<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In your recent editorial "Private Plan" (Traffic World, March 24), you echoed a recent Washington Po</div>

In your recent editorial "Private Plan" (Traffic World, March 24), you echoed a recent Washington Po

<div>In your recent editorial "Private Plan" (Traffic World, March 24), you echoed a recent Washington Post article criticizing the Department of Transportation for a headlong rush into privatizing the nation's highway system. In fact, the primary emphasis of the DOT, under both Norman Mineta and Secretary Mary E. Peters, has been to remove federal obstacles to increased use of tolling and pricing by states. The twofold purpose of these policies is to reduce the traffic congestion that costs this country $168 billion per year and to add to the funding provided by today's inadequate taxation of gasoline and diesel fuel....

In your recent editorial "Private Plan" (Traffic World, March 24), you echoed a recent Washington Post article criticizing the Department of Transportation for a headlong rush into privatizing the nation's highway system. In fact, the primary emphasis of the DOT, under both Norman Mineta and Secretary Mary E. Peters, has been to remove federal obstacles to increased use of tolling and pricing by states. The twofold purpose of these policies is to reduce the traffic congestion that costs this country $168 billion per year and to add to the funding provided by today's inadequate taxation of gasoline and diesel fuel. Privatization, in the form of long-term public-private partnerships, is a relatively small part of this agenda. These issues are vitally important to the goods-movement industry, so they deserve more than superficial analysis. An honest look at the 20th-century tax-and-grant method of highway funding suggests it has broken down, and needs more than just an increase in the level of fuel taxes. The tax-and-grant system is losing the battle against urban traffic congestion and failing to direct new investment to where it's needed most. Instead of replacing the crumbling Gerald Desmond Bridge at the Port of Long Beach, Congress mandates building "bridges to nowhere" in Alaska. We spend more total billions each year on the highway system, yet every year urban traffic congestion gets worse. At the federal level, the tax-and-grant system extracts money from high-growth (donor) states and redistributes it to rural and low-growth (donee) states. And it increasingly mandates spending on "earmarked" projects, rather than those providing the most transportation benefits. At the state level, it must ensure funds are distributed to every legislative district, making it extremely difficult to fund the big-ticket items (like widening an Interstate across the state). No wonder economists find the return on investment of highway funds has fallen to the low single digits (when it used to be in the high double-digits). The trucking industry's proposal for a freight trust fund might be an improvement, but it would be subject to the same kinds of political pressures as the existing Highway Trust Fund, albeit confined to the goods-movement sector. Political dynamics would lead to spending a considerable portion of the new money on things such as port expansion in Maine, boondoggle lock and dam projects with poor benefit/cost ratios, and more bridges to nowhere. By contrast, adding toll truck lanes to key Interstate corridors and local port connectors would bring shippers and truckers what they were paying for. With toll finance, investors will put up the money only for projects that make economic sense, as measured by return on investment. The enormous need for highly targeted investment in truck-serving capacity is the kind of situation that toll finance is made for. And a properly structured PPP arrangement would shift many of the risks of such mega-projects from taxpayers to investors. In urban areas, variable toll rates are a proven tool for keeping traffic on specialized lanes moving at the speed limit, even at the busiest rush hours when regular lanes are hopelessly congested. Consider a drayage operation in, say, Los Angeles. Today, such an operator might make two round-trips per shift, each one delivering one 40-foot container. With uncongested toll truck lanes permitting LCVs, that same operator might make three or four round trips, each time hauling two 40-foot containers. Talk about productivity gains! In a longer-haul context, toll truck lanes on I-75 could save truckers a full hour getting past Atlanta during many hours of the day. The DOT's Congestion Initiative has focused on providing incentives for states to work together on goods-movement (Corridors of the Future) and on incentives for urban areas to implement congestion pricing on portions of their roadway systems (Urban Partnership Agreements). And while it has encouraged states to tap private capital and management for new highway projects, DOT is playing catch-up in this area with the states. Facing up to the unwillingness of legislatures to significantly increase fuel taxes, some two dozen states have enacted transportation PPP enabling laws over the past 20 years, not a single one of them inspired by the DOT's very recent publication of model legislation along these lines. As for consenting to the lease of the Indiana Toll Road, this important highway was originally built via tolls, not federal aid, and it was clearly within Indiana's authority to change the way it managed that highway, consistent with maintaining all applicable Interstate system standards. Our 20th-century tax-and-grant system for highway funding is broken and needs major repairs, not just more money. No one at U.S. DOT or at any state DOT thinks fuel taxes won't remain the major highway funding source for the next several decades. But as long as state and federal elected officials resist large-scale increases in those taxes, the responsible thing to do is to work hard to expand the use of alternatives. Congestion pricing, greater use of tolling and public-private partnerships are important alternatives. I'm glad the U.S. DOT is following the lead of its state counterparts in working to expand their use. Poole is director of transportation studies at the Reason Foundation. He has advised the U.S. Department of Transportation and state DOTs on transportation policy and was a member of the Transportation Research Board's special committee on the long-term viability of fuel taxes as the principal highway funding source.

