<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Hapag could leverage Zim-owned Gold Star Line’s ready-made ro/ro fleet to expand its offering in the breakbulk market, but overcapacity provides potential headwinds. </div>

Hapag could leverage Zim-owned Gold Star Line’s ready-made ro/ro fleet to expand its offering in the breakbulk market, but overcapacity provides potential headwinds.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">planned $4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services</a> offers an opportunity to develop the car carrier business established by Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate Gold Star Line (GSL), shipping executives say. GSL currently operates two roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) services linking Asia and Latin America and Asia with Africa. The Gold Star Pacific Vehicle Carrier (GPL) service includes calls at Shanghai, Masan (South Korea) and Yokohama, linking with Mazatlan and Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico, Buenaventura (Colombia) and San Antonio (Chile). Current vessel schedules show on-demand inducement calls at California’s Port Hueneme and Manta in Ecuador. Similarly, the VEC service includes calls such as Kobe (Japan), Taicang and Shanghai in China, Mombasa (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania). Vessels listed under the same service are also calling at Paranagua in Brazil and Victoria in Spain in the next few weeks. Gold Star’s car carriers also call at Ashdod in Israel. GSL has developed its car carrier operations through specialized business, “targeting niche trades where we can provide a competitive service,” a senior source close to the company told the Journal of Commerce. “As a global operator, we have an ability to pivot quickly and efficiently towards areas to help our customers and their pain points,” the executive added. A third GSL ro/ro service connecting Asia and Europe has been suspended, although it could be reinstated. <h3>Operating a lean fleet </h3>Esgian, an Oslo, Norway-headquartered maritime consultant, said Gold Star Line has trimmed its ro/ro operations in the last few months. “Our data shows GSL currently operates a ro/ro fleet of 13 vessels,” Mijeong Jang Rolfsen, Esgian’s senior market impact analyst/shipping, told the Journal of Commerce. The vessels vary in size between 4,000 and 6,500 car equivalent units (CEUs) and are mostly chartered from other operators including Gram Car Carriers, Zodiac Maritime and Cido Shipping. “In terms of commercial footprint, Gold Star Line recorded 72 port calls in Q4 2025, which is 12% down from the previous quarter [Q3 2025], spanning Asia with services extending to South America and selected ports in Africa,” Rolfsen said. Captain Igal Dafni, who was Gold Star Line’s managing director in the early 2000s, said GSL’s ro/ro services are potentially a new source of business for Hapag-Lloyd. Dafni agreed Hapag-Lloyd could use the moves into the car carrier sector by rival container lines Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM as a blueprint for its own expansion into the market, using GSL’s existing network as the foundation. “But I’m not sure what it will do,” he said. MSC entered the vehicle carrier sector in 2024 after acquiring Gram Car Carriers and has a fleet of approximately 20 pure car and truck carriers. CMA CGM operates ro/ro services in the Mediterranean and North Africa. <h3>Flurry of new vessels pressurizing the sector </h3>While GSL is focused on bespoke services that should be more profitable, the wider car carrier sector is facing increasing headwinds, especially potential overcapacity that could hit freight rates. “There is a huge backlog of new vessels to be delivered between 2026 [and] 2030 which will create significant pressure for tonnage providers and operators,” a senior executive at a European freight forwarder specializing in the vehicle carrier sector told the Journal of Commerce. British shipbroker Clarksons said there are 140 car carriers on order, equivalent to 16% of the existing fleet of 899 ships, although 27% of the fleet is over 20 years old and is a likely candidate for scrapping. “So, I am not so sure the sector will continue to boom and [be] ... a great market to enter, especially if you are not well established,” the forwarding executive said. “It could be Hapag-Lloyd will keep GSL’s existing car carrier services until they feel comfortable and see how things turn out.” Hapag-Lloyd and Gold Star Line executives told the Journal of Commerce it was too early to comment on how the Hamburg-based carrier would develop GSL’s business. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd’s planned $4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services offers an opportunity to develop the car carrier business established by Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate Gold Star Line (GSL), shipping executives say. GSL currently operates two roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) services linking Asia and Latin America and Asia with Africa. The Gold Star Pacific Vehicle Carrier (GPL) service includes calls at Shanghai, Masan (South Korea) and Yokohama, linking with Mazatlan and Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico, Buenaventura (Colombia) and San Antonio (Chile). Current vessel schedules show on-demand inducement calls at California’s Port Hueneme and Manta in Ecuador. Similarly, the VEC service includes calls such as Kobe (Japan), Taicang and Shanghai in China, Mombasa (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania). Vessels listed under the same service are also calling at Paranagua in Brazil and Victoria in Spain in the next few weeks. Gold Star’s car carriers also call at Ashdod in Israel. GSL has developed its car carrier operations through specialized business, “targeting niche trades where we can provide a competitive service,” a senior source close to the company told the Journal of Commerce. “As a global operator, we have an ability to pivot quickly and efficiently towards areas to help our customers and their pain points,” the executive added. A third GSL ro/ro service connecting Asia and Europe has been suspended, although it could be reinstated. Operating a lean fleet Esgian, an Oslo, Norway-headquartered maritime consultant, said Gold Star Line has trimmed its ro/ro operations in the last few months. “Our data shows GSL currently operates a ro/ro fleet of 13 vessels,” Mijeong Jang Rolfsen, Esgian’s senior market impact analyst/shipping, told the Journal of Commerce. The vessels vary in size between 4,000 and 6,500 car equivalent units (CEUs) and are mostly chartered from other operators including Gram Car Carriers, Zodiac Maritime and Cido Shipping. “In terms of commercial footprint, Gold Star Line recorded 72 port calls in Q4 2025, which is 12% down from the previous quarter [Q3 2025], spanning Asia with services extending to South America and selected ports in Africa,” Rolfsen said. Captain Igal Dafni, who was Gold Star Line’s managing director in the early 2000s, said GSL’s ro/ro services are potentially a new source of business for Hapag-Lloyd. Dafni agreed Hapag-Lloyd could use the moves into the car carrier sector by rival container lines Mediterranean Shipping Co. and CMA CGM as a blueprint for its own expansion into the market, using GSL’s existing network as the foundation. “But I’m not sure what it will do,” he said. MSC entered the vehicle carrier sector in 2024 after acquiring Gram Car Carriers and has a fleet of approximately 20 pure car and truck carriers. CMA CGM operates ro/ro services in the Mediterranean and North Africa. Flurry of new vessels pressurizing the sector While GSL is focused on bespoke services that should be more profitable, the wider car carrier sector is facing increasing headwinds, especially potential overcapacity that could hit freight rates. “There is a huge backlog of new vessels to be delivered between 2026 [and] 2030 which will create significant pressure for tonnage providers and operators,” a senior executive at a European freight forwarder specializing in the vehicle carrier sector told the Journal of Commerce. British shipbroker Clarksons said there are 140 car carriers on order, equivalent to 16% of the existing fleet of 899 ships, although 27% of the fleet is over 20 years old and is a likely candidate for scrapping. “So, I am not so sure the sector will continue to boom and [be] ... a great market to enter, especially if you are not well established,” the forwarding executive said. “It could be Hapag-Lloyd will keep GSL’s existing car carrier services until they feel comfortable and see how things turn out.” Hapag-Lloyd and Gold Star Line executives told the Journal of Commerce it was too early to comment on how the Hamburg-based carrier would develop GSL’s business. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Breakbulk News

Maritime

Zim deal offers Hapag-Lloyd entry into niche car carrier market  

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Europe’s largest port handled 14.2 million TEUs during what was described by its CEO as “a challenging year” set against a backdrop of escalating geopolitical tensions. </div>

Europe’s largest port handled 14.2 million TEUs during what was described by its CEO as “a challenging year” set against a backdrop of escalating geopolitical tensions.

