“Our official position remains that talks are ongoing and have not been concluded one way or another,” an MSC spokesman told JOC.com.
The contrasting statements point to the uneasy nature of the alliance playing out against a backdrop of the rapid pace of events in 2016 that may still include additional instances of consolidation, this after the mergers, acquisitions and collapse (of Hanjin Shipping) already seen this year.
The lack of clarity complicates trans-Pacific shippers’ bidding for trans-Pacific contracts, particularly those importers that will sign contracts for calendar year 2017 by the end of 2016. The majority of trans-Pacific shippers, however, don’t finalize contracts until the spring for the May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018, period.
Maersk told customers Friday that HMM will not join the 2M, but that a possible slot purchase or slot charter agreement is under discussion and could involve Maersk taking control of HMM charters and ships. Maersk said in an email to customers that it subsequently confirmed, “The parties have discussed the possibility of HMM joining 2M as an operating partner and now decided to look at other cooperation possibilities.”
HMM, following publication of the JOC.com article Friday, over the weekend disputed the idea that it is not joining the 2M and said its discussions with the Maersk/MSC alliance are ongoing.
HMM told JOC.com Sunday: "HMM joining 2M is under discussion in details which will be concluded shortly. Formal agreement will be made either in the end of November or the beginning of December."
This is not the first time the market has received divergent messages from Maersk and MSC regarding HMM. For example, at the JOC Container Trade Europe Conference in Hamburg in mid-September, Caroline Becquart, MSC's senior vice president for Asia and head of vessel sharing agreements, pointedly said no deal with HMM was finalized. But earlier this month, Maersk Line Chief Commercial Officer Vincent Clerc told Bloomberg Maersk expected to sign an agreement with HMM on joining the 2M "fairly soon."
“Maersk and MSC have sent conflicting messages to the market in recent months, with new trans-Pacific service announcements broadcast individually instead of being sent as joint press releases, as is normally the case with the other alliances,” Hua Joo Tan, executive consultant at maritime analyst Alphaliner, told JOC.com Tuesday. “The different messages regarding HMM’s participation in the 2M further reflects wider disagreements between Maersk and MSC on their directions moving forward, with each line seeming keen to pursue their own individual agendas.”
The statements leave open the possibility that MSC could seek a vessel-sharing agreement with HMM independent of its 2M partner, even in east-west trades. Such a display of independence wouldn’t be abnormal, as MSC operates three services to the United States outside of the 2M, while Maersk runs one service independent of the alliance. All four of the services are within the geographic reach of the 2M, according to an analysis shared by Federal Maritime Commissioner William Doyle in late 2015. But given the pace of activity this year, other scenarios are certainly possible as well.
The competing Ocean and THE alliance networks are set to begin operation in April, pending regulatory approval. The FMC on Nov. 21 gave the go-ahead for the Ocean Alliance — involving Cosco Shipping, CMA CGM, Evergreen Line and OOCL — to take effect on trades connecting to the United States. Hapag-Lloyd, “K” Line, MOL, NYK Line and Yang Ming on Nov. 7 submitted their proposal for the THE Alliance to the FMC.
