In the wake of the implementation of emergency surcharges related to bunkering costs by the three market leaders (Maersk Line, MSC and CMA CGM) and also of the Japanese alliance ONE, there have been several reactions, led by criticisms from the Global Forum of Loaders . Now it is the turn of iContainers to analyze the situation, arguing that the establishment of these mechanisms should be more transparent and intended for the long term.

 

 

The online shipping company iContainers explains that, despite criticism from shippers and even some consultants (such as Britain's Drewry), the decision of the shipping companies is natural and justified: "Emergency surcharges are a result of market movements. In the end, it is fair for operators to transfer this additional cost to customers because it is a cost that they do not control and that can in fact change dramatically depending on the factors over which they have absolutely no influence " , commented Klaus Lysdal, iContainers' current vice president of operations.

 

 

The decision provoked antagonistic reactions from the shippers, some of whom claim that the costs should be borne by the shipping companies; others will prefer to face the price increase earlier than risking other adjustments. "The exasperation of the shippers is perfectly understandable. But despite the negative reaction, I think many shippers will prefer to pay a little more and have fewer surprises in their supply chains, such as changes in tariffs and services, "added Lysdal. Operators have begun implementing so-called Emergency Bunker Surcharges on a number of trade routes, while commercial routes controlled by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) are covered by a 30-day protection and will only come into force on 1 July - for Lysdal, this method of implementation and its autonomous nature represent great improvements in the kind of transparency of the application of these mechanisms.

 

 

'To some extent, this mechanism stands out now as an independent surcharge as more and more operators improve their transparency in the application of tariffs. Many carriers have already greatly reduced the different types of charges with which they work. In fact, just a few years ago, several carriers admitted to having so many costs that it became difficult to survive. Nowadays, some operate at a basic cost of fuel included in the total freight charge. But with this policy, carriers assume a calculated risk, with gains and losses dependent on real fuel prices and the cost they decide to incorporate into their tariffs, "explained Lysdal.

 

 

"There is room for improvement in the way measures are communicated to customers. A more transparent way of managing prices with clients can be a good workaround for decreasing opacity. The cost is there, it is necessary to make a decision to recover what, otherwise, the operators would lose. But we hope carriers can create a mechanism that is fair to all parties, "he said.

 

 

 

Source, Revista Cargo.