What seemed a quicker route is actually less so.
Shipping lines are notoriously secretive about giving out information on their strategy and plans but Maersk seems to have done some homework on its indirect Vietnam service to the US West Coast.
A surprising analysis from maritime research agency Alphaliner shows that the direct route between the two is not that quick after all. In fact, Maersk could be the winner out of all those scrambling to get into the action on the trade lane.
The European consultancy says the time taken for the direct service from the south -- Cai Mep-Thi Vai – compared with that doing a feeder scheme from Ho Chi Minh City (which some knew formerly as Saigon) through Hong Kong to Los Angeles is little different.
Actual comparison was done between Maersk and its two rivals, APL/MOL and Hanjin. The direct services use barges to connect Ho Chi Minh to the deepwater terminals. The Alphaliner analysis says the time to get to LA in each case is 17 days.
The reason lies in the way port calls are handled , in other words inefficiently, plus the earlier cargo cutoff times for taking containers by barge between the two Vietnam ports.
This conclusion is proving grist to the mill for the logistics industry on the West Coast. Logistics and intermodal businesses are the maritime world's equivalent of public and tax accountants, that is to say very boring. But they are absolutely essential and becoming more so as the variety of different ports, rail and road opportunities mushroom and get more complicated.
But the shortcomings of the business, privately and unofficially acknowledged, are that most of the logistics effort is concentrated on the US end. As Vietnam fever took hold of shippers and carriers, it was automatically assumed that a direct service would be faster, without any research into the mechanics and logistics of the operation.
(Which seems not to have made an impression on DHL, which is also offering a direct (LCL) service – through its Danmar line subsidiary.)
Because of the Alphaliner findings, more attention will probably now be paid to using Pacific Northwest and British Columbia ports. Prince Rupert, for example, markets heavily on being the quickest port to the US from Asia by two days for Los Angeles and one day for Seattle/Tacoma.
And more effort will be made to push the case for short sea shipping on the West Coast. To many observers, it is puzzling that this option is not used more. One reason is the slow cargo transfer rate on the West Coast docks (step forward the ILWU), as well as the need to get some sort of tax or subsidy incentive to make it worthwhile. The legal side also needs to be pored over as there are bound to be obstacles in state intercommerce laws that make it difficult.
Looming even larger are the railroads, which would fight every move that cuts into their revenue.
Maritime insiders have long wanted to get more rail efficiency, but note that as long as railroad profits climb with little additional capital investment there is no real need for their service to improve.
The Vietnam trade lane lesson could be one of the factors to force much needed change.