European Commission
Competition
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 author’s views on the subject matter. This report does not necessarily
reflect the European Commission’s 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
1
Introduction
3
Defining Terminal Handling Charges
Background
Defining THCs
3
3
4
History of THC Changes
7
THCs and Freight Rates
8
Terminal Handling Charges by Carrier and Terminals
10
Analysis of Terminal Handling Charges
14
Terminal Handling Charges By Port, Trade and Carrier
17
Post Conference THC Rates
Carriers Response to the Post Conference System
Impact of the Repeal on THC Levels
Database Updating
Post October 2008 Conclusions
19
19
20
27
28
Appendix A: Pre October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
29
Appendix B: Post October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators
35
Appendix C: Data Sources
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.
1
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.
2
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.
Defining Terminal Handling Charges
Background
22. Terminal handling charges, or THCs as they are better known, are part of the evolution of
the container trade in the liner shipping industry. It took over 20 years after the arrival of the
regular container services in Europe for THCs to appear in any consistent manner. Prior to
that, the industry continued to work within the norms of the traditional break bulk shipping
environment.
23. The traditional method of charging for cargo handling was for the shipper to effectively
deliver cargo alongside the ship. All the charges to and from alongside the ship were for the
shippers account. The cost of slinging cargo aboard the ship were for the shipping
company’s account. The latter was a negotiated rate between the shipping line and the
stevedore or in those days, the port authority.
24. The evolution from break bulk shipping to containerisation was a slow time in coming. Not
before 1990 did THCs appear in any formal way. The realization by ports/stevedores and
shipping lines that the handling of containers had decidedly altered cargo handling in
fundamental ways that no longer could be defined under the traditional charging mechanism
took a while to formulate. With the new mode of transportation, ports/stevedores
formulated their charges from the port gate to delivery of the container onto the ship. The
equilibrium of responsibility had changed. The cost of the container handling was negotiated
between the carrier and the port authority or stevedoring terminal operator. The fee is based
3
Defining Terminal Handling Charges −
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 ship’s 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
04
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
05
Internal transport of container from/to/from stack
06
07
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 ship’s
side under hook
Move of container from ship’s side under hook to ship’s rail
Move of container from ship’s rail into ship’s cell (including
ship’s 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
01
02
03
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
01
Proposed
Delivering empty container and receiving
full container at the terminal gate
02
Container inspection
03
Seals and wiring inspection
04
07
05
06
09
Placing/removing container on delivery
vehicle
Move to/from stack
08
Container storage within terminal
10
11
Move from stack to ship’s side and v.v.
12
Move from ship’s side to cell and v.v.
13
Opening and closing of hatch-covers
14
15
16
Lashing of container
Wharfage
Planning
17
Overtime
18
19
19
Container inspection and connection of
power
20
Coolant / power supply
21
22
23
Administration
24
TC hatch-cover costs
TC handling costs
5
Defining Terminal Handling Charges −
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
Out of guage container handling costs
26
Dangerous cargo handling costs
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
Source: PortStrategy, July 2005. copyright © Mercator Media 2008
6
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
History of THC Changes
33. The introduction of terminal handling charges in late 1989 was spearheaded by the
conferences. The concept, as itemized above, was that conference carriers had terminal costs
associated with the handling of containers from the arrival at the terminal gate to the delivery
into the vessel cell in the hold or on deck. During the early years there were a number of
consortia that operated on a joint cost basis as well as alliances or joint services that
negotiated their own stevedoring rates. Added to this were the carriers that operated on their
own. Irrespective of the method of negotiations for stevedoring services, the conferences
appeared to come up with a formula for THCs that was intended to be an average across the
board, and which, according to them, was an under-recovery of the full costs of cargo
handling being charged to the lines. The costs were however not verified by an independent
auditor.
34. The rationale was that the carriers wanted to maintain full control of the new handling
methodology for containers. Pricing depended upon the format of the port terminal operator
and the volume of containers and negotiating skills of the carriers and consortia. In some
countries the pricing by the terminal operator was fixed, often linked to union rules, such as
in the United States. In Asia some Governments enforce the pricing rules, such as in China.
