This is the P3 alliance's best argument

There is one absolutely key argument in the P3 alliance's response to the competitors, politicians, and ports voicing concerns about the giant alliance. Find it below.

There is one factor that is featured repeatedly in the concerned comments submitted to the US competition authority FMC, the Federal Maritime Commission, about the giant P3 alliance: its size. That is, whether the alliance between the world's three largest container carriers Maersk Line, MSC, and CMA CGM will be exploited to thwart competitors and put ports under pressure in terms of prices.

This becomes apparent when reviewing the comments submitted to the Federal Maritime Commission in Washington, which handles the application and the final approval or rejection of the collaboration for the United States. The concern is also featured in reactions from other regions in the world. Thus also from the Chinese shippers, referring to the Chinese manufacturers relying on the container carriers when transporting goods to the west.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Read the whole article

Get access for 14 days for free.
No credit card is needed, and you will not be automatically signed up for a paid subscription after the free trial.

  • Access all locked articles
  • Receive our daily newsletters
  • Access our app
An error has occured. Please try again later.

Get full access for you and your coworkers.

Start a free company trial today

More from ShippingWatch

One alternative fuel may be particularly dangerous

In a new study – which Maersk, Shell, Euronav and MSC Ship Management, among others, are behind – the new alternative fuels are ranked based on how dangerous they are. The industry has to be careful with one of them, in particular.

Further reading

Related articles

Latest news

See all jobs