Global Port Congestion Hits New High: 4.3 Million TEU Waiting at Anchor, East‑Asia Ports Bear the Brunt

Global container port congestion has surged past pandemic‑era levels, with roughly 4.3 million TEU of container‑ship capacity sitting at anchor waiting for berth space, according to latest analysis from Linerlytica. This figure outstrips the previous pandemic peak of 4.0 million TEU, signalling significant strain across international liner shipping networks.

It is important to clarify: 4.3 million TEU refers to the total capacity of idled vessels, not physical containers stacked on‑shore. Huge numbers of ships remain trapped at anchorages, unable to berth, complete loading and unloading, and proceed to subsequent ports. As vessels stand idle, usable capacity within global supply chains is steadily eroded.

Unlike congestion witnessed during the pandemic, today’s bottlenecks stem from multiple overlapping triggers. Peak‑season cargo volumes, concentrated vessel arrivals, full container yards, port omissions and emergency diversions all add pressure. Repeated tropical cyclone activity across the Northwest Pacific acts as a major aggravating factor. Delays originating at one port ripple down the whole shipping schedule, creating a cascading chain of disruptions. The current crisis is unevenly distributed, with the worst bottlenecks concentrated across East Asia.

East‑Asia Becomes Congestion Hotspot: 2.2 Million TEU Awaiting Berth

Nearly half of worldwide anchored capacity — around 2.2 million TEU — is tied up in East‑Asian waters. Congestion centres on major hub ports including Shanghai, Ningbo‑Zhoushan, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Qingdao. These gateways are grappling with clustered vessel arrivals, constrained terminal throughput, overloaded container yards, diverted cargo volumes and frequent typhoon‑related operational interruptions.

Recurring tropical weather creates a destructive cycle. Before terminals can clear existing backlogs, new storms trigger pilotage suspensions, vessel shelter‑in‑place orders and temporary terminal shutdowns. Sailing schedules get pushed back, and export cargo frequently misses its booked vessel. Real supply‑chain pain arises less from one‑off shutdowns, but from the repeated loop of “disruption‑partial recovery‑renewed disruption” that breaks the steady rhythm of liner operations.

Status of Major Chinese Container Ports

Shanghai Port

Shanghai stands out as the most severe bottleneck region. The count of container vessels waiting offshore has jumped to 139, about 5.8 times higher than two weeks ago, with anchorage queues hitting a near‑two‑year high.

• Waigaoqiao Phase II: approx. 9‑day average wait

• Waigaoqiao Phase V: approx. 9.5‑day average wait

• Yangshan Phase I & II: approx. 8‑day average wait

Incoming vessels can expect more than one week at anchor before berthing. Yard occupancy rates for Waigaoqiao and Yangshan have reached 79%.

Ningbo‑Zhoushan Port

The port faces dual pressure of berthing queues and saturated container yards. Average vessel waiting time stands at 5‑6 days. Meishan Container Terminal reports 100% yard utilisation, while other terminals average roughly 92% yard density. When yards fill up, capacity to receive export full containers, reposition empties and handle container pick‑up and drop‑off shrinks sharply.

Due to Typhoon Saudel, multiple terminals implemented temporary suspension measures starting August 26. Empty container gate‑in and gate‑out halted at 16:00, followed by full‑cargo container movement suspended from 20:00. Affected facilities cover Beiyi, Beier, Beisan Jisi, Daxie Jisi, Meishan Port Area, Yongzhou Terminal and Zhensi. Official announcements will confirm service resumption timelines.

Shenzhen Port

Conditions differ between Yantian and Shekou port areas.

At Yantian, ultra‑large container vessels wait 5‑6 days on average; vessels shorter than 330 m face waits of 3‑5 days. Mounting schedule delays and yard constraints prompted tighter export container gate‑in rules effective August 26, 2026:

• The ETB‑7 gate‑in rule remains enforced.

• Per‑voyage receiving caps apply, calculated at 120 % of the baseline loading volume for each sailing, aligned with terminal yard capacity.

• Once a voyage hits its receiving cap, the terminal stops accepting export laden containers for that vessel.

• Several impacted vessels have estimated berthing dates no earlier than September 3, 2026.

