News Content

To P3 or not to P3?

Ocean carriers are moving ahead with the creation of bigger alliances, even though regulatory authorities have yet to pass judgment on them. More ocean carriers are determined to jump onto the mega-alliance bandwagon, and appear to assume that regulatory authorities will not object. Evergreen has just confirmed a plan to join the CKYH alliance between Asia and Europe at the beginning of March, and the G6 alliance, which has recently announced the port rotations of its new Asia/WCNA and North Europe/USEC-USG schedules, says these could become operational in 2Q 14.

It means that three mega-alliances could be up and running by the middle of the year, namely P3, involving Maersk Line, MSC and CMA CGM; G6, involving Hapag-Lloyd, NYK, OOCL, HMM, APL and MOL; and CKYHE, involving Coscon, K Line, Yang Ming, Hanjin and Evergreen.

But are these not subject to a regulatory approval test, particularly if their market share exceeds 30%?

Figure 1 shows how the CKYHE alliance’s market share of effective vessel capacity from Asia to Europe will look after the addition of Evergreen, assuming no major changes are made to existing services. As can be seen, it will still only reach 26%, which is less than the 30% maximum recommended in the EU’s consortium guidelines, so it is hard to see how the European Commission could object. The P3’s market share will exceed the threshold, however.

The European Commission has given very little away on the subject so far, but it is not obliged yet to pass judgment; it could choose to just await proof of abuse of a dominant position from shippers before jumping into action.

In this respect regulators have a much bigger potential problem to consider in the Transatlantic tradelane between Northern Europe and US East Coast/Gulf, where G6 members have just confirmed the port rotations of its their five weekly services. It is not yet possible to say how their market shares will change as no vessel capacities have yet been provided. The only thing indicated so far is that there will be little change to the capacity currently offered.

On this basis the G6’s overall share of effective westbound vessel capacity should remain at around 37%, well above the 30% maximum recommended in the EU’s consortium guidelines (see Figure 2). P3 would also be in this position.

Source: Drewry Maritime Research

The fact that the G6 has deemed it appropriate to circulate more details of its schedules now suggests that it anticipates no major objections will be received from either the European Commission or Federal Maritime Commission. It was obliged to send further details on their intended services to the FMC during the week ended 14 February, however. As this gives the FMC another 45 days to consider the proposal, the deal could be approved (or not objected) by the end of April.

It is not an easy situation for them to consider, as cargo between Europe and the USEC/Gulf can also be routed through the Mediterranean and Canada, which are not included in the G6’s proposed geographic extension. The Mediterranean is included in P3’s application, however.
The G6 alliance has also proposed extending its scope to the mighty Transpacific tradelane between Asia and the North American West Coast, where its eastbound market share of effective vessel capacity currently reaches approximately 32% – more than anyone else (see Figure 3).

Once again, the suggestion from this is that market shares over 30% should not be considered excessive by Regulatory Authorities – providing no abuse of a dominant position can be proved. According to industry sources, the EC holds the view that a potentially dominant position like this can be accepted providing it entails clear advantages to shippers, and no abuse of a dominant position takes place.

Our View
Market shares over 30% should not be considered excessive by Regulatory Authorities providing no abuse of a dominant position ensues.
Source: Drewry Maritime Research