<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The wave of stronger economic activity that produced freight for truckload and less-than-truckload carriers alike in the third quarter lifted tonnage, shipments and revenue at YRC Worldwide, giving the $4.9 billion LTL company a chance to improve profitability.</div>

The wave of stronger economic activity that produced freight for truckload and less-than-truckload carriers alike in the third quarter lifted tonnage, shipments and revenue at YRC Worldwide, giving the $4.9 billion LTL company a chance to improve profitability.

<div>The wave of stronger economic activity that produced freight for truckload and less-than-truckload carriers alike in the third quarter lifted tonnage, shipments and revenue at YRC Worldwide, giving the $4.9 billion LTL company a chance to <a>improve profitability</a>.The holding company and its largest subsidiary, YRC Freight, returned to profitability in the quarter, albeit narrowly, and YRC’s regional subsidiaries increased operating profits. That’s helped the trucking operator hire more drivers and replace more aging trucks.<div><img>l</div>For the third quarter, YRC Worldwide <a>reported a $1.2 million net profit</a>— its first quarterly net profit in eight quarters — on revenue that climbed 5.6 percent...

The wave of stronger economic activity that produced freight for truckload and less-than-truckload carriers alike in the third quarter lifted tonnage, shipments and revenue at YRC Worldwide, giving the $4.9 billion LTL company a chance to improve profitability . The holding company and its largest subsidiary, YRC Freight, returned to profitability in the quarter, albeit narrowly, and YRC’s regional subsidiaries increased operating profits. That’s helped the trucking operator hire more drivers and replace more aging trucks. l For the third quarter, YRC Worldwide reported a $1.2 million net profit — its first quarterly net profit in eight quarters — on revenue that climbed 5.6 percent year-over-year to $1.32 billion. This was only the fourth profitable quarter for YRC Worldwide since the third quarter of 2008. YRC Freight reported an $8.8 million operating profit — its first quarterly profit in six quarters — compared with a $9.7 million loss a year ago. Revenue at the nationwide carrier — the third-largest stand-alone LTL company — rose 4.2 percent from a year ago to $843 million. The YRC regional group — which includes Holland, the largest regional LTL carrier, Reddaway and New Penn — increased revenue 8 percent to $479.6 million. Operating profit for the group, which has been in the black since 2010, rose 22 percent to $24 million. YRC Freight was able to correct an imbalance in its LTL network that hurt the company in the second quarter , when total shipments per day rose 4.8 percent. All in all, it was the most “normal” quarter of LTL trucking the company has seen in a long time. For much of 2013, YRC Worldwide was consumed with securing a $1.1 billion refinancing deal and a new five-year contract , including extended wage concessions, from the Teamsters union. The company was hit with winter storms and a freight surge in the first half of the year. In the third quarter, YRC Freight upgraded terminals in Memphis, Houston and Seattle to distribution centers to better manage higher freight volumes. The conversion of the three facilities also represented the first change of operations in years meant to expand capacity for YRC Freight, rather than cut DCs and terminals from its 267-facility network. YRC Freight tonnage rose 2.4 percent in July, 0.8 percent in August and 0.2 percent in September. However, September was the strongest month of the quarter in terms of revenue and profit, YRC Worldwide officials said on Oct. 30. Revenue per hundredweight or LTL yield rose 3.9 percent at YRC Freight in September, and 3.8 percent at the YRC regional carrier group. October has proved even stronger, raising hopes for a better finish for 2014. Profitability improved month-to-month throughout the quarter, YRC Worldwide CEO James Welch told investment analysts in a conference call transcribed by Seeking Alpha . “Certainly, the freight environment is healthy and our sales force has done a good job,” he said. That work is reflected in higher pricing and revenue per shipment at YRC Freight, Welch said. Revenue per shipment at YRC Freight rose 3.5 percent year-over-year in the quarter, while LTL revenue per hundredweight or yield rose 3.3 percent, fuel surcharges included. The regional carriers improved revenue per shipment 3.6 percent and yield 2.1 percent. Lower diesel fuel prices tend to suppress fuel surcharges, which means much of that yield improvement this summer came from higher rates. Total shipments per day rose only 1 percent year-over-year at YRC Freight, and 1.9 percent at the regional group. “Our priority and focus is growing the right freight at the right price,” Welch told analysts. “Proactively managing the mix with business in the YRC Freight network has been a challenge.” Welch and Darren Hawkins, who was named president of YRC Freight in February, also have focused on steps to improve cycle times at terminals and on-time service. “I like what YRC Freight is doing,” Welch said. “We’ve got some initiatives underway on the planning side to make our line-haul network more efficient. We’re looking at some other things to really operate better in these (distribution centers).” YRC Freight has also hired 1,300 truck drivers year-to-date to handle higher levels of LTL freight, Hawkins told analysts. That’s double the number of drivers YRC Worldwide hired in all of 2013, Welch said. Better profitability will help YRC Worldwide replace more older trucks and trailers. Over the next six months, the company plans to replace 600 tractors and 2,000 trailers. Contact William B. Cassidy at wcassidy@joc.com and follow him on Twitter: @wbcassidy_joc .

YRC Worldwide profits on higher freight volume and rates

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Demand for goods traditionally shipped by air has been weakened by global economic issues, high inflation in destination markets and geopolitical issues that have impacted trade flows. </div>

