A fragile return to the Red Sea, a strategic alternative around Africa, and the rising cost of uncertainty for global supply chains.
For global shipping, the Suez Canal and the Cape of Good Hope are no longer simply two points on a route-planning map. They represent a daily strategic decision involving security, transit time, fuel costs, insurance, vessel availability and the reliability of customer deliveries.
During the past few months, the picture has changed again: some major carriers have cautiously returned to the Suez route, while the security risks that pushed ships around Africa have not disappeared. The result is a shipping network in transition, not a return to business as usual.
A changing picture: recovery, but not a return to normal
The Suez Canal remains one of the most important links between Asia and Europe. It avoids the much longer voyage around the southern tip of Africa and is particularly valuable for container services operating on tight weekly schedules. But attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and the surrounding security crisis that escalated from late 2023 led many carriers to divert vessels through the Cape of Good Hope. That decision added sailing days, fuel consumption and uncertainty to global supply chains.
Recent figures show a meaningful, though incomplete, recovery. The Suez Canal Authority reported 1,358 vessel transits in August 2026, 27% more than the 1,070 recorded in August 2025. Net tonnage increased 51.1% to 68.3 million tonnes, while revenue rose 56.7% to $567.1 million from $326 million a year earlier. For fiscal year 2025/26, the Authority's reported revenue increased 23% to about $4.67 billion, with transits up 10% and cargo tonnage up 22%. These gains are encouraging, but activity has not yet returned to pre-disruption levels. [1]
The return is also visible in container shipping. Lloyd's List Intelligence data reported by Kuehne+Nagel indicates that container-ship transits through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait reached 314 in September 2026, up 64.4% year on year and the highest monthly level since the attacks began. Its late-October assessment said at least half of container capacity had returned to the Red Sea, while tonnage through the Suez Canal was still 36% below pre-crisis levels. [2] [3]
Why are shipping lines still cautious?
1. Security risk remains the decisive variable
The first challenge is the safety of vessels, cargo and seafarers. A route can be shorter on paper but commercially unattractive if the risk of attack, detention, disruption or emergency response is considered too high. Even when there are periods without reported attacks, carriers must assess the possibility of renewed escalation, the reliability of security information and the availability of naval protection.
The World Shipping Council has highlighted that rerouting around the Cape can add up to 17 days to transit times, while warning that a rapid, large-scale return to the Red Sea could itself create operational challenges. [4]
2. The Cape route creates a longer and more expensive supply chain
When ships divert around the Cape of Good Hope, the additional distance means more sailing time and higher bunker consumption. Longer voyages also tie up vessels for more days. A carrier may need additional ships to maintain the same weekly frequency, or it may have to adjust schedules, blank sailings and port rotations.
For importers and exporters, a longer route can mean higher freight and inventory costs. Manufacturers may need more safety stock to protect production from delayed components. Retailers can face late seasonal inventory, while exporters may struggle to meet delivery windows. Time-sensitive cargo, including pharmaceuticals, electronics and certain industrial inputs, can be particularly exposed.
3. Insurance, fuel prices and freight-rate volatility
War-risk premiums and the availability of insurance influence the route calculation. If the risk premium for the Red Sea falls, the shorter Suez passage can become more attractive. If regional tensions rise, the balance can quickly reverse.
Fuel prices add another variable: the longer Cape voyage generally requires more fuel and can expose carriers to greater bunker-price risk. Freight rates may then reflect not only the cost of moving a container, but also the cost of repositioning equipment, maintaining schedules and absorbing disruption.
4. The operational challenge of switching routes
A return to Suez is not as simple as turning a vessel around. Container lines operate interconnected networks: a change in one service can affect vessel deployment, port calls, transshipment connections, berth windows and inland delivery plans across several regions.
Reuters reported on 2 November 2026 that Maersk planned to resume another jointly operated service with Hapag-Lloyd through the Suez Canal. The move reflects a cautious, staged approach rather than an industry-wide switch overnight. [5]
The Suez Canal Authority also said in October that Maersk-affiliated transits had risen to 276 in the first nine months of 2026, compared with 146 in the same period of 2025. [6]
5. Environmental pressure and emissions
The longer route around Africa generally increases voyage distance and fuel use, which can raise greenhouse-gas emissions. The exact impact depends on vessel speed, ship type, weather, loading and operational decisions. UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has previously warned that rerouting and higher sailing speeds can erode efficiency gains and increase emissions. [7]
What does this mean for India and global supply chains?
For India, the Suez–Cape decision matters to exporters and importers serving Europe, the Mediterranean and parts of North America. Engineering goods, textiles, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, auto components and consumer products can all be affected by changes in transit time and freight availability.
A longer voyage may delay export realisations and customer deliveries; on the import side, it can affect the arrival of machinery, specialty chemicals, packaging materials and production inputs.
The effect is not limited to ocean freight. When vessel schedules change, container availability, customs planning, port storage, trucking, warehouse capacity and production schedules may also need adjustment.
What should shippers and logistics managers do next?
Practical steps for a more resilient supply chain
- Use scenario-based lead times: Maintain separate planning assumptions for Suez and Cape routings, and update them when carriers announce changes.
- Track shipment-level visibility: Monitor vessel position, transshipment connections, estimated arrival dates and carrier advisories—not just the original booking schedule.
- Review inventory buffers selectively: Prioritise critical, high-value or production-stopping materials instead of increasing safety stock across every item.
- Check total landed cost: Compare freight, fuel-related surcharges, insurance, inventory carrying cost, demurrage risk and the cost of delayed delivery.
- Diversify operational options: Assess alternative ports, carriers, service strings and transport modes where commercially and practically feasible.
- Protect people and compliance: Follow official maritime security guidance and carrier instructions. Crew safety must remain the priority.
The road ahead: a two-route world?
The latest data points to a gradual revival of Suez traffic, but it would be premature to declare the Red Sea crisis over. The rise in August canal revenue, the September increase in container transits and the service announcements made by major carriers all indicate renewed confidence.
At the same time, late-October monitoring still showed a substantial gap against pre-crisis tonnage and described the security threat as material. The future will depend on sustained security, predictable insurance conditions and the confidence of shipowners, crews and cargo customers. [1] [2] [3]
The Cape of Good Hope will remain an important contingency route even if more vessels return to Suez. The experience of the past few years has shown that global trade cannot depend on the assumption that the shortest route will always be the safest or most reliable.
Ultimately, the question is no longer simply whether ships should sail through Suez or around the Cape. It is how global logistics can build resilience when both routes carry different kinds of risk.
The future of maritime trade will be shaped not by distance alone, but by the ability to balance security, speed, cost, sustainability and reliability.
References and further reading
-
Suez Canal Authority / Ahram Online (20 September 2026),
“Suez Canal traffic rises 27% in August, revenue jumps to $567 mln.”
Read the report -
Kuehne+Nagel myKN (October 2026),
“Red Sea container transits hit post-crisis high as carriers accelerate return.”
Read the update -
Lloyd's List Intelligence (29 October 2026), “Red Sea Brief.”
Read the brief -
World Shipping Council, “Red Sea Security.”
Read the guidance -
Reuters (2 November 2026),
“Maersk says another container shipping service will resume Suez sailings.”
Read the report -
Suez Canal Authority (20 October 2026),
“SCA discusses expediting the return of shipping services with Maersk.”
Read the announcement -
UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
“Navigating troubled waters: Impact to global trade of disruption of
shipping routes in the Red Sea, Black Sea and Panama Canal” (February 2024).
Read the publication
