<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Excess capacity and lower rates are drawing some LTL freight into the truckload sector, helping to depress overall LTL volumes, FedEx quarterly results indicate.</div>

Excess capacity and lower rates are drawing some LTL freight into the truckload sector, helping to depress overall LTL volumes, FedEx quarterly results indicate.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The pressure of a three-year freight downturn is pushing more less-than-truckload (LTL) freight to the lower-priced truckload market, squeezing revenue and profits at FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider. FedEx Freight’s daily LTL shipment count declined 2.2% to 90,012 shipments in the fiscal quarter that ended Aug. 31, with revenue per shipment falling 0.9% year over year and revenue per hundredweight — a measure of profitability — dropping 0.6%. “Weakness in the industrial economy and excess capacity in the truckload market continue to pressure our results,” said Brie Carere, executive vice president and chief customer officer for FedEx, said during an earnings call with Wall Street analysts on Thursday. “You’ve all tracked the pressures on the industrial economy,” Carere said. “Of course, we are feeling that pressure.” Still, the company expects the pressure to ease somewhat heading into 2026. “We do anticipate that yields will increase in the back half, but we remain very disciplined and very focused,” Carere said, adding the company’s number one priority is “revenue quality.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b8bff0bb-e602-4052-88a8-7955d25f97d2"></dynamic-object></div>During the last quarter, FedEx Freight’s revenue dropped 3.1% from a year ago to $2.3 billion. The company’s operating profit margin narrowed to 16% from 18.8% a year ago and 20.8% in the previous quarter. That gives FedEx Freight an operating ratio of 86%. Carere hit on two factors many analysts and executives say are inhibiting LTL growth — <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/manufacturing-malaise-clouds-outlook-for-us-industrial-freight-6001813">softness in US manufacturing</a> and a glut of cheap truckload capacity. Excess capacity has become the norm in the truckload sector, according to FTR Transport Intelligence. At its 2025 FTR Transport conference last week, the research firm said it expects a capacity “overhang” to persist throughout 2026 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/excess-truck-capacity-to-linger-through-2027-ftr-6077828">and into 2027</a>. That excess capacity puts a cap on truckload rate increases and siphons freight away from higher-priced LTL networks and into lower-cost truckload trailers. <h3>A slow leak in volume </h3>Other LTL carriers have noted the shift, too. “We’ve seen some market share shift, I think, from LTL to truckload through this cycle,” Adam Satterfield, CFO of Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), the second-largest US LTL provider, said during an earnings call in July. The shipments component of the Cass Freight Index fell 9.3% from a year earlier in August, and Cass pointed out that truckload volumes rose while LTL shipments dropped. “When you look at some of the statistics in the truckload industry in terms of what they’re charging ... they’re willing to operate at break-even or worse,” ODFL’s Satterfield said. That’s something ODFL, FedEx and other LTL providers haven't been willing to do, so they’ve lost some freight. Several carriers reported a year-over-year <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/falling-us-ltl-volumes-putting-pressure-on-margins-rates-6077715">decline in volume</a> in August, with daily shipments falling 8.2% at ODFL, 3.4% at XPO and 2.2% at Saia. The growing gap between <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ltl-truckload-pricing-rising-despite-soft-demand-6079263">truckload and LTL pricing</a> is evident in the US producer price index (PPI) for each sector. Those PPIs both increased in August, but the long-distance LTL PPI was up 10.5% year over year, while the truckload PPI was down 0.5% from a year earlier. <h3>Building inventories </h3>Lower LTL volumes are not just about modal shift, however. Weakness in US manufacturing is pulling down shipment counts as well. The S&amp;P Global US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index™, a measure of manufacturing health, returned to expansion in August, rising to 53 from 49.8 in July. But that increase was linked to volatility surrounding higher US tariffs. Manufacturing firms are building inventories to hedge against price increases expected in coming months for inputs attributed to higher tariffs, S&amp;P Global, parent company of the Journal of Commerce, said Sept. 2. As such, that production hasn’t translated into higher linehaul volumes for LTL carriers. FedEx Freight still has a commanding volume lead over its largest competitors. ODFL reported 44,907 shipments a day in the second quarter. And FedEx Freight plans to double the size of its dedicated sales force by its spinoff deadline of June 2026. The carrier has about 200 frontline LTL sales personnel and is “well on its way” toward its goal of hiring 400 sales specialists prior to the spinoff, said CFO John Dietrich. That signals determination to expand a market share that already approaches 15% by shipment volume, according to SJ Consulting Group data. By revenue, FedEx Freight’s market share totals 17.2%, the transportation research firm’s data shows. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto://bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The pressure of a three-year freight downturn is pushing more less-than-truckload (LTL) freight to the lower-priced truckload market, squeezing revenue and profits at FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider. FedEx Freight’s daily LTL shipment count declined 2.2% to 90,012 shipments in the fiscal quarter that ended Aug. 31, with revenue per shipment falling 0.9% year over year and revenue per hundredweight — a measure of profitability — dropping 0.6%. “Weakness in the industrial economy and excess capacity in the truckload market continue to pressure our results,” said Brie Carere, executive vice president and chief customer officer for FedEx, said during an earnings call with Wall Street analysts on Thursday. “You’ve all tracked the pressures on the industrial economy,” Carere said. “Of course, we are feeling that pressure.” Still, the company expects the pressure to ease somewhat heading into 2026. “We do anticipate that yields will increase in the back half, but we remain very disciplined and very focused,” Carere said, adding the company’s number one priority is “revenue quality.” During the last quarter, FedEx Freight’s revenue dropped 3.1% from a year ago to $2.3 billion. The company’s operating profit margin narrowed to 16% from 18.8% a year ago and 20.8% in the previous quarter. That gives FedEx Freight an operating ratio of 86%. Carere hit on two factors many analysts and executives say are inhibiting LTL growth — softness in US manufacturing and a glut of cheap truckload capacity. Excess capacity has become the norm in the truckload sector, according to FTR Transport Intelligence. At its 2025 FTR Transport conference last week, the research firm said it expects a capacity “overhang” to persist throughout 2026 and into 2027 . That excess capacity puts a cap on truckload rate increases and siphons freight away from higher-priced LTL networks and into lower-cost truckload trailers. A slow leak in volume Other LTL carriers have noted the shift, too. “We’ve seen some market share shift, I think, from LTL to truckload through this cycle,” Adam Satterfield, CFO of Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), the second-largest US LTL provider, said during an earnings call in July. The shipments component of the Cass Freight Index fell 9.3% from a year earlier in August, and Cass pointed out that truckload volumes rose while LTL shipments dropped. “When you look at some of the statistics in the truckload industry in terms of what they’re charging ... they’re willing to operate at break-even or worse,” ODFL’s Satterfield said. That’s something ODFL, FedEx and other LTL providers haven't been willing to do, so they’ve lost some freight. Several carriers reported a year-over-year decline in volume in August, with daily shipments falling 8.2% at ODFL, 3.4% at XPO and 2.2% at Saia. The growing gap between truckload and LTL pricing is evident in the US producer price index (PPI) for each sector. Those PPIs both increased in August, but the long-distance LTL PPI was up 10.5% year over year, while the truckload PPI was down 0.5% from a year earlier. Building inventories Lower LTL volumes are not just about modal shift, however. Weakness in US manufacturing is pulling down shipment counts as well. The S&P Global US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index™, a measure of manufacturing health, returned to expansion in August, rising to 53 from 49.8 in July. But that increase was linked to volatility surrounding higher US tariffs. Manufacturing firms are building inventories to hedge against price increases expected in coming months for inputs attributed to higher tariffs, S&P Global, parent company of the Journal of Commerce, said Sept. 2. As such, that production hasn’t translated into higher linehaul volumes for LTL carriers. FedEx Freight still has a commanding volume lead over its largest competitors. ODFL reported 44,907 shipments a day in the second quarter. And FedEx Freight plans to double the size of its dedicated sales force by its spinoff deadline of June 2026. The carrier has about 200 frontline LTL sales personnel and is “well on its way” toward its goal of hiring 400 sales specialists prior to the spinoff, said CFO John Dietrich. That signals determination to expand a market share that already approaches 15% by shipment volume, according to SJ Consulting Group data. By revenue, FedEx Freight’s market share totals 17.2%, the transportation research firm’s data shows. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Surface

Truckload carriers capturing more LTL shipments: FedEx Freight

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A frenzy of acquisition activity in the truckload market continued this week, with software provider Highway buying Newtrul, a marketplace founded to compete with DAT and Truckstop.com. </div>

A frenzy of acquisition activity in the truckload market continued this week, with software provider Highway buying Newtrul, a marketplace founded to compete with DAT and Truckstop.com.

<div class="phx-topic">Carrier identity software provider Highway has continued its drive to enable truckload transactions through the acquisition of Newtrul, a freight marketplace launched to compete with existing load boards such as DAT Freight &amp; Analytics and Truckstop.com. The deal, announced Thursday, will help Highway accelerate adoption of its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/highway-latest-entry-in-load-board-sector-amid-cargo-crime-rise-6069143">Trusted Freight Exchange</a> (TFX) that was launched in August with partner Triumph, Highway’s Chief Commercial Officer Michael Caney told the Journal of Commerce. Terms were not disclosed. The acquisition of Newtrul further places Highway in the heart of a battle between it, DAT and Truckstop as competing platforms that enable truckload transactions, payment solutions and carrier vetting. Newtrul was founded in 2018 to build a platform tied into the transportation management systems (TMSs) of truckload carriers and brokers so that the system had built-in information about the carrier, not just that they had capacity available at a specific time. In a LinkedIn post Thursday, co-founder and CEO Ed Stockman said Newtrul set out to accomplish three things: create application programming interfaces (APIs) to automate truckload transactions, reduce costs on both ends of those transactions, and “disrupt the legacy incumbents.” “We were successful with the first two and could never quite make a dent [with] the 300-pound gorilla,” Stockman said in explaining the sale to Highway. “We’ve built a state-of-the-art digital freight exchange ... around integrity and quality and are signing dozens of customers each and every day.” Caney said Highway was drawn to the acquisition by Newtrul’s talent, intellectual property in freight matching and its existing TMS integrations. More broadly, the acquisition continues a busy year in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/truckstopcom-acquires-truckload-factoring-service-denim-6065710">truckload deal activity</a> for startups in the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dat-acquiring-convoy-automation-platform-from-flexport-6051850">freight matching</a>, pricing, payment and carrier performance spaces, with Triumph, DAT and Truckstop all having <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/triumph-acquires-broker-focused-pricing-technology-provider-greenscreensai-5951484">acquired startups</a> in those areas. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Carrier identity software provider Highway has continued its drive to enable truckload transactions through the acquisition of Newtrul, a freight marketplace launched to compete with existing load boards such as DAT Freight & Analytics and Truckstop.com. The deal, announced Thursday, will help Highway accelerate adoption of its Trusted Freight Exchange (TFX) that was launched in August with partner Triumph, Highway’s Chief Commercial Officer Michael Caney told the Journal of Commerce. Terms were not disclosed. The acquisition of Newtrul further places Highway in the heart of a battle between it, DAT and Truckstop as competing platforms that enable truckload transactions, payment solutions and carrier vetting. Newtrul was founded in 2018 to build a platform tied into the transportation management systems (TMSs) of truckload carriers and brokers so that the system had built-in information about the carrier, not just that they had capacity available at a specific time. In a LinkedIn post Thursday, co-founder and CEO Ed Stockman said Newtrul set out to accomplish three things: create application programming interfaces (APIs) to automate truckload transactions, reduce costs on both ends of those transactions, and “disrupt the legacy incumbents.” “We were successful with the first two and could never quite make a dent [with] the 300-pound gorilla,” Stockman said in explaining the sale to Highway. “We’ve built a state-of-the-art digital freight exchange ... around integrity and quality and are signing dozens of customers each and every day.” Caney said Highway was drawn to the acquisition by Newtrul’s talent, intellectual property in freight matching and its existing TMS integrations. More broadly, the acquisition continues a busy year in truckload deal activity for startups in the freight matching , pricing, payment and carrier performance spaces, with Triumph, DAT and Truckstop all having acquired startups in those areas. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Truckload