Demand for goods traditionally shipped by air has been weakened by global economic issues, high inflation in destination markets and geopolitical issues that have impacted trade flows.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Airlines prioritized surging e-commerce shipments on trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe routes over the past few years at the expense of general air freight. But as US tariffs curb low-value imports from China, carriers are finding traditional markets have also declined. Air cargo posted a record 2024 that saw 12% growth in global volume, with much of the demand generated by e-commerce. But the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-volumes-fall-on-trans-pacific-as-us-de-minimis-changes-loom-5993599">May 2 elimination of the US’ duty-free exemption for low-value shipments</a> from China under so-called “de minimis” rules has led to a drop in air cargo demand on the trans-Pacific. Airlines focusing heavily on this sector are now searching for business in the more traditional forwarder-driven markets that have weakened through a range of economic and geopolitical factors, according to Martin Habisreitinger, COO of air freight at Hellmann Worldwide Logistics. “The surge in e-commerce, particularly during the pandemic, created an unprecedented demand on specific routes, especially trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe,” Habisreitinger told the Journal of Commerce Friday. “Airlines, facing capacity constraints and driven by yield management strategies, naturally prioritized this high-volume, often higher-paying segment,” he added. “This prioritization, coupled with port congestion and supply chain disruptions, sometimes led to capacity challenges for traditional cargo shippers.” A source from another global forwarder who did not want to be identified said service providers were largely excluded from the e-commerce business as the main Chinese online marketplaces, Temu, Shein and Tik Tok, contracted their capacity directly from airlines. <h3>Carriers ‘neglected’ traditional markets </h3>While airlines devoted most of their attention to shipping e-commerce out of China, the traditional markets were being weakened by global economic instability that dampened demand for goods traditionally shipped by air, high inflation in destination markets and geopolitical issues that impacted trade flows. “Air cargo airlines neglected thinking about the long-term picture to chase the cross-border e-commerce business that has been served to them on a silver platter,” said Frederic Horst, managing director of the consultancy Trade and Transport Group. The Sydney-based analyst told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week that general air freight traffic peaked in 2018 and has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Data from Trade and Transport Group shows that in the past two years through the end of April on both the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe routes, higher-value general cargo volume has been declining while lower-value air freight shipments have soared. US trade statistics regard imports valued at $2,000 or less as “de minimis” traffic. “I don’t think [airlines] realized what was going on in the background where their traditional market was in decline, and now they need to go back to focusing on general air freight,” Horst said. “But the question is, is that traffic still there?” Habisreitinger emphasized that although the traditional market has declined, it remains a significant part of the air cargo industry. “We’re seeing signs of stabilization and even some growth in certain sectors,” he said. “The decline isn’t uniform across all industries. Some sectors, like pharmaceuticals and specialized high-value goods, have shown resilience.” Following trade talks in Geneva between the US and China earlier this month, part of the deal included a reduction of the US’ 120% duty to 54%. An additional per-parcel fee of $100 came into effect on May 14 that was effectively a hammer blow to e-commerce companies making use of the de minimis exemption because of the low value of online products ordered from China. However, Horst believes transporting low-value products by air was never going to be sustainable, even without the US changes to de minimis rules. “At some point this traffic was going to disappear because it’s too cheap to move by air,” he said, pointing to Chinese customs data that puts the average value per shipment near $15 per kilogram. “You can’t be paying air freight rates of $5/kg or $6/kg, plus the ground network distribution cost, for that. It was a pure ‘let’s grow our market share’ play,” Horst added. “The focus is shifting to some other markets now and a lot of volumes may just disappear. It’s also discretionary spending at a time of high inflation. Nobody really needs the stuff they buy on Temu or Shein.” <h3>Freighters shift to more lucrative markets </h3>Since May 2, when the US revoked the duty-free status of low-value imports from China, there has been a drop in air cargo demand on the trans-Pacific. A clearer view of the market will come with the May data that analysts expect will show the extent of the decline in trans-Pacific demand following the rolling out of the tariffs and the shifting of chartered freighter capacity to other, more lucrative trade lanes. The first signs of that drop in demand and the shifting of freighters are visible in data from air cargo analyst Rotate, which shows freighter capacity deployed on the eastbound trans-Pacific from May 12–18 fell 8% year over year to 82,000 tons while increasing 19% year over year to 74,000 tons on Asia-Europe. “It is difficult to put numbers in exact terms because the May data is not yet available, but shippers that are not willing to ship to the US because of the tariffs are getting creative in searching for new markets,” a Rotate spokesperson said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d9092521-9dbe-4569-bade-b3802c73bc98"></dynamic-object></div>By the end of April, around 100,000 tons a month of de minimis-type traffic was moving across the Pacific on more than 60 freighters dedicated to carrying e-commerce. The volume of cross-border low-value cargo imports from China in the first quarter grew by 28.5% year over year, Trade and Transport data shows. “Many freighter operators pulled out of north-south markets like Africa-Europe, Latin America-Europe and Latin America-US to put freighters into the trans-Pacific and to a lesser extent into Asia-Europe,” Horst said. For example, he said freighter operator Cargolux offered 35 destinations in Africa in previous years but now had only two — Johannesburg and Nairobi. In the rush to move air cargo before May 2, the rate from Hong Kong to the US in mid-April shot up 50% compared with the previous week to $7.95/kg, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Since then, the rates have been falling, with data from the Baltic Air Index putting the rate from China to North America this week at $4.72/kg. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Airlines prioritized surging e-commerce shipments on trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe routes over the past few years at the expense of general air freight. But as US tariffs curb low-value imports from China, carriers are finding traditional markets have also declined. Air cargo posted a record 2024 that saw 12% growth in global volume, with much of the demand generated by e-commerce. But the May 2 elimination of the US’ duty-free exemption for low-value shipments from China under so-called “de minimis” rules has led to a drop in air cargo demand on the trans-Pacific. Airlines focusing heavily on this sector are now searching for business in the more traditional forwarder-driven markets that have weakened through a range of economic and geopolitical factors, according to Martin Habisreitinger, COO of air freight at Hellmann Worldwide Logistics. “The surge in e-commerce, particularly during the pandemic, created an unprecedented demand on specific routes, especially trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe,” Habisreitinger told the Journal of Commerce Friday. “Airlines, facing capacity constraints and driven by yield management strategies, naturally prioritized this high-volume, often higher-paying segment,” he added. “This prioritization, coupled with port congestion and supply chain disruptions, sometimes led to capacity challenges for traditional cargo shippers.” A source from another global forwarder who did not want to be identified said service providers were largely excluded from the e-commerce business as the main Chinese online marketplaces, Temu, Shein and Tik Tok, contracted their capacity directly from airlines. Carriers ‘neglected’ traditional markets While airlines devoted most of their attention to shipping e-commerce out of China, the traditional markets were being weakened by global economic instability that dampened demand for goods traditionally shipped by air, high inflation in destination markets and geopolitical issues that impacted trade flows. “Air cargo airlines neglected thinking about the long-term picture to chase the cross-border e-commerce business that has been served to them on a silver platter,” said Frederic Horst, managing director of the consultancy Trade and Transport Group. The Sydney-based analyst told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week that general air freight traffic peaked in 2018 and has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Data from Trade and Transport Group shows that in the past two years through the end of April on both the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe routes, higher-value general cargo volume has been declining while lower-value air freight shipments have soared. US trade statistics regard imports valued at $2,000 or less as “de minimis” traffic. “I don’t think [airlines] realized what was going on in the background where their traditional market was in decline, and now they need to go back to focusing on general air freight,” Horst said. “But the question is, is that traffic still there?” Habisreitinger emphasized that although the traditional market has declined, it remains a significant part of the air cargo industry. “We’re seeing signs of stabilization and even some growth in certain sectors,” he said. “The decline isn’t uniform across all industries. Some sectors, like pharmaceuticals and specialized high-value goods, have shown resilience.” Following trade talks in Geneva between the US and China earlier this month, part of the deal included a reduction of the US’ 120% duty to 54%. An additional per-parcel fee of $100 came into effect on May 14 that was effectively a hammer blow to e-commerce companies making use of the de minimis exemption because of the low value of online products ordered from China. However, Horst believes transporting low-value products by air was never going to be sustainable, even without the US changes to de minimis rules. “At some point this traffic was going to disappear because it’s too cheap to move by air,” he said, pointing to Chinese customs data that puts the average value per shipment near $15 per kilogram. “You can’t be paying air freight rates of $5/kg or $6/kg, plus the ground network distribution cost, for that. It was a pure ‘let’s grow our market share’ play,” Horst added. “The focus is shifting to some other markets now and a lot of volumes may just disappear. It’s also discretionary spending at a time of high inflation. Nobody really needs the stuff they buy on Temu or Shein.” Freighters shift to more lucrative markets Since May 2, when the US revoked the duty-free status of low-value imports from China, there has been a drop in air cargo demand on the trans-Pacific. A clearer view of the market will come with the May data that analysts expect will show the extent of the decline in trans-Pacific demand following the rolling out of the tariffs and the shifting of chartered freighter capacity to other, more lucrative trade lanes. The first signs of that drop in demand and the shifting of freighters are visible in data from air cargo analyst Rotate, which shows freighter capacity deployed on the eastbound trans-Pacific from May 12–18 fell 8% year over year to 82,000 tons while increasing 19% year over year to 74,000 tons on Asia-Europe. “It is difficult to put numbers in exact terms because the May data is not yet available, but shippers that are not willing to ship to the US because of the tariffs are getting creative in searching for new markets,” a Rotate spokesperson said. By the end of April, around 100,000 tons a month of de minimis-type traffic was moving across the Pacific on more than 60 freighters dedicated to carrying e-commerce. The volume of cross-border low-value cargo imports from China in the first quarter grew by 28.5% year over year, Trade and Transport data shows. “Many freighter operators pulled out of north-south markets like Africa-Europe, Latin America-Europe and Latin America-US to put freighters into the trans-Pacific and to a lesser extent into Asia-Europe,” Horst said. For example, he said freighter operator Cargolux offered 35 destinations in Africa in previous years but now had only two — Johannesburg and Nairobi. In the rush to move air cargo before May 2, the rate from Hong Kong to the US in mid-April shot up 50% compared with the previous week to $7.95/kg, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Since then, the rates have been falling, with data from the Baltic Air Index putting the rate from China to North America this week at $4.72/kg. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

General air cargo in decline as China-US e-commerce boom slows

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Luxembourg-based carrier is the latest airline to sign a supply agreement for sustainable aviation fuel, but it comes as the industry makes slow progress toward decarbonization. </div>

The Luxembourg-based carrier is the latest airline to sign a supply agreement for sustainable aviation fuel, but it comes as the industry makes slow progress toward decarbonization.