Freight Can Benefit from Tolling, PPPs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Despite sustained and pending capacity injections, major liners have the ability to alleviate short-term losses and produce healthy profits, writes Jeremy Masters.</div>

Despite sustained and pending capacity injections, major liners have the ability to alleviate short-term losses and produce healthy profits, writes Jeremy Masters.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The next two years are widely forecasted to bring some lean times to carriers – even periods of red ink. Sustained injections of tonnage – new and second-hand – and a strong order book have been encouraged by a combination of money in the bank, the need for critical mass in new alliance structures and the drive towards alternative fuels. Unless world trade growth reaches unprecedented levels, there will be significant overcapacity for an extended period. And if the Red Sea fully reopens, that overcapacity will only be exacerbated. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6016882_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Why then, should carriers be optimistic about their ability to alleviate short-term losses and produce healthy profits over the cycle? For long-term watchers of the industry, the turning point for the carriers was the bankruptcy of Hanjin in 2016. Up until that point, carriers had a very poor return on capital and very little control over their future profits in a highly fragmented industry. COVID, and more recently the Red Sea crisis, were unusual events that gave an unexpected boost to carriers’ results. But Hanjin’s collapse was the catalyst for a consolidation which, alongside organic growth of the bigger players, means that today the top five carriers control 64.5% of global capacity, according to Alphaliner, while the top 10 control 84.1%. We can only speculate on the ultimate ambitions of Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC), but most of the rest of the top 10 have ambitious fleet expansion plans – particularly CMA CGM and Cosco Shipping. Outside the top 10, there are few carriers that have significant growth plans, so the top 10’s percentage of world fleet will continue to rise. <h3>Controlling supply – and price </h3>The degree of consolidation that has taken place does not mean that carriers can defy rate gravity if there are unbridgeable gaps between supply and demand. But it does mean that in a down market, the biggest carriers can provide leadership by withdrawing whole strings. And in an up market, the carriers can act very quickly to increase rates, and as we have seen, amass big war chests. We will see some rocky periods ahead, but the carriers’ collective ability to control the supply lever, and thus price, has significantly increased. There is the less talked about factor that has also helped control the free supply of capacity – the reduction of the non-operating carrier fleet. The non-operating fleet and the leasing companies’ container fleets can be viewed as the elastic in the container shipping industry – helping carriers to meet incremental short-term capacity needs in different geographies, but on a bigger scale providing the opportunity to launch new products, especially for asset-poor new entrants. Alphaliner recently reported that the most traded sector of the charter market – 7,000 to 9,000-TEU ships – lost a massive 2.3 million TEUs of capacity in the last five years. It further reported that more than 3.7 million TEUs of non-operating capacity was sold to end-users between Aug. 20 to March 25, although this was partially offset by 1.2 million TEUs of new capacity delivered to non-operators and 221,000 TEUs bought from end-users. The biggest buyers were MSC and CMA CGM. How does this affect the charter market, the carriers who bought the tonnage, and the fluidity of the industry? <h3>Buoyant charter market </h3>Pundits have been shocked that the charter market has stayed as buoyant as it has. The Red Sea issue, the move from three to four east-to-west carrier groupings (counting MSC as a grouping) and intermittent congestion have all been important incremental demand generators. The fact that there have been shortages of ships available for charter in non-operating fleets, however, has also been pivotal. Carriers can be more creative with surplus assets and currently, at least, can bear less-than-optimal deployments. If non-operators get in a surplus position, they may have more need to be price reactive. Ironically, then, the loss of some of their fleet to carriers has been a good thing for those non-operators who have held onto their assets. There is now less elasticity of supply in the charter market and more capability for non-operators to hold a firm line on price even when markets appear unfavorable, although like their operating carrier clients, they will not ultimately defy heavy gravity. We can assume the motives of MSC, CMA CGM and others for buying second-hand tonnage in smaller sizes from non-operators was based purely on perceived low asset prices and a desire to have greater control over north-to-south trades and regional feeders. The fact that this has limited the capability and the drive of the charter market to provide sharply priced tonnage to their competitors and any aspiring new entrants is, however, a helpful bonus. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com.</a></div>

