IN Brief:
- Alphaliner found Red Sea transits on 24 of 46 direct Far East–Europe services operated by the ten largest carrier groups.
- Services using the route accounted for 5.50 million TEU of 8.70 million TEU in deployed capacity between 15 September and 15 October.
- The 63% capacity share does not mean every eastbound and westbound voyage on those services used the Suez Canal.
Maritime analyst Alphaliner has calculated that container services using the Red Sea account for 63% of capacity deployed by the ten largest carriers on direct Far East–Europe routes. The assessment covers services observed between 15 September and 15 October 2026 and points to a substantial restoration of Suez Canal routing after widespread diversions around the Cape of Good Hope.
The review identified Red Sea transits on 24 of 46 direct Far East–Europe services. Those services represented approximately 5.50 million twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEU, of the 8.70 million TEU of capacity included in the assessment. The figures describe ship capacity deployed on services that use the route, not the number of containers physically carried through the canal during the period. Neither should the 63% share be read as a guarantee that all individual sailings on those services transit Suez.
Several carrier networks are operating mixed routing patterns, so the share of deployed capacity and individual voyage routes need to be assessed separately. Some ships travel westbound from Asia towards Europe through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and Red Sea, but return eastbound by sailing around southern Africa. A service can therefore be included in the capacity restoration measure while consuming more vessel days than a fully restored Suez round trip. Such rotations allow carriers to manage exposure to the Red Sea on a voyage-by-voyage basis, but complicate the transit times associated with a named service and the scheduling of return voyages.
The move back towards Suez is also uneven across destinations. Alphaliner found that services incorporating Red Sea transits accounted for about 70% of deployed capacity between the Far East and the Mediterranean, against 58% on routes serving northern Europe. Different port rotations, canal approaches and network structures mean that the percentage for the Mediterranean cannot be applied directly to import flows bound for northern European terminals.
The largest container operators have not taken an identical approach. CMA CGM maintained some transits during the disruption, while other groups including Maersk, MSC and carriers in the COSCO group have reintroduced the route. Evergreen and ZIM had not resumed Red Sea services in the period covered by the latest assessment, according to the reported carrier survey. The findings represent a snapshot of active network decisions rather than a permanent return by every operator.
A fully restored Suez rotation can shorten the sailing distance between Asia and Europe and, depending on the service and schedule, save roughly two weeks compared with the longer Cape route. Shorter transit times can reduce the number of ships needed to sustain a weekly departure pattern, and may alter inventory requirements for goods in transit. However, those gains are conditional on service reliability, port calls and the carrier’s chosen direction of travel.
Shorter rotations can free ships from a service without immediately producing more weekly departures, while revised vessel deployment can alter capacity utilisation and freight pricing. When a carrier reduces voyage duration, it may release vessels from a rotation or adjust schedules, rather than immediately increasing weekly slot supply. Conversely, if ships on nominally the same service use different return paths, shippers can still face variable lead times even though the carrier markets the service as using the Red Sea.
Importers managing components, finished industrial goods and seasonal inventory must distinguish booking capacity from the transit time assigned to a particular sailing. A route description alone does not establish the arrival date of an individual container. Cut-off dates, transhipment connections, schedule changes and the timing of inland onward movement can be as influential as the ocean leg, especially when service networks are being reorganised.
Security risks in the southern Red Sea remain a constraint on routing decisions. Threats to merchant shipping in and around the southern Red Sea prompted the original diversions, and route choices remain sensitive to assessments of vessel exposure, crew safety and available protective arrangements. Continued Cape routings by some operators show that renewed transit activity is not being treated across the industry as the removal of maritime security risk.
Actual lead times still depend on the route assigned to each sailing, the available space on that departure and the carrier’s demonstrated reliability; the network-wide percentage cannot establish those details for an individual consignment. Freight forwarders will also need to review how transhipment services and inland delivery arrangements align with changed arrival patterns. Alphaliner’s 15 September–15 October survey establishes how far the network has shifted back towards Suez; subsequent sailing schedules will determine whether the pattern persists and whether more capacity returns in both directions.