Logistics Technology News

Highway buys freight marketplace to accelerate load board rollout

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers that can take the most advantage of opportunities in a tight charter market are those whose fleets of small to midsize ships are already big or rapidly growing, and thus have the buffer to pounce on opportunities, writes Jeremy Masters.</div>

Carriers that can take the most advantage of opportunities in a tight charter market are those whose fleets of small to midsize ships are already big or rapidly growing, and thus have the buffer to pounce on opportunities, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">Relative rates, and thus relative returns, from different ocean trades are continuously fluid, and the level of variation is an incentive for carriers to regularly review where they deploy their assets. The large acquisitions by carriers such as Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM of secondhand ships in the 2,000-8,000-TEU range that can be employed in the smaller deep-sea trades, regional trades and as feeders begs the question of where the best return is among many possibilities. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6083340_0.1.jpg"></img></div>We looked at the current spot roundtrip of freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates per 40-foot/40-foot high cube (HC) containers (terminal handling charges and standard ancillaries included) on an absolute and per-nautical-mile basis in several trades where the predominant tonnage is in the 2,000-8,000 TEU range. It should be emphasized that as these are spot FAK rates, they are not the prices clients prefer or the rates that large volumes command. It’s also important to note that there is not a direct correlation between the revenue per nautical mile and the return in a trade because other factors are also critical, including the percentage of contract/high volume business and their relative rates, cost per slot, utilization, imbalance cost and so on. But it’s certainly an initial indicator of what trades may be attractive to expand in or enter. The results range widely and the revenue per nautical mile at the top end promises healthy returns, whereas carriers tend to struggle at the bottom end. Big ship trades were excluded, but it’s worth noting that feeder ships in the small to midsize range are used in these trades to serve outports, and real returns are very dependent on the health of the main trade. Internal accounting practices can move the dial, but if the rate today from Shanghai to European outports is not that much more than the rate in some high-end intra-Asia trades, then serving those outports may not be a good use of internal assets (versus using a third-party feeder) unless higher-paying intra-Europe business can subsidize the short-sea deployment. <div class="wrapper-full"><table><colgroup><col width="12.5%"></col><col width="12.5%"></col><col width="12.5%"></col><col width="12.5%"></col><col width="12.5%"></col><col width="12.5%"></col><col width="12.5%"></col><col width="12.5%"></col></colgroup><caption>Ranked roundtrip spot FAK rates, including THCs and all ancillaries per 40’/40’ HC, in USD</caption><tbody><tr><td>Trade</td><td class="align-right">Lane</td><td class="align-right">Rate</td><td class="align-right">Lane</td><td class="align-right">Rate</td><td class="align-right">Roundtrip rate</td><td class="align-right">Roundtrip nautical miles</td><td class="align-right">USD per nautical mile</td></tr><tr><td>Intra-Asia</td><td class="align-right">Port Klang to Manila</td><td class="align-right">1,500</td><td class="align-right">Manila to Port Klang</td><td class="align-right">400</td><td class="align-right">1,900</td><td class="align-right">3,102</td><td class="align-right">0.61</td></tr><tr><td>Med to USEC</td><td class="align-right">Genoa to New York</td><td class="align-right">4,050</td><td class="align-right">New York to Genoa</td><td class="align-right">700</td><td class="align-right">4,750</td><td class="align-right">8,428</td><td class="align-right">0.56</td></tr><tr><td>N. Europe to W. Africa</td><td class="align-right">Antwerp to Abidjan</td><td class="align-right">*2,600</td><td class="align-right">Abidjan to Antwerp</td><td class="align-right">*1,350</td><td class="align-right">*3,950</td><td class="align-right">8,014</td><td class="align-right">0.49</td></tr><tr><td>N. Asia to ANZ</td><td class="align-right">Shanghai to Sydney</td><td class="align-right">3,500</td><td class="align-right">Sydney to Shanghai</td><td class="align-right">500</td><td class="align-right">4,000</td><td class="align-right">9,230</td><td class="align-right">0.43</td></tr><tr><td>N. Europe to USEC</td><td class="align-right">Rotterdam to New York</td><td class="align-right">1,950</td><td class="align-right">New York to Rotterdam</td><td class="align-right">750</td><td class="align-right">2,700</td><td class="align-right">6,870</td><td class="align-right">0.39</td></tr><tr><td>N. Asia to Indian Subcont</td><td class="align-right">Shanghai to Mundra</td><td class="align-right">1,950</td><td class="align-right">Mundra to Shanghai</td><td class="align-right">450</td><td class="align-right">2,050</td><td class="align-right">7,756</td><td class="align-right">0.26</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="8">*Converted to USD from euros</td></tr></tfoot></table></div>These stark differences in earning power beg the question: Why don’t existing carriers upgrade their services and/or new carriers promptly enter the higher-paying trades? Reasons for sitting on the fence include a) too much opportunistic chopping and changing of tonnage between trades will impact continuity of coverage; b) the health of some individual trades is historically volatile; c) the smaller trades can be more vulnerable to an upgrade or new loop, tipping supply/demand adversely; d) the charter market is tight; and e) there is a cost to moving ships between trades. <h3>Opportunities ‘are not equal’ </h3>The counter arguments for moving decisively and quickly, even if it means moving ships between trades, are many. Taking ships off an over-tonnaged trade with poor returns into an under-tonnaged trade with much better returns is a double win — the assets earn more money in the new trade and by taking them off the struggling trade, the supply/demand balance is improved there for remaining assets. Secondly, carriers don’t necessarily have to be dependent entirely on the trade they are entering but can also look at connecting trades to spread their risk; that is, minimizing the danger of moving a trade into oversupply. Third, some trades are more niche than others, but once entry has been made, the returns are much steadier than in the “feast or famine” big East-West trades. Finally, nature abhors a vacuum, so if you don’t do it, your competition will. The first mover in a midsize trade will be favored and can secure its position. Opportunities are not equal. The recent increases in intra-Asia rates, for instance, are partly caused by a diversion of US export business to intra-Asia, as well as port congestion in some ports. The intra-Asia trade can be expected to remain robust, but some of the current highly inflated rates are unlikely to persist. The ideal smaller deep-sea or regional trade for a carrier to enter is one that has been relatively sheltered (veering toward having insufficient capacity), has consistently good rates and has connectivity from sub-trades that spread the risk of entry and make it less likely that new capacity will adversely alter supply and demand. The carriers that have the best base to take the most advantage of these opportunities in a tight charter market are those whose fleets of small to midsize ships are already big or rapidly growing, and thus have the buffer to pounce on opportunities. Fortune, however, also favors the bold, and biting the bullet on moving assets between trades is open to both big and midsize operators. Jeremy Masters is managing director of Shipping Masters. Contact him at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

Relative rates, and thus relative returns, from different ocean trades are continuously fluid, and the level of variation is an incentive for carriers to regularly review where they deploy their assets. The large acquisitions by carriers such as Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM of secondhand ships in the 2,000-8,000-TEU range that can be employed in the smaller deep-sea trades, regional trades and as feeders begs the question of where the best return is among many possibilities. We looked at the current spot roundtrip of freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates per 40-foot/40-foot high cube (HC) containers (terminal handling charges and standard ancillaries included) on an absolute and per-nautical-mile basis in several trades where the predominant tonnage is in the 2,000-8,000 TEU range. It should be emphasized that as these are spot FAK rates, they are not the prices clients prefer or the rates that large volumes command. It’s also important to note that there is not a direct correlation between the revenue per nautical mile and the return in a trade because other factors are also critical, including the percentage of contract/high volume business and their relative rates, cost per slot, utilization, imbalance cost and so on. But it’s certainly an initial indicator of what trades may be attractive to expand in or enter. The results range widely and the revenue per nautical mile at the top end promises healthy returns, whereas carriers tend to struggle at the bottom end. Big ship trades were excluded, but it’s worth noting that feeder ships in the small to midsize range are used in these trades to serve outports, and real returns are very dependent on the health of the main trade. Internal accounting practices can move the dial, but if the rate today from Shanghai to European outports is not that much more than the rate in some high-end intra-Asia trades, then serving those outports may not be a good use of internal assets (versus using a third-party feeder) unless higher-paying intra-Europe business can subsidize the short-sea deployment. Ranked roundtrip spot FAK rates, including THCs and all ancillaries per 40’/40’ HC, in USD Trade Lane Rate Lane Rate Roundtrip rate Roundtrip nautical miles USD per nautical mile Intra-Asia Port Klang to Manila 1,500 Manila to Port Klang 400 1,900 3,102 0.61 Med to USEC Genoa to New York 4,050 New York to Genoa 700 4,750 8,428 0.56 N. Europe to W. Africa Antwerp to Abidjan *2,600 Abidjan to Antwerp *1,350 *3,950 8,014 0.49 N. Asia to ANZ Shanghai to Sydney 3,500 Sydney to Shanghai 500 4,000 9,230 0.43 N. Europe to USEC Rotterdam to New York 1,950 New York to Rotterdam 750 2,700 6,870 0.39 N. Asia to Indian Subcont Shanghai to Mundra 1,950 Mundra to Shanghai 450 2,050 7,756 0.26 *Converted to USD from euros These stark differences in earning power beg the question: Why don’t existing carriers upgrade their services and/or new carriers promptly enter the higher-paying trades? Reasons for sitting on the fence include a) too much opportunistic chopping and changing of tonnage between trades will impact continuity of coverage; b) the health of some individual trades is historically volatile; c) the smaller trades can be more vulnerable to an upgrade or new loop, tipping supply/demand adversely; d) the charter market is tight; and e) there is a cost to moving ships between trades. Opportunities ‘are not equal’ The counter arguments for moving decisively and quickly, even if it means moving ships between trades, are many. Taking ships off an over-tonnaged trade with poor returns into an under-tonnaged trade with much better returns is a double win — the assets earn more money in the new trade and by taking them off the struggling trade, the supply/demand balance is improved there for remaining assets. Secondly, carriers don’t necessarily have to be dependent entirely on the trade they are entering but can also look at connecting trades to spread their risk; that is, minimizing the danger of moving a trade into oversupply. Third, some trades are more niche than others, but once entry has been made, the returns are much steadier than in the “feast or famine” big East-West trades. Finally, nature abhors a vacuum, so if you don’t do it, your competition will. The first mover in a midsize trade will be favored and can secure its position. Opportunities are not equal. The recent increases in intra-Asia rates, for instance, are partly caused by a diversion of US export business to intra-Asia, as well as port congestion in some ports. The intra-Asia trade can be expected to remain robust, but some of the current highly inflated rates are unlikely to persist. The ideal smaller deep-sea or regional trade for a carrier to enter is one that has been relatively sheltered (veering toward having insufficient capacity), has consistently good rates and has connectivity from sub-trades that spread the risk of entry and make it less likely that new capacity will adversely alter supply and demand. The carriers that have the best base to take the most advantage of these opportunities in a tight charter market are those whose fleets of small to midsize ships are already big or rapidly growing, and thus have the buffer to pounce on opportunities. Fortune, however, also favors the bold, and biting the bullet on moving assets between trades is open to both big and midsize operators. Jeremy Masters is managing director of Shipping Masters. Contact him at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Rate variations by trade reward ‘nimble’ ocean carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Forwarders said capacity utilization for USEC sailings out of West India has fallen to between 60% and 70% from the 80% to 90% level normally seen for the premier networks.</div>

