Key takeaways
- Separate supply duration from incremental departure delay.
- Identify the other activities or decisions that constrain readiness.
- Use explicit hypothetical assumptions for commercial comparisons.
- Obtain responsible confirmation of feasibility before relying on a scenario.
Connect the scenario to the call type
PPA's coastal-terminal page describes Piraeus as a link to the Aegean islands and Crete and distinguishes coastal from cruise areas.
For a proposed coastal-service call, the commercial question may concern how fuel attendance interacts with the planned departure. The answer requires the actual vessel, terminal and supplier confirmations; the public description supplies no current delivery window or permission for simultaneous activities.
Do not transfer assumptions from another call type merely because both use Piraeus. Describe the particular schedule and decision being evaluated.
Identify the readiness constraint
Ask when the vessel would otherwise be ready under the approved call plan and when the proposed supply would finish under the scenario. Their relationship determines the modelled incremental delay.
Keep assumptions about parallel activities explicit. The commercial model can illustrate their consequence, but responsible personnel must decide whether the proposed arrangement is acceptable in practice.
If a later activity remains uncertain, show that dependency. A precise-looking departure calculation is not reliable when one of its controlling inputs has no support.
Compare fictional alternatives
This is an entirely ILLUSTRATIVE same-day timeline, not a Piraeus timetable or operating instruction. Assume solely for arithmetic that other approved call work is complete at 14:00 and supply duration is three hours.
In the ordinary scenario, supply starts at 12:00 and finishes at 15:00. The modelled incremental departure delay is max(0, 15 − 14) = one hour. In an earlier scenario, supply starts at 10:00 and finishes at 13:00, giving max(0, 13 − 14) = zero incremental hours.
Using a fictional time-cost allowance of USD 900 per hour, the ordinary scenario adds USD 900. If the earlier option has an invented additional fee of USD 300, its modelled incremental cost is USD 300. The arithmetic difference is USD 600.
The calculation assumes feasible parallel work solely for comparison, no other changed costs and no technical approval. The hourly allowance is not a contractual rate. All figures are invented and script-checked; they establish neither a real saving nor a claim against any party.
The example shows why the entire supply duration should not automatically be treated as added departure delay. The result changes if other readiness assumptions change or if the proposed overlap is not accepted.
Use a scenario review table
| Input | Confirmation required before real reliance |
|---|---|
| Other readiness point | Responsible call team's current basis |
| Supply window | Supplier and vessel-side scoped proposal |
| Parallel activity assumption | Acceptance through the relevant operating process |
| Commercial time allowance | Approved estimating basis and scope |
| Additional fee | Actual response and conditions |
| Reopening trigger | Changed timing, readiness or accepted arrangement |
The table is an original commercial comparison aid. It does not direct fuel-transfer operations or determine departure permission.
Keep actual evidence separate from the example
Authorised call and scenario record: not provided; obtain current verified information. For a current transaction, .
Use current call-specific sources for a real comparison. Where an input is missing, identify the uncertainty and the person seeking confirmation. Do not populate the record with the fictional values in this article.
Preserve the difference between a supplier's suggested attendance and a window accepted by all responsible parties. A commercially attractive scenario can remain unavailable or unapproved.
Fictional case: supply finishes after another controlling task
A fictional buyer initially assigns the whole proposed supply period to delay cost. The call team points out that another accepted activity already determines a later readiness point for part of that period.
The analyst rebuilds the comparison around the controlling readiness conditions and asks the responsible teams whether the assumed overlap is feasible. The estimate becomes conditional on that confirmation rather than presenting a large saving from an unsupported timetable.
The revised note explains what must be true for the model to apply. The receiving decision-maker can then assess the commercial comparison without mistaking it for an operating plan.
Review consequences beyond a time allowance
If a proposed alternative changes attendance terms, other services or the next commercial commitment, identify those effects separately. Avoid counting the same elapsed time in several categories without explanation.
Do not infer liability from the modelled cost. Check the actual agreement and circumstances with the responsible adviser before presenting an amount as recoverable.
When the call plan changes, refresh both the timeline and the related commercial assumptions. Keeping an old fee with a new window can create an inconsistent comparison.
Common mistakes
Avoid treating supply duration as identical to incremental delay, assuming parallel activity is permitted or presenting a hypothetical allowance as a contractual rate. Do not choose an earlier option solely from a model whose feasibility is unresolved.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.
Zeaclub provides 24/7 operating systems and worldwide coverage.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Does every supply hour add an hour to departure delay?
Not necessarily. Compare the supply completion with other readiness constraints, using an accepted and clearly scoped call plan.
Can the example establish that simultaneous work is allowed?
No. Its overlap is a fictional assumption for arithmetic. Actual feasibility and permission require the responsible operational review.
Is the illustrative hourly allowance a demurrage rate?
No. It is an invented commercial modelling input and establishes no contractual entitlement or rate.
When should the scenario be recalculated?
When relevant timing, readiness, commercial terms or operating acceptance changes. Preserve the basis used for each version.