35. Carriers would enter into multiyear agreements, usually tied to productivity and guaranteed
slots for vessel berthing in order to minimize the time spent in ports. During the last 18
years there has been a revolution in terminal ownership with the rise of landlord ports with
private terminal operators employing their own stevedores. In the UK, the ports were fully
privatized. Carriers also realized that terminal operations could be highly profitable and they
began investing in the landside operations. This included, for example, P&O Ports, APM
Terminals and Terminal Link (CMA CGM). Added to this also is the arrival of large, global
terminal operators such as Hutchison Port Holdings, SSA Marine, DP World and ICTSI.
These global operators could structure their pricing completely differently than local, national
or regional operators.
36. The technology of container handling and terminal management through means such as
automation resulted in increases in productivity (defined as the number of container moves
per hour that could be achieved). This, alongside the continuous expansion of container
vessel size, ensured that productivity has continuously improved over time.
37. The competition between terminal operators and ports, especially in Europe, resulted in a
periodic shifting of carriers to different terminals or ports in order to maintain cost control,
achievement of higher productivity and guaranteed berthing and services. The result of this
is that THCs have remained very stable since their introduction with few increases despite the
changes in the sea freight rates and surcharges over time. This is probably due to lower costs
achieved through higher levels of productivity and better contract terms from terminal
operators.
38. According to information received, prior to their demise, from the Far East Freight
Conference (FEFC), the India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Ceylon Conference (IPBCC), and
the Europe Middle East Rate Agreement (EMERA), the last THC increases were1:
a. UK 1990
1
No relevant data was available from TACA at the time
7
THCs and Freight Rates −
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.
THCs and Freight Rates
41. Terminal handling charges are not considered a surcharge but are treated as an ancillary
charge, similar to documentation fees. Carriers do not treat the THC as a charge that shows
variation or is related to variable operational issues. This explains the relative stability in the
charges over the past 20 years as opposed to currency and fuel (bunker) charges which can
vary on a monthly basis. Where operational issues have arisen linked to terminal operations,
carriers applied “congestion” surcharges on a temporary basis. No discussion with clients
appears to have been undertaken when these charges are applied.
42. Given the virtual stability of the THCs, albeit at varying levels according to trade routes, the
ratio of the THC to the sea freight rate has been variable depending on freight rates. The
table below illustrates the freight rates on the Asia-Europe route over 13 years. There are
significant fluctuations in the freight rates with the result that the THC ratio fluctuates
similarly over time. It should be noted however that the level of THCs on average will have
been in the 10 – 15 percent range on the Asia to North Europe route on a destination basis.
8
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Chart 1: Freight Rates for Asia/Europe/Asia
Source: Containerisation International Freight Facts
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
Source: Containerisation International Freight Facts
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.
9
Terminal Handling Charges by Carrier and Terminals −
Chart 3: Supply versus Demand, 2012
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
SUPPLY Growth rate (%)
2003
2005
2007
2009(E)
2011(E)
DEMAND Growth rate (%)
Source: Drewry’s 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 by Carrier and Terminals
47. The Consultants carried out a market research survey of the 44 ports identified by the DG
Competition in the Invitation to Tender. Every effort was made to collect the relevant
terminal handling charges for all the ports. This was done by both conference and nonconference. Due to the variance of terminal handling charges at the same ports and terminals
it was decided to collect the data on a trade lane basis.
48. The conference terminal handling charges were relatively straightforward to collect, with the
cooperation of the conference secretariats. More difficult was the collection of the data for
the non-conference carriers, each of whom had to be contacted individually, with the
exception of one carrier that provided the information on its internet website. Where no
conferences existed, such as in the Europe to East Coast South America trade, it became
increasingly difficult to collect the data. Difficulties encountered were 1) non cooperation
and, 2) lack of knowledge outside the immediate geographic region. There was an overall
lack of transparency for information which should be available to the general public as the
charges are a fixed tariff price.