The next two years are widely forecasted to bring some lean times to carriers – even periods of red ink. Sustained injections of tonnage – new and second-hand – and a strong order book have been encouraged by a combination of money in the bank, the need for critical mass in new alliance structures and the drive towards alternative fuels. Unless world trade growth reaches unprecedented levels, there will be significant overcapacity for an extended period. And if the Red Sea fully reopens, that overcapacity will only be exacerbated. Why then, should carriers be optimistic about their ability to alleviate short-term losses and produce healthy profits over the cycle? For long-term watchers of the industry, the turning point for the carriers was the bankruptcy of Hanjin in 2016. Up until that point, carriers had a very poor return on capital and very little control over their future profits in a highly fragmented industry. COVID, and more recently the Red Sea crisis, were unusual events that gave an unexpected boost to carriers’ results. But Hanjin’s collapse was the catalyst for a consolidation which, alongside organic growth of the bigger players, means that today the top five carriers control 64.5% of global capacity, according to Alphaliner, while the top 10 control 84.1%. We can only speculate on the ultimate ambitions of Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC), but most of the rest of the top 10 have ambitious fleet expansion plans – particularly CMA CGM and Cosco Shipping. Outside the top 10, there are few carriers that have significant growth plans, so the top 10’s percentage of world fleet will continue to rise. Controlling supply – and price The degree of consolidation that has taken place does not mean that carriers can defy rate gravity if there are unbridgeable gaps between supply and demand. But it does mean that in a down market, the biggest carriers can provide leadership by withdrawing whole strings. And in an up market, the carriers can act very quickly to increase rates, and as we have seen, amass big war chests. We will see some rocky periods ahead, but the carriers’ collective ability to control the supply lever, and thus price, has significantly increased. There is the less talked about factor that has also helped control the free supply of capacity – the reduction of the non-operating carrier fleet. The non-operating fleet and the leasing companies’ container fleets can be viewed as the elastic in the container shipping industry – helping carriers to meet incremental short-term capacity needs in different geographies, but on a bigger scale providing the opportunity to launch new products, especially for asset-poor new entrants. Alphaliner recently reported that the most traded sector of the charter market – 7,000 to 9,000-TEU ships – lost a massive 2.3 million TEUs of capacity in the last five years. It further reported that more than 3.7 million TEUs of non-operating capacity was sold to end-users between Aug. 20 to March 25, although this was partially offset by 1.2 million TEUs of new capacity delivered to non-operators and 221,000 TEUs bought from end-users. The biggest buyers were MSC and CMA CGM. How does this affect the charter market, the carriers who bought the tonnage, and the fluidity of the industry? Buoyant charter market Pundits have been shocked that the charter market has stayed as buoyant as it has. The Red Sea issue, the move from three to four east-to-west carrier groupings (counting MSC as a grouping) and intermittent congestion have all been important incremental demand generators. The fact that there have been shortages of ships available for charter in non-operating fleets, however, has also been pivotal. Carriers can be more creative with surplus assets and currently, at least, can bear less-than-optimal deployments. If non-operators get in a surplus position, they may have more need to be price reactive. Ironically, then, the loss of some of their fleet to carriers has been a good thing for those non-operators who have held onto their assets. There is now less elasticity of supply in the charter market and more capability for non-operators to hold a firm line on price even when markets appear unfavorable, although like their operating carrier clients, they will not ultimately defy heavy gravity. We can assume the motives of MSC, CMA CGM and others for buying second-hand tonnage in smaller sizes from non-operators was based purely on perceived low asset prices and a desire to have greater control over north-to-south trades and regional feeders. The fact that this has limited the capability and the drive of the charter market to provide sharply priced tonnage to their competitors and any aspiring new entrants is, however, a helpful bonus. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com.

Container lines

Maritime

Current market allows top ocean carriers to strengthen long-term position

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While traditional energy projects continue to drive immediate demand, long-heralded energy transition initiatives are progressing at a far slower pace amid tariffs and investment uncertainty.</div>

While traditional energy projects continue to drive immediate demand, long-heralded energy transition initiatives are progressing at a far slower pace amid tariffs and investment uncertainty.

