Asia VS Europe & America: Facing Port Congestion—Air Transport Priority or Sea Transport Diversion?

The fragility of the global supply chain has been continuously amplified by port congestion—while Asia’s Port of Singapore, Ningbo-Zhoushan Port and Europe & America’s Port of Los Angeles, Port of Rotterdam are located in different hemispheres, they all face the predicament of ship detention, yard saturation, and slow port evacuation. However, due to differences in port infrastructure, supply chain structure, and regional logistics characteristics, the causes and impact radii of port congestion in Asia and Europe & America are significantly distinct. Faced with this dilemma, “air transport priority” and “sea transport diversion” have become the two core choices for enterprises, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Starting from the differentiated analysis of port congestion in Asia and Europe & America, this article will deeply compare the applicable scenarios, cost-effectiveness, and implementation key points of the two response plans, providing accurate decision-making references for cross-border enterprises.

I. Differentiated Characteristics of Port Congestion: Asia VS Europe & America

The essence of port congestion is the “imbalance between cargo flow and port handling capacity,” but in Asian and European & American markets, the formation logic, manifestations, and impact scope of this imbalance are fundamentally different, directly determining the direction of response plans.

(I) Causes of Congestion: Active Expansion VS Passive Pressure

1. Asian Ports: “Active Congestion” Driven by Explosive Demand and Concentrated Production Capacity

As the global manufacturing hub, Asia has witnessed a continuous surge in cargo exports due to the concentrated release of production capacity in China, Vietnam, India, and other countries. Taking China’s Ningbo-Zhoushan Port as an example, its container throughput reached 33.8 million TEUs in the first 10 months of 2024, a year-on-year increase of 8.7%, while only 3 new quay cranes were added to the port. The growth rate of loading and unloading efficiency (3.2%) is far lower than that of cargo volume. Meanwhile, congestion at Asian ports is mostly “phased active congestion”—driven by periodic demand such as China’s “Double 11” and Southeast Asia’s Ramadan stockpiling, the concentrated shipment of goods causes short-term pressure on ports. In addition, the restructuring of the internal supply chain in Asia (such as the transfer of some production capacity from China to Southeast Asia) has increased transit routes like “China-Southeast Asia-Europe & America,” sharply increasing the pressure on transit ports such as the Port of Singapore and Port Klang in Malaysia. In 2024, transit cargo accounted for 65% of the Port of Singapore’s total throughput, an increase of 4 percentage points from 2023, further exacerbating congestion.

2. European & American Ports: “Passive Congestion” Due to Outdated Infrastructure and Labor Shortages

The root cause of congestion at European and American ports lies in the long-term accumulation of “supply-side shortcomings.” The average service life of quay cranes at the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach in the United States is 25 years, with an automation rate of only 20% (compared to over 50% at Asian ports), and the loading and unloading time per container is about 90 seconds—twice that of Shanghai Port. The yard area of the Port of Rotterdam in Europe has not increased since 2010, while its container throughput has grown by 40%, resulting in a long-term yard utilization rate of over 95%. More seriously, the labor shortage in the European and American logistics industries has reached a critical point: there is a shortage of 12,000 port workers in the United States and over 150,000 truck drivers in Europe, leading to the failure of timely port evacuation after goods arrive, forming a vicious cycle of “arrival-storage-detention.” In addition, Europe and the United States have strengthened import supervision on some categories (such as the US CPI inspection rate rising to 18% and the EU Customs adding environmental compliance audits), further extending customs clearance time and exacerbating congestion.

(II) Impact Scope: Regional Diffusion VS Global Transmission

1. Asian Ports: Congestion Concentrated in Hub Ports with Abundant Alternative Routes

Congestion at Asian ports is mainly concentrated in a few hub ports, with a large number of alternative ports in the surrounding areas, forming a pattern of “core congestion and peripheral diversion.” For example, when China’s Shenzhen Port is congested, goods can be diverted to Guangzhou Port or Shantou Port; when the Port of Singapore is detained, transshipment can be carried out via Port Klang in Malaysia or Laem Chabang Port in Thailand. Data shows that during the peak congestion period of Shenzhen Port in 2024, about 23% of goods were diverted through surrounding ports, effectively alleviating transportation pressure. In addition, Asia’s inland transportation network is well-developed, and land transportation corridors such as the China-Europe Railway Express and China-Laos Railway can divert some goods. In 2024, the cumulative number of China-Europe Railway Express trips increased by 12% year-on-year, with 30% of the goods transferred from congested ports.

