Fremantle Ports Container Importer Survey Full · PDF fileFremantle Ports Container Importer...
29
Fremantle Ports Container Importer Survey 2012 Full Report Jennifer Hall Transport Analyst Sophie Gillespie Marine Graduate
Transcript of Fremantle Ports Container Importer Survey Full · PDF fileFremantle Ports Container Importer...
Fremantle Ports
Container Importer Survey
2012
Full Report
Jennifer Hall
Transport Analyst
Sophie Gillespie
Marine Graduate
2
3
Executive Summary
The Container Importer Survey project has been valuable in understanding the import industry
structure, operational arrangements of importers, issues experienced, and communication and
information gaps that currently exist. The findings of the survey will be used to develop suitable
action plans addressing key issues and an ongoing communications strategy for engaging with
importers and their associated agents into the future.
The need for work of this type is underlined not only by the now dominant role that container
imports play in the supply chain but also by the changing nature of port operations as trade grows.
Fremantle Inner Harbour is forecast to double in container throughput over the next decade and it
will not be possible in the face of this growth to maintain the traditional reliance on weekday
daylight operations. Ultimately the port will move towards 24x7 operations and this will require
adjustments to the other parts of the supply chain. The challenge will be to ensure that this
adjustment process is as orderly as possible to ensure the best possible outcomes for the industry as
a whole.
The survey achieved approximately 40-50% volume coverage against the total loaded import
container volumes of the 2011/12 financial year and received responses from 105 participants.
Some interesting findings relating to the structure of the import industry were identified. All
surveyed importers use a freight forwarder or customs broker for some or all components of the
container import process, and a number of importers demonstrated some detachment from many
aspects of importing. Freight forwarders and brokers are a key link to accessing and communicating
with importers, and a number of these parties noted that they were investing time and resources in
educating their import clients about what is happening in the container supply chain and working
with their clients to make changes such as extending opening hours or developing arrangements
with transport carriers to access premises outside standard hours. Feedback from industry suggests
that these types of initiatives contributed to the successful peak season during the Christmas 2012
period.
The import industry is predominantly made up of a large quantity of small importers, managing an
average annual container task of less than 1,000 TEUs, with agents managing a portfolio of clients,
with an average annual import task of around 5,000 TEUs.
Two thirds of the respondents’ import containers are delivered to and unpacked at importers’
premises, as opposed to a distribution centre. In many cases, containers are staged at transport
company depots prior to final delivery to the unpack point. For half of these containers, a “side-
lifter” truck is the only method of handling the container at the importer site, signifying the
continuing importance of side-lifters for the final delivery of containers in the import cycle.
The most common operating hours for importers were 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday, with only a
small number opening on weekends. Larger importers had, on average, longer operating hours at
the premises. Despite the predominance of Monday to Friday daylight operating hours amongst the
respondent group, two thirds of importers are able to receive deliveries outside these standard
hours.
4
A key area of the survey focused on peak season arrangements, following on from a very difficult
peak season during 2011. The majority of respondents experienced a range of issues during that
peak season, with delays and congestion in the port precinct, availability of container terminal slots,
and difficulties dehiring containers being the major ones. Over half of the respondents arrange
imports in advance of peak season to overcome these issues; however the ability and cost to store
excess stock prevents many from doing so.
For around two thirds of respondents, unpacking and dehiring containers within the free time
allowed by shipping lines poses significant issues. The primary concern of importers in contrast to
freight forwarders is interesting. Importers are concerned with operations at container terminals,
such as delays getting their containers off the wharf and slot availability, while freight forwarders
have a slightly wider view of the supply chain, identifying major issues relating to coordination of the
supply chain, such as the mismatch in operating hours between container terminals, empty
container parks, and importers.
Another key area of the survey focused on the use of off-port facilities, such as empty container
parks and transport hubs, and the use of the rail shuttle service to Forrestfield. Only a very small
portion (6%) of the respondents currently utilise rail, with freight forwarders more likely to have had
previous experience with the service. Key barriers identified for using rail were related to location of
the service, additional costs, and the flexibility of road transport. The respondent group identified a
number of key benefits for using other types of off-port facilities, such as decreasing the congestion
in the Port precinct and less travel time for transport operators, with the majority of respondents
indicating they would consider using or recommending these facilities in the future. However,
around a quarter of respondents were concerned that it would be difficult to implement such a large
operational change into the industry such as moving some port operations to inland locations.
The survey highlighted that communication with the importer group and education of key supply
chain functions is lacking, and bridging this communication gap will present an invaluable
opportunity to get importers more involved in improving the efficiency of the container supply
chain.
A key action arising from the survey is to engage importers to actively participate in the container
supply chain and implement changes in relation to their operations to improve overall industry
efficiency. For agents, it will be critical that they participate in educating and communicating with
their import clients to pass on information about what is happening in the chain and how that will
affect their operations. The key focus areas are:
To engage importers in ongoing peak season planning;
Developing and communicating the benefits of off-port facilities into the future;
Encouraging importers to extend operating hours for container receivals, and making suitable arrangements for after hour deliveries with their transport operators;
Promoting the use of rail for importers in suitable locations; and
Ongoing relationship management including regular consultation and communication by Fremantle Ports' Trade & Business Branch with importers and freight forwarders.
5
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3
1. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Survey Methodology/Process ......................................................................................................... 6
3. Summary of Survey Results Survey Categories ............................................................................... 7
3.1 Survey Categories ............................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Participant Demographics .................................................................................................. 7
3.3 Key Findings ........................................................................................................................ 9
4. Communications Strategy ............................................................................................................. 16
5. Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Further Information .......................................................................................................................... 17
APPENDIX A: Detailed Survey Results ............................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX B: Unpack Locations Summary ........................................................................................ 27
APPENDIX C: Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................ 29
6
1. Background
A survey of importers of containerised cargo using Fremantle Inner Harbour has been undertaken by
Fremantle Ports. The aim of this report is to convey the key results from the survey and suggest
some of the actions that may flow from it.
The Western Australian container supply chain faces a number of challenges over the coming years
and the potential for increasing congestion associated with trade growth is a major one, particularly
during the busy peak season. These challenges can only be tackled effectively by industry working
cooperatively to identify issues and solutions.
