Container Vessel Dwell Time by Carrier at Key Global Ports – July 2025 Analysis
Context and Scope of Dwell Time Performance Metrics
This dashboard provides a detailed, data-driven view of average vessel dwell times by shipping line. Dwell time is broken down into two key components—waiting time and working time at berth—offering a clear picture of carrier performance at major global ports.
The current analysis focuses on July 2025, with comparisons to June 2025 (MoM) and July 2024 (YoY) to highlight monthly fluctuations and broader yearly trends.
The analysis centers on 10 high-traffic container ports: Antwerp, Busan, Jebel Ali, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Ningbo, Rotterdam, Savannah, Singapore and Shanghai. SeaVantage maintains vessel dwell time data across all global container ports. If you're interested in accessing the full dataset or customized reports, please feel free to contact us directly.
Actionable Insights
This dashboard helps identify which carriers are experiencing increasing delays, where operational efficiency is improving or declining, and how recent disruptions may be affecting global port activity. These insights support smarter port selection and more informed carrier negotiations.
Breakdown of Carrier Dwell Times – July 2025
Busan continues to be the benchmark for efficiency in this dataset. The vast majority of carriers experienced zero waiting time, and vessel working times remained consistently low, indicating highly effective terminal operations and berthing processes.
On the other hand, congestion is evident at several major Asian and US ports. Shanghai faces significant delays, with Hapag-Lloyd recording an exceptionally high waiting time of 76 hours. Savannah also shows signs of strain, with Wan Hai Lines waiting for nearly 50 hours before berthing.
Los Angeles and Long Beach are characterized by prolonged working times rather than waiting. While vessels get to their berths quickly, operations are lengthy. HMM at Los Angeles spent 162 hours at berth, and MSC at Long Beach spent 150 hours—the two longest working times in this analysis, suggesting potential throughput challenges at the terminals.
HMM at Rotterdam shows the most significant systemic bottleneck for a single carrier. With a high waiting time of 20.8 hours combined with an extended working time of 88.8 hours, its total dwell time of over 109 hours points to persistent operational issues at that port.
In Long Beach, CMA CGM stands out for its high waiting time of 54.9 hours, an anomaly compared to other carriers at that port who experienced little to no waiting.
Finally, HMM at Antwerp also faced a notable total dwell time of over 109 hours, driven by a combination of very long waiting (57.5 hours) and working (52.1 hours) periods.
Month-over-Month Change in Carrier Dwell Times by Port
Year-over-Year Change in Carrier Dwell Time by Port
ETA(Estimated Time of Arrival) 뜻과 ETD·ATA와의 차이, ETA가 실제 도착 시간과 달라지는 이유를 알아보세요. ETA 변동에 대응하는 방법과 SeaVantage PTA 활용법도 함께 소개합니다.
호르무즈 해협 위치부터 세계 원유·LNG 공급망에서의 역할, 이란의 봉쇄 가능성, 한국에 미치는 영향까지 한눈에 정리했습니다. 최신 데이터와 사례를 바탕으로 공급망 리스크를 쉽게 이해해 보세요.
항만 혼잡도는 선박 지연, ETA 정확도, 디머리지 비용에 영향을 미치는 핵심 지표입니다. 발생 원인부터 주요 항만 모니터링 방법까지 확인해 보세요.
A practical RFP checklist for evaluating ocean freight and container visibility API vendors — data accuracy, integration, security, SLAs, and partnership fit.
Should your firm build, buy, or partner for container and ocean freight visibility on client engagements? A practical framework for consulting and SI firms.
Why EY, PwC, Deloitte, KPMG and other consulting firms are adding maritime and ocean freight visibility to supply chain client engagements — and what to look for in a partner.
.png)