49. A database was developed that identifies trade routes and associated carriers providing
advertised services. These were then identified as Conference and Non-Conference. All
charges are in the currency charged, usually local currencies. In the summary tables these are
rounded to the nearest whole number. It became very clear at the outset of the research that
THCs varied within a port by trade route and probably by individual terminal, although the
latter was not further researched. It was also clear that many of the lines were frustrated by
the variance in their ancillary charges within a single port. One of the carriers discovered that
10
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
Terminal Handling Charges by Carrier and Terminals −
Table 4: Far Eastern Freight Conference
Table 6: Europe Mediterranean Trade Agreement
12
Table 5: India Pakistan Bangladesh Ceylon Conference
Table 7: East Coast South America (No Conference
existed on this trade)
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Table 8: Transatlantic Conference
Table 10: Europe Canary Islands Conference
existed on this trade)
Table 9: Europe Middle East Rate Agreement
Table 11: South Africa Conference (No Conference
Table 12: Europe West Africa Trade Agreement
13
Analysis of Terminal Handling Charges −
Analysis of Terminal Handling Charges
54. Prior to 18 October 2008 the level of terminal handling charges varied across the various
trade routes within individual ports, but they were consistent across individual conference
members and insofar as it was possible to ascertain, the non-conference carriers levied the
same charges at ports with the same differentiation by trade route. There were some
exceptions, but these were limited to ports where cargo was transshipped, such as Baltic ports
and to ports where no formal terminal handling charge formula exist. The full database of
terminal handling charges by port and carrier is supplied in the form of an Excel file.
55. The table below illustrates the variance in the level of terminal handling charges across trade
routes by ports within Europe. The Far East-Europe, Europe-Middle East and the North
Atlantic trades did not differentiate between container size. The India – Europe trade was
similar in North European ports, but in the Mediterranean ports the rates diverged. The
trades to and from Europe to the Mediterranean and Southern Africa advertised charges
based on container size. In all cases the terminal handling charges are consistent within
countries by trade route.
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
Analysis of Terminal Handling Charges −
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.
Terminal Handling Charges By Port, Trade and Carrier
61. For comparative purposes, the data has also been analyzed on a port by carrier basis which
highlights the differentiation that occurred across different trade routes. The full database
contains all the carriers serving a particular trade. A selection of ports is discussed below.
62. The table below, for Southampton, focuses on the top 10 carriers. With the exception of the
intra European trade between North Europe and the Mediterranean, the rates within a trade
route are consistent, but they vary across trade routes. Pricing with any single country is the
same on a per trade route basis.
17
Terminal Handling Charges By Port, Trade and Carrier −
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
Post Conference THC Rates
Carriers Response to the Post Conference System
66. In response to the abolition of the conferences, carriers introduced new terminal handling
charges across most of their terminals. The major factors of change where:
a. The abolition of trade route related terminal handling charges
b. Terminal handling charges more closely aligned with costs
c. Introduction of “country” terminal handling charges as a means of simplification
d. Publication of charges on carriers websites by a significant number of carriers.
67. One of the first responses of the carriers to the abolition of the conferences was to address
their surcharges and ancillary charges and to establish new, independent charges. The
terminal handling charges that had remained virtually unchanged for nearly 15 years in
Europe changed almost overnight. Carriers abandoned the differential pricing by trade route
and terminals within a port and switched to a single charge by country, irrespective as to
which terminal was called at by services on differing trade routes. As far as could be
established, many of the carriers analysed their terminal costs and compared these with the
charges that had been charged. The new THCs were more closely aligned with actual costs as
a result of this assessment with a view to achieving a full cost recovery.
68. Individual lines appear to have different interpretation of what could, or should be included
in THCs. This is based on comments that some carriers wished to recover some of the costs
of empty container movements via their THCs. In any case, the new charges were seemingly
based on commercial principals. These in turn were based on the negotiated handling
charges applied by a terminal and charged to the carrier. The level of the costs are
commercially confidential but they are volume and time based. That is, the larger carriers
would certainly be able to negotiate a better deal than a small carrier, particularly if they were
also willing to sign up for a long term contract. It is also the case that early supporters of a
new terminal will benefit from preferential rates.
