I spent most of my career on mainline operations, planning cargo for vessels up to 18,000 TEU on intercontinental routes. When you’ve coordinated 6-crane operations with 3,000+ moves per call, you learn what works and what doesn’t.
Now I apply that experience to feeder operations. And here’s what I’ve noticed: the same planning principles that save hours on a mainliner save hours on a 2,500 TEU feeder. The scale is different. The fundamentals aren’t.
After tracking port performance across both worlds, one pattern is consistent: the difference between efficient and inefficient port calls isn’t the terminal. It’s the stowage plan.
Why Port Time Matters
Let’s talk numbers.
A 2,500 TEU feeder on a 7-port Mediterranean rotation spends roughly 35% of its voyage time in port. That’s not sailing. That’s waiting, loading, discharging, waiting again.
Every hour in port costs money. Berth fees, fuel for generators, crew wages, schedule pressure on the next port. For a typical feeder operation, I estimate $800 to $1,200 per hour in direct and indirect costs.
Cut 2 hours off each port call on a 7-port rotation, and you save 14 hours per voyage. That’s potentially an extra sailing per month. Or slower steaming to save fuel. Or schedule buffer for weather delays.
The point is: port time is controllable. More controllable than most operators realize.
The Real Causes of Delays
When a vessel runs late, the default explanation is “terminal issues” or “port congestion.” Sometimes that’s true. Often it’s not.
In my experience, the actual causes break down roughly like this:
| Cause | Frequency | Preventable? |
|---|---|---|
| Poor crane split planning | 30% | Yes |
| Restow moves | 25% | Yes |
| Hatch sequence problems | 15% | Yes |
| Actual terminal delays | 20% | No |
| Weather/other | 10% | No |
That means 70% of delays are planning-related. The terminal gets blamed, but the root cause was a stowage plan that didn’t consider operational reality.
Crane Split: The Hidden Bottleneck
Terminals allocate cranes to maximize their productivity metrics. That doesn’t always align with your vessel’s needs.
Here’s a common scenario. A 3-crane operation with 500 moves. Terminal assigns cranes to bays 02-26, 30-54, and 58-82. Looks balanced on paper.
But your stowage plan has 280 moves concentrated in bays 30-54, and only 110 each in the other zones. One crane works 2.5 times longer than the others. Your “3-crane operation” is actually limited by a single crane.
The fix happens in planning, not at the berth.
When I build a stowage plan, I model crane splits before finalizing container positions. The goal is maximum 15% variance between crane workloads. Sometimes that means deliberately spreading cargo across more bays, even if it’s slightly less optimal for weight distribution.
The trade-off is worth it. A balanced crane split can save 1-2 hours per call on a mid-size feeder.
Restows: The Moves That Shouldn’t Exist
Every restow is a failure of planning.
A restow happens when you need to discharge a container, but another container is stacked on top of it. That top container gets lifted, moved aside, the target container comes out, then the top container goes back. Three moves instead of one.
On a well-planned feeder, restows should be under 3% of total moves. I’ve seen poorly planned vessels hit 15%. On a 400-move port call, that’s the difference between 12 restows and 60 restows.
At $150-250 per move, 48 extra restows cost $7,200 to $12,000. Plus the time. At 3-4 minutes per crane cycle, 48 restows add roughly 2.5 to 3 hours to your port stay.
Every single one was preventable.
The solution isn’t complicated. It’s discipline. Plan the full rotation, not just the next port. Know exactly which containers need to come out where, and never bury them.
Hatch Cover Sequences: The Forgotten Factor
Hatch covers are crane stoppers.
When a crane needs to move from holds to deck (or vice versa), the hatch covers have to be repositioned. That’s 10-15 minutes per hatch panel, during which that crane is idle.
Poor planning creates unnecessary hatch moves. The crane works deck tier 82, then drops to hold tier 02, then back to deck tier 86, then hold again. Every transition is dead time.