<div class="phx-topic">Container volume at the Port of Rotterdam grew 3.1% in 2025, driven by a second-half surge in imports from Asia and rising trade with North America that boosted annual throughput. But the volume growth at Europe’s largest port was held back by ongoing congestion last year as carrier alliance restructuring saw “a significant amount of throughput volume” being diverted to other ports, Rotterdam said in a statement Thursday. A total of 14.2 million TEUs crossed Rotterdam’s busy wharves in 2025, which was “a challenging year” that came against “a backdrop of further escalating geopolitical tensions,” according to Boudewijn Siemons, CEO of the Port of Rotterdam Authority. “Chemical and logistics companies in our port were under considerable pressure and European industry was affected by increasing global competition,” Siemons said. “A continued focus on resilience, agility and intensive cooperation at the national and European level is crucial in this regard — both for the supply chain and for industry,” he added. Rotterdam’s imports of 6.8 million TEUs for the full year were down 5.7% year over year, but within those numbers was a 9.3% increase in imports from Asia and a 13.6% increase in two-way trade with North America. Total exports were up 12.7% at 7.4 million TEUs. <h3>Europe’s competitive position eroding </h3>The port said Europe’s deteriorating competitive position across several industries placed downward pressure on container volume and transshipment, leading to greater throughput of empty containers. The eroding competitive position of European industry also weighed heavily on Rotterdam’s steel, coal and raw materials bulk shipments, with concerns raised by the port over lagging investment in industry by the business community. Over the past 12 months, several chemical companies have announced plans to close their factories in Rotterdam, and investments in new and ongoing projects have been halted, primarily in renewable fuels, the port statement noted. “The measures taken by the government in 2025 are positive, but insufficient to level the playing field in the Netherlands with that in Europe,” the port said. “Additionally, competition from countries such as China remains evident.” The government measures focused on providing more predictable tax policies for industry, enhancing innovation in key technological sectors and reducing the regulatory burden. From a eurozone perspective, there was positive news in the latest Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) compiled by Hamburg Commercial Bank and Journal of Commerce parent S&amp;P Global. Cyrus de la Rubia, chief economist at Hamburg Commercial Bank, said Europe’s manufacturing sector could be at a turning point, with the headline PMI in February showing business activity rising at its fastest pace in three months. “Overall, it seems that the manufacturing sector is on a more stable footing and could contribute to overall growth this year instead of being a drag for the economy,” de la Rubia wrote in his analysis of the PMI results. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Container volume at the Port of Rotterdam grew 3.1% in 2025, driven by a second-half surge in imports from Asia and rising trade with North America that boosted annual throughput. But the volume growth at Europe’s largest port was held back by ongoing congestion last year as carrier alliance restructuring saw “a significant amount of throughput volume” being diverted to other ports, Rotterdam said in a statement Thursday. A total of 14.2 million TEUs crossed Rotterdam’s busy wharves in 2025, which was “a challenging year” that came against “a backdrop of further escalating geopolitical tensions,” according to Boudewijn Siemons, CEO of the Port of Rotterdam Authority. “Chemical and logistics companies in our port were under considerable pressure and European industry was affected by increasing global competition,” Siemons said. “A continued focus on resilience, agility and intensive cooperation at the national and European level is crucial in this regard — both for the supply chain and for industry,” he added. Rotterdam’s imports of 6.8 million TEUs for the full year were down 5.7% year over year, but within those numbers was a 9.3% increase in imports from Asia and a 13.6% increase in two-way trade with North America. Total exports were up 12.7% at 7.4 million TEUs. Europe’s competitive position eroding The port said Europe’s deteriorating competitive position across several industries placed downward pressure on container volume and transshipment, leading to greater throughput of empty containers. The eroding competitive position of European industry also weighed heavily on Rotterdam’s steel, coal and raw materials bulk shipments, with concerns raised by the port over lagging investment in industry by the business community. Over the past 12 months, several chemical companies have announced plans to close their factories in Rotterdam, and investments in new and ongoing projects have been halted, primarily in renewable fuels, the port statement noted. “The measures taken by the government in 2025 are positive, but insufficient to level the playing field in the Netherlands with that in Europe,” the port said. “Additionally, competition from countries such as China remains evident.” The government measures focused on providing more predictable tax policies for industry, enhancing innovation in key technological sectors and reducing the regulatory burden. From a eurozone perspective, there was positive news in the latest Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) compiled by Hamburg Commercial Bank and Journal of Commerce parent S&P Global. Cyrus de la Rubia, chief economist at Hamburg Commercial Bank, said Europe’s manufacturing sector could be at a turning point, with the headline PMI in February showing business activity rising at its fastest pace in three months. “Overall, it seems that the manufacturing sector is on a more stable footing and could contribute to overall growth this year instead of being a drag for the economy,” de la Rubia wrote in his analysis of the PMI results. Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com . 

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

International ports

Rotterdam congestion limits benefit of second-half surge in imports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Premier Alliance carriers may not have the most chips in the game, but in a world where all the alliances are competing to provide the best product, they can inject some very useful capacity to enhance particular trade lanes, writes Jeremy Masters.</div>