<div class="phx-topic">Air freighter operator Cargolux and forwarder AIT Worldwide Logistics have formed a partnership to source sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) that will be used to move cargo owned by Microsoft Cloud Services. Under the three-year deal, the companies will buy SAF from US-based Valero Energy, allowing them to save 66,000 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions between now and 2027. Luxembourg-based carrier Cargolux is the latest airline to sign an SAF supply agreement as the aviation industry makes incremental progress toward decarbonization. The SAF in the deal will be sourced from used cooking oil and tallow, an animal fat that will not contain palm oil or any derivatives. The fuel will be stored at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the partner companies said in a joint statement this week. “Securing this noteworthy volume of SAF with Cargolux over a three-year period is a key aspect of our global supply chain solutions for Microsoft Cloud Services, enabling all parties to strive closer towards our emissions reduction goals,” said Chelsea Lamar, vice president of global sustainability at AIT. The volume of SAF involved in the deal was not disclosed. Colin Todd, general manager of cloud manufacturing operations and fulfilment at Microsoft, highlighted the challenge in cutting emissions and narrowing the cost gap between SAF and existing Jet A aviation fuel. “By working together to increase the production and use of SAF, we can help to cost effectively drive down emissions and increase the potential for more use of alternative fuels across the transport ecosystem,” Todd said in the statement. Many of the world’s major airlines have signed SAF sourcing agreements with fuel producers and logistics providers, but it has been slow going. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects SAF production to reach 2.1 million metric tons this year, which is just 0.7% of total jet fuel supply. <h3>Registry will track SAF across value chain </h3>In a move aimed at accelerating the uptake of SAF toward the 2050 net-zero industry target, IATA earlier this year launched the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Registry that will be managed by the Civil Aviation Decarbonization Organization (CADO). The registry will ensure the environmental benefits of SAF can be tracked as they move across the SAF value chain and enable the claiming of those benefits against regulatory obligations and voluntary schemes by airlines and corporate customers. It will also address the challenge of limited SAF supply — which is acutely scarce and available in only a few locations globally — by connecting airlines with SAF producers and suppliers, regardless of their geographic location. While some biofuels are produced sustainably and deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions, there are scalability limitations. Most biofuels are produced from food crop-based feedstocks, which come with direct and indirect deforestation as well as many other sustainability issues ranging from water scarcity to food security. As a result, Europe has excluded the use of feed- and food-based biofuels from its flagship shipping fuels regulation, FuelEU Maritime, that was implemented on Jan. 1. Aviation is part of the European Union’s cap-in-trade emissions trading system that will be reviewed in 2026. Climate activist Transport &amp; Environment (T&amp;E) believes this will be an opportunity for the European Commission to address “a fundamental flaw” in the regulation that only covers flights in Europe. A study by T&amp;E last month estimated that 70% of emissions generated by airlines in 2024 were on intercontinental flights for which airlines were not charged, with the London-New York route topping the list. The study found the European aviation sector has almost fully bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, reaching 96% of 2019 flight numbers and 98% of emissions last year. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Air freighter operator Cargolux and forwarder AIT Worldwide Logistics have formed a partnership to source sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) that will be used to move cargo owned by Microsoft Cloud Services. Under the three-year deal, the companies will buy SAF from US-based Valero Energy, allowing them to save 66,000 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions between now and 2027. Luxembourg-based carrier Cargolux is the latest airline to sign an SAF supply agreement as the aviation industry makes incremental progress toward decarbonization. The SAF in the deal will be sourced from used cooking oil and tallow, an animal fat that will not contain palm oil or any derivatives. The fuel will be stored at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the partner companies said in a joint statement this week. “Securing this noteworthy volume of SAF with Cargolux over a three-year period is a key aspect of our global supply chain solutions for Microsoft Cloud Services, enabling all parties to strive closer towards our emissions reduction goals,” said Chelsea Lamar, vice president of global sustainability at AIT. The volume of SAF involved in the deal was not disclosed. Colin Todd, general manager of cloud manufacturing operations and fulfilment at Microsoft, highlighted the challenge in cutting emissions and narrowing the cost gap between SAF and existing Jet A aviation fuel. “By working together to increase the production and use of SAF, we can help to cost effectively drive down emissions and increase the potential for more use of alternative fuels across the transport ecosystem,” Todd said in the statement. Many of the world’s major airlines have signed SAF sourcing agreements with fuel producers and logistics providers, but it has been slow going. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects SAF production to reach 2.1 million metric tons this year, which is just 0.7% of total jet fuel supply. Registry will track SAF across value chain In a move aimed at accelerating the uptake of SAF toward the 2050 net-zero industry target, IATA earlier this year launched the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Registry that will be managed by the Civil Aviation Decarbonization Organization (CADO). The registry will ensure the environmental benefits of SAF can be tracked as they move across the SAF value chain and enable the claiming of those benefits against regulatory obligations and voluntary schemes by airlines and corporate customers. It will also address the challenge of limited SAF supply — which is acutely scarce and available in only a few locations globally — by connecting airlines with SAF producers and suppliers, regardless of their geographic location. While some biofuels are produced sustainably and deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions, there are scalability limitations. Most biofuels are produced from food crop-based feedstocks, which come with direct and indirect deforestation as well as many other sustainability issues ranging from water scarcity to food security. As a result, Europe has excluded the use of feed- and food-based biofuels from its flagship shipping fuels regulation, FuelEU Maritime, that was implemented on Jan. 1. Aviation is part of the European Union’s cap-in-trade emissions trading system that will be reviewed in 2026. Climate activist Transport & Environment (T&E) believes this will be an opportunity for the European Commission to address “a fundamental flaw” in the regulation that only covers flights in Europe. A study by T&E last month estimated that 70% of emissions generated by airlines in 2024 were on intercontinental flights for which airlines were not charged, with the London-New York route topping the list. The study found the European aviation sector has almost fully bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, reaching 96% of 2019 flight numbers and 98% of emissions last year. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Cargolux inks three-year green fuel deal to handle Microsoft cargo

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Excluding the last remnants of Yellow’s revenue, the largest US LTL carriers boosted their top line by 3.9% last year, with daily volumes rising 2.7% and terminal numbers up almost 3%.</div>

Excluding the last remnants of Yellow’s revenue, the largest US LTL carriers boosted their top line by 3.9% last year, with daily volumes rising 2.7% and terminal numbers up almost 3%.

