Middle East rerouting tightens ocean capacity despite steady demand

Stability under pressure as networks tighten

April’s ocean freight market is presenting a familiar surface—steady rates, moderate demand and no immediate signs of strain. However, underlying network conditions suggest a more constrained operating environment. Three forces are shaping current conditions: conflict-driven rerouting, elevated fuel costs and continued carrier capacity management. Together, these dynamics are reducing flexibility across global delivery networks and limiting the system’s ability to absorb disruption.

This pattern reflects a market shaped less by demand strength and more by supply-side adjustments. Following Lunar New Year, carriers have continued to align capacity with softer demand through blank sailings and service changes.

Approximately 15% of scheduled sailings on major East‒West lanes were blanked between early February and early March and similar practices appear to be continuing into April. As a result, while overall vessel utilisation is not at peak levels, space availability is becoming less consistent across sailings and ports.

At the same time, pricing structures are evolving. Carriers are adjusting general rate increase (GRI) levels, surcharges and validity periods more frequently, contributing to shorter pricing windows and increased cost variability. Base rates remain relatively stable across many lanes, but a growing share of total transportation costs are being driven by floating components, particularly fuel-related surcharges.

Conflict-driven rerouting continues to reshape networks

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East continues to influence global routeing patterns and capacity availability. Most major carriers have suspended transits through the Suez Canal, routeing vessels instead around the Cape of Good Hope. This shift is extending transit times on Asia‒Europe and Asia‒United States East Coast (USEC) lanes by approximately 10‒14 days. While these routings have become more established, they continue to absorb vessel capacity and extend equipment cycle times.

Conditions within the Persian Gulf also remain highly restricted. As of late March, approximately 150 vessels carrying an estimated 450,000 twenty-feet equivalent units (TEUs) were delayed or unable to transit the region, temporarily sidelining an estimated 8‒10% of global container capacity.

In parallel, some carriers have limited bookings into affected ports or adjusted service coverage. In some instances, force majeure has been declared, meaning cargo owners may be required to arrange or assume responsibility for parts of onward transport.

These developments are contributing to secondary effects across the broader network. Transshipment hubs such as Colombo, Singapore and Tanjung Pelepas are experiencing increased volumes and higher yard utilisation as services are reconfigured. Equipment availability is also becoming less predictable in certain regions, as containers remain tied up in extended voyages or are repositioned outside of typical flows.

Carrier capacity discipline limits available space

Carrier capacity management remains a defining feature of current market conditions. Facing moderate demand and rising operating costs, carriers continue to align supply through blank sailings and service adjustments. Approximately 15% of sailings were blanked on major East‒West lanes between early February and early March and similar levels appear to be continuing into April.

This approach is supporting rate stability, even as overall demand remains measured. However, it is also contributing to less predictable space availability, with some sailings reaching capacity earlier than expected. This distinction is important: while capacity exists in the market, it is less consistently accessible across sailings, ports and booking windows.

Carrier network adjustments are also influencing regional dynamics. For example, the withdrawal of a Trans-Atlantic service loop at the end of March has reduced available capacity on North America-Europe lanes. Early signals indicate bookings are filling earlier on remaining services, putting upward pressure on rates ahead of early April GRIs.

Fuel costs and surcharges increase cost variability

Fuel costs are adding another layer of complexity to ocean freight pricing. Crude oil prices have increased materially since the onset of the Middle East conflict, contributing to the introduction or expansion of emergency bunker surcharges (EBS) and war-risk charges across multiple trade lanes.

While the exact impact varies by lane, these surcharges are raising total landed costs even where base freight rates remain relatively stable. Shorter notice periods and reduced validity windows for surcharge adjustments are making forward cost planning more challenging. As a result, a greater share of transportation spend is shifting toward variable cost components.

Timing effects introduce short-term volatility

Timing-related factors are contributing to short-term variability in demand and space availability. A late-February U.S. policy change affecting import tariffs created the potential for duty refunds and some importers appear to have accelerated deliveries in response. Similarly, announced April rate increases prompted some shippers to advance cargo into late March sailings.

