Red Sea Shipping Returns in 2026: Which Carriers Are Resuming Suez Canal Routes?

After years of widespread diversions around the Cape of Good Hope, container shipping through the Red Sea and Suez Canal is beginning to return — but only gradually¹.

In September 2026, several major carriers expanded their use of the Suez route. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd announced that four additional Gemini Cooperation services would return to the Suez Canal, while MSC continued a limited restoration of selected East–West services.

For companies shipping between China, Europe and the Mediterranean, this could mean shorter transit times and changes to vessel schedules.

However, the Red Sea has not returned to normal.

Security risks remain, some services are still sailing around the Cape of Good Hope, and carriers continue to reserve the right to change routing if conditions deteriorate.

So what has actually changed — and what should shippers expect?

1. Which Shipping Lines Have Returned to the Red Sea and Suez Canal?

The most significant change in September came from the Gemini Cooperation between Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd.

On September 14, 2026, the two carriers announced that four additional services would switch from the Cape of Good Hope back to the Red Sea–Suez Canal route:

These services join AE15 and AE19, which were already operating via Suez.

For China exporters, AE5, AE11 and AE12 are particularly relevant.

The new rotations include major Chinese ports such as:

• Qingdao
• Ningbo
• Shanghai
• Yantian

and connect them with European gateways including:

• Rotterdam
• Hamburg
• Bremerhaven
• London
• Valencia
• Barcelona
• Genoa
• La Spezia
• Koper
• Rijeka

For example, the revised AE11 rotation is:

Shanghai → Yantian → Tanjung Pelepas → Suez Canal → Tangier → Valencia → Barcelona → La Spezia → Genoa → Vado Ligure → Suez Canal → Singapore

The first westbound sailings for several of these revised services began from September 19–21, while implementation dates vary by service and direction.

The first AE12 sailing under the revised routing had not yet been announced in Maersk's September 14 advisory.

Source: Maersk – Structural Changes to AE5, AE11, AE12 and ME2 Gemini Services

2. MSC Is Also Returning — But More Cautiously

MSC is also gradually restoring Red Sea and Suez Canal transits, but its approach remains more limited.

On September 14, MSC announced that it was continuing to partially restore Suez Canal transits on a limited number of East–West services.

One example is the Indusa service, connecting the Indian subcontinent with the United States and Mexico.

MSC announced that westbound cargo would resume Red Sea routing with:

MSC DOMNA X — Voyage IV637A — departing Colombo on September 23, 2026

However, eastbound cargo on the same service would continue sailing around the Cape of Good Hope.

That distinction is important.

A shipping line may resume Suez transits for:

• One service
• One direction
• Selected vessels
• Specific sailings

while continuing to divert other voyages around Africa.

MSC also stated that the transition would be implemented case by case, with contingency arrangements remaining in place if regional conditions change.

Source: MSC – Resumption of Indusa Service in the Red Sea Region

3. What Does the Return to Suez Mean for China–Europe Shipping?

The biggest operational advantage of the Suez route is simple:

It is shorter than sailing around the Cape of Good Hope.

For Asia–Europe container shipping, the basic routing difference looks like this:

Suez Route

China
↓
Southeast Asia
↓
Indian Ocean
↓
Bab el-Mandeb
↓
Red Sea
↓
Suez Canal
↓
Mediterranean
↓
Europe

Cape of Good Hope Route

China
↓
Southeast Asia
↓
Indian Ocean
↓
Cape of Good Hope
↓
West Africa
↓
Europe

Returning to Suez can reduce sailing distance and improve transit times.

For importers, that may provide several potential benefits:

• Shorter transit times
• Faster inventory replenishment
• Reduced vessel operating distance
• More efficient equipment rotation
• Potentially more stable Asia–Europe schedules

But shippers should be careful about assuming that every China–Europe service has already returned to its old schedule.

The transition is happening service by service.²

A booking from Shanghai to Rotterdam, for example, could now travel through Suez on one service while another carrier or service may still route around the Cape of Good Hope.

Before booking, shippers should therefore confirm the actual routing of the specific service, not simply assume that all Asia–Europe cargo is moving through Suez again.

