I received a load list for the final port of a Mediterranean rotation. 47 reefer containers. All requiring power.
The vessel had 12 plugs on deck. Zero in the holds.
No amount of planning expertise could fix this. The problem wasn’t the plan. The problem was the cargo mix that someone accepted 3 days earlier without checking vessel capabilities.
That rotation cost an extra $18,000 in restows. Entirely avoidable.
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Here’s what most people don’t understand about stowage planning:
The plan is the output. The load list is the input.
If the input is wrong, the output is compromised. No software, no expertise, no experience can overcome a load list that was broken from the start.
A planner works with what they receive. If the cargo mix doesn’t fit the vessel’s capabilities, the planner can only minimize damage. They can’t eliminate it.
The real optimization happens upstream. Before bookings are confirmed. Before the load list is finalized. Before the vessel arrives.
When 47 Reefers Meet 12 Plugs
Let me walk you through what happened with those 47 reefers.
The situation:
Final port of rotation. 47 RF containers booked. Vessel has 12 plugs on deck, zero in holds. RF containers must have power. No power means cargo loss, claims, and angry customers.
The math:
12 plugs available. 47 RF needed. 35 RF without power positions.
The options:
Option A: Cut 35 containers. Commercial says no. These are high-value bookings.
Option B: Load RF in holds without power. Impossible. Reefer cargo will spoil.
Option C: Load all RF on deck, but only 12 can be plugged at final port. Remaining 35 stay plugged during voyage, then discharge at final port for immediate delivery. This requires RF to be on TOP of all other cargo.
The consequence:
To put RF on top for the final port, we had to restructure the entire rotation. Cargo for earlier ports went into the holds. RF went on deck above everything else. This created 23 restows across 3 ports.
The cost:
23 restows at approximately $250 each in European terminals. Plus 4 hours additional port time. Plus crane overtime.
Total: approximately $18,000.
The root cause:
Someone accepted 47 RF bookings without checking that the vessel only had 12 plugs on deck. The load list was approved. The damage was done before I ever saw it.
When BBK Has No Bed
Break bulk cargo is another example of upstream failure.
The scenario:
Load list shows 15 BBK units (steel coils, heavy machinery) for discharge at port 4. Standard practice: BBK sits on a “bed” of containers, usually 20’ or 40’ going to the same port or earlier.
The problem:
Looking at the load list, there’s almost no standard cargo for ports 1-4. The BBK has nothing to sit on.
The options:
Option A: Put BBK on top of containers discharging at later ports. This means restowing the BBK at port 4 before discharging the containers underneath.
But BBK is dangerous to restow. Terminals often refuse. The lifting gear damages cargo. Claims follow.
Option B: Put BBK in the holds on flat racks.
This works for safety. But each flat rack with BBK consumes 4-6 standard container slots. 15 BBK units means losing 60-90 TEU capacity.
The consequence:
We chose Option B. Lost approximately 70 slots. At $300 average freight per slot, that’s $21,000 in lost revenue. For one rotation.
The root cause:
The booking team accepted BBK without ensuring compatible cargo existed for the bed. The commercial decision created an operational impossibility.
The Chain Nobody Sees
Stowage planning doesn’t start when the planner opens the software. It starts days earlier, when bookings are accepted.
The chain:
At every step, decisions are made. Most of these decisions focus on revenue. “Can we fit this cargo? Yes. Book it.”
Nobody asks: “What does this cargo do to the overall stowage?”
By the time the planner sees the load list, the damage is already done. The RF are booked. The BBK is confirmed. The cargo mix is fixed.
The planner becomes a damage controller, not an optimizer.
What a Consistent Load List Looks Like
A good load list isn’t just accurate weights and dimensions. It’s a cargo mix that makes operational sense.
RF containers:
Balanced across the rotation, not concentrated at one port. Quantities aligned with vessel plug capacity per port.
BBK and OOG:
Matched with compatible cargo for bedding. Positioned at ports where terminal can handle them safely.
Heavy cargo:
Distributed to support trim optimization. Not randomly scattered based on booking arrival time.
20’ vs 40’ ratio:
Aligned with vessel bay configuration. Not 80% 40’ when the vessel has limited 40’ cell guides.
Discharge sequence:
Cargo for early ports accessible without moving cargo for later ports.
This requires communication. The planner needs to talk to the agency before the load list is finalized. Not after.
The Communication Gap
On mainliners, there’s constant communication between planning and commercial teams.
“We have 30 RF booked for Hamburg. Can the vessel handle it?”
“The BBK for Antwerp needs a bed. What 20’ cargo do we have for Rotterdam or earlier?”
“We’re heavy on 40’ for this rotation. Can we push some bookings to next week?”
These conversations happen daily. The load list is shaped before it’s finalized.
On feeders, this communication often doesn’t exist.
The agent books cargo. The load list goes to the vessel. The Chief Officer makes the best plan possible with what they receive.
Nobody asks questions. Nobody challenges bookings. Nobody coordinates.
The result: $15,000-30,000 in avoidable costs per rotation.
What Good Coordination Looks Like
When I work with a vessel, I don’t wait for the final load list.
48-72 hours before port:
I review preliminary bookings. I check RF quantities against plug positions. I verify BBK has appropriate bed cargo. I flag problems before they’re confirmed.
24-48 hours before port:
I communicate with the agency. “This RF quantity won’t work. Can we split across two sailings?” Or: “We need more 20’ cargo for ports 1-3 to support the BBK.”
Final load list:
By the time I build the plan, the cargo mix already makes sense. I’m optimizing, not damage controlling.
The difference:
| Without Coordination | With Coordination |
|---|---|
| React to load list | Shape load list |
| Damage control | True optimization |
| Restows: 20-35 per rotation | Restows: 8-15 per rotation |
| Chief Officer stressed | Chief Officer focused on safety |
The Real Value of Shore Planning
Most people think shore planning is about building stowage plans.
It’s not. Or at least, it’s not only that.
Shore planning is about coordinating the entire chain.
A planner who only receives the final load list and builds a plan is doing half the job. The other half is upstream: ensuring the load list is buildable before it’s finalized.
This requires:
- Access to preliminary booking data
- Direct communication with agency/commercial team
- Authority to challenge bookings that create operational problems
- Time to review and coordinate (not 3 hours before arrival)
Your Chief Officer doesn’t have this access. They don’t have this time. They receive the load list and execute.
The planning starts before the load list is finalized. That’s where the real savings happen.
The Question for Operators
When problems happen, where do you look?
Most operators blame execution. “The terminal messed up.” “The Chief Officer made a bad plan.” “The weather caused delays.”
Sometimes that’s true.
But often, the real cause is upstream. A booking that should never have been accepted. A cargo mix that was doomed from the start. A load list that no planner could optimize.
Ask yourself:
- Who reviews bookings for operational feasibility before confirmation?
- Who checks RF quantities against vessel plug capacity?
- Who ensures BBK has appropriate bed cargo?
- Who communicates with the agency about cargo mix?
If the answer is “nobody,” you’re paying for it. Every rotation.
Optimization doesn’t start with the plan. It starts with the cargo mix.