What is a consecutive voyages charter?
A consecutive voyages charter is a single contract under which one specific vessel performs back-to-back voyages on the same lane at an agreed per-tonne freight rate, until the contracted cargo quantity or contract period is exhausted, with no spot redeployment between lifts.
CONSEC, BIMCO’s standard form for consecutive voyage charters, is the canonical instrument. It locks one named hull to the trade. The owner cannot substitute. The charterer cannot switch the lane. Each round trip flows into the next without the vessel being released to the spot market in between, and the contract holds together as one continuous engagement rather than a series of separate voyage charters.
The consecutive voyages structure exists for trades where vessel identity matters: where the charterer has invested in stowage planning around a specific hull, where the cargo gear or cargo-hold geometry is unusually compatible, where the previous lifts on that ship have established a known performance baseline. It is also used as a programme-cargo instrument when the cargo interest wants vessel continuity rather than the fleet flexibility a contract of affreightment provides. The CONSEC form gives a tighter operational frame than stringing together separate voyage charters, because off-hire, drydocking and ballast-leg responsibilities are addressed across the chain rather than treated as fresh issues at each fixture.
How a consecutive voyages charter works in practice
The charterer identifies a specific vessel with the right specification for the trade (deadweight, draught, holds, gear, classification, age) and approaches the owner directly or through a broker. The negotiation centres on the per-tonne freight rate, the number of consecutive voyages or the total cargo quantity, the lane, the laytime regime per voyage, and the off-hire and drydocking treatment. The CONSEC form provides the default wording and the BIMCO consecutive voyage rider clauses cover the points that single-voyage forms leave unaddressed.
Once fixed, the vessel performs the first laden voyage, ballasts back to the load port, performs the second laden voyage, and so on. Each laden leg is governed by the charter’s voyage clauses (notice of readiness, laytime, demurrage), but the ballast leg between voyages sits inside the same contract: the owner pays the bunker, the charterer does not, and the vessel is not free to take a spot fixture in the interim. See voyage estimate for how the ballast leg is built into the per-tonne economics.
Performance is monitored voyage by voyage. The master files a statement of facts for each port call. Laytime and demurrage are usually settled per voyage, not in aggregate, so each lift produces its own demurrage or despatch calculation. The contract closes when the agreed number of voyages or cargo quantity is complete, at which point the vessel is released to the owner for redeployment.
| Cost or risk axis | Owner exposure | Charterer exposure |
|---|---|---|
| Bunker | Owner (laden and ballast) | None |
| Port costs and disbursements | Owner | None |
| Canal dues and towage | Owner | None unless agreed deviation |
| Off-hire | Owner subject to CONSEC off-hire clause | Charterer not liable for owner off-hire |
| Demurrage and despatch | Owner pays despatch per lift | Charterer pays demurrage per lift on laytime overrun |
| Weather and routing | Owner (route is owner's election) | None |
| Cargo claims | Owner (Hague-Visby liabilities) | Owner subject to FIO stow |
| Crew | Owner | None |
| Maintenance | Owner, with drydocking treatment in CONSEC | None |
Consecutive voyages vs contract of affreightment
Both instruments commit a charterer and an owner to multiple lifts on the same lane. The split is whether the contract names the vessel. A consecutive voyages charter ties one named hull. A COA fixes the cargo programme and the rate but leaves vessel selection to the owner lift by lift.
| Consecutive voyages | Contract of affreightment | Time charter | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who runs the voyage | Owner | Owner | Charterer |
| Who pays bunker | Owner | Owner | Charterer |
| Who pays port costs | Owner | Owner | Charterer |
| Hire or freight basis | Fixed USD per tonne, one named ship | Fixed USD per tonne, any of owner's ships | USD per day |
| Cargo risk | Owner per voyage | Owner per lift | Charterer |
| Time risk | Owner across the chain | Owner per lift | Charterer |
| Typical duration | 3 to 12 months | 12 to 36 months | Months to years |
| Best for | Programme cargo, one named ship | Programme cargo, fleet flexibility | Programme cargo, charterer control |
Use consecutive voyages when one specific vessel materially improves the trade economics or operational fit, and when the cargo programme can absorb that vessel’s full continuous capacity for the contract period. Use a contract of affreightment when the cargo interest is indifferent between hulls but wants the per-tonne rate locked in. Use a time charter when the charterer wants operational control and is willing to take the bunker bill and the port-agency stack onto its own desk. The three instruments price the same programme cargo through different commitment shapes.
Risk allocation between owner and charterer
Each voyage inside a consecutive voyages charter looks like a voyage charter, so the per-voyage risk split mirrors the voyage charter table. What differs are the clauses that bridge the voyages and tie the chain together. Two are decisive.
