Was the P3 Network Dead In the Water to Begin With?

Subscriber: Log Out

The potential P3 partners –comprising ocean cargo giants Maersk, MSC, and CMA CGM – may have believed that they were just steps away from realizing their “network” dream. But industry insiders suggest that China’s veto power should not have been dismissed so quickly.

“China’s state-owned shipping companies, COSCO and China Shipping Group, were against the P3 operating agreement all along,” says Rosemary Coates, president of Blue Silk Consulting and author of Rules for Sourcing and Manufacturing in China. “Although the P3 alliance was similar to the airlines practice of code sharing, it represents a threat to China’s own shipping lines.”

Coates allows that the P3 alliance would have made the carriers more efficient and eventually drive down costs. Indeed, P3 partners argued that this would be the outcome from discussing and agreeing on the size, number and operational characteristics of vessels to be operated on transatlantic and transpacific trade lanes between the U.S. and Asia, North Europe and the Mediterranean.

“But this would be too much competition for the Chinese lines, that have been losing money for several years and are struggling with over-capacity issues,” she says.
Coates maintains that this is just the beginning of China’s “showing muscle” on the world stage.

“With the growing dominance of the Chinese economy, we are bound to see many more rejections of business deals that are unfavorable to Chinese business.”

Meanwhile, industry analysts believe that many of our world’s port authorities must be relieved. With the anticipation of massive freight aggregation, only the Mega ocean cargo gateways were anticipating more business. That would leave the smaller seaports battling one another for direct inbound carrier calls.

According to SeaIntel Maritime Analysis in Copenhagen, any terminal or port that were to be affected by P3’s network design “could potentially face huge losses or gains in their business.” This even included the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as it had yet to be determined if one or both San Pedro Bay gateways was to receive Network calls on a regular or alternate basis.

SC
MR

Latest Podcast
Talking Supply Chain: Moving from AI pilot to execution with AWS’s Petra Schindler-Carter
In this episode of Talking Supply Chain, AWS retail and CPG leader Petra Schindler-Carter explains how companies like PepsiCo and adidas are…
Listen in

About the Author

Patrick Burnson, Executive Editor
Patrick Burnson

Patrick is a widely-published writer and editor specializing in international trade, global logistics, and supply chain management. He is based in San Francisco, where he provides a Pacific Rim perspective on industry trends and forecasts. He may be reached at his downtown office: [email protected].

View Patrick 's author profile.

Subscribe

Supply Chain Management Review delivers the best industry content.
Subscribe today and get full access to all of Supply Chain Management Review’s exclusive content, email newsletters, premium resources and in-depth, comprehensive feature articles written by the industry's top experts on the subjects that matter most to supply chain professionals.
×

Search

Search

Sourcing & Procurement

Inventory Management Risk Management Global Trade Ports & Shipping

Business Management

Supply Chain TMS WMS 3PL Government & Regulation Sustainability Finance

Software & Technology

Artificial Intelligence Automation Cloud IoT Robotics Software

The Academy

Executive Education Associations Institutions Universities & Colleges

Resources

Podcasts Webinars Companies Visionaries White Papers Special Reports Premiums Magazine Archive

Subscribe

SCMR Magazine Newsletters Magazine Archives Customer Service

Press Releases

Press Releases Submit Press Release