Red Sea Routing Splits Again (Capacity Math Gets Messy)
CMA CGM is re-diverting several major strings away from Suez while Maersk is structurally resuming trans-Suez routing on its MECL service. That “split decision” is the signal: carriers are not moving in a single herd, so shippers and forwarders should expect uneven transit times, mixed surcharges, and service-by-service planning friction rather than a clean, market-wide normalization.
| Signal piece | Moving | Fast impact path | Operator-facing tell |
|---|---|---|---|
| Split decision | CMA CGM is diverting some services away from Suez again while Maersk is structurally returning MECL sailings to the trans-Suez route. | Markets hate mixed signals: transit times, buffers, and surcharges stop being “lane-wide” and become service-by-service. | Forwarders see uneven schedules and more “routing varies by string” customer conversations. |
| CMA CGM pullback | Reuters reported CMA CGM will re-route vessels away from Suez on three major routes (FAL1, FAL3, and MEX), citing a complex and uncertain context. | More Cape routings reintroduce longer loops and add vessel-days back into the network, but not evenly across carriers. | Longer ETA promises on affected strings, more transshipment and schedule “padding.” |
| Maersk structural return | Maersk said it will resume using Suez/Red Sea for all MECL sailings, beginning with a phased implementation tied to specific voyages/dates. | Shorter routing can free vessel-days, change weekly capacity cadence, and pressure the “Cape premium” on the strings that revert. | Some lanes speed up while others stay slow, complicating inland and inventory planning. |
| Risk remains conditional | Maersk emphasized a gradual, cautious reintroduction based on current security conditions; CMA CGM cited geopolitical uncertainty. | Conditionality means sudden reversals are still plausible, so planners keep contingency buffers and avoid assuming “permanent normal.” | More “subject to security situation” language in operational planning and customer communications. |
| Commercial outcome | Different carriers taking different paths drives uneven pricing logic: some strings behave like “short route” networks while others price like “long route” networks. | Procurement gets messy: quotes become harder to compare, and reliability vs cost tradeoffs become visible again. | More “pay for reliability” decisions and more split-award sourcing across carriers. |
Comprehensive Overview
Bottom-Line Effect
The key signal is not “back to Suez” or “still Cape.” It is divergence. CMA CGM’s decision to re-route three major strings away from Suez while Maersk structurally returns MECL to the trans-Suez route creates a two-speed market: some networks regain shorter cycle times while others keep long loops.
Rate & Capacity Mechanics
Routing determines vessel-days. Cape routings consume more vessel-days per weekly string, which can tighten effective capacity and support higher rate floors on the affected services. Trans-Suez routings can release vessel-days and reduce the “hidden capacity” premium, but only where carriers actually revert. When different carriers do different things, the market stops clearing cleanly and starts clearing in pockets.
- Expect “lane confusion” when the customer hears Suez is returning but their booked string still sails Cape.
- Expect mixed surcharge logic: one carrier removes detour costs while another keeps them embedded.
- Expect more emphasis on schedule reliability and buffer management over headline transit time.
Shipper / Forwarder Playbook
In a split market, the cleanest move is to plan by service, not by carrier brand or “the lane.” Put a name to each string you are booking and map the consequences to inventory and inland moves.
- Ask explicitly: “Is this sailing trans-Suez or Cape?” and get it in writing for key loads.
- Rebuild buffer assumptions: some strings may cut time, others will not.
- Split awards: use a “fast string” for time-critical cargo and a “slow string” for cost-sensitive cargo.
- Re-check demurrage/storage exposure: uneven arrivals can create terminal bunching on destination ports.
Carrier / Operator Playbook
The operational pressure point is consistency. If you are reverting a string, keep the rules stable (security thresholds, escort decisions, go/no-go gates). If you are staying Cape, control customer expectations and protect schedule integrity rather than chasing unrealistic ETAs.
- Maintain a clear security gate that triggers immediate re-routing without internal confusion.
- Keep documentation consistent for risk reviews and customer assurance.
- Focus on schedule reliability metrics; reliability is the tradable product in a split market.
Watchpoints for the Next 2–4 Weeks
This signal strengthens if more carriers make different choices by string (not by company), and if reversals occur after isolated incidents or new geopolitical shocks. It fades only if a broad majority converges on one routing pattern with consistent execution.
- Additional carrier announcements about specific strings (adds clarity or adds more divergence).
- How quickly Maersk keeps MECL consistently trans-Suez after the first phased sailings.
- Whether CMA CGM’s three strings remain Cape-routed or switch back again (stop-start behavior matters).
- Any shift in insurance posture or security advisories that changes the “go/no-go” threshold.
Added vessel-days (window)
43 days
Extra days × sailings/week × ~4.33 weeks/month × months.
Added network cost lens
$1,935,000
Added vessel-days × cost/day.
Why it matters
Capacity feels tighter
More vessel-days consumed can support higher floors on that string.
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.