The off-hire clause in CONSEC governs what happens if the vessel suffers a breakdown, drydocking, or any incident that takes it out of service between voyages. Unlike a time charter, where off-hire suspends the hire clock, a consecutive voyages charter has no hire clock to suspend. The CONSEC off-hire clause instead provides for the affected voyage to be cancelled or extended, with the owner bearing the lost-voyage exposure. The drafting on whether an off-hire event excuses both parties or only the owner is the single most negotiated point in a CONSEC fixture.
The ballast leg treatment is the second pressure point. Because the vessel returns empty to the load port between laden voyages, the owner carries the full ballast bunker cost. The freight rate must price that in. A consecutive voyages rate that is naively benchmarked against a single laden voyage rate will under-earn for the owner because it has not loaded the ballast leg correctly. INTERCARGO and BIMCO guidance both treat the ballast-leg economics as the core diligence point on a CONSEC fixture, and the consecutive voyage rider clauses provide standard wording for ballast-leg routing and bunkering.
Worked fixture example
Panamax grain export, 6 consecutive voyages
- Cargo
- Soybeans, 6 consecutive voyages of approx 65,000 mt each
- Lane
- Brazilian east coast to North China range
- Parcel size
- 65,000 mt per voyage, 5 pct molo
- Period
- April 2026 through September 2027, 6 round voyages
- Freight rate
- USD 38.50 per tonne
- Demurrage
- USD 24,000 per day, pro rata, per voyage
- Key clauses
- CONSEC, GENCON 2022 attached, FIO, 96 hours laytime per port SHINC, BL freight prepaid each voyage
The lane runs around 11,500 nautical miles one way, so a laden leg plus the ballast return is close to 23,000 nautical miles. At an estimated 8 days at each port and roughly 75 days at sea per round, the vessel completes one round voyage in about 90 days, fitting six round trips across two grain seasons. Total freight across the six voyages is approximately USD 15 million on 390,000 mt of soybeans.
The cargo interest selected this specific Panamax because its cargo hold geometry matches the grain stowage habits of the receiving facility, and the previous season’s lifts on the same hull established a clean performance record. A COA would have allowed the owner to substitute hulls; the cargo interest preferred the vessel certainty.
Demurrage per voyage is set at USD 24,000 per day, reflecting Panamax TCE expectations across the contract period, with the laytime clock running independently per voyage. The ballast leg from China back to Brazil is fully at owner risk and bunker cost, priced into the per-tonne rate. Off-hire wording follows the BIMCO CONSEC default: an off-hire event excuses the affected voyage, and the contract extends by one voyage at the owner’s option.
Common mistakes and misuse
- Pricing as if it were a single voyage charter. A naive transfer of a single-voyage USD per tonne rate to a consecutive voyages contract ignores the ballast leg, which the owner now bears continuously. The rate must reflect ballast bunker over the chain, not just one laden leg.
- Skipping the off-hire clause. Without explicit CONSEC off-hire wording, a single breakdown can trigger a contract-wide dispute about whether the missed voyage is the owner’s loss, the charterer’s loss, or shared.
- Locking a vessel whose drydocking falls inside the contract period. If the named vessel is due for special survey or drydocking during the contract, the contract must explicitly address how the missed voyages are treated. Otherwise the parties end up arguing whether the contract is in suspension or in breach.
- Confusing consecutive voyages with a contract of affreightment. If the cargo interest is indifferent between hulls, the right instrument is a COA; CONSEC restricts the owner to one ship and prices it accordingly.
- Forgetting that each voyage is settled independently. Demurrage, despatch and freight are calculated per voyage, not in aggregate. Aggregating laytime across voyages is non-standard and would need explicit drafting.
- Setting the laycan windows too tightly across consecutive lifts. The vessel’s actual schedule will drift, and tight back-to-back laycans force the owner into rushed turn-rounds. Realistic laycan spacing across the chain is part of the contract design.
When a consecutive voyages charter is the right choice
A consecutive voyages charter is the right instrument when one specific vessel materially fits the trade (stowage, gear, performance history, geometry) and when the cargo programme can absorb that vessel’s continuous capacity for several months. It also fits seasonal trades, like grain export windows, where the cargo interest wants assured tonnage during a tight harvest period and the owner wants assured employment across the same window. For trades where vessel identity is incidental, a contract of affreightment is usually the cheaper and more flexible choice. For trades where the charterer wants to control the voyage rather than buy the carriage, a time charter is the right surface.
When sizing a programme cargo against CONSEC, COA and time charter alternatives, the ship-brokering team can model the three structures against the cargo calendar and the vessel pool to identify which one prices the programme best across the contract life.
Scope and what this page does not cover
This page explains the consecutive voyages charter as a commercial instrument and the BIMCO CONSEC framework. It does not draft jurisdiction-specific off-hire or force majeure clauses, opine on the tax treatment of the ballast-leg cost, or forecast freight rates over the contract horizon. Those questions belong with chartering counsel and the desk’s market analyst, working against current BIMCO guidance and INTERCARGO commentary.