East Asian port waiting times ease, but network recovery remains incomplete

Maersk reported on 6 November 2026 that operational conditions at major East Asian ports had improved following earlier seasonal weather disruption, with vessel waiting times continuing to decline from recent weeks. The carrier nevertheless said that strong export activity was still putting pressure on some congested ports and that sailing schedules across the wider regional network were still adjusting.

In its Asia-Pacific market update, Maersk attributed a broader improvement in port conditions to recent industry data: it said Drewry’s November Container Shipping Market Signals showed average port waiting time falling 16% month on month to 1.4 days in October. Maersk also cited Sea-Intelligence for continued variation in vessel-arrival performance on major East-West trades. Those underlying reports were not directly reviewed in this research step; the numerical waiting-time change should therefore be treated as Maersk’s attributed summary rather than independently verified TWS evidence.

Maersk’s port table classified Shanghai, Ningbo, Busan, Qingdao, Yantian, Shekou, Nansha, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ho Chi Minh City, Port Klang and Chittagong in a one-to-three-day vessel-waiting range as at publication. It placed Dalian, Xingang, Xiamen, Laem Chabang, Vung Tau, Haiphong, Jakarta, Semarang, Brisbane, Sydney, Auckland, Melbourne, Tauranga, Manila and Tanjung Pelepas in the under-one-day range. The carrier expressly stated that the information was dynamic and subject to change.

**Why this matters:** For owners, charterers, cargo interests and insurers, easing aggregate waiting time does not establish that individual calls, berth windows, transshipment connections or cargo cut-offs have normalised. Port networks in Asia are tightly linked: a delayed arrival, missed berth window or omitted call at one hub can still propagate to feeder, relay and inland legs. This is an operational inference based on the carrier’s description of continuing schedule adjustments and interconnected regional flows, not a report of a new casualty or terminal closure.

Practical exposure remains greatest for cargoes with fixed onward connections, reefer requirements, short free-time periods or contractual delivery milestones. Operators should continue to rely on voyage-specific notices, terminal appointment systems, current berth plans and confirmed carrier schedules rather than regional averages when assessing operational readiness. This briefing is not a port-clearance, navigation or cargo-release instruction.