2. European & American Ports: Congestion Spreading from Hub Ports to Inland Areas with High Diversion Costs

Congestion at European and American ports presents a characteristic of “port-inland” linked diffusion. Congestion at the Port of Los Angeles in the United States not only causes ship detention but also leads to long truck queues on surrounding highways (up to 10 kilometers), extending the time for containers to be transported from the port to inland cities such as Chicago and Dallas from 3 days to 7 days. Congestion at the Port of Rotterdam in Europe has caused a surge in shipping pressure on the Rhine River, with ships waiting for 5 days in some sections, further affecting inland cargo distribution. More critically, high-quality port resources in Europe and America are scarce: only the Port of New York and Savannah Port on the US East Coast have the capacity to berth large container ships, and hub ports along the North Sea coast of Europe (Rotterdam, Hamburg, Felixstowe) account for 60% of Europe’s container throughput. Alternative ports have limited handling capacity, and diversion costs are 3-4 times higher than in Asia.

(III) Temporal Characteristics: Short-Term Pulsation VS Long-Term Normalization

1. Asian Ports: Seasonal Congestion with Short Duration

Congestion at Asian ports is closely related to holiday stockpiling and production cycles, showing a “pulsating” characteristic. For example, the export peak occurs one month before China’s Spring Festival and two months after “Double 11,” with port congestion lasting about 4-6 weeks; the rainy season in Southeast Asia (June-September) affects port operations, with a congestion cycle of about 3-4 weeks. As the demand peak fades or diversion measures are implemented, congestion can be quickly alleviated. The congestion at Ningbo-Zhoushan Port after “Double 11” in 2024 returned to normal levels within 3 weeks.

2. European & American Ports: Normalized Congestion with Long Relief Cycles

Congestion at European and American ports has evolved from a “seasonal problem” to a “normalized predicament.” Since 2021, the average waiting time for berthing at the Port of Los Angeles has never been less than 7 days, exceeding 14 days during the 2024 Christmas season. The yard utilization rate of the Port of Rotterdam has remained above 90% for three consecutive years. Alleviating congestion relies on infrastructure upgrades (such as the automation of the Port of Los Angeles, which will be completed in 2026) and labor market supplementation (the shortage of truck drivers in Europe is expected to be partially alleviated in 2025). In the long run, congestion will persist.

II. Core Choices: Air Transport Priority VS Sea Transport Diversion—Advantages, Disadvantages, and Regional Adaptability

To address port congestion, “air transport priority” and “sea transport diversion” are two core paths, but they differ significantly in cost, time efficiency, risks, and applicable scenarios, and need to be accurately matched with the regional characteristics of Asia and Europe & America.

(I) Air Transport Priority: Winning with Timeliness, but Limited by Cost and Capacity

1. Core Advantages: Breaking Through Port Congestion for Fast Delivery

The greatest value of air transport lies in “bypassing the port link” to directly achieve “airport-to-airport” transportation, with time efficiency 5-8 times higher than sea transport. Departing from Asia, it only takes 3-5 days to reach major European airports and 4-7 days to major US airports, without being affected by port congestion or yard saturation. Within Europe and America, regional air transport can shorten the time to 1-2 days, enabling rapid response to urgent orders. In addition, air transport has a simplified customs clearance process: small cargo volume and clear declaration result in an inspection rate only 1/3 of that of sea transport, further shortening the delivery cycle.

2. Core Disadvantages: High Cost and Limited Capacity

Air transport costs are 5-8 times higher than sea transport. Taking a 40-foot container (about 20 tons of goods) as an example, the sea transport cost from Shanghai, China to Los Angeles, USA is about 2,000 US dollars, while the air transport cost is as high as 12,000-15,000 US dollars. Meanwhile, air transport has strict restrictions on cargo weight and volume: the weight of a single piece of goods is generally no more than 100 kilograms, and the volume factor (length × width × height / 6000) directly affects the charging weight. Bulky goods (such as furniture and large equipment) cannot be transported by air. In addition, during peak periods such as the Christmas season and Black Friday, air transport capacity is tight, prices may rise by 2-3 times, and booking is difficult.

