Talk:Hapag-Lloyd

Merger
So where is the discussion? Who wants it merged? And why? For my money, I can't see whats wrong with a page about HAPAG, up to the merger, and a separate page on Hapag-Lloyd since then. The reason I came to this page was for some information on some HAPAG ships, which isn't here, so there's plenty of room for expansion. It would be worth having a page on NDL as well; for the same reason. 194.176.105.39 12:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Merge - HAPAG has a long and distinct history as the "world's largest shipping company" that would be diminished by being just a section in a HAPAG-Lloyd article. That being said, each article could use some improvement! Brholden 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the decision is to not merge - if there isn't more discussion in the next couple of days, I'll remove the merge notice. Brholden 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed merge notice per conclusion of discussion. Brholden 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sell out
Dear Pakistan IP, there are some problem with your statements. They are not neutral, unsourced and read like an advertisement. Please rewrite them and I'll be happy to comply. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lloyd
Who was the eponymous Mr. Lloyd? Has his identity been lost to history? Drutt (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain there was no person named Lloyd in this case. Certainly I have neder read of the company being named asfer a person. I do know for certain that neither Swedish Lloyd nor Finnish Lloyd (both long-since defunct) was named after a person. It seems that in the 19th and early 20th century "Lloyd" was used in shipping company names in similar general meaning as "Line". — Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lloyd is a common British name so I would expect it to have been named after a person. The only information I have been able to find is this: It's Norddeutscher Lloyd, Bremen, founded 1857, named after the coffeehouse of Mr. Edward Lloyd by Hermann Heinrich Meier. Lloyds is of course a famous British insurance company. Drutt (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hapag-Lloyd Global Services Pvt. Ltd
What's with this section? It looks like it was taken straight out of a company press release and I find nothing encyclopedic in the contents. 195.167.195.200 (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I will remove this whole section as it is irrelevnt to the article as a whole.57.73.14.187 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hapag-Lloyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924211117/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/idUSFWN0TM00M20141202l to https://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/idUSFWN0TM00M20141202l

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision 2019
[Disclosure: This edit is made as part of my work with H&C Stader GmbH, a German history communication agency, and in turn as part of our work for Hapag Lloyd AG]

I have revised large portions of this (somewhat outdated) article. Most of the edits I have made so far have been obvious mistakes and small typos (like the foundation of NDL being placed into 1856, when it was indeed 1857, see Norddeutscher Lloyd) and have otherwise stuck to updating more current information (such as the company no longer being part of the TUI-Group, or references to involvments in tourism). I would kindly ask the community for some more feedback on these edits and on some other edits which I'll be proposing here.

As stated above, all of this is part of a paid contribution, but our task is to provide more accurate information on Wikipedia, not advertisement. As such, I would appreciate any feedback if there is any doubt over the accuracy of the edits made or proposed here.

"Hamburg-Amerika-Linie"

The predecessor of the company is currently spelled as "Hamburg America Line (HAPAG)" multiple times throughout the article. The official English version used by the company was "Hamburg-American Line" (see e.g. https://poster-auctioneer.com/realisierte_preise/view_real_price/Bohrdt-Hans-United-American-Lines-211527). Is there any (perhaps technical?) reason or convention for using the other translation? Otherwise I would replace it here and possibly in the related articles.

CSAV-"merger"

Strictly speaking, Hapag-Lloyd did not merge with CSAV, since CSAV still exists today as a company of its own and shareholder in Hapag-Lloyd (http://www.csav.com; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSAV). Hapag-Lloyd called the transaction the "merger with Chilean shipping company CSAV’s container business" and subsequent "integration of CSAV’s container shipping activities into Hapag-Lloyd". (HL Annual Report 2014, p. 7). Is there a better way of expressing this? Otherwise I would edit the article to use the wording of "merger with the container business" to distinguish from a full merger.