The last survey undertaken with the importer group was in 2001, focusing on shipping schedules and
services, transhipments, collection of containers from the Inner Harbour, and information and
communications regarding shipments. The respondents of this survey were predominantly freight
forwarders, and whilst results were very valuable, the recent survey sought to obtain information
and feedback from actual container importers themselves. Since the time of the previous survey
there have been significant changes in the Fremantle Inner Harbour container supply chain, and with
significant growth in trade it is important to understand how the importer industry has changed and
what issues are currently being faced in their businesses.
The aim of the importer survey was to obtain feedback on a range of topics and issues associated
with the container import industry, which will assist in ensuring that services and facilities are
optimised to meet industry needs now and into the future. The survey focused on the following key
areas:
Trends in operations;
Issues faced in the container supply chain;
Peak season planning considerations;
Container land transport;
Container shipping services calling at Fremantle; and
The viability of off-port empty container parks (ECPs) and intermodal hubs.
Loaded imports (approximately 329,000 TEU - twenty foot equivalent units) represented 50% of the
total container volume moving through the Inner Harbour during the 2011/12 financial year. Despite
this, of all the stakeholders in the container supply chain, Fremantle Ports has had limited direct
contact with the importers. It is only through the involvement of all key stakeholders in the logistics
chain that efficiencies can be realised as volumes increase through the port, and communicating the
role that importers and their agents can play in achieving this is integral to success.
2. Survey Methodology/Process
The survey was undertaken in two parts, including an online survey and face-to-face interviews.
Interviews were undertaken with some respondents that had completed the online survey to gain
additional and more in-depth information, and also large importers who had not completed the
online component to ensure representation and feedback from these stakeholders was obtained.
The online survey was completed over several weeks between the 20th of September and the 19th of
October, 2012, with interviews being conducted from mid September to December 2012.
7
The online survey was comprised of approximately 40 questions which were primarily yes/no or
multiple choice, with a small number of open ended questions. The online survey data was collected
and analysed by a market research company, and Fremantle Ports later incorporated interview
responses into this database.
3. Summary of Survey Results Survey Categories
3.1 Survey Categories
The survey addressed the following key areas:
Background Information
Use of agents, shipment and container types, volumes, management of import process
Importer Premises
Container unpacking arrangements, operating hours of importers, location of container unpack, issues dehiring containers
Peak Season Arrangements
Issues experienced during peak season, arranging imports in advance, closure over Christmas period
Shipping Services
International origin of imports, satisfaction with services, interstate imports
Land Transport
Land transport arrangements, satisfaction with transport operator, staging, time to receive containers, use of rail
Off-Port Facilities
Perceived benefits, obstacles and future use of off-port ECPs and intermodal hubs
Communication & General Feedback
Key areas of concern in relation to the container supply chain, and areas of interest to receive additional information
3.2 Participant Demographics
A total of 105 importers and freight forwarders participated in the survey, of which 94 completed
only the online survey and 11 undertook only face to face interviews. There were 8 additional
respondents that completed both the online survey and interview. Of the total participants, 77%
were importers and 23% were freight forwarders or customs brokers (“Agents”). The total import
volume of the respondents was 195,150 TEUs, which represents potential coverage of 40-50% of
total imports1 from the 2011/12 financial year.
The majority of importers who responded to the survey were relatively small in size with an average
annual import task of less than 1,000 TEUs, compared to agents with an average annual import task
of 5,000 TEUs. Figure 1 displays the size distribution of the respondents, however note that only 103
of the respondents provided valid volume data:
1 Assuming a maximum of 50% of importers use a freight forwarder/customs broker that did not complete the
survey.
8
Figure 1: Size distribution of respondents (annual TEUs)
The volume of containers recorded by respondents for the 2011/12 financial year, during which the
survey was undertaken, is detailed in Table 1. There is an almost equal split between the volume of
20’ and 40’ containers, the majority of which were general purpose, with a small percentage of food
grade, reefer and other types of containers.
Prior Year Volumes FY 11 / 12
20’ Containers 40’ Containers Container Total TEU Total
Total 60,350 67,400 127,750 195,150
Average per Respondent
(n=103) 585 654 1,240 1,895
20’ Containers 40’ Containers Container Total TEU Total
Importer Total 24,035 25,979 50,014 75,993
Average per Importer (n=79)
304 328 633 962
20’ Containers 40’ Containers Container Total TEU Total
Agent Total 36,315 41,421 77,736 119,157
Average per Agent (n=24)
1,513 1,725 3,239 4,965
Table 1: TEU Volumes 11/12
NB: the above volumes are based on 103 respondents only due to a significant outlier, and missing data. The two
respondents removed were both importers.
It is interesting to note the difference between the projected volume growth for 2012/13 of
importers relative to agents. As depicted in Table 2, importers recorded a projected growth of
almost 9%, which is relatively conservative compared to agents who projected a growth of 18%.
Agent growth may in some part be attributable to expected new business.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Pe
rce
nta
ger
of
Re
spo
nd
en
ts
Annual TEU Volume
Total Importers Agents
9
Forecast Volumes FY 12 /13
20’ Containers 40’ Containers Container Total TEU Total TEU Growth
Total 69,132 76,997 146,129 223,126 +14.3%
Average per Respondent
(n=103) 671 748 1,419 2,166
20’ Containers 40’ Containers Container Total TEU Total TEU Growth
Importer Total 26,787 27,916 54,703 82,619 +8.7%
Average per Importer
(n=79) 339 353 692 1,046
20’ Containers 40’ Containers Container Total TEU Total TEU Growth
Agent Total 42,345 49,081 91,426 140,507 +17.9%
Average per Agent (n=24)
1,764 2,045 3,809 5,854
Table 2: Projected Volume - 12/13 NB: the above volumes are based on 103 respondents only
3.3 Key Findings
Industry Structure
Fremantle Ports has had limited direct contact with importers due to the difficulty in identifying who
the importers are and accessing them. Therefore, one of the aims of the survey was to obtain a
greater understanding of the structure of the import industry with a view to establish ongoing
relationships with these important stakeholders. One of the impediments to accessing importers
may be reflected in the survey results, with all importer respondents using an agent to manage some
or all of their import processes. Although two importers said that they did not use an agent, when
prompted as to what aspects of the imports they manage, both indicated that an agent manages
part of the process.
More than half of importers (58%) stated that their agents manages all aspects of the import
process, and 15% stated that although their agent manages all aspects, they have some involvement
with aspects such as documentation, arranging transport and booking shipments. In relation to land
transport, 41% of importers get involved with arranging or coordinating some aspect of their
container movements.
