MSC edges Gemini on east-west reliability with 68.9% score

By Tom Whitfield

MSC posted 68.9% schedule reliability across the east-west container trades in August and September, narrowly ahead of the Gemini Cooperation’s 68.4%, according to Sea-Intelligence.

Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd lost 9.4 percentage points month on month, while MSC slipped 1.2 points. That reversal puts MSC first on the network measure, but still short of Gemini’s stated ambition of about 90% reliability.

What does this change for shippers, carriers and forwarders?

The immediate commercial question is whether the booked service arrives when the inventory plan expects it. A 9.4-point monthly fall at Gemini raises the risk of missed connections and larger planning buffers; MSC’s 1.2-point decline leaves it ahead, not dependable by itself.

Carriers have chosen more blanked sailings to bolster freight rates, but their schedules still need to match arrivals. For forwarders, lane-level data matter more than a group label, because a reliable service can still leave a weak return voyage.

These percentages describe the east-west trades. They do not establish a carrier’s performance across all routes, so shippers should match lane data to the sailing they actually book.

Strong lanes, weak backhauls

Gemini remains much stronger on specific services. On Asia-North Europe, it achieved 92.9% against MSC’s 78.2%; on Asia-Mediterranean, Gemini recorded 83.2% compared with MSC’s 77.1%.

The transatlantic was Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd’s particular strength. They reached 98.7% on North America East Coast-Mediterranean and 97% on North America East Coast-North Europe. On westbound transatlantic services, Gemini posted 100% on Mediterranean-North America East Coast and 91.1% on North Europe-North America East Coast.

Industry consultant Lara Jensen said Gemini’s overall “low performance” was “particularly driven by the backhaul trades from North America and Europe to Asia.” He added: “And is hence likely a consequence of the typhoon-induced issues in Far East ports.”

His explanation is conditional: likely, not proven.

The network is still missing schedules

Industry-wide schedule reliability on the east-west trades fell 3.5 percentage points month on month to 53.6% in August and September. Ocean Alliance recorded 44.8%, down 3.4 points, while Premier Alliance slipped 1.5 points to 41.5%.

Across the 13 largest carriers, reliability edged up only 0.9 points in September, to 50.6%. That followed three consecutive monthly declines that erased 14.8 points from May’s 64.5% peak. Average delay for late vessel arrivals improved by 0.3 days to 6.65 days, which remained the second-highest September figure on record.

The separate carrier ranking put Maersk first at 64.8%, followed by Hapag-Lloyd at 60.4%, MSC at 57.7% and CMA CGM at 51.8%. None of the 13 carriers improved against September 2025. Zim saw the smallest decline, at 8.7 percentage points; Pacific International Lines (PIL) had the largest, at 27.3 points.

Lane losses explain the headline

Reliability on Asia-North America west coast fell 7.1 points month on month to 53.5%, while Asia-North America east coast dropped 8.6 points to 53%.

East coast South America-Asia recorded the largest monthly decline among 34 monitored lanes, losing 11 points to 28.2%. Europe-Oceania moved the other way, improving 7.5 points to 74.2%.

For shippers, these lane percentages map more directly to disruption risk than an alliance label. A booking on one lane may perform well while its return voyage does not. That also explains why Gemini’s 100% westbound transatlantic result does not translate into 100% network reliability.

The gap between alliance targets and delivered schedules therefore persists. Gemini exceeds 90% on some services, and MSC leads the combined east-west measure, yet the latest figures still show 50.6% average reliability across the 13 largest carriers and 6.65 days of delay for late arrivals.

With carriers using more blanked sailings to support freight rates, the next test is whether reliability recovers and delay eases. Until then, shippers and forwarders should plan around the schedule, not the target.