Premier Alliance carriers may not have the most chips in the game, but in a world where all the alliances are competing to provide the best product, they can inject some very useful capacity to enhance particular trade lanes, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">Recent articles on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">Hapag Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services</a> have naturally focused on the additional critical mass it brings the fifth-largest carrier. It also has some signals for others. If we look at the top 10 carriers, we see the following existing TEU fleet size and capacity on order as of December 2025, (courtesy of Alphaliner): <div class="wrapper-full"><table><colgroup><col width="25%"></col><col width="25%"></col><col width="25%"></col><col width="25%"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Company</th><th class="align-right">Existing Capacity</th><th class="align-right">On Order</th><th class="align-right">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MSC                </td><td class="align-right">7,080,958</td><td class="align-right">2,102,992</td><td class="align-right">9,183,950</td></tr><tr><td>Maersk            </td><td class="align-right">4,602,633</td><td class="align-right">834,770</td><td class="align-right">5,437,403</td></tr><tr><td>CMA CGM </td><td class="align-right">4,081,155</td><td class="align-right"> 1,909,846</td><td class="align-right"> 5,991,001</td></tr><tr><td>Cosco </td><td class="align-right"> 3,553,514</td><td class="align-right">1,168,612</td><td class="align-right">4,722,126</td></tr><tr><td>Hapag-Lloyd</td><td class="align-right">2,412,728</td><td class="align-right">415,220</td><td class="align-right">2,827,948 </td></tr><tr><td>ONE </td><td class="align-right">2,050,500</td><td class="align-right">611,304</td><td class="align-right"> 2,661,804</td></tr><tr><td>Evergreen       </td><td class="align-right">1,938,786</td><td class="align-right">853,113</td><td class="align-right">2,791,899</td></tr><tr><td>HMM               </td><td class="align-right">1,016,180</td><td class="align-right">190,192</td><td class="align-right">1,206,372</td></tr><tr><td>Yang Ming</td><td class="align-right">717,715</td><td class="align-right">236,660</td><td class="align-right">954,375</td></tr><tr><td>Zim</td><td class="align-right">703,598</td><td class="align-right">163,128</td><td class="align-right">866,726</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="4">Source: Alphaliner</td></tr></tfoot></table></div>Switching to consortium carriers, combined existing capacity plus that on order (counting Mediterranean Shipping Co. as a consortium) leaves us with total TEU fleet sizes as follows: <div class="wrapper-full"><table><colgroup><col width="50%"></col><col width="50%"></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Company</th><th class="align-right">Fleet Size</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MSC </td><td class="align-right">9,183,950</td></tr><tr><td>Maersk and HL (including Zim)</td><td class="align-right">9,132,077</td></tr><tr><td>CMA CGM, Cosco and Evergreen</td><td class="align-right">13,505,026</td></tr><tr><td>ONE, HMM and Yang Ming</td><td class="align-right">4,822,551</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2">Alphaliner</td></tr></tfoot></table></div>Of course, relative total fleet capacities do not correlate with relative capacities deployed in the consortium trades, but the above gives a clear guide to overall future strength as it stands. <h3>Significant variation in firepower </h3>MSC continues to surge ahead on both new buildings and second-hand acquisitions, and it would not be a surprise if their ultimate objective is a 30% share of total capacity (they currently sit at 21.5%). The Ocean Alliance of CMA CGM, Cosco (and OOCL), and Evergreen stands out as the biggest consortium by some margin, and the order book reinforces that. The agreement has been extended until 2032, all of the partners are strong, and unless politics gets in the way, this cooperation looks very solid. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6176395_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Whether or not the Zim transaction is completed and however that capacity is operated, Gemini Cooperation has critical mass and, of course, has differentiated itself by its drive for schedule reliability. The current joint vision is clear. The future one may be less so until Maersk’s integrated logistics adventure fully unfolds. Of course, the number that sticks out the most is the capacity of the Premier Alliance carriers of Ocean Network Express, HMM and Yang Ming. After newbuildings, it is 36% of the Ocean Alliance carriers and 53% of MSC and the Gemini carriers, including Zim. Previous articles have visited why capacity is not everything in a consortium and why THE Alliance (now Premier) carriers left behind by Hapag-Lloyd had more options than was originally perceived. Premier moved forward with great dexterity, and multi-trade viability was clutched from the jaws of impending marginalization. Slot exchanges with MSC on the Asia-to-Europe trade, slot purchases from Ocean Alliance to the North American West Coast, and joint services/slotting with Ocean Alliance on the trans-Atlantic were a critical part of that solution. <h3>Options for Premier </h3>Premier may not have the most chips in the game, but in a world where all the alliances are competing to provide the best product, they can inject some very useful capacity to enhance particular trade lanes. They also have enough capacity that any streamlined services they operate have the ability to be market disruptive, so there is an element of “keeping your enemy close,” or to be more exact, under control. On the flip side, we are about to enter a sustained period of structural overcapacity that could have negative effects on Premier as follows: other consortiums taking capacity out and streamlining services, which may reduce their need/desire for using capacity from outside their alliance members; and financial results coming under pressure, with those carriers with less economies of scale feeling the pinch first. Still, we are nowhere near a crisis point in the industry, and the carriers still have some potential to stabilize things. Given Premier’s strategic position, however, they may need to revisit their options calmly before any storm hits. Some potential areas: 1) ONE buying HMM or Yang Ming to consolidate their strength and reduce the vulnerability of Premier. 2) ONE, HMM or Yang Ming ramping up capacity by buying one or more carriers outside the top 10, or otherwise acquiring additional capacity (although in the current situation, any net addition of capacity would further exacerbate overcapacity). 3) Inviting one of the bigger carriers outside the top 10 such as Wan Hai or PIL to join Premier. 4) Recalibrating consortium trade focus. There is no rule that says the main consortiums need to be focused exclusively on east-west trades. If problems do hit, Premier also has the option to rationalize its east-west network and pick its spots where it can build competitive products. In that situation, it will certainly want to positively differentiate its physical or customer service product as Gemini has done with schedule reliability. The Premier Alliance carriers have proven they can be agile and inventive, and they will need to be again. Jeremy Masters is managing director of Shipping Masters. Contact him at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

Recent articles on Hapag Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services have naturally focused on the additional critical mass it brings the fifth-largest carrier. It also has some signals for others. If we look at the top 10 carriers, we see the following existing TEU fleet size and capacity on order as of December 2025, (courtesy of Alphaliner): Company Existing Capacity On Order Total MSC                 7,080,958 2,102,992 9,183,950 Maersk            4,602,633 834,770 5,437,403 CMA CGM 4,081,155 1,909,846 5,991,001 Cosco 3,553,514 1,168,612 4,722,126 Hapag-Lloyd 2,412,728 415,220 2,827,948 ONE 2,050,500 611,304 2,661,804 Evergreen       1,938,786 853,113 2,791,899 HMM               1,016,180 190,192 1,206,372 Yang Ming 717,715 236,660 954,375 Zim 703,598 163,128 866,726 Source: Alphaliner Switching to consortium carriers, combined existing capacity plus that on order (counting Mediterranean Shipping Co. as a consortium) leaves us with total TEU fleet sizes as follows: Company Fleet Size MSC 9,183,950 Maersk and HL (including Zim) 9,132,077 CMA CGM, Cosco and Evergreen 13,505,026 ONE, HMM and Yang Ming 4,822,551 Alphaliner Of course, relative total fleet capacities do not correlate with relative capacities deployed in the consortium trades, but the above gives a clear guide to overall future strength as it stands. Significant variation in firepower MSC continues to surge ahead on both new buildings and second-hand acquisitions, and it would not be a surprise if their ultimate objective is a 30% share of total capacity (they currently sit at 21.5%). The Ocean Alliance of CMA CGM, Cosco (and OOCL), and Evergreen stands out as the biggest consortium by some margin, and the order book reinforces that. The agreement has been extended until 2032, all of the partners are strong, and unless politics gets in the way, this cooperation looks very solid. Whether or not the Zim transaction is completed and however that capacity is operated, Gemini Cooperation has critical mass and, of course, has differentiated itself by its drive for schedule reliability. The current joint vision is clear. The future one may be less so until Maersk’s integrated logistics adventure fully unfolds. Of course, the number that sticks out the most is the capacity of the Premier Alliance carriers of Ocean Network Express, HMM and Yang Ming. After newbuildings, it is 36% of the Ocean Alliance carriers and 53% of MSC and the Gemini carriers, including Zim. Previous articles have visited why capacity is not everything in a consortium and why THE Alliance (now Premier) carriers left behind by Hapag-Lloyd had more options than was originally perceived. Premier moved forward with great dexterity, and multi-trade viability was clutched from the jaws of impending marginalization. Slot exchanges with MSC on the Asia-to-Europe trade, slot purchases from Ocean Alliance to the North American West Coast, and joint services/slotting with Ocean Alliance on the trans-Atlantic were a critical part of that solution. Options for Premier Premier may not have the most chips in the game, but in a world where all the alliances are competing to provide the best product, they can inject some very useful capacity to enhance particular trade lanes. They also have enough capacity that any streamlined services they operate have the ability to be market disruptive, so there is an element of “keeping your enemy close,” or to be more exact, under control. On the flip side, we are about to enter a sustained period of structural overcapacity that could have negative effects on Premier as follows: other consortiums taking capacity out and streamlining services, which may reduce their need/desire for using capacity from outside their alliance members; and financial results coming under pressure, with those carriers with less economies of scale feeling the pinch first. Still, we are nowhere near a crisis point in the industry, and the carriers still have some potential to stabilize things. Given Premier’s strategic position, however, they may need to revisit their options calmly before any storm hits. Some potential areas: 1) ONE buying HMM or Yang Ming to consolidate their strength and reduce the vulnerability of Premier. 2) ONE, HMM or Yang Ming ramping up capacity by buying one or more carriers outside the top 10, or otherwise acquiring additional capacity (although in the current situation, any net addition of capacity would further exacerbate overcapacity). 3) Inviting one of the bigger carriers outside the top 10 such as Wan Hai or PIL to join Premier. 4) Recalibrating consortium trade focus. There is no rule that says the main consortiums need to be focused exclusively on east-west trades. If problems do hit, Premier also has the option to rationalize its east-west network and pick its spots where it can build competitive products. In that situation, it will certainly want to positively differentiate its physical or customer service product as Gemini has done with schedule reliability. The Premier Alliance carriers have proven they can be agile and inventive, and they will need to be again. Jeremy Masters is managing director of Shipping Masters. Contact him at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

Container lines

After Hapag-Zim deal, Premier Alliance may be next in the spotlight

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The widely used freight forwarding software vendor said artificial intelligence is enabling it to reduce staff in roles that include programming, product development and customer service.</div>

The widely used freight forwarding software vendor said artificial intelligence is enabling it to reduce staff in roles that include programming, product development and customer service.