4. Does the Red Sea Restart Mean Freight Rates and Surcharges Will Fall?

Not necessarily.

A shorter Suez routing can reduce sailing distance and vessel operating requirements compared with the Cape of Good Hope diversion.

In theory, that can improve vessel utilization and reduce some of the additional costs created by long diversions.

However:

Route normalization does not automatically mean freight-cost normalization.

Freight rates are influenced by many factors beyond sailing distance³, including:

• Vessel capacity
• Seasonal demand
• Fuel prices
• Port congestion
• Equipment availability
• Security costs
• Insurance costs⁴
• Carrier capacity management

Security-related surcharges may also remain in place on some trades.⁵

For example, MSC announced a Piracy Risk Surcharge (PRS) and Suez Canal Surcharge (SCS)⁶ in September for cargo moving from Asia to selected East Mediterranean and Black Sea destinations.

This demonstrates why shippers should not assume:

"The vessel is using Suez again, so the Red Sea surcharge must disappear."

Instead, check the actual freight quotation and confirm which surcharges apply to the specific carrier, route and sailing.

5. Why Shippers Still Need a Backup Plan

The return to Suez is an important development, but the security situation remains uncertain.

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd explicitly stated that future routing decisions remain dependent on:

• Continued stability in the Red Sea
• The absence of escalation in regional conflicts

MSC has taken a similarly cautious approach, keeping contingency arrangements in place and allowing individual voyages to be adjusted if conditions require.

That caution is understandable.

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait, connecting the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea, remains a strategically sensitive maritime chokepoint⁷.

Security concerns in the region have not disappeared, and naval protection efforts remain active.

For shippers, this means routing could still change after a booking is made.

Before Booking China–Europe Cargo

Check:

• [ ] Is the selected service currently routing through Suez?
• [ ] Is the routing confirmed in both directions?
• [ ] What is the current transit time?
• [ ] Are Red Sea, piracy or Suez-related surcharges included?
• [ ] Could the carrier revert to the Cape of Good Hope?
• [ ] How would a routing change affect the ETA?
• [ ] Is additional inventory buffer required?
• [ ] Are alternative sailings available?

For time-sensitive cargo, the actual service routing and schedule reliability may now be more important than simply choosing the lowest ocean freight rate.

FAQ

Have shipping lines fully returned to the Red Sea in 2026?

No. The return is still partial.

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have expanded Suez routing across several Gemini Cooperation services, while MSC has resumed selected Red Sea transits on a limited and case-by-case basis.

Other services may continue routing around the Cape of Good Hope.

Shippers should check the routing of the specific service and sailing before booking.

Which China–Europe services have returned to the Suez Canal?

As of September 2026, Gemini Cooperation services including AE5, AE11 and AE12 have been announced for Suez routing, joining AE15 and AE19.

These services connect major Asian ports, including several Chinese gateways, with Northern European and Mediterranean destinations.

Implementation dates vary by service and sailing.

Will Suez Canal resumption make China–Europe freight cheaper?

Not automatically.

Returning to Suez can reduce sailing distance and potentially improve vessel utilization, but freight rates depend on many other factors, including capacity, demand, fuel prices, insurance costs and carrier pricing strategies.

Security-related or route-specific surcharges may also remain in place.

Conclusion

The return of major container services to the Red Sea and Suez Canal marks an important shift for Asia–Europe shipping in 2026.

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are expanding Suez routing across several Gemini services, while MSC is gradually restoring selected transits.

For China exporters and European importers, the change could mean shorter transit times and more efficient routing compared with sailing around the Cape of Good Hope.

But this is not yet a full return to normal.

Security risks remain, implementation differs by carrier and service, and some voyages continue to use the Cape route. Shipping lines also retain contingency plans that allow them to change routing if regional conditions deteriorate.

For shippers, the best approach is therefore to confirm the actual vessel routing, transit time and applicable surcharges for each booking rather than assuming that the entire China–Europe trade has returned to Suez.

In the current market, routing flexibility and schedule visibility remain just as important as freight price.