3. Regional Adaptability: More Suitable for Europe & America, Partially Suitable for Asia

• Europe & America: Due to normalized port congestion, limited alternative routes, and high time sensitivity for periodic demand such as the Christmas season, air transport priority has become the optimal choice for high-value, urgent orders. For example, for Christmas orders of European luxury goods and US electronic products, choosing air transport can avoid missing the peak sales season, and the high profit margin can cover the air transport cost.
• Asia: Only suitable for high-value, small-batch urgent goods (such as electronic components and samples) or supplementary transportation for periodic demand (such as emergency replenishment after “Double 11”). For large-batch, low-value goods, Asia’s abundant port diversion routes make sea transport diversion more cost-effective.

(II) Sea Transport Diversion: Controllable Cost, but Coexisting Time Delay and Risks

1. Core Advantages: Low Cost and Sufficient Capacity

The cost of sea transport diversion only increases by 10%-20% compared with direct sea transport, far lower than air transport. For example, for goods from China to Europe, the direct sea transport cost to the Port of Rotterdam is about 1,800 US dollars per container, while diverting to the Port of Antwerp only costs 2,000-2,100 US dollars. When the US West Coast is congested, diverting to the East Coast increases the cost by about 15%, but it is still only 1/4 of air transport. Meanwhile, sea transport can carry large-batch, bulky goods: the loading capacity of a 40-foot container is more than 50 times that of air transport, making it suitable for transporting furniture, building materials, bulk electronic products, etc.

2. Core Disadvantages: Extended Time Efficiency and Increased Risks

Sea transport diversion will extend the transportation time: diverting from China to Europe takes an additional 7-10 days, and diverting from China to the US East Coast takes an additional 10-14 days. If choosing intercontinental diversion (such as the Cape of Good Hope route after the Red Sea crisis), the transportation time may increase by 20-30 days. In addition, diversion may face customs clearance risks at unfamiliar ports (such as unfamiliarity with local declaration rules and inspection processes), and the evacuation capacity and inland transportation network of diverted ports may be insufficient, leading to secondary delays. For example, as a diverted port, the Port of Houston in the United States experienced a shortage of evacuation trucks in 2024, extending the evacuation time of goods to 5 days after arrival.

3. Regional Adaptability: More Suitable for Asia, Cautiously Suitable for Europe & America

• Asia: Benefiting from abundant alternative port resources and a well-developed inland transportation network, sea transport diversion is the optimal choice for large-batch goods. For example, when Ningbo Port is congested, goods can be diverted to Zhoushan Port or Taizhou Port, with transportation time increasing by only 1-2 days and almost no change in cost. When the Port of Singapore is congested, goods diverted to Port Klang can be quickly distributed to Europe via the China-Laos Railway and China-Europe Railway Express, with controllable time efficiency loss.
• Europe & America: Only suitable for non-urgent, large-batch, low-value goods, and the handling capacity of diverted ports needs to be evaluated in advance. For example, Savannah Port and Charleston Port on the US East Coast can be used as diversion options for the Port of New York, but the yard capacity and evacuation efficiency need to be confirmed in advance. The Port of Antwerp and Le Havre Port in Europe can divert goods from the Port of Rotterdam, but familiarity with the environmental compliance requirements of local customs is necessary.

(III) Asia VS Europe & America: Decision Matrix for the Two Plans

III. Regional Practical Cases: Models of Air Transport Priority and Sea Transport Diversion

(I) Asia Market: Flexible Combination of Sea Transport Diversion as the Mainstay and Air Transport as Supplement

Case 1: Chinese Cross-border E-commerce Responding to Ningbo-Zhoushan Port Congestion

A Chinese cross-border e-commerce enterprise specializing in home goods planned to ship 100 containers to Europe via Ningbo-Zhoushan Port in October 2024, coinciding with port congestion with a berthing waiting time of 8 days. After evaluation, the enterprise adopted the “sea transport diversion + air transport supplement” plan: 80 containers of low-value conventional products were diverted to Shanghai Port for shipment, with transportation time increasing by 2 days and cost increasing by 12%, spreading the cost through bulk transportation; 20 containers of core best-selling products (high-priced smart furniture) were shipped by air, arriving in Europe within 3 days to meet Black Friday pre-sale orders. In the end, the enterprise not only controlled the overall cost (air transport accounted for only 30% of the total transportation cost) but also avoided order delays, with Black Friday sales increasing by 25% year-on-year.