Forwarders said capacity utilization for USEC sailings out of West India has fallen to between 60% and 70% from the 80% to 90% level normally seen for the premier networks.

<div class="phx-topic">The downward shift in ocean rates from India to North America is becoming more pronounced as container carriers active on the trade lane struggle to fill vessel space amid the growing pressure of elevated US tariffs. Average spot rates from West India (Nhava Sheva/Mundra) to the US East Coast (New York) have dropped between $400 and $600 per FEU in September to date, new data from local freight forwarders shows. Asian carriers — mostly working on slot charter rights — are said to have been more aggressive in cutting prices. Forwarder sources put spot quotes by Cosco Shipping/OOCL, HMM and Ocean Network Express (ONE) for Nhava Sheva-New York bookings at $1,600 to $1,800 per FEU, versus the $1,900 to $2,100 range offered by bigger European operators. Those prices are down from $2,000 to $2,100 and $2,300 to $2,500, respectively, reported in the second half of August. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, pegged rates at $1,888 per FEU as of Sep. 18, down 2% on the week. Forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce said capacity utilization for USEC sailings out of West India has fallen to between 60% and 70% from the 80% to 90% level normally seen for the premier networks. That comes after volumes on the India-US trade saw an uptick in August — rising to 123,170 TEUs from 119,370 TEUs in July, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Industry sources believe the full impact of higher US tariffs on export volumes will be known in early October as holiday-linked shipments already in the pipeline or committed by large US retail buyers have continued to flow out. It’s also a general view that carriers might be able to keep readjusted rates running through the month because of the vessel blank sailings implemented. “Next month will be a mammoth test for carriers,” said a forwarder executive who didn’t want to be identified. “All previously lined up rate increase plans for October are being junked.” Sources expect India-USEC rates to weaken to $1,500 to $1,600 per FEU by mid-October under the current scenario, even for European carriers. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56199e2b-5df4-468f-a149-b18ae7c32e51"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers appear to be holding their breath amid the market volatility. “As of now, it’s not so alarming as major global accounts haven’t halted shipments entirely,” a sales executive for a European liner said. “But our sales reviews point to a 40% drop in volumes for October sailings.” There are indications that the lead India-USEC liners will cut a significant portion of available capacity in October by voiding multiple calls in a bid to stem the accelerating rate erosion. India-US West Coast rates are also losing steam, now pegged at between $1,600 and $1,700 per FEU, sources said, a sharp decline from the $2,300 to $2,500 trendline in August. Those trade concerns are not without merit. India’s merchandise exports to the US by value saw the slowest monthly pace in 2025 in August, down about 16% month over month, according to provisional data. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

The downward shift in ocean rates from India to North America is becoming more pronounced as container carriers active on the trade lane struggle to fill vessel space amid the growing pressure of elevated US tariffs. Average spot rates from West India (Nhava Sheva/Mundra) to the US East Coast (New York) have dropped between $400 and $600 per FEU in September to date, new data from local freight forwarders shows. Asian carriers — mostly working on slot charter rights — are said to have been more aggressive in cutting prices. Forwarder sources put spot quotes by Cosco Shipping/OOCL, HMM and Ocean Network Express (ONE) for Nhava Sheva-New York bookings at $1,600 to $1,800 per FEU, versus the $1,900 to $2,100 range offered by bigger European operators. Those prices are down from $2,000 to $2,100 and $2,300 to $2,500, respectively, reported in the second half of August. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, pegged rates at $1,888 per FEU as of Sep. 18, down 2% on the week. Forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce said capacity utilization for USEC sailings out of West India has fallen to between 60% and 70% from the 80% to 90% level normally seen for the premier networks. That comes after volumes on the India-US trade saw an uptick in August — rising to 123,170 TEUs from 119,370 TEUs in July, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Industry sources believe the full impact of higher US tariffs on export volumes will be known in early October as holiday-linked shipments already in the pipeline or committed by large US retail buyers have continued to flow out. It’s also a general view that carriers might be able to keep readjusted rates running through the month because of the vessel blank sailings implemented. “Next month will be a mammoth test for carriers,” said a forwarder executive who didn’t want to be identified. “All previously lined up rate increase plans for October are being junked.” Sources expect India-USEC rates to weaken to $1,500 to $1,600 per FEU by mid-October under the current scenario, even for European carriers. Carriers appear to be holding their breath amid the market volatility. “As of now, it’s not so alarming as major global accounts haven’t halted shipments entirely,” a sales executive for a European liner said. “But our sales reviews point to a 40% drop in volumes for October sailings.” There are indications that the lead India-USEC liners will cut a significant portion of available capacity in October by voiding multiple calls in a bid to stem the accelerating rate erosion. India-US West Coast rates are also losing steam, now pegged at between $1,600 and $1,700 per FEU, sources said, a sharp decline from the $2,300 to $2,500 trendline in August. Those trade concerns are not without merit. India’s merchandise exports to the US by value saw the slowest monthly pace in 2025 in August, down about 16% month over month, according to provisional data. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

Tariff-linked trade downturn keeps India-US ocean rates sliding

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The terminal would cement the port’s status as the biggest gateway in South America, boosting its annual container capacity by almost 60% and allowing it to handle 20,000-TEUs ships, many of those from Asia.</div>

The terminal would cement the port’s status as the biggest gateway in South America, boosting its annual container capacity by almost 60% and allowing it to handle 20,000-TEUs ships, many of those from Asia.

<div class="phx-topic">Brazil’s Port of Santos is seeking to develop what would be the largest container terminal in South America with plans to hold an auction, possibly before the end of this year, to determine who develops and operates the $1.06 billion facility. The terminal, known as Tecon Santos 10, would cement the port’s status as the biggest gateway on the continent, boosting its annual container capacity by almost 60% to 8.73 million TEUs and allowing it to handle 20,000-TEUs ships, many of those from Asia. Data from maritime consultancy Drewry shows container volumes at Santos for this year through July were up 8% compared to the same period in 2024 and the Santos Port Authority forecasts volumes to continue growing at about 3% annually. Over the last five years, Santos' compound annual growth rate for revenue has been almost 11%. “There is no denying that there is an urgent need for additional capacity at the Port of Santos,” Eleanor Hadland, Drewry’s lead analyst for ports and terminals, told the Journal of Commerce. <h3>Auction controversy </h3>The planned search for a developer and operator of Tecon Santos 10 has not been without controversy, according to Brazilian outlet Valor International. Brazil's National Waterway Transport Agency approved a two-phase auction process that would prohibit several carriers, including Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM, from participating in the first round in order to boost the chances of smaller terminal operators. A Brazilian judge in July rejected a request from Maersk to halt the bidding process, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-judge-rejects-maersk-request-alter-1-bln-port-auction-2025-07-23/">according to Reuters</a>, after the carrier in June sued Santos for being excluded. "Excluding companies with broad international experience, responsible for managing some of the most efficient ports globally, without thorough studies to support such a decision, significantly diminishes the project's potential at Latin America's largest port," Maersk said in a statement to Reuters. The two-phase plan was also met with resistance from Brazil’s Finance Ministry, who instead recommended the auction be held in one part, with the winning bidder required to divest assets if it already operates at the Port of Santos, <a href="https://valorinternational.globo.com/business/news/2025/08/22/finance-ministry-backs-single-stage-auction-for-tecon-santos.ghtml">Valor International reported</a> on Aug. 22. <h3>Road network upgrades </h3>The planned terminal project has also raised concerns about whether Santos’ road network can handle the new volumes brought on by the infrastructure growth. “While [the new terminal] may translate to improved vessel turnaround, upgrading the capacity of the road network around the port is also critical for the efficient operation of Brazil’s largest container port,” said Hadland. Some of those road network upgrades are already underway. The Santos-Guarujá Tunnel, an underwater tunnel that will serve commercial and passenger vehicles, will reduce the journey between the cities of Santos and Guarujá from about 40 kilometers in 40 minutes to less than one kilometer in just over one minute, Port of Santos Press Supervisor Paulo Silveira told the Journal of Commerce. The Portuguese company Mota-Engil is expected to begin construction of the tunnel later this year, said Silveira. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Brazil’s Port of Santos is seeking to develop what would be the largest container terminal in South America with plans to hold an auction, possibly before the end of this year, to determine who develops and operates the $1.06 billion facility. The terminal, known as Tecon Santos 10, would cement the port’s status as the biggest gateway on the continent, boosting its annual container capacity by almost 60% to 8.73 million TEUs and allowing it to handle 20,000-TEUs ships, many of those from Asia. Data from maritime consultancy Drewry shows container volumes at Santos for this year through July were up 8% compared to the same period in 2024 and the Santos Port Authority forecasts volumes to continue growing at about 3% annually. Over the last five years, Santos' compound annual growth rate for revenue has been almost 11%. “There is no denying that there is an urgent need for additional capacity at the Port of Santos,” Eleanor Hadland, Drewry’s lead analyst for ports and terminals, told the Journal of Commerce. Auction controversy The planned search for a developer and operator of Tecon Santos 10 has not been without controversy, according to Brazilian outlet Valor International. Brazil's National Waterway Transport Agency approved a two-phase auction process that would prohibit several carriers, including Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM, from participating in the first round in order to boost the chances of smaller terminal operators. A Brazilian judge in July rejected a request from Maersk to halt the bidding process, according to Reuters , after the carrier in June sued Santos for being excluded. "Excluding companies with broad international experience, responsible for managing some of the most efficient ports globally, without thorough studies to support such a decision, significantly diminishes the project's potential at Latin America's largest port," Maersk said in a statement to Reuters. The two-phase plan was also met with resistance from Brazil’s Finance Ministry, who instead recommended the auction be held in one part, with the winning bidder required to divest assets if it already operates at the Port of Santos, Valor International reported on Aug. 22. Road network upgrades The planned terminal project has also raised concerns about whether Santos’ road network can handle the new volumes brought on by the infrastructure growth. “While [the new terminal] may translate to improved vessel turnaround, upgrading the capacity of the road network around the port is also critical for the efficient operation of Brazil’s largest container port,” said Hadland. Some of those road network upgrades are already underway. The Santos-Guarujá Tunnel, an underwater tunnel that will serve commercial and passenger vehicles, will reduce the journey between the cities of Santos and Guarujá from about 40 kilometers in 40 minutes to less than one kilometer in just over one minute, Port of Santos Press Supervisor Paulo Silveira told the Journal of Commerce. The Portuguese company Mota-Engil is expected to begin construction of the tunnel later this year, said Silveira. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Marine terminals

International ports

Port News

Brazil’s Santos readies development of South America’s largest box terminal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The latest orders come as the heavy-lift shipping sector is facing a mixed outlook in the energy industry, which has been one of its traditional cargo streams. </div>

The latest orders come as the heavy-lift shipping sector is facing a mixed outlook in the energy industry, which has been one of its traditional cargo streams.

