Latest air security requirement may be a boon for lines

Jul 27, 2010, 2:41AM EST
Ocean carriers could be feasting on air freight from this weekend when new rules are applied in the US.

It doesn’t take much for shippers to switch certain types of cargo from air to ocean. Soaring fuel prices and the resultant surcharges will do it. Or a shortage of space.

But the greatest disruption to air freight comes in the shape of delays. Unlike sea freight, there is not much of a cushion built into the supply chain of high value, time sensitive goods, so when cargo is held up, it doesn’t take long for the risk management plan to kick in.

From midnight on Saturday, the US Transportation Security Administration will require that all air freight carried in the bellies of passenger planes in, around and out of the US will have to have been screened.

Most of the world's air cargo is transported in the bellies of passenger planes, not freighters, so the predictable disruptions are expected – delays, congestion, frustration. Several airlines say they are ready for the new measures, but many forwarders and shippers are concerned.

Back in the day, air freight shippers could switch to shipping lines in a pinch, but with slow steaming ships now operating on all major trade lanes, that door is not exactly wide open.

So now might be the time for container shipping lines to push the full steam ahead lever on transpacific services calling at the big US gateway ports.

Supply chain managers, however, are seldom without a Plan B, and after years of dealing with crises like terror attacks, congestion at West Coast ports, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, overcapacity, space shortages, economic meltdowns, etc, etc, their risk management plans are thicker than the Yellow Pages and cover most plausible scenarios.

Of course, switching modes is no easy task. It will take a serious adjustment to sourcing and supply strategies because of the extra time in the pipeline, but you could argue that anything that doesn’t absolutely have to go by air should be on top of a ship, anyway. It’s cheaper and emits less of a carbon footprint.

 

 

 
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Blog post currently doesn't have any comments.

Sign in

Latest blog comments

2/4/2012

dilipan thomas
well there is no job for most people who has finished studi...

2/2/2012

Saunders Jones
Joe, You are right on regarding both GMATS and the Super...

1/25/2012

Joseph Keefe
Mark: You get the prize, indeed. Thanks for weighing in....

1/24/2012

Mark Sales
An apt and appropriate view of the situation. It also shou...

1/24/2012

Eric Goldring
I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has...

1/20/2012

Shiran Senanayake
I believe that Cruise Masters are fatigued with so many por...

1/19/2012

Alan Loynd
Absolutely correct. With the largest passenger ships now...

1/19/2012

James Lynch
Well stated. The need for regulation is obvious in any fie...

1/19/2012

Eugene (Gene) Horton
Dear Greg, I read your article on “size matters” and found...

1/19/2012

Laurie Thomas
Joe, to add to John's comment, here's another gem/bad news ...