) shipping services from Houston to 33 port destinations throughout the Caribbean Basin on July 1. The new logistics service will be the only one of its kind available from the Houston gateway. This new offering is designed to further enhance supply chain options for those shipping directly into the Caribbean Basin from the West and Gulf Coasts of the U.S. “Customers will be able to drop their cargo in Houston, and with our weekly, fixed-day service, have their cargo landed virtually anywhere within the eastern and western Caribbean, and Central America,” said Mike Griglione, Crowley’s general manager of logistics in Houston. “This is just another way we are adding value to our customers’ supply chains by both increasing the velocity of those supply chains with our integrated services and reducing their total landed cost.” “No other logistics company is providing a weekly, fixed-day, LCL service like this to the Caribbean Basin from Houston,” said Ken Black, Crowley’s general manager of logistics in Miami, adding that it is just one facet to a comprehensive suite of logistics services being provided by Crowley in Houston. In addition to LCL transportation, Crowley also offers custom packing options, cargo consolidation and deconsolidation, warehousing, distribution, cross-docking, freight forwarding, import/export documentation, last-mile delivery, cargo insurance and customs brokerage services for cargo of all types and sizes. LCL cargo shipments from Houston should be booked by calling 1-800-CROWLEY, and the cargo should be consigned to Crowley Logistics, Inc. c/o Customer Name, Destination Country; 15894 Diplomatic Plaza Dr., Houston, Texas 77032. Weekly cargo cutoff is noon every Thursday to ensure prompt departure and delivery to destination.

Good signs for Caribbean Trade

Crowley, SeaFreight and Lannaman & Morris to Hold First Forum for Jamaica Growers and Exporters

By: AJOT | May 06 2016 at 07:17 AM | Breakbulk & Projects  

Kingston, Jamaica - To better serve the diverse needs of growers and exporters across Jamaica, Crowley is teaming up with subsidiary SeaFreight, and on-island shipping agent Lannaman & Morris, to hold an educational breakfast forum on Thursday, May 12 at 8:00 a.m. at Terra Nova All Suites Hotel in Kingston.

The event will feature a presentation from Christopher Prendergast, supervisor/agricultural specialist, United States Department of Agriculture Jamaica Preclearance Program, regarding procedures related to northbound shipments of agricultural goods to the U.S. Those interested in attending this free event are asked to RSVP to Stacia Nosworthy-Cunningham at 876-923-5541 or [email protected].

Additionally, representatives of Crowley companies Customized Brokers, which specializes in customs clearance of all U.S. imports; CrowleyFresh, which offers cold-chain storage and logistics; and SeaFreight, which offers scalable liner and logistics solutions in the Caribbean and Central America, will be on-hand to discuss the full complement of the company’s complete supply chain solutions.

“We at Crowley are uniquely positioned to add value to our customers’ supply chains by both increasing the velocity of those supply chains with our integrated services, and in doing so, reducing their total landed cost,” said Mark Kearns, director, logistics operations. “This forum in Jamaica and other discussions like it, with both current and potential customers, is all about that proven value proposition.”

Panama Canal says it ain't so - new ditch is safe for biggest ships

By Sophia Murray 29/04/2016 The Panama Canal has rejected claims by the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), reported in The Loadstar, that operation of the new locks could lead to unsafe practices when larger vessels are introduced. Following the publication of an ITF-commissioned study, Peter Pusztai Panama, Canal Pilot Training Coordinator, said: “The ITF’s claims are unproven and contain many errors. “Despite their false claims, we look forward to transforming the maritime industry through the opening of the expanded Panama Canal.” The ITF-backed study claimed that the locks’ dimensions are too small for safe operation (with both gates closed); that there are no refuge areas for tugboats inside the locks, leaving no room for failure (human error, miscommunication, broken lines or engine failure); that the bollard pull is insufficient and, as a result, manoeuvrability of the vessel would be compromised. However, the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) denied these, arguing the study “lacks scientific credibility” as it was not based upon mathematical models and nor does it include any data from any physical navigation tests . It added that the report’s authors had not actually transitted the waterway, and had not been trained to do so. The ACP said it had spent 10 years working on the best way of operating the locks, and subsequently decided to use four tugs to manoeuvre deepsea cargo vessels “After this in-depth process, the Panama Canal made the informed decision to embrace the industry standard of using up to four tugs to navigate ships. Outside industry experts concluded that the ACP’s decision was correct,” it said. Last year, the Panama Canal invested $3m to upgrade its Centre for Simulation, Research and Maritime Development (SIDMA) and has also invested $8m to upgrade its Scale Model Manoeuvring Training Facility. It said these investments have been carefully considered to ensure safe and efficient transits once the Panama Canal’s new locks open.