Red Sea Routing Splits Again (Maersk MECL Goes Trans-Suez, Others Stay Cautious)
Maersk published an operational update confirming a structural return to trans-Suez routing for its MECL service, with specific sailings called out including an eastbound departure planned for Feb 3, 2026. The signal is the divergence: some networks start using Suez again while others continue Cape routing, which creates uneven transit times, uneven capacity availability, and wider rate dispersion by service string.
| Signal piece | Moving | Fast impact path | Operator-facing tell |
|---|---|---|---|
| MECL structural return | Maersk confirmed a structural return to the trans-Suez route for MECL, rather than isolated test transits. | Transit times and vessel rotations can normalize for that string, shifting effective capacity and schedule planning. | More firm proformas, fewer Cape-style buffers built into the advertised transit time. |
| Eastbound timing | Maersk named an eastbound sailing planned to depart Tangier on Feb 3, returning to trans-Suez routing on eastbound MECL sailings. | Eastbound and westbound symmetry matters for equipment and schedule balance. When one direction changes, the network feel changes quickly. | Fewer surprise week-to-week changes on that service if conditions hold. |
| Carrier split | Other networks are not moving in one herd. CMA CGM said it would divert ships away from Suez on several services due to ongoing uncertainty. | Uneven routing creates uneven transit times and rate dispersion by string, not just by lane headline. | Same origin-destination starts quoting with wider variance and more conditional routings. |
| Risk posture stays conditional | Maersk framed the change as contingent on stability, with contingency planning if the security situation deteriorates. | Conditional routing introduces planning friction even when a service is structurally back. Parties may still keep buffer and alternates ready. | More clauses around routing discretion, security triggers, and last-minute diversion rights. |
| Governance signal | The UN Security Council extended monitoring and reporting related to Houthi attacks in the Red Sea for six months (Resolution 2812). | Formal monitoring is not the same as safety, but it is a signal that the corridor remains a standing agenda item for risk teams. | More internal briefings, higher routing approval scrutiny, and more documentation around security justifications. |
Comprehensive Overview
The core signal
Route choice is no longer uniform. One major string returns to Suez while others stay conservative. That turns planning into a service-by-service problem, not a lane-by-lane headline.
Where the friction concentrates when routing diverges
This is a quick visual of operational pain points that typically widen when some strings go Suez and others go Cape.
Planning flags for owners and operators
- Expect more questions about string choice, not just destination. Shippers will ask for service names and routings.
- Build buffers around connection windows. Divergent routings can cause bunching at hubs when one string arrives earlier than others.
- Keep a playbook for diversion triggers. Even a structural return can revert if conditions change.
Risk and approvals
- Routing approval becomes a recurring workflow item again, not a one-time policy decision.
- Quote validity may shorten when risk teams want fresh confirmation closer to transit time.
- Document the decision chain. Post-event reviews often focus on who approved the routing and on what basis.
Vessel-days freed (proxy)
0
Days saved × weekly sailings × weeks.
Feels like
0.0 ships
Proxy: vessel-days divided by 84-day cycle.
Pressure point
Scheduling
Earlier arrivals can shift connection peaks.
This tool does not assume a specific Cape or Suez day count. Use it to stress-test your own planning assumptions.
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.