A study reveals Maersk and CMA CGM's surcharges exceed actual fuel costs by $475 per TEU, prompting debate on transparency in shipping charges.
A new case study shows that Maersk and CMA CGM charged shippers bunker and emergency fuel surcharges of up to $710 per TEU on the Far East Asia-West Coast North America route in April and May, while independent benchmarks put actual fuel costs at just $235 per TEU, reported Amsterdam's Breakbulk News.
The gap reached $475 per TEU in May for one carrier. The findings come as the US Federal Maritime Commission debates whether a 30-day advance notice period for new charges gives shippers enough time to prepare or simply enough time to pay.
The Agriculture Transportation Coalition has argued that carriers are not notifying shippers quickly enough. Carrier industry bodies say the proposed rule would add an administrative burden without improving transparency. VesselBot, which published the study, stated that timely notice does not guarantee that charges reflect actual fuel consumption.
VesselBot chief executive Constantine Komodromos emphasized that linking bunker adjustment factors to fuel prices does not necessarily protect shippers. He stated that the industry needs a standardized and independent way of validating surcharges based on operational cost drivers, which could reduce disputes and increase trust.
VesselBot compared published charges against its Fuel Surcharge Reference Cost, which incorporates bunker prices at more than 500 ports and vessel operational profiles. In April, bunker prices surged 63.1 percent from January, but the benchmark cost was $295 per TEU. In May, the benchmark fell to $235 per TEU despite elevated bunker prices.
Against that benchmark, Maersk's combined charges of $605 per TEU represented premiums of $310 in April and $370 in May. CMA CGM's $710 per TEU charge represented premiums of $415 and $475 respectively. Shippers without benchmarks would have overpaid by $310,000 to $475,000 monthly on 1,000 TEU.
The study modeled two scenarios. In one, a contract pegged to bunker prices produced overpayments of $366,000 in April and $374,000 in May. In the other, accepting prevailing carrier charges produced even larger gaps. The FMC debate continues as shippers face pressure to build more defensible surcharge clauses.
