The review of the market of container tonnage in the first half of 2017. Part 1

Time-charter market

The market of the time-charter container tonnage in the second quarter of 2017 had two opposite trends – increasing during April and lowering during May-June. As a result, the ConTex index, calculated by the Hamburg brokers, which rose to 410 points (+ 7.9%) by the beginning of May, at the end of June fell to 386 points (-5.9%). The BRAEMAR BOX INDEX of London brokers, which grew from 56.2 in early April to 58.9 points in May, was 55.7 points in June, i.е. actually declining in the second quarter. HOWE ROBINSON INDEX, which decreased from 612 to 547 points (-10.6%), and HARPER PETERSEN INDEX, which dropped from 499 to 438 points (-12.2%), decreased even more during the period under review.

Dynamics of the main container indexes in the 2nd quarter of 2017

Index Beginning of April Beginning of May End of May End of June
BRAEMAR BOX INDEX 56,2 58,8 58,9 55,7
HOWE ROBINSON INDEX 612,0 642,0 608,0 547,0
HARPER PETERSEN INDEX 499,0 533,0 484,0 438,0
A source: BMTI
A source: BMTI

Dynamics of container time-charter rates in the 2nd quarter of 2017, according to Hamburg brokers ConTex

Container
capacity
04.04.17 09.05.17 01.06.17 29.06.17
TEU
1100 6473 6619 6532 6436
1700 7134 7507 7432 7304
2500 8538 9426 9351 8749
2700 8783 9623 9556 9258
3500 8272 9480 9051 8669
4250 9414 9903 8815 7700
ConTex Index 380 410 401 386
A source: VHSS

But if in June all the categories of container tonnage had an unambiguously lowering trend, differing only in the rate of fall, then in the three-month section the situation was not so unambiguous. For instance, for the feeder containerships with capacity of 1100 TEU, the rates remained at about the same level, and with capacity of 1700-2500 TEU they grew by 2.4-2.5%. For the containers with capacity of 2700-3500 TEU the rates increased by 400-475 USD / day, or 4.8-5.4%. And for the containerships with capacity of 4250 TEU, on the contrary, collapsed more than 1700 USD / day, or 18.2%.
And if we consider the level of rates that was established by the end of the second quarter of 2017 for the same sizes of container ships with the same period of the last year, an even more interesting situation is observed. For the feeder containerships with capacity of 1100 TEU, the rates decreased by 700 USD / day, or almost by 10%, and with capacity of 1700 TEU they remained virtually unchanged. But for the container ships with capacity of 2500-4250 TEU, they were 2560 – 3050 USD / day higher, or 43.1-54.4%. That is, generally speaking, in the first half of 2017, compared to the same period last year, for most categories of container tonnage, the time-charter market was seriously strengthened, despite the high volatility of rates.

Changes in the annual time-charter rates on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis, according to the Hamburg brokers

Container capacity June 2017 Q2 of 2017 On annual basis
TEU USD/сут % USD/сут % USD/сут %
1100 -96 -1,5 -37 0,6 -703 -9,8
1700 -128 -1,7 170 +2,4 -30 -0,4
2500 -602 -6,4 211 +2,5 2635 +43,1
2700 -298 -3,1 475 +5,4 3039 +49,1
3500 -382 -4,2 397 +4,8 3054 +54,4
4250 -1115 -11,8 -1714 -18,2 2559 +51,0
A source: VHSS

The jumps in the time-charter rates in the period under review were very impressive for the containerships with capacity of 6000-9000 TEU. For example, if in April Hapag Lloyd took a container ship with capacity of 5,992 TEU for a 4-6 month charter at a rate of 14,000 USD / day, then in June a similar vessel was chartered by Maersk Line at a rate of 10,000 USD / day, or 28.6% lower. The same situation was with the container ship with capacity of 8812 TEU, which Hapag Lloyd chartered for 10-12 months in April at a rate of 20,000 USD / day, while a month and a half later Maersk Line recorded the delivery of four identical vessels for the 2-6 months period at a rate of 14500 USD / day, which is almost a third less.
But the most significant is that Diana Containerships has given the PUELO container ship with capacity of 6541 TEU built in 2006 for a two-month charter to the MOL company at a rate of 14600 USD / day. But before that, this ship was in the freight at MSC at a rate of only 6500 USD / day i.e. 2.25 times lower.
Thus, despite the deterioration of the freight market condition in the container time-charter market in May-June 2017, compared to a year earlier, the rates for the container ships with capacity of more than 2500 TEU remain significantly higher. The reasons for the multidirectional dynamics of time-charter rates in the second quarter of 2017 (growth in April, fall in May-June) are:

