COSCO and OOCL launch Asia-Red Sea RS4 loop as Gemini fixes AE19 permanently via Suez

The Analysis

Two announcements landed in the same week in late August, and on the surface they look unrelated. COSCO and OOCL will start a new Asia-Red Sea service, RS4, on 9 September, with seven ships averaging 5,000 TEU on a rotation of Shanghai, Ningbo, Xiamen, Nansha, Jeddah, and back to Shanghai. Separately, the Gemini Cooperation has routed its AE19 Asia-Mediterranean loop permanently through the Suez Canal, effective from a 3 September first sailing, and it has added a Jeddah call in both directions.

Read them together and they are the same announcement. Both put Jeddah in the middle. The number of new Jeddah calls the market is getting in a single month is not normal, and the word doing the real work in the Gemini line is not "Suez". It is "permanently".

Permanently is a pricing input. A temporary re-route is a surcharge you can argue about. A permanent re-route is a network that has been redrawn, and networks get priced in years, not weeks. So we do the arithmetic first, and then we decide what to lock.

RS4 first. Seven ships, 5,000 TEU each. TEU is a twenty-foot equivalent unit, and a standard forty-foot container is two of them, which is the unit shippers think in; the trade calls it an FEU. Seven vessels at 5,000 TEU is 35,000 TEU of deployed capacity, and a loop that runs seven ships on a fixed rotation is built to sail once a week. So RS4 is, in round numbers, one 5,000 TEU ship leaving Asia for Jeddah every week. In FEU terms that is 2,500 forty-foot slots a week, or a little over ten thousand a month, of direct Asia-to-Red-Sea capacity that did not exist as a dedicated loop before.

The rotation tells you where it lands: Shanghai, Ningbo, Xiamen, Nansha, Jeddah. Four Chinese load ports and one Red Sea discharge port. Jeddah, and only Jeddah. This is not a general Red Sea service with options along the way. It is a China-to-Jeddah shuttle, and it is aimed at exactly the cargo that used to fight for space on the big loops. Read the port list as a statement of intent: whoever built this loop decided that Jeddah alone was worth seven ships.

Then the Gemini side, which is the bigger number. AE19 runs Asia to the Mediterranean and now goes through Suez permanently, with Jeddah calls eastbound and westbound at an average 15,000 TEU. Fifteen thousand TEU is seven and a half thousand FEU a sailing, and because the call is in both directions, Jeddah is touched twice per loop rather than once. Then AE15 adds a Jeddah call of its own, and AE15 runs twelve ships averaging 18,400 TEU, which is nine thousand two hundred FEU a sailing. Put the two Gemini changes next to RS4 and Jeddah gains three new or upgraded direct connections in one month: a dedicated China shuttle of about 2,500 FEU a week, a double call on a 15,000 TEU loop, and a call on an 18,400 TEU loop.

Before this, Jeddah was a stop. After this, Jeddah is a hub, and the difference between a stop and a hub is the number of ways a box can miss a connection and still arrive. That is not a marketing distinction. It is a risk number, and it changes what a shipper should be willing to pay for certainty.

Why Jeddah, and not some other Red Sea port, is the question worth asking, because the answer is what makes this capacity sticky. A hub is not built on a port's berths; it is built on what sits behind the port. Jeddah's pull is the Saudi hinterland and the relay traffic that can flow from it into the wider region, and both of those are the kind of demand that does not evaporate in a soft week, because they are structural rather than seasonal. That has two consequences for you. The first is that the new calls are likely to remain calls, not a one-season experiment the carriers pull if volumes dip; nobody builds a permanent Suez routing and a weekly shuttle into a destination they intend to drop.

The second is that a hub attracts cargo from elsewhere, so the space that looks freed up for your current book can be taken by relay boxes you will never see on a manifest. Watch the load factor, not only the rate; a lane can hold its rate while filling up, and then space, not price, becomes the constraint you cannot book around.

Now the word permanently. For two years the Suez question has been a temporary one: carriers sized the detour around the Cape of Good Hope, priced it, and every quarter the market asked whether it would end this quarter. A permanent Suez routing settles that question for the Gemini network. It means the schedule, the proforma, the transit dates and the port pairs on AE19 are now built on the assumption that Suez is the path, and that it stays the path. For a shipper, a permanent routing is worth more than a faster one, because permanence is the thing you can plan inventory against.