69. Based on market evidence, the terminal operators had been increasing their charges over
time, but at the same time they were also passing on productivity gains. For a carrier, part of
the negotiations also depended upon minimum productivity levels and guaranteed berths and
working hours. As such, part of the terminal costs could be passed on to the fixed vessel
costs as an element of time saving.
19
Post Conference THC Rates −
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 world’s 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
Pre-October 2008
Post-October 2008
Average Rate
Range
Average Rate
Range
Southampton
£ 96
£ 69-114
£ 111
£ 80-140
Felixstowe
£ 96
£ 69-114
£ 112
£ 96-140
Antwerp
€ 119
€ 89-174
€ 144
€ 88-170
Zeebrugge
€ 115
€ 89-140
€ 144
€ 88-170
Rotterdam
€ 143
€ 120-170
€ 171
€ 129-200
Bremerhaven
€ 163
€ 152-191
€ 193
€ 138-210
Hamburg
€ 163
€ 152-191
€ 195
€ 170-210
Goteborg
Kr 1,053
Kr 740-1,400
Kr 1,128
Kr 550-1,240
Klaipeda
€ 69
€ 50-88
€ 88
€ 50-147
ST. Petersburg
$ 207
$ 200-220
$ 257
$ 200-370
Algeciras
€ 131
€ 119-140
€ 170
€ 130-255
Valencia
€ 132
€ 119-144
€ 167
€ 125-255
Barcelona
€ 134
€ 119-153
€ 163
€ 80-255
Le Havre
€ 135
€ 122-176
€ 178
€ 150-240
Genoa
€ 143
€ 132-155
€ 148
€ 111-180
La Spezia
€ 143
€ 132-155
€ 148
€ 111-180
Gioia Tauro
€ 151
€ 132-165
€ 144
€ 111-180
Piraeus (Import)*
€ 188
€ 112-264
€ 112
€ 112-112
Istanbul
$ 97
$ 85-108
$ 135
$ 50-219
Constanza (Import)
$ 110
-
$ 159
$ 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
Post Conference THC Rates −
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)
22
Size
Pre-October 2008
Post-October 2008
20ft
£ 44-114
£ 80-140
40ft
20ft
£ 60-146
£ 44-114
£ 80-140
£ 96-140
40ft
20ft
£ 60-146
€ 79-174
£ 96-140
€ 88-170
40ft
20ft
€ 89-174
€ 79-140
€ 88-170
€ 88-170
40ft
20ft
€ 89-158
€ 113-156
€ 88-170
€ 129-200
40ft
20ft
€ 120-226
€ 127-170
€ 129-200
€ 138-210
40ft
20ft
€ 152-254
€ 127-170
€ 138-210
€ 170-210
40ft
20ft
€ 152-254
Kr. 740-1,400
€ 170-210
Kr.1,000-1,240
40ft
20ft
Kr.740-1,400
€ 50-85
Kr.1,050-1,240
€ 50-147
40ft
20ft
€ 50-90
US$ 200-220
€ 50-147
US $ 200-370
40ft
20ft
US$ 200-220
€ 111-140
US$ 200-370
€ 120-255
40ft
20ft
€ 126-144
€ 111-140
€ 140-255
€ 120-255
40ft
20ft
€ 126-174
€ 111-140
€ 125-255
€ 120-255
40ft
20ft
€ 126-180
€ 117-143
€ 125-255
€ 150-225
40ft
20ft
€ 122-234
€ 119-155
€ 150-255
€ 111-180
40ft
€ 132-155
€ 111-180
20ft
€ 119-155
€ 111-180