• Quota exhaustion triggers booking failure within the Yi Wuliu Yantian platform.

Meeting the ETB‑7 time window does not guarantee successful container drop‑off. Shippers and trucking operators must double‑check estimated berth time, port‑call validity, terminal acceptance status, voyage‑specific remaining quota and system booking availability before dispatching cargo. Neglecting these checks may lead to empty truck runs, detention fees, container grounding and costly cargo diversions.

Shekou Port has seen vessel waiting times fall to 1‑1.5 days, yet yard utilisation stays elevated. Export cargo follows the ETB‑7 gate‑in policy. Reduced offshore queuing does not resolve landside storage and gate‑in pressures.

Hong Kong Port

Average vessel waiting times run 2‑3 days across shipping lines. Congestion is driven by regional schedule ripple effects: delayed ships from East China arrive in batches, carriers adjust port rotation sequences, and diverted cargo inflows swell transshipment volumes.

Cargo transiting via Hong Kong should be closely monitored for mother‑vessel delays, feeder schedule revisions and extended storage durations. Normal short transshipment cycles can stretch by multiple extra days.

Qingdao Port

Current average waiting time sits at about one day, comparatively smooth among major Chinese hubs. Nevertheless, two risk factors loom: mass arrivals of vessels diverted from Shanghai and Ningbo, plus dredging work at Qianwan United Container Terminal Berth 101 starting August 19, lasting a minimum of two weeks and reducing available berth capacity.

Congestion rarely disappears completely; it simply shifts between nodes. Qingdao could become the next pressure point should cargo and vessel diversion accelerate.

Four Concurrent Typhoons Fuel Persistent Supply‑Chain Disruption

This round of global port congestion coincides with four active tropical systems across the Northwest Pacific and South China Sea: Saudel, Zitan, Janavi and Eiseni. Not every storm will make direct landfall in China, yet overlapping wind impacts, storm surges, vessel shelter requirements, suspended feeder services and inland transport disruption leave terminals with no meaningful window to clear accumulated backlogs.

• Typhoon 18 Saudel approaches the East China Sea and Zhejiang‑Fujian coast, threatening Shanghai and Ningbo loading efficiency, possible pilotage restrictions, vessel shelter orders and temporary terminal shutdowns. Ningbo‑Zhoushan has already rolled out phased suspension of container movements.

• Typhoon 19 Zitan drifts slowly over Beibu Gulf, affecting Hainan, Guangxi coastal zones and western Guangdong waters, mainly disrupting local barges, ferries and South‑China feeder connections.

• Typhoon 20 Janavi made landfall in Fujian’s Quanzhou area and is weakening, though residual rainfall may trigger local flooding and hinder road haulage and warehouse operations across Fujian and southeast coastal regions.

• Typhoon 21 Eiseni is positioned east of the Philippines; its future track and impact require ongoing observation.

The core difficulty lies in sequential weather interference. Terminals cannot finish clearing one backlog before fresh operational restrictions take effect.

Practical Guidance for Cargo Owners & Logistics Operators

With vessel waits reaching 8‑9.5 days in parts of Shanghai and 5‑6 days at Ningbo‑Zhoushan, businesses need proactive planning and transparent communication with end customers. Key points for regular verification:

• Updated estimated time of berth for nominated vessels

• Latest cargo cut‑off timelines

• Terminal container release status

• Gate‑in appointment availability

• Remaining receiving quota per target voyage

Particularly for Yantian users: eligibility for the ETB‑7 window does not guarantee successful container drop‑off.

A confirmed booking offers no assurance that original port rotation and schedules will hold. Continuously verify mother‑vessel port‑call status and downstream transshipment reliability.

For time‑sensitive shipments, evaluate alternative solutions early: air freight, sea‑air combined transport or China‑Europe Railway Express. Avoid waiting for repeated roll‑overs before exploring options.

Pre‑confirm empty container pick‑up / return locations and backup yard arrangements, as equipment instructions tend to shift frequently amid disruption events.

Best‑practice preparation includes identifying one backup port, one alternative sailing and one secondary transport mode. Factor potential delay‑related expenses: storage charges, container grounding costs and diversion fees into your overall logistics budget.