MSC plans to develop new box terminal at Aarhus angers APMT
MSC’s port operating subsidiary, Terminal Investment Ltd (TIL), has signed a deal with the port ...
ATSG: UPDATEMAERSK: QUIET DAY DHL: ROBOTICSCHRW: ONE CENT CLUB UPDATECAT: RISING TRADEEXPD: TRUMP TRADE LOSER LINE: PUNISHEDMAERSK: RELIEF XPO: TRUMP TRADE WINNERCHRW: NO JOYUPS: STEADY YIELDXPO: BUILDING BLOCKSHLAG: BIG ORDERLINE: REACTIONLINE: EXPENSES AND OPERATING LEVERAGELINE: PIPELINE OF DEALS
ATSG: UPDATEMAERSK: QUIET DAY DHL: ROBOTICSCHRW: ONE CENT CLUB UPDATECAT: RISING TRADEEXPD: TRUMP TRADE LOSER LINE: PUNISHEDMAERSK: RELIEF XPO: TRUMP TRADE WINNERCHRW: NO JOYUPS: STEADY YIELDXPO: BUILDING BLOCKSHLAG: BIG ORDERLINE: REACTIONLINE: EXPENSES AND OPERATING LEVERAGELINE: PIPELINE OF DEALS
The paradigms of the port industry are undergoing fundamental transformation – facilities built decades ago are now operating in a world where the old models of volume growth and port productivity are being changed. This is particularly so in the new era of three major alliances, which have designed networks with more direct port calls and less transhipment, argues this LinkedIn post. “Looking back 20-30 years, many terminals were established by carriers to secure access to dedicated handling capacity and services. This was followed by a period of ‘decoupling’, when more independent terminal groups came to the fore. Now, do we face the possibility that carriers with links to terminal assets – either through direct ownership or as part of a wider corporate structure – will focus more attention on ‘alliance-dedicated’ terminals?”
Comment on this article