<div class="phx-topic">Heavy lift vessel operator BigLift Shipping and its South Korean partner CY Shipping have ordered two more heavy transport vessels from a Chinese shipyard in a move that will expand their joint deck/module carrier fleet to eight ships. Contracts for the two vessels, known as BC-class in recognition of their joint control, have been signed with Jingjiang Nanyang Shipbuilding Company, Amsterdam-headquartered BigLift said in a statement. The first 25,000-deadweight-metric-ton (dwt) vessel is due for delivery in the first quarter of 2028, followed by the second in the third quarter of that year. The latest deal follows on from contracts inked in April 2024 with the same shipyard for two similar-sized ships. The first, owned by CY Shipping, is scheduled for delivery by the end of December, while the second vessel, owned by BigLift, is expected to join the fleet in the second quarter of next year. The vessels, jointly designed by CY and BigLift, have been engineered to carry ultra-large and heavy modular cargoes and feature a 141-foot-wide, 460-foot-long deck that provides a fully unobstructed cargo area of 64,800 square feet. Cargoes can be loaded and discharged via the ship’s stern or side using roll-on/roll-off or skidding methods. “These vessels not only expand our operational reach but also reinforce our commitment to the market,” James Jung, director at CY Shipping, said in a joint statement. <h3>Mixed outlook for energy cargoes </h3>The latest orders come as the heavy-lift shipping sector is facing a mixed outlook in the energy industry, which has been one of its traditional cargo streams. “We have seen a move back towards hydrocarbons,” said a senior executive at a heavy-lift vessel operator who did not want to be identified. But investment in wind energy in Europe “has slowed and that has been our primary renewable market,” the executive told the Journal of Commerce. He said the slowdown is thought to be due to a “lack of financial viability when not supported by government funds.” The source pointed out that while cargo owners and vessel charterers have always had “a preference to charter younger and more capable vessels, we also see that charterers are quite willing to bend their own standards when no other options are available.” The latest BigLift/CY Shipping orders are the latest in a clutch of new deals for module carriers and semi-submersible vessels this year. China’s Cosco Shipping Specialized Carriers, which operates the largest fleet of semi-submersible ships, awarded a $142 million contract in March to Guangzhou Shipyard International (GSI) for a 70,000-dwt semi-submersible heavy-lift vessel for delivery in May 2027. Also in March, Japan’s NYK Bulk &amp; Projects Carriers, a subsidiary of the NYK Group, placed an initial order for a 33,000-dwt deck carrier with Chinese shipbuilder Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company for delivery in 2027. The deal is believed to include options for three similar ships. Those ships are among 18 specialized heavy-lift cargo vessels currently on order, data and freight management platform Veson Nautical told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Heavy lift vessel operator BigLift Shipping and its South Korean partner CY Shipping have ordered two more heavy transport vessels from a Chinese shipyard in a move that will expand their joint deck/module carrier fleet to eight ships. Contracts for the two vessels, known as BC-class in recognition of their joint control, have been signed with Jingjiang Nanyang Shipbuilding Company, Amsterdam-headquartered BigLift said in a statement. The first 25,000-deadweight-metric-ton (dwt) vessel is due for delivery in the first quarter of 2028, followed by the second in the third quarter of that year. The latest deal follows on from contracts inked in April 2024 with the same shipyard for two similar-sized ships. The first, owned by CY Shipping, is scheduled for delivery by the end of December, while the second vessel, owned by BigLift, is expected to join the fleet in the second quarter of next year. The vessels, jointly designed by CY and BigLift, have been engineered to carry ultra-large and heavy modular cargoes and feature a 141-foot-wide, 460-foot-long deck that provides a fully unobstructed cargo area of 64,800 square feet. Cargoes can be loaded and discharged via the ship’s stern or side using roll-on/roll-off or skidding methods. “These vessels not only expand our operational reach but also reinforce our commitment to the market,” James Jung, director at CY Shipping, said in a joint statement. Mixed outlook for energy cargoes The latest orders come as the heavy-lift shipping sector is facing a mixed outlook in the energy industry, which has been one of its traditional cargo streams. “We have seen a move back towards hydrocarbons,” said a senior executive at a heavy-lift vessel operator who did not want to be identified. But investment in wind energy in Europe “has slowed and that has been our primary renewable market,” the executive told the Journal of Commerce. He said the slowdown is thought to be due to a “lack of financial viability when not supported by government funds.” The source pointed out that while cargo owners and vessel charterers have always had “a preference to charter younger and more capable vessels, we also see that charterers are quite willing to bend their own standards when no other options are available.” The latest BigLift/CY Shipping orders are the latest in a clutch of new deals for module carriers and semi-submersible vessels this year. China’s Cosco Shipping Specialized Carriers, which operates the largest fleet of semi-submersible ships, awarded a $142 million contract in March to Guangzhou Shipyard International (GSI) for a 70,000-dwt semi-submersible heavy-lift vessel for delivery in May 2027. Also in March, Japan’s NYK Bulk & Projects Carriers, a subsidiary of the NYK Group, placed an initial order for a 33,000-dwt deck carrier with Chinese shipbuilder Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company for delivery in 2027. The deal is believed to include options for three similar ships. Those ships are among 18 specialized heavy-lift cargo vessels currently on order, data and freight management platform Veson Nautical told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Heavy-haul transport

Breakbulk News

BigLift, CY Shipping order two new deck carriers to boost joint fleet

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility. </div>

The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility.

<div class="phx-topic">The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. <h3>Technology can ease challenges </h3>The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at <a href="mailto:northw@shiplify.com">northw@shiplify.com</a>. Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at <a href="mailto:bart@bartdemuynck.com">bart@bartdemuynck.com</a>. </div>

The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. Technology can ease challenges The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at northw@shiplify.com . Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at bart@bartdemuynck.com .

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There are measures carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply — and thus price — collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution, writes Jeremy Masters. </div>

There are measures carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply — and thus price — collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">The laws of supply and demand dictate that prices will move in accordance with the relativity of the two. Container carriers can marginally move the dial between what is containerized and what is bulk or breakbulk by offering very attractive (low contribution) rates. An innovative product — for example, Gemini Cooperation’s high reliability network or an express service — might lure some air freight to sea freight. For the most part, however, carriers have very little control over demand. The key price lever that carriers have is slot supply, and current fundamentals point to heavy surplus, even as diversions around southern Africa continue. Are the carriers, then, sprinting to the edge of the cliff with newbuild deliveries, fresh orders, second-hand buying and chartering of what little spare capacity is left, followed by a freefall? Or do they at least have a parachute to slow down their momentum? There are some things they can do to help themselves in trades with overcapacity. <h3>Pushing pause </h3>The most obvious and dramatic way would be to park ships. To be impactful, that would mean collectively taking out multiple strings rather than tinkering with single strings or blank sailings. Understandably, there is a mental block in the big east-west trades when it comes to parking high-capacity, high-value, newer ships. But if the carriers get supply even minimally below demand, the economics are massively in their favor. Let's assume that, in the Asia-to-Europe trade, each consortium (for these purposes, Mediterranean Shipping Co. would be considered a consortium) ties up one string of ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) that was forecasted to make a minimal contribution to fixed cost because of declining rates. If, because of removing these strings, freight rates were a very conservative $500 per TEU higher on average on the headhaul than they would have been, based on 20,000 TEU per week and 50 weeks, all consortiums would accumulate an additional $500,000 million per annum on all remaining loops. There would be, of course, some incremental lay-up costs, but other costs would remain similar. Parking some $3 billion worth of assets per consortium is easier in theory than in practice, especially for those carriers who need to justify some heavy investments to their boards. If the carriers accept that drastic action is required, however, and there is enough collective action — not orchestrated action, of course, in contravention of competition rules — then the results will be dramatically better, and the ships will be readily available for an upturn. <h3>Beyond parking </h3>Are there less capacity-eating measures that carriers could undertake? The catalyst for a major dive in multi-trade rates would be a return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for Asia-to-Europe strings, but it's unlikely that we will go overnight from high-risk Red Sea transits to totally safe ones. Given the disruption and risk — for carriers and their clients — of moving all strings back to the Red Sea only to find that further issues arise, it would be entirely justifiable to keep some strings moving around the Cape of Good Hope. Big beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders/non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) have — forcefully — adjusted to the Cape routing. And while there is higher on-the-water inventory cost, the weekly pipeline of arrivals are established. They would naturally lean towards the faster Red Sea routing, but at the same time, would want to strenuously avoid a situation where production lines are stopped or shelves empty because they have put all their eggs in the Red Sea basket that has turned bad again. This may be counterintuitive, given more expensive ship systems around the Cape, but carriers could also implement two-tier pricing to re-enforce this prudence — essentially, a premium for Red Sea risk or a deficit for longer transits, whichever you prefer. Slow-steaming is another area of capacity control where a systematic approach could eat up more capacity. This means not just applying it in over-tonnaged trades, but in all trades. Tonnage can then be moved from trades where there is oversupply to those that are short because of slow-steaming. Finally, there is the scrapping of older vessels. If we look at carriers' desire to hold onto bigger, newer assets and their purchase of relatively old smaller tonnage to run regional and feeder networks, this does not look to be a particularly encouraging area for capacity shedding. There are measures the carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply – and thus price – collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