Number of NDL-emigrants transported

The article states "with a peak of 240,000 passengers across the Atlantic in 1913 alone." So far we cannot confirm this figure in our own sources. According to statistics reproduced by Edwin Drechsel, the North German Lloyd carried a total of 218,014 passengers from Bremen and the Mediterranean, respectively, to New York in 1913. (Edwin Drechsel, Norddeutscher Lloyd Bremen 1857-1970. History, Fleet, Ship Mails, Vol. I, Vancouver 1994, p. 410) NDL's Annual Report for 1913, gives a total number of 209,645 emigrants carried on the lines from Bremen to "North America and Canada" (NDL Annual Report 1913, p. 3). Additionally, they say that on their "transatlantic lines" a total of 662,385 had been carried (ibid., p. 5). It is not explicitly clear what relations and directions this refers to. If there is no other confirmation for the 240k-number, I would attempt to include the lower numbers given in the article.

World War I

The article talks about 135 ships interned at Hoboken and later confiscated, but this seems highly unlikely and is most certainly a misreading of that number in another context, because 135 is in fact the total number of seagoing steamers of NDL on January 1, 1914 (NDL Annual Report 1913). According to Edwin Drechsel, a total of 32 NDL ships were interned in US ports. (Edwin Drechsel, Norddeutscher Lloyd Bremen 1857-1970. History, Fleet, Ship Mails, Vol. II, Vancouver 1995, p. 1) A contemporary list of ships confiscated by the US in 1917 names six seagoing vessels taken in New York 'plus some small craft in New York and Baltimore'. (Jahrbuch des Norddeutschen Lloyd 1917/18, S. 229) If there are no better sources provided or any objections, I would use these revised numbers, seeing how they are better sourced and appear more reasonable.

Directly afterwards, there is a claim that NDL purchased back the Hoboken base after the war. We can find no mention of such a purchase, and instead have a reference to "new" facilities in 1924 (Jahrbuch des Norddeutschen Lloyd 1924, S.216). Given that the whole section seems to be based on a single entry in the Encyclopedia of New York City, I would attempt to find additional confirmation, otherwise I would propose to cut that claim from the article.

World War II

Again, there are bold claims about a full confiscation of the NDL-fleet in 1941, and the "Bremen" being the only vessel to escape confiscation. This appears to be just as inaccurate as it was for 1917: The "Bremen" was not the only Lloyd ship not to be confiscated, there were a number of others (NDL Annual Report 1939-1948, [p. 4]; http://www.schiffe-maxim.de/NDL.htm). Besides, as can be seen from SS_Bremen_(1928), the ship moved back to Bremerhaven (!) - which is not the same as Bremen - and was destroyed by afire in 1941, so I would overhaul that entire paragraph to better match these facts.

Speed record

There is a mention of a speed record set in 1881 by the Elbe, and purportedly only lost in 1900. This section once again references to the "Encyclopedia of New York", and the encyclopedia refers to Otto Seilers "Bridge across the Atlantic" (Herford 1991). Seiler writes: "During her maiden trip in 1881 [the "Elbe"] established [...] a new record of eight days on the route from Southampton to New York" (p. 16), but there is no mentioning as to how log she held this record. When Seiler writes: "Lloyd's claim to the fastest crossing of the Atlantic was lost in 1900, when Hapag commissioned the "Deutschland"" (p. 31), he refers to the "Blue Riband" record held by "Kaiser Wilhelm der Große" since 1898 SS_Kaiser_Wilhelm_der_Grosse.

Hamburg Süd

The article states that a final offer was rejected by shareholders. Yet the cited article does not mention that there had been a "final offer" from Hapag-Lloyd's side; it only refers to a press release that "said the planned merger with rival Hamburg-Sued has been called off because terms could not be agreed." (https://www.hapag-lloyd.com/en/press/releases/2013/03/pressemitteilung-der-hamburgische-seefahrtsbeteiligung-albert-b_28866.html) See also Hamburg Süd's release on https://www.hamburgsud-line.com/liner/en/liner_services/company_1/press___media/press_releases/press_release_detail_909932.html?. I would put in some wording that better matches the press release here, unless there are other sources for the final offer?

Below, the number given for the eventual purchase by Maersk is 4.02 billion USD, yet the cited article does not mention the price, as it was not yet fixed when announcing the deal in December 2016. Is there any source for that number? --Hannes H&#38;C (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

TEMU2235252
TEMU2235252 197.252.214.229 (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)