Asian exporters unprepared for SOLAS Verified Gross Mass (VGM) regulations could force carriers to blank sailings, while some shippers have hinted they will cheat on weight declarations.
A major east-west shipping line told The Loadstar a lack of shipper urgency on new container weight rules may ...
Four crew members still missing as Wan Hai 503 continues to burn
Explosions and 'out-of-control' fire reported on Wan Hai box ship
Predatory rivals circle as the ripples from DSV's Schenker buy widen
MSC Elsa crew face criminal probe, as Wan Hai 503 firefighters battle on
'It's driving us mad', say forwarders as US court fails to end tariff turmoil
Transpacific rates ease as capacity boost proves too much for trades to digest
European port congestion easing – for now
CMA CGM 'testing the water' of the Suez Canal for more services
Flexport: Sanne Manders talks profitability, fire-sales and Dave Clark
More legal trouble in India for MSC: feeder vessel detained after box ship disasters
DSV insiders hit back at Kuehne & DHL GF – got a 'pro integration' going
Latest Israeli attack on Iran a threat to box ships in Straits of Hormuz
Comment on this article
Andy Lane
May 17, 2016 at 7:43 amI believe that IMO announced recently that the “soft start” to full VGM compliance was aimed solely at containers under transhipment. Whereby they would be permitted to continue their journey without a VGM, but that any container loading to the first vessel of an end-to-end routing would need to be 100% compliant.
The MSA guidelines are maybe not the best, but I am sure that carriers will further interpret them by not permitting loading of containers with VGM discrepancies in order not to delay the ship and the compliant containers.
The cost of weighing a packed container per method 1 is potentially no more expensive than weighing individual pieces of cargo and consolidating a vast quantity of these into a single VGM for transmission to the Line. A 5% discrepancy is indeed very generous.