40ft
20ft
€ 132-155
€ 132-165
€ 111-180
€ 111-180
40ft
€ 132-165
€ 111-180
20ft
€ 92-220
€ 112
40ft
€ 132-308
€ 112
20ft
$ 85-108
$ 100-219
40ft
20ft
$ 85-108
$ 90
$ 219
$ 30-345
40ft
$ 130
$ 50-418
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
Pre-October 2008
Post -October 2008
Percent Change
Southampton
£ 96
£ 111
16%
Felixstowe
£ 96
£ 112
17%
Antwerp
€ 119
€ 144
21%
Zeebrugge
€ 115
€ 144
25%
Rotterdam
€ 143
€ 171
20%
Bremerhaven
€ 163
€ 193
18%
Hamburg
€ 163
€ 195
20%
Goteborg
Kr 1,053
Kr 1,128
7%
Klaipeda
€ 69
€ 88
27%
US$ 207
US$ 257
25%
Algeciras
€ 131
€ 170
30%
Valencia
€ 132
€ 167
27%
Barcelona
€ 134
€ 163
21%
Le Havre
€ 135
€ 178
32%
Genoa
€ 143
€ 148
3%
La Spezia
€ 143
€ 148
3%
Gioia Tauro
€ 151
€ 144
-5%
Piraeus (Import)
€ 188
€ 112
-40%
Istanbul
$ 97
$ 135
39%
Constanza (Import)
$ 110
$ 159
44%
ST. Petersburg
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-à-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
Pre-October 2008
Post-October 2008
Average Rate
Range
Average Rate
Range
Dubai
AED 635
-
AED 673
AED 560-825
Bangkok
฿ 3,250
-
฿ 3,269
฿ 3,150-3,400
Singapore
SGD 226
-
SGD 224
SGD 170-235
Shenzen
RMB 403
-
RMB 1,120
RMB 465-1,850
Ningbo
RMB 584
-
RMB 641
RMB 465-1,403
Shanghai
RMB 964
-
RMB 681
RMB 465-1,403
Qingdao
RMB1,344
-
RMB 681
RMB 465-1,403
Quangzhou
RMB1,724
-
RMB 741
RMB 465-1,427
Tianjin
RMB2,104
-
RMB 648
RMB 440-1,297
Hong Kong
HK$ 2,611
-
HK$ 2,347
HK$ 1,700-2,500
Kaoshiung
NT$ 5,925
-
NT$ 6,120
NT$ 4,200-6,400
Pusan
₩ 118,000
-
₩ 123,257
₩ 117,500-180,000
Yokohama
¥ 34,737
-
¥ 32,163
¥ 13,750-40,000
Tokyo
¥ 34,737
-
¥ 31,739
¥ 13,750-40,000
Nhava Sheva/J. Nehru
Rs. 5,578
-
Rs. 5,777
Rs. 3,900-9,195
A$ 207
-
A$ 318
A$ 223-413
Sydney
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
Bangkok
Singapore
Shenzen
Ningbo
Shanghai
Qingdao
Quangzhou
Tianjin
Hong Kong
Kaoshiung
Pusan
Yokohama
Tokyo
Nhava Sheva/J. Nehru
Sydney
Size
Pre-October 2008
Post-October 2008
20ft
AED 513
AED 450-703
40ft
AED 756
AED 670-946
20ft
฿ 2,600
฿ 2,500-2,700
40ft
฿ 3,900
฿ 3,800-4,200
20ft
SGD 182
SGD 170-190
40ft
SGD 270
SGD 170-280
20ft
RMB 300-370
RMB 370-1,400
40ft
RMB 450-560
RMB 560-2,300
20ft
RMB 370-750
RMB 370-1,297
40ft
RMB 560-940
RMB 560-1,849
20ft
RMB 750-1,130
RMB 370-1,297
40ft
RMB 940-1,320
RMB 560-1,849
20ft
RMB 1,130-1,510
RMB 370-1,297
40ft
RMB 1,320-1,700
RMB 560-1,849
20ft
RMB 1,510-1,890
RMB 370-1,297
40ft
RMB 1,700-2,080