<div class="phx-topic">Project cargo specialists are voicing escalating concerns about the pervasive impact of tariffs and a reluctance by shippers to invest, casting a shadow over the mid-term project cargo pipeline.While traditional energy and power generation projects continue to drive immediate demand, long-heralded energy transition initiatives are progressing at a far slower pace, creating a bifurcated market. Andreas Menzel, managing director for Germany and Benelux for Trans Global Projects (TGP), highlighted the key cargoes as “oil and gas and power in general, such as power generation and nuclear power.” He described nuclear projects as a “steady market for us,” as is the development of hydrogen projects in Benelux countries, particularly the Netherlands.Echoing the diversified nature of current projects, Boris Dykiert, commercial director with dteq Transport Engineering Solutions, noted a range of projects for the energy transition in Europe, and cargoes moving in Australia. Hagen Hennig, dteg’s technical director, added he is still seeing a lot of conventional energy, oil and gas, gas turbines and nuclear cargoes, alongside mini power plants to serve the burgeoning data center market. “It’s not only wind that is benefiting from the ever-growing energy demand,” Hennig said.However, the pace of these various sectors differs significantly. Speaking on a panel at Breakbulk Europe in mid-May, Richard Kaladji, head of the project logistics department at Air Liquide, pegged the fastest-moving industry verticals from a final investment decision perspective as power generation, traditional energy, oil and gas, and mature renewals such as solar and wind. “The slowest are energy transition projects (such as) hydrogen, carbon capture (and) sustainable aviation fuel,” Kaladji.<h3>Tariff impact on project pipeline</h3>Meanwhile, the impact of tariffs and broader economic instability looms large over the project industry’s cargo pipeline. TGP’s Menzel noted that tariffs on various products and countries are a crucial factor in the development and realization of projects. At the same time, decreased and canceled funding for renewable projects in the US has led to one client’s project being held, with several others in abeyance. “We see that wherever there’s instability, there is a lack of willingness to invest,” Menzel told the Journal of Commerce. “Unless there is clarity, you simply cannot invest, and we see this on projects. There won’t be large investment in the US because of this uncertainty.”Despite these concerns, some are pushing forward with existing projects. Daniel M. Kjaer, director of global renewable chartering at deugro, told the Journal of Commerce that it’s “full steam ahead.” “The outlook for offshore wind in the United States is currently marked by a mix of significant growth potential and emerging political and economic challenges,” he said, adding that there is a need to get projects done and delivered before potential political and economic headwinds.Kjaer also noted a shift in market reliance. He said that while global offshore wind capacity is expected to reach up to 500 gigawatts (GW) by 2035, with the US projected to contribute around 9%, future progress “depends heavily on stable and supportive policies.” “Political uncertainty remains a key risk to realizing the sector’s full potential,” he said. Kjaer pointed to ongoing production in Asia and the movement of wind offshore components between Europe and Asia as an indicator of continued project cargo demand. He expressed confidence in the project cargo pipeline to 2029.However, TGP’s Menzel said that while there were “quite a few projects in quite a few sectors,” the pipeline for the next three to five years is “more of a concern.”Economic challenges were underscored by Tim Killen, head of growth for the project sector at Fracht Group. Speaking on a panel at Breakbulk Europe, Killen said that projects are facing ongoing fiscal scrutiny in this environment. Andy Young, corporate manager of logistics and manager at Bechtel Global Logistics, added that the biggest disruptor is economic instability. “That’s the biggest ticket at the moment,” he said.Young stressed the need for adaptability.“We have got to go back and look at quality, safety and surety of delivery,” he said. “A supply chain has to be agile and adaptable. The problem is how to stay ahead. You have got to be vigilant.” Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Project cargo specialists are voicing escalating concerns about the pervasive impact of tariffs and a reluctance by shippers to invest, casting a shadow over the mid-term project cargo pipeline. While traditional energy and power generation projects continue to drive immediate demand, long-heralded energy transition initiatives are progressing at a far slower pace, creating a bifurcated market. Andreas Menzel, managing director for Germany and Benelux for Trans Global Projects (TGP), highlighted the key cargoes as “oil and gas and power in general, such as power generation and nuclear power.” He described nuclear projects as a “steady market for us,” as is the development of hydrogen projects in Benelux countries, particularly the Netherlands. Echoing the diversified nature of current projects, Boris Dykiert, commercial director with dteq Transport Engineering Solutions, noted a range of projects for the energy transition in Europe, and cargoes moving in Australia. Hagen Hennig, dteg’s technical director, added he is still seeing a lot of conventional energy, oil and gas, gas turbines and nuclear cargoes, alongside mini power plants to serve the burgeoning data center market. “It’s not only wind that is benefiting from the ever-growing energy demand,” Hennig said. However, the pace of these various sectors differs significantly. Speaking on a panel at Breakbulk Europe in mid-May, Richard Kaladji, head of the project logistics department at Air Liquide, pegged the fastest-moving industry verticals from a final investment decision perspective as power generation, traditional energy, oil and gas, and mature renewals such as solar and wind. “The slowest are energy transition projects (such as) hydrogen, carbon capture (and) sustainable aviation fuel,” Kaladji. Tariff impact on project pipeline Meanwhile, the impact of tariffs and broader economic instability looms large over the project industry’s cargo pipeline. TGP’s Menzel noted that tariffs on various products and countries are a crucial factor in the development and realization of projects. At the same time, decreased and canceled funding for renewable projects in the US has led to one client’s project being held, with several others in abeyance. “We see that wherever there’s instability, there is a lack of willingness to invest,” Menzel told the Journal of Commerce. “Unless there is clarity, you simply cannot invest, and we see this on projects. There won’t be large investment in the US because of this uncertainty.” Despite these concerns, some are pushing forward with existing projects. Daniel M. Kjaer, director of global renewable chartering at deugro, told the Journal of Commerce that it’s “full steam ahead.” “The outlook for offshore wind in the United States is currently marked by a mix of significant growth potential and emerging political and economic challenges,” he said, adding that there is a need to get projects done and delivered before potential political and economic headwinds. Kjaer also noted a shift in market reliance. He said that while global offshore wind capacity is expected to reach up to 500 gigawatts (GW) by 2035, with the US projected to contribute around 9%, future progress “depends heavily on stable and supportive policies.” “Political uncertainty remains a key risk to realizing the sector’s full potential,” he said. Kjaer pointed to ongoing production in Asia and the movement of wind offshore components between Europe and Asia as an indicator of continued project cargo demand. He expressed confidence in the project cargo pipeline to 2029. However, TGP’s Menzel said that while there were “quite a few projects in quite a few sectors,” the pipeline for the next three to five years is “more of a concern.” Economic challenges were underscored by Tim Killen, head of growth for the project sector at Fracht Group. Speaking on a panel at Breakbulk Europe, Killen said that projects are facing ongoing fiscal scrutiny in this environment. Andy Young, corporate manager of logistics and manager at Bechtel Global Logistics, added that the biggest disruptor is economic instability. “That’s the biggest ticket at the moment,” he said. Young stressed the need for adaptability. “We have got to go back and look at quality, safety and surety of delivery,” he said. “A supply chain has to be agile and adaptable. The problem is how to stay ahead. You have got to be vigilant.” Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Conventional power drives project cargo pipeline, but mid-term worries persist