A temporary speed-up is a gift you cannot budget; a permanent schedule is an input you can. The long-run meaning of the Suez chokepoint, and what happens to a network when a carrier commits to it for years, is Tomás Ferreira's territory; he reads that map better than I do. My job is narrower and more useful to you: if the network says Suez permanently, then the sailing dates on AE19 become a number I can put in a contract, and a number I can put in a contract is a number I can hedge.

Let me be concrete about what a permanent schedule buys you operationally, because permanence sounds abstract and it is not. A fixed weekly rotation with published port pairs means you can set a downstream production or distribution date and work backwards with confidence, instead of building a week of slack into every plan to absorb schedule noise. That slack is real money: it is extra safety stock, it is warehouse space, it is overtime, and it is the reason a shipper with a stable schedule can often beat a shipper with a nominally cheaper rate. This is the part of the announcement that shows up on your balance sheet rather than your freight invoice, and it is the part I would defend hardest in a negotiation, because a carrier willing to commit to a permanent routing is offering something a carrier selling a temporary detour cannot: a date you can build a factory plan on. If you are pricing this lane, price the permanence, not just the transit time.

So what do three new Jeddah connections do to price and space? They push in one direction, and the direction is down on the rate and up on the choice. Straight capacity maths: RS4 alone adds roughly 2,500 FEU a week of dedicated Asia-Jeddah slots. If the Asia-Red Sea trade was tight enough to justify a dedicated shuttle, that capacity is not decorative; it is a direct competitor to the premium that Jeddah cargo has been paying for indirect routing. Add the double Jeddah call on AE19 and the AE15 call, and you have more ways into Jeddah than the trade had last month. More ways in means less of a premium for the last way in.

But be careful here, because there is a counter-argument and it is real. A permanent Suez routing also means the carriers are building Jeddah as a relay point, and a relay point attracts transhipment cargo, and transhipment cargo can eat the space that looks like it was freed up for you. Whether the extra 2,500 FEU a week shows up as cheaper rates or as fuller ships depends entirely on how much relay demand Jeddah pulls in behind the direct calls. This is the one variable in this whole picture that I cannot read off an announcement, and it is the one I would watch before I signed anything long.

Time to do the arithmetic with the assumptions on the table. Real numbers: seven ships at 5,000 TEU; AE19 at 15,000 TEU average with a two-way Jeddah call; AE15 with twelve ships at 18,400 TEU and a Jeddah call; the RS4 first sailing on 9 September; AE19 permanent via Suez from 3 September. My assumptions, labelled as mine: one FEU equals two TEU, so RS4 is 2,500 FEU a week; the RS4 loop is weekly; and your own Asia-to-Jeddah import book is 200 FEU a month, or 50 FEU a week.

Here is the picture. RS4's 2,500 FEU a week is fifty times your weekly book. You are a rounding error on that lane, and rounding errors do not set prices, they take them. Now price the sensitivity. Suppose the new direct capacity takes 200 dollars per FEU off the Asia-Jeddah FAK over the next quarter. That is my assumption, not a quotation from anyone. On 200 FEU a month, a 200-dollar move is 40,000 dollars a month, or 120,000 dollars across the quarter.

Suppose instead the relay cargo absorbs the new space and the rate holds flat. Then you have gained nothing on price, but you have gained something that never shows on an invoice: three more ways to get to Jeddah, and a permanent Suez schedule you can plan a factory around. Those are the two outcomes, and they are both worth having, which is unusual for a shipping story and worth saying out loud.

One more pass on the numbers, because the capacity is large enough that it is worth checking whether the rate can fall at all. Take the three Jeddah-serving additions together and you are looking at a weekly lift meaningfully bigger than the dedicated shuttle alone: RS4 is 2,500 FEU a week, and the AE19 and AE15 calls sit on top of that, on ships running 7,500 and 9,200 FEU a sailing. If even a fraction of that is genuinely new to the lane rather than shifted from an existing rotation, the premium Jeddah cargo has been paying for indirect routing has to compress, because you cannot add that much direct capacity to a lane and hold a scarcity premium at the same time.

The honest uncertainty is not whether the capacity is real, it is how much of it is new versus reallocated, and that is a number only the carriers can see. Which is exactly why I set the trigger on the FAK across the first two RS4 sailings rather than on the announcement: the announcement tells you the capacity is coming, and the FAK tells you what the market actually did with it.

Now the trigger, because a direction is useless without a line to act on. For Jeddah cargo, I watch one number above all others: whether the direct Asia-Jeddah FAK holds through the first two RS4 sailings. RS4 starts 9 September, and a weekly loop means the second sailing is mid-September. If the FAK holds flat or rises through those two sailings, the new capacity is being absorbed, and I lock the volume I cannot afford to leave exposed, ahead of the fourth quarter. If it falls, the capacity is landing as space and not as absorbable demand, and I stay on spot and book three weeks out, because there is no reason to buy a falling market long.