<div class="phx-topic">WiseTech Global will lay off approximately 2,000 of its employees — nearly 30% of its current workforce — over the next two years because of the efficiencies artificial intelligence will bring to its ability to develop products and interact with customers, the forwarding software vendor said Wednesday. The announcement overshadowed WiseTech’s earnings release for the first half of its fiscal year and sparked a double-digit spike in the company’s share price. WiseTech CEO Zubin Appoo explained in a pre-recorded video message that the workforce reduction was due to the progression of AI tools, those developed internally and by the largest AI model developers such as Anthropic, OpenAI and Google. Cuts will come from roles that include programming, product development, and customer service. “This decision was not taken lightly, but it was necessary to ensure we stay disciplined, nimble, competitive, and future-ready,” Appoo said in the video. “A transformation of this scale will fundamentally reshape our cost base while allowing for an uplift in productivity.” The move comes months after Australia-based WiseTech shook the market <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cargowises-pricing-model-change-could-mark-final-milestone-in-market-ascent-6133279">with a pricing model change</a> that affected virtually all of its forwarder, customs brokers and third-party logistics provider customers. It also comes as WiseTech integrates its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/wisetech-makes-2-billion-gamble-on-overturning-complicated-software-history-6013221">largest-ever acquisition</a>, a $2.1 billion purchase of E2open last May, one that expanded the company’s customer reach from 3PLs to shippers. Taken together, those moves could be seen as WiseTech prepping itself for a future where AI transforms how software is built, sold and used, rather than waiting for those changes to undermine its business. WiseTech’s planned layoffs and its emphasis on AI can also be seen as a warning shot to software providers that either act as agentic layers on top of CargoWise — WiseTech’s flagship product — or focus on automating processes inside of CargoWise. Either way, the news will surely reverberate around the market, with software companies that have a fraction of WiseTech’s revenue and a lower operating margin asking themselves if their headcount is optimal given the impact AI is having. The move to cut a significant portion of its workforce should also be viewed through the lens that WiseTech must juggle public market scrutiny in a way that privately-held logistics technology providers do not. The narrative around AI potentially eroding the value of publicly-traded software vendors and data providers has surely spooked companies into showing that they are indeed ready for what AI will do to their products, customers, market share and profit margin. <h3>Revenue growth </h3>The announcement of layoffs comes as WiseTech reported solid financials for the first half of its fiscal year. The company posted operating profits of $252.1 million for the period between July 1 and Dec. 31 on revenue of $672 million, an operating margin of 38%. Total revenue in the first half increased 76% year over year, but much of that growth was attributable to the addition of E2open revenue. Organic revenue growth in the period was 12% Additionally, the company said it has lessened its reliance on its biggest customers over the past year, with 23% of its revenue coming from its top 20 customers in the first half of its current fiscal year, down from 33% in the same period in 2025. Another development worth noting from WiseTech’s fiscal year first-half earnings is its continued focus around building a one-stop shop for logistics software, one that encompasses international and domestic freight procurement, execution, payment and analytics, alongside trade compliance and accounting. The company is not there yet, as most of its customer base is still tied to international forwarding or customs compliance, but the intent is to move in that direction. WiseTech’s share price rose 11% Wednesday on the Australian stock exchange after the planned layoffs were announced. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

WiseTech Global will lay off approximately 2,000 of its employees — nearly 30% of its current workforce — over the next two years because of the efficiencies artificial intelligence will bring to its ability to develop products and interact with customers, the forwarding software vendor said Wednesday. The announcement overshadowed WiseTech’s earnings release for the first half of its fiscal year and sparked a double-digit spike in the company’s share price. WiseTech CEO Zubin Appoo explained in a pre-recorded video message that the workforce reduction was due to the progression of AI tools, those developed internally and by the largest AI model developers such as Anthropic, OpenAI and Google. Cuts will come from roles that include programming, product development, and customer service. “This decision was not taken lightly, but it was necessary to ensure we stay disciplined, nimble, competitive, and future-ready,” Appoo said in the video. “A transformation of this scale will fundamentally reshape our cost base while allowing for an uplift in productivity.” The move comes months after Australia-based WiseTech shook the market with a pricing model change that affected virtually all of its forwarder, customs brokers and third-party logistics provider customers. It also comes as WiseTech integrates its largest-ever acquisition , a $2.1 billion purchase of E2open last May, one that expanded the company’s customer reach from 3PLs to shippers. Taken together, those moves could be seen as WiseTech prepping itself for a future where AI transforms how software is built, sold and used, rather than waiting for those changes to undermine its business. WiseTech’s planned layoffs and its emphasis on AI can also be seen as a warning shot to software providers that either act as agentic layers on top of CargoWise — WiseTech’s flagship product — or focus on automating processes inside of CargoWise. Either way, the news will surely reverberate around the market, with software companies that have a fraction of WiseTech’s revenue and a lower operating margin asking themselves if their headcount is optimal given the impact AI is having. The move to cut a significant portion of its workforce should also be viewed through the lens that WiseTech must juggle public market scrutiny in a way that privately-held logistics technology providers do not. The narrative around AI potentially eroding the value of publicly-traded software vendors and data providers has surely spooked companies into showing that they are indeed ready for what AI will do to their products, customers, market share and profit margin. Revenue growth The announcement of layoffs comes as WiseTech reported solid financials for the first half of its fiscal year. The company posted operating profits of $252.1 million for the period between July 1 and Dec. 31 on revenue of $672 million, an operating margin of 38%. Total revenue in the first half increased 76% year over year, but much of that growth was attributable to the addition of E2open revenue. Organic revenue growth in the period was 12% Additionally, the company said it has lessened its reliance on its biggest customers over the past year, with 23% of its revenue coming from its top 20 customers in the first half of its current fiscal year, down from 33% in the same period in 2025. Another development worth noting from WiseTech’s fiscal year first-half earnings is its continued focus around building a one-stop shop for logistics software, one that encompasses international and domestic freight procurement, execution, payment and analytics, alongside trade compliance and accounting. The company is not there yet, as most of its customer base is still tied to international forwarding or customs compliance, but the intent is to move in that direction. WiseTech’s share price rose 11% Wednesday on the Australian stock exchange after the planned layoffs were announced. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Logistics Technology News

Supply chain

WiseTech says to cut nearly 30% of workforce as it preps for AI era

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Nixon, one of the most recognized executives in container shipping, led the transformation of legacy Japanese carriers K Line, MOL and NYK into a unified global company based in Singapore. </div>

