search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Trans RINA, Vol 161, Part A4, Intl J Maritime Eng, Oct-Dec 2019


4.3 (b) Estimation results for Los Angeles-Manila (Figure 9-b):


a) As shown in Figure 13, a shipping carrier selecting Kaohsiung as its


transshipment port on the


westbound T/P route enjoys a greater cost advantage than one choosing Hong Kong. For example, a carrier transshipping containers at the Port of Kaohsiung using a 8,000 TEU mother ship coupled with a 1,500 TEU feeder ship can save US$50.54 per TEU compared with transshipment in Hong Kong. However, if the containers are transported on the same mother ship type but on a larger feeder-ship, the amount of cost saved does not change considerably. Similarly, if the containers are transported on the same feeder-ship type but a larger mother ship, the costs saved remain approximately the same. These results indicate that because the westbound T/P route is a return route it is essentially different from the eastbound T/P route, and therefore changes in ship size have a minimal influence on the shipping carriers’ costs.


b) Figure 14 shows that if the feeder-ship’s size is fixed at 2,000 TEU and the mother ship’s at 8,000 TEU,


and the LF increases (0.6 → 0.9) indicating increased cargo resources, then a shipping carrier transshipping at Kaohsiung saves less cost for each TEU (52.59→49.34). This result is similar to the aforementioned example on the eastbound T/P route, indicating that if neighboring ports have more sufficient cargo resources, shipping carriers enjoy fewer advantages in choosing Kaohsiung. Compared with Hong Kong, however, the Port of Kaohsiung still retains a cost advantage.


c) As shown in Figure 15, the analysis results for the westbound T/P route indicate that if the feeder-ship’s size is fixed at 2,000 TEU and the mother ship’s at 8,000 TEU, and R increases (R = 100 → 130 TEU/per hour), then a carrier transshipping at Kaohsiung saves more cost for each TEU (50.15→59.72). This result indicates that high handling efficiency and a larger mother ship favor selection of the Port of Kaohsiung. As already stated with regard to the result for the eastbound T/P route, Kaohsiung must build new deep-water terminals equipped with larger handling machines to maintain its advantage as a regional hub.


Figure 13: [Costs saved by shipping carriers transshipping at the Port of Kaohsiung (westbound T/P)]


A-396


©2019: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166