On the Suez side, the AE19 first sailing is 3 September. That is the date the permanent schedule starts existing, so any contract I sign after 3 September carries a fixed, bankable transit date on it, and I will pay a small premium for a fixed date I can build inventory around. Before 3 September, I do not sign anything long on AE19, because the permanence is not yet in force and a promise about the future is not the same as a date on the water.

There is a contract-structure piece here that matters more than the routing choice itself. When a carrier commits permanently to a route, the sensible move is not to buy a year of it at any price; it is to ladder your commitment. Take a tranche for the near term at the number the FAK is printing now, sized so that if the capacity compresses the rate you are not badly overpaying. Take a second tranche once the first two RS4 sailings have printed and you can see whether the new space is being absorbed or merely offered.

Keep the rest on spot, because in a lane that is adding capacity this fast, the spot market is your friend and the long market is your risk. The trap is doing the opposite: signing a long deal because the service is new and shiny, then watching the rate fall underneath you while you are locked at the launch number. I have watched that trade in every new-lane launch I have ever priced, and it always ends the same way. The news is about a new service. The money is in the tranche you did not sign.

Alternatives, and their costs. The obvious one is to keep using the indirect routing, because even with RS4 running, an indirect service can be cheaper on a per-box basis for low-value cargo that does not mind the extra leg. The cost is time and, more insidiously, a transhipment risk that shows up as a missed connection you could not have foreseen, at a moment when you least have slack. The second alternative is to split the book: put the time-critical cargo on the direct shuttle and the cost-critical cargo on the indirect loop, and let the two rates fight it out. That is usually the right answer for anyone moving more than a couple of hundred FEU a month, because it stops you from making one routing decision for two very different kinds of cargo, which is how good books get bad rates.

The third is to over-commit to the new direct service for the sake of a relationship, and that is the trap. A dedicated shuttle that misses a connection is worse than a big loop that misses one, because the shuttle has no second call to recover at. Two pitfalls to watch especially. First, the Jeddah call on AE19 is a two-way call, which means the schedule has to serve eastbound and westbound Jeddah cargo at once; a busy relay port can turn that into a longer port stay, and a longer port stay eats the transit advantage that Suez was supposed to give you. Second, watch the surcharge line items on any Red Sea contract, because a route that runs through Suez and calls Jeddah is a route where the risk premium gets repriced far more often than the freight rate does, and the repricing does not always come with a headline. Check the BAF and the war-risk line every time you re-quote; those are the lines that move while you are looking at the FAK.

There is also a timing asymmetry between the two halves of this announcement, and it is worth exploiting. The AE19 change takes effect on 3 September and the RS4 service starts on 9 September, six days apart. That gap is a small, free arbitrage. Before 3 September you have no permanent Suez schedule and no RS4 capacity, so you are negotiating against the old market; from 9 September you have both. If you can move a booking from late August into the window after both changes are live without hurting the delivery date, you do it, because you are booking into a market with more capacity and a firmer schedule than the one you left behind. If you cannot move the booking, then at least split that week's volume across the two dates, so you are not dropping all of it into the pre-9-September market by default. Six days is not much. It is also free, and free is the best price there is.

One last thing, on how to run this internally rather than on the market itself. The two announcements touch two different teams: the direct Jeddah shuttle is a booking-and-space question, and the permanent Suez routing is a planning-and-inventory question, and if one team owns both, you get one decision where you needed two. Put the shuttle decision with whoever books and manages space, and put the Suez schedule decision with whoever sets inventory and production dates, because the first is about grabbing capacity before it is gone and the second is about exploiting a date that is now fixed. Those two people should be working to the same trigger, the RS4 FAK across the first two sailings, but they should be measuring different things: the first watches load factor and slot availability, the second watches transit reliability against the plan. Get that split right and the announcement is an opportunity. Get it wrong and it is just three more lines on a schedule nobody acted on.

So where does that leave us. Three new Jeddah connections in a month, a shuttle every week out of Shanghai, and a carrier telling the market that Suez is not a phase. For two years, anyone selling into Jeddah has been paying for the fact that there were only a couple of sensible ways in. That number just went up. The capacity is real, the routing is permanent, and the only thing still undecided is whether the box on the water ends up in your favour. The schedule has already made up its mind. The pricing is the part you have to catch up on.

↑ Back to the key points

— By Vivian Zhao