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While terminal operators had hoped that problems stemming from the mid-May work stoppage would be mostly over, forwarders are still reporting cargo delays.</div>

While terminal operators had hoped that problems stemming from the mid-May work stoppage would be mostly over, forwarders are still reporting cargo delays.

<div class="phx-topic">Shipments are still facing delays though Manzanillo, Mexico’s largest port, following a four-day strike in mid-May, forwarders say, although one terminal operator is telling customers to expect a return to normal cargo flow as early as this week. Following the strike by workers from the Manzanillo Port Customs Office, vessel arrivals at berth are currently delayed by one day, according to Kuehne + Nagel. However, data from maritime visibility provider Vizion and data and analytics company Dun &amp; Bradstreet show vessels calling Manzanillo taking about two weeks, on average, between arrival and gate out. While terminal operators had initially earmarked June as the projected end date for interruptions, forwarders are still reporting cargo delays. “There’s a headache there — strikes, system collapsed, customs is struggling and chaos with coordination of trucks,” said Nicolas Portenza, president of Eternity International Freight Forwarder México. Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer visibility platform classifies the port as “heavily disrupted” with an average vessel waiting time of 1.08 days. <h3>Rail delays </h3>Manzanillo marine terminals Contecon and SSA are still congested, and high export volumes have resulted in rail delays of about 72 hours for both imports and exports, according to Kuehne + Nagel. Terminal operator SSA Marine told customers last week that unscheduled requests for import appointments would be deleted to purge their system, but that scheduling would return to normal over the weekend, according to a notice shared by Eternity International Freight Forwarder México. Still, forwarders told the Journal of Commerce that congestion has not yet eased. “Some ocean carriers are submitting offices notices to their customers that there might be extreme delays or cancellations due to the delays at the port,” said Ernesto Hernandez Jr., a customs broker at HEMA Logistics. AIS data shows vessel calls decreasing at Manzanillo, with 11 ships calling Sunday compared with 19 on May 25 and 18 on May 18, the first Sunday after the strike ended. A forwarder said it will be difficult for vessels to avoid Manzanillo. “It’s hard for some services to blank Manzanillo,” the source said. “It will depend on if they can shift Mexican cargo to other services.” Impacts from the delays might be quantified in higher product costs, said Hernandez. “[Much] of the cargo being sent directly to Mexico is part of a manufacturing process that will end up in the US as a finished product,” he said. “Delays and cost increases at these ports will increase the landed costs of products coming into the US.” Manzanillo terminal operators Contecon and SSA declined to comment. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Shipments are still facing delays though Manzanillo, Mexico’s largest port, following a four-day strike in mid-May, forwarders say, although one terminal operator is telling customers to expect a return to normal cargo flow as early as this week. Following the strike by workers from the Manzanillo Port Customs Office, vessel arrivals at berth are currently delayed by one day, according to Kuehne + Nagel. However, data from maritime visibility provider Vizion and data and analytics company Dun & Bradstreet show vessels calling Manzanillo taking about two weeks, on average, between arrival and gate out. While terminal operators had initially earmarked June as the projected end date for interruptions, forwarders are still reporting cargo delays. “There’s a headache there — strikes, system collapsed, customs is struggling and chaos with coordination of trucks,” said Nicolas Portenza, president of Eternity International Freight Forwarder México. Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer visibility platform classifies the port as “heavily disrupted” with an average vessel waiting time of 1.08 days. Rail delays Manzanillo marine terminals Contecon and SSA are still congested, and high export volumes have resulted in rail delays of about 72 hours for both imports and exports, according to Kuehne + Nagel. Terminal operator SSA Marine told customers last week that unscheduled requests for import appointments would be deleted to purge their system, but that scheduling would return to normal over the weekend, according to a notice shared by Eternity International Freight Forwarder México. Still, forwarders told the Journal of Commerce that congestion has not yet eased. “Some ocean carriers are submitting offices notices to their customers that there might be extreme delays or cancellations due to the delays at the port,” said Ernesto Hernandez Jr., a customs broker at HEMA Logistics. AIS data shows vessel calls decreasing at Manzanillo, with 11 ships calling Sunday compared with 19 on May 25 and 18 on May 18, the first Sunday after the strike ended. A forwarder said it will be difficult for vessels to avoid Manzanillo. “It’s hard for some services to blank Manzanillo,” the source said. “It will depend on if they can shift Mexican cargo to other services.” Impacts from the delays might be quantified in higher product costs, said Hernandez. “[Much] of the cargo being sent directly to Mexico is part of a manufacturing process that will end up in the US as a finished product,” he said. “Delays and cost increases at these ports will increase the landed costs of products coming into the US.” Manzanillo terminal operators Contecon and SSA declined to comment. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Container Shipping News

North American ports

International ports

Port News

Disruption lingers at Mexico’s Manzanillo port weeks after brief strike

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Labor shortages and low water levels in Europe are intensifying persistent port bottlenecks, while the trans-Pacific demand is pulling vessels out of Asia-Europe. </div>

Labor shortages and low water levels in Europe are intensifying persistent port bottlenecks, while the trans-Pacific demand is pulling vessels out of Asia-Europe.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean shipping rates from Asia to Europe shot up ahead of this week’s June 1 freight-all-kinds (FAK) increases by carriers, with the substantial price hikes supported by mounting delays at severely congested port hubs at both ends of the trade lane. While port bottlenecks absorb capacity on Asia-Europe, surging demand on the trans-Pacific is prompting carriers to shift vessels to the booming China-US trade lane, putting further upward pressure on Asia-Europe rates. “Carriers are redeploying ships from Asia-Europe and other routes to the trans-Pacific routes, with the capacity in Asia-Europe dropping 17% in the week starting June 16 vs. the end of May,” HSBC noted in its weekly transportation update. “However, we think these are insufficient to address the cargo rush [on the trans-Pacific], while capacity reallocation could cause shortages in other corridors,” according to the bank’s analysts. Drewry highlighted in a recent market update that since late March, labor shortages and low Rhine River water levels have pushed up berth waiting times by 37% in Antwerp, 49% in Hamburg and 77% in Bremerhaven. In Asia, Shanghai and Singapore, the world’s busiest and second-busiest ports, respectively, are battling congestion driven by a rush of exports to the US during a 90-day tariff cooldown. <h3>Rate hikes, surcharges </h3>As capacity tightens, carriers are rolling out significant rate increases from Asia to both North Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as implementing “peak season surcharges” on some Mediterranean routes. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows Asia-North Europe rates rose 23% on June 1 to $2,353 per FEU, with Asia-Mediterranean rates up 24% to $3,720/FEU. Data assessed by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows North Asia to North Europe rates rose $600 in the past week to $2,400/FEU, while Asia-Mediterranean rates increased $1,400 in the past week to $4,300/FEU. Several carriers are also raising their backhaul rates that have been below $200 per FEU since January. Mediterranean Shipping Co., Hapag-Lloyd and CMA CGM have set their Europe to Asia rate between $500/FEU and $530/FEU, with Cosco asking for $1,500/FEU. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean shipping rates from Asia to Europe shot up ahead of this week’s June 1 freight-all-kinds (FAK) increases by carriers, with the substantial price hikes supported by mounting delays at severely congested port hubs at both ends of the trade lane. While port bottlenecks absorb capacity on Asia-Europe, surging demand on the trans-Pacific is prompting carriers to shift vessels to the booming China-US trade lane, putting further upward pressure on Asia-Europe rates. “Carriers are redeploying ships from Asia-Europe and other routes to the trans-Pacific routes, with the capacity in Asia-Europe dropping 17% in the week starting June 16 vs. the end of May,” HSBC noted in its weekly transportation update. “However, we think these are insufficient to address the cargo rush [on the trans-Pacific], while capacity reallocation could cause shortages in other corridors,” according to the bank’s analysts. Drewry highlighted in a recent market update that since late March, labor shortages and low Rhine River water levels have pushed up berth waiting times by 37% in Antwerp, 49% in Hamburg and 77% in Bremerhaven. In Asia, Shanghai and Singapore, the world’s busiest and second-busiest ports, respectively, are battling congestion driven by a rush of exports to the US during a 90-day tariff cooldown. Rate hikes, surcharges As capacity tightens, carriers are rolling out significant rate increases from Asia to both North Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as implementing “peak season surcharges” on some Mediterranean routes. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows Asia-North Europe rates rose 23% on June 1 to $2,353 per FEU, with Asia-Mediterranean rates up 24% to $3,720/FEU. Data assessed by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows North Asia to North Europe rates rose $600 in the past week to $2,400/FEU, while Asia-Mediterranean rates increased $1,400 in the past week to $4,300/FEU. Several carriers are also raising their backhaul rates that have been below $200 per FEU since January. Mediterranean Shipping Co., Hapag-Lloyd and CMA CGM have set their Europe to Asia rate between $500/FEU and $530/FEU, with Cosco asking for $1,500/FEU. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Asia-Europe

Asia-Europe ocean rates spike on congestion, capacity shift

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ocean carrier profits this year are expected to be less than half of what they were in 2024 amid an uncertain macroeconomic outlook. </div>

Ocean carrier profits this year are expected to be less than half of what they were in 2024 amid an uncertain macroeconomic outlook.

<div class="phx-topic">The container shipping industry is on track for a profitable year, although not as strong as 2024, as higher operating expenses dampen rate momentum driven by tariff uncertainty, according to analysts. Among nine publicly traded ocean carriers, revenue for 2025 is expected to reach $138.2 billion, according to Capital IQ Estimates, down from $155.5 billion reported for 2024. Capital IQ is a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The main driver for last year’s results were steadily strengthening freight rates spurred by resilient consumer and industrial demand, with the Platts Global Container Index rising from $2,300 per standard container to almost $5,000 by the end of 2024. And while rates remain elevated, particularly in the trans-Pacific, the outlook for earnings is dimmer. Industry-wide net income is expected to be $11.6 billion in 2025, compared with $28.6 billion in 2024, data from Capital IQ Estimates shows. After most carriers reported first-quarter earnings for 2025, analysts trimmed collective earnings forecasts for ocean carriers by $600 million since the beginning of April. Even with the recent tariff turmoil, most ocean carriers saw few, if any, market catalysts to create a repeat of 2024. Other industry watchers also see a tougher comparison for ocean carriers this year. Alphaliner noted the average first-quarter operating margin for ocean carriers fell to 18.1%, the lowest in four quarters. Maritime consultancy Drewry sees operating profit for the container shipping industry falling to $20 billion this year, down from about $50 billion in 2024. Ocean carriers are flagging higher operating expenses in 2025 as ships get delayed and the costs of container repositioning become more burdensome. Hapag-Lloyd highlighted a 9% increase in handling and haulage costs for the first quarter, primarily because of having to secure storage for empty containers and higher drayage expenses for door moves. <h3>Muted rate outlook </h3>While higher freight rates can offset those increases, carrier chief executives remain cautious on how far the current rally will go. Maersk Chief Executive Vincent Clerc offered a forecast of global container demand ranging anywhere from a decline of 1% to growth of 4% during the company’s second-quarter earnings call on May 8, down from a forecast of 4% in February. Clerc said President Donald Trump’s trade policies are forcing more Maersk customers to reconsider where they source goods. While some shippers highly dependent on China are looking to frontload goods, others are drawing inventory in North America or looking at how to exit China. “The increased macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainties since we shared our guidance in February inevitably affects our outlook for the rest of the year, especially on the back of the escalation we saw of the US-China trade tensions as well as the unresolved questions around the other tariffs currently under the 90-day reprieve,” Clerc said. Even though container freight bookings out of China saw a resurgence following the 90-day tariff reprieve, Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said during a May 14 earnings call he expects only a “little bit of a surge” over the next two or three months. He said Hapag-Lloyd is maintaining its current 2025 outlook based on the “assumption that we expect to see freight rates declining based on the trends that we have seen in the market over the last couple of months.” “I think [the] demand trend for 2025 at the moment is pretty uncertain,” Habben Jansen said. “We see new developments every day. I think the only thing we know for sure is that the first quarter was pretty good.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The container shipping industry is on track for a profitable year, although not as strong as 2024, as higher operating expenses dampen rate momentum driven by tariff uncertainty, according to analysts. Among nine publicly traded ocean carriers, revenue for 2025 is expected to reach $138.2 billion, according to Capital IQ Estimates, down from $155.5 billion reported for 2024. Capital IQ is a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The main driver for last year’s results were steadily strengthening freight rates spurred by resilient consumer and industrial demand, with the Platts Global Container Index rising from $2,300 per standard container to almost $5,000 by the end of 2024. And while rates remain elevated, particularly in the trans-Pacific, the outlook for earnings is dimmer. Industry-wide net income is expected to be $11.6 billion in 2025, compared with $28.6 billion in 2024, data from Capital IQ Estimates shows. After most carriers reported first-quarter earnings for 2025, analysts trimmed collective earnings forecasts for ocean carriers by $600 million since the beginning of April. Even with the recent tariff turmoil, most ocean carriers saw few, if any, market catalysts to create a repeat of 2024. Other industry watchers also see a tougher comparison for ocean carriers this year. Alphaliner noted the average first-quarter operating margin for ocean carriers fell to 18.1%, the lowest in four quarters. Maritime consultancy Drewry sees operating profit for the container shipping industry falling to $20 billion this year, down from about $50 billion in 2024. Ocean carriers are flagging higher operating expenses in 2025 as ships get delayed and the costs of container repositioning become more burdensome. Hapag-Lloyd highlighted a 9% increase in handling and haulage costs for the first quarter, primarily because of having to secure storage for empty containers and higher drayage expenses for door moves. Muted rate outlook While higher freight rates can offset those increases, carrier chief executives remain cautious on how far the current rally will go. Maersk Chief Executive Vincent Clerc offered a forecast of global container demand ranging anywhere from a decline of 1% to growth of 4% during the company’s second-quarter earnings call on May 8, down from a forecast of 4% in February. Clerc said President Donald Trump’s trade policies are forcing more Maersk customers to reconsider where they source goods. While some shippers highly dependent on China are looking to frontload goods, others are drawing inventory in North America or looking at how to exit China. “The increased macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainties since we shared our guidance in February inevitably affects our outlook for the rest of the year, especially on the back of the escalation we saw of the US-China trade tensions as well as the unresolved questions around the other tariffs currently under the 90-day reprieve,” Clerc said. Even though container freight bookings out of China saw a resurgence following the 90-day tariff reprieve, Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said during a May 14 earnings call he expects only a “little bit of a surge” over the next two or three months. He said Hapag-Lloyd is maintaining its current 2025 outlook based on the “assumption that we expect to see freight rates declining based on the trends that we have seen in the market over the last couple of months.” “I think [the] demand trend for 2025 at the moment is pretty uncertain,” Habben Jansen said. “We see new developments every day. I think the only thing we know for sure is that the first quarter was pretty good.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Global uncertainty to erode ocean carrier profits in 2025

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 GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE TODAY 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

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

UPGRADE AND SAVE: Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Intermodal Service Scorecard

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

More News & Analysis

Current market allows top ocean carriers to strengthen long-term position

Conventional power drives project cargo pipeline, but mid-term worries persist

Disruption lingers at Mexico’s Manzanillo port weeks after brief strike