Most of the 54 letters from 53 groups about the P3 mega alliance, uniting Maersk, MSC and CMA CGM, were positive though more than 30 were form letters to the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) favouring the operational network, reported American Shipper.
Those wanting to allow the P3, whose capacity would be sold by rival sales, marketing and customer service departments of member companies, saw immediate benefits in service reliability and lower pricing through economies of scale.
Those opposed saw dangers of the P3 mega alliance gaining greater market control, driving out smaller players, including ports, truckers and shipping lines, thus enabling higher rates and diminished services over time.
Typical objections were raised by the Fashion Accessories Shippers Association (FASA) that said P3 market control risked unreasonable reduction in service or an unreasonable increase in costs.
Typical of positive responses came from New York's Samara Apparel Group, which said P3 would provide lower prices, a view shared by the South Florida Container Terminal.
Said Hoboken NVOCC Sipco: "We believe that [by] creating this alliance, the shipping public and the NVOCC field would benefit. It would solidify transit time, the overall on-time departure and arrivals and make carriers more responsive and cost effective. Further, it is our understanding that the three carriers will continue to conduct sales, marketing and customer services completely independent from one another."
The Sipco letter also said that other alliances "including the Grand Alliance and the G6, have had little if any negative impact on the USA exporter or importer and we would expect the same to continue when the P3 comes to life".
But others doubted the efficacy of the project, worrying about the concentration the P3 would bring to liner shipping.
Said the fashion accessories group FASA: "The amount of market control afforded by such an agreement is alarming. If ratified, the carriers would control 40-42 per cent of vessels operating on the transatlantic and 24 per cent on the transpacific."
"The P3 carriers plan to increase speeds, which will force other carriers to do the same in order to retain market share. This will drive up their costs, which will either result in higher rates or carrier default," FASA said.
Similar objections came from the National Industrial Transportation League and the Global Shippers' Forum, a group closely associated to United Nations agency policies.
Said Houston's isotank lessor Intermodal Tank Transport: "The P3 alliance is taking the three largest shipping lines in the world and creating a monopolistic setting for shipping for Asia, Europe and the US. This will reduce vessel capacity and drive pricing up. This will raise shipping costs."
But the Port of Baltimore saw the P3 "as potentially providing significant positive advantages for our port. While MSC has long been a major carrier in Baltimore, the P3 would result in the introduction of two additional ocean carriers to a constrained market, which will increase competition and potentially reduce ocean rates."
Disagreeing, the rival South Carolina State Ports Authority said the FMC should "study the impact of increasing concentration in the carrier segment of the industry on ports. It is likely in the near future that three mega alliances will control 90 per cent of global container capacity."
Said the Atlantic Container Line: "ACL is concerned about the buying power granted to the P3 and other large consortia. A consortium's ability to buy products and services as a bloc greatly distorts the market and makes it impossible for non-consortium carriers to compete.
Those wanting to allow the P3, whose capacity would be sold by rival sales, marketing and customer service departments of member companies, saw immediate benefits in service reliability and lower pricing through economies of scale.
Those opposed saw dangers of the P3 mega alliance gaining greater market control, driving out smaller players, including ports, truckers and shipping lines, thus enabling higher rates and diminished services over time.
Typical objections were raised by the Fashion Accessories Shippers Association (FASA) that said P3 market control risked unreasonable reduction in service or an unreasonable increase in costs.
Typical of positive responses came from New York's Samara Apparel Group, which said P3 would provide lower prices, a view shared by the South Florida Container Terminal.
Said Hoboken NVOCC Sipco: "We believe that [by] creating this alliance, the shipping public and the NVOCC field would benefit. It would solidify transit time, the overall on-time departure and arrivals and make carriers more responsive and cost effective. Further, it is our understanding that the three carriers will continue to conduct sales, marketing and customer services completely independent from one another."
The Sipco letter also said that other alliances "including the Grand Alliance and the G6, have had little if any negative impact on the USA exporter or importer and we would expect the same to continue when the P3 comes to life".
But others doubted the efficacy of the project, worrying about the concentration the P3 would bring to liner shipping.
Said the fashion accessories group FASA: "The amount of market control afforded by such an agreement is alarming. If ratified, the carriers would control 40-42 per cent of vessels operating on the transatlantic and 24 per cent on the transpacific."
"The P3 carriers plan to increase speeds, which will force other carriers to do the same in order to retain market share. This will drive up their costs, which will either result in higher rates or carrier default," FASA said.
Similar objections came from the National Industrial Transportation League and the Global Shippers' Forum, a group closely associated to United Nations agency policies.
Said Houston's isotank lessor Intermodal Tank Transport: "The P3 alliance is taking the three largest shipping lines in the world and creating a monopolistic setting for shipping for Asia, Europe and the US. This will reduce vessel capacity and drive pricing up. This will raise shipping costs."
But the Port of Baltimore saw the P3 "as potentially providing significant positive advantages for our port. While MSC has long been a major carrier in Baltimore, the P3 would result in the introduction of two additional ocean carriers to a constrained market, which will increase competition and potentially reduce ocean rates."
Disagreeing, the rival South Carolina State Ports Authority said the FMC should "study the impact of increasing concentration in the carrier segment of the industry on ports. It is likely in the near future that three mega alliances will control 90 per cent of global container capacity."
Said the Atlantic Container Line: "ACL is concerned about the buying power granted to the P3 and other large consortia. A consortium's ability to buy products and services as a bloc greatly distorts the market and makes it impossible for non-consortium carriers to compete.