Why this article exists (before we look at any charts)

In the System Baseline edition of The Reliability Illusion, we established a simple but critical shift:

Vessel schedule reliability doesn’t break at arrival.
It breaks inside the cargo receiving window.

That window - defined by the Earliest Return Date (ERD) and the CY Cutoff - is where export execution actually happens.

This edition applies the same framework to Hapag-Lloyd (HLCU) to understand how cargo receiving windows behave in practice - where they stay predictable, and where they don’t.

All terms used here are defined in the Reliability Series - Methodology Appendix:
https://www.tradelanes.co/blog/reliability-series-methodology-appendix

Data scope (Hapag-Lloyd sample)

This analysis is based on an observational system sample of executable export port-calls and is not a statistically randomized sample.

• Port-calls: 286
• Vessels: 96
• Ports: 9
• Carrier: HLCU (Hapag-Lloyd)

Filters applied:

• ERD and CY Cutoff both required
• Drift >40 days treated as data error and excluded

Section 1 - How often do Hapag-Lloyd receiving windows actually move?

A receiving window is considered moved if either ERD or CY Cutoff shifts by one calendar day or more from its originally published value.

Figure 1 - Receiving Window Stability (Hapag-Lloyd)

• Stable receiving windows: 52.10%
• Moved receiving windows: 47.90%

Plain English meaning:
For Hapag-Lloyd, receiving-window stability is slightly more common than movement - but nearly half of port-calls still require plan adjustments. Exporters experience this as “generally reliable, but not set-and-forget.”

Section 2 - Drift isn’t chaos; it has a shape

Drift measures how far ERDs or CY Cutoffs move between original and final values, expressed in calendar days.

Figure 2 - ERD Drift Distribution (Hapag-Lloyd)

• 3+ day ERD drift: 18.53% of port-calls

Plain English meaning:
Most Hapag-Lloyd ERD changes are modest, but nearly one in five port-calls experience large (3+ day) shifts. Those tail events account for a disproportionate share of execution pain.

Static buffers are built for the middle of the curve.
Operational pain lives in the tail.

Section 3 - CY cutoffs are where risk concentrates for Hapag-Lloyd

Across the Hapag-Lloyd sample, CY Cutoff drift exceeds ERD drift.

Figure 3 - ERD vs CY Drift (Hapag-Lloyd)

Average drift

• Mean ERD drift: 1.14 days
• Mean CY drift: 1.59 days

Threshold comparison

• ≥1 day drift: ERD 33.57% vs CY 46.85%
• ≥2 days drift: ERD 23.43% vs CY 32.52%
• ≥3 days drift: ERD 18.53% vs CY 25.87%

Plain English meaning:
This is a familiar pattern in the series: CY Cutoffs are the dominant execution constraint. ERDs may look manageable early, but CY timing introduces late-stage risk that breaks otherwise workable plans.

Section 4 - Timing matters more than averages

A late-stage change is defined as a change to ERD or CY Cutoff that occurs within the final 72 hours before the receiving window opens.

Figure 4 - Late-Stage Receiving Window Changes (Hapag-Lloyd)

• ERD changed in last 72 hours: 21.68%
• CY Cutoff changed in last 72 hours: 29.37%

Plain English meaning:
Nearly three in ten Hapag-Lloyd CY Cutoffs change inside the final 72 hours. Even with decent average stability, this late timing is what creates exporter friction.

So far, we’ve looked at how windows move.
Next, we look at where.

Section 5 - Volatility is not evenly distributed across terminals (Hapag-Lloyd)

The Port Volatility Index (PVI) reflects how quickly static planning assumptions break once receiving-window behavior is considered.

Figure 5 - Port-Level Drift (Hapag-Lloyd)

Below are the highest-volatility ports in the Hapag-Lloyd sample. Ports with smaller sample sizes should be interpreted cautiously.

USSAV (PVI 10.0)

• Mean ERD drift: 2.94 days
• Mean CY drift: 3.15 days
• Stable window rate: 18.75%
• CY late-stage change: 43.75%

What this feels like:
A high-movement environment at both ends of the window. Plans frequently require re-validation, and late CY changes amplify execution stress.

USORF (PVI 7.8)

• Mean ERD drift: 2.09 days
• Mean CY drift: 2.36 days
• Stable window rate: 33.33%
• CY late-stage change: 33.33%

What this feels like:
Balanced ERD and CY volatility with meaningful late-stage risk. Reliability stress shows up throughout the planning cycle.

USNYC (PVI 5.6)

• Mean ERD drift: 0.63 days
• Mean CY drift: 1.87 days
• Stable window rate: 56.25%
• CY late-stage change: 31.25%

What this feels like:
More predictable early, but CY timing remains the execution risk. Plans can feel safe until close-in updates reduce flexibility.

USLAX (PVI 4.9)

• Mean ERD drift: 0.47 days
• Mean CY drift: 1.32 days
• Stable window rate: 62.50%
• CY late-stage change: 25.00%

What this feels like:
A more forgiving environment overall, though still subject to late CY movement that can force last-minute adjustments.

USTIW (PVI 3.4)

• Mean ERD drift: 0.92 days
• Mean CY drift: 1.08 days
• Stable window rate: 66.67%
• CY late-stage change: 16.67%

What this feels like:
Relatively stable by comparison, with lower late-stage risk - though not immune to cutoff shifts.

Section 6 - Severity still exists, even when averages look manageable

Figure 6 - Top 10 Highest-Severity Hapag-Lloyd Events

Plain English meaning:
These events are stress tests, not typical shipments. They show how quickly drift can stack when multiple changes coincide, even within a generally stable carrier profile.

Static buffers fail in these scenarios by design.

Section 7 - The KPI that matters for Hapag-Lloyd

Figure 7 - Receiving Window Movement Rate (Hapag-Lloyd)

• Moved receiving windows: 47.90%
• Stable receiving windows: 52.10%
• Scope: 286 port-calls • 96 vessels • 9 ports

Plain English meaning:
For Hapag-Lloyd, stability is the majority state - but movement is still frequent enough that predictability must be actively managed, particularly around CY Cutoffs.

Section 8 - Why static buffers fail (and why this repeats)

Figure 8 - Static Buffer vs Dynamic Time Buffer (DTB)

Plain English meaning:
When late-stage CY movement is common, fixed buffers are routinely exceeded. Planning must adapt to observed receiving-window behavior, not assumed arrival reliability.

Before we move to the next carrier

A vessel can be “on time” and still break export execution if the receiving window shifts underneath it.

This Hapag-Lloyd edition shows:

• relatively balanced ERD stability,
• CY Cutoff timing as the primary execution risk, and
• volatility that concentrates by port rather than evenly across the network.

Methodology and definitions:
Reliability Series - Methodology Appendix
https://www.tradelanes.co/blog/reliability-series-methodology-appendix

Next in the Reliability Series

With the carrier deep dives complete, the Reliability Series now turns to ports.

What the carrier editions made clear is that execution reliability is ultimately local - shaped by where cargo is received, not just who carries it. The next phase applies the same receiving-window lens at the port level to understand how timing risk concentrates at the gateways exporters depend on most.

Same framework.
Different vantage point.