Nixon, one of the most recognized executives in container shipping, led the transformation of legacy Japanese carriers K Line, MOL and NYK into a unified global company based in Singapore.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean Network Express CEO Jeremy Nixon will step down on July 1 from the leadership position he has held since ONE’s inception in 2018 and turn over the helm to industry veteran Till Ole Barrelet. The change was part of a “planned leadership transition” and will not have any impact on customers, the carrier said in a statement Wednesday. Nixon is one of the most recognized executives in container shipping and will stay on with ONE as a senior advisor after Barrelet becomes CEO. “Leading ONE from day one has been the defining chapter of my career,” Nixon said in the statement. “Now is the right time for new leadership, and I am very confident in Till’s ability to lead ONE forward.” Barrelet has more than 20 years of maritime and logistics experience, most recently serving as CEO of Emirates Shipping Line. He has expertise in ship owning, financing, container shipping and trade development across Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. In addition to a change at the top, ONE will transition to a new executive management team structure comprising the CEO and seven representatives from across all the carrier’s divisions. The new executive team, together with six regional leaders, will report into the CEO. “As our founding CEO, Jeremy has helped build ONE from the ground up, establishing our corporate culture and market position,” said Jotaro Tamura, representative director and chairman of Ocean Network Express Holdings. Nixon has been a regular presence at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM conference in Long Beach, and will speak at TPM26 next Monday. <h3>Transforming three Japanese carriers </h3>As CEO of ONE, Nixon presided over the transformation of the container segments of legacy Japanese carriers K Line, MOL and NYK into a unified global container shipping company based in Singapore. Prior to taking the top job at ONE, he headed up the container division at NYK and served in senior management positions at P&amp;O Nedlloyd and Maersk. Under his stewardship, ONE’s fleet grew from 1.5 million TEUs to more than 260 vessels with capacity exceeding 2 million TEUs. Another 1.15 million TEUs of capacity are on order. ONE recorded a loss in 2018–19, its first year of operation, but rode the massive profitability wave generated during the pandemic-impacted years that followed. That profitability came to an end in the fiscal third quarter of ONE’s 2025 financial year when <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">the carrier posted an $88 million net loss</a>. “ONE is well-positioned to navigate industry headwinds with an increasingly modern fleet, financial strength, and proven capabilities,” Till said in the statement. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean Network Express CEO Jeremy Nixon will step down on July 1 from the leadership position he has held since ONE’s inception in 2018 and turn over the helm to industry veteran Till Ole Barrelet. The change was part of a “planned leadership transition” and will not have any impact on customers, the carrier said in a statement Wednesday. Nixon is one of the most recognized executives in container shipping and will stay on with ONE as a senior advisor after Barrelet becomes CEO. “Leading ONE from day one has been the defining chapter of my career,” Nixon said in the statement. “Now is the right time for new leadership, and I am very confident in Till’s ability to lead ONE forward.” Barrelet has more than 20 years of maritime and logistics experience, most recently serving as CEO of Emirates Shipping Line. He has expertise in ship owning, financing, container shipping and trade development across Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. In addition to a change at the top, ONE will transition to a new executive management team structure comprising the CEO and seven representatives from across all the carrier’s divisions. The new executive team, together with six regional leaders, will report into the CEO. “As our founding CEO, Jeremy has helped build ONE from the ground up, establishing our corporate culture and market position,” said Jotaro Tamura, representative director and chairman of Ocean Network Express Holdings. Nixon has been a regular presence at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM conference in Long Beach, and will speak at TPM26 next Monday. Transforming three Japanese carriers As CEO of ONE, Nixon presided over the transformation of the container segments of legacy Japanese carriers K Line, MOL and NYK into a unified global container shipping company based in Singapore. Prior to taking the top job at ONE, he headed up the container division at NYK and served in senior management positions at P&O Nedlloyd and Maersk. Under his stewardship, ONE’s fleet grew from 1.5 million TEUs to more than 260 vessels with capacity exceeding 2 million TEUs. Another 1.15 million TEUs of capacity are on order. ONE recorded a loss in 2018–19, its first year of operation, but rode the massive profitability wave generated during the pandemic-impacted years that followed. That profitability came to an end in the fiscal third quarter of ONE’s 2025 financial year when the carrier posted an $88 million net loss . “ONE is well-positioned to navigate industry headwinds with an increasingly modern fleet, financial strength, and proven capabilities,” Till said in the statement. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Jeremy Nixon to step down as ONE CEO after eight years at the helm

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Forwarders say reefer-centric Indian grape exports combined with sporadic vessel schedule disruptions have enabled carriers to adjust rates upward on the trade lane.</div>

Forwarders say reefer-centric Indian grape exports combined with sporadic vessel schedule disruptions have enabled carriers to adjust rates upward on the trade lane.

<div class="phx-topic">Major container lines operating on the India-Europe/Mediterranean trades have pushed spot rates for February sailings noticeably higher while signaling that further increases are in the cards for March. Carrier spot rate asks are up by $400 to $500 per TEU/FEU from January, according to forwarder sources. Average spot pricing from Nhava Sheva/Mundra (West India) to Felixstowe/London Gateway/Rotterdam now stands at $1,300 to $1,400 per dry standard container, up from $800 to $900 a month ago. Sources reported similar spot gains for Indian loads to the Mediterranean, with February quotes hovering at $1,400 to $1,500 per TEU/FEU for Genoa (Italy) bookings and $2,000 to $2,200 per TEU/FEU for Egypt’s Port Said. Forwarders believe that seasonal reefer-centric Indian grape export bookings combined with sporadic vessel schedule disruptions have enabled carriers to adjust rates upward on the India-Europe trade lane. “Even some of the typically cargo-hungry Asian carriers have lifted spot rates as their slot allocations from network-leading capacity partners dropped,” a Mumbai-based forwarder executive who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. But lead carriers have chosen to hold quarterly contract rates firm because they seem to consider spot gains a temporary or seasonal blip and not a market shift, sources explained. Overall grape volumes in the current season will likely be lower than the historical pattern due to weaker harvest conditions. Available forward vessel schedules point to a few blankings across West India-North Europe networks in March, so forwarders expect tighter capacity to work in favor of the carriers in the spot market in the coming weeks. “Some space crunch is imminent for Europe,” said another executive at a niche reefer forwarder company. “Over the next six to eight weeks, close to 6,000 boxes of grapes have to be exported.” Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Major container lines operating on the India-Europe/Mediterranean trades have pushed spot rates for February sailings noticeably higher while signaling that further increases are in the cards for March. Carrier spot rate asks are up by $400 to $500 per TEU/FEU from January, according to forwarder sources. Average spot pricing from Nhava Sheva/Mundra (West India) to Felixstowe/London Gateway/Rotterdam now stands at $1,300 to $1,400 per dry standard container, up from $800 to $900 a month ago. Sources reported similar spot gains for Indian loads to the Mediterranean, with February quotes hovering at $1,400 to $1,500 per TEU/FEU for Genoa (Italy) bookings and $2,000 to $2,200 per TEU/FEU for Egypt’s Port Said. Forwarders believe that seasonal reefer-centric Indian grape export bookings combined with sporadic vessel schedule disruptions have enabled carriers to adjust rates upward on the India-Europe trade lane. “Even some of the typically cargo-hungry Asian carriers have lifted spot rates as their slot allocations from network-leading capacity partners dropped,” a Mumbai-based forwarder executive who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. But lead carriers have chosen to hold quarterly contract rates firm because they seem to consider spot gains a temporary or seasonal blip and not a market shift, sources explained. Overall grape volumes in the current season will likely be lower than the historical pattern due to weaker harvest conditions. Available forward vessel schedules point to a few blankings across West India-North Europe networks in March, so forwarders expect tighter capacity to work in favor of the carriers in the spot market in the coming weeks. “Some space crunch is imminent for Europe,” said another executive at a niche reefer forwarder company. “Over the next six to eight weeks, close to 6,000 boxes of grapes have to be exported.” Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

India-Europe spot rates climb on seasonal booking demand, tighter capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">That means minimizing drayage without degrading transit, requiring disaggregating volume from larger hubs into smaller ones. </div>

That means minimizing drayage without degrading transit, requiring disaggregating volume from larger hubs into smaller ones.

