M.Soppe et aL/Journal of Transport Geography 17 (2009)10-20 17 Shipping lines PAo]1-Bed Hutchison Port H. Dubai Ports World PSA Corporation APM Terminals Hanjin NYK China Merchant H. Geographical coverage WCTC relevance below 5% transnational(5 regions and over) 5-10% multi-regional (2-4 regions) 10-15% regional (1-2 regions) above 15% Fig.7.Shipping lines and ITOs:from local to transnational partnerships.Note:In Fig.7 are represented only those partnerships with a regional coverage(or higher)or a WCTC relevance above 5%.Source:WWCTC database (2006).Soppe M..Parola F..Fremont A. the contrary,the outcomes reveal that APM Terminal,despite its it simply a problem of trust among partners which are reluctant highly diversified network.still has too many 'family ties'with to embrace a long-term and global relationship?Moreover,are Maersk Line for playing such a role in the near future. the players of the above mentioned 'triad'(HPH,PSA and DPW) Looking regionally,some PTOs like Eurogate,SSA and China the only real candidates for such potential co-operative ventures Merchant Holdings seem to be the most relevant partners for or could be even powerful hybrid players,i.e.APM Terminals and carriers.In this respect,future studies should investigate more Cosco Group,be called to act as global partners in a future deeply the peculiarities of such partnerships in the diverse regional perspective? contexts. In order to face the above unanswered questions,the research Despite the obstacles mentioned for ISLs to obtain third-party agenda should be focused on the evolving role of financial opera- traffic,some partnerships "between carriers"do appear:CMA- tions (V,takeover,etc.).In fact,although contractual agreements CGM,Coscon and K-Line(as carriers)with Maersk/APMT (as steve- between carriers and stevedores are the most common option dore),China Shipping (as carrier)with Cosco (as stevedore).Yang equity ventures already represent an attractive solution for sharing Ming(as carrier)with Hanjin (as stevedore)and Hapag-Lloyd(as investment risk (JV)and aggressive takeovers are the quickest way carrier)with NYK (as stevedores) to penetrate a profitable market with high barriers to entry. Moreover,the two major strategic alliances show some interests Finally,specific attention should be paid to the monitoring of in establishing a network of relationships with some selected port major global alliances.So far their members are still reluctant to providers.In particular,the CKYH Alliance often associates with jointly invest in asset-based activities but some emerging projects HPH and PSA networks,even in equity ventures participated by like in Northern Europe might suggest a possible reversal of trend. some of its members,mostly Cosco.The Grand Alliance is also close After a long period of 'hatching'and instability will the alliances fi- to the top PTOs but rather on a contractual basis.Such forms of nally reach a phase of maturity driving them to change approach cooperation by the two alliances reveal a good attitude to partner- in port investments? ships with PTOs in ports but mostly to contractual relationships. Several partnerships are close to the limits required for a "glo- Acknowledgements bal status"in terms of geographical spread or WCTC relevance. These might be developed in the future to achieve a real global The authors are grateful to Prof.Brian Slack of Concordia scale.The three major cases show HPH as protagonist.In fact,the University for his valuable support in the writing of this paper. relationships in ports between this stevedore and K-Line,CKYH The authors remain solely responsible for any errors and Alliance and Hanjin might potentially evolve and get a global focus. omissions. Besides such relevant relationships,predominantly on a contrac- tual basis,other interesting cooperative ventures emerge.Cosco and the CKYH Alliance reveal a good relationship with PSA also in equity ventures (Vs). Although examples of global partnerships have not come into the market yet,this study clearly demonstrates the legitimacy of In Antwerp.in the new Deurganck Dock complex,the Antwerp International Terminal (AIT)is a joint venture between the stevedore PSA and three (K-Line,Yang our starting hypothesis based on a growing use of co-operative Ming Line,Hanjin Shipping)of the four shipping lines that are members of the CKYH schemes between shipping lines and stevedores in ports.In this re- Alliance.Cosco.the fourth partner.is not(yet?)involved in this deal.In Rotterdam spect,future studies need to investigate the reasons beyond the HPH and the CKYH consortium signed a memorandum of understanding for the current lack of global partnerships between them.Is the stevedor- realisation of the Euromax Terminal (5.6 million TEU of capacity).Within the "Maasvlakte 2"project,the Rotterdam World Gateway(RWG).a consortium of DP ing market still not mature enough to experience such forms of World.New World Alliance(NWA)and CMA-CGM won the concession to operate the cooperation(geographical offset,not sufficient