Case 2: Southeast Asian Manufacturing Enterprise Responding to Port of Singapore Transit Congestion

A Vietnamese electronic contract manufacturer supplying accessories to Apple and Samsung needed to transship 200 tons of electronic components to the United States via the Port of Singapore in September 2024. Due to transit congestion at the Port of Singapore, a 10-day delay was expected. The enterprise chose to divert to Port Klang in Malaysia for transshipment, with transportation time increasing by 3 days but cost only increasing by 8%. Meanwhile, 10 tons of urgent orders were shipped by air from Ho Chi Minh City Airport to the United States, with a time efficiency of 3 days, ensuring no interruption to the customer’s production line. This plan not only met the cost control needs of large-batch goods but also solved the delivery problem of urgent orders, maintaining a customer satisfaction rate of 98%.

(II) Europe & America Market: Cautious Choice of Air Transport Priority as the Mainstay and Sea Transport Diversion

Case 1: European Retailer Responding to Port of Rotterdam Christmas Season Congestion

A large German retailer purchased 500,000 Christmas gifts for the 2024 Christmas season, planning to import them via the Port of Rotterdam. In early November, the yard utilization rate of the Port of Rotterdam reached 98%, with an expected goods detention time of over 12 days. The enterprise resolutely adopted the “air transport priority + sea transport diversion” plan: 200,000 high-value gifts (such as smart toys and luxury gift boxes) were imported by air via Frankfurt Airport, completing customs clearance and delivery within 4 days to cover the core pre-Christmas sales period; 300,000 low-value gifts (such as ordinary decorations and socks) were diverted to the Port of Antwerp for import, with transportation time increasing by 7 days and cost increasing by 15%, serving as supplementary inventory. In the end, the enterprise’s Christmas season sales reached 120 million euros, with no order losses due to logistics delays.

Case 2: US Wholesaler Responding to Port of Los Angeles Congestion

A US electronic product wholesaler purchased 100,000 mobile phones from China, planning to import them via the Port of Los Angeles, coinciding with port congestion with a berthing waiting time of 14 days. After evaluation, the enterprise made the following choice: 30,000 mobile phones were imported by air via Los Angeles Airport, arriving within 5 days to meet the urgent replenishment needs of offline stores; 70,000 mobile phones were diverted to the Port of Houston by sea, with transportation time increasing by 10 days and cost increasing by 18%, but saving 60% of the cost compared to air transport. Meanwhile, the enterprise cooperated with a customs clearance agent at the Port of Houston in advance, preparing complete compliance documents, which shortened the customs clearance time to 2 days, ensuring the goods were delivered 10 days before Christmas.

IV. Key to Decision-Making: Building a Scientific Selection Framework Based on Four Dimensions

Whether in Asia or Europe & America, choosing air transport priority or sea transport diversion requires comprehensive judgment based on four dimensions—”cargo characteristics, cost budget, delivery cycle, and regional environment”—to avoid blind decisions.

(I) Cargo Characteristics: Value and Batch Determine the Basic Direction

• High-value (unit price ≥50 US dollars/piece), small-batch (≤5 tons), urgent demand: Prioritize air transport, especially for holiday orders in Europe & America, to avoid high opportunity costs caused by delays.
• Low-value (unit price ＜20 US dollars/piece), large-batch (≥20 tons), non-urgent demand: Prioritize sea transport diversion. In Asia, surrounding alternative ports can be used; in Europe & America, the evacuation capacity of diverted ports needs to be carefully evaluated.
• Bulky goods (volume ＞1 cubic meter/piece), heavy equipment: Only sea transport diversion is feasible. In Asia, priority can be given to alternative ports with deep draft and sufficient yards (such as China’s Qingdao Port and Malaysia’s Penang Port).

