Major Carriers Split on Red Sea Strategy as Security Calculus Shifts
The ocean freight industry's navigation playbook just got more complicated. While Maersk announced its first structural return to Suez Canal routing after months of avoiding the Red Sea, CMA CGM made the opposite call—pulling some services back to the longer Cape of Good Hope route.
The diverging strategies highlight how differently carriers are weighing the security risks versus the operational costs of adding 10-14 days to Asia-Europe sailings. Maersk's move marks a significant shift after the company, along with most major carriers, abandoned Red Sea transits following attacks on commercial vessels in the region.
CMA CGM's decision to route vessels back around Africa suggests the French carrier sees continued risk in the Red Sea corridor, or has determined the longer route better serves its operational needs. The company had previously attempted limited returns to Suez routing.
What This Means for 3PLs
For logistics providers managing Asia-Europe freight, this split creates new planning headaches. Shippers can no longer assume carriers will take the same route, meaning transit time predictions now depend heavily on which carrier secures the booking. A Maersk routing could save two weeks compared to CMA CGM on the same trade lane.
The lack of industry consensus also signals continued volatility in ocean freight capacity and pricing. 3PLs should expect carriers to continue adjusting their Red Sea exposure based on security assessments, insurance costs, and competitive positioning—making long-term service commitments harder to guarantee.
