In a challenging shipping market, it’s tempting to cut costs by delaying maintenance tasks. But what seems like a small saving today often turns into significant hidden losses tomorrow. For companies serious about sustainability, efficiency, and profitability, understanding the true cost of deferred maintenance is vital.
Why Deferred Maintenance Happens
Owners and operators often defer maintenance during downturns or periods of tight budgets. Drydocking intervals get stretched, parts replacement is postponed, and performance checks are skipped.
In the short term, this frees up cash. However, in practice, it often backfires, resulting in higher costs that may not always be reflected immediately on the balance sheet.
Hidden Costs: Fuel Inefficiency and Emissions
When hull cleaning, propeller polishing, or machinery tuning are delayed, vessels burn more fuel to achieve the same speed. Even a slightly fouled hull can increase resistance and push fuel consumption up by 5–10%.
For large fleets, this translates to millions in extra fuel bills each year, plus higher emissions, making it harder to meet decarbonisation targets.
Short-Term Savings, Long-Term Drydock Expenses
A ship that misses small preventive tasks is more likely to require major unscheduled repairs later. Minor corrosion can become structural damage. Worn seals can lead to leaks or engine damage.
When these issues are eventually addressed, dry dock times are often longer and more expensive than they would have been with routine maintenance. Additionally, longer off-hire periods result in lost revenue.
Lower Resale Value and Charter Attractiveness
Buyers and charterers today scrutinise maintenance records. A poorly maintained vessel, or one with a spotty history, often attracts a lower price and struggles to secure premium charter rates.
Think of it this way: a ship is an asset. Its market value depends not just on age but on condition. Deferring upkeep may keep it sailing today, but it erodes future returns.
The Bigger Financial Picture: Modelling the True Cost
When viewed holistically, the savings from deferring maintenance rarely outweigh the hidden costs. Financial models for Technical Management of Ships now increasingly include:
- Extra fuel consumption over months or years.
- Higher drydock and repair costs later on.
- Loss of charter revenue during extended repairs.
- Reduced resale or scrap value.
Smart ship managers use lifecycle cost analysis to show that preventive spending is not just good practice — it’s a clear competitive advantage.
Real Example: One Missed Drydock, Millions Lost
Consider a mid-sized tanker fleet that chose to defer propeller polishing and hull coating renewal to save costs for one year. Fuel consumption rose by an average of 6% across the fleet, which, over 12 months, cost them an additional USD 2 million in bunkers. Worse, the next scheduled dry dock revealed widespread corrosion, extending repair time by three weeks per vessel, and adding even more off-hire losses.
A short-term cut turned into a multi-million-dollar penalty.
Making the Business Case for Preventive Care
The takeaway is clear: what you defer today will cost you more tomorrow — in fuel, downtime, emissions penalties, and asset value.
Proactive technical managers should communicate this risk to owners and operators, supported by real data and models. A solid maintenance plan isn’t just an expense — it’s a financial strategy to protect asset value and performance.
Final Thoughts
In a world where fuel costs fluctuate and environmental regulations become increasingly stringent, the true cost of deferred maintenance is too high to ignore.
Investing in smart, regular upkeep will keep your vessels efficient, compliant, and competitive for years to come — and that’s money well spent.