These results indicate that importers generally may not be aware of or have a detailed
understanding of the whole import process, as much of the work is outsourced to agents. From face-
to-face interviews, some agents stated that importers were generally only interested when issues
arise, however agents are continually trying to educate importers and make them aware of the
process and potential issues that may occur.
The survey asked respondents to list the suburbs to which import containers are delivered and
unpacked, and in the case of agents, the suburbs of their major import clients. In this case, agents
may have listed several suburbs.
The top ten unpack locations ranked by the percentage of respondents that have containers
delivered and unpacked to those locations, and the top ten unpack locations ranked by the
percentage of surveyed volume, is summarised in Table 3 as follows:
10
Suburb Percentage of Survey
Respondents
Suburb Percentage of Surveyed
TEU Volume*
Canning Vale 36% Canning Vale 23%
Kewdale 26% Bibra Lake 13%
Malaga 26% Forrestfield 11%
Osborne Park 25% Karara 11%
Bibra Lake 22% Osborne Park 8%
Wangara 21% Welshpool 7%
North Fremantle 17% North Fremantle 6%
O’Connor 17% Innaloo 5%
Belmont 14% Kewdale 5%
Forrestfield 13% Rockingham 3%
Table 3: Top 10 Unpack Locations by Percentage of Respondents and Survey Volume
* The percentage of surveyed TEU volume relates only to the volume delivered to and unpacked at an importer premises, rather than a
distribution centre.
Looking only at the volume of importers that have containers delivered to and unpacked at their
premises, half of the total volume was unpacked in the South East Metro area, which includes the
suburbs of Canning Vale, Bibra Lake, Kewdale, and Welshpool, while 15% of volume was delivered
and unpacked in the Northern Metro area, including the suburbs of Osborne Park, Innaloo, Malaga
and Wangara.
The majority (90%) of volume was unpacked in locations which were less than 50km from the Inner
Harbour, with more than 65% being located within 25km of the Port. This is consistent with views
that the majority of international import containers are unpacked within the Perth metropolitan
area, unlike export containers which have origins more spread out both in and around the Perth
metropolitan and into rural and regional locations.
The majority of respondents noted that some or all of their import containers originate from China
(66% of respondents) or countries in the Southeast Asia area (53% of respondents), with the top five
countries being China (66%), North America (26%), Thailand (26%), Singapore (24%), and Malaysia
(23%).
Operational Arrangements
All components in the supply chain play an important role in achieving overall chain efficiency. The
operational set-up of importer premises has been investigated in order to understand the scope that
may exist to improve efficiency in that part of the supply chain and identify any barriers that may
exist.
The survey indicated that 64% of importers and agents’ major import clients have containers
delivered and unpacked at the importer site, while 36% of respondents noted that containers are
delivered and unpacked at a distribution centre (for some large importers the distribution centre
11
may be owned or dedicated to their operations). In general, it was found that as the size of the
importer increases, it is more likely that containers are delivered and unpacked at a distribution
centre.
Figure 2: Location of Unpack Based on Respondent Annual Volume
The survey asked respondents to estimate the average opening hours for their premises, or the
premises of major import clients in the case of agents.
The most common opening hours Monday to Friday for importers was 07:00 to 17:00, with a small
number opening on weekends for either one or both days between the hours of 06:15 and 15:30.
Looking just at the importer respondents, there is a slight correlation between the size of the
importer and the length of operating hours. As can be seen in Figure 3, the larger the importer, the
longer the operating hours. The smallest volume group had an average operating duration of 8 hours
whilst the largest importers had an average operating duration of 14 hours.
Figure 3: Average Duration of Operating Hours (Mon-Fri) by Importer Size
An important aspect of the import supply chain is the flexibility of parties to deliver and receive
containers outside their standard operating hours. This allows transport operators to more
efficiently coordinate their receival and delivery activities with port operations which extend into the
nights and weekends. Two thirds of the respondents indicated that they or their import clients have
the ability to receive deliveries outside the stated operating hours. However, for the other third
which do not have that flexibility, the key barriers were identified as the availability of labour at the
importer premises, access to and security of the premises and the cost associated with managing
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
enta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Distribution Centre Importer Site
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Ave
rage
Op
era
tin
g H
ou
rs p
er
Day
(M
on
-Fri
)
Annual TEU Volume (Importers)
12
containers after hours. Generally, importers with larger annual volumes had a greater ability to
receive deliveries outside normal hours of operations.
The operating hours of importers has the potential to flow down the chain to the way in which
containers are collected from container terminals and handled by transport operators. Restricted
delivery windows at the importer premises may result in the requirement to stage containers at
transport depots, whereby the container is collected from the stevedore, held overnight at a
transport depot, and delivered to the import customer at a later stage, normally the following day.
This will often involve additional costs.
In relation to staging, 45% of importers and 83% of agents noted that import containers are staged
at a transport depot prior to delivery at the final unpacking point. Of the remaining importer
respondents, 33% said their containers are not staged, and 22% of importers do not know whether
or not containers are staged. One importer during the interview process mentioned that although
they understood the benefits of staging from the transport operators’ perspective, staging of their
containers often resulted in significant delays to the delivery of their containers. This was due to
containers being block stacked at the transport operator’s depot in a first in last out manner, which
meant earlier containers with impending detention were not accessed and delivered as a priority.
This set-up also resulted in the importer receiving larger quantities of containers at once, which
created difficulty with unpacking in a timely manner, also creating space and storage constraints.
Sub-contracted road transport is the major type of land transport used by importers, with 77% of
respondents using a road transport operator(s) to transport containers from the port. Only 6% of
respondents currently utilise rail and 3% have their own fleet of road transport vehicles. More than a
quarter of importers (28%), with an average annual import task of 100 TEUs, do not know which
transport arrangement is used, as an agent or third party arranges, further indicating a possible
detachment from the import process. Of the importer respondents whose containers are unpacked
at the importer’s premises, 50% require a side-lifter to handle containers, while 17% have their own
lifting equipment and 13% unpack containers directly from the truck (live unload). The remaining
importers use a combination of the three handling arrangements.
Peak Season Management
The majority of respondents are not subject to seasonal fluctuations with their import volume, with
70% of importers and 83% of agents importing steady/uniform volumes throughout the year. Of
those respondents that do experience fluctuations, two main (although small) peaks were noted,
including, as expected, the months leading up to Christmas, September to November, and the
months between March and May.
Fremantle, as with other ports, experiences significant increases in trade volume during the peak
season, between the months of October to February, placing pressure upon the entire supply chain.