These shifts contributed to tighter than typical space availability at the start of April, with conditions expected to ease as volumes normalise. This pattern may repeat if additional rate increases are announced.

Overall, April conditions reflect a market where supply-side constraints are offsetting relatively modest demand. While rates may not move sharply in the near term, the combination of longer transit times, reduced schedule flexibility and more variable cost structures suggests a more complex planning environment.

Looking ahead, much will depend on the trajectory of geopolitical developments and carrier responses. A deescalation in the Middle East could allow some capacity to return to the market and improve transit reliability. Conversely, continued disruption may sustain current routeing patterns, prolong equipment imbalances and support elevated fuel costs.

Planning ahead

• Plan for tighter space availability: Capacity exists but may be less consistently accessible across sailings and booking windows.
• Build additional transit time buffers: Cape of Good Hope routings are extending transit times by 10‒14 days on affected lanes.
• Account for cost variability: Fuel-related surcharges and shorter pricing validity periods may affect total landed cost.
• Evaluate routeing flexibility: Alternative port pairings or modal options may help to mitigate disruption-related risk.
• Monitor carrier updates closely: Blank sailings, port omissions and pricing changes are being announced with shorter lead times.

Notable shifts this month

Suez rerouting continues to extend transit times

Suez Canal routings remain largely suspended across major East‒West services, with carriers continuing to route vessels around the Cape of Good Hope. This adjustment is extending transit times by approximately 10‒14 days on Asia‒Europe and Asia‒USEC lanes.

While networks have begun to stabilise around these longer routings, the additional sailing time continues to absorb vessel capacity and extend equipment cycles. As a result, schedule reliability remains variable, particularly for time-sensitive cargo. There are limited indications of a near-term return to Suez-based routings, suggesting that extended transit times may persist into the coming months. Shippers may need to continue planning around longer lead times and reduced schedule flexibility.

Trans-Pacific routeing shows early signs of rebalancing

Extended transit times on all-water services to the USEC are influencing routeing decisions on Asia‒North America lanes. Some importers are shifting portions of volume toward U.S. West Coast (USWC) gateways, where Trans-Pacific eastbound (TPEB) services remain comparatively stable. While this shift remains moderate, it may help to alleviate pressure on USEC-bound capacity in the near term.

Increased volumes into USWC ports could introduce secondary constraints across drayage, terminals and inland rail networks if sustained. This suggests shippers may need to balance reliable transit times with the risk of inland capacity constraints when making routeing decisions.

Equipment imbalances emerge across regions

Extended transit times and disrupted routeing patterns are affecting global container positioning. Containers moving through longer Cape of Good Hope routings are taking more time to return to origin markets, while some equipment remains tied up in disrupted Middle East lanes. This is contributing to localised shortages of empty containers in regions such as South Asia and parts of Africa.

Even in North America and Europe, longer voyage durations and skipped port calls are slowing container turn times. These conditions may lead to increased variability in equipment availability, particularly in export-heavy regions.

Carrier rate increases face mixed acceptance in Latin America

Across Latin American export markets, including Brazil and the west coast of South America, carriers are introducing GRIs and surcharges following earlier rate declines. However, acceptance remains uneven, as available capacity continues to exceed demand in several lanes. While localised constraints—such as port congestion and tighter refrigerated capacity—are emerging, overall conditions remain more balanced than disruption-driven tightening seen on major East—West lanes.

Seasonal compliance pressures ease in Oceania

As the brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) season concludes at the end of April, operational requirements across Oceania trade lanes are beginning to normalise. The easing of treatment constraints is expected to improve booking consistency and reduce friction in export execution. While regionally specific, this shift may provide modest relief in a global market otherwise shaped by disruption and variability.

Key takeaways

• Plan for longer and less predictable transit times: Cape of Good Hope routings are extending voyages and affecting schedule reliability.
• Expect variability in space availability: Capacity is present but may be uneven across sailings and booking windows.
• Monitor routeing shifts and inland impacts: Volume changes between USEC and USWC may influence downstream capacity.
• Account for increased cost variability: Fuel-related surcharges are becoming a larger share of total transportation costs.
• Track equipment availability closely: Longer transit cycles are contributing to localised container shortages.

Table of Contents