<div class="phx-topic">Bankrupt less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier Yellow has a long reach, although its zombie-like grip on the US LTL market is loosening almost two years after its demise. The combined revenue of the Top 25 US LTL carriers dropped 1.3% to $48.2 billion in 2024, when $2.4 billion of Yellow revenue prior to the company’s July 2023 bankruptcy is included in an annualized comparison by SJ Consulting Group. However, exclude that revenue from Yellow in the first half of 2023 and the Top 25 LTL carriers increased their top line by 3.9% last year, reversing a 13.9% drop in 2023. Higher rates are helping LTL providers generate revenue. Total LTL costs to shippers rose 3% in 2024, according to the US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Since Yellow’s collapse, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-pricing-maintains-record-high-as-truckload-slumps-6008704">the LTL PPI has climbed 12.1%.</a>The largest LTL carrier in the rankings was FedEx Freight — long the largest trucking and LTL company, with $9.1 billion in revenue in calendar year 2024. Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), with $5.8 billion in revenue, and Estes Express Lines, with $5 billion, rounded out the top three. Among the 10 largest LTL providers, Saia rose from eighth in the rankings to sixth, while ABF Freight System took seventh place as TForce Freight dropped from sixth to eighth. Thirteen of the carriers in the annual Top 25 US LTL Carrier rankings produced by SJ Consulting Group and the Journal of Commerce did better than last year’s 3.9% average growth rate, led by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, which increased LTL revenue 15.6%. Knight-Swift did even better in the 2025 first quarter, increasing its revenue 26.7% year over year, when other LTL carriers saw more modest gains or annualized declines in revenue. How the LTL sector does in terms of revenue in 2025 depends on improvements in industrial production and the impact of US tariffs on consumer sentiment — but don’t count LTL growth out. In fact, the Top 25 LTL rankings, published by the Journal of Commerce since 2008, show extraordinary growth by the Top 25 and the overall LTL sector over time. Although total US LTL revenue is down from its $57.8 billion peak in 2022, it is 25.5% higher than the $42.1 billion SJ Consulting Group reported for 2020. The LTL sector’s top line has been above $50 billion for four straight years, SJ Consulting Group data shows. Total LTL revenue rose an unprecedented 37.3% from 2020 through 2022, during the pandemic freight boom. From 2014 through 2024, total LTL revenue rose by more than $17 billion, or 42.9%, the data shows. Revenue at the Top 25 carriers, which account for 91% of all LTL revenue, followed a similar trajectory, rising 41.1% from 2020 through 2022 and 26.1% from 2020 through 2024 despite COVID-19, a freight boom and an almost three-year freight bust. “The LTL market is healthy compared to any other segment of transportation,” Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group, told the Journal of Commerce. “It can remain healthy if they maintain discipline” when it comes to expansion, Jindel said. “They don’t need to add more doors or more terminals when they have more than 20% excess capacity.” <h3>Fastest-growing carriers </h3>In recent years, smaller carriers have been among the fastest-growing LTL carriers. This year, big companies led the way, with Knight-Swift, Estes Express Lines and Saia all increasing revenue by double digits. With its 15.6% revenue gain, Knight-Swift passed the $1 billion milestone for the first time. Much of Knight-Swift’s LTL gain came from the acquisition of Dependable Highway Express (DHE) in July 2024, as the holding company expanded its LTL network to the West. Estes, the largest privately owned LTL carrier, increased its revenue 12.4% to nearly $5 billion and moved up to third place in the SJ Consulting Group/Journal of Commerce rankings. That is a rebound for Estes, which saw revenue drop 4.2% in 2023. Revenue at Saia rose 11.4% last year to $3.2 billion, making it the third-fastest-growing LTL provider. The company kept its foot on the pedal — its top line rose only 3.2% in 2023. “These companies are in a growth mode,” despite a soft freight market, said Jindel. Estes, as a family-owned company, “doesn’t have to worry about Wall Street analysts or investors,” he said. “They can take <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ltl-carriers-expanding-networks-to-prepare-for-long-term-growth-5915148">a long-term view</a> of how to run their business and where they want to expand.” The next companies in the race were national LTL provider R+L Carriers and A. Duie Pyle, a regional company. R+L increased revenue 9.4% while Pyle expanded 8.1%. Altogether, eight carriers grew revenue between 5% and 10%. Another nine companies expanded 0.1% to 5%, while six companies saw revenue drop in 2024, including two of the largest carriers, FedEx Freight and Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL). Revenue decline isn’t necessarily a bad thing for LTL carriers. Often it reflects efforts to rebalance freight mix and the rejection of some lower-priced freight. FedEx Freight had an operating margin in the 15% to 20% range most of 2024, higher than many competitors. And ODFL had an operating ratio of 73.4%, indicating a 26.6% operating margin. <h3>After the ‘gold rush’ </h3>One thing many of the largest LTL providers, especially Estes, XPO, R+L and Saia, had in common: They all bought large numbers of terminals from Yellow in 2023 and 2024. Overall, the Top 25 carriers operated 2,898 terminals in 2024, a 2.9% year-over-year gain. The total terminal count for the entire LTL sector last year was 3,216 facilities, a 2.7% increase over 2023, according to SJ Consulting Group. The Top 25 carriers as a group increased their combined terminal count by a net of 81 facilities in 2024, the research firm’s data shows. And the LTL real estate “gold rush” is not over, although it is slowing. Yellow’s bankruptcy estate plans to sell another 12 terminals this month for more than $20 million, including three terminals that will be delivered to Saia and two to ArcBest. Not all the terminals added to the US LTL network in the past two years have been fully activated, Jindel said. Some carriers are only using a portion of their newly acquired dock doors until freight demand rises. Others have combined nearby terminals, closing smaller facilities. “No one needs to add more terminals right now the way the market is,” he said. “Carriers have the ability to handle more freight within their existing networks.” <h3>Average daily shipments </h3>Surprisingly, despite a soft market and volume declines at some public companies, the average daily shipment (ADS) count rose 2.7% for the Top 25 carriers as a group last year, reaching 586,545 shipments per day. That’s more than 200 million shipments a year, excluding holidays, which may vary from company to company. The total LTL sector ADS count rose 2.5% from 2023 to 669,545 shipments a day. On average, the Top 25 carriers moved 202 shipments per terminal each day in 2024, just six shipments fewer than the ADS-per-terminal ratio for the LTL sector as a whole. FedEx Freight had the highest ADS count per day with an average of 98,905 shipments moving through 326 terminals, for an average ADS-per-terminal rate of 303 shipments. R+L Carriers, ranked fifth among the Top 25, had the second-largest ADS count of 61,000 shipments, with an average of 473 ADS per terminal. R+L is a long-distance carrier with 129 terminals, fewer intermediate terminals than many nationwide competitors.Daylight Transport, a long-distance carrier moving LTL shipments inland from the West Coast, operates only eight terminals but had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 433 last year. Regional LTL provider A. Duie Pyle had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 402, with 30 terminals in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and an ADS count of 12,062, SJ Consulting Group reported. In contrast, national carrier ABF Freight, an ArcBest subsidiary, had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 90 last year, with 220 terminals and 19,856 ADS. TForce Freight, formerly UPS Freight, had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 115 with 192 terminals and 22,122 ADS. Many companies with a low ADS-per-terminal rate could move more freight without adding more terminals, Jindel said. But a low ADS-per-terminal rate doesn’t always indicate a lack of efficiency. Instead, it may reflect the structure of a carrier’s network. Cross Country Freight Solutions, which came in 21st in the rankings with $219 million in revenue last year, had 51 terminals and an ADS count of 2,900 shipments, giving it an ADS-per-terminal rate of 88. “They have smaller terminals, but they cover a very large geography, from the Mississippi River to the West Coast and from Canada to Mexico,” Jindel said. With such an expansive territory, “they need the terminals,” he said. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.<div class="wrapper-full"><table><colgroup><col width="10.65%"></col><col width="25.91%"></col><col width="11.9%"></col><col width="11.9%"></col><col width="10.23%"></col><col width="21.01%"></col><col width="8.4%"></col></colgroup><caption>Journal of Commerce Top 25 US Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) CarriersAnnual revenue, including fuel surcharges, in millions of US dollars; average daily shipments in 2024; and number of terminals as Dec. 31, 2024</caption><thead><tr><th>2024 Rank</th><th>Carrier</th><th>2023 Revenue</th><th>2024 Revenue</th><th>YoY Change</th><th>Average Daily Shipments</th><th>Terminals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="align-right">1</td><td>FedEx Freight</td><td class="align-right">$9,106</td><td class="align-right">$9,098</td><td class="align-right">-0.1%</td><td class="align-right">98,905</td><td class="align-right">326</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">2</td><td>Old Dominion Freight Line</td><td class="align-right">$5,805</td><td class="align-right">$5,761</td><td class="align-right">-0.8%</td><td class="align-right">47,288</td><td class="align-right">261</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">3</td><td>Estes Express Lines</td><td class="align-right">$4,432</td><td class="align-right">$4,981</td><td class="align-right">12.4%</td><td class="align-right">53,744</td><td class="align-right">224</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">4</td><td>XPO Logistics</td><td class="align-right">$4,671</td><td class="align-right">$4,899</td><td class="align-right">4.9%</td><td class="align-right">49,109</td><td class="align-right">303</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">5</td><td>R+L Carriers</td><td class="align-right">$3,493</td><td class="align-right">$3,820</td><td class="align-right">9.4%</td><td class="align-right">61,000</td><td class="align-right">129</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">6</td><td>Saia Motor Freight Line</td><td class="align-right">$2,881</td><td class="align-right">$3,209</td><td class="align-right">11.4%</td><td class="align-right">35,390</td><td class="align-right">218</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">7</td><td>ABF Freight System</td><td class="align-right">$2,810</td><td class="align-right">$2,690</td><td class="align-right">-4.3%</td><td class="align-right">19,856</td><td class="align-right">220</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">8</td><td>TForce Freight (US only)</td><td class="align-right">$2,375</td><td class="align-right">$2,490</td><td class="align-right">4.8%</td><td class="align-right">22,122</td><td class="align-right">192</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">9</td><td>Southeastern Freight Lines</td><td class="align-right">$1,685</td><td class="align-right">$1,700</td><td class="align-right">0.9%</td><td class="align-right">33,887</td><td class="align-right">87</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">10</td><td>Central Transport Int'l1</td><td class="align-right">$1,542</td><td class="align-right">$1,628</td><td class="align-right">5.6%</td><td class="align-right">24,400</td><td class="align-right">203</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">11</td><td>Averitt Express</td><td class="align-right">$1,165</td><td class="align-right">$1,149</td><td class="align-right">-1.4%</td><td class="align-right">18,169</td><td class="align-right">82</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">12</td><td>Knight-Swift LTL2</td><td class="align-right">$924</td><td class="align-right">$1,068</td><td class="align-right">15.6%</td><td class="align-right">18,805</td><td class="align-right">166</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">13</td><td>Dayton Freight Lines</td><td class="align-right">$1,035</td><td class="align-right">$1,043</td><td class="align-right">0.8%</td><td class="align-right">22,306</td><td class="align-right">68</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">14</td><td>Forward Air</td><td class="align-right">$937</td><td class="align-right">$945</td><td class="align-right">0.9%</td><td class="align-right">13,100</td><td class="align-right">107</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">14</td><td>Pitt Ohio Transportation Group</td><td class="align-right">$909</td><td class="align-right">$939</td><td class="align-right">3.3%</td><td class="align-right">21,286</td><td class="align-right">54</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">16</td><td>A. Duie Pyle1</td><td class="align-right">$570</td><td class="align-right">$616</td><td class="align-right">8.1%</td><td class="align-right">12,062</td><td class="align-right">30</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">17</td><td>Roadrunner Transportation1</td><td class="align-right">$410</td><td class="align-right">$436</td><td class="align-right">6.3%</td><td class="align-right">5,250</td><td class="align-right">31</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">18</td><td>Daylight Transport</td><td class="align-right">$374</td><td class="align-right">$393</td><td class="align-right">5.1%</td><td class="align-right">3,460</td><td class="align-right">8</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">19</td><td>Oak Harbor Freight Lines1</td><td class="align-right">$320</td><td class="align-right">$342</td><td class="align-right">6.9%</td><td class="align-right">5,444</td><td class="align-right">40</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">20</td><td>Ward Trucking Corporation</td><td class="align-right">$253</td><td class="align-right">$258</td><td class="align-right">2.0%</td><td class="align-right">4,688</td><td class="align-right">24</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">21</td><td>Cross Country Freight Solutions</td><td class="align-right">$207</td><td class="align-right">$219</td><td class="align-right">5.8%</td><td class="align-right">4,500</td><td class="align-right">51</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">22</td><td>Magnum LTL</td><td class="align-right">$155</td><td class="align-right">$164</td><td class="align-right">5.8%</td><td class="align-right">3,500</td><td class="align-right">31</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">23</td><td>Sutton Transport1</td><td class="align-right">$123</td><td class="align-right">$115</td><td class="align-right">-6.5%</td><td class="align-right">3,550</td><td class="align-right">13</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">24</td><td>Peninsula Truck Lines</td><td class="align-right">$102</td><td class="align-right">$103</td><td class="align-right">1.0%</td><td class="align-right">1,824</td><td class="align-right">16</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">25</td><td>Standard Forwarding1</td><td class="align-right">$98</td><td class="align-right">$100</td><td class="align-right">2.0%</td><td class="align-right">2,900</td><td class="align-right">14</td></tr><tr class="phx-row-total"><td colspan="2">Total Top 25 US LTL Carriers</td><td class="align-right">$48,805</td><td class="align-right">$48,166</td><td class="align-right">-1.3%</td><td class="align-right">586,545</td><td class="align-right">2,898</td></tr><tr class="phx-row-total"><td colspan="2">Total US LTL Market</td><td class="align-right">$53,206</td><td class="align-right">$52,819</td><td class="align-right">-0.7%</td><td class="align-right">669,545</td><td class="align-right">3,216</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="7">1 SJ Consulting estimates</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">2 Includes ACT, MME and DHE acquisitions and growth from new terminal openings</td></tr><tr class="phx-table-source"><td colspan="7">Sources: Company reports and SJ Consulting estimates. Prepared by SJ Consulting Group, Inc.© 2025 S&amp;P Global.</td></tr></tfoot></table></div></div>