  • completion of the formation of a new configuration of the system of container alliances and the services they serve;
  • a serious reduction in the number of the laid up containership;
  • supply of a large number of new container ships

Representative deals for container tonnage in Q2 2017

Container capacity, TEU Charter period, month. Time-charter rate, USD/day Freighter
868 12 5300 OLDENBURG
1169 6 7500 UNKNOWN
1700 6 9000 COSCO
1728 6 6400 OOCL
1736 6 7200 GOLD STAR LINE
1740 6 7000 HAPAG LLOYD
1740 12 7000 GOTO SHIPPING
2011 6 7950 MOLLER MAERSK AS
2466 6 9650 X-PRESS FEEDERS
2824 6 9375 HAPAG LLOYD
2824 6 9700 MILAHA MARITIME
3426 3-Feb 9500 HAPAG LLOYD
4252 1 9250 OOCL
4256 6-Feb 8900 MAERSK LINE
4957 6 13750 ZIM
5992 6-Apr 14000 HAPAG LLOYD
5992 6-Feb 10000 MAERSK LINE
6350 12 10250 OOCL
6541 2 14600 MITSUI O.S.K. LINES
7500 6 19850 HAPAG LLOYD
8586 6 11500 MAERSK LINE
8814 12-Oct 20000 HAPAG LLOYD
8814 6-Feb 14500 MAERSK LINE
9954 6 33000 HAPAG LLOYD
11010 12 18000 OOCL
11010 12 18000 HAPAG LLOYD
11010 12 18000 ZIM
13092 12 28500 CMA CGM
A source: SeaSure

Linear services

Unlike the time-charter ones, the rates of the linear tariffs have finished the 2nd quarter of 2017 on a rising note, as evidenced by the data of most container freight indexes. Although even here not everything is unambiguous. Thus, the growth of the SCFI index in the last June trading session of the Shanghai Freight Exchange is entirely caused by to the announced by many container lines (just before the peak season) since 01.07.17 the general rate increase (GRI) on the main transportation routes, primarily from Asia to Europe. In addition, some companies directly set peak season surcharges to their tariffs. For example, CMA CGM announced the charging of a peak season surcharge in amount of USD 250 / TEU from 03.07.17 for all the cargo in containers from Asian ports (including Japan, Southeast Asia and Bangladesh) to Northern Europe (including Great Britain, Portugal, Finland And Estonia).

Dynamics of the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index in Q2 2017

Direction of container transportation 07.04.17 28.04.17 19.05.17 02.06.17 30.06.17
Shanghai – Northern Europe (Hamburg, Antwerp, Felixstowe, Le Havre) 836* 1021* 924* 933* 1015*
Shanghai – the Mediterranean (Barcelona, Valencia, Genoa, Naples) 817* 1011* 914* 920* 951*
Shanghai – the west coast of the USA (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Auckland) 1375** 1606** 1310** 1413** 1378**
Shanghai – the easе coast of the United States (New York, Savannah, Norfolk, Charleston) 2436** 2625** 2298** 2428** 2356**
SCFI Composite index 809,27 909,25 830,80 894,86 918,83
* – USD /TEU; ** – USD /FEU A source: SSE

Due to this, the composite index SCFI increased during April-June from 809.27 to 918.83 points, or by 13.5%. Meanwhile, in the direction of Shanghai-Northern Europe, SCFI increased from 836 to 1015 points, or 21.4% and of Shanghai-Mediterranean from 817 to 951 points, or 16.4%. It should be noted that at the end of April, as a result of the GRI taken by container lines, for these two directions the SCFI index has already risen to the figures exceeding 1000 points.
For the North American directions, the SCFI index also showed a certain growth at the end of June, which allowed the direction of Shanghai- US West Coast return to the same level as in early April, while for the one of Shanghai- US East Coast it didn’t work – and at the end of the second quarter, SCFI was 80 USD / FEU, or 3.3%, less than at the beginning of the period under review. But at the end of April, compared to the beginning of the month, the spot rates in the North American directions jumped by 190-220 USD / FEU, or 7.8-16.8%. However, over the next two months, this rise was completely leveled. That is, the spot rates here have dropped almost to the level that occurred last summer before the bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping, losing all the growth that the lines managed to achieve after this milestone event for the industry.
If talking about the dynamics of spot rates in the second quarter of 2017 – two more points are worth noticing. Firstly, the rates in the direction of Shanghai – South America (Santos) were at the level of 3811 USD / TEU at the end of June, showing a 38 times increase, compared to the middle of February last year, when they were only 99 USD / TEU. And secondly, in the direction of Shanghai-Middle East the spot rates during the second quarter increased from 890 to 910 USD / TEU, or by 2.2%. This suggests that this segment of the market did not suffer in any way from the sanctions imposed by the main Arab countries against Qatar.

