Maersk has taken the first “structural” step toward resuming services via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. The company is shifting its MECL service (Middle East & India → US East Coast) back to a trans-Suez routing after months of diverting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope. The market has read this as a potential starting point for a broader industry pivot — and, at the same time, as a signal that 2026 could bring renewed pressure on freight rates and carrier margins.
What exactly is Maersk changing?
- MECL, a service operated directly by Maersk, is returning to trans-Suez routing (via the Suez Canal).
- Splash reports indicative timings for the first “regular” return: Cornelia Maersk is expected to begin a westbound Suez transit in late January, while Maersk Detroit is expected to start an eastbound Suez transit in early February.
- Maersk stresses that crew and cargo safety remains the priority, and that contingency plans are in place to revert to the Cape route if conditions deteriorate.
Context: This step has become possible amid a reduction in attack intensity and growing confidence in route stability (including after the Gaza ceasefire reported by Reuters/FT). However, Maersk itself emphasises a phased approach and ongoing risk assessment.
Why this matters for carrier profitability
1) Suez “releases” capacity — and that puts pressure on rates
Routing around Africa lengthens transit times and effectively “absorbs” capacity: carriers need more ships to maintain the same sailing frequency. Returning to the shorter Suez route does the opposite — it effectively releases capacity back into the market.
According to Xeneta, a large-scale return to the Suez Canal could free up roughly 6–8% of global container fleet capacity, creating oversupply and applying downward pressure on freight rates.
That is why analysts caution that, even if a short-term “premium” emerges due to schedule-reset disruption, the medium-term risk is a deterioration in the supply–demand balance.
2) The transition period means schedule disruption and port congestion
Even proponents of a return to Suez note this is not a simple switch. Xeneta expects a full network re-optimisation by major carriers could take 3–5 months, with a meaningful risk of schedule instability and port congestion during the transition.
For carriers, this typically means:
- higher operating costs to reconfigure networks and buffers,
- increased exposure to penalties/compensation under service commitments,
- reduced schedule reliability during the adjustment phase.
3) “Faster” for customers isn’t always faster in practice
One notable detail from Splash: based on Linerlytica, Maersk’s initial test transits via Suez did not deliver a time advantage versus the Cape route for customers (due to buffers being consumed, schedule design, and service conditions). In other words, the economic upside may come less from “faster delivery” and more from network and asset optimisation.
Freight rates are already easing
The news comes as rate indices soften. Splash cites that the Drewry World Container Index fell by around 4% to $2,445 per FEU, partly driven by declines on Transpacific and Asia–Europe lanes.
This reinforces the core concern for carriers: if capacity returns faster than demand recovers, rates are likely to drift lower — and profitability will compress.
Stay updated with Evicor news.
For inquiries, email us at contact@evicor.ch
See also: Logistics Trends 2026: How Global Turbulence Is Reshaping Supply Chains