This increased trade has a notable impact on three quarters of the total respondent group, with 74%
of importers and 88% of agents stating that they experience issues during the peak season. Major
issues included delays and congestion within the port precinct (83% of respondents experience this),
availability of container terminal slots (71%), difficulties in dehiring containers at ECPs (65%),
increased detention and storage charges (56%), and a delay in the receival of containers at the
importer premises (48%). Some importers noted during the interview process that they believed
issues occur when their transport operators are managing increased volumes of containers,
impacting on the ability of the operator to access and deliver containers to the importer premises in
a timely fashion. In previous years, this may have been as a result of transport operators block
13
stacking containers at their depots, which restricts access to some containers. The availability of
side-lifters during peak season was also noted as an issue.
However, the peak season over the 2012 Christmas period was noted by many in the industry as
being managed in a much more efficient manner than previous years, with minimal delays,
congestion situations, and issues. Improvements have been made at the container terminal
interchange with both stevedores working towards making efficiency improvements thereby
reducing truck servicing times. Together with the move towards importing containers in advance of
December, the busiest and most restricted period in terms of operating days, has resulted in
improvements seen throughout the supply chain.
Over half of the respondent group currently arrange imports in advance of the peak season, which
may assist in alleviating some pressure upon the supply chain during this time. The most commonly
cited reasons for not doing so include the ability and cost of storing excess stock, the availability of
products from manufacturers and the ability to forecast demand in advance. Shipping schedules and
the type of products imported (e.g. short shelf life of products) were also cited as barriers to
importing in advance.
During the Christmas peak period, 74% of importers close for public holidays only or do not close at
all and 26% have an extended shut down. Only 14% of agents noted that their major import clients
close for an extended period. As a general trend, as TEU volume increases the occurrence of
extended shut-down periods decreased.
Of the respondents that shut down, 59% have their containers collected and held at transport
depots until the importer premises are open, 18% arrange for staff to receive and unpack containers
during the shut down, and 14% have arrangements in place with the transport operator to deliver to
the unattended premises. However, 14% of respondents stated that containers are not collected
from the wharf, thereby incurring demurrage fees, while 9% avoided ordering shipments altogether
around shutdown periods.
Although the peak season during 2012 occurred without any major or ongoing issues, industry
feedback is consistent in that it will be important during 2013 to ensure that complacency does not
develop and importers continue to be educated on peak season planning considerations,
opportunities to prepare in advance, and options available during peak season to avoid detention
and demurrage charges and ensure continued flow of containers through the supply chain.
Perceived Issues
The survey revealed that major issues being faced by importers and their agents include delays in
getting containers off the wharf, availability of booking slots and issues dehiring containers. In total,
55% of the importers and 95% of agents, accounting for 66% of all respondents, indicated that they
experience issues unpacking and dehiring containers within the allowable free days, despite some
respondents saying during interviews that extended free days are negotiated with shipping lines.
Recently some shipping lines have reduced the allowable free days from 10 to 7 days, which many
importers and agents have concerns with. The main barriers to achieving dehires within the free
days from the perspective of respondents included the availability of slots at the container terminal
(64% of respondents), opening hours of ECPs (62%), and delays in the collection of empty containers
from importer premises/unpack point (50%), which subsequently delays dehire. This was supported
during the interview process, whereby a number of importers have noted that despite unpacking
containers quickly and notifying transport companies of their availability to be collected, containers
14
are still incurring detention charges and are not being dehired within the free time. One perception
was that empty containers due for dehire do not receive priority, as transport operators are busy
with collecting and delivering full export or import containers. It was also noted that containers due
to be dehired on weekends or public holidays impacts upon importers as, depending on the shipping
line, these days may be included in the free days allowed.
Importers are primarily concerned with operations at the container terminals, with 29%
experiencing delays getting containers off the wharf and 25% identifying slot availability or access to
slots as a concern.
Agents on the other hand identify their key concern as being the mismatch in operating hours for
receival and delivery activities between different parts of the supply chain - 44% of agents believe
this is an important issue.
It is interesting to note the difference between importers with an annual import task of less than
1,000 TEUs compared to those that import more than 1,000 TEUs, whereby the only similarity in top
issues was delays getting containers off the wharf. Other issues raised by smaller importers related
to availability of slots at the terminals and the duration of container free days (some shipping lines
have reduced free days from 10 to 7 days). In comparison, larger importers believe service quality
and capacity of quarantine facilities along with delays dehiring containers are big issues.
Alternate Transport Options
At present, the container supply chain is predominantly centred on the facilities found in the Rous
Head/North Quay area, with all but one of the ECPs and a number of large transport operators and
container related operations being located within that precinct. One strategy identified by the Port
to alleviate congestion within and around the Port precinct, and ensure that the capacity of the Port
is realised, is to provide more container handling operations in the wider Perth metropolitan area
outside the Port, such as off-port ECPs, development of rail and intermodal hubs, and industrial hubs
where container handling facilities can be grouped within a designated area.
The survey identified only 6% of respondents currently utilise rail for the movement of containers
from the wharf, with only 11% of importers having previous experience with the service. A higher
percentage of the agents, being 45%, had previously used the rail shuttle service, although it was not
specified whether their experience was related to imports, exports, or a combination of the two. The
few respondents that do currently use rail put varying percentages of their total annual volume onto
the service. Three of the six rail users put less than 50% of their volume on rail, whilst two put more
than 50% of their annual volume on rail.
Importers and agents had slightly different views on the main barrier to using rail. For 44% of
importers, location of the rail service in relation to their business is the biggest issue, whilst for 60%
of agents additional costs are the key concern. Other key issues for importers is the flexibility of road
transport compared to rail (31%), and 30% of importers are concerned about the additional handling
involved in the rail supply chain. Agents concur that the location of facilities is important and
additional handling is a concern.
Two key areas for potential future inland container handling facilities are Forrestfield, where the
existing rail intermodal terminal is located alongside the only off-port ECP, and Kwinana, where a
proposal to develop an inland industrial area known as Latitude 32 is being considered.
15
In reference to these two locations, 50% of the volume captured by this survey is located within
25km of Forrestfield, while 20% is located within 25km of Kwinana. Whilst more detailed analysis
would be required to determine whether this volume could suitably be managed out of these
facilities, this indicates that there is quite a significant portion of volume that may receive benefits
from off-port facilities.
