Jinjiang Shipping lines up a 4 + 4 feeder newbuild program
Subscribe to the Ship Universe Weekly Newsletter
Jinjiang Shipping has signaled a measured expansion plan, seeking to order four 1,800 TEU “Bangkokmax” boxships with options for four more, backed by a disclosed investment cap of up to RMB 1.94bn (roughly $270m range). It reads like a capacity-and-fleet-control move aimed at intra-Asia and Southeast Asia growth, with the option structure letting the company scale up only if market conditions and yard terms stay attractive.
Click here for 30 second summary
Jinjiang sets a feeder growth “dial” with a 4 + 4 newbuild plan
Jinjiang Shipping is moving toward an order for four 1,800 TEU feeder boxships, with options for four more, under a reported investment ceiling around RMB 1.94bn. The message is less about a one-time capacity jump and more about having a controlled way to add ships if intra-Asia volumes and economics stay supportive.
-
The lever they built into the deal
A “4 firm + options” structure lets the company lock a platform and potential yard space now, then decide later whether the second batch earns its spot. -
Where the impact shows up first
On Southeast Asia and intra-Asia loops, the benefit is usually frequency and reliability, not headline TEU. Small improvements in utilization and port turns can matter a lot. -
The market tells to watch
The next disclosures that move the story are yard choice, delivery windows, and spec details (fuel, reefer count, geared vs gearless), plus whether options get exercised quickly.
This is a flexibility play: four ships set the baseline, and the option layer becomes a live indicator of how confident Jinjiang is in regional demand and in the economics it can secure from yards and financing.
Jinjiang Shipping’s “4 + 4” feeder bet: where the numbers get real
Reported plan: four 1,800 TEU newbuilds with options for four more, under a disclosed investment ceiling around RMB 1.94bn (roughly the $270m range in coverage). Firm-ship budgeting cited around $33.8m per unit in trade reporting.
Market read embedded in the structure
The option stack is the headline. It gives Jinjiang a runway to lock in design and yard slots, then decide how hard to lean in once the first four are priced, specced, and slotted into the network.
- Feeder economics are schedule economics. On regional loops, a few hours saved in port time and fuel efficiency can matter as much as headline TEU.
- Asset control increases. More owned tonnage can tighten service planning, but it also increases exposure if freight cools.
- Competitive pressure shows up in frequency. On intra-Asia lanes, the “fight” is often week-by-week reliability and port pair coverage.
Operational watchpoints
The next filings and confirmations usually answer the same practical questions.
Spec items that change the story
- Delivery window (slot timing can be worth more than a small price delta)
- Fuel and efficiency (main engine choice, energy-saving devices)
- Reefer count (higher reefer capacity can reshape yield on certain trades)
- Crane configuration (geared vs gearless affects port optionality)
Feeder Order Scenario Tool
Tune the core assumptions and see how the program scales across three lenses: capital intensity, capacity added, and a simple payback view from operating cash.
How to think about “net cash per day”
A simplified placeholder for daily revenue minus voyage and operating costs. It is not a forecast, just a lever to stress-test sensitivity.
Optional RMB view
If you want an RMB check, use the FX field below and we will convert the total capex into RMB for a quick cross-check.
Total ships modeled
8
Firm + exercised options.
Total capacity added
14,400 TEU
TEU per ship multiplied by ships.
Total capex (USD)
$270.4m
Price per ship multiplied by ships.
Capex in RMB (check)
RMB 1.93bn
Converted using FX input.
Annual net cash (USD)
$32.6m
Ships × days × net cash per day.
Simple payback (years)
8.3
Capex divided by annual net cash.
Scenario bars: capex under common option outcomes
Scenarios shown: 4 ships (firm only), 6 ships (firm + 2 options), 8 ships (firm + 4 options), using your inputs.
Note: Some early secondary reposts of the story have carried unit or decimal typos. The “1.94bn RMB” ceiling is consistent across major trade reporting and market filings coverage.
Jinjiang’s move is notable less for the headline count and more for how the program is structured: the first four ships establish a repeatable feeder platform, while the option layer effectively turns the second half into a timed decision point tied to pricing, delivery slots, and how Southeast Asia volumes and service economics look once the initial tonnage is allocated.
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.