Only 30% of ships worldwide arrive on time! On Europe routes, on-time performance has plummeted to 4%, leaving shippers wary of delivery risks.

In the second half of this year, a notable shift in the shipping market is drawing attention from shippers: while vessel and space shortages are not widespread, the on-time arrival of cargo at its destination is becoming increasingly uncertain. According to a report released by Xeneta on October 12, 2026, global container‑ship schedule reliability continued to weaken in September, marking the fourth consecutive monthly decline. The global on‑time performance rate fell to 27% in September, down two percentage points from August, while average vessel delays extended to six days—2.4 days longer than at the start of the second quarter. This means that less than 30% of container ships worldwide arrived as scheduled that month, with the remaining vessels experiencing varying degrees of delay.

On European routes, on-time performance stands at just 4%, while delays on U.S. routes are simultaneously widening.
         Looking at the major trade lanes, the impact on Asian export routes has been particularly pronounced. In September, the on-time performance of the Far East–Europe service stood at just 4%, with average vessel delays reaching 9.9 days—the worst level since September 2021. During previous pandemic‑induced disruptions, this route’s on-time performance had dipped as low as 3%. For European shippers that rely on Chinese exports, these delays are no longer confined to postponed arrival times; they can also ripple through to factory production scheduling, overseas warehouse inventory planning, promotional‑season stocking, and final‑customer deliveries.

         On the U.S. East Coast route, the on-time performance of Far East–North America services remained at 20% in September, but average delay times widened to 6.9 days, up 0.8 days from the previous month. Xeneta notes that congestion at Chinese ports is gradually spilling over to European and North American destination ports, ultimately manifesting as berth‑delayed calls at overseas terminals. Meanwhile, pricing pressures are mounting: in early October, the spot rate from China to the U.S. West Coast averaged $7,717 per FEU, more than quadrupling from $1,778 per FEU in September 2025; long-term contract rates rose to $3,649 per FEU, a 26% increase month over month. Today, shippers face not only persistently high freight rates but also the uncertainty of “booked space with the possibility of further schedule delays.”

Typhoons are the trigger, but insufficient network buffering is the underlying cause.
         Xeneta’s analysis attributes the latest deterioration in service schedules to a confluence of factors. First, from July through early September, the Asia region was repeatedly hit by powerful typhoons, leading to vessel queuing, port omissions, and adjustments to port‑calling sequences. Second, pressure on fuel costs has remained persistent. Third, heightened demand during the traditional peak season has further strained network capacity.

         However, from the perspective of industry operations, typhoons are more of a triggering factor. Over the past several years, global liner networks have remained under sustained high load; even minor disruptions in port operations, weather conditions, or demand leave the system with insufficient buffer capacity. A single vessel’s delay of just a few days can cascade through subsequent calls, transshipment connections, and the next voyage, creating a feedback loop: “Asian ports experience congestion—vessels depart late—European and North American destination ports arrive late—subsequent sailings become further disrupted.”

         This year’s highly watched Gemini alliance has also come under pressure. Comprising Maersk and Hapag‑Lloyd, the network was launched with the key objective of improving on‑time performance. However, data show that its on‑time rate has fallen from 70% in June to 40% by September; at the end of August, weekly on‑time rates stood at 62%, but by the week ending September 28 they had dropped to 34%, and further declined to 28% in the week of October 5. This indicates that, amid the combined challenges of extreme weather and port congestion, even measures such as reducing port calls and optimizing the network to enhance reliability cannot fully insulate against systemic delays. Pressure at transshipment hubs is also mounting. According to Xeneta, in September the average daily number of vessels waiting at Singapore rose from roughly 12 to 22, while the average waiting time extended from 1.9 days to 3.1 days. As a major global transshipment hub, the increasing strain on the Port of Singapore underscores how congestion at Chinese ports is spreading outward through shipping networks, weighing on regional transshipment efficiency.

September’s suspension of sailings is limited, and capacity adjustments in October may be stepped up.
         Notably, in September, shipping lines did not undertake large-scale cancellations. Capacity reductions from the Far East to Europe stood at around 6%, and to North America at approximately 8%—both near their lowest levels in nearly 21 months. This was largely due to continued strong peak-season cargo volumes, which discouraged carriers from readily cutting sailings. However, conditions could shift starting in October. Current published schedules indicate that cancellation rates may rise to 17% for Far East–Europe services and up to 13% for Far East–North America routes. Shipping companies may need to implement phased adjustments to their schedules to gradually absorb the backlog of delays accumulated earlier.

In the fourth quarter, the focus of risk has shifted: from “whether we can secure space” to “when the vessel will arrive at port.”
         In the fourth quarter, the primary risk in the ocean freight market has shifted from simply “whether or not space can be booked” to “when the cargo will actually arrive at port after booking.” For shippers, when product inventory turnover is short and order‑delivery deadlines are tight, focusing solely on freight rates is no longer sufficient to manage risk. Shippers must also factor into their logistics plans the carrier’s on‑time performance on specific routes, the likelihood of port omissions or route changes, the level of congestion at the destination port, and the appropriate sizing of safety stock. We recommend that shippers, prior to booking, carefully verify the recent on‑time performance of their chosen routes, build in ample buffer time for time‑sensitive shipments, and proactively communicate with overseas customers about potential port‑arrival delays to adjust delivery expectations accordingly.