Current planning answer: “Manila” is too broad to imply one cargo-handling tariff. North Harbor, South Harbor and other Manila facilities can sit under different tariff schedules and operating arrangements. The latest CharterPulse model should therefore keep terminal identity and port cost editable rather than treating PHMNL as one uniform commercial facility.
Terminal-specific tariff events are identified separately from PPA-wide policies.
The 2026 issuance set includes supplemental operating guidance for PPA-regulated cargo-handling/terminal fuel surcharges and harbor-pilotage fuel-based adjustments.
Voyage implication: use the actual Manila terminal and current regulated-service implementation before rolling fuel-related charges into a voyage assumption.
PPA approved a 20% increase in Manila North Harbor cargo-handling tariffs in two tranches. The first 10% tranche applied from 1 January 2026 and the second 10% tranche from 1 July 2026.
Voyage implication: this is a North Harbor tariff event, not a blanket statement about every Manila terminal. Resolve the discharge facility before applying the schedule.
Confirm the exact terminal, cargo acceptance, berth and draft, gear/handling method, discharge rate, working hours, storage/free-time assumptions, vessel-service charges and whether the cargo-handling tariff being quoted actually belongs to that facility.
Use PHMNL as a route identity only until the actual facility is known. Once it is known, replace generic port time and port cost with terminal-specific assumptions and stress-test delay separately.
Research checked 22 September 2026. Dynamic PPA notices can extend the timeline without treating every Manila facility as identical.