Bankrupt less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier Yellow has a long reach, although its zombie-like grip on the US LTL market is loosening almost two years after its demise. The combined revenue of the Top 25 US LTL carriers dropped 1.3% to $48.2 billion in 2024, when $2.4 billion of Yellow revenue prior to the company’s July 2023 bankruptcy is included in an annualized comparison by SJ Consulting Group. However, exclude that revenue from Yellow in the first half of 2023 and the Top 25 LTL carriers increased their top line by 3.9% last year, reversing a 13.9% drop in 2023. Higher rates are helping LTL providers generate revenue. Total LTL costs to shippers rose 3% in 2024, according to the US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Since Yellow’s collapse, the LTL PPI has climbed 12.1%. The largest LTL carrier in the rankings was FedEx Freight — long the largest trucking and LTL company, with $9.1 billion in revenue in calendar year 2024. Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), with $5.8 billion in revenue, and Estes Express Lines, with $5 billion, rounded out the top three. Among the 10 largest LTL providers, Saia rose from eighth in the rankings to sixth, while ABF Freight System took seventh place as TForce Freight dropped from sixth to eighth. Thirteen of the carriers in the annual Top 25 US LTL Carrier rankings produced by SJ Consulting Group and the Journal of Commerce did better than last year’s 3.9% average growth rate, led by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, which increased LTL revenue 15.6%. Knight-Swift did even better in the 2025 first quarter, increasing its revenue 26.7% year over year, when other LTL carriers saw more modest gains or annualized declines in revenue. How the LTL sector does in terms of revenue in 2025 depends on improvements in industrial production and the impact of US tariffs on consumer sentiment — but don’t count LTL growth out. In fact, the Top 25 LTL rankings, published by the Journal of Commerce since 2008, show extraordinary growth by the Top 25 and the overall LTL sector over time. Although total US LTL revenue is down from its $57.8 billion peak in 2022, it is 25.5% higher than the $42.1 billion SJ Consulting Group reported for 2020. The LTL sector’s top line has been above $50 billion for four straight years, SJ Consulting Group data shows. Total LTL revenue rose an unprecedented 37.3% from 2020 through 2022, during the pandemic freight boom. From 2014 through 2024, total LTL revenue rose by more than $17 billion, or 42.9%, the data shows. Revenue at the Top 25 carriers, which account for 91% of all LTL revenue, followed a similar trajectory, rising 41.1% from 2020 through 2022 and 26.1% from 2020 through 2024 despite COVID-19, a freight boom and an almost three-year freight bust. “The LTL market is healthy compared to any other segment of transportation,” Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group, told the Journal of Commerce. “It can remain healthy if they maintain discipline” when it comes to expansion, Jindel said. “They don’t need to add more doors or more terminals when they have more than 20% excess capacity.” Fastest-growing carriers In recent years, smaller carriers have been among the fastest-growing LTL carriers. This year, big companies led the way, with Knight-Swift, Estes Express Lines and Saia all increasing revenue by double digits. With its 15.6% revenue gain, Knight-Swift passed the $1 billion milestone for the first time. Much of Knight-Swift’s LTL gain came from the acquisition of Dependable Highway Express (DHE) in July 2024, as the holding company expanded its LTL network to the West. Estes, the largest privately owned LTL carrier, increased its revenue 12.4% to nearly $5 billion and moved up to third place in the SJ Consulting Group/Journal of Commerce rankings. That is a rebound for Estes, which saw revenue drop 4.2% in 2023. Revenue at Saia rose 11.4% last year to $3.2 billion, making it the third-fastest-growing LTL provider. The company kept its foot on the pedal — its top line rose only 3.2% in 2023. “These companies are in a growth mode,” despite a soft freight market, said Jindel. Estes, as a family-owned company, “doesn’t have to worry about Wall Street analysts or investors,” he said. “They can take a long-term view of how to run their business and where they want to expand.” The next companies in the race were national LTL provider R+L Carriers and A. Duie Pyle, a regional company. R+L increased revenue 9.4% while Pyle expanded 8.1%. Altogether, eight carriers grew revenue between 5% and 10%. Another nine companies expanded 0.1% to 5%, while six companies saw revenue drop in 2024, including two of the largest carriers, FedEx Freight and Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL). Revenue decline isn’t necessarily a bad thing for LTL carriers. Often it reflects efforts to rebalance freight mix and the rejection of some lower-priced freight. FedEx Freight had an operating margin in the 15% to 20% range most of 2024, higher than many competitors. And ODFL had an operating ratio of 73.4%, indicating a 26.6% operating margin. After the ‘gold rush’ One thing many of the largest LTL providers, especially Estes, XPO, R+L and Saia, had in common: They all bought large numbers of terminals from Yellow in 2023 and 2024. Overall, the Top 25 carriers operated 2,898 terminals in 2024, a 2.9% year-over-year gain. The total terminal count for the entire LTL sector last year was 3,216 facilities, a 2.7% increase over 2023, according to SJ Consulting Group. The Top 25 carriers as a group increased their combined terminal count by a net of 81 facilities in 2024, the research firm’s data shows. And the LTL real estate “gold rush” is not over, although it is slowing. Yellow’s bankruptcy estate plans to sell another 12 terminals this month for more than $20 million, including three terminals that will be delivered to Saia and two to ArcBest. Not all the terminals added to the US LTL network in the past two years have been fully activated, Jindel said. Some carriers are only using a portion of their newly acquired dock doors until freight demand rises. Others have combined nearby terminals, closing smaller facilities. “No one needs to add more terminals right now the way the market is,” he said. “Carriers have the ability to handle more freight within their existing networks.” Average daily shipments Surprisingly, despite a soft market and volume declines at some public companies, the average daily shipment (ADS) count rose 2.7% for the Top 25 carriers as a group last year, reaching 586,545 shipments per day. That’s more than 200 million shipments a year, excluding holidays, which may vary from company to company. The total LTL sector ADS count rose 2.5% from 2023 to 669,545 shipments a day. On average, the Top 25 carriers moved 202 shipments per terminal each day in 2024, just six shipments fewer than the ADS-per-terminal ratio for the LTL sector as a whole. FedEx Freight had the highest ADS count per day with an average of 98,905 shipments moving through 326 terminals, for an average ADS-per-terminal rate of 303 shipments. R+L Carriers, ranked fifth among the Top 25, had the second-largest ADS count of 61,000 shipments, with an average of 473 ADS per terminal. R+L is a long-distance carrier with 129 terminals, fewer intermediate terminals than many nationwide competitors. Daylight Transport, a long-distance carrier moving LTL shipments inland from the West Coast, operates only eight terminals but had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 433 last year. Regional LTL provider A. Duie Pyle had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 402, with 30 terminals in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and an ADS count of 12,062, SJ Consulting Group reported. In contrast, national carrier ABF Freight, an ArcBest subsidiary, had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 90 last year, with 220 terminals and 19,856 ADS. TForce Freight, formerly UPS Freight, had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 115 with 192 terminals and 22,122 ADS. Many companies with a low ADS-per-terminal rate could move more freight without adding more terminals, Jindel said. But a low ADS-per-terminal rate doesn’t always indicate a lack of efficiency. Instead, it may reflect the structure of a carrier’s network. Cross Country Freight Solutions, which came in 21st in the rankings with $219 million in revenue last year, had 51 terminals and an ADS count of 2,900 shipments, giving it an ADS-per-terminal rate of 88. “They have smaller terminals, but they cover a very large geography, from the Mississippi River to the West Coast and from Canada to Mexico,” Jindel said. With such an expansive territory, “they need the terminals,” he said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .Journal of Commerce Top 25 US Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) Carriers Annual revenue, including fuel surcharges, in millions of US dollars; average daily shipments in 2024; and number of terminals as Dec. 31, 2024 2024 Rank Carrier 2023 Revenue 2024 Revenue YoY Change Average Daily Shipments Terminals 1 FedEx Freight $9,106 $9,098 -0.1% 98,905 326 2 Old Dominion Freight Line $5,805 $5,761 -0.8% 47,288 261 3 Estes Express Lines $4,432 $4,981 12.4% 53,744 224 4 XPO Logistics $4,671 $4,899 4.9% 49,109 303 5 R+L Carriers $3,493 $3,820 9.4% 61,000 129 6 Saia Motor Freight Line $2,881 $3,209 11.4% 35,390 218 7 ABF Freight System $2,810 $2,690 -4.3% 19,856 220 8 TForce Freight (US only) $2,375 $2,490 4.8% 22,122 192 9 Southeastern Freight Lines $1,685 $1,700 0.9% 33,887 87 10 Central Transport Int'l1 $1,542 $1,628 5.6% 24,400 203 11 Averitt Express $1,165 $1,149 -1.4% 18,169 82 12 Knight-Swift LTL2 $924 $1,068 15.6% 18,805 166 13 Dayton Freight Lines $1,035 $1,043 0.8% 22,306 68 14 Forward Air $937 $945 0.9% 13,100 107 14 Pitt Ohio Transportation Group $909 $939 3.3% 21,286 54 16 A. Duie Pyle1 $570 $616 8.1% 12,062 30 17 Roadrunner Transportation1 $410 $436 6.3% 5,250 31 18 Daylight Transport $374 $393 5.1% 3,460 8 19 Oak Harbor Freight Lines1 $320 $342 6.9% 5,444 40 20 Ward Trucking Corporation $253 $258 2.0% 4,688 24 21 Cross Country Freight Solutions $207 $219 5.8% 4,500 51 22 Magnum LTL $155 $164 5.8% 3,500 31 23 Sutton Transport1 $123 $115 -6.5% 3,550 13 24 Peninsula Truck Lines $102 $103 1.0% 1,824 16 25 Standard Forwarding1 $98 $100 2.0% 2,900 14 Total Top 25 US LTL Carriers $48,805 $48,166 -1.3% 586,545 2,898 Total US LTL Market $53,206 $52,819 -0.7% 669,545 3,216 1 SJ Consulting estimates 2 Includes ACT, MME and DHE acquisitions and growth from new terminal openings Sources: Company reports and SJ Consulting estimates. Prepared by SJ Consulting Group, Inc. © 2025 S&P Global.

