by Manal Barakat, SeaNewsEditor

The new US port fee policy is another challenge that container carriers need to bypass.

While minimising the impact of this policy will be doable for some liners, the task is expected to be harder for Chinese COSCO and its subsidiary OOCL.

The adjusted version of the USTR port fee impacts fewer ships than the initial plan, which makes it relatively easier for most carriers to avoid.

As part of their strategy, carriers could reshuffle fleets, remove Chinese vessels from their US journeys or deploy smaller ships as the USTR plan exempts containerships of 4,000 TEU or less.

In addition, carriers could opt for transhipment to take advantage of the USTR exemption for ships that travel less than 2,000 nautical miles from a foreign port.

A Lloyd’s List analysis shows that for ports along the US East and Gulf coasts, a 2,000-nautical-mile radius includes all seven of the large Caribbean Basin transhipment hubs.

These include: Freeport, Bahamas; Caucedo, Dominican Republic; Kingston, Jamaica; Cartagena, Colombia; and MIT, CCT and Cristobal in Panama.

“Carriers could use Chinese tonnage to drop off US-bound cargo at Caribbean Basin transhipment hubs, then reload them on high-capacity, non-Chinese ships for final delivery,” writes Lloyd’s List.

These measures by the US Administration seek to protect smaller carriers operating regionally. However, the impact of using these loopholes would be smaller for the world’s fourth-largest liner operator, COSCO.

According to Linerlytica's February data, 51% of COSCO-OOCL tonnage called at US ports. A significant part of this percentage involved large boxships.

Impact on Ocean Alliance

Analysts believe that Trump’s measures will put COSCO at a competitive disadvantage, eventually impacting the Ocean Alliance’s operations, of which the carrier is a member.

In a call last week, Drewry Senior Analyst Simon Heaney highlighted that the Ocean Alliance could face “serious operational questions.”

Major container carriers CMA CGM and Evergreen will likely revise their US ports plans as of October to adjust to the new measures.

“One solution would be to divide ships within the Ocean Alliance across different trades, so that the Chinese carriers focus on the non-US routes, such as the Asia-Europe market, and other Ocean Alliance carriers look after the transpacific and transatlantic market,” said Heaney.

Other shipping experts argue that the Ocean Alliance could increase the use of CMA CGM and Evergreen vessels for their Transpacific sailings to minimise the impact.

Linerlytica February data shows that 36% of CMA CGM’s existing tonnage was Chinese-built, while 64% of its newbuilding capacity was ordered at Chinese yards.

Stay ahead with the latest updates! Subscribe to our SeaNews newsletter for the most relevant information.