I don’t want to further derail the Shipbuilding Office thread.
I’ve been seeing people throw out ideas for feeder operations, especially on the east coast, for over 30 years. Many of them have one or more similar problems, including including:
They’ve obviously never read the master contract.
Worse, they don’t know there IS a master contract or what it is.
They assume away the empty moves on an import box.
They assume into existence a chassis pool where there is none.
They fail to account for the truck move that still has to happen from the second port to the ultimate destination (the feed it to Boston then truck it an hour back towards NY factor)
They overestimate the Jones Act element (see long list of attempts to feed Boston and/or Portland from Halifax, lack of feeders from Freeport to SE US ports)
They disregard some combination of the BOL, in bond move, and charges beyond free time after interchange
So, what are your ideas? Consider what does work and has worked in the past, and what has failed in the past. Think about new trade lanes, alliances, and what ports on the east coast have gained or lost vessel calls and market share over the last however many years.
What are your ideas?
What would your service cost?
How much less is that than the total cost of the move now?
What existing market/service failure are you correcting?
If you are expecting someone else to take less so you can make something, who do expect concessions from and how much?
Your post is well presented and obviously from experience. With the reservation I’ve been retired 7 years and some of my examples are even older here are a few.
ConRo carrier with crude rubber Indonesia Malaysia to East Coast US. Vessel was empty in Singapore and needed a bottom cargo for stability return voyage through Asia to the East coast. Loaded in various feeders transshipped at Singapore. It worked well based on the high cube light weight high value high rate cargo that was too high for the lower deck loaded latter facilitated by the weight.. Net on the rubber marginal and damage potential higher. 3 moves with fork lifts compared to 2 if the vessel called direct both ports.
Many years latter made recommendations to an Asian. Carrier on barge feeder import containers Norfolk to Richmond and back export loads. Problem was heavy box weights, traffic and congestion 100 mile trucking. And easier fumigation at Richmond . My advice was don’t do it, plenty of low rated heavy cargo at other ports. Dwell time on containers very long compared to other ports. They agreed and were very focused on quick return boxes to Asia for higher revenue . Since the Richmond barge service has grown, don’t see the carrier I advised name on containers there today. I think the barge move is state supported.
Have been in many discussions on feeder containers between east coast smaller ports and larger hubs. Problem has always been majority of the cargo is passing through destined large inland markets. There is no significant coast wise international origin volume that favors water transport. Heavy and low value cargo, wood products, scrap iron, petroleum, moves barge coast wise or ICW. High value consumer goods train north and south.
Boston market always puzzled me. Asian carrier Panama routed it’s the end of a loop. After New York up to Boston discharge then pass New York back to Panama adds 3 days voyage time . Not many do it, one that did had higher rate structure Boston. Don’t know the situation today.
You always hear Jones act or ILA contracts are the obstacle to Coastal feeders. I am certain do away with. The Jones act all we would gain is foreign crews foreign built barges and tugs. They would not be cheaper. Market sets the rate. Market today is very competitive crew on a tug is so small seaman’s wages are not a significant factor . If the market is dominated by a few large foreign operators rates would be higher. Doubt if China can build barges & deliver to the US cheaper and better than US Yards. Tugs are built assembly line in China and delivered to foreign owners now. Giving up our Tug construction ability to foreign would be a major loss. Besides vessel cost is spread over many years, we are running many old vessels now boats original cost not important. This depends on avoiding extreme state regulation that changes often
Last on the ILA. My experience they do a good job and can be flexible when necessary. Switch to cheap casual labor would have caused problems with a complex load/discharge situation . This from personal experience in third world ports. Pure containers high tech cranes and port equipment may be advantageous . Port operators totally foreign are not the best option.