The majority of respondents, being 81% of importers and 96% of agents, would consider using or
recommending suitably located off-port facilities in the future to alleviate pressure on the Fremantle
Port precinct. The perceived benefits of off-port facilities, including ECPs and transport hubs,
correspond with many of the aforementioned issues being experienced, including reduced
congestion in the Port precinct, fewer delays and less travel time, and creating a more efficient
traffic flow accessing facilities. Off-port facilities also have the purpose of increasing the capacity and
life of the Inner Harbour, and reducing the number of trucks in and around the Fremantle area.
Despite the known benefits, some of the obstacles to using off-port facilities identified through the
survey were double handling of containers, raised by 58% of respondents, increased cost (47%), and
potentially restrictive operating hours (37%).
Several respondents identified that effective management of an off-port facility would be an
important factor for success, as achieving benefits for industry would be heavily reliant on internal
systems, procedures and processes introduced at the off-port facility. A preference was identified
for off-port facilities to integrate all required services in one location (quarantine, ECPs, transport,
etc) to alleviate the requirement to travel to the Port precinct. Almost a quarter of respondents
(23%) were concerned that it would be difficult to implement such change into the industry. This
highlights that any development of off-port facilities would require significant change management
protocols to be in place to facilitate a move towards spreading activities around the Perth
metropolitan area.
The survey also undertook to determine the extent of interstate imports and the type of transport
used. Of the respondents, 29% of importers and 63% of agents import containers from interstate
locations, with coastal shipping being the preferred method, followed by interstate rail. Table 4
outlines the average annual volume in TEU terms per respondent based on the type of transport
used.
TEUs (mean)
Total Importers Agents
Road 41
(n=6 , range from 1-100) 51
(n=4, range from 1-100) 19
(n=2, range from 2-36)
Rail 343
(n=17, range from 2-3,000) 366
(n=10, range from 2-3,000) 44
(n=7, range from 2-212)
Coastal Shipping
1926 (n=25, range from 2 -27,500)
242 (n=12, range from 2 -2,000)
3,480 (n=13, range from 5-27,500)
Table 4: Interstate Imports - Average TEUs per respondent for each interstate transport method
16
4. Communications Strategy
One of the primary objectives of this survey was to identify the major stakeholders in the container
import supply chain and to initiate contact with this group so that closer working relationships can
be established by way of an ongoing communications strategy. Elements of the communications
strategy for the importer group will include:
On-going communication from Fremantle Ports Logistics Branch to ensure adequate representation of the views of importers in industry discussions and project planning and to disseminate important information relating to the landside container supply chain; and
On-going relationship management, with a program of regular consultation and communication developed with importers over the coming months. This will be implemented by Fremantle Ports’ Trade and Business Development branch.
A major finding of this survey was that importers have a relatively low level of involvement in the
supply chain related to their business. There were a number of importers who declined to be
involved in the survey as they felt that employing agents negated the need to be involved in these
types of activities. During the interview phase, a number of importers were unaware of many of the
issues at the Port, or initiatives to be implemented whereas agents have connections through their
associated industry groups to the Port Operations Taskforce and were generally more aware of what
is happening at the Port. Educating importers on aspects of the supply chain and the value of their
contribution will be a fundamental objective of any communication strategy being developed and
implemented for this stakeholder group.
5. Next Steps
This survey was based on the need to develop a better understanding of the structure and
operations of the container import industry, engage importers in processes related to their business,
and create greater coordination along the supply chain.
A significant amount of previous work has been undertaken by Fremantle Ports’ Logistics Branch to
understand container movements and container export operations, through studies including the
Container Movement Study 2011 and the Exporters Survey 2011. This Importer Survey was
undertaken to obtain further information which would complement these studies and provide data
relating to the critical import component of the supply chain.
All of this work will provide a much sounder basis for the industry to identify and evaluate ways in
which the container supply chain can operate more efficiently. Fremantle Ports will be working with
industry forums such as the WA Port Operations Task Force to achieve this objective. However, the
ultimate success of this will depend on the broader industry’s involvement through means such as
the following:
The success in handling the 2012 peak season following the difficulties of the previous year needs to be built on for 2013 and succeeding years. Industry cooperation in, for example, minimising orders in December will be vital to smooth operations during the peak;
Importers need, in their own interests, to better understand how the supply chain functions, its current issues and planned initiatives. Agents can play a role in this education and awareness process through their regular dealings with their importer clients;
17
Agents and importers need to take a more active role in industry discussions and planning activities. The Port Operations Task Force will seek to involve a broader range of importers and agents in these activities but industry response will determine the degree of success;
Agents, importers and transport carriers need to work together to, where possible, extend the use of after-hours access arrangements to premises to allow delivery of containers to be completed;
The industry generally, including importers and agents, need to be looking to the future which is almost certain to involve the Port moving towards 24/7 operations as trade volumes grow. This will inevitably involve changes to the way in which containers are moved from port to importer and industry involvement in this change process will be essential to achieving the best possible outcomes.
In support of this, Fremantle Ports will be developing a communication and relationship
management plan to ensure regular contact with importers and freight forwarders and participation
in industry initiatives. It will also continue to give high priority to working with the Port Operations
Task Force to continue the successful promotion of ongoing peak season planning, improved
operations at the Port and the further development of off-port facilities.
Further Information
If you would like clarification on any of the findings of the survey or if you have particular issues that
you would like considered or wish to participate in any of the follow-up actions proposed, please
don’t hesitate to contact either:
Jennifer Hall Transport Analyst Fremantle Ports Tel: 08 9432 3662 [email protected]
Doug Brindal Manager Logistics Fremantle Ports Tel: 08 9430 3515 [email protected]
Glenn Stephens Senior Manager, Trade & Business Fremantle Ports Tel: 08 9430 3377 [email protected]
18
APPENDIX A: Detailed Survey Results
Background
Respondent Type and Use of Agents
All of the importers who responded to the survey use a freight forwarder or customs broker to manage some or all of the import process.
Management of Import Process
As a general trend, importers are not overly involved in the import process. From face-to-face interviews, agents stated that importers were generally only interested when issues arise. Agents endeavour to educate importers and make them aware of the process and potential issues that may occur.
Import Fluctuations
70% of importers and 83% of agents import steady/uniform volumes throughout the year. Of those who do not import steady or uniform volumes throughout the year, the table to the left details the average percentage of annual volumes arriving per month.
Fluctuations throughout the year are attributed to retail sales (eg back to school), project cargo construction schedules and customer demand.
