By: Gary Ferrulli

Gary Ferrulli — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:48:46 +0000

Jared, the FMC “action” (actually an in-action) is NOT a set back, the FMC admitted they didn’t have jurisdiction over
mergers of the type that the Japanese presented. Some learned attorneys have commented “why did they file it in the first
place?”. The simple answer is/was, out of an abundance of caution.
In my maritime career, which started in March 1972, I’ve seen first 7, then 6 then 5, then 4, then three then ONE Japanese
carrier. In 1972 they were combined very large in the TP trades as well as Asia/Europe, supported by the Japanese Trading Houses
and indirectly by the Japanese government. Times changed, they are in the containerized world three mid-sized
carriers knowing they can’t survive in that mode. As ONE, in two years they will be the 5th largest carrier in the world,
58% smaller than Maersk Line, 42% smaller than MSC at #’s 1 and 2 respectfully.
As part of The Alliance, hooking up with UASC will give them enough big ships, with MOL’s order for them now in
implementation, for a competitive string of vessels for the Asia/Europe market, but is that enough to really make
them competitive in that market – one string?
So more power to them in trying to remain relevant and one day, with fair winds and following seas, profitable.

Comments on: Japan’s Big 3 Becoming ONE in Practice & Name

By: Gary Ferrulli