Wolfgang Lehmacher on where the box sector is getting things wrong.
Global container shipping is now missing around 1.8m teu of capacity because of delays, according to analysis by Sea-Intelligence. Even after subtracting the pre-pandemic baseline, roughly 1m teu is effectively unavailable because schedule reliability has settled at 50-65%, down from 70-80% in 2011-2019.
At the heart of this operational deficit lies a massive infrastructural disruption, namely the mass migration of loops around Africa, which is superimposed onto chronic terminal congestion and the strategic padding of schedules by lines trying to absorb network friction and shocks.
In contrast, company-level resilience has improved. During the 2008-09 financial crisis, global container demand in teu-miles dropped by 12.4% and freight rates collapsed, resulting in carrier operating losses exceeding $20bn.
During covid, carriers responded differently. They used blank sailings, alliance co-ordination and stricter capacity discipline to defend rates and restore profitability more quickly than before. Global terminal operators, aided by diversification and stronger continuity planning, also demonstrated greater resilience than anticipated.
However, strong individual companies do not guarantee a resilient overall system. A Scientific Reports study found that from 2004 to 2014, as the global container network expanded, it became more vulnerable to disruptions at central ports.
Simulation results showed that removing half the nodes caused only modest performance loss under random failures, but much greater loss when key hubs were affected. The network still relies heavily on a few mega-hubs and the ability of nearby ports to absorb diverted flows. In one regional model, failure at Singapore had the greatest impact on network resilience. Strategies like port skipping and local redistribution could only slow, not prevent, the decline.
This creates a resilience paradox: carriers and terminals have learned to protect earnings within a network that struggles to maintain connectivity. I have emphasised the “shifting baselines” in supply chains, where repeated workarounds normalise decline and lead managers to optimise for current conditions rather than redesign for the future. This pattern is evident today. Ongoing issues such as weaker schedule reliability, delay-absorbed capacity, Red Sea diversions and climate-related disruptions are managed as routine challenges, rather than as indicators that the network itself requires change. As companies become better at improvising, it becomes easier to mistake coping for true resilience.
This gap persists because companies can manage their own resilience, but no single actor controls the entire system. Companies can choose dual sourcing, safety stock, premium logistics and visibility tools. However, they cannot independently reduce reliance on even a small group of ports, develop alternative corridors or co-ordinate investment across carriers, terminals, inland operators, cargo owners and regulators. Efficiency benefits individual actors, while the risks of fragility affect entire economies. The sector tends to prioritise cost per box, utilisation and inventory turns over exposure to key nodes and recovery time.
The resilience strategy must expand beyond individual organisations. First, carriers, ports and cargo owners should conduct network stress tests using simulations and digital twins to assess the impact of major hub or corridor failures on live services, loops and customers. Second, they should co-invest in alternatives capable of handling significant volumes, such as secondary gateways, inland routes and corridor partnerships. Third, boards should update scorecards to include exposure to key nodes, rerouting capacity and recovery time alongside traditional financial metrics.
The good news is that shipping has already demonstrated the ability to learn quickly, co-ordinate under pressure and protect performance more effectively than a decade ago. The next step is to apply this discipline beyond individual organisations to the entire network. Future leaders will be those who help build resilient companies within resilient systems.