(II) Cost Budget: Balancing Profit Margin and Cost Increase

• Gross profit margin ≥30%: Air transport costs can be borne, especially for holiday orders in Europe & America, where the sales growth brought by air transport far exceeds the cost expenditure.
• Gross profit margin 10%-30%: The “sea transport diversion + air transport supplement” is suitable. In Asia, 80% of goods can be transported via sea diversion and 20% of core products via air transport; in Europe & America, 60% of goods can be transported via sea diversion and 40% of urgent orders via air transport.
• Gross profit margin ＜10%: Only sea transport diversion is suitable. In Asia, nearby alternative ports can be selected (cost increase ≤15%); in Europe & America, it is necessary to lock in the capacity and customs clearance resources of diverted ports in advance to control the cost increase.

(III) Delivery Cycle: Clear Definition of Flexibility and Rigidity

• Delivery cycle ≤15 days (rigid demand): Prioritize air transport. In Asia, regional air transport routes (such as China-Southeast Asia 2-day delivery) can be selected; in Europe & America, direct flights (such as intra-Europe 1-day delivery) can be chosen.
• Delivery cycle 15-30 days (flexible demand): Prioritize sea transport diversion in Asia. In Europe & America, the time efficiency of diverted ports can be evaluated (if the time efficiency after diversion ≤25 days, choose sea transport; otherwise, choose air transport).
• Delivery cycle ＞30 days (relaxed demand): Both Asia and Europe & America can choose sea transport diversion. In Asia, routes can be optimized (such as choosing the “Vladivostok-St. Petersburg” Arctic route from China to Europe to shorten time efficiency); in Europe & America, intercontinental diversion routes (such as US West Coast-East Coast) can be selected.

(IV) Regional Environment: Adaptability of Port Resources and Logistics Networks

• Asia Market: Prioritize evaluating the availability of surrounding alternative ports. If there are nearby, low-cost alternative ports (such as Shenzhen Port congestion → Guangzhou Port), directly choose sea transport diversion. At the same time, leverage the advantages of inland transportation networks (such as China-Europe Railway Express) to improve the efficiency of cargo distribution and reduce the impact of port congestion. For example, Ningbo Customs has innovated the classification supervision model for goods entering and exiting special customs supervision zones, reducing the content of entry declarations by 60% and saving 90% of the declaration time for enterprises .
• Europe & America Market: Prioritize assessing the evacuation capacity and inland transportation links of diverted ports. For example, when the Port of Los Angeles is congested, diverting to the Port of Houston requires confirming the local trucking capacity and customs clearance efficiency in advance. In addition, pay attention to the impact of geopolitical and policy changes (such as EU environmental compliance audits) on customs clearance to avoid secondary delays. For instance, port congestion in Northern Europe has recently spread to China and the United States, with waiting times at Bremen Port increasing by 77% and delays at Antwerp Port and Hamburg Port rising by 37% and 49% respectively .

V. Conclusion

Port congestion has become a persistent challenge in the global supply chain, and the choice between air transport priority and sea transport diversion is not an either-or decision but a strategic combination based on regional characteristics and enterprise needs. For the Asian market, with its abundant alternative port resources and short-term pulsating congestion, the “sea transport diversion as the mainstay and air transport as supplement” model can achieve a balance between cost and efficiency. For the European & American market, facing normalized congestion and scarce alternative routes, the “air transport priority for urgent orders and cautious sea transport diversion for non-urgent orders” strategy is more conducive to avoiding sales losses.

In the context of accelerating global supply chain restructuring, cross-border enterprises need to establish a dynamic decision-making mechanism: relying on big data to monitor port congestion trends in real time, cooperating with multiple logistics providers to reserve alternative resources, and flexibly adjusting transportation plans based on changes in cargo characteristics, costs, and cycles. At the same time, leveraging policy dividends such as port supervision model innovations and air transport transit facilitation (such as the “air-air transshipment” order switching business at Pudong Airport ) can further improve transportation efficiency and reduce operational risks.

Ultimately, the core of coping with port congestion lies in “adapting to local conditions and flexible response.” Only by accurately grasping the differentiated characteristics of port congestion in Asia and Europe & America and scientifically applying the two transportation solutions can enterprises break through the logistics bottleneck, maintain stable supply chain operations, and achieve sustainable development in the fierce cross-border trade competition.