The Reliability Illusion: MSC Through the Cargo Receiving Window

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

Most discussions of ocean carrier reliability still revolve around a single question:

Did the vessel arrive on time?

That question is easy to measure.
It is also the wrong one for exporters.

Export execution happens inside the receiving window - the time period between Earliest Return Date (ERD) and the CY Cutoff. That window determines whether cargo can actually gate in, whether trucks are dispatched correctly, and whether a booking makes the intended sailing.

When that window moves, exporters feel it immediately - even if the vessel still arrives “on time.”

All terms used in this article - including ERD, CY Cutoff, receiving window, drift, and late-stage change - are defined in the Reliability Series - Methodology Appendix:
https://www.tradelanes.co/blog/reliability-series-methodology-appendix

Data scope (MSC sample)

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

• 777 port-calls
• 310 vessels
• 9 ports
• Carrier: MSCU (MSC)

Filters applied (same as System Baseline):

• Both ERD and CY Cutoff required
• Drift greater than 40 days treated as data error and excluded

Full methodology, thresholds, and definitions:
https://www.tradelanes.co/blog/reliability-series-methodology-appendix

Section 1 - How often do MSC receiving windows actually move?

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

Figure 1 - Receiving Window Stability (MSC)

• Stable receiving windows: 57.27%
• Moved receiving windows: 42.73%

Plain English meaning:
MSC receiving windows are stable a majority of the time in this sample - but more than 4 in 10 port-calls still experienced a one-day-or-more shift. That is enough movement to create routine “plan breaks” even when arrival reliability looks fine on paper.

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

Drift measures how far an ERD or CY Cutoff moves between its original and final values, expressed in calendar days.

Figure 2 - ERD Drift Distribution (MSC)

ERD drift distribution:

• 0-1 day: 64.09%
• 1-2 days: 10.55%
• 2-3 days: 6.31%
• 3+ days: 19.05%

Plain English meaning:
Most MSC ERD changes are small. But the tail is not theoretical - about 1 in 5 MSC port-calls experienced 3+ days of ERD drift.

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

Section 3 - CY cutoffs are where risk concentrates

Across the MSC sample, CY Cutoff drift exceeds ERD drift.

Figure 3 - ERD vs CY Drift (MSC)

Average drift:

• Mean ERD drift: 1.66 days
• Mean CY drift: 1.84 days

Threshold comparison:

• ≥1 day drift: ERD 35.91% vs CY 38.10%
• ≥2 days drift: ERD 25.35% vs CY 28.19%
• ≥3 days drift: ERD 19.05% vs CY 21.88%

Plain English meaning:
The exporter risk pattern holds here too: CY Cutoffs are the bigger execution constraint. ERDs can look manageable early, but CY behavior is what ultimately determines whether the plan still fits.

Section 4 - Timing matters more than averages

A late-stage change is 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 (MSC)

• ERD changed in last 72 hours: 16.22%
• CY Cutoff changed in last 72 hours: 23.68%

Plain English meaning:
Nearly 1 in 4 MSC CY cutoffs changed inside the final 72 hours. That is the “dispatch lock” problem - the plan looks stable until the moment options are limited.

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

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

The Port Volatility Index (PVI) combines how far ERDs move, how far CY cutoffs move, and how often changes happen late, into a normalized score (0-10) that reflects how quickly static planning assumptions break at a port.

A higher PVI doesn’t mean a port is “bad.” It means static assumptions break faster there.

Figure 5 - Port-Level Drift (MSC - Top Volatility Ports)

Below is a plain English interpretation of the ports with the highest volatility signals in this MSC sample. (Ports with small sample sizes should be interpreted cautiously.)

USLGB (PVI 10.0)

• Mean ERD drift: 3.31 days
• Mean CY drift: 4.15 days
• Stable window rate: 38.18%
• CY late-stage change rate: 22.73%

What this feels like:
At USLGB, MSC volatility is not subtle. Both windows move far enough that “standard buffers” stop being reliable. Planning needs range, not precision.

USSEA (PVI 6.7) - smaller sample (n=39)

• Mean ERD drift: 1.33 days
• Mean CY drift: 1.79 days
• CY late-stage change rate: 58.97%

What this feels like:
This is a port where CY timing can change late and often. Even if averages look moderate, the late-stage behavior can force last-minute rework.

USSAV (PVI 5.0)

• Mean ERD drift: 1.70 days
• Mean CY drift: 1.69 days
• Stable window rate: 58.31%

What this feels like:
A steadier profile - movement exists, but it is less extreme than USLGB. Exporters still need flexibility, but not constant re-planning.

USCHS (PVI 4.5) - smaller sample (n=40)

• Mean ERD drift: 1.12 days
• Mean CY drift: 1.32 days
• CY late-stage change rate: 40.00%

What this feels like:
The magnitude is moderate, but a meaningful share of CY updates land late, which is where the real operational cost shows up.

USOAK (PVI 4.2) - small sample (n=14)

• Mean ERD drift: 0.57 days
• Mean CY drift: 0.50 days
• CY late-stage change rate: 64.29%

What this feels like:
Low average drift but high late-stage signal in a small sample. If this pattern holds at scale, it is a “looks stable until late” environment.

USORF (PVI 3.5) - small sample (n=12)

• Mean ERD drift: 1.50 days
• Mean CY drift: 0.00 days (as observed in sample)
• ERD late-stage change rate: 58.33%

What this feels like:
In this small sample, the late-stage signal sits disproportionately in ERD rather than CY. If validated with more calls, that would imply early acceptance timing is what breaks late.

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

Figure 6 - Top 10 Highest-Severity MSC Vessel Events

Plain English meaning:
These events are not typical - they are stress tests that show how quickly drift can stack when multiple changes coincide.

Top examples in this sample:

• MSC ORNELLA (USCHS): ERD 35d, CY 34d, late-stage 2, score 71
• MSC ANAHITA (USSAV): ERD 35d, CY 35d, late-stage 0, score 70
• MSC NOA (USSAV): ERD 33d, CY 33d, late-stage 1, score 67

Static buffers fail in these scenarios by design.

Section 7 - The KPI that matters for MSC

Figure 7 - Receiving Window Movement Rate (MSC)

• Moved receiving windows: 42.73%
• Stable receiving windows: 57.27%
• Scope: 777 port-calls - 310 vessels - 9 ports

Plain English meaning:
If you plan MSC exports using only “on-time arrival” framing, you will still experience plan breaks. The movement rate tells you why: receiving windows move often enough that predictability must be managed explicitly.

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

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

Plain English meaning:
When drift has a long tail and late-stage changes are common, fixed buffers are routinely exceeded. Planning must adapt to observed behavior, not assumptions.

Before we talk about the next carrier

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

This MSC edition shows:

• stable windows are the majority, but movement is still frequent,
• CY Cutoff drift and late-stage changes remain the primary execution exposure,
• volatility concentrates by port, not evenly across the network.

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

Next in the Carrier Reliability Series:
CMA CGM - publishing soon.