Good planning sequences operations to minimize hatch moves. Complete all hold work in a bay zone before moving to deck. Or complete all deck work first, then holds. Either approach works, but mixing them back and forth kills productivity.
I’ve seen hatch sequence optimization alone save 30-45 minutes per call. It costs nothing. It just requires thinking about it during planning.
Terminal Communication: What Actually Helps
Yes, communication with terminals matters. But not in the vague “better coordination” sense that consultants talk about.
What actually helps:
Send the BAPLIE early. Not 6 hours before arrival. Not 12 hours. Send it 24-48 hours ahead with a clear note on priorities. Terminals plan crane allocation based on your file. Late files mean rushed planning on their side.
Flag your constraints. If you have a tight draft limit for the next port, tell them. If you need specific containers accessible after discharge, tell them. Terminals can’t optimize around constraints they don’t know about.
Confirm the crane plan. Before berthing, verify how many cranes you’re getting and which bays they’re working. If the allocation doesn’t match your plan, you have time to adjust before lines go ashore.
None of this is revolutionary. It’s just discipline and advance planning. Most vessels don’t do it consistently.
Technology: What Works, What Doesn’t
There’s a lot of noise about AI and automation in port operations. Most of it is marketing.
What actually works today:
Standardized planning software. MACS3, FastLoad, iStow. These tools let you model crane splits and identify restow risks before finalizing the plan. Use them properly and they prevent problems.
EDI data exchange. BAPLIE, COPARN, CODECO. Standard formats that let systems talk to each other. Nothing fancy, but essential for reliable communication.
What doesn’t work yet:
AI-based optimization. The algorithms are improving, but they still produce plans that are mathematically optimal and operationally problematic. They don’t know that Terminal X has a crane out of service, or that the port captain insists on starboard-side-to at Berth 7.
Real-time dynamic replanning. Nice concept, but terminals need stable plans. Changing the stowage plan after cargo operations start creates more problems than it solves.
Technology supports good planning. It doesn’t replace the planner.
The Compound Effect
Small improvements add up.
| Improvement | Time Saved per Call |
|---|---|
| Balanced crane split | 1-2 hours |
| Reduced restows (15% → 3%) | 2-3 hours |
| Optimized hatch sequences | 0.5-0.75 hours |
| Early BAPLIE + clear communication | 0.5-1 hour |
Total potential: 4-7 hours per port call.
On a 7-port rotation, that’s 28-49 hours per voyage. Over a year, one vessel could gain the equivalent of 15-20 extra sailing days.
Those are real numbers from real operations. Not theoretical. Not best-case scenarios. Achievable with disciplined planning.
The Ship Manager’s Problem
If you’re operating feeders, you probably don’t have dedicated shore planners. The Chief Officer does the cargo plan between navigation watches, maintenance rounds, and port paperwork.
That’s not a criticism. It’s the reality of feeder operations. But it means planning gets less attention than it deserves.
The vessel plans for the next port. Maybe two ports ahead. But optimizing crane splits? Modeling restow scenarios? Coordinating hatch sequences across a full rotation? There’s no time for that level of detail.
This is where shore-based planning support pays for itself. Not because shore planners are smarter. Because they have time to plan properly. And because port efficiency improvements are measurable.
One prevented 3-hour delay covers a month of planning service costs.
Conclusion
Port turnaround isn’t about terminal efficiency. It’s about planning efficiency.
The vessels that consistently hit their schedules aren’t lucky. They’re not getting special treatment from terminals. They’re arriving with stowage plans that work, crane splits that balance, and cargo sequences that minimize wasted moves.
Every hour saved in port is an hour gained at sea. That’s fuel saved, schedules met, and customers served.
After years on mainliners and now supporting feeder operations, I’ve learned that port performance is a choice. You can accept delays as inevitable, or you can plan them away.
The good operators plan them away.
The good operators don’t accept delays. They plan them away.