The role of the port has been changed from that of a node for the transfer of cargo between sea and other modes of transport to that of a link in the logistics chain. The role of the port has been changed from that of a node for the transfer of cargo between the sea and other modes of transport to that of a link in the logistics chain.
Reduction in vendor base
Increasing influence of forwarders
Shipping Lines
Alliances among container carriers
In the past, cooperation between carriers was mainly focused on sharing ships and final agreements: the 'sea leg'. That is why the collaboration between partners includes most of the 'operational' aspects that customers would normally see, but is very valuable.
Changes in behaviour of container carriers
In addition to the battle for the customer interface, carriers must be able to offer additional services. Partly due to the efforts of the EU and US regulatory authorities, but also due to the formation of new alliances and the increasing pressure that the shippers' organizations are exerting on the regulatory authorities.
Appearance of larger container ship
Orders for vessels above 8,000 TEU have been placed for CMA CGM, China Shipping, COSCO, Evergreen, K Line, MISC, MOL, MSC, NYK and Yangming, as well as Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk-Sealand and OOCL - in other words almost all the major deep-sea lines. All major ports (where possible) plan to introduce such vessels.
Market in Ports
- Port Authority
- Improved container handling per crane
- Market factors
- Technical Considerations
The results affect the public interest in maintaining structures and practices consistent with effective competition. Port authorities are forced to adapt their strategies in light of the above-mentioned changes in the structure and practices of other participants in international logistics.
Configuration of major global terminal operators in formation
Development of global terminal operators
There have been some major changes in the ownership structure of terminals in recent years reflecting the growing importance of the container trade sector. The management of stevedore has undergone a revolution in recent years, as countries have privatized port operations, and stevedore companies have merged or acquired madly in the development of an international stevedore industry. APM Terminals is a subsidiary of AP Moller, the parent company of Maersk Sealand, the largest container ship operator in the world.
Including joint ventures and financial stakes in independent terminals, APM Terminals now claims to be the third largest terminal operator in the world with approximately thirty terminals. Its container business is particularly focused on ports in Australia and developing countries in Asia and Latin America, and it also has transshipment interests in the UK, Italy, Belgium, France and the US. Not all of Sealnd's terminal investments were included in the deal, which led to the creation of the CSX World Terminals brand, which operates in Hong Kong and China and is also a major player in South Korea.
A number of dedicated (owned or joint venture) terminals have been established by major shipping lines in the past few years. Increasing annual volumes and vessel sizes combined make the terminal handling aspect of the container logistics chain even more important in the overall cost structure of a shipping company. Basically, the 'jury is still out' on the future role of line-owned terminals in the market.
Global Port Operators
- Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH)
- Port of Singapore Authority (PSA)
- P & O Ports
- Eurogate
P&O Ports is a wholly owned subsidiary of the P&O Group, which owns 50% of the shipping company, P&O Nedlloyd. As P&O owned P&O Ports and has a 50% stake in P&O Nedlloyd, it is logical to look for some synergies between the businesses of the two divisions. P&O Ports requires all terminals to be assessed as having a good return on investment before investing.
Recently, P&O India, a subsidiary of P&O Ports (Australia), was the sole bidder for a tender to build a container transshipment terminal at Vallarpadam Island near Kochi. P&O Ports already has a strong presence in India, operating two berths at Jawarhalal Nehru Port near Mumbai (Bombay) and recently won a contract to develop and operate a new container terminal at Kandla Port.1. ITO is one of the East and Gulf Coast and offers full transshipment and terminal services in all sectors of cargo handling.
Apart from its limited involvement in the Cagliari terminal, P&O Ports does not target transhipment facilities. On top of this, the cost of building a transshipment terminal is very high due to the extensive infrastructure requirements. Unless there are port authorities or government authorities putting up some of the capital, P&O Ports is reluctant to get involved.
Strategic comparison among global terminal operators
- Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH)
- Port of Singapore Authority (PSA)
- P&O Ports
- Eurogate
Despite the fact that the cargo base in South China increased dramatically during the period, Hong Kong's share in terms of transshipment of South China cargoes decreased from 95% in 1996 to 82% in 1999. consisting of special economic zones, open cities and open economic zones created by the central government to test the waters of the global market economy. Due to their geographic location along the entire stretch of the southern China coastline, contrasting functions, as well as their varying physical size and scale, single statements generalizing HPH's mainland China investment strategies are problematic.