As expected, there are two main (although small) peaks, including the Christmas period and from March - May.
23%
77%
Agents
Importers
19
Importer Premises
Container Unpacking Arrangements
64% of respondents’ containers are delivered and unpacked at the importer site, compared to 36% which are unpacked at a distribution centre. For some larger importers, the distribution centre was their own or dedicated for their use.
As depicted in the graph, as the size of the importer increases, so to does the likelihood that containers are unpacked on site.
Normal days/hours for receival of containers
The current standard operating hours for importer premises, for the receival of containers, is on average 7am-5pm on weekdays. Average operating hours for weekends are approximately 6am-3.30pm. However, only 15% of total respondents indicated that the importer premises were open on the weekend (1 or 2 days).
The below table compares the average weekday opening times between the different TEU categories of importers.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Perc
enta
ge o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Distribution Centre Importer Site
20
Ability to receive containers after hours based on size of respondent
44% of importers and 40% of agents specified that they did not have the ability to receive deliveries outside of the identified hours. Generally, as the annual import volume of the respondent increased, as did the ability to receive after hours delivery.
The main barriers to receiving deliveries after hours include the availability of labour at the delivery point, access to and security of premises and cost. Additional reasons included availability of transport and council restrictions, such as noise curfews.
Locations of Unpack
This map relates to the top ten unpack locations of importers only.
The top ten unpack facilities by the percentage of respondents are as follows:
Canning Vale - 36%
Kewdale - 26%
Malaga - 26%
Osborne Park - 25%
Bibra Lake - 22%
Wangara 21%
North Fremantle - 17%
O'Connor - 17%
Belmont - 14%
Forrestfield - 13%
38% 44% 40% 50%
67% 83% 83%
67% 75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Annual Volume of Respondent (TEU) Yes
21
Container lifting arrangements
73% of respondents specified that they require, or use, a truck with a side-lifter, with 33% unpacking containers directly from the truck, and 27% having their own container lifting equipment.
For importers only, 50% require a side-lifter as the only method of container handling at the premises.
Issues unpacking and dehiring containers within free days allowed by shipping lines The main barriers for dehiring containers on time include:
Availability of slots at container terminal - 64%
Opening hours of ECPs - 62%
A delay in the collection of empty containers from importer premises/unpack point - 50%
Availability of transport - 44%
Customs clearance of good - 26%
55% of importers and 95% of agents experience issues with unpacking and dehiring containers within the free days allowed by shipping lines, which for some lines has decreased from 10 days to 7 days in recent times. Additional reasons include delays unpacking containers at the importer site, AQIS clearance of goods and storage availability at the importer site.
Peak Season Arrangements
Issues during peak season/s
The top five issues experienced during the peak season by all respondents include:
Delays/congestion within the port precinct - 83%
Availability of container terminal slots - 71%
Detention/storage charges - 65%
Difficulty dehiring containers at ECPs - 56%
Delays in the delivery to importer premises - 48%
74% of importers and 88% of agents experience issues receiving containers during peak season.
Additional issues experienced by respondents included delays/congestion at transport staging points (38%), containers arriving during holiday shutdown period (34%), availability of transport provider to undertake work (31%), and too much volume to handle at importer premises (8%).
Arranging imports in advance of the main peak season and barriers
The main barriers to importing in advance to peak season include:
Ability to hold excess stock - 50%
Cost to hold excess stock is too high - 50%
Availability of product from manufacturer/origin - 42%
Ability to forecast in advance - 30%
47% of importers and 50% of agents do not arrange imports in advance to peak season for a variety of reasons, however conversely, half of the respondents consciously manage their import schedules to minimise volumes coming in during the busy peak season. This indicates some proactive planning on the part of many importers and their agents.
27
73
33
0
25
50
75
100
Have own container lifting equipment
Require truck with side-lifter
Containers unpacked directly from truck
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
(%
)
22
Closure over Christmas Period
57% of respondents close on public holidays only, 23% have an extended shut down, and 20% do not close at all over the Christmas period.
As a general tend, as TEU volume increases (as shown below), the occurrence of extended shut-down periods decreased.
There is concern that some agents may have misinterpreted the question to relate to their office closures, rather than that of their major import clients.
Closure over Christmas Period - By Respondent Annual Volume
Arrangements in place if containers arrive during shutdown period
In the event that containers arrive during a shutdown period, the following arrangements are in place:
Containers collected from the wharf and held at transport depot - 59%
Arrange for owner/staff to receive/unpack the container(s) - 18%
Arrangements in place with transport company to deliver to unattended premises - 14%
Containers not collected from wharf (demurrage incurred) - 14%
Avoid ordering shipments around shutdown period - 9%
A number of importers are quite proactive in ensuring that during any extended holiday shut down periods, their containers are still handled to avoid detention or demurrage charges. While some intentionally avoid ordering shipments around shutdown periods, a further 32% ensure containers are still collected delivered to their premises whilst they are ‘closed’. Only 14% do not make any arrangements, and leave containers at the wharf until they return from the holiday break.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500-1,000 1,000-1,999 2,000-4,999 5,000-9,999 10,000+
Annual Volume of Respondent (TEUs)
No Public Holidays only Extended shut down period
26%
54%
19%
Importers Extended shut down period
Public holidays only
No
14%
67%
19%
Agents Extended shut down period Public holidays only No
23
Shipping Services
Origin of Imports
The map to the left displays the origins of imports for importers only. The top five locations for all respondents is as follows:
China - 66%
North America - 26%
Thailand - 26%
Singapore - 24%
Malaysia - 23%
Satisfaction with Shipping Services Approximately half of all respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with frequency, reliability, capacity of shipping services to Fremantle Ports, including transhipment arrangements pre-Fremantle. Around 20% of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with these services, and between 22% and 32% were either satisfied or dissatisfied. A small percentage of respondents, mainly importers, didn’t know enough about shipping services to respond.
Interstate container importation
Method
TEUs (mean)
Total Importers Agents
Road 41
(n=6 , range from 1-100)
51 (n=4, range from
1-100)
19 (n=2, range from
2-36)
Rail 343
(n=17, range from 2-3,000)
366 (n=10, range
from 2-3,000)
44 (n=7, range from
2-212)
Coastal
Shipping
1,926 (n=25, range
from 2 -27,500)
242 (n=12, range
from 2 -2,000)
3,480 (n=13, range from
5-27,500)
29% of importers compared to 63% of agents import containers from interstate, using road, rail or coastal shipping for the movement of containers.