The laws of supply and demand dictate that prices will move in accordance with the relativity of the two. Container carriers can marginally move the dial between what is containerized and what is bulk or breakbulk by offering very attractive (low contribution) rates. An innovative product — for example, Gemini Cooperation’s high reliability network or an express service — might lure some air freight to sea freight. For the most part, however, carriers have very little control over demand. The key price lever that carriers have is slot supply, and current fundamentals point to heavy surplus, even as diversions around southern Africa continue. Are the carriers, then, sprinting to the edge of the cliff with newbuild deliveries, fresh orders, second-hand buying and chartering of what little spare capacity is left, followed by a freefall? Or do they at least have a parachute to slow down their momentum? There are some things they can do to help themselves in trades with overcapacity. Pushing pause The most obvious and dramatic way would be to park ships. To be impactful, that would mean collectively taking out multiple strings rather than tinkering with single strings or blank sailings. Understandably, there is a mental block in the big east-west trades when it comes to parking high-capacity, high-value, newer ships. But if the carriers get supply even minimally below demand, the economics are massively in their favor. Let's assume that, in the Asia-to-Europe trade, each consortium (for these purposes, Mediterranean Shipping Co. would be considered a consortium) ties up one string of ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) that was forecasted to make a minimal contribution to fixed cost because of declining rates. If, because of removing these strings, freight rates were a very conservative $500 per TEU higher on average on the headhaul than they would have been, based on 20,000 TEU per week and 50 weeks, all consortiums would accumulate an additional $500,000 million per annum on all remaining loops. There would be, of course, some incremental lay-up costs, but other costs would remain similar. Parking some $3 billion worth of assets per consortium is easier in theory than in practice, especially for those carriers who need to justify some heavy investments to their boards. If the carriers accept that drastic action is required, however, and there is enough collective action — not orchestrated action, of course, in contravention of competition rules — then the results will be dramatically better, and the ships will be readily available for an upturn. Beyond parking Are there less capacity-eating measures that carriers could undertake? The catalyst for a major dive in multi-trade rates would be a return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for Asia-to-Europe strings, but it's unlikely that we will go overnight from high-risk Red Sea transits to totally safe ones. Given the disruption and risk — for carriers and their clients — of moving all strings back to the Red Sea only to find that further issues arise, it would be entirely justifiable to keep some strings moving around the Cape of Good Hope. Big beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders/non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) have — forcefully — adjusted to the Cape routing. And while there is higher on-the-water inventory cost, the weekly pipeline of arrivals are established. They would naturally lean towards the faster Red Sea routing, but at the same time, would want to strenuously avoid a situation where production lines are stopped or shelves empty because they have put all their eggs in the Red Sea basket that has turned bad again. This may be counterintuitive, given more expensive ship systems around the Cape, but carriers could also implement two-tier pricing to re-enforce this prudence — essentially, a premium for Red Sea risk or a deficit for longer transits, whichever you prefer. Slow-steaming is another area of capacity control where a systematic approach could eat up more capacity. This means not just applying it in over-tonnaged trades, but in all trades. Tonnage can then be moved from trades where there is oversupply to those that are short because of slow-steaming. Finally, there is the scrapping of older vessels. If we look at carriers' desire to hold onto bigger, newer assets and their purchase of relatively old smaller tonnage to run regional and feeder networks, this does not look to be a particularly encouraging area for capacity shedding. There are measures the carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply – and thus price – collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

LTL PPI

{dateX.formatDate('MMM yyyy')}: {valueY} 
Y-o-Y: {bls_ltl_ppi_year_over_year_change.formatNumber('#.0%')}

Producer Price Indices (PPIs) measure the average change over time in selling prices, including surcharges and other costs, that domestic producers — in this case, truckload carriers — receive for their output — i.e., transportation services. The truckload PPI reflects the dominant role that contract carriage plays in the truckload market, as opposed to transactional rates, which makes up a small portion of industry pricing and PPI data. [BLS](https://www.bls.gov/)

US long-haul less-than-truckload producer price index (BTS)

US BLS Long-haul less-than-truckload producer price index (PPI) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">LNG is the current alternative fuel of choice for ocean carriers that see greater potential to scale up its production to supply the fast-growing dual-fuel fleet. </div>

LNG is the current alternative fuel of choice for ocean carriers that see greater potential to scale up its production to supply the fast-growing dual-fuel fleet.

<div class="phx-topic">Concerns over the availability of green fuels continue to drive orders for container ships capable of sailing on liquefied natural gas (LNG) and methanol that now account for more than half of the order book. Neils Rasmussen, chief shipping analyst for shipping association Bimco, said in a market update Thursday that LNG remained the most popular alternative fuel, with LNG-fueled ships now accounting for two-thirds of all alternatively fueled ships on order. “As of end-August 2025, 534 container ships are on order that will be able to use alternative fuels upon delivery,” Rasmussen said. “These represent 53% of ships on order and 77% of the TEUs [on order].” A host of dual-fuel LNG ship orders have been announced this year. Yang Ming Marine Transport recently <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/yang-ming-signs-14-billion-upgraded-ship-order-for-16000-teu-vessels-6081736">ordered seven LNG and ammonia-capable 16,000-TEU ships</a>, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. in July ordered six 22,000-TEU dual-fuel LNG vessels and upsized another six LNG-fueled container ships from 19,000 TEUs to 22,000 TEUs. In February, Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/evergreen-makes-32-billion-order-for-lng-capable-megaships-5943682">ordered 11 24,000-TEU LNG-capable vessels</a>. Alternative fuels have proven popular among the largest ships. For ships of 8,000-TEU capacity or more, 81% of the vessels and 85% of the TEU capacity on order are for mainly LNG and methanol-capable ships, according to the Bimco report. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="80e7aa34-41b8-4bd7-b5ac-58f5337eebb6"></dynamic-object></div>Rasmussen noted that a shift from methanol toward LNG highlighted a key concern of shipowners when building dual-fuel ships: the availability of fuel. LNG is currently available mainly as a carbon fuel but could increasingly become available as a low-carbon biofuel or e-fuel. More than 25% of all the container capacity in operation by 2030 could be capable of sailing on alternative fuels, Rasmussen said. “Assuming that none of the alternatively fueled ships in operation are recycled, the container fleet in 2030 will include 837 alternatively fueled ships with 10.9 million TEUs of capacity once all the ships in the order book have been delivered,” he said. While container shipping is making strides toward alternatively fueled vessels, the other shipping sectors are more difficult to decarbonize, the Bimco analyst said. “In the bulker, crude tanker and product tanker sectors, alternatively fueled ships only make up respectively 8%, 17% and 9% of the ships on order,” Rasmussen said, noting that the prevalence of smaller operators in those sectors may negatively impact orders, whereas the container sector was controlled by a few large companies. <h3>Significant shortfall in green fuels </h3>The technology to build ships capable of low-carbon operation is available, but the Bimco update highlighted the lack of availability of the fuel. That emerged as a key concern this week at London International Shipping Week (LISW), where the urgent need for investment in alternative fuel production to scale up supply and for an increase in demand for dual-fuel ships was raised regularly. The International Maritime Organization’s net-zero framework, due for adoption in October, has set a target of zero- or near-zero emission fuel types making up 5% to 10% of shipping fuel by 2030. But current estimates predict a significant shortfall. Unless demand for alternative fuel vessels significantly ramps up, the current order book for these ships will only deliver about 37% of the demand needed to achieve the 2030 target, according to a research report released at LISW called Progress Towards Shipping’s 2030 breakthrough — 2025 edition. The report was compiled jointly by the London-based UCL Energy Institute, the Global Maritime Forum’s Getting to Zero Coalition and the Climate High-Level Champions. In another report released at LISW, Accelerating to Net Zero, consultants at Accelleron noted that dual-fuel ships dominate the order books, but scalable carbon-neutral fuels are not available while emissions continue to rise. “The proliferation of fuel pathways has created paralysis,” the report said, highlighting how fuel pathway uncertainty was fragmenting demand and diluting investment in scalable net-zero solutions. “LNG, biofuels and e-fuels are all being trialed, but none at scale,” according to the report. “Shipping, historically the first in line for the leftovers of the fossil economy, now faces the reverse: competing for premium fuels.” Accelleron estimated that if LNG was the industry choice, 333 million tons of LNG would be required annually by 2050 to fully decarbonize global shipping, which would see a 67% increase in fuel consumption by 2050 as maritime transport doubles. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Concerns over the availability of green fuels continue to drive orders for container ships capable of sailing on liquefied natural gas (LNG) and methanol that now account for more than half of the order book. Neils Rasmussen, chief shipping analyst for shipping association Bimco, said in a market update Thursday that LNG remained the most popular alternative fuel, with LNG-fueled ships now accounting for two-thirds of all alternatively fueled ships on order. “As of end-August 2025, 534 container ships are on order that will be able to use alternative fuels upon delivery,” Rasmussen said. “These represent 53% of ships on order and 77% of the TEUs [on order].” A host of dual-fuel LNG ship orders have been announced this year. Yang Ming Marine Transport recently ordered seven LNG and ammonia-capable 16,000-TEU ships , while Mediterranean Shipping Co. in July ordered six 22,000-TEU dual-fuel LNG vessels and upsized another six LNG-fueled container ships from 19,000 TEUs to 22,000 TEUs. In February, Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine ordered 11 24,000-TEU LNG-capable vessels . Alternative fuels have proven popular among the largest ships. For ships of 8,000-TEU capacity or more, 81% of the vessels and 85% of the TEU capacity on order are for mainly LNG and methanol-capable ships, according to the Bimco report. Rasmussen noted that a shift from methanol toward LNG highlighted a key concern of shipowners when building dual-fuel ships: the availability of fuel. LNG is currently available mainly as a carbon fuel but could increasingly become available as a low-carbon biofuel or e-fuel. More than 25% of all the container capacity in operation by 2030 could be capable of sailing on alternative fuels, Rasmussen said. “Assuming that none of the alternatively fueled ships in operation are recycled, the container fleet in 2030 will include 837 alternatively fueled ships with 10.9 million TEUs of capacity once all the ships in the order book have been delivered,” he said. While container shipping is making strides toward alternatively fueled vessels, the other shipping sectors are more difficult to decarbonize, the Bimco analyst said. “In the bulker, crude tanker and product tanker sectors, alternatively fueled ships only make up respectively 8%, 17% and 9% of the ships on order,” Rasmussen said, noting that the prevalence of smaller operators in those sectors may negatively impact orders, whereas the container sector was controlled by a few large companies. Significant shortfall in green fuels The technology to build ships capable of low-carbon operation is available, but the Bimco update highlighted the lack of availability of the fuel. That emerged as a key concern this week at London International Shipping Week (LISW), where the urgent need for investment in alternative fuel production to scale up supply and for an increase in demand for dual-fuel ships was raised regularly. The International Maritime Organization’s net-zero framework, due for adoption in October, has set a target of zero- or near-zero emission fuel types making up 5% to 10% of shipping fuel by 2030. But current estimates predict a significant shortfall. Unless demand for alternative fuel vessels significantly ramps up, the current order book for these ships will only deliver about 37% of the demand needed to achieve the 2030 target, according to a research report released at LISW called Progress Towards Shipping’s 2030 breakthrough — 2025 edition. The report was compiled jointly by the London-based UCL Energy Institute, the Global Maritime Forum’s Getting to Zero Coalition and the Climate High-Level Champions. In another report released at LISW, Accelerating to Net Zero, consultants at Accelleron noted that dual-fuel ships dominate the order books, but scalable carbon-neutral fuels are not available while emissions continue to rise. “The proliferation of fuel pathways has created paralysis,” the report said, highlighting how fuel pathway uncertainty was fragmenting demand and diluting investment in scalable net-zero solutions. “LNG, biofuels and e-fuels are all being trialed, but none at scale,” according to the report. “Shipping, historically the first in line for the leftovers of the fossil economy, now faces the reverse: competing for premium fuels.” Accelleron estimated that if LNG was the industry choice, 333 million tons of LNG would be required annually by 2050 to fully decarbonize global shipping, which would see a 67% increase in fuel consumption by 2050 as maritime transport doubles. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Ocean carrier order book dominated by LNG-capable ships: Bimco

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While the new fees “may pose certain operational challenges,” Cosco said it does not plan to remove any trans-Pacific services, reduce its ship deployments to the US, or impose new surcharges to cover the fees.</div>

While the new fees “may pose certain operational challenges,” Cosco said it does not plan to remove any trans-Pacific services, reduce its ship deployments to the US, or impose new surcharges to cover the fees.