Dynamics of the China Containerized Freight Index in Q2 2017 USD/TEU

Direction of container transportation 07.04.17 28.04.17 19.05.17 02.06.17 30.06.17
North European Services 1044,09 1063,61 1107,38 1099,24 1106,70
Mediterranean services 1010,66 1054,65 1167,61 1178,93 1212,66
West American Services 613,79 614,75 645,68 629,26 627,21
East American Services 861,08 847,80 854,41 853,14 823,92
Composite index СCFI 788,43 818,99 848,27 840,09 851,60
A source: SSE

Compared to the spot ones, the dynamics of the contract rates for container transportation, tracked by the CCFI index, in the second quarter of 2017 was more smooth. During the period under review, the composite CCFI increased from 788.43 to 851.60 points, or by 8.0%. At the same time, for the North European services, the growth of the CCFI was 62.61 points, or 6%, and for the Mediterranean services – 202 points, or 20%. That is, unlike the spot market, the increase in contract rates on Mediterranean services was significantly ahead of the North European ones(the spot rates showed a reverse dynamic). But, the contract rates later than the spot ones respond to the GRI taken by the lines and the introduction of the other mark-ups.
As for the West American and East American services, the situation with the contract rates at the end of June resembled the situation with their spot counterparts. So, for the West American services at the end of the 2nd quarter, CCFI was 13.42 points, or 2.2%, higher than at the beginning of the quarter, and for East American services, on the contrary – 37.16 points, or 4 , 3% lower.
If we compare the average values of the SCFI and CCFI indices, as well as the spot and contract rates on the Nordic and Mediterranean routes in the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2017, it is not difficult to notice their surprisingly high stability, with a takeoff , not exceeding 1-2% in one direction or another.

Average values of the SCFI and СCFI indices in the Q1 and Q2 of 2017.

Indices 1 кв. 2017 г. 2 кв. 2017 г. Изменения (+)(–), %
Composite index SCFI 864,64 856,05 -1,0
Including Shanghai – North Europe 940 931 -1,0
Shanghai – the Mediterranean 904 910 +0,7
Composite index СCFI 825,93 830,61 +0,6
Including North European Services 1106,40 1085,51 -1,9
Mediterranean services 1101,86 1133,94 +0,7
A source: SSE

Speaking about the liner transportation, it is necessary to mention another very authoritative world container index – WCI, calculated by the Drewry analysts. During the second quarter of 2017, the WCI composite index declined from 1524 to 1381 USD / FEU, or 9.4%. The average value of the WCI index in the first half of the year was 1552 USD / FEU, which is 127 USD / FEU, or 7.5% lower than the average one for the last 5 years. At the same time, this level is 35% higher than in the first half of 2016, which indicates the strengthening of the freight market this year.

Dynamics of the WCI index in the second quarter of 2017

Direction 06.04.17 04.05.17 01.06.17 29.06.17 06.07.17
Shanghai – Rotterdam 1676 1923 1801 1652 1936
Shanghai – New York 2617 2531 2410 2017 2405
Composite index 1524 1557 1467 1381 1552
A source: Drewry

For the Shanghai-Rotterdam direction, the WCI index at the end of June was 1652 USD / FEU, which almost coincides with the level that took place in early April this year. But for the direction of Shanghai – New York the WCI during the period under review decreased by 400 points, or 15.3%. Looking ahead, we note that in early July, incorporating the GRI taken by composite lines, the WCI composite index for the Shanghai-New York direction won back the positions lost during the quarter, and for the Shanghai-Rotterdam route even returned to the high level that took place at the end of April this year. And this fact inspires hopes in growth of economy of container transportations in the 3rd quarter of 2017

Dynamics of the World Container Index (WCI) from June 2011 to June 2017.

