Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 19–39 | Cite as

The Time Factor in Liner Shipping Services

  • Theo E Notteboom
Original Article


Managing the time factor is an important issue in contemporary liner service design. Increased port congestion and infrastructure constraints are some of the reasons impeding shipping lines from delivering impeccable liner services to their customers. Waiting times and delays put pressure on schedule reliability and might incur logistics costs to the customer. This paper assesses the trade-offs linked to the time factor in liner service schedules from the perspective of a shipping line. The paper not only assesses causes of schedule unreliability, it also discusses the wide array of measures and planning tools shipping lines deploy to maximise schedule reliability.


Time container liner shipping schedule reliability vessel operations 


  1. Baird, AJ . 2001: A new economic evaluation of the hubport versus multiport strategy. Proceedings of the IAME 2001 Conference, Hong Kong. pp. 138–166.Google Scholar
  2. Bendall, HB and Stent, AF . 1999: Longhaul feeder services in an era of changing technology: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Maritime Policy and Management 26: 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cullinane, K, Khanna, M and Song, D-W . 1999: How big is beautiful: Economies of scale and the optimal size of containership. Proceedings of the IAME 1999 Conference, Halifax. pp. 108–140.Google Scholar
  4. Drewry Shipping Consultants. 2001: Post-Panamax containerships – The next generation. Drewry Shipping Consultants: London.Google Scholar
  5. Drewry Shipping Consultants. 2003: Annual review of global container terminal operators. Drewry Shipping Consultants: London.Google Scholar
  6. Fagerholt, K . 2004: Designing optimal routes in a liner shipping problem. Maritime Policy and Management 31: 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilman, S . 1999: The size economies and network efficiency of large containerships. International Journal of Maritime Economics 1: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lago, A, Malchow, M and Kanafani, A . 2001: An analysis of carriers' schedules and the impact on port selection. Proceedings of the IAME 2001 Conference, Hong Kong. pp. 123–137.Google Scholar
  9. Lim, S-M . 1998: Economies of scale in container shipping. Maritime Policy and Management 25: 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Meyrick, S . 2004: Structural changes bring new challenges. Port Strategy, January: 33–35.Google Scholar
  11. Notteboom, T . 2004: A carrier's perspective on container network configuration at sea and on land. Journal of International Logistics and Trade 1: 65–87.Google Scholar
  12. Robinson, R . 1998: Asian hub/feeder nets: The dynamics of restructuring. Maritime Policy and Management 25: 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Taylor, M and D'Este, G . 2003: Network vulnerability: An approach to reliability analysis at the level of national strategic transport networks. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Transportation Network Reliability. Elsevier Science: Kidlington. pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
  14. Verbeke, A and Notteboom, T . 2003: Studie naar de directe baten van de verruiming van de Westerschelde: een logistieke benadering (Study on the direct benefits of the deepening of the river Scheldt). Report commissioned by ProSes. Antwerp. December 2003.Google Scholar
  15. Yap, WY, Lam, JSL and Notteboom, T . 2003: Developments in container port competition in East Asia. Proceedings of IAME 2003 Conference, Busan. pp. 715–735.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theo E Notteboom
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Transport and Maritime Management Antwerp (ITMMA), University of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations