<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">BRITAIN took a small step last week toward resuming talks with the United States on improving access</div>

BRITAIN took a small step last week toward resuming talks with the United States on improving access

<div>BRITAIN took a small step last week toward resuming talks with the United States on improving access to each other's airline markets.British Transport Secretary Brian Mawhinney said he would open eight regional airports to U.S. airlines. Notably absent from the list: Heathrow and Gatwick airports, heavily preferred by business travelers both for local destinations and as gateways to Europe.Mr. Mawhinney called it "the most sweeping unilateral liberalization in the history of trans-Atlantic aviation." It was hardly that. British Airways will continue to operate comfortably behind a trade barrier that limits more efficient U.S. carriers at its main hubs.The United States...

BRITAIN took a small step last week toward resuming talks with the United States on improving access to each other's airline markets. British Transport Secretary Brian Mawhinney said he would open eight regional airports to U.S. airlines. Notably absent from the list: Heathrow and Gatwick airports, heavily preferred by business travelers both for local destinations and as gateways to Europe.Mr. Mawhinney called it "the most sweeping unilateral liberalization in the history of trans-Atlantic aviation." It was hardly that. British Airways will continue to operate comfortably behind a trade barrier that limits more efficient U.S. carriers at its main hubs. The United States is far from blameless in this story, however. Washington continues to restrict foreign investments in U.S. airlines, prohibits foreign carriers from flying between U.S. cities and delays joint marketing agreements between U.S. and British airlines. The two nations have played cat-and-mouse for years, each claiming its barriers are just bargaining chips. Last year U.S. officials walked out in disgust and there matters have remained, in a stalemate. The result has been fewer choices for passenger, higher fares and less efficiency. Both sides have much to gain from ending the impasse - for example, by removing both the U.S. investment barriers and the British landing restrictions - and a lot to lose from continued obstinacy.

AVIATION IMPASSE

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The China-based liners carried a combined 1.09 million TEUs in imports to the US through April, up 23% over the same period in 2024, according to Journal of Commerce rankings. </div>

The China-based liners carried a combined 1.09 million TEUs in imports to the US through April, up 23% over the same period in 2024, according to Journal of Commerce rankings.

Feature image

Cosco Shipping and its OOCL subsidiary, already the top carriers for US imports from Asia, grew their combined volumes substantially during the first four months of the year, according to the Journal of Commerce rankings of the top 15 container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific. The liners carried almost 1.09 million TEUs in imports to the US through April, up 23% over the same period in 2024. Their combined market share increased 1.6 percentage points to 17%. The big gains for the Chinese carriers came amid increasing scrutiny of China’s maritime industry and attempts by Washington to dull that influence . The top 15 container lines for imports carried 98.9% of the 6.4 million TEUs from Asia in the first four months of 2025, up 11.2% year over year. The carriers in second through sixth place saw slight year-over-year declines in market share. CMA CGM/APL retained the second slot for imports with 830,039 TEUs, good for a 13% market share. Their combined volumes fell almost 5% during the first four months, shrinking market share by 2.2 percentage points. Mediterranean Shipping Co. moved from fourth in 2024 to third this year, importing 11.5% of US cargo from Asia through April. MSC brought in 739,324 TEUs, up 10.5% from 2024. Bumped to fourth, Ocean Network Express’s (ONE’s) market share was 11.3%, down 0.6 percentage point from 2024. Evergreen Line trimmed the same from its market share to land in fifth place with 10.9%. Sixth place went to A.P. Møller – Maersk, with 8.9% of the total market share — down 2 percentage points from last year. Zim Integrated Shipping Services and Hapag-Lloyd increased their eastbound trans-Pacific market share during the first four months, driven by big gains in volumes. Zim increased its imports 47.3%, while Hapag-Lloyd’s grew 43.9%. Exports shift slightly The rankings for the top 15 carriers for exports to Asia in the first four months of 2025 showed less volatility, with no changes to the top six slots. With the largest market share for exports at 16.3%, CMA CGM moved out 275,585 TEUs. Overall, though, the carrier’s export volumes fell 13.3% year over year, while its market share decreased 1.6 percentage points. ONE maintained second place for exports with a 15.6% market share, down 1.9 percentage points from last year; Cosco was unmoved at 14.9% in third place, up 0.2 percentage point. The top 15 trans-Pacific container lines for exports carried 99.9% of the 1.7 million TEUs that moved from the US to Asia in the first four months of 2025, down 4.6% year over year. Port rankings steady On the port side, the market share for US imports from Asia was mostly unchanged through the first four months of the year. The Journal of Commerce rankings had the Port of Los Angeles in the top slot, handling 24.2% of US imports from January through April. Volumes of 1.55 million TEUs were up 6% from last year. The Port of Long Beach brought in 23.9% of imports, with volumes jumping 25.3% to 1.53 million TEUs. The Port of New York and New Jersey was in third place with a 12.2% market share, with Savannah at 10.3%. The only shift occurred between fifth and sixth place, where the Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma overtook Houston with a 6.2% market share against Houston’s 5.8%. The Journal of Commerce top 15 US ports for imports from Asia handled 6.4 million TEUs from Asia in the first four months, up 11.2% year over year. Meanwhile, the top seven ports for exports were unchanged, also led by Los Angeles and Long Beach with 23.3% and 13.9% market shares, respectively. The top 15 US ports by exports to Asia handled 98.6% of the 1.7 million TEUs in the first four months of 2025, a decrease of 4.6% from 2024. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .Journal of Commerce Top 15 Container Lines by US Imports from Asia Containerized US imports from Asia, in laden TEUs, January-April 2025 vs. January-April 2024 Rank Carrier Market Share 2024 2025 YoY Change 1 Cosco Shipping/OOCL 17.0% 884,071 1,087,455 23.0% 2 CMA CGM/APL 13.0% 872,388 830,039 -4.9% 3 Mediterranean Shipping Co. 11.5% 668,993 739,324 10.5% 4 Ocean Network Express 11.3% 683,332 724,227 6.0% 5 Evergreen Line 10.9% 666,918 701,312 5.2% 6 A.P. Møller - Maersk* 8.9% 626,832 571,105 -8.9% 7 Zim Integrated Shipping Services 6.2% 270,601 398,529 47.3% 8 Hapag-Lloyd 5.4% 238,473 343,187 43.9% 9 HMM 4.5% 275,015 290,757 5.7% 10 Yang Ming Line 3.8% 262,653 243,649 -7.2% 11 Wan Hai Lines 2.8% 115,794 178,931 54.5% 12 SM Line 1.5% 97,424 94,363 -3.1% 13 Matson 1.1% 64,762 67,609 4.4% 14 Swire Shipping 0.5% 14,721 31,852 116.4% 15 Sea Lead 0.5% 30,949 TOTAL US IMPORTS FROM ASIA 5,762,698 6,405,895 11.2% *A.P. Møller - Maersk includes Maersk Line, Sealand, Safmarine and Hamburg Süd. Source: S&P Global © 2025 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 15 Container Lines by US Exports to Asia Containerized US exports to Asia, in laden TEUs, January-April 2025 vs. January-April 2024 Rank Carrier Market Share 2024 2025 YoY Change 1 CMA CGM/APL 4.3% 317,947 275,585 -13.3% 2 Ocean Network Express 4.1% 309,434 263,244 -14.9% 3 Cosco Shipping/OOCL 3.9% 260,067 251,734 -3.2% 4 Evergreen Line 3.1% 206,778 198,392 -4.1% 5 Mediterranean Shipping Co. 2.6% 163,470 163,710 0.1% 6 A.P. Møller - Maersk* 1.9% 133,450 124,682 -6.6% 7 Hapag-Lloyd 1.9% 48,988 122,092 149.2% 8 HMM 1.8% 116,130 116,550 0.4% 9 Yang Ming Line 1.4% 85,229 86,893 2.0% 10 Zim Integrated Shipping Services 0.5% 82,387 32,718 -60.3% 11 SM Line 0.4% 25,072 28,437 13.4% 12 Wan Hai Lines 0.2% 5,099 9,610 88.5% 13 Swire Shipping 0.0% 5,161 1,852 -64.1% 14 Matson 0.0% 10,804 1,503 -86.1% 15 Wallenius Wilhelmen Lines 0.0% 6 2 -65.2% TOTAL US EXPORTS TO ASIA 1,770,766 1,689,094 -4.6% *A.P. Møller - Maersk includes Maersk Line, Sealand, Safmarine, and Hamburg Süd. Source: S&P Global © 2025 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 15 US Ports by Imports from Asia Containerized US imports from Asia, in laden TEUs, January-April 2025 vs. January-April 2024 Rank US Port Market Share 2024 2025 YoY Change 1 Los Angeles, Calif. 24.2% 1,462,756 1,550,833 6.0% 2 Long Beach, Calif. 23.9% 1,223,285 1,532,235 25.3% 3 New York and New Jersey 12.2% 700,707 780,517 11.4% 4 Savannah, Ga. 10.3% 589,565 662,445 12.4% 5 Northwest Seaport Alliance 6.2% 339,529 396,475 16.8% 6 Houston, Texas 5.8% 354,348 373,637 5.4% 7 Oakland, Calif. 3.7% 229,170 236,807 3.3% 8 Virginia 3.7% 248,774 234,650 -5.7% 9 Charleston, SC 3.6% 231,030 229,947 -0.5% 10 Baltimore, Md. 1.6% 68,093 102,490 50.5% 11 Mobile, Ala. 1.2% 86,580 73,699 -14.9% 12 Miami, Fla. 1.0% 60,569 62,420 3.1% 13 Jacksonville, Fla. 0.7% 40,005 43,921 9.8% 14 Tampa, Fla. 0.6% 38,651 36,518 -5.5% 15 Boston, Mass. 0.5% 28,024 29,314 4.6% TOTAL US IMPORTS FROM ASIA 5,762,698 6,405,895 11.2% Source: S&P Global © 2025 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 15 US Ports by Exports to Asia Containerized US exports to Asia, in laden TEUs, January-April 2025 vs. January-April 2024 Rank US Port Market Share 2024 2025 YoY Change 1 Los Angeles, Calif. 23.3% 378,676 393,297 3.9% 2 Long Beach, Calif. 13.9% 249,290 235,513 -5.5% 3 Northwest Seaport Alliance 10.2% 176,162 172,791 -1.9% 4 Oakland, Calif. 9.7% 163,631 164,450 0.5% 5 Savannah, Ga. 9.1% 166,011 153,736 -7.4% 6 New York and New Jersey 7.5% 130,587 127,497 -2.4% 7 Houston, Texas 7.4% 120,909 124,945 3.3% 8 Virginia 7.1% 152,688 119,715 -21.6% 9 Charleston, SC 4.3% 95,764 72,817 -24.0% 10 Baltimore, Md. 1.5% 23,635 24,882 5.3% 11 Mobile, Ala. 1.3% 28,181 21,498 -23.7% 12 New Orleans, La. 1.3% 17,444 21,275 22.0% 13 Portland, Ore. 0.8% 13,401 13,690 2.2% 14 Boston, Mass. 0.6% 12,995 10,477 -19.4% 15 Wilmington, NC 0.5% 11,067 8,291 -25.1% TOTAL US EXPORTS TO ASIA 1,770,766 1,689,094 -4.6% Source: S&P Global © 2025 S&P Global.

Maritime

Port News

Container lines

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

North American ports

Container Shipping News

Cosco/OOCL saw big gains in US imports from Asia in early 2025

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Researcher Armstrong &amp; Associates says in an annual report it expects global 3PL revenue to hit $1.25 trillion this year as shippers try to build more flexible supply chains and mitigate risks. </div>

Researcher Armstrong & Associates says in an annual report it expects global 3PL revenue to hit $1.25 trillion this year as shippers try to build more flexible supply chains and mitigate risks.

<div class="phx-topic">Volatility in global trade that is forcing shippers to rethink their supply chains will accelerate demand for domestic and international third-party logistics (3PL) services, according to logistics research firm Armstrong &amp; Associates. Global logistics firms are still recovering from 2023, when their combined revenue plummeted 21.4% after rising rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, Armstrong &amp; Associates said in its annual report on the top 50 domestic and global 3PLs as ranked by revenue, released last week. Amazon topped the list of both domestic and global 3PLs, with $156.2 billion in 3PL-related revenue, according to Armstrong. DHL Supply Chain &amp; Global Forwarding was second in the global 3PL rankings, followed by Kuehne + Nagel. C.H. Robinson Worldwide was second among the domestic 3PLs, followed by GXO Logistics and J.B. Hunt Transport Services. In 2024, the global 3PL market stabilized and grew 3.4% to $1.22 trillion. The risk created by trade uncertainty and expanding conflicts will help push global gross 3PL revenue up another 2.7% in 2025 to $1.25 trillion, according to Armstrong. That revenue should grow again by 4.9% in 2026 to $1.3 trillion, it said. In the US 3PL market, Armstrong expects 4.5% growth in 3PL revenue to $321.8 billion this year after a 2.8% gain last year that brought domestic 3PL revenue to $307.9 billion. <h3>Rising risks on multiple fronts </h3>The list of risks US importers and domestic shippers are trying to mitigate isn’t getting shorter. The Iranian government’s threat <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/closure-of-strait-of-hormuz-would-further-stretch-global-container-capacity-6025484">to close the Strait of Hormuz</a> amid Israel’s attack on the country could tie up already stretched global container capacity. Armstrong &amp; Associates’ data suggests some shippers are shifting focus to the risk of capacity shortages in North America should the impact of higher US tariffs result in tighter truck capacity as trucking companies trim capital spending on equipment. In 2024, international transportation management was the fastest-growing sector of the US 3PL market, with revenue jumping 7.9% to $79.8 billion. This year, Armstrong expects dedicated contract carriage (DCC) to lead the market with 5.7% growth. That indicates shippers are increasingly concerned about the potential for a sharper turn in the truckload market when freight demand eventually shifts. With no immediate end to a three-year trucking downturn in sight, large carriers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/large-truckload-carriers-make-capacity-cuts-but-trucks-reenter-the-market-6004177">continue to cut capacity</a>. The Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index has dropped 18.3 percentage points as of the first quarter from its mid-2022 peak, and at 74.9, it is as low as it has been since 2014. Gross revenue in the US DCC market climbed 5.9% in 2024 to $31.5 billion. Armstrong estimates DCC gross revenue will reach $33.2 billion this year. That suggests shippers are once again looking to lock in capacity, as they did during COVID-19-related supply disruptions in 2021, to hedge against tariff-related reductions in over-the-road capacity. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Volatility in global trade that is forcing shippers to rethink their supply chains will accelerate demand for domestic and international third-party logistics (3PL) services, according to logistics research firm Armstrong & Associates. Global logistics firms are still recovering from 2023, when their combined revenue plummeted 21.4% after rising rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, Armstrong & Associates said in its annual report on the top 50 domestic and global 3PLs as ranked by revenue, released last week. Amazon topped the list of both domestic and global 3PLs, with $156.2 billion in 3PL-related revenue, according to Armstrong. DHL Supply Chain & Global Forwarding was second in the global 3PL rankings, followed by Kuehne + Nagel. C.H. Robinson Worldwide was second among the domestic 3PLs, followed by GXO Logistics and J.B. Hunt Transport Services. In 2024, the global 3PL market stabilized and grew 3.4% to $1.22 trillion. The risk created by trade uncertainty and expanding conflicts will help push global gross 3PL revenue up another 2.7% in 2025 to $1.25 trillion, according to Armstrong. That revenue should grow again by 4.9% in 2026 to $1.3 trillion, it said. In the US 3PL market, Armstrong expects 4.5% growth in 3PL revenue to $321.8 billion this year after a 2.8% gain last year that brought domestic 3PL revenue to $307.9 billion. Rising risks on multiple fronts The list of risks US importers and domestic shippers are trying to mitigate isn’t getting shorter. The Iranian government’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz amid Israel’s attack on the country could tie up already stretched global container capacity. Armstrong & Associates’ data suggests some shippers are shifting focus to the risk of capacity shortages in North America should the impact of higher US tariffs result in tighter truck capacity as trucking companies trim capital spending on equipment. In 2024, international transportation management was the fastest-growing sector of the US 3PL market, with revenue jumping 7.9% to $79.8 billion. This year, Armstrong expects dedicated contract carriage (DCC) to lead the market with 5.7% growth. That indicates shippers are increasingly concerned about the potential for a sharper turn in the truckload market when freight demand eventually shifts. With no immediate end to a three-year trucking downturn in sight, large carriers continue to cut capacity . The Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index has dropped 18.3 percentage points as of the first quarter from its mid-2022 peak, and at 74.9, it is as low as it has been since 2014. Gross revenue in the US DCC market climbed 5.9% in 2024 to $31.5 billion. Armstrong estimates DCC gross revenue will reach $33.2 billion this year. That suggests shippers are once again looking to lock in capacity, as they did during COVID-19-related supply disruptions in 2021, to hedge against tariff-related reductions in over-the-road capacity. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Supply chain

Multiplying supply chain risks drive growth for global, US-based logistics firms

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A wide-ranging report commissioned by Canada’s Labor Ministry says British Columbia’s ports are vulnerable to strikes in part because of disparate longshore unions involved in contract talks. </div>

A wide-ranging report commissioned by Canada’s Labor Ministry says British Columbia’s ports are vulnerable to strikes in part because of disparate longshore unions involved in contract talks.

<div class="phx-topic">Fragmented union bargaining and government backstops during contract talks are factors behind the longshore strikes and other labor unrest that have gripped Canada’s West Coast ports during the last two years, a report commissioned by the Labor Ministry report has found. The report, released Thursday, suggests British Columbia’s longshore unions need to bargain with employers on a province-wide basis, rather than a port- or employer-specific basis, to avoid further unrest that jeopardizes Canada’s supply chains. It also urged early government intervention to head off strikes. The 156-page report, which was commissioned by the Labor Ministry and developed by Canadian labor relations experts Vincent Ready and Amanda Rogers, looks into the labor disputes that have hit British Columbia’s ports. It was commissioned in July 2023 by Labor Minister Steve MacKinnon after <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ilwu-canadas-contract-rejection-thrusts-bc-ports-in-limbo-5216091">longshore workers rejected</a> a contract proposal that led to a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ilwu-canada-contract-ratification-ensures-bc-port-peace-5220992">13-day strike at Vancouver and other Canadian West Coast ports</a>. The inquiry found that while “there exists a mature bargaining relationship among the parties, it is far from healthy, and is marred by ongoing conflicts, misaligned priorities and a fiercely protectionist stance by the union.” Mike Leonard, president of the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA), said in a statement that if the report’s findings are put in place, it “will advance long-term stability at Canada’s West Coast ports to the benefit of all parties.” ILWU Canada could not immediately be reached to comment on the report. <h3>ILWU locals control talks </h3>The BCMEA negotiates contracts with the Canadian affiliate of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). ILWU Canada represents five separate, regional ILWU locals, which are the recognized bargaining agents with employers at different ports. While ILWU Canada is ostensibly the main negotiator, it is the locals who direct contract talks, vote on tentative agreements and determine whether to strike. ILWU Canada is not recognized by employers as a union and its president does not have a vote on contract matters. The report said that longshore labor negotiations would be more efficient if maritime employers could negotiate on a province-wide basis as “the current model of collective bargaining with different bargaining units is contributing to the frequency of labor disruptions.” It noted that other longshore unions in Canada negotiate province-wide contracts. The ILWU locals have maintained that different work conditions at each employer and port necessitate the need for regional representation. However, the report noted that ILWU local members can work at different ports throughout the province, indicating that work conditions at each location are similar enough for a province-wide contract. “While it is true each ILWU local maintains its own independent leadership and union members, the issuance of a geographic certification will not interfere with those arrangements,” the report said. It added that recognizing ILWU Canada or another entity as the main union representative “will bring stability and certainty to future rounds of bargaining.” <h3>Foremen role not distinct </h3>The Labor Ministry’s inquiry coincided with another work stoppage in November 2024, when the BCMEA shut out ILWU Local 514, which represents port foremen, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bc-container-ports-set-for-shutdown-after-foremen-begin-strike-5785499">after it took an illegal strike vote</a> during protracted negotiations with maritime employers. Local 514 has separate bargaining agreements with each of the province’s maritime employers and can negotiate with each one separately. However, Local 514 has “voluntarily” negotiated with the BCMEA for decades, the report said. Even though it started the last negotiations with the BCMEA, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-worlds-centerm-project-at-heart-of-employer-union-dispute-in-vancouver-5225162">Local 514 targeted one employer — DP World</a> — for a separate deal that led to the illegal strike vote. “The union’s conduct was an attempt to single out one employer, just as the parties acquired their right to strike or lock out, and subverted the collective bargaining process that was underway,” the report said. “The union cannot ride two horses at the same time and then pick the one that best suits its interests late in the race.” Local 514 maintains the foremen role is different enough than other longshore crafts for a separate union and contract. However, the report said foremen could also be rolled up into a province-wide contract because their jobs are not that different than other longshore workers. “We do not accept that the interests of ILWU Local 514 members are so distinct that they cannot effectively be advanced as part of a geographic certification that also includes longshore workers,” the report said. <h3>Government overshadows talks </h3>The report also took to task the default move of maritime employers and longshore unions to look to government intervention when contract negotiations break down. The report noted that the federal government has intervened in nine of 13 British Columbia port disputes since 1972. “This reliance on government intervention has created an environment where the safety net of binding arbitration overshadows the collective bargaining process,” the report said. The inquiry suggested that a “special mediator” be appointed early in the bargaining process. The special mediator would monitor the progress of talks and help usher them through before the government needs to force a deal on both sides. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Fragmented union bargaining and government backstops during contract talks are factors behind the longshore strikes and other labor unrest that have gripped Canada’s West Coast ports during the last two years, a report commissioned by the Labor Ministry report has found. The report, released Thursday, suggests British Columbia’s longshore unions need to bargain with employers on a province-wide basis, rather than a port- or employer-specific basis, to avoid further unrest that jeopardizes Canada’s supply chains. It also urged early government intervention to head off strikes. The 156-page report, which was commissioned by the Labor Ministry and developed by Canadian labor relations experts Vincent Ready and Amanda Rogers, looks into the labor disputes that have hit British Columbia’s ports. It was commissioned in July 2023 by Labor Minister Steve MacKinnon after longshore workers rejected a contract proposal that led to a 13-day strike at Vancouver and other Canadian West Coast ports . The inquiry found that while “there exists a mature bargaining relationship among the parties, it is far from healthy, and is marred by ongoing conflicts, misaligned priorities and a fiercely protectionist stance by the union.” Mike Leonard, president of the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA), said in a statement that if the report’s findings are put in place, it “will advance long-term stability at Canada’s West Coast ports to the benefit of all parties.” ILWU Canada could not immediately be reached to comment on the report. ILWU locals control talks The BCMEA negotiates contracts with the Canadian affiliate of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). ILWU Canada represents five separate, regional ILWU locals, which are the recognized bargaining agents with employers at different ports. While ILWU Canada is ostensibly the main negotiator, it is the locals who direct contract talks, vote on tentative agreements and determine whether to strike. ILWU Canada is not recognized by employers as a union and its president does not have a vote on contract matters. The report said that longshore labor negotiations would be more efficient if maritime employers could negotiate on a province-wide basis as “the current model of collective bargaining with different bargaining units is contributing to the frequency of labor disruptions.” It noted that other longshore unions in Canada negotiate province-wide contracts. The ILWU locals have maintained that different work conditions at each employer and port necessitate the need for regional representation. However, the report noted that ILWU local members can work at different ports throughout the province, indicating that work conditions at each location are similar enough for a province-wide contract. “While it is true each ILWU local maintains its own independent leadership and union members, the issuance of a geographic certification will not interfere with those arrangements,” the report said. It added that recognizing ILWU Canada or another entity as the main union representative “will bring stability and certainty to future rounds of bargaining.” Foremen role not distinct The Labor Ministry’s inquiry coincided with another work stoppage in November 2024, when the BCMEA shut out ILWU Local 514, which represents port foremen, after it took an illegal strike vote during protracted negotiations with maritime employers. Local 514 has separate bargaining agreements with each of the province’s maritime employers and can negotiate with each one separately. However, Local 514 has “voluntarily” negotiated with the BCMEA for decades, the report said. Even though it started the last negotiations with the BCMEA, Local 514 targeted one employer — DP World — for a separate deal that led to the illegal strike vote. “The union’s conduct was an attempt to single out one employer, just as the parties acquired their right to strike or lock out, and subverted the collective bargaining process that was underway,” the report said. “The union cannot ride two horses at the same time and then pick the one that best suits its interests late in the race.” Local 514 maintains the foremen role is different enough than other longshore crafts for a separate union and contract. However, the report said foremen could also be rolled up into a province-wide contract because their jobs are not that different than other longshore workers. “We do not accept that the interests of ILWU Local 514 members are so distinct that they cannot effectively be advanced as part of a geographic certification that also includes longshore workers,” the report said. Government overshadows talks The report also took to task the default move of maritime employers and longshore unions to look to government intervention when contract negotiations break down. The report noted that the federal government has intervened in nine of 13 British Columbia port disputes since 1972. “This reliance on government intervention has created an environment where the safety net of binding arbitration overshadows the collective bargaining process,” the report said. The inquiry suggested that a “special mediator” be appointed early in the bargaining process. The special mediator would monitor the progress of talks and help usher them through before the government needs to force a deal on both sides. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Longshore labor

BC ports, longshore unions need new bargaining process: report

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">It is reasonable to assume the larger container carriers are now going to earn above historical returns, but they will not be immune from significant dips when supply significantly exceeds demand, writes Jeremy Masters.</div>

It is reasonable to assume the larger container carriers are now going to earn above historical returns, but they will not be immune from significant dips when supply significantly exceeds demand, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">For the early decades of container shipping, it was almost inconceivable that carriers could deliver a consistently good return on capital. Today, we see several carriers making profits that are the envy of other industries, and as recently reported by Alphaliner, six publicly-listed container carriers have a market valuation over $10 billion. Has the industry matured to the point where carriers can expect good returns to be the norm? <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6025533_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The answer is a qualified one. The major carriers are in a much stronger position to control the supply lever than they were <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/current-market-allows-top-ocean-carriers-to-strengthen-long-term-position-6016964">because of consolidation in the industry and reduction in the non-operating fleet</a>. The increase in vertical integration — which will take a dramatic step forward if the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-canal-mulls-developing-corozal-to-allay-neutrality-fears-over-hutchison-deal-6023330">acquisition of Hutchison Ports Holdings by Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminals subsidiary proceeds</a> — means that the big carriers are increasingly controlling an integral part of their product as well as its cost. The purchase of large amounts of new and secondhand tonnage in smaller sizes means that these carriers can also run their own regional and feeder systems off these acquired terminals — again controlling quality and cost. This becomes a powerful combination to compete against, and if a carrier outside the big league or a new entry wanted to emulate this set-up, the investment would be very large. That means there are some real barriers to entry. The position is different for operators in selected deep-sea trades, regional carriers and feeder specialists. These carriers can’t contend with volatile individual trades, have less control of supply and don’t have the resources available to ride out extended storms without withdrawing, or worse. They also have less control of their overall product because they don’t have the means to integrate vertically. Those who are agile and find the right niches can make a good return, but the stronger the big guys get, the more they can marginalize smaller operators or simply acquire them. We have a broadly two-tier industry then — the truly global carriers (and within them the bigger ones pursuing vertical integration who are getting stronger) — and the rest. And the punching power is widening. The picture is reasonably rosy for the big carriers, but they do not have it entirely their own way: <h3>Control of supply, not demand </h3>Trade growth does not follow the clear patterns seen in early containerization, and geopolitics makes it increasingly unpredictable. There are good reasons to believe that global demand for container space will stay up — even if there is a redistribution — but carriers cannot rely on robust trade growth. Newbuild orders in recent years have considerably exceeded anything that could be expected on the demand side, and at some point, the gap between supply and demand will be unbridgeable with major downward pressure on rates. <h3>High profits are an attraction </h3>Up until comparatively recently, many potential investors and operators in other transport modes could have looked at the containerized shipping industry as a bit of a basket case. As the fundamentals change in favor of the carriers, players with deep pockets may take another look. The purchase and upscaling of an existing player become possible. <h3>New business model </h3>Carriers have innovated considerably with physical products but have been rather conservative about adopting new ways to market their products. This could become a backdoor way for a smaller carrier to emerge into the big league or a company using a different model in another mode to make a significant entry. <h3>Environmental factors </h3>Carriers can be commended for making some tough decisions to invest in more environmentally friendly tonnage when the ultimate winners in the alternative fuels race are unclear. This could be quite damaging for those who have made less-than-optimal picks, or beneficial for a later entrant. Meanwhile, the purchase of considerable amounts of old secondhand tonnage may become a dubious investment for some carriers if environmental regulations and fees tighten further. There are clearly other factors, such as how individual companies are run, that could enter the picture. But the above are tangible threats that are difficult for carriers to quantify and even harder to control. Looking at the whole picture, it is reasonable to assume that the bigger container carriers are now going to earn above historical returns, but they will not be immune from significant dips when supply significantly exceeds demand. By virtue of their own recent success, they will also be facing fresh interest from aspirants within and outside the industry harboring ambitions to be at the top table — potentially touting a different business model. Perhaps not a golden age yet, but certainly an emergence from the dark ages. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>.</div>

For the early decades of container shipping, it was almost inconceivable that carriers could deliver a consistently good return on capital. Today, we see several carriers making profits that are the envy of other industries, and as recently reported by Alphaliner, six publicly-listed container carriers have a market valuation over $10 billion. Has the industry matured to the point where carriers can expect good returns to be the norm? The answer is a qualified one. The major carriers are in a much stronger position to control the supply lever than they were because of consolidation in the industry and reduction in the non-operating fleet . The increase in vertical integration — which will take a dramatic step forward if the acquisition of Hutchison Ports Holdings by Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminals subsidiary proceeds — means that the big carriers are increasingly controlling an integral part of their product as well as its cost. The purchase of large amounts of new and secondhand tonnage in smaller sizes means that these carriers can also run their own regional and feeder systems off these acquired terminals — again controlling quality and cost. This becomes a powerful combination to compete against, and if a carrier outside the big league or a new entry wanted to emulate this set-up, the investment would be very large. That means there are some real barriers to entry. The position is different for operators in selected deep-sea trades, regional carriers and feeder specialists. These carriers can’t contend with volatile individual trades, have less control of supply and don’t have the resources available to ride out extended storms without withdrawing, or worse. They also have less control of their overall product because they don’t have the means to integrate vertically. Those who are agile and find the right niches can make a good return, but the stronger the big guys get, the more they can marginalize smaller operators or simply acquire them. We have a broadly two-tier industry then — the truly global carriers (and within them the bigger ones pursuing vertical integration who are getting stronger) — and the rest. And the punching power is widening. The picture is reasonably rosy for the big carriers, but they do not have it entirely their own way: Control of supply, not demand Trade growth does not follow the clear patterns seen in early containerization, and geopolitics makes it increasingly unpredictable. There are good reasons to believe that global demand for container space will stay up — even if there is a redistribution — but carriers cannot rely on robust trade growth. Newbuild orders in recent years have considerably exceeded anything that could be expected on the demand side, and at some point, the gap between supply and demand will be unbridgeable with major downward pressure on rates. High profits are an attraction Up until comparatively recently, many potential investors and operators in other transport modes could have looked at the containerized shipping industry as a bit of a basket case. As the fundamentals change in favor of the carriers, players with deep pockets may take another look. The purchase and upscaling of an existing player become possible. New business model Carriers have innovated considerably with physical products but have been rather conservative about adopting new ways to market their products. This could become a backdoor way for a smaller carrier to emerge into the big league or a company using a different model in another mode to make a significant entry. Environmental factors Carriers can be commended for making some tough decisions to invest in more environmentally friendly tonnage when the ultimate winners in the alternative fuels race are unclear. This could be quite damaging for those who have made less-than-optimal picks, or beneficial for a later entrant. Meanwhile, the purchase of considerable amounts of old secondhand tonnage may become a dubious investment for some carriers if environmental regulations and fees tighten further. There are clearly other factors, such as how individual companies are run, that could enter the picture. But the above are tangible threats that are difficult for carriers to quantify and even harder to control. Looking at the whole picture, it is reasonable to assume that the bigger container carriers are now going to earn above historical returns, but they will not be immune from significant dips when supply significantly exceeds demand. By virtue of their own recent success, they will also be facing fresh interest from aspirants within and outside the industry harboring ambitions to be at the top table — potentially touting a different business model. Perhaps not a golden age yet, but certainly an emergence from the dark ages. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

Are we entering a ‘golden age’ for major ocean carriers?

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While just 2% to 3% of global container traffic transits the key chokepoint, any restrictions would further tie up global vessel capacity and cut off the ports of Jebel Ali and Abu Dhabi. </div>

While just 2% to 3% of global container traffic transits the key chokepoint, any restrictions would further tie up global vessel capacity and cut off the ports of Jebel Ali and Abu Dhabi.