Сontainer transportation Economy

Data on the results of the work of container carriers in the second quarter are only being taken up and will not be announced earlier than in the second half of August. The only company that made a statement about the results of work for the first half of 2017, is the Chinese COSCO Shipping. According to preliminary data, the company’s profit, according to the results of work during January-June 2017, amounted to 1.85 billion yuan (272 million dollars), compared with 7.2 billion yuan losses in the first half of 2016. As stated by COSCO Shipping, on the stock exchange, the positive changes were the result of the superimposition of two favorable factors – the growth of freight rates and the volume of container transportation, which amounted to 34.72%. It is not ruled out that such a quick sum-up and a loud statement on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange are due to the fact that since May 16, the stock exchange trading in shares of COSCO Shipping (“due to significant uncertainty associated with the upcoming reorganization”) has been suspended. The resumption of trading is possible in case of a certain progress in the asset restructuring process. At the same time, rumors persist across the market that in fact “restructuring” is connected with the firm intention of COSCO Shipping to get OOCL, thereby further strengthening its market position. One way or another, the near future will show. In the meantime, COSCO Shipping added 14 container ships to its order book, in particular six vessels with capacity of 21,000 TEU, with delivery in 2018 – and the cost of one vessel in the range of 157-161 million dollars. Another 8 containerships with capacity of 13,500 TEU, with delivery also in 2018, were purchased from China Shipping Development. These vessels are built on Jiangnan Shanghai Changxing Heavy at a price of 101-104 million dollars. Thus, the total capacity of this fleet is 234 thousand TEU, and the total cost is 1.78 billion US dollars, which represents a considerable amount of investment, even for such a giant as COSCO Shipping.
In May, the results of the 1st quarter of 2017 were published for companies that provide their financial statements. They showed a very ambiguous picture. Among the five companies that had operating profit, this figure ranged from 400 ths (WAN HAI) to $ 252 million (CMA CGM). But the operating losses ranged from 12 million (NYK) to $ 100 million (NMM). The level of profitability at the same time was also in a very wide range – from plus 5.5% to minus 10.4%. According to the analysts of Drewry, such a significant spread of the results indicates the continuing differences between the linear companies in terms of fleet size and their service, the coverage of the market, the customer base, and the differences in the cost structure.

Financial results of the work of the largest container carriers (which submitted their reports) in the 1st quarter of 2017.

Company Gross income, million USD Operating profit, mln USD Profitability,%
CMA CGM 4620 252 5.5
ZIM 655 31 4.7
EVERGREEN 1089 21 2
HAPAG LLOYD 2271 4 0.2
WAN HAI 447 0.4 0.1
NYK 1367 -12 -0.9
MAERSK LINE 5493 -56 -1
MOL 1535 -59 -3.9
YANG MING 974 -40 -4.1
K LINE 1210 -66 -5.5
НММ 962 -100 -10.4
A source: Alphaliner

Considering the operating profitability of the main line carriers, since 2008, the Alphaliner analysts conclude that it had positive values for only 12 quarters, for 7 quarters it was close to zero, while all other periods were negative .

The level of quarterly operating profitability of the main linear carriers from 2008 to 2017

According to the analysts, the radical growth of rates on the main container transportation routes was hampered by severe competition between the line operators, while on secondary routes where the degree of competition was significantly lower, the chances to increase or at least keep the rates at the same level were much bigger.

Dynamics of sales of used container tonnage in 2012-2017.

Period Number of containerships
sold, units
Total deadweight, t Average age
years
Total cost
of sales, Mln. USD
2012 г. 139 3262603 15 1022,4
2013 г. 180 5304442 12 1840,7
2014 г. 182 6944855 11 1862,9
2015 г. 219 7640657 12 2724,4
2016 г. 113 4426131 11 1157,3
1 п/г 2017 г. 145 6573792 11 1075,6
A source: ALLIED Shipping Research

Quite active the first half of 2017 was in terms of changing the owners of the used tonnage. If for the whole 2016, 113 container carriers with total deadweight of 4.4 million tons found their new owners, then in the first half of 2017 these figures have already grown to 145 vessels with total deadweight of 6.6 million tons. Such a sharp activation, first of all , is due to the sale of the fleet of Hanjin Shipping which became bankrupt at the end of August last year.