<div class="phx-topic">Cosco Shipping has informed its US customers to expect little change in its services and rates as the carrier starts paying new service fees for US port calls in October, becoming the latest container line to signal it will absorb the Trump administration’s penalties against China’s maritime industry. Cosco said in a customer advisory Wednesday it will “continue to serve the US market” once the US Trade Representative (USTR) begins collecting fees on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports starting Oct. 14. The fees stem from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">the USTR’s finding</a> that China has used unfair trade practices to promote its shipbuilders and ocean carriers. While the new fees “may pose certain operational challenges,” Cosco said it does not plan to remove any trans-Pacific services, reduce the number of ships in its US services, or impose new surcharges to cover the fees. “We are committed to maintaining stable capacity deployment and service quality,” Cosco said. “We will maintain competitive rates and surcharges.” Cosco’s advisory follows similar announcements from competitors <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-reroutes-china-built-ships-to-avoid-us-port-fees-6078488">CMA CGM</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-ready-for-us-port-fees-after-network-changes-ceo-6079762">Mediterranean Shipping Co.</a>, which have both said they hope to mitigate the impact of the fees after having rotated most, if not all, of their <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-tonnage-moving-out-of-us-container-trade-ahead-of-new-fees-xeneta-6081320">China-built container ships out of US services prior to mid-October</a>.As a China-based carrier, Cosco does not have that option under the USTR’s action, which assesses a higher penalty for Chinese carriers than for Chinese ships. Cosco, along with its OOCL subsidiary, faces a $50-per-net-ton fee for any of their vessels on their first port call to the US, up to five times per year. The fee rises to $140 by 2028. In contrast, a Chinese-built ship operated by a non-China domiciled carrier only faces an $18-per-net-ton fee in the first year of the USTR’s penalty scheme, rising to $33 by 2028. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e78cef13-8c4c-467e-afde-4967a79f87ca"></dynamic-object></div><h3>Will subsidies help offset fees?</h3>Investment bank HSBC estimated that a Chinese-operated ship of 10,000-TEU capacity would pay $2.7 million for its first US port call in the first year of the new fees, equating to a nearly $600 per container fee. A Chinese-built ship of similar size faces a $1 million fee, or approximately $222 per container. Based on the number of US calls per year, HSBC estimated Cosco could pay $1.5 billion in USTR fees through 2026. The question then becomes whether the Chinese government will offset those new port fees through subsidies. The USTR investigation cited estimates that China provided some $3.4 billion in subsidies between 2010 and 2018 to the country’s major carriers and port operators. Cosco’s last annual report listed $169 million in subsidies received during 2024, down from $423 million in 2023. Those subsidies, though, do not extend to OOCL, which itself could face $654 million in port fees, HSBC estimated. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Cosco Shipping has informed its US customers to expect little change in its services and rates as the carrier starts paying new service fees for US port calls in October, becoming the latest container line to signal it will absorb the Trump administration’s penalties against China’s maritime industry. Cosco said in a customer advisory Wednesday it will “continue to serve the US market” once the US Trade Representative (USTR) begins collecting fees on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports starting Oct. 14. The fees stem from the USTR’s finding that China has used unfair trade practices to promote its shipbuilders and ocean carriers. While the new fees “may pose certain operational challenges,” Cosco said it does not plan to remove any trans-Pacific services, reduce the number of ships in its US services, or impose new surcharges to cover the fees. “We are committed to maintaining stable capacity deployment and service quality,” Cosco said. “We will maintain competitive rates and surcharges.” Cosco’s advisory follows similar announcements from competitors CMA CGM and Mediterranean Shipping Co. , which have both said they hope to mitigate the impact of the fees after having rotated most, if not all, of their China-built container ships out of US services prior to mid-October . As a China-based carrier, Cosco does not have that option under the USTR’s action, which assesses a higher penalty for Chinese carriers than for Chinese ships. Cosco, along with its OOCL subsidiary, faces a $50-per-net-ton fee for any of their vessels on their first port call to the US, up to five times per year. The fee rises to $140 by 2028. In contrast, a Chinese-built ship operated by a non-China domiciled carrier only faces an $18-per-net-ton fee in the first year of the USTR’s penalty scheme, rising to $33 by 2028. Will subsidies help offset fees? Investment bank HSBC estimated that a Chinese-operated ship of 10,000-TEU capacity would pay $2.7 million for its first US port call in the first year of the new fees, equating to a nearly $600 per container fee. A Chinese-built ship of similar size faces a $1 million fee, or approximately $222 per container. Based on the number of US calls per year, HSBC estimated Cosco could pay $1.5 billion in USTR fees through 2026. The question then becomes whether the Chinese government will offset those new port fees through subsidies. The USTR investigation cited estimates that China provided some $3.4 billion in subsidies between 2010 and 2018 to the country’s major carriers and port operators. Cosco’s last annual report listed $169 million in subsidies received during 2024, down from $423 million in 2023. Those subsidies, though, do not extend to OOCL, which itself could face $654 million in port fees, HSBC estimated. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

Cosco says no changes to US services as new port fees approach

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Should US attempts to derail the measure be successful, a global approach to putting a price on carbon emissions will be abandoned and replaced with uncoordinated regional and national measures, the experts say.</div>

Should US attempts to derail the measure be successful, a global approach to putting a price on carbon emissions will be abandoned and replaced with uncoordinated regional and national measures, the experts say.

<div class="phx-topic">Failure to adopt the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) net-zero emissions framework in October will undermine years of complex negotiations and erase the certainty required by investors and energy suppliers to decarbonize the maritime industry, according to shipping experts gathered in London this week. The warning follows Washington’s increasingly aggressive attempts to derail next month’s adoption of the proposed net-zero framework at a pivotal meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London from Oct. 14–17. US officials earlier this month <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-steps-up-attempts-to-derail-imos-net-zero-ambitions-6076148">threatened IMO members supporting the framework</a> with tariffs, port duties and even visa restrictions. “If the measure does not go through, it will be a pure disaster,” Patrick Verhoeven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), told a conference at London International Shipping Week (LISW). Although he remains “cautiously optimistic,” Verhoeven said if voted down, the fuel standard and economic pricing measures in the framework would have to go back to the drawing board, exacerbating the uncertainty that already hangs over industry decarbonization and significantly delaying the process. “What we will see is probably an increase of more regional measures or those from individual countries. This will result in a complex regulatory patchwork which will be extremely challenging for shipowners and operators to comply with,” he said. Matt Dunlop, strategic partner at the Maersk Mckinney-Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, said the concept of the net-zero framework was crucial for the industry to have any chance of realizing the 2050 ambitions. “We need to get shipowners to continue to invest in LNG and methanol newbuilds while we get the standards ready for ammonia,” Dunlop told delegates at LISW. “At the moment, there’s no incentive for us, and the challenge for my customers is to understand ‘what do I need to do to comply?’ It’s more of a compliance discussion rather than a decarbonization discussion. “We have a real opportunity next month at MEPC, but if [the net-zero framework] is not adopted ... wow,” he added. <h3>Direction of travel has been set </h3>Martin Crawford-Brunt, CEO of specialist consultancy Lookout Marine, said shipping was on a pathway toward carbon neutrality, something that would not change even if the net-zero framework was voted down. “There’s a lot of speculation in terms of what’s going to happen at MEPC, and a lot of the actors are keeping their cards close to their chest, but regardless of which way it turns out, the imperative to do something will not go away,” he said. Global shipping accounts for about 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the IMO deal is regarded as crucial in enabling the industry to reach climate neutrality around 2050 by introducing fuel standards and levies on ships that fail to meet strict targets. The framework will require a two-thirds majority from member states to win approval and those voting yes will need to represent at least 50% of the world’s registered tonnage. Flag states Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands are home to almost half the world’s gross tonnage. Leading the diplomatic efforts to have the net-zero framework adopted next month in the face of pushback from Washington is IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, who struck a positive tone at LISW. “I remain very confident that this will happen next month,” he told the IMO’s headline conference at the week-long London event, noting the lengthy and complex process that has led to this crucial point in shipping’s decarbonization journey. “We evaluated and assessed 20 different scenarios from the proposals that we had on the table before landing on the compromise approach that we have for adoption next month,” Dominguez said. He reassured stakeholders that the framework includes review clauses and additional assessments that would address potential disadvantages to specific sectors. While no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the contentious MEPC meeting in April, if the framework is adopted in October, shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time starting from 2027. “Decarbonization has a cost. I’ll keep repeating that. It’s not for free, similar to any IMO regulation,” he said, emphasizing that the process was designed to be as “fit for purpose” as possible. <h3>New generation of carbon-free fuel </h3>The fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism are regarded as essential to support the development and scale-up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Dominguez acknowledged industry concerns about the framework and noted that if the proposal is adopted next month, there will still be considerable work involved to develop the guidelines for implementation in 2027. Industry concerns were expressed in dramatic fashion when the US delegation <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-pulls-out-of-imo-climate-talks-threatens-retaliation-for-emissions-fees-5980359">walked out of the MEPC meeting in April</a> in protest over the decarbonization talks. The vote that ended the meeting saw 63 nations voting for the proposal, 16 against and 25 abstentions. The US opposition to the net-zero framework has been gathering some industry support. On Monday, Christopher Wiernicki, the chairman and CEO of Texas-based classification society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), told a LISW event that shipping and the IMO were on different trajectories. “There is no clear pathway for green fuel availability and scalability and infrastructure support,” Wiernicki said. “LNG and biofuels are mission critical to any success and should not be overlooked, over penalized or discarded in the net-zero regulation,” he added. “Quite frankly, achieving net-zero for shipping by 2050 looks like a wildcard.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Failure to adopt the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) net-zero emissions framework in October will undermine years of complex negotiations and erase the certainty required by investors and energy suppliers to decarbonize the maritime industry, according to shipping experts gathered in London this week. The warning follows Washington’s increasingly aggressive attempts to derail next month’s adoption of the proposed net-zero framework at a pivotal meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London from Oct. 14–17. US officials earlier this month threatened IMO members supporting the framework with tariffs, port duties and even visa restrictions. “If the measure does not go through, it will be a pure disaster,” Patrick Verhoeven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), told a conference at London International Shipping Week (LISW). Although he remains “cautiously optimistic,” Verhoeven said if voted down, the fuel standard and economic pricing measures in the framework would have to go back to the drawing board, exacerbating the uncertainty that already hangs over industry decarbonization and significantly delaying the process. “What we will see is probably an increase of more regional measures or those from individual countries. This will result in a complex regulatory patchwork which will be extremely challenging for shipowners and operators to comply with,” he said. Matt Dunlop, strategic partner at the Maersk Mckinney-Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, said the concept of the net-zero framework was crucial for the industry to have any chance of realizing the 2050 ambitions. “We need to get shipowners to continue to invest in LNG and methanol newbuilds while we get the standards ready for ammonia,” Dunlop told delegates at LISW. “At the moment, there’s no incentive for us, and the challenge for my customers is to understand ‘what do I need to do to comply?’ It’s more of a compliance discussion rather than a decarbonization discussion. “We have a real opportunity next month at MEPC, but if [the net-zero framework] is not adopted ... wow,” he added. Direction of travel has been set Martin Crawford-Brunt, CEO of specialist consultancy Lookout Marine, said shipping was on a pathway toward carbon neutrality, something that would not change even if the net-zero framework was voted down. “There’s a lot of speculation in terms of what’s going to happen at MEPC, and a lot of the actors are keeping their cards close to their chest, but regardless of which way it turns out, the imperative to do something will not go away,” he said. Global shipping accounts for about 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the IMO deal is regarded as crucial in enabling the industry to reach climate neutrality around 2050 by introducing fuel standards and levies on ships that fail to meet strict targets. The framework will require a two-thirds majority from member states to win approval and those voting yes will need to represent at least 50% of the world’s registered tonnage. Flag states Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands are home to almost half the world’s gross tonnage. Leading the diplomatic efforts to have the net-zero framework adopted next month in the face of pushback from Washington is IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, who struck a positive tone at LISW. “I remain very confident that this will happen next month,” he told the IMO’s headline conference at the week-long London event, noting the lengthy and complex process that has led to this crucial point in shipping’s decarbonization journey. “We evaluated and assessed 20 different scenarios from the proposals that we had on the table before landing on the compromise approach that we have for adoption next month,” Dominguez said. He reassured stakeholders that the framework includes review clauses and additional assessments that would address potential disadvantages to specific sectors. While no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the contentious MEPC meeting in April, if the framework is adopted in October, shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time starting from 2027. “Decarbonization has a cost. I’ll keep repeating that. It’s not for free, similar to any IMO regulation,” he said, emphasizing that the process was designed to be as “fit for purpose” as possible. New generation of carbon-free fuel The fuel standard and carbon pricing mechanism are regarded as essential to support the development and scale-up of a new generation of carbon-free marine fuels, which remain significantly more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. Dominguez acknowledged industry concerns about the framework and noted that if the proposal is adopted next month, there will still be considerable work involved to develop the guidelines for implementation in 2027. Industry concerns were expressed in dramatic fashion when the US delegation walked out of the MEPC meeting in April in protest over the decarbonization talks. The vote that ended the meeting saw 63 nations voting for the proposal, 16 against and 25 abstentions. The US opposition to the net-zero framework has been gathering some industry support. On Monday, Christopher Wiernicki, the chairman and CEO of Texas-based classification society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), told a LISW event that shipping and the IMO were on different trajectories. “There is no clear pathway for green fuel availability and scalability and infrastructure support,” Wiernicki said. “LNG and biofuels are mission critical to any success and should not be overlooked, over penalized or discarded in the net-zero regulation,” he added. “Quite frankly, achieving net-zero for shipping by 2050 looks like a wildcard.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com . Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Shipping experts warn of ‘disaster’ if IMO’s net-zero framework voted down

