Should a Kochi Exporter Keep Routing via Colombo?
A Kochi-based exporter ships about 400 TEU a year of spices, coffee and frozen seafood, almost all to Europe and West Asia. At present each TEU is fed by a small vessel to Colombo (US$180 per TEU), transhipped there (US$120 per TEU handling) and held about four days before the mainline sailing, which adds roughly three days to total transit time compared with a direct call. The new deep-water port in south Kerala now offers direct mainline calls, but the container must first be moved about 220 km by road from the exporter's facility, at about ₹17,000 per TEU (take ₹83 = US$1). The exporter's finance officer calculates the annual saving and wants to switch all cargo immediately; the logistics manager warns that direct services are still few, that empty containers are sometimes short, and that monsoon swells have disrupted berthing. The frozen seafood line accounts for about 40% of the volume.
1. Compare the per-TEU direct cost of the two routings and calculate the annual saving from switching, then say whether the finance officer's conclusion follows.
Read the worked answer
Route A - feeder via Colombo, per TEU:
- Feeder freight US$180 + transhipment handling US$120 = US$300, plus about 3 extra days' transit.
Route B - road to the deep-water port, direct mainline call, per TEU:
- ₹17,000 ÷ 83 = ≈ US$205, and no transhipment handling or waiting.
Saving = 300 − 205 = US$95 per TEU. At 400 TEU a year that is about US$38,000 a year, plus roughly 1,200 TEU-days of transit time saved.
The arithmetic is right, so the finance officer's figure stands - but the conclusion does not automatically follow, because the calculation prices only the visible freight and treats the two routes as equally reliable. Three things are missing:
- Time value: three days less transit matters most for frozen seafood (working capital, cold-chain power, shelf-life at destination, possible premium for reliable delivery) and least for coffee in dry containers. The saving is therefore larger than US$95 for part of the cargo.
- Risk and reliability: a missed mainline connection or a berthing disruption costs detention, demurrage and a lost buyer - one bad shipment can wipe out US$95.
- Inland constraints: road haulage of 220 km carries its own risk (traffic, container availability, damage) and the road cost may rise with fuel.
So switching is probably right for the high-value, time-sensitive seafood, and should be tested before being applied to all 400 TEU.
2. Explain why transhipment hubs concentrate at a few ports, and why a large share of Kerala's export cargo has historically moved as feeder traffic.
Read the worked answer
Why hubs concentrate: mainline operators deploy very large vessels, and those vessels only pay if they call at ports that can fill them. That requires deep draft, fast berths, large volumes of cargo from many origins, and efficient onward connections. Once a port reaches that threshold, more services call there, which lowers waiting time and freight rates, which attracts more cargo - a cumulative causation loop. Smaller ports in the same region then cannot justify a direct call and feed the hub instead. The hub also captures the transhipment handling revenue, so the region pays a margin to a port outside its own territory.
Why Kerala fed Colombo: most of Kerala's ports were river mouths and lighterage ports with limited draft and no deep container berth, so large vessels could not call. Export volumes were also fragmented across many small exporters, and much of the cargo was low-value, weight-heavy produce where the feeder cost was a small share of a low price. A short feeder hop to a well-connected hub was rational.
What changes it: a deep-water port with mainline calls and road/rail links to the hinterland shifts the threshold. But the loop works in reverse too - services will only be added if cargo is committed, and cargo will only commit if services are reliable. That is why the transition is gradual and why exporters hedge rather than switch overnight.
3. Recommend a routing policy for the exporter, distinguishing the two product lines, and add one action that would reduce the risk of the switch.
Read the worked answer
Recommended policy - split the cargo by product economics.
- Frozen seafood (about 160 TEU/yr): shift to the direct call now. It is perishable, cold-chain dependent and price-sensitive to transit delay; three days saved is worth more than US$95 per TEU in cold-chain power, working capital and reduced spoilage risk, and a European buyer paying a premium for reliability will reward it. This is where the deep-water port route earns its freight.
- Spices and coffee in dry containers (about 240 TEU/yr): keep a dual routing for one or two seasons. These are non-perishable and freight-cost sensitive, and a missed mainline connection does more damage than three days of transit. Commit a rising share to the direct call as service frequency proves itself, and keep the Colombo feeder as a fallback.
Risk-reduction action: negotiate a service commitment with the shipping line and the port - a guaranteed weekly call, a defined empty-container allocation at the inland depot, and a written detention/roll-over clause - before moving volume. In practice the exporter should also hold a small buffer stock at the port of loading and pre-book haulage slots, so a berthing disruption delays a sailing rather than a shipment.
The judgement to state clearly is that this is a reliability decision wrapped around a freight calculation: the arithmetic favours the direct call, but only a service guarantee converts the saving into a real one.