<div class="phx-topic">With their proposed merger, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have channeled President Abraham Lincoln’s vision for a united transcontinental railroad. Under the tag line “The Great Connection,” they have put forth a vision of a single, integrated rail freight network. Recently, one of their executives touted the benefit from an envisioned “non-stop” service between Los Angeles and northern New Jersey that could be accomplished without needing to change trains in Chicago. This is indeed a powerful service vision. His remarks got me thinking about how airline marketing and flights have become somewhat muddled in their application of terms and performance. For example, many people confuse “non-stop” and “direct.” The former is a single flight that goes from origin to destination without any scheduled stops. One takeoff and one landing. The latter may have one flight number from origin to destination, but may include scheduled stops. Also, passengers may stay on board or change planes. Today, most of the intermodal train network is designed as non-stop at its core. Trains between major hubs run intact without pickups or setouts — although the tenets of precision scheduled railroading (PSR) may look to fill out trains enroute to achieve operating economies. While this works for many intermodal point pairs, it is not comprehensive. A connecting trip requires changing aircraft at an intermediate airport. There are separate flight segments with a layover; you usually change gates and, sometimes, terminals. In rare cases, you may actually need to change airports (e.g., a domestic leg at LaGuardia connecting to an overseas flight at JFK). This is the model for most transcontinental intermodal traffic today and what the UP-NS merger seeks to eliminate. A through flight is one where you stay on the same aircraft across one or more intermediate stops, or the airline provides through-checked baggage and a single itinerary even if you change planes. This is how intermodal efficiently expands scope today. For example, a train may run from Chicago to Harrisburg on one “flight” with the traffic for Philadelphia run as another train from Harrisburg. There are also flights marketed by one airline but operated by another; your ticket may show the marketing airline’s flight number while a partner operates the plane. For example, BNSF offers direct service into CSX facilities in Atlanta and Northwest Ohio. <h3>‘Closest to the pin’ </h3>UP and CSX have a hybrid case of non-stop, connecting code shares. Traffic to Springfield, Mass., is loaded on cars in Los Angeles for non-stop service to Chicago. There the cars are delivered intact to CSX Bedford Park, where they are incorporated into another non-stop train. Of course, in cases of operational trauma, the units may be grounded in Chicago and cross-towned like most traffic. All of this is standard for asset-based, network-operating businesses. There are often competing network economies of scale (larger trains) and scope (more destinations to achieve higher volumes). This is the crux of the “hub-and-spoke” network that so many passenger airlines have implemented. They have a centralized structure: a few hubs connect to many peripheral spokes — which generally do not connect directly to each other. Plane density is achieved, lowering per-unit costs with improved asset utilization. This allows better network reach. Service is enabled between many origin-destination pairs with fewer links than full point-to-point connections. A hub with 10 spokes supports 110 lanes with only 10 spokes. In intermodal, these hubs are at the end points of railroad networks. They offer predictable, scheduled flows with regular, repeatable routes along the spokes. It is scalable because it is easy to add nodes without redesigning the whole network. This is the challenge for intermodal. To compete with trucking, the goal is to seamlessly provide service that looks like trucking but offers economics. That means being “closest to the pin” so as to minimize drayage without degrading transit. This requires disaggregating volume from larger hubs into smaller ones. Not Los Angeles to Croxton rail yard in Jersey City, but LA to ramps beyond immediate North Jersey: i.e., Albany, Allentown, Bethlehem and Philadelphia. And, in the other direction, Croxton to LA, West Colton, and Las Vegas. The ideal outcome would be the ability to connect all of those points in a seamless method in both directions; however, that is probably a future undertaking. For now, we will hopefully keep flying to expanded intermodal networks and service scope. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

With their proposed merger, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have channeled President Abraham Lincoln’s vision for a united transcontinental railroad. Under the tag line “The Great Connection,” they have put forth a vision of a single, integrated rail freight network. Recently, one of their executives touted the benefit from an envisioned “non-stop” service between Los Angeles and northern New Jersey that could be accomplished without needing to change trains in Chicago. This is indeed a powerful service vision. His remarks got me thinking about how airline marketing and flights have become somewhat muddled in their application of terms and performance. For example, many people confuse “non-stop” and “direct.” The former is a single flight that goes from origin to destination without any scheduled stops. One takeoff and one landing. The latter may have one flight number from origin to destination, but may include scheduled stops. Also, passengers may stay on board or change planes. Today, most of the intermodal train network is designed as non-stop at its core. Trains between major hubs run intact without pickups or setouts — although the tenets of precision scheduled railroading (PSR) may look to fill out trains enroute to achieve operating economies. While this works for many intermodal point pairs, it is not comprehensive. A connecting trip requires changing aircraft at an intermediate airport. There are separate flight segments with a layover; you usually change gates and, sometimes, terminals. In rare cases, you may actually need to change airports (e.g., a domestic leg at LaGuardia connecting to an overseas flight at JFK). This is the model for most transcontinental intermodal traffic today and what the UP-NS merger seeks to eliminate. A through flight is one where you stay on the same aircraft across one or more intermediate stops, or the airline provides through-checked baggage and a single itinerary even if you change planes. This is how intermodal efficiently expands scope today. For example, a train may run from Chicago to Harrisburg on one “flight” with the traffic for Philadelphia run as another train from Harrisburg. There are also flights marketed by one airline but operated by another; your ticket may show the marketing airline’s flight number while a partner operates the plane. For example, BNSF offers direct service into CSX facilities in Atlanta and Northwest Ohio. ‘Closest to the pin’ UP and CSX have a hybrid case of non-stop, connecting code shares. Traffic to Springfield, Mass., is loaded on cars in Los Angeles for non-stop service to Chicago. There the cars are delivered intact to CSX Bedford Park, where they are incorporated into another non-stop train. Of course, in cases of operational trauma, the units may be grounded in Chicago and cross-towned like most traffic. All of this is standard for asset-based, network-operating businesses. There are often competing network economies of scale (larger trains) and scope (more destinations to achieve higher volumes). This is the crux of the “hub-and-spoke” network that so many passenger airlines have implemented. They have a centralized structure: a few hubs connect to many peripheral spokes — which generally do not connect directly to each other. Plane density is achieved, lowering per-unit costs with improved asset utilization. This allows better network reach. Service is enabled between many origin-destination pairs with fewer links than full point-to-point connections. A hub with 10 spokes supports 110 lanes with only 10 spokes. In intermodal, these hubs are at the end points of railroad networks. They offer predictable, scheduled flows with regular, repeatable routes along the spokes. It is scalable because it is easy to add nodes without redesigning the whole network. This is the challenge for intermodal. To compete with trucking, the goal is to seamlessly provide service that looks like trucking but offers economics. That means being “closest to the pin” so as to minimize drayage without degrading transit. This requires disaggregating volume from larger hubs into smaller ones. Not Los Angeles to Croxton rail yard in Jersey City, but LA to ramps beyond immediate North Jersey: i.e., Albany, Allentown, Bethlehem and Philadelphia. And, in the other direction, Croxton to LA, West Colton, and Las Vegas. The ideal outcome would be the ability to connect all of those points in a seamless method in both directions; however, that is probably a future undertaking. For now, we will hopefully keep flying to expanded intermodal networks and service scope. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

North-American rail

Surface

Intermodal needs ‘closest to the pin’ strategy to compete with trucking

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The current market situation is favorable for BCOs, and the temptation will be great to drive down base rates because of internal cost pressures, writes John McCauley.</div>