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code ESSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code ESSGW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

In today’s competitive logistical landscape, efficiency is an absolute necessity for smooth operations. Yet, in the barge sector, many operators still rely on fragmented systems, delayed updates, and manual tracking methods that slow decision-making and increase operational risk. OpenTug’s new eBook, How Enhanced Visibility Transforms Barge Operations, reveals how unified, real-time data can become your competitive advantage leading to improved voyage management and more actionable insights. Drawing on industry best practices and real-world examples, it explores how operational transparency empowers teams to: ●	Reduce delays with accurate ETAs and proactive scheduling decisions ●	Improve asset utilization by identifying underused equipment and optimizing cargos ●	Strengthen safety and compliance through consistent, accessible documentation and reporting ●	Boost customer satisfaction with transparent status updates and faster response time You’ll learn how visibility can connect every part of your operation into a single, actionable view. The ability to see and act on real-time information transforms the way you plan, execute, and deliver. From managing a small regional fleet to running a large, national operation, this eBook will help you understand the measurable benefits of enhanced visibility and how technology like BargeOS is transforming the way barge logistics is managed. Get your copy today and see how clear insights lead to stronger performance, smarter decisions, and more profitable operations. <a href="https://9315820.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/9315820/eBook/Nav-theFuture-AJW-08.19.25.pdf" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">Click here</a><span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1756152344211_Opentug%20logo.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Opentug11.png

Transform Barge Operations with Total Visibility

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: <a href="https://www.ssamarine.mx/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">https://www.ssamarine.mx/</a>

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The crane, which arrived in Gulfport last week, was the first Chinese STS crane imported into the US since the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Beijing in April.</div>

The crane, which arrived in Gulfport last week, was the first Chinese STS crane imported into the US since the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Beijing in April.

<div class="phx-topic">Ports America will pay a 30% duty on the first China-built ship-to-shore (STS) container crane to be imported into the US since the so-called “Liberation Day” tariff announcement April 2, a decision the terminal operator deemed preferable to reselling the unit or storing it in-bond in an idle state pending uncertain future changes in US tariffs on China. The crane was built by ZPMC, which controls more than 80% of the global market. It arrived at Gulfport, Mississippi, Sept. 11 aboard a ship carrying four additional cranes built by the company — two bound for Port Freeport, Texas, that will also be subject to the 30% duty and two headed to Kingston, Jamaica. The 30% duty, a combination of a 10% reciprocal tariff and 20% “fentanyl” tariff, “made this investment narrowly possible,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. The original price tag of $16 million rose to just under $21 million due to the tariffs. The terminal operator has no plans to implement a direct surcharge to customers to defray the tariff costs but rather will recoup the amount over a period of time, Leech said. The alternative would have been to unload and store the idle crane in-bond awaiting outcomes such as the US Supreme Court’s planned ruling on the legality of the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement tariffs or a negotiated deal that results in lower tariffs than those now in effect. <h3>Waiver attempts not successful </h3>Ports America, like other US ports with ship-to-shore cranes on order from China, has tried unsuccessfully to obtain waivers from the White House. In accepting delivery, Ports America took advantage of a window that allowed it to put the crane into use in advance of more unfavorable conditions down the road. The 30% tariffs on China were extended Aug. 12 for another 90 days, shifting the new expiration date to Nov. 10. US tariffs on China would have increased to 145% without the extension and could still rise to that level. “With the extension of the prior arrangement with China … we have a window to bring the crane in under a 30% duty,” Leech said. “While not ideal, this would be in line with a replacement crane from outside China, thus we have simply made a business decision to import the crane and recognize and pay the duty at 30%.” Without the extension, Ports America said it would have faced the prospect of reselling and re-exporting the crane or storing it indefinitely in-bond, “an outcome that would have squandered valuable resources and represented a major lost opportunity to deliver real economic benefits to the Gulf Coast region and beyond,” said Leech. “Instead, this crane will fulfill its intended purpose: to serve as a catalyst for growth, helping the Port of Gulfport realize its full potential as a strategic gateway for global trade,” he added. The Port of Houston proposed grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024, but there is no indication such waivers have been granted. For the moment at least, there will be no interruption to the normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 STS cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. Port Freeport did not respond to a request for comment on how it will handle the tariff implications on the cranes to be delivered there. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com.</a></div>

Ports America will pay a 30% duty on the first China-built ship-to-shore (STS) container crane to be imported into the US since the so-called “Liberation Day” tariff announcement April 2, a decision the terminal operator deemed preferable to reselling the unit or storing it in-bond in an idle state pending uncertain future changes in US tariffs on China. The crane was built by ZPMC, which controls more than 80% of the global market. It arrived at Gulfport, Mississippi, Sept. 11 aboard a ship carrying four additional cranes built by the company — two bound for Port Freeport, Texas, that will also be subject to the 30% duty and two headed to Kingston, Jamaica. The 30% duty, a combination of a 10% reciprocal tariff and 20% “fentanyl” tariff, “made this investment narrowly possible,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. The original price tag of $16 million rose to just under $21 million due to the tariffs. The terminal operator has no plans to implement a direct surcharge to customers to defray the tariff costs but rather will recoup the amount over a period of time, Leech said. The alternative would have been to unload and store the idle crane in-bond awaiting outcomes such as the US Supreme Court’s planned ruling on the legality of the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement tariffs or a negotiated deal that results in lower tariffs than those now in effect. Waiver attempts not successful Ports America, like other US ports with ship-to-shore cranes on order from China, has tried unsuccessfully to obtain waivers from the White House. In accepting delivery, Ports America took advantage of a window that allowed it to put the crane into use in advance of more unfavorable conditions down the road. The 30% tariffs on China were extended Aug. 12 for another 90 days, shifting the new expiration date to Nov. 10. US tariffs on China would have increased to 145% without the extension and could still rise to that level. “With the extension of the prior arrangement with China … we have a window to bring the crane in under a 30% duty,” Leech said. “While not ideal, this would be in line with a replacement crane from outside China, thus we have simply made a business decision to import the crane and recognize and pay the duty at 30%.” Without the extension, Ports America said it would have faced the prospect of reselling and re-exporting the crane or storing it indefinitely in-bond, “an outcome that would have squandered valuable resources and represented a major lost opportunity to deliver real economic benefits to the Gulf Coast region and beyond,” said Leech. “Instead, this crane will fulfill its intended purpose: to serve as a catalyst for growth, helping the Port of Gulfport realize its full potential as a strategic gateway for global trade,” he added. The Port of Houston proposed grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024, but there is no indication such waivers have been granted. For the moment at least, there will be no interruption to the normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 STS cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. Port Freeport did not respond to a request for comment on how it will handle the tariff implications on the cranes to be delivered there. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com.

