A single vessel waited more than 245 hours — roughly 10 days — to berth at an Antwerp terminal in July, even as headline port waiting times for Belgium averaged just 23.4 hours. New analysis from maritime data provider Kpler reveals how aggregated port statistics can conceal severe, terminal-specific congestion that reshapes carrier negotiation leverage.

Kpler examined 2,731 terminal calls involving 647 vessels above 5,000 TEU across competing ports in the Netherlands and Belgium over a trailing 12-month window from January through September this year.

What do port averages actually show?

Across the full sample, average waiting times appeared nearly identical: 22.5 hours at the Dutch port versus 23.4 hours in Belgium. Both figures suggest broadly similar operational performance — a benchmark carriers and shippers have historically relied on to compare facilities and challenge demurrage claims.

The monthly picture diverged sharply. In July, Belgian waiting times spiked to 42.6 hours, nearly double June's 26.6 hours, while the Dutch port held steady at 22.2 hours.

Where is the congestion actually concentrated?

Kpler attributed the Belgian divergence to just two Antwerp terminals. DP World's Antwerp Gateway and MSC PSA's Delwaidedok averaged approximately 78 to 79 hours of waiting during July. By contrast, Zeebrugge posted a 20.7-hour average over the same period — lower than either the Dutch port or the Antwerp pair.

The terminal-level split matters for shippers rerouting cargo, forwarders pricing contingency, and carriers contesting rotation changes. A blanket "Belgium is congested" or "Belgium is fine" narrative misses the operational reality at each berth.

Which carriers are most exposed?

Carrier performance within the Belgian call set varied sharply. MSC averaged 38 hours across 67 calls, while CMA CGM recorded roughly 63 hours across 20. The gap reflects differences in vessel size, service loops and terminal allocation, but it also creates a documented record that carriers can use — or contest — in slot-booking discussions.

Kpler's analysts argued that independent call-level data can reframe negotiations between carriers and terminals by replacing competing internal records with a common benchmark. Rather than debating whether an entire port underperforms, parties can focus on specific terminals, months and vessel calls.

What changes for commercial negotiations?

The data points to a sharper basis for service-level agreement (SLA) discussions, rotation reviews and investment decisions. Terminal operators facing measurable delays can be held to granular evidence, while carriers questioning a terminal's performance can anchor arguments in third-party statistics rather than self-reported turnaround logs.

The 245-hour outlier illustrates the tail risk embedded in schedule planning. A single delayed call cascades across subsequent port rotations, affecting transit reliability commitments to beneficial cargo owners.

What comes next?

Kpler's terminal-level lens is likely to spread into other North European ranges where port-averaged statistics have dominated commercial dialogue. As carriers, shippers and forwarders adopt the methodology, terminal operators in Antwerp and similar hubs will face pressure to publish call-level performance — or risk having the narrative defined for them.