The focus of this section of the paper is a description of these ports based on spatial function, and their contribution to HPH's mainland China container traffic market share. HPH's regionalization drive only benefits its Hong Kong operations as well as Hong Kong itself, because as domestic firms internationalize, these more distant activities are translated into higher order and higher value-added work at home in the form of management, finance and logistics functions. When foreign partners possess greater technological and capital assets compared to the domestic partner, TNC1s exhibit greater bargaining power.
Considering both the capital- and technology-intensive nature of container terminals, together with the cash-strapped state of municipal port corporations, HPH's bargaining power also appears to be favorable. HPH's bargaining power would then hypothetically be better because the municipal port authority has little experience in operating logistically complex container terminals. Despite implicit permission from the central government given to municipal governments to invite potential foreign partners to participate in competitive bidding to promote operational efficiency, most of HPH's port joint ventures were not negotiated under competitive conditions.
Terminal operators by region
As mentioned by several researches, the Asian market will continue to gain importance in the world market with the highest growth in throughput. The Northern European market has become even more concentrated in the hands of global operators, who now hold the top 7 positions in the Northern European league table, as shown in Table 4.3. These trends look set to continue, with these same large terminal operators playing an important role in future developments.
Fierce competition has emerged in China, Southeast Asia and to a lesser extent the Caribbean and the United States. In 2000, container shipping company Maersk Sealand, the sister company of APM Terminals, moved its Southeast Asian transshipment center from Singapore, the dominant port in the region, to neighboring Malaysian PTP. This move was related to the decision of APM Terminals (and the AP Moller Group in general) to purchase a 30% stake in PTP and effectively become a major competitor to PSA's Singapore operations.
Maersk Sealand, PSA's largest customer in Singapore, dealt the Singapore Ports Group a heavy blow by switching almost all of its Singapore-bound container services to the new Malaysian port, which represents around 2 million container movements per year of business. In Southeast Asia, Hutchison began to position itself in 2000 as a competitor for the dominant port of Singapore and for the fast-growing port of Tanjung Pelepas. Sometimes like this case, all three major global terminal operators – HPH, PSA and APM Terminals – are fighting for market share in an area.
Strategies of major global terminal operators
Internationalisation
Sometimes global operators can form a joint venture with local operators to successfully set up new operations against the constraints of the local economic, commercial and cultural environment. They operate the North Sea Terminal and Europa Terminal in Antwerp, OCHZ Terminal in Zeebrugge, and Holland Terminal in Rotterdam. The main terminal for container handling is in Antwerp, and they provide better service to their customers by rail or ship with Zeebrugge and Rotterdam.
For another example, although they are a shipping line, MSC has a dedicated terminal through the joint venture with Hesse-Noord Natie in Antwerp. For example, ECT in Rotterdam initiated a terminal management program for the Port of Treiste, but subsequently decided to refocus its resources on Rotterdam.
Vertical integration and cost leadership
Co-operation with other market players in the port
This has led to initiatives by shipping lines, terminal operators and port authorities to enter into scheduled shuttle train operating agreements. Perhaps their strongest influence is their indirect influence through the preferences they express in the market in purchasing transport and logistics services. We have no concept of a grand plan, where we see an empty space and say 'we have to have a flag there'." (John Meredith, who is group managing director of HPH, February 2002, American Shipper).
Growth factors such as the growing volume of container trade, acquisitions of competitors and investments in new port projects have created a billion-dollar organization in the port business. It is very clear that there is a 'synergy' in the establishment of global networks to terminal operators. As far as active shipping is concerned, we need more practical study condensed with sweat and toil.
Coltof H.(Ed.), 2000, Port Organization and Management in Developing Countries, Delft, Eburon Publishers, 417 pages. Eds.), 2002, Port Competitiveness: an economic and legal analysis of the factors determining the competitiveness of seaports, Antwerp, De Boeck, 155 pages. C., 2001, Regionalization of Hutchison Port Holdings in Mainland China, In: Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. Notteboom T., 1997, Concentrating and cargo center development in the European container port system, In: Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.
