The Suez Canal return everyone in ocean freight has been waiting for is finally underway, but calling it a full comeback would be premature. CMA CGM committed early and has stuck with it. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, sailing together under their Gemini Cooperation, tried once in February, pulled back when fighting broke out between the US and Iran, and are now trying again. Understanding who’s actually back, who’s still testing the water, and why the difference matters is essential for any forwarder quoting Asia-Europe or Asia-US East Coast business right now.

A Fractured, Cautious Return

CMA CGM moved first and fastest. The carrier restarted its INDAMEX service between India, Pakistan, and the US East Coast via Suez back in January, and has since shifted other backhaul legs onto the canal route as well, treating the return as largely settled business rather than an experiment. That decisive stance stands in sharp contrast to everyone else in the market.

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have had a rockier path. Their Gemini Cooperation resumed limited Red Sea transits in February, only to suspend them again almost immediately when hostilities erupted between the US and Iran at the end of that month. On 6 July, the two carriers announced a second attempt, shifting one service connecting Asia, the Mediterranean, and Turkey back onto the Suez route, with the Majestic Maersk expected to make the transit around 24 July. Both companies are explicit that this is a gradual, step-by-step process, and neither has committed to a firm timeline for a broader return. Hapag-Lloyd, on its own, remains the most conservative of the major carriers, and ZIM has stated it’s still waiting on insurance approval before considering any return at all.

Why the Caution Is Justified

The security picture explains the hesitation. A ceasefire memorandum between Iran and the US, consolidated on 14 June, has held so far, and the Houthis haven’t resumed attacks on Israeli-linked shipping since. But the calm is recent and thin. Only days before that, on 5 July, a cargo vessel reported coming under attack in the Red Sea near Al Hudaydah, a reminder that the underlying threat hasn’t disappeared, only paused. The pattern isn’t new either. A similar lull between November 2025 and late February 2026 broke down the moment regional tensions flared again, and it cost Maersk a $153 million loss in its ocean division for the final quarter of 2025 as it whipsawed between Cape diversions and Suez transits.

The traffic numbers tell the real story of how far the recovery still has to go. Before the crisis began in late 2023, the Suez Canal handled roughly 80 container ships a week. By mid-January 2026, that figure had recovered to just 26. War risk insurance premiums remain a major variable too, and industry analysts expect those premiums to climb sharply again if attacks resume, potentially pricing some ships out of the route entirely regardless of what carriers want to do.

What This Means for Routing and Rates

For forwarders, the practical stakes are significant. A full-loop return to Suez cuts transit time meaningfully. CMA CGM’s Karachi-to-New York INDAMEX loop dropped from roughly 91 days via the Cape to 77 days via Suez, a two-week improvement that matters enormously for time-sensitive cargo. The Cape of Good Hope detour adds around 11,000 nautical miles, ten extra days, and roughly $1 million in additional fuel costs per voyage, so every service that shifts back to Suez represents real, bookable savings for shippers, assuming security holds.

But a broader return also threatens to flood an already oversupplied market with capacity. Cape diversions currently absorb around 2 million TEU of global shipping capacity, and analysts estimate the ongoing crisis has reduced effective global capacity by roughly 8%. If more carriers follow CMA CGM’s lead, that capacity floods back into the system fast, and spot rates, already down more than 50% year over year on several major fronthaul lanes, could fall further still. That’s good news for buyers negotiating contracts. It’s a genuine risk for carriers already flirting with loss-making territory, and it changes the calculus for any forwarder trying to lock in long-term rate agreements right now.

Two Shipments, Two Different Bets

Consider a forwarder booking a full container load of auto components from Chennai to Rotterdam on a tight production schedule. Routing through a CMA CGM Suez service now offers a genuinely reliable two-week transit advantage over Cape routing, and CMA CGM’s early, consistent commitment to the canal makes that time savings a bookable certainty rather than a gamble.

Now consider a shipment of electronics moving from a Gemini Cooperation partner between Shenzhen and the Mediterranean. Here, the forwarder is booking into a route still labelled as a gradual test, on a service that reversed course once already this year. The transit-time upside is real if the Majestic Maersk’s late-July passage goes smoothly, but so is the risk of another sudden diversion back to the Cape if regional tensions flare again, a scenario clients need to be told about upfront rather than after their cargo is already at sea.

The Bottom Line 

Suez is coming back, but unevenly, cautiously, and with real risk still attached. Forwarders quoting Asia-Europe or Asia-US East Coast business this quarter need to know which carrier they’re booking with, how committed that carrier actually is to the route, and how quickly a security shift could send a shipment back around Africa. That distinction is now a genuine competitive advantage, and it’s exactly the kind of current, fast-moving market knowledge that separates forwarders who can advise clients with confidence from those working off outdated assumptions.