The current market situation is favorable for BCOs, and the temptation will be great to drive down base rates because of internal cost pressures, writes John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">At this time of year, many have reflected on 2025 and made resolutions for 2026. I have adjusted this to make no resolutions, but a few predictions that, in most cases, I hope will not materialize. In addition, I want to give some advice to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), many of whom are in various stages of negotiations for 2026–27 service contracts. Starting with the predictions, let’s consider some supply, capacity, and demand issues. <h3>Capacity </h3>I expect Red Sea transits will resume, but very slowly and primarily for East Med cargo and for the India sub-continent to the East Coast of the US. Asia-Europe transits will only resume if insurance premiums disappear. The Houthis are still present and will be volatile and unreliable, so they remain the wild card for this prediction. At best, Asia-Europe, if Suez passage resumes, would take six months to stabilize. The US port fees for Chinese-built and -owned vessels will be a non-event. However, for carriers, the sword of Damocles is hanging over this one, so don’t expect any major service reshuffles. Sadly, service reliability levels will stay stable at a horrible 60%, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of Gemini to drag the industry up. Most carriers won’t care enough to do something about it. Expect significant trucking and drayage disruption in the US. Bankruptcies will rise as seasonality gets more unpredictable. Driver shortages will get worse. The consequences will be price volatility, both up and down, with significant backlogs adding to detention and demurrage bills. Berthing and landside restrictions will continue to hinder moving larger vessels to north-south trades as few terminals are deep-sea; they are river or bay, at best, and are often hemmed in by towns and cities and tidal-constrained. <h3>Demand </h3>Many BCOs are under high internal pressure to contribute to reductions in overall supply chain costs as margins become thinner through higher input costs (somewhat largely driven by tariffs), downstream price squeezing, and weaker demand. Container freight downward trends will be an obvious target. Keep an eye on US credit card debt and defaults, which will rise significantly by the third quarter at the latest, thus further softening demand. Macro level indicators will prey on demand. US inflation will remain stubbornly near at least 2.5% to 3% while unemployment will remain at about 4.5% as immigration net deficits offset layoffs. Job creation will stagnate. Depending on the GDP trend, expect a high likelihood of stagflation toward the end of the fourth quarter (subject to the reliability of US government data). China will continue manufacturing export expansion and increase its proportion of global trade. <h3>Recommendation </h3>What does this mean for upcoming service contract negotiations? With the expectation of vessel oversupply continuing through the year, BCOs will push to the limit to reduce base rates. They will face several dilemmas, including how to get rid of unmerited and unjustifiable surcharges and which carriers to choose from in alliances and vessel-sharing agreements. Overall, the market situation is favorable for BCOs. The temptation to drive down base rates will be great because of internal cost pressures and/or wanting to make up for some years of carrier supply strength. This should be tempered with a caveat that many BCOs have been burnt in the past for being too empathetic to carriers’ financial difficulties. If I were in the shoes of a medium-size BCO of 30,000 TEUs and above, I would select a mix that would aim for base rates around the Xeneta/NYSHEX forecast average index levels, even if offered lower rates than those levels. It is important to keep in with Mediterranean Shipping Co. even if you don’t use them today. I would use index-linked contracts today and continue to do so with a maximum of 50% to leave yourself some volume for fixed rates and some spot prices. Of that remaining volume, I would leave about 25% for spot as the downside risk is still relatively low. Finally, the market situation should allow for BCOs to get into their contracts the exclusion of any non-explainable (by the carrier) and justifiable (judged and accepted by the BCO) surcharges. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>.</div>

At this time of year, many have reflected on 2025 and made resolutions for 2026. I have adjusted this to make no resolutions, but a few predictions that, in most cases, I hope will not materialize. In addition, I want to give some advice to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), many of whom are in various stages of negotiations for 2026–27 service contracts. Starting with the predictions, let’s consider some supply, capacity, and demand issues. Capacity I expect Red Sea transits will resume, but very slowly and primarily for East Med cargo and for the India sub-continent to the East Coast of the US. Asia-Europe transits will only resume if insurance premiums disappear. The Houthis are still present and will be volatile and unreliable, so they remain the wild card for this prediction. At best, Asia-Europe, if Suez passage resumes, would take six months to stabilize. The US port fees for Chinese-built and -owned vessels will be a non-event. However, for carriers, the sword of Damocles is hanging over this one, so don’t expect any major service reshuffles. Sadly, service reliability levels will stay stable at a horrible 60%, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of Gemini to drag the industry up. Most carriers won’t care enough to do something about it. Expect significant trucking and drayage disruption in the US. Bankruptcies will rise as seasonality gets more unpredictable. Driver shortages will get worse. The consequences will be price volatility, both up and down, with significant backlogs adding to detention and demurrage bills. Berthing and landside restrictions will continue to hinder moving larger vessels to north-south trades as few terminals are deep-sea; they are river or bay, at best, and are often hemmed in by towns and cities and tidal-constrained. Demand Many BCOs are under high internal pressure to contribute to reductions in overall supply chain costs as margins become thinner through higher input costs (somewhat largely driven by tariffs), downstream price squeezing, and weaker demand. Container freight downward trends will be an obvious target. Keep an eye on US credit card debt and defaults, which will rise significantly by the third quarter at the latest, thus further softening demand. Macro level indicators will prey on demand. US inflation will remain stubbornly near at least 2.5% to 3% while unemployment will remain at about 4.5% as immigration net deficits offset layoffs. Job creation will stagnate. Depending on the GDP trend, expect a high likelihood of stagflation toward the end of the fourth quarter (subject to the reliability of US government data). China will continue manufacturing export expansion and increase its proportion of global trade. Recommendation What does this mean for upcoming service contract negotiations? With the expectation of vessel oversupply continuing through the year, BCOs will push to the limit to reduce base rates. They will face several dilemmas, including how to get rid of unmerited and unjustifiable surcharges and which carriers to choose from in alliances and vessel-sharing agreements. Overall, the market situation is favorable for BCOs. The temptation to drive down base rates will be great because of internal cost pressures and/or wanting to make up for some years of carrier supply strength. This should be tempered with a caveat that many BCOs have been burnt in the past for being too empathetic to carriers’ financial difficulties. If I were in the shoes of a medium-size BCO of 30,000 TEUs and above, I would select a mix that would aim for base rates around the Xeneta/NYSHEX forecast average index levels, even if offered lower rates than those levels. It is important to keep in with Mediterranean Shipping Co. even if you don’t use them today. I would use index-linked contracts today and continue to do so with a maximum of 50% to leave yourself some volume for fixed rates and some spot prices. Of that remaining volume, I would leave about 25% for spot as the downside risk is still relatively low. Finally, the market situation should allow for BCOs to get into their contracts the exclusion of any non-explainable (by the carrier) and justifiable (judged and accepted by the BCO) surcharges. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Trans-Pacific

A few market predictions and some advice for BCOs as contract season heats up

China to US

{date.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY.formatNumber('###.##')} 
 w-o-w change:  {week_over_week.formatNumber("##.#%")} 
 y-o-y change: {year_over_year_percent.formatNumber("##.#%")}

The Freightos Air Index (FAX) is based on all-in spot rates for general cargo in US$ for weight category of 100 to 3,000 kilograms. The rates include the air freight fee, fuel, and security and seasonal surcharges. The per kg rate is calculated based on the standard chargeable weight (the greater of the actual gross weight and 166kgs, multiplied by the volume in cubic meters). [Freightos Air Index](https://www.freightos.com/enterprise/terminal/fax-global-freightos-air-index/?utm_source=terminal_embed&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=fax)

China to US air freight rates (Freightos)

China to US Air Freight Price Index by Weight Break 100–3000 kg (Freightos) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">APMT and TiL will operate the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, respectively, for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts after nullifying the 28-year concession held by CK Hutchison.</div>

APMT and TiL will operate the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, respectively, for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts after nullifying the 28-year concession held by CK Hutchison.