Representative deals for the sale of container tonnage in Q2 2017

Vessel name Construction year Container сapacity, TEU Price, mln. USD
JRS CANIS 2006 698 3,20/2,40*
CONTRAIL SKY 2009 907 6,50/6,70*
HOHEPLATE 2007 957 4,80
HOHEFELS 2008 957 4,80
SARA 2006 1049 8,20
EVIDENCE 1997 1050 1,20
CONRAD S 2006 1118 5,50
MAREN S 2005 1118 3,90
SHIPPAN ISLAND 2005 1118 5,50/5,20*
MARE FRIO 2003 1221 5,30/2,80*
KUO WEI 1997 1367 3,30/2,70*
KMTC INCHEON 1998 1675 4,50
BERMUDIAN EXPRESS 2000 1679 3,80
CREMON 2000 1679 3,80
SUNSHINE BANDAMA 2007 1700 9,00/8,90*
HS SMETANA 2006 1740 7,40/6,50*
DAE SUN 606 2017 1785 20,40
BF IPANEMA 2009 1794 8,20/7,90*
AJA IPSA 2004 1858 5,30/4,90*
CONTI ELEKTRA 2007 2127 5,80
WEHR OSTE 2002 2524 3,90
AROSIA 2006 2732 10,20/9,20*
CAPE MELVILLE 2005 2741 7,85/7,00*
CAPE MORETON 2005 2741 7,85/7,10*
STADT DRESDEN 2006 2742 7,80/8,40*
TAROKO 2003 2754 12,20
TASANEE 2002 2824 en bloc
HAMMONIA ANTOFAGASTA 2008 2797 8,90/9,70*
CARPATHIA 2003 2824 19,20
CARDONIA 2003 2824 en bloc
CIMBRIA 2002 2824
CARPATHIA 2003 2824 6,40/6,40*
CORDELIA 2003 2824 6,10/6,20*
BOX TRADER 2010 3426 23,00
BOX VOYAGER 2010 3426 en bloc
HS HAYDN 2010 3534 8,50/5,50*
DOUKATO 2002 3739 6,15/5,70*
RIO CHARLESTON 2008 4300 10,60/7,20*
BARBADOS 2010 4360 9,50/7,50*
SCT DISTINCTION 2010 4380 9,20
HS EVEREST 2014 4771 20,00
HS MARCO POLO 2014 4771 20,00
SCT QATAR 2010 4963 9,60/9,60*
SCT OMAN 2010 4963 9,60/9,40*
NANSEN STRAIT 2005 5047 7,60/7,50*
MAULE 2010 6589 20,00
CONTI VANCOUVER 2005 7471 14,00/11,80*
E.R. TIANAN 2005 8533 26,00
LLOYD PARSIFAL 2006 8533 26,50
HANJIN HAMBURG** 2011 8586 25,00/29,90*
HANJIN NEW YORK** 2011 8586 25,00/29,70*
* – Vesselvalue.com ** – Bank Sale A source: Intermodal, SeaSure

Here it should be noted that the second quarter of 2017 didn’t go without a loud bankruptcy as well. This time the Rickmers Holding AG company fell, after the main creditor (HSH Nordbank) denied Rickmers a loan, did not agree on the terms of the restructuring and refused further negotiations on restructuring. We add that Rickmers Group, as for the end of 2015, managed a fleet of about 130 vessels.
At the end of the economic section, let us recall that most analysts consider 2017 in terms of financial results of the operation of container lines to be much more successful than 2016, when the industry received a total loss of $ 3.5 billion. But in many respects this will depend not only on the level of freight rates, but also on the lines of work on reducing own costs and optimizing the operation of container services. Speaking about the economy of container business, we will also note that it is influenced by such difficult factors as cybersecurity of carriers. Thus, the attack of the computer virus “Petya A.” at the end of June this year. Blocked the bookings of cargo and stopped the work of a number of Maersk Line terminals, causing serious damage to the company’s business. It took at least a week to correct the situation. And more, to enhance cybersecurity, in order to prevent the repetition of such a situation, additional costs will be required and obviously considerable ones.

