Supply Chain Action Points
Read this first — the conclusion, and the moves to make:
- By 31 July, compute premium-per-day for your top 10 SKUs, being the express premium divided by days saved, compared against carrying cost plus margin at risk per day; start from a 1.5%-a-month carry assumption and replace it with finance's figure.
- Void every port-to-port comparison: add the feeder or inland cost of the dropped call to the express quote before it reaches the CFO.
- Cap express at 30% of monthly volume per string, reserved for SKUs where the tail matters, meaning launch dates, promotion windows and line-down spares.
- Get the proforma rotation in writing before signing, and check whether your contracted allocation sits on a loop that lost a call; if it does, renegotiate the service commitment, not just the rate.
- After two sailings, measure realized transit against the advertised claim; if the saving is under 4 days against a 7-day promise, stop paying for schedule and move the volume back.
Mediterranean Shipping Co. reintroduced an express transpacific service with fewer calls, shorter transit times and premium commercial positioning, targeting time-sensitive cargo willing to pay higher rates. The move reflects carriers maximizing fleet returns on high-value trades amid near-100% utilization.
The Analysis
The announcement contains no rate, no transit time and no port list. It contains three claims, being fewer calls, shorter transit and premium positioning, plus one number: utilization near 100%. Read the absences first. A carrier launching a premium product without publishing its price is not hiding the price. The price is being discovered account by account, which tells you the premium is a range with your name written on it.
Fewer calls is the phrase to take apart. A port call is not a stop. It is a berth window, a pilot, a set of crane gangs and one to two days of a vessel's year. Take three calls out of a rotation and you have not shortened the ocean. You have given the ship those days back and pointed the capacity at the water instead of at a terminal.
The vessel count does not change. Which means the express service does not add capacity to the transpacific. It takes capacity out of the loops that were already there, and everything the premium does to your booking follows from that one mechanic.
Shorter transit is a reallocation of days, not a new ship. That distinction decides who pays for the product. Days recovered from a dropped call are spent sailing faster or waiting less, and either way they were not free: they came out of a loop that used to serve a port you may be using. The express lane is real. It is also funded from somewhere, and the somewhere is the rest of the schedule.
The commercial logic is segmentation, not a rate increase. A carrier at near-100% utilization has no empty slots to sell, so there is no volume lever left, and the only lever remaining is mix. Sell the same box to cargo that values a day more highly. That is why the published average rate can stay flat while your rate rises: you have been moved into a different product without a new rate card being printed. Product migration is the quietest form of a price increase there is, because nothing on the invoice says the number changed; the thing the number buys has changed.
The sorting is where the asymmetry sits. A premium buyer gets faster. A non-premium buyer does not get a worse price, they get a worse schedule, and the two are not equivalent even when the invoice looks the same. Space removed from a mid-port loop shows up first as a booking that will not confirm, then as a rate. And if your contract names a service without naming a proforma rotation, your allocation may sit on exactly the loop that lost a call, which is a contract problem rather than a market problem and is therefore fixable.
Then the cost that never enters the comparison. If your discharge port lost a call, you now buy a feeder leg or an inland haul. That line does not exist in a port-to-port quote, so a port-to-port comparison of the express product against the standard product is void: you are comparing two products that differ in the last few hundred miles and pretending the difference is zero. Anyone taking an express quote straight to the CFO without the door cost attached is handing over a number that will be wrong in one direction only, and it will be wrong in favour of the faster ship.
Transmission has four steps and people watch the wrong one. The announcement is the signal. The proforma changes at the next schedule cycle. The sorting appears at booking, as a confirmation that does not come. The invoice arrives after sailing. By the time the rate moves, the first two steps have already happened, and the symptom you noticed, a booking that would not confirm, is a space event that arrived dressed as a service upgrade.
The part nobody prints is that the premium is priced against your day, not against the market. There is a break-even premium per day, and it equals your carrying cost plus the value of the sales window, per FEU, per day. Nobody publishes it because it differs by SKU by an order of magnitude, which means a single company-wide answer to whether the premium is worth it is structurally wrong. The trap is averaging: run the calculation at the portfolio level and the fast-moving SKUs silently subsidize the slow ones, the average looks acceptable, and you have overpaid on two thirds of the boxes to be roughly right on one third.
The second half of that point is variance. What an express product sells is not seven days faster, it is fewer seven-day misses. Mean transit and transit reliability are different purchases. If your cost is driven by the tail, a missed launch, a missed promotion window, a line-down spare, then the mean is the wrong number to buy and the fastest average schedule can still ruin you. Ask for the on-time distribution, not the transit claim. A carrier with a strong mean and a wide tail is selling you a product that fails exactly when you cannot afford it.
Run the comparison on two SKUs. Assume per FEU goods value of $150,000 on one and $30,000 on the other, and assume carrying cost of 1.5% a month; both are my assumptions, not figures from the announcement. The first carries $75 a day, the second $15. If the express saves seven days, the break-even premium is $525 on the first and $105 on the second. Same service, same quoted premium, opposite decisions. That single pair of numbers is the whole argument for doing this per SKU, and it takes an afternoon.
The counterfactual is clean. Had the carrier added vessels instead of re-cutting a rotation, the market would get faster and the price would drift down, because capacity would be real rather than borrowed. Had your competitor bought the express and you not, nothing would happen to your rate; your launch date would slip, which does not appear in a freight budget. And if you buy express across the board, you have paid a premium for cargo that did not need it, and the bill is invisible because it is spread across SKUs where nobody looks.
The premium is worth locking where it prices below your carry per day, on the SKUs that carry your margin, and on no others. The rest is a schedule you are renting by the box. The vessel is not faster. Your cargo has simply stopped waiting for somebody else's.
↑ Back to the key points