Trucking News

Surface

Journal of Commerce Rankings: US LTL sector defies soft demand, regains traction

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Cedar Port industrial park and barge port says the construction of a new ship channel could pave the way for potential development of a container terminal at the site.</div>

The Cedar Port industrial park and barge port says the construction of a new ship channel could pave the way for potential development of a container terminal at the site.

<div class="phx-topic">A Houston-area industrial park and barge port is moving ahead with early plans to develop a $1 billion container terminal at the site that, if built, would double the area’s existing container capacity. The next step for operators of the park and port, known as Cedar Port, is to provide the appropriate state and federal environmental agencies with the findings of a feasibility study that was undertaken to map out the logistics of dredging a new shipping channel between the existing Houston Ship Channel and Cedar Port. “We are literally drafting the final [feasibility and environmental] findings, and that’s what will get published in June in the final Federal Register,” Clayton Henderson, Cedar Port’s director of port development, told the Journal of Commerce. If the dredging project is granted Congressional approval next year and the container terminal project receives all necessary permitting, it could be completed as early as 2032, Cedar Port officials said. Cedar Port Industrial Park consists of 15,000 acres, about 10,000 of which are still undeveloped. The proposed $500-million Cedar Port Terminal Channel Deepening Project — which would be executed under the authority of the US Army Corps of Engineers — would enable a potential Cedar Port container terminal to host vessels up to approximately 15,000 TEUs in size. The new ship channel would be dredged to a depth of 50 feet, matching the nearby Port Houston. Still, key facets of the proposed project remain unclear, including funding sources and who would ultimately operate the port. One potential partner would be Port Houston, which has been considering its own growth plans. “Port Houston has been investigating alternatives for future expansion of Port Houston container operations, including further optimization of our existing terminals and a potential third container terminal complex,” the port told the Journal of Commerce. “As part of this long-range planning, Cedar Port is one potential option that the Port Houston team has been examining.” If the Cedar Port container terminal comes to fruition independently of Port Houston, Cedar Port’s additional container capacity would effectively compete with Port Houston for volumes. Either way, Henderson said expected container volume growth in the region over the next decade will require capacity expansion. “There is so much between now and then,” Henderson said, referring to the timeline for the terminal. “We anticipate 2032 [to open] would be about the earliest, to 2035. This is the timeframe we estimate a terminal could be operational, and that seems to correlate with when the market will need an extra 5 million TEUs — to use round numbers — that will need a home somewhere based on current capabilities.” Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

A Houston-area industrial park and barge port is moving ahead with early plans to develop a $1 billion container terminal at the site that, if built, would double the area’s existing container capacity. The next step for operators of the park and port, known as Cedar Port, is to provide the appropriate state and federal environmental agencies with the findings of a feasibility study that was undertaken to map out the logistics of dredging a new shipping channel between the existing Houston Ship Channel and Cedar Port. “We are literally drafting the final [feasibility and environmental] findings, and that’s what will get published in June in the final Federal Register,” Clayton Henderson, Cedar Port’s director of port development, told the Journal of Commerce. If the dredging project is granted Congressional approval next year and the container terminal project receives all necessary permitting, it could be completed as early as 2032, Cedar Port officials said. Cedar Port Industrial Park consists of 15,000 acres, about 10,000 of which are still undeveloped. The proposed $500-million Cedar Port Terminal Channel Deepening Project — which would be executed under the authority of the US Army Corps of Engineers — would enable a potential Cedar Port container terminal to host vessels up to approximately 15,000 TEUs in size. The new ship channel would be dredged to a depth of 50 feet, matching the nearby Port Houston. Still, key facets of the proposed project remain unclear, including funding sources and who would ultimately operate the port. One potential partner would be Port Houston, which has been considering its own growth plans. “Port Houston has been investigating alternatives for future expansion of Port Houston container operations, including further optimization of our existing terminals and a potential third container terminal complex,” the port told the Journal of Commerce. “As part of this long-range planning, Cedar Port is one potential option that the Port Houston team has been examining.” If the Cedar Port container terminal comes to fruition independently of Port Houston, Cedar Port’s additional container capacity would effectively compete with Port Houston for volumes. Either way, Henderson said expected container volume growth in the region over the next decade will require capacity expansion. “There is so much between now and then,” Henderson said, referring to the timeline for the terminal. “We anticipate 2032 [to open] would be about the earliest, to 2035. This is the timeframe we estimate a terminal could be operational, and that seems to correlate with when the market will need an extra 5 million TEUs — to use round numbers — that will need a home somewhere based on current capabilities.” Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Container Shipping News

North American ports

Port News

Stakeholders look to advance possible Houston-area dredging project

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The railroad says it acted fast to resolve issues at its Dallas-area terminal and denies there have been any significant problems in Calgary and the Toronto area. </div>

The railroad says it acted fast to resolve issues at its Dallas-area terminal and denies there have been any significant problems in Calgary and the Toronto area.