Service modernization

The main event of the second quarter of 2017 was the beginning of work from April 1 of the new system of alliances of container carriers. The first thing that catches the eye when considering the composition of the fleet used by the new configuration of alliances is a sharp increase in the share of vessels with capacity of more than 13,000 TEU.

Number and capacity of containerships involved in the alliances in the old (before April 2017) and new (from April 2017) configurations

Container capacity, TEU Number of vessels, units
From April 2017. In March 2017. In August 2016.
1000-2000 7 7 8
2000-3000 22 23 27
3000-4000 14 20 21
4000-5100 170 175 201
5100-7500 156 133 141
7500-10000 230 217 220
10000-13300 107 124 153
13300-18000 151 129 126
18000-21000 56 51 41
Total fleet capacity, million TEU 8,37 7,94 8,24
A source: Alphaliner

The distribution of the capacity of containerships used in services in the new and old alliance systems in 2016 – 2017.

It should also be noted that the formation of a new service system, like any other new organizational undertaking, was not all nice and clean. The movement of the ships’ work to new services according to changed schedules, often with calls to other container hubs, turned out to be a bit more complicated than previously thought. And at first it often led to the “organized chaos”, consisting of the stalls of container ships, violations of the announced schedule and delays in the export of containers from terminals. But we can say that all these difficulties were successfully overcome and the new system works almost without failures (we already mentioned the virus “Petya A.”).
But life does not stand still and the factors of supply and demand, plus the desire for optimization, constantly make their own adjustments. Therefore, the CMA CGM company, together with its partners in the Ocean Alliance, since July this year instead of the previously used services, MEGEM and MEDEX opens a new INDIAMED service, which has the following rotation of the ports of call: Khorfakkan – Karachi – Nhava Sheva – Mundra – Djibouti – Jeddah – Damietta – Piraeus – Malta – Alaga – Mersin – Port Said – Khorfakkan.

Even earlier, in April this year OOCL opened a new weekly service NORTH EUROPE – TURKEY (NET), serviced by four container ships along the route: Felixstowe – Hamburg – Antwerp – Piraeus – Istanbul (Kumport) – Izmit – Izmir – Salerno – Felixstowe. In addition, in May, due to expected low demand in South Korea, China and the Eastern Mediterranean, OOCL canceled the flight on the Asia – East Mediterranean and Black Sea (EM1) service. In the west direction, the flight that was due to start from May 7 from Busan, and in the east direction from June 9 from Izmit were canceled. Recall that since April this year, the following rotation of the ports of call on the EM1 service has taken place: Busan – Shanghai – Ningbo – Kaohsiung – Shekou – Singapore – Port Said – Beirut – Piraeus – Istanbul (Eviap) – Istanbul (Ambarli) – Constanta – Odessa – Istanbul (Ambarli) – Iskenderun – Port Said – Port Kelang – Busan.
In May, ZIM company updated its Greece Turkey Service (TGX) by placing three container ships with capacity of 1700 TEU with the following rotation of ports of call: Haifa – Ashdod – Antalya – Istanbul – Izmit – Gemlik – Istanbul – Piraeus – Thessaloniki – Izmir – Haifa. At the same time, the calls to Haifa and Ashdod are made on fixed days of the week.
From May 6, as a result of the agreement on the use of slots concluded between Arkas Line and EMES Feedering, a new weekly Black Sea Med Service (BMX) was launched, serviced by two container ships with capacity of 1700 TEU each. The rotation of the ports of call of BMX: Piraeus – Istanbul – Novorossiysk – Odessa – Constanta – Istanbul – Piraeus. Prior to that, the Arkas Line company worked for Novorossiysk as part of a joint service with Seago Line (a subsidiary of Maersk Line).
From June 21, the Unifeeder company changed the schedule of its service connecting the ports of Russia, Finland, Poland and Great Britain. The container ships working on this service on the fixed days of the week go to the following ports: St. Petersburg – Kotka – Gdynia – Immingem. In addition, at the end of June, Unifeeder supplied an additional vessel for service between the ports of Lithuania, Poland and the UK, visiting them twice a week. Rotation includes the following ports: Klaipeda – Gdynia – Szczecin – Immingham – Gul – Rotterdam.
Thus, the work on updating, optimization and modernization of services is a constantly ongoing process designed to create a more perfect system and, on the one hand, to take into account the interests and needs of the client; on the other hand, to minimize the costs of the linear operators.

Tags:

Read also

Comments