RMB 560-1,849
20ft
RMB 1,890-2,270
RMB 370-1,297
40ft
RMB 2,080-2,460
RMB 440-1,300
20ft
HK$ 2,065-2,595
HK$ 1,400-2,100
40ft
HK$ 2,750-2,813
HK$ 2,000-2,900
20ft
NT$ 5,200-5,600
NT$ 3,700-5,800
40ft
NT$ 6,600-7,000
NT$ 4,700-7,000
20ft
₩ 100,000
₩ 100,000-150,000
40ft
₩ 136,000
₩ 135,000-210,000
20ft
¥ 28,491
¥ 11,000-32,000
40ft
¥ 40,982
¥ 16,500-48,000
20ft
¥ 28,491
¥ 11,000-32,000
40ft
¥ 40,982
¥ 16,500-48,000
20ft
Rs. 4,235
Rs. 3,465-6,950
40ft
Rs. 6,920
Rs. 3,900-11,440
20ft
$ 195-226
$ 222-400
40ft
A$ 195-226
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
Bangkok
Singapore
Shenzen
Ningbo
Shanghai
Qingdao
Quangzhou
Tianjin
Hong Kong
Kaoshiung
Pusan
Yokohama
Tokyo
Nhava Sheva/J. Nehru
Sydney
Size
Pre-October 2008
Post-October 2008
Percent Change
20ft
AED 513.00
AED 566.44
10%
40ft
AED 756.00
AED 780.33
3%
20ft
฿ 2,600
฿ 2,601
0%
40ft
฿ 3,900
฿ 3,938
1%
20ft
SGD 182
SGD 183
0%
40ft
SGD 270
SGD 264
-2%
20ft
RMB 322
RMB 875
172%
40ft
RMB 485
RMB 1,463
202%
20ft
RMB 489
RMB 544
11%
40ft
RMB 679
RMB 787
16%
20ft
RMB 869
RMB 544
-37%
40ft
RMB 1,059
RMB 819
-23%
20ft
RMB 1,249
RMB 544
-56%
40ft
RMB 1,439
RMB 819
-43%
20ft
RMB 1,629
RMB 651
-60%
40ft
RMB 1,819
RMB 1,005
-45%
20ft
RMB 2,009
RMB 545
-73%
40ft
RMB 2,199
RMB 751
-66%
20ft
HK$ 2,430
HK$ 1,994
-18%
40ft
HK$ 2,793
HK$ 2,700
-3%
20ft
NT$ 5,225
NT$ 5,447
4%
40ft
NT$ 6,625
NT$ 6,794
3%
20ft
₩ 100,000
₩ 104,011
4%
40ft
₩ 136,000
₩ 142,503
5%
20ft
¥ 28,491
¥ 26,336
-8%
40ft
¥ 40,982
¥ 37,991
-7%
20ft
¥ 28,491
¥ 25,990
-9%
40ft
¥ 40,982
¥ 37,488
-9%
20ft
Rs. 4,235
Rs. 4,588
8%
40ft
Rs. 6,920
Rs. 6,966
1%
20ft
$ 207
$ 300
45%
40ft
A$ 207
$ 335
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
Pre-October 2008
Average Rate
Post-October 2008
Range
Average Rate
Range
Montreal
$
460
-
$
414
$ 330-550
NYNJ
$
460
-
$
507
$ 390-803
Santos
R$
430
-
R$
426
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
Size
Montreal
NYNJ
Santos
Pre-October 2008
Post-October 2008
20ft
$ 420
$ 220-500
40ft
$ 500
$ 333-600
20ft
$ 420
$ 390-535
40ft
$ 500
$ 390-1,070
20ft
R$ 390-445
R$ 401-555
40ft
R$ 390-495
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
Pre-October 2008
Post-October 2008
Percent Change
Montreal
$
460
$
414
-10%
NYNJ
$
460
$
507
10%
Santos
R$
430
R$
426
-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.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
28
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.
