The communicative short-circuit (perhaps it would be better to define it as a communicative tug of war) regarding the return of container ships to navigation through the Suez Canal continues. After the ‘forward escape’ by the Suez Canal Authority and the braking by Maersk, now Hapag Lloyd (a partner in the Gemini alliance with the Danish maritime carrier) has also intervened to disseminate a clarification that concludes by saying: “We will keep you updated on the Gemini network should any changes occur.”
The note states that “Gemini’s ambition has always been to return to East-West routes based on Suez as soon as security conditions in the region allow it. However, since the safety of the crew, ships, and cargo remains our highest priority, we currently do not have a specific timeline for returning to navigation through the Red Sea.” We will return, but we do not yet know when is the summary.
This clarification comes just as shipper and receiver customers are pressing shipping companies to change routes and reduce transit times, a change that maritime carriers are trying to postpone as much as possible because it would lead to a decrease in freight rates and thus their revenues. “When security conditions allow it, Hapag-Lloyd and AP Moller – Maersk will carefully coordinate with their respective customers and key stakeholders to ensure an orderly transfer to a Suez-based network, with minimal disruption to our customers’ supply chains” is written in the Gemini communication.
Besides Maersk, the other global carrier that has so far exposed itself by showing interest in bringing its ships back to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal is Cma Cgm. The Marseilles-based shipping company recently ‘tested’ the transit of one of its ultra large ships, following other passages regularly carried out in recent months with smaller ships as well.
The rush for clarifications and brakes on announcements regarding an imminent return of Maersk ships to transits through the Egyptian waterway was triggered by a joint note issued by the Suez Canal Authority where it is written in black and white (even though it is not reported as a statement from its chief executive officer) that the Danish company’s container ships would begin to change route as early as next December, then progressively bring back all the fleet. “The return of Maersk ships to transit in the Suez Canal is an initiative that will be followed by the return of many shipping companies” said CEO Vincent Clerc, before signing a strategic agreement with the Egyptian canal authority. In the country, Maersk is present and active also with its port terminals and therefore finds itself having to manage institutional relations with those who are pressuring shipowners to stop circumnavigating Africa with great attention and diplomacy, given that the security conditions in the Red Sea allow it.
In 2023, the Suez Canal recorded the transit of 1,158 ships for 127 million tons of tonnage, generating revenues of 733 million dollars.
In the month of November, the recovery of traffic continued with 1,156 ships for a net tonnage of 48.5 million tonnes and a turnover of 383.4 million dollars (last year the same month had seen the passage of a thousand ships for 300 million in turnover).
During the CONTAINER ITALY Business Meeting held in recent days in Milan, Ignazio Messina, CEO of the eponymous shipping company, said that “there has been a setback regarding the possibility of returning to sail in the Red Sea with a certain tranquility, because since the truce between Gaza and Israel was signed, the bombings have continued and the only calming factor has been the message from the Huthi who announced they had stopped their attacks, even if they did not say for how long. As long as there is no stable peace, it is unlikely that all companies will return to sailing via Suez in the short term; but if everyone were to pass back through the Red Sea, maritime freight rates would collapse; we would see a 30-40% excess of hold capacity and we would see ships stopped and laid up again. This would be quite devastating.”
This scenario would fit into a market context that financially already shows clear signs of deterioration. According to Sea-Intelligence, the combined EBIT of the seven largest listed container shipping lines (Maersk, Cosco, Hapag-Lloyd, ONE, HMM, Zim and Yang Ming) in the third quarter of 2025 plummeted to 5.12 billion dollars compared to 17.06 billion in the same period of 2024. A level of profitability that, although significantly lower than last year’s peaks, nevertheless remains higher than the pre-Covid period and seems to have settled at a level of economic sustainability precisely thanks to the lengthened routes around Africa on the Asia-Europe trade. The highest EBIT per transported TEU ratio is that of Cosco (350 dollars), followed by Zim (280 /TEU) while for all the other global carriers analyzed the /TEU ratio is below 200 dollars (for ONE 85 /TEU, for Maersk (83 /TEU) and Hapag Lloyd (65 /TEU). In the third quarter of 2024, the lowest /TEU ratio was 335 dollars.
Trying to see the glass half full, during the CONTAINER ITALY Business Meeting, the marketing and sales director of Trieste Marine Terminal, Marco Zollia, attempted to do so: “When it will be possible to cross Suez safely, I believe that the Asia-Mediterranean lines, and in particular those between Asia and the Adriatic, will return to sailing in the Red Sea because the cost difference (primarily of fuel) is significant. I have more doubts,” he added, “about whether the services connecting Asia to the ports of Northern Europe will return to sailing via Suez because the companies have ‘discovered’ the West Africa market. By circumnavigating the Cape of Good Hope, they now make regular and important calls at West African ports, and bringing those services back to sail via Suez would mean redesigning the lines to continue serving West Africa but through transshipment, via feeder ships.”
It could therefore happen that some companies return via Suez to serve the Mediterranean (and the Adriatic in particular) and other lines continue with the circumnavigation of Africa to reach the ports of Northern Europe “with a clear advantage for Italian ports, which would benefit from a transit time to and from Asia that is lower than to Northern Europe,” concluded Zollia.