Ports America to pay 30% tariff on China-made ship-to-shore crane

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The bump in spot rates that was driven by the Sept. 1 GRI and blanked sailings in the eastbound trans-Pacific appears to be over, with rates this week headed lower, according to forwarders.</div>

The bump in spot rates that was driven by the Sept. 1 GRI and blanked sailings in the eastbound trans-Pacific appears to be over, with rates this week headed lower, according to forwarders.

<div class="phx-topic">Container lines had stemmed a month-long decline in container spot rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific, but forecast volume declines and modest blanking announcements are testing the foundation of the new bottom. The bump in spot rates that was driven by the convergence of a Sept. 1 general rate increase (GRI) and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gemini-suspends-seasonal-trans-pacific-service-6078582">blanked sailings in the eastbound trans-Pacific</a> appears to be over, and rates this week are headed lower, according to forwarders. “The Sept. 1 GRI raised rates a few hundred dollars, but we can say now that rates are back to pre-Sept. 1 levels,” James Caradonna, executive vice president of the forwarder M&amp;R Spedag Group, told the Journal of Commerce Monday. That was echoed by Chris Sur, executive vice president for ocean freight contract logistics at forwarder Unique Logistics International. “The Sept. 1 GRI certainly was successful,” Sur said. “It increased rates for a couple of weeks, but now it’s kind of going back to pre-Sept. 1 levels.” Container spot rates have ticked up in recent weeks, as measured by Drewry, the Shanghai Shipping Exchange and Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister company within S&amp;P Global. The spot rate from Asia to the West Coast as of Monday was $2,500 per FEU, up $200 on the week, while the East Coast spot rate of $3,600 per FEU was up $300 week over week, according to Platts. An industry consultant who formerly managed logistics for two national retailers said bookings from Asia ticked up in early September in advance of the Oct. 1 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-market-in-trans-pacific-arrives-at-spot-pricing-tipping-point-6073669">Golden Week holidays in Asia</a>, which most carriers were able to leverage for rate increases of several hundred dollars. “But really, a lot of [the rate gain] was due to blank sailings,” the source said. Another factor, the consultant said, was that falling spot rates in August were approaching the long-term fixed rates customers had signed for in their 2025–26 service contracts, and carriers were determined to prevent further rate erosion. “[Carriers] don’t want spot rates to drop below contract rates,” the source said. A carrier executive said even though US import volumes leading up to Golden Week this year are lower than usual, carriers are achieving their objective of keeping spot/FAK rates from collapsing so October blankings can catch up to the market. “Even at $1,800-$1,900 [to the West Coast], this is certainly better than the $1,500-$1,600 in August,” the carrier source said. Because there is no backlog of cargo built up in Asia, rates this week are already falling lower — to $1,700-$1,800 per FEU to the West Coast and about $2,700 per FEU to the East Coast, another forwarder said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d0dc514b-60a6-4b10-862a-081c37b36db2"></dynamic-object></div>Most carriers also offer so-called bullet or voyage-specific rates that undercut their listed rates by about $200-$300 per FEU, said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder FreightRight Global Logistics. “All carriers have ships to fill,” he said. “They post a rate, but go to the market [with] a voyage-specific rate.” <h3>Managing capacity </h3>Meanwhile, carriers have been blanking sailings for weeks, and more cancellations are scheduled. Carriers are blanking 10% of capacity to the West Coast in September and are scheduled to blank 9.65% of capacity in October, according to the maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Liners blanked 12.8% of capacity to the East Coast in September and are scheduled to blank 19.9% of capacity in October, according to eeSea. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Container lines had stemmed a month-long decline in container spot rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific, but forecast volume declines and modest blanking announcements are testing the foundation of the new bottom. The bump in spot rates that was driven by the convergence of a Sept. 1 general rate increase (GRI) and blanked sailings in the eastbound trans-Pacific appears to be over, and rates this week are headed lower, according to forwarders. “The Sept. 1 GRI raised rates a few hundred dollars, but we can say now that rates are back to pre-Sept. 1 levels,” James Caradonna, executive vice president of the forwarder M&R Spedag Group, told the Journal of Commerce Monday. That was echoed by Chris Sur, executive vice president for ocean freight contract logistics at forwarder Unique Logistics International. “The Sept. 1 GRI certainly was successful,” Sur said. “It increased rates for a couple of weeks, but now it’s kind of going back to pre-Sept. 1 levels.” Container spot rates have ticked up in recent weeks, as measured by Drewry, the Shanghai Shipping Exchange and Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister company within S&P Global. The spot rate from Asia to the West Coast as of Monday was $2,500 per FEU, up $200 on the week, while the East Coast spot rate of $3,600 per FEU was up $300 week over week, according to Platts. An industry consultant who formerly managed logistics for two national retailers said bookings from Asia ticked up in early September in advance of the Oct. 1 Golden Week holidays in Asia , which most carriers were able to leverage for rate increases of several hundred dollars. “But really, a lot of [the rate gain] was due to blank sailings,” the source said. Another factor, the consultant said, was that falling spot rates in August were approaching the long-term fixed rates customers had signed for in their 2025–26 service contracts, and carriers were determined to prevent further rate erosion. “[Carriers] don’t want spot rates to drop below contract rates,” the source said. A carrier executive said even though US import volumes leading up to Golden Week this year are lower than usual, carriers are achieving their objective of keeping spot/FAK rates from collapsing so October blankings can catch up to the market. “Even at $1,800-$1,900 [to the West Coast], this is certainly better than the $1,500-$1,600 in August,” the carrier source said. Because there is no backlog of cargo built up in Asia, rates this week are already falling lower — to $1,700-$1,800 per FEU to the West Coast and about $2,700 per FEU to the East Coast, another forwarder said. Most carriers also offer so-called bullet or voyage-specific rates that undercut their listed rates by about $200-$300 per FEU, said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder FreightRight Global Logistics. “All carriers have ships to fill,” he said. “They post a rate, but go to the market [with] a voyage-specific rate.” Managing capacity Meanwhile, carriers have been blanking sailings for weeks, and more cancellations are scheduled. Carriers are blanking 10% of capacity to the West Coast in September and are scheduled to blank 9.65% of capacity in October, according to the maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Liners blanked 12.8% of capacity to the East Coast in September and are scheduled to blank 19.9% of capacity in October, according to eeSea. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Pre-Golden Week rate hike beginning to fade on trans-Pacific

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The world’s largest container ship operator “proactively restructured” its US service network to mitigate any impact from the Trump administration’s new levies on Chinese ships, according to MSC CEO Soren Toft.</div>

The world’s largest container ship operator “proactively restructured” its US service network to mitigate any impact from the Trump administration’s new levies on Chinese ships, according to MSC CEO Soren Toft.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is the latest carrier to change vessel deployments for its US network ahead of new port fees on Chinese-built ships, signaling to its shippers that the carrier will absorb, if not entirely avoid, the cost of the new fees.In a customer advisory sent Thursday, CEO Soren Toft said MSC “proactively restructured its global vessel network” in response to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s fees on Chinese-built or -operated ships calling US ports</a>. The fees, scheduled to start Oct. 14 and based on the higher of either gross tonnage or container volume, amount to an extra $300 to $600 per container by various estimates.“This internal adjustment ensures full alignment with applicable US trade regulations while maintaining the reliability and efficiency of MSC’s service offerings,” Toft said in the notice. MSC’s announcement comes after CMA CGM said Wednesday that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-reroutes-china-built-ships-to-avoid-us-port-fees-6078488">it doesn’t plan to charge customers</a> shipping to the US to cover the cost of the new fees after removing Chinese-built ships from its US service networks. China’s Cosco Shipping, which will not be able to avoid the fee due its ownership, also does not plan to levy a surcharge, according to a carrier executive and Cosco customer familiar with the carrier’s plan.Thirty-five of the 266 individual ships operated by MSC that called the US during the last six months were built in China, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global.While many of those were likely ad hoc calls, some of MSC’s Chinese fleet that was in regular rotation to the US now appear to be deployed to non-US trades, Sea-web and vessel schedules show. The 9,411-TEU MSC Jeongmin, which has made 154 calls to the US over the last five years, the last of which was to Los Angeles in August as part of the carrier’s California Express service from Europe, is now part of the Levante Express service between the Mediterranean and northern Europe. The 8,496-TEU MSC Ivory Coast, which made 13 US calls over the last five years, is now listed in the rotation for the carrier’s West Mediterranean-Red Sea service.MSC’s fleet composition offers versatility in its deployments. According to Sea-web data, about half of MSC’s active container fleet is from South Korean shipbuilders, while Chinese vessels make up about a quarter of its fleet. However, MSC has an additional 106 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of 1.9 million TEUs, on order or under construction at Chinese shipyards, with no known orders from South Korean yards on its books, Sea-web data shows. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is the latest carrier to change vessel deployments for its US network ahead of new port fees on Chinese-built ships, signaling to its shippers that the carrier will absorb, if not entirely avoid, the cost of the new fees. In a customer advisory sent Thursday, CEO Soren Toft said MSC “proactively restructured its global vessel network” in response to the US Trade Representative’s fees on Chinese-built or -operated ships calling US ports . The fees, scheduled to start Oct. 14 and based on the higher of either gross tonnage or container volume, amount to an extra $300 to $600 per container by various estimates. “This internal adjustment ensures full alignment with applicable US trade regulations while maintaining the reliability and efficiency of MSC’s service offerings,” Toft said in the notice. MSC’s announcement comes after CMA CGM said Wednesday that it doesn’t plan to charge customers shipping to the US to cover the cost of the new fees after removing Chinese-built ships from its US service networks. China’s Cosco Shipping, which will not be able to avoid the fee due its ownership, also does not plan to levy a surcharge, according to a carrier executive and Cosco customer familiar with the carrier’s plan. Thirty-five of the 266 individual ships operated by MSC that called the US during the last six months were built in China, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. While many of those were likely ad hoc calls, some of MSC’s Chinese fleet that was in regular rotation to the US now appear to be deployed to non-US trades, Sea-web and vessel schedules show. The 9,411-TEU MSC Jeongmin, which has made 154 calls to the US over the last five years, the last of which was to Los Angeles in August as part of the carrier’s California Express service from Europe, is now part of the Levante Express service between the Mediterranean and northern Europe. The 8,496-TEU MSC Ivory Coast, which made 13 US calls over the last five years, is now listed in the rotation for the carrier’s West Mediterranean-Red Sea service. MSC’s fleet composition offers versatility in its deployments. According to Sea-web data, about half of MSC’s active container fleet is from South Korean shipbuilders, while Chinese vessels make up about a quarter of its fleet. However, MSC has an additional 106 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of 1.9 million TEUs, on order or under construction at Chinese shipyards, with no known orders from South Korean yards on its books, Sea-web data shows. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Truckload carriers capturing more LTL shipments: FedEx Freight

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Ocean carrier order book dominated by LNG-capable ships: Bimco

Cosco says no changes to US services as new port fees approach

Shipping experts warn of ‘disaster’ if IMO’s net-zero framework voted down

Recent Commentary

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Top 5 Most Read Stories