News / New container line alliance may find it has 'too many cooks in its kitchen', suggests Drewry

16/05/2016

“Alliances are only as stable as their member carriers,” was maritime consultant Drewry’s first comment on plans to create a third mega-grouping.

On Friday, Hanjin Shipping, Hapag-Lloyd, K Line, MOL, NYK and Yang Ming announced an initial five-year “binding agreement” to form THE Alliance on east-west trades in April 2017.

The six lines were described by Drewry as the “orphans” of the recently announced Ocean Alliance grouping of CMA CGM, Cosco, Evergreen and OOCL. Currently members of the G6 and CKYHE alliances, they will operate a ...

Comment on this article

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Martyn Benson
May 16, 2016 at 1:50 pm
Nevertheless, according to Maersk CEO Rolf Habben Jansen, ?????????

I thought he was boss of HALO?

Log in to Reply
David
May 16, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Quick typo correction:

“Nevertheless, according to Maersk CEO Rolf Habben Jansen…”

Should read “…Hapag-Lloyd’s CEO…”.

Any idea why they are capitalizing THE? Does it stand for something, or are they just yelling??

Log in to Reply
- Alex Lennane
  May 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm
  Apologies – and thanks to everyone who pointed the mistake out.
  
  We think the capitalised THE must be to differentiate between the other alliances – “in the absence of anything more imaginative,” says Mike.
  
  Log in to Reply
gunther ginckels
May 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm
Rolf Habben Jansen is the CEO of HL – not Maersk. Apart from that he is 100% right. Next move will be a quantum leap beyond the quaywalls driven by a single operations unit consolidating equipment and landside operations. There is no reason to maintain individual landoperations and fragmented operations when jointly operating ships, equipment and multimodal operations and benefit also on land of consolidated volumes by sharing procurement power and seek balanced flows. Will they have the spine to make that move? On land – more than on sea – the rule ofr 1+1+1+1+1 will not be 5 but merely 3. 40% savings on operational backoffice expenditure cannot be ignored. I did it before – I can do it again 🙂

Log in to Reply