News / FMC halts Gemini alliance and demands more info from Maersk and Hapag

Photo 68040641 © Homiel | Dreamstime.com

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation, a capacity-sharing alliance between the second and fifth top global container lines, was put on hold on Friday by the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), which is demanding “more information” to determine “potential competitive impacts”.

Gemini will offer a combined capacity of 6m teu, just above MSC’s standalone 5.6m teu.

The FMC said: “The commission has determined that the Gemini Cooperation agreement as submitted lacks sufficient detail to allow for a complete analysis of its potential competitive impacts

The FMC stressed that whatever information it obtains in its investigation cannot be made public, explaining: “Information sought as part of a ‘request for additional information’ is commercially sensitive and is not publicly published.

“Re-consideration of the agreement will not commence until the commission has received a fully compliant response to its inquiry.”

The plan was for the Gemini agreement to commence today, with operational implementation from February 2025, had the FMC not intervened.

Maersk’s partnering with Hapag-Lloyd follows the Danish carrier’s decision last year to bring to an end the 2M capacity-sharing alliance with MSC. In a joint statement, the carriers said they recognised that “much had changed since the two companies signed the 10-year agreement in 2015”, although some joint operations will continue into next year as part of the lengthy separation process.

James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum, told The Loadstar: “Shippers do not, in principle, have a problem with consortia, alliances or co-operation between container shipping lines, and recognise the benefits of regular sailings and the optimised service they provide.

“Our ‘beef’ is with the open-ended, poorly defined and virtually unenforceable block exemptions they claim to need to operate them. It is the continued availability of such special exemptions in the US that may result in anti-competitive issues for US services.”