SMM conference report: the future of shipping is how it deals with labour
The great and the good of the shipping industry recently congregated in Hamburg for the ...
AAPL: SHIFTING PRODUCTIONUPS: GIVING UP KNIN: INDIA FOCUSXOM: ANOTHER WARNING VW: GROWING STRESSBA: OVERSUBSCRIBED AND UPSIZEDF: PRESSED ON INVENTORY TRENDSF: INVENTORY ON THE RADARF: CEO ON RECORD BA: CAPITAL RAISING EXERCISEXPO: SAIA BOOSTDSV: UPGRADEBA: ANOTHER JUMBO FUNDRAISINGXPO: SAIA READ-ACROSSHLAG: BOUYANT BUSINESS
AAPL: SHIFTING PRODUCTIONUPS: GIVING UP KNIN: INDIA FOCUSXOM: ANOTHER WARNING VW: GROWING STRESSBA: OVERSUBSCRIBED AND UPSIZEDF: PRESSED ON INVENTORY TRENDSF: INVENTORY ON THE RADARF: CEO ON RECORD BA: CAPITAL RAISING EXERCISEXPO: SAIA BOOSTDSV: UPGRADEBA: ANOTHER JUMBO FUNDRAISINGXPO: SAIA READ-ACROSSHLAG: BOUYANT BUSINESS
Conventional wisdom in the port industry over the past decade has held that automated box terminals are more efficient and, over the course of a terminal’s life, cheaper to run than those operated manually. However, that view is challenged by recent Moody’s research, reports Maritime Executive. It observes that not only does automated handling technology require a huge initial capital investment, but that many of the side effects – such as incapacitating industrial action by dockers – remain outside those calculations, while the productivity improvements of automated terminals may have been overhyped. “Many analyses that compare productivity metrics between automated and conventional terminals indicate inconsistent and, in a number of cases, negative productivity gains from automation. A recent McKinsey & Co analysis of port automation found that realised productivity gains and operating cost savings did not match expectations.”
Comment on this article