The major barriers to utilising coastal shipping for interstate imports included:
Cycle time - 71%
Cost - 36%
Reliability - 29%
Slot availability on vessels - 21%
Warehouse locations - 7%
24
Land Transport
Transport Arrangements
77% of respondents indicated that they sub-contracted a road transport operator(s) to transport containers from the port, with only 6% utilising rail and 3% using their own fleet of road transport vehicles. More than a quarter of importers do not know which transport arrangement is used, as an agent or third party arranges. The average size of importers who don’t know is 103 TEUs.
Satisfaction with transport provider Around 70% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the reliability of their transport providers’ service. Only 28% were satisfied with the cost of add-ons, although this may indicate that some are not charged for these items rather than being satisfied with the amount being charged. There was only a very small percentage or respondents that were not closely involved with transport and hence didn’t know or were unable to respond to the question. For reliability, timeliness of delivery, and advanced notice required for collection of empty containers, importers were more satisfied than agents.
Use of Staging - by Respondent Annual Volume 45% of importers containers are staged at a transport depot prior to delivery at the final unpacking location. 33% are not staged, and 22% of importers do not know. 83% of agents clients import containers are staged.
Importers may not know whether staging is undertaken due to the detachment that some have from arranging aspects of the import process.
77
6 3
28
0
25
50
75
Sub-contracted road transport
operator
Rail shuttle (Fremantle to Forrestfield)
Own fleet of road transport vehicles
Don’t know Per
cen
tage
of
resp
on
den
ts
(%)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Annual Volume of Respondent (TEUs) Yes No Unsure
25
Time taken to receive containers at point of unpack from wharf The majority of respondents’ containers were received at the point of unpack within 1-5 days of becoming available at the wharf. 21% of respondents indicated that containers take more than 5 days to receive, which is a concern given that most shipping lines only allow between 7 and 10 free days prior to containers being due for dehire.
Rail
Only 6 respondents currently utilise the rail shuttle from Fremantle to Forrestfield to transport import containers, including 3 importers and 3 agents. For those 6 respondents, the range of the percentage of their total annual volume that was transported via rail was from less than 10% of total import volume to over 75%. One importer was unsure of the percentage on rail.
The top reasons identified for using rail:
Location of facilities - 67%
Cost - 33%
Frequency of services - 33%
Reliability - 33%
The main factors impeding the use of rail included:
Location - 42%
Cost - 36%
Additional handling - 30%
Flexibility of road transport - 28%
Frequency of services - 24%
It was interesting to note that 60% of agents cited cost as being an impeding factor, compared to 28% of importers.
It is also of interest to note that 45% of agents have utilised rail compared to 11% of importers. This difference may be due to the lack of knowledge and control that importers have over the transportation of their containers.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1-3 days 3-5 days 5-7 days 7-10 days More than 10 days
Unsure
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
26
Off-Port Facilities
The top five benefits viewed for the use of an off-port ECP include:
Reduced delays in port area - 64%
Reduced time spent in container parks - 53%
Less travel time to/from container parks - 42%
Reduced cost - 38%
The top five benefits viewed for the use of an off-port hub for managing the transport task include:
Less congestion at North Quay - 49%
Recued time spent in the entire supply chain- 44%
More efficient traffic flow - 41%
Cost - 30%
Proximity to customers - 23%
The perceived obstacles to the use of off-port facilities include:
Double handling of containers - 58%
Cost - 47%
Restrictive operating hours - 37%
Suitability of infrastructure - 28%
Industry resistant to change - 23%
The top five suburbs that respondents believe off-port facilities to be placed include:
Kewdale - 38%
Canning Vale - 31%
Spearwood/Bibra Lake - 30%
Forrestfield - 25%
O'Connor - 25% The below maps provide a comparison between importer premise locations and the recommended suburbs for an off-port facility.
The majority of respondents saw benefits of utilising off-port ECPs and other facilities; however 15% believed there to be no benefit for off-port ECPs, and 19% thought there was no benefit to other off-port facilities.
In order to achieve the perceived benefits, there were a number of obstacles identified that would need to be overcome, namely the double handling of containers and associated costs.
81% of importers and 96% of agents would consider using or recommend the use of, suitably located off-port facilities in the future.
Additional Issues
Top 3 issues raised by importers with an annual volume of less than 1,000
TEUs:
1. Delays getting containers off wharf 2. No slots available/issues with booking slots
3. Container free days are too short
Top 3 issues raised by importers with an annual volume of more than 1,000 TEUs:
1. Service/capacity at QAP’s 2. Delays getting containers off wharf 3. Dehiring containers
There were some differences between the issues raised by small versus large importers. Whilst both groups raised concerns about the delays in getting containers off the wharf, smaller importers are concerned with slot availability which may be due to their inability to coordinate large bulk runs from the terminals. Another issue identified by these smaller importers was that the container free days are too short. Some larger importers during interviews said that due to their volumes they were able to negotiate longer free day terms with shipping lines, which small importers may not be able to do.