<div class="phx-topic">The Iranian government’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz amid Israel’s attack on the country would tie up already stretched global container capacity, cut off Jebel Ali and Abu Dhabi ports and put upward pressure on bunker fuel costs. Just 2% to 3% of global container traffic moves through the vital chokepoint for crude oil transport, according to data from Container Trade Statistics (CTS). Nonetheless, a restriction on container traffic through the strait, making deployed tonnage ineffective, would put upward pressure on freight rates and extend transit times. Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis warned of major problems for container shipping should the strait be closed. “At the time of writing this, the two countries are exchanging continuous barrages of missiles and drones,” Sea-Intelligence CEO Alan Murphy wrote in the Sunday Spotlight newsletter. “For now, this has not led to any impact on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and we should hope this to not become the case. If that happens, it will have a significant impact on container shipping flows to the major transshipment hubs in the region.” Dubai’s Jebel Ali was the 10th largest global container port as measured by volume in 2024, according to Alphaliner, while Khalifa is Abu Dhabi’s flagship container port. The container shipping market had already been stretched due to hostilities in the region, with container lines diverting away from the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea since late 2023 because of attacks from Houthi militants operating in Yemen. Most recently, carriers have repositioned capacity back to the trans-Pacific to handle rebounding Asia import volumes amid a pause in US tariffs. The idling of the global fleet is under 1% and the charter market for container ships remains elevated, according to analyst Alphaliner, reflecting stretched container capacity from not just Red Sea diversions, but port congestion in Europe, and, to a lesser degree, in Asia. According to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, more than 17 million barrels of crude oil each day move through the Strait of Hormuz, coming not just from Iran, but from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. That is more than 20% of daily global crude production. “If the Strait of Hormuz was to close, in the midterm it would be disruptive to the oil and bunker industry if they’re not able to get crude product transported out of the Persian Gulf, which is going to lead to a price disruption,” said Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics. “But stockpiles are not low, and I think overall, it would have to be closed for a longer period of time before it impacted prices in the longer term.” Crude oil prices, which jumped 7% Friday after Israel’s initial attack on Iran, were softer in early trading Monday. Benchmark Brent crude was trading at $71.37 per barrel, down about 4%, according to Bloomberg. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Iranian government’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz amid Israel’s attack on the country would tie up already stretched global container capacity, cut off Jebel Ali and Abu Dhabi ports and put upward pressure on bunker fuel costs. Just 2% to 3% of global container traffic moves through the vital chokepoint for crude oil transport, according to data from Container Trade Statistics (CTS). Nonetheless, a restriction on container traffic through the strait, making deployed tonnage ineffective, would put upward pressure on freight rates and extend transit times. Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis warned of major problems for container shipping should the strait be closed. “At the time of writing this, the two countries are exchanging continuous barrages of missiles and drones,” Sea-Intelligence CEO Alan Murphy wrote in the Sunday Spotlight newsletter. “For now, this has not led to any impact on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and we should hope this to not become the case. If that happens, it will have a significant impact on container shipping flows to the major transshipment hubs in the region.” Dubai’s Jebel Ali was the 10th largest global container port as measured by volume in 2024, according to Alphaliner, while Khalifa is Abu Dhabi’s flagship container port. The container shipping market had already been stretched due to hostilities in the region, with container lines diverting away from the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea since late 2023 because of attacks from Houthi militants operating in Yemen. Most recently, carriers have repositioned capacity back to the trans-Pacific to handle rebounding Asia import volumes amid a pause in US tariffs. The idling of the global fleet is under 1% and the charter market for container ships remains elevated, according to analyst Alphaliner, reflecting stretched container capacity from not just Red Sea diversions, but port congestion in Europe, and, to a lesser degree, in Asia. According to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, more than 17 million barrels of crude oil each day move through the Strait of Hormuz, coming not just from Iran, but from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. That is more than 20% of daily global crude production. “If the Strait of Hormuz was to close, in the midterm it would be disruptive to the oil and bunker industry if they’re not able to get crude product transported out of the Persian Gulf, which is going to lead to a price disruption,” said Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics. “But stockpiles are not low, and I think overall, it would have to be closed for a longer period of time before it impacted prices in the longer term.” Crude oil prices, which jumped 7% Friday after Israel’s initial attack on Iran, were softer in early trading Monday. Benchmark Brent crude was trading at $71.37 per barrel, down about 4%, according to Bloomberg. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

International ports

Closure of Strait of Hormuz would further stretch global container capacity

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!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE ON TPM26

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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE ON TPM26: Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Cosco/OOCL saw big gains in US imports from Asia in early 2025

Multiplying supply chain risks drive growth for global, US-based logistics firms

BC ports, longshore unions need new bargaining process: report