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Maersk/SAF
MSC
CMA CGM
Evergreen
Hapag Lloyd
COSCO
APL
China Shipping
NYK
MOL
Southampton
20ft
40ft
£120
£120
£110
£110
£110
£110
£110
£110
£120
£120
£110
£110
£110
£110
£115
£115
£110
£110
£110
£110
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
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
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
Antwerp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Zeebrugge
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
Rotterdam
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
40ft
£120
£110
£110
£110
£120
£110
£110
£115
£110
£110
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
20ft
€ 155
40ft
€ 155
€ 150
€ 140
€ 160
€ 115
€ 170
€ 150
€ 150
€ 160
€ 150
€ 140
€ 160
€ 115
€ 170
€ 150
€ 150
€ 160
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
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
40ft
€ 60
€ 91
€ 91
€ 75
€ 70
€ 100
€ 120
€ 50
€ 145
€ 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
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
ST. Petersburg
20ft
40ft
$ 290
$ 290
$ 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
40ft
€ 155
€ 170
€ 160
€ 120
€ 170
€ 160
€ 140
€ 255
€ 150
€ 210
€ 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
40ft
€ 155
€ 170
€ 160
€ 120
€ 125
€ 255
€ 150
€ 210
€ 160
€ 170
€ 160
€ 140
€ 125
€ 255
€ 150
€ 210
€ 160
Le Havre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
36
Maersk/SAF
MSC
CMA CGM
Evergreen
Hapag Lloyd
COSCO
APL
China Shipping
NYK
MOL
$ 370
$ 250
$ 220
$ 200
$ 300
$ 300
$ 250
$ 220
Valencia
20ft
€ 155
20ft
€ 195
€ 150
€ 160
€ 170
€ 175
€ 152
€ 225
€ 170
€ 190
€ 215
SEK 1,125
SEK 1,150
SEK 1,125
SEK 1,130
SEK 1,200
SEK 1,125
Barcelona
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
40ft
€ 155
€ 170
€ 160
€ 120
€ 125
€ 255
€ 150
€ 210
€ 160
€ 170
€ 140
€ 125
€ 255
€ 150
€ 210
€ 160
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
40ft
€ 125
€ 111
€ 111
€ 180
€ 132
€ 165
€ 150
€ 160
€ 165
€ 180
€ 132
€ 165
€ 150
€ 160
€ 165
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
40ft
€ 125
€0
€ 111
€ 155
€ 180
€ 132
€ 165
€ 150
€ 160
40ft
€ 165
Free in
Free in
€ 112
€ 112
FIO
FIO
Istanbul
Constanza
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
Free in
Free in
$ 219
$ 219
$ 100
FIO
FIO
Free in
Free in
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
40ft
$ 245
$ 75
$ 130
$ 345
$ 418
$ 90
$ 130
$ 130
$ 130
$
$
40
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
R 855
90
Dubai
40ft
R 1,264
1
Maersk/SAF
2
MSC
3
CMA CGM
4
Evergreen
5
Hapag Lloyd
6
COSCO
7
APL
8
China Shipping
9
NYK
10
MOL
20ft
40ft
AED 513
AED 756
AED 513
AED 756
AED 450
AED 670
37
Appendix B: Post October 18, 2008 THC Charges by Port for Ten Largest Shipping Operators −
Bangkok
20ft
40ft
฿2,560
฿3,900
1
Maersk/SAF
2
MSC
3
CMA CGM
฿2,600
฿3,900
4
Evergreen
฿2,600
฿3,900
5
Hapag Lloyd
฿2,600
฿3,900
6
COSCO
7
APL
฿2,600
฿3,900
8
China Shipping
9
NYK
฿2,600
฿4,200
10
MOL
฿2,600
฿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 270
SGD 270
SGD 270
SGD 182
SGD 270
SGD 170
SGD 182
SGD 170
SGD 270
Ningbo
Shenzen
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
38
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
Maersk/SAF
MSC
CMA CGM
Evergreen
Hapag Lloyd
COSCO
APL
China Shipping
