Fleet Comparison in Numbers: 2M vs Ocean Three vs The Rest of the Global Fleet

Maersk Line intends to form the 2M alliance with Mediterranean Shipping Co.

Shipping alliances this month have been making headlines on an almost daily basis.

Following the collapse of P3, Maersk Line and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) announced their intention to form a new alliance without CMA CGM, known as 2M.

CMA CGM, meanwhile, says it will instead team up with China Shipping Container Lines Co. and United Arab Shipping Co. (UASC) to form the Ocean Three container shipping alliance.

From a bunker perspective, the anticipated cost savings from the alliances are significant, with CMA CGM Vice Chairman Rodolphe Saade earlier this month saying Ocean Three would help reduce operational costs by $1 billion or more annually.

Some are less enthusiastic about the ramifications of such deals, with European Shippers' Council (ESC) Chairman Denis Choumert saying they could be harmful, rather than helpful.

To help understand how significant these alliances are in terms of the global container fleet, online fleet intelligence and information service VesselsValue.com has kindly provided Ship & Bunker with the data to show how 2M and Ocean Three stack up not only against each other, but against the global fleet as a whole.

Vessels, Capacity, Value

2M would have 401 live vessels with a total capacity of 2,381,288 TEU. It has another 20 vessels on order that will add 294,188 TEU of capacity - that's an average capacity of 14,709 TEU per newbuild.

VesselsValue.com assesses the total value of 2M's fleet, both live and on order combined, to be $15.1 billion.

Ocean Three may have one more player but it would have less than half the owned vessels. Its 187 live ships have a combined capacity of 1,231,764 TEU, but it also has 30 vessels on order with a capacity of 447,900 TEU, making their average capacity slightly more than 2M at 14,930 TEU per newbuild.

VesselsValue.com assesses the total value of Ocean Three's fleet, both live and on order combined, to be $11.0 billion.

That means that although 2M would have more vessels than Ocean Three, Ocean Three's vessels are on average worth more ($50.7 million vs $35.9 million for 2M) and have a larger capacity per vessel (7,740 TEU vs 6,355 TEU for 2M).

Compared to the global fleet, the two alliances represent 17 percent of the world's box ships by value - 10 percent for 2M, 7 percent for Ocean Three.

In terms of capacity, 2M and Ocean Three's owned fleets would have a combined capacity of 4,355,140 TEU, a little over 20 percent of the current global total capacity of 21.6 million TEU.

* Note that the data including fleet figures used in this article are for owned vessels and does not include the capacity and / or value of vessels chartered in.