27
APPENDIX B: Unpack Locations Summary
Location Summary by Container Volume and Total TEU Volume - Importer Respondents Only
Regions 20' GP 20' FG 20'
Reefer 20'
Other 40' GP 40' FG
40' Reefer
40' HC
Total 20'
Total 40'
TEU
North Metro 915 - - - 3,521 - - -
915 3,521
7,957
East Metro 2,734 - -
1,695
-
2,734 1,695
6,124
Central Metro 1803
190
502
20
1,993 522
3,037
South West Metro 1,729
250 254 356 - - 13
2,233 369
2,971
South East Metro 5,353 436 - - 9,555 - 300 560
5,789 10,415
26,619
Regional 300
2700
300 2,700
5,700
Total 12,834 436 440 254 18,329 - 320 573
13,964 19,222
52,408
Distance from Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour (kms)
20' GP 20' FG 20'
Reefer 20'
Other 40' GP 40' FG
40' Reefer
40' HC
Total 20'
Total 40'
TEU
0-25 7,321 436 190
13,065
320 560
7,947 13,945
35,837
25-50 5,213
250 254 2,564
13
5,717 2,577
10,871
50-100
- -
-
100-200
- -
-
200+ 300
2,700
300 2,700
5,700
Total 12,834 436 440 254 18,329 - 320 573
13,964 19,222
52,408
Distance from Forrestfield Intermodal Terminal (kms)
20' GP 20' FG 20'
Reefer 20'
Other 40' GP 40' FG
40' Reefer
40' HC
Total 20'
Total 40'
TEU
0-25 6,798 436 - - 8,968 - 300 400
7,234 9,668
26,570
25-50 4,957 - 440 254 6,325 - 20 173
5,651 6,518
18,687
50-100 779 - - - 336 - - -
779 336
1,451
100-200
- -
-
200+ 300
2,700
300 2,700
5,700
Total 12,834 436 440 254 18,329 - 320 573
13,964 19,222
52,408
Distance from Kwinana (kms) 20' GP 20' FG 20'
Reefer 20'
Other 40' GP 40' FG
40' Reefer
40' HC
Total 20'
Total 40'
TEU
0-25 3,178 - 250 254 3,166 - - 173
3,682 3,339
10,360
25-50 8,896 436 190 - 12,230 - 320 400
9,522 12,950
35,422
50-100 460 - - - 233 - - -
460 233
926
100-200
- -
-
200+ 300
2,700
300 2,700
5,700
Total 12,834 436 440 254 18,329 - 320 573
13,964 19,222
52,408
28
Location Summary of Unpack by Percent of Total TEU Volume - Importer Respondents Only
Regions 20' GP 20' FG 20'
Reefer 20'
Other 40' GP 40' FG
40' Reefer
40' HC
20' 40'
TEU
North Metro 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1.7% 13.4%
15.2%
East Metro 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
5.2% 6.5%
11.7%
Central Metro 3.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
3.8% 2.0%
5.8%
South West Metro 3.3%
0.5% 0.5% 1.4%
4.36% 1.4%
5.7%
South East Metro 10.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 36.5% 0.0% 1.1% 2.1%
11.0% 39.7%
50.8%
Regional 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.6% 10.3%
10.9%
Total 24.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 69.9% 0.0% 1.2% 2.2%
26.6% 73.4%
100.0%
Distance from Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour (kms)
20' GP 20' FG 20'
Reefer 20'
Other 40' GP 40' FG
40' Reefer
40' HC
20' 40'
TEU
0-25 14.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 49.9% 0.0% 1.2% 2.1%
15.2% 53.2%
68.4%
25-50 9.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
10.9% 9.8%
20.7%
50-100 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
100-200 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
200+ 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.6% 10.3%
10.9%
Total 24.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 69.9% 0.0% 1.2% 2.2%
26.6% 73.4%
100.0%
Distance from Forrestfield Intermodal Terminal (kms)
20' GP 20' FG 20'
Reefer 20'
Other 40' GP 40' FG
40' Reefer
40' HC
20' 40'
TEU
0-25 13.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 34.2% 0.0% 1.1% 1.5%
13.8% 36.9%
50.7%
25-50 9.5% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5% 24.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7%
10.8% 24.9%
35.7%
50-100 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1.5% 1.3%
2.8%
100-200 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
200+ 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.6% 10.3%
10.9%
Total 24.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 69.9% 0.0% 1.2% 2.2%
26.6% 73.4%
100.0%
Distance from Kwinana (kms) 20' GP 20' FG 20'
Reefer 20'
Other 40' GP 40' FG
40' Reefer
40' HC
20' 40'
TEU
0-25 6.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 12.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%
7.0% 12.7%
19.8%
25-50 17.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 46.7% 0.0% 1.2% 1.5%
18.2% 49.4%
67.6%
50-100 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.9% 0.9%
1.8%
100-200 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0%
200+ 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0.6% 10.3%
10.9%
Total 24.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 69.9% 0.0% 1.2% 2.2%
26.6% 73.4%
100.0%
29
APPENDIX C: Glossary of Terms
Block Stacking of containers refers to a method of stacking whereby containers are stacked in groups
restricting access to some containers, often in a first in last out arrangement.
Coastal Shipping means the shipment of containers from interstate by a shipping vessel.
Container(s) are standardised, re-sealable, transportation boxes for freight handling. The two most common
sizes are 20’ and 40’ containers, and are measured in terms of twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs). There are
various types of containers, such as general purpose, refrigerated (reefer), high cube, flat rack, etc.
ContainerChain refers to the ECP notification system whereby transport carriers are required to notify of
intended arrival time to manage the arrival rate of trucks.
Container Terminal/Stevedore/Wharf refers to the two container terminal operators. The terminals provide
the interface between the sea and landside Port logistics chain.
Dehire/dehiring means the process of returning an import container that has been deconsolidated to the care
of the shipping line by way of delivery back to empty container park.
Demurrage Fees refer to the fees incurred when containers are not collected from the container terminal
within the free days, usually three days, from container availability.
Detention Fees refer to the fees incurred when containers are not dehired to the required empty container
park within the free days allowed by the Shipping Line.
Distribution Centre refers to a location, often managed by a third party, where containers are delivered,
deconsolidated, and the cargo is then distributed out to customers from that point.
Latitude 32 refers to a proposed industrial development in the Kwinana region which will incorporate an
intermodal terminal for port-related services.
Off-Port Empty Container Park means an empty container park located away from the Port precinct.
Off-Port Hub means a facility located away from the Port that incorporates full and empty container pick-up
and delivery functions. For example, facilities including rail terminals, ECP, warehousing and quarantine.
Receival & Delivery (R&D) operations mean the pick-up or delivery of containers by transport carrier trucks to
or from an ECP or container terminal, or to or from an importer. This excludes bulk run activities.
Shipping Line Free Days means the total number of days allowed by an importer by the shipping line between
the containers becoming available at the container terminal and the time at which they must be dehired to the
required empty container park. In the case of shipping lines servicing Fremantle Ports, the standard free days
are between 7 and 10 days, however commercial contracts may be negotiated between the shipping line and
the customer to allow a longer duration of free days.
Side-lifters refer to a type of container truck that has inbuilt lifting equipment capable of handling a container.
Staging refers to the process of delivering a container to an interim location prior to final delivery, such as
taking a container from the stevedore to a transport operator depot, for the purpose of short-term storage.
Storage means the charge incurred by a transport operator, mainly for imports, when a container remains at
the wharf beyond the free storage period (usually three days from container availability).
Transhipment refers to the shipment of goods or containers to an intermediate destination prior to shipment
of the goods or containers to another, or the final, destination.
Vehicle Booking System (VBS) refers to the online Container Terminal booking system used by the transport
industry to book timeslots for the collection or delivery of containers.