NYK
MOL
20ft
RMB 958
40ft
RMB 1,849
RMB 1,297
RMB 370
RMB 965
RMB 0
RMB 560
RMB 1,842
RMB 476
RMB 750
RMB 1,400
RMB 965
RMB 2,300
RMB 1,842
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
Quangzhou
20ft
40ft
RMB 475
RMB 750
RMB 1,297
RMB 370
RMB 460
RMB 1,297
RMB 560
RMB 720
RMB 476
RMB 750
RMB 880
RMB 480
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
20ft
RMB 475
40ft
RMB 750
RMB 1,297
RMB 370
RMB 460
RMB 0
RMB 560
RMB 720
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
40ft
RMB 750
RMB 1,297
RMB 370
RMB 460
RMB 1,297
RMB 560
RMB 720
RMB 476
RMB 750
RMB 880
RMB 480
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
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$2,750
HK$2,750
HK$2,750
HK$1,800
HK$2,650
HK$1,400
HK$2,065
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
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
40ft
100,000
135,000
101,000
100,000
101,000
137,000
136,000
137,000
101,000
137,000
150,000
100,000
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
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
40ft
¥29,000
¥21,000
¥28,490
¥28,491
¥29,000
¥40,982
¥40,982
¥11,000
¥16,500
¥32,000
¥28,491
¥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
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
Yokohama
20ft
40ft
¥21,000
¥29,000
¥21,000
¥28,490
¥28,491
¥29,000
¥40,982
¥40,982
¥11,000
¥16,500
¥32,000
¥28,491
¥48,000
¥40,982
Nhava Sheva /J. Nehru
20ft
40ft
Rs. 4,410
Rs. 6,440
Rs. 3,894
Rs. 5,978
Rs. 4,575
Rs. 6,985
Rs. 3,900
Rs. 3,900
Rs. 4,200
Rs. 6,950
Rs. 6,300
Rs. 11,440
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
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
Montreal
20ft
AUS$354
40ft
AUS$456
AUS$292
AUS$373
AUS$303
AUS$391
AUS$251
AUS$251
AUS$400
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
20ft
$412
40ft
$412
$500
$400
$600
$550
$220
$440
$333
$333
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
40
Maersk/SAF
MSC
CMA CGM
Evergreen
Hapag Lloyd
COSCO
APL
China Shipping
NYK
MOL
20ft
$390
Santos
40ft
$390
$420
$500
$535
$1,070
$450
$450
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Maersk/SAF
MSC
CMA CGM
Evergreen
Hapag Lloyd
COSCO
APL
China Shipping
NYK
MOL
20ft
R$ 430
40ft
R$ 430
R$ 401
R$ 401
R$ 420
R$ 500
Terminal handling charges during and after the liner conference era
Appendix C: Data Sources
Shipping Lines
APL
China Shipping
CMA-CGM
COSCO
CSAV
Evergreen
Hamburg Sϋd
Hanjin Shipping
Hapag Lloyd
Hyundai Merchant Marine
K Line
Maersk Line
MISC
MOL Mitsui OSK Line
MSC -Mediterranean Shipping
NYK Line
OOC L Orient Overseas Container Line
Safmarine
SCI Shiping Corporation of India
UASC United Arab Shipping Company
Yang Ming
ZIM Integrated Shipping Services
www.apl.com
www.cscl.com.ci
www.cma-cgm.com
www.cosco.com
www.csav.cl
www.evergreen-line.com
www.hamburgsud.com
www.hanjin.com
www.hapag-lloyd.com
www.hmm21.com
www.kline.com / www.klineurope.com
www.maersk.com
www.misc.com.my
www.mol.co.jp
www.mscgva.com
www2.nykline.com
www.oocl.com
www.safmarine.com
www.shipindia.com
www.uasc.net
www.yangming.com.tw
www.zim.co.il
41
Appendix C: Data Sources −
Other
CAP Analysis
Ancillary Charges and Surcharges, Report for
the ELAA, July 2003
n.a.
www.chinashipping.de/sales.aspx
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
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/