How to measure reliability, when vessels omit and induce ?
(Gemini illustrating the complexity of catching up...)
Two days ago we wrote about how the first four Gemini vessels from the Far East into Europe were forecasted to be on time.
Less than 6 hours after that post was published, the Adams (making a one-way repositioning voyage from FEA to NEUR on the NE1/AE2 service, after which she will slot into a Transatlantic service) seemed to hit congestion in Tanger Med, causing a significant delay.
Maersk, the operator, therefore quickly decided to take action:
- omit Tanger Med (presumable resulting in significant delays to Med transhipment cargo)
- turn around the NEUR rotation and go to Bremerhaven first (6 days ahead of schedule)
- then Rotterdam (a week early; normally the last port of call for NEUR exports)
- then Hamburg (an unscheduled NE1/AE2 inducement, but part of the AL1/TA3 service she's slotting into)
- then Wilhelmshaven (a week late; normally the first NEUR port of call)
- the scheduled Southampton call on the AL1/TA3 service she's slotting into is not currently showing
A bunch of questions arise:
- are there brownie points for getting to a port ahead of schedule and maybe even delivering customers' cargo ahead of the planned ETA ? (eeSea answer; nope, early arrivals do not cancel out late arrivals)
- how do omissions count towards reliability (eeSea; we measure the 'cancellation rate' separately - blanks and omissions)
- how do inducements count ? (eeSea: they're just nice to have - or in this case, a contingency)
But first and foremost, this very real example goes to show the complexity that Maersk and Hapag will inevitably run into - not just in these first months, but also as Gemini matures.