<div class="phx-topic">A series of operational challenges at intermodal terminals owned by Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) over the past 30 days has triggered rail delays and rising container dwell times, leading to frustration among some of the railroad’s customers, sources say. But the severity of the impact appears to vary, with other logistics providers reporting stable service and timely communication from CPKC. While the most significant delays have occurred in Wylie, Texas, outside of Dallas, issues have also been raised in Calgary and the Toronto suburb of Vaughan, Ontario. The issues in Wylie stem from technical glitches linked to the early May switch from legacy Kansas City Southern operating systems to CPKC systems. The rollout on May 3 caused problems with driver registration and container notifications, prompting CPKC to fly staff from Canada to Texas and deploy terminal employees to sit at the gates in Wylie to handwrite receipts to enter and exit the premises. Three CPKC customers — two intermodal providers and one trucking company — told the Journal of Commerce that truck drivers have sat in traffic for more than five hours since the switchover. One of the intermodal providers said delays are still rampant at the Wiley terminal, with some of its containers stuck for more than nine days as of May 21. The three companies asked not to be identified because of their ongoing business relationship with CPKC. “The last several weeks of grounding containers [at Wylie] has been horrid,” said the trucking executive. “[CPKC has] fallen flat on their face.” CPKC, meanwhile, acknowledged delays in Wylie but denied there were any disruptions in Calgary or Vaughan.“We had a very large systems change from legacy Kansas City Southern to CPKC systems,” said Jonathan Wahba, senior vice president of sales at CPKC. “Where we fell down was around driver training in the Wylie market about the switch.” Wahba noted the railroad brought staff in from Canada to help steady operations at the terminal. “We took it seriously and corrected it,” he said. Schneider National, CPKC’s top partner in the US, characterized the Wylie disruption as a minor setback, saying its drivers were prepared for the systems switchover at Wylie and that CPKC worked quickly to resolve any issues.<h3>Dispute over Canadian service </h3>Amid the Texas disruption, two CPKC partners in Canada have complained about delays inside the Calgary and Vaughan (Toronto) terminals. Both partners said while train departures remained on schedule, there have been delays in the time between when containers are in-gated at the terminals and when they depart, known as origin dwell. The Canadian partners asked not to be identified because of their ongoing relationship with CPKC. The first partner showed the Journal of Commerce a list of nearly two dozen empty containers in Calgary that have dwelled for more than a week and another 20 loaded boxes in Vaughan dwelling between four and five days. The second CPKC partner confirmed its dwell in Calgary has exceeded seven days in recent weeks compared with the normal two-day dwell to reposition empty boxes. “I can’t satisfy my outbound demand [in eastern Canada] when I’ve got those delays,” said the first CPKC partner. Wahba disputed that there are major disruptions in Calgary or Vaughan. Any delays were confined to a small number of containers shipped under CPKC’s lowest-tier offering, known as the “Flex” service, he said, adding that customers using the railroad’s “Premium” or “Standard” services have not seen delays. “Flex is the lowest-cost service we offer. It gives us the discretion to move containers at our convenience,” Wahba said. “If someone says their box waited five days but they bought Flex, that’s not a failure; that’s what was purchased.” But the two Canadian partners say they have also experienced delays for containers booked under CPKC’s Premium and Standard tiers. Ron Tepper, CEO of Fastfrate Group, said his company has not experienced service issues in Canada, where Fastfrate is CPKC’s highest-volume intermodal marketing company. Fastfrate books containers with CPKC through a mix of all three service levels, although a majority of its business is not moved via Flex. “We’re doing just fine. Calgary’s running great, Vaughan is fine,” Tepper told the Journal of Commerce. “From our perspective, CPKC is running well. We don’t have any issues. If we have an issue, we raise our hand, and they fix it.” CPKC said longer dwells are not unusual under the Flex tier, especially with its intermodal volume being up 11% year over year in the second quarter through last week, according to data submitted to the Association of American Railroads. “We’re handling record volumes right now, double-digit growth, and we’re doing it with high service levels,” Wahba said. “We’re not perfect. We know that. But I do believe a lot of the experience customers are having is dependent on what product they’re buying and how they’re set up to execute with us.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A series of operational challenges at intermodal terminals owned by Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) over the past 30 days has triggered rail delays and rising container dwell times, leading to frustration among some of the railroad’s customers, sources say. But the severity of the impact appears to vary, with other logistics providers reporting stable service and timely communication from CPKC. While the most significant delays have occurred in Wylie, Texas, outside of Dallas, issues have also been raised in Calgary and the Toronto suburb of Vaughan, Ontario. The issues in Wylie stem from technical glitches linked to the early May switch from legacy Kansas City Southern operating systems to CPKC systems. The rollout on May 3 caused problems with driver registration and container notifications, prompting CPKC to fly staff from Canada to Texas and deploy terminal employees to sit at the gates in Wylie to handwrite receipts to enter and exit the premises. Three CPKC customers — two intermodal providers and one trucking company — told the Journal of Commerce that truck drivers have sat in traffic for more than five hours since the switchover. One of the intermodal providers said delays are still rampant at the Wiley terminal, with some of its containers stuck for more than nine days as of May 21. The three companies asked not to be identified because of their ongoing business relationship with CPKC. “The last several weeks of grounding containers [at Wylie] has been horrid,” said the trucking executive. “[CPKC has] fallen flat on their face.” CPKC, meanwhile, acknowledged delays in Wylie but denied there were any disruptions in Calgary or Vaughan. “We had a very large systems change from legacy Kansas City Southern to CPKC systems,” said Jonathan Wahba, senior vice president of sales at CPKC. “Where we fell down was around driver training in the Wylie market about the switch.” Wahba noted the railroad brought staff in from Canada to help steady operations at the terminal. “We took it seriously and corrected it,” he said. Schneider National, CPKC’s top partner in the US, characterized the Wylie disruption as a minor setback, saying its drivers were prepared for the systems switchover at Wylie and that CPKC worked quickly to resolve any issues. Dispute over Canadian service Amid the Texas disruption, two CPKC partners in Canada have complained about delays inside the Calgary and Vaughan (Toronto) terminals. Both partners said while train departures remained on schedule, there have been delays in the time between when containers are in-gated at the terminals and when they depart, known as origin dwell. The Canadian partners asked not to be identified because of their ongoing relationship with CPKC. The first partner showed the Journal of Commerce a list of nearly two dozen empty containers in Calgary that have dwelled for more than a week and another 20 loaded boxes in Vaughan dwelling between four and five days. The second CPKC partner confirmed its dwell in Calgary has exceeded seven days in recent weeks compared with the normal two-day dwell to reposition empty boxes. “I can’t satisfy my outbound demand [in eastern Canada] when I’ve got those delays,” said the first CPKC partner. Wahba disputed that there are major disruptions in Calgary or Vaughan. Any delays were confined to a small number of containers shipped under CPKC’s lowest-tier offering, known as the “Flex” service, he said, adding that customers using the railroad’s “Premium” or “Standard” services have not seen delays. “Flex is the lowest-cost service we offer. It gives us the discretion to move containers at our convenience,” Wahba said. “If someone says their box waited five days but they bought Flex, that’s not a failure; that’s what was purchased.” But the two Canadian partners say they have also experienced delays for containers booked under CPKC’s Premium and Standard tiers. Ron Tepper, CEO of Fastfrate Group, said his company has not experienced service issues in Canada, where Fastfrate is CPKC’s highest-volume intermodal marketing company. Fastfrate books containers with CPKC through a mix of all three service levels, although a majority of its business is not moved via Flex. “We’re doing just fine. Calgary’s running great, Vaughan is fine,” Tepper told the Journal of Commerce. “From our perspective, CPKC is running well. We don’t have any issues. If we have an issue, we raise our hand, and they fix it.” CPKC said longer dwells are not unusual under the Flex tier, especially with its intermodal volume being up 11% year over year in the second quarter through last week, according to data submitted to the Association of American Railroads. “We’re handling record volumes right now, double-digit growth, and we’re doing it with high service levels,” Wahba said. “We’re not perfect. We know that. But I do believe a lot of the experience customers are having is dependent on what product they’re buying and how they’re set up to execute with us.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Intermodal providers

North-American rail

CPKC grapples with complaints over US, Canada terminal operations

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 MDRW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code MDW25 at checkout to save 25% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

Use code MDW25 at checkout and save 25% on any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

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

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW25 at checkout to save 25% on first year of any annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW25 at checkout and save 25% on any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDRW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The Journal of Commerce’s trucking news and analysis encompasses full truckload, less-than-truckload (LTL), private fleet trucking, refrigerated trucking, regulation, drayage, and transloading. Reporting centers on pricing, volume demand, capacity, labor, regulation, and service levels in US and Canadian trucking networks.

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

Rail News

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

Intermodal Savings Index

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

More News & Analysis

General air cargo in decline as China-US e-commerce boom slows

Cargolux inks three-year green fuel deal to handle Microsoft cargo

Journal of Commerce Rankings: US LTL sector defies soft demand, regains traction