capacity,etc.),or is 4.2 million TEU/year capacity "Terminal 1"(2013 opening).the contrary, the outcomes reveal that APM Terminal, despite its highly diversified network, still has too many ‘family ties’ with Maersk Line for playing such a role in the near future. Looking regionally, some PTOs like Eurogate, SSA and China Merchant Holdings seem to be the most relevant partners for carriers. In this respect, future studies should investigate more deeply the peculiarities of such partnerships in the diverse regional contexts. Despite the obstacles mentioned for ISLs to obtain third-party traffic, some partnerships ‘‘between carriers” do appear: CMA– CGM, Coscon and K-Line (as carriers) with Maersk/APMT (as steve￾dore), China Shipping (as carrier) with Cosco (as stevedore), Yang Ming (as carrier) with Hanjin (as stevedore) and Hapag–Lloyd (as carrier) with NYK (as stevedores). Moreover, the two major strategic alliances show some interests in establishing a network of relationships with some selected port providers. In particular, the CKYH Alliance often associates with HPH and PSA networks, even in equity ventures participated by some of its members, mostly Cosco. The Grand Alliance is also close to the top PTOs but rather on a contractual basis. Such forms of cooperation by the two alliances reveal a good attitude to partner￾ships with PTOs in ports but mostly to contractual relationships. Several partnerships are close to the limits required for a ‘‘glo￾bal status” in terms of geographical spread or WCTC relevance. These might be developed in the future to achieve a real global scale. The three major cases show HPH as protagonist. In fact, the relationships in ports between this stevedore and K-Line, CKYH Alliance and Hanjin might potentially evolve and get a global focus. Besides such relevant relationships, predominantly on a contrac￾tual basis, other interesting cooperative ventures emerge. Cosco and the CKYH Alliance reveal a good relationship with PSA also in equity ventures (JVs). Although examples of global partnerships have not come into the market yet, this study clearly demonstrates the legitimacy of our starting hypothesis based on a growing use of co-operative schemes between shipping lines and stevedores in ports. In this re￾spect, future studies need to investigate the reasons beyond the current lack of global partnerships between them. Is the stevedor￾ing market still not mature enough to experience such forms of cooperation (geographical offset, not sufficient capacity, etc.), or is it simply a problem of trust among partners which are reluctant to embrace a long-term and global relationship? Moreover, are the players of the above mentioned ‘triad’ (HPH, PSA and DPW) the only real candidates for such potential co-operative ventures, or could be even powerful hybrid players, i.e. APM Terminals and Cosco Group, be called to act as global partners in a future perspective? In order to face the above unanswered questions, the research agenda should be focused on the evolving role of financial opera￾tions (JV, takeover, etc.). In fact, although contractual agreements between carriers and stevedores are the most common option, equity ventures already represent an attractive solution for sharing investment risk (JV) and aggressive takeovers are the quickest way to penetrate a profitable market with high barriers to entry. Finally, specific attention should be paid to the monitoring of major global alliances. So far their members are still reluctant to jointly invest in asset-based activities but some emerging projects like in Northern Europe7 , might suggest a possible reversal of trend. After a long period of ‘hatching’ and instability will the alliances fi- nally reach a phase of maturity driving them to change approach in port investments? Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Prof. Brian Slack of Concordia University for his valuable support in the writing of this paper. The authors remain solely responsible for any errors and omissions. Fig. 7. Shipping lines and ITOs: from local to transnational partnerships. Note: In Fig. 7 are represented only those partnerships with a regional coverage (or higher) or a WCTC relevance above 5%. Source: WWCTC database (2006), Soppé M., Parola F., Frémont A. 7 In Antwerp, in the new Deurganck Dock complex, the Antwerp International Terminal (AIT) is a joint venture between the stevedore PSA and three (K-Line, Yang Ming Line, Hanjin Shipping) of the four shipping lines that are members of the CKYH Alliance. Cosco, the fourth partner, is not (yet?) involved in this deal. In Rotterdam, HPH and the CKYH consortium signed a memorandum of understanding for the realisation of the Euromax Terminal (5.6 million TEU of capacity). Within the ‘‘Maasvlakte 2” project, the Rotterdam World Gateway (RWG), a consortium of DP World, New World Alliance (NWA) and CMA–CGM won the concession to operate the 4.2 million TEU/year capacity ‘‘Terminal 1” (2013 opening). M. Soppé et al. / Journal of Transport Geography 17 (2009) 10–20 17