<div class="phx-topic">The terminal subsidiaries of Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. have begun operating the Balboa and Cristobal terminals of the Panama Canal on an interim basis after the Panamanian government late Monday took control of the facilities from the local unit of CK Hutchison Holdings. Maersk’s APM Terminals (AMPT) was given a transitory concession contract for the Balboa terminal on the Pacific side of the canal by the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA); MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) was given the same for Cristobal on the Atlantic coast. APMT and TiL will operate the respective terminals for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts. The move to eject CK Hutchison-owned Panama Ports Company (PPC) came just hours after the government published the Panama Supreme Court’s final ruling nullifying PPC’s 28-year concession, which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-court-voids-ck-hutchison-canal-terminal-leases-6161145">was announced by the court on Jan. 29.</a>PMA officials said the agency decided to award two separate concessions to assess different operating models and improve overall management of the terminals, while the units of Maersk and MSC were chosen because of the cargo volumes the carriers move through the two ports. APM Terminals Panama has paid $26.1 million for its temporary concession, while TiL has paid $15.8 million, according to concession documents. Last month, the PMA indicated that APMT would be awarded the concession for both Balboa and Cristobal. “We have sought out operators who handle the cargo,” Alberto Alemán Zubieta, head of the PMA transition team and former administrator of the Panama Canal, told a press briefing Monday. A Maersk spokesperson in Panama said about 75% of the cargo moving through Balboa originates from Maersk. “The decision to contract an operator associated with the owner of most of that cargo helps stabilize the operation and mitigate the most significant risk during the transition to keeping volumes moving,” the spokesperson said. APMT, meanwhile, said in a customer advisory Tuesday it had initiated a “stabilization phase” at Balboa, but hinted at possible disruption at the terminal as it deploys a new operating system. The company said it is aiming “to safeguard the continuity of Panama’s logistics hub, while a new terminal operating system is deployed and operations are progressively reactivated with the least possible disruption.” It gave no timeframe for the launch of the new system or how long any possible cargo disruption could last. Marliz Bermudez, CEO of APM Terminals Panama, said Tuesday the transition phase at Balboa “requires speed and precision so that the port can progressively resume operations once the system installation is completed, along with other operational, audit, training, and verification tasks.” Maersk said it was “closely monitoring the situation based on information provided by the terminal operator and relevant authorities.” Carriers using both the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, in addition to Maersk and MSC, include Cosco Shipping, CMA CGM, Evergreen, Hapag-Lloyd, and Ocean Network Express. MSC and TiL could not immediately be reached for comment on operations at Cristobal. <h3>More threats from Hutchison </h3>Hong Kong-based Hutchison condemned the takeover of the terminals by the Panamanian government and said the awarding of concessions to APMT and TiL was “unlawful.” A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said during a press briefing in Beijing on Tuesday that China “will firmly protect the company’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests.” “The takeover of the two terminals reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panama state against PPC and the concession contract over the past year,” Hutchison said in a statement. Hutchison’s control of the terminals at either end of the Panama Canal had become the focus of a wider geopolitical spat between the US and China over political influence in the region. Hutchison, which shut down its PPC website following the government takeover, has already threatened legal action against APM Terminals and the Panama government. It also warned that the AMPT takeover at Balboa could harm the relationship between Hutchison and Maersk. While the Panama Supreme Court ruling cannot be reversed, Hutchison’s statement said it is continuing to consult with legal advisors over launching national and international legal action against Panama and “third parties colluding with them.” It already launched an international arbitration claim in early February against the government over the loss of the terminal concessions.Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

The terminal subsidiaries of Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. have begun operating the Balboa and Cristobal terminals of the Panama Canal on an interim basis after the Panamanian government late Monday took control of the facilities from the local unit of CK Hutchison Holdings. Maersk’s APM Terminals (AMPT) was given a transitory concession contract for the Balboa terminal on the Pacific side of the canal by the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA); MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) was given the same for Cristobal on the Atlantic coast. APMT and TiL will operate the respective terminals for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts. The move to eject CK Hutchison-owned Panama Ports Company (PPC) came just hours after the government published the Panama Supreme Court’s final ruling nullifying PPC’s 28-year concession, which was announced by the court on Jan. 29. PMA officials said the agency decided to award two separate concessions to assess different operating models and improve overall management of the terminals, while the units of Maersk and MSC were chosen because of the cargo volumes the carriers move through the two ports. APM Terminals Panama has paid $26.1 million for its temporary concession, while TiL has paid $15.8 million, according to concession documents. Last month, the PMA indicated that APMT would be awarded the concession for both Balboa and Cristobal. “We have sought out operators who handle the cargo,” Alberto Alemán Zubieta, head of the PMA transition team and former administrator of the Panama Canal, told a press briefing Monday. A Maersk spokesperson in Panama said about 75% of the cargo moving through Balboa originates from Maersk. “The decision to contract an operator associated with the owner of most of that cargo helps stabilize the operation and mitigate the most significant risk during the transition to keeping volumes moving,” the spokesperson said. APMT, meanwhile, said in a customer advisory Tuesday it had initiated a “stabilization phase” at Balboa, but hinted at possible disruption at the terminal as it deploys a new operating system. The company said it is aiming “to safeguard the continuity of Panama’s logistics hub, while a new terminal operating system is deployed and operations are progressively reactivated with the least possible disruption.” It gave no timeframe for the launch of the new system or how long any possible cargo disruption could last. Marliz Bermudez, CEO of APM Terminals Panama, said Tuesday the transition phase at Balboa “requires speed and precision so that the port can progressively resume operations once the system installation is completed, along with other operational, audit, training, and verification tasks.” Maersk said it was “closely monitoring the situation based on information provided by the terminal operator and relevant authorities.” Carriers using both the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, in addition to Maersk and MSC, include Cosco Shipping, CMA CGM, Evergreen, Hapag-Lloyd, and Ocean Network Express. MSC and TiL could not immediately be reached for comment on operations at Cristobal. More threats from Hutchison Hong Kong-based Hutchison condemned the takeover of the terminals by the Panamanian government and said the awarding of concessions to APMT and TiL was “unlawful.” A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said during a press briefing in Beijing on Tuesday that China “will firmly protect the company’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests.” “The takeover of the two terminals reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panama state against PPC and the concession contract over the past year,” Hutchison said in a statement. Hutchison’s control of the terminals at either end of the Panama Canal had become the focus of a wider geopolitical spat between the US and China over political influence in the region. Hutchison, which shut down its PPC website following the government takeover, has already threatened legal action against APM Terminals and the Panama government. It also warned that the AMPT takeover at Balboa could harm the relationship between Hutchison and Maersk. While the Panama Supreme Court ruling cannot be reversed, Hutchison’s statement said it is continuing to consult with legal advisors over launching national and international legal action against Panama and “third parties colluding with them.” It already launched an international arbitration claim in early February against the government over the loss of the terminal concessions. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

Marine terminals

Maersk, MSC units begin interim management of Panama Canal terminals

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Whatever measure is ultimately agreed to by member states, decarbonization experts agree the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back.</div>

Whatever measure is ultimately agreed to by member states, decarbonization experts agree the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back.

<div class="phx-topic">Decarbonization experts are running through different scenarios that will enable the International Maritime Organization’s delayed net-zero emissions framework to be formally adopted in November. A best-case scenario will see the IMO framework, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">postponed for a year at a meeting last October</a>, entering into force in 2028, a year later than planned, and coming into effect in 2029. But a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for several years. The Global Maritime Forum and maritime classification society DNV looked separately at the different scenarios for net-zero implementation. And while the views of their decarbonization experts differed, there was consensus that whatever measure is ultimately agreed to this November, the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back. A new report from the Global Maritime Forum was released this week and looked at the different plausible outcomes for the net-zero framework (NZF). “Uncertainty at the IMO: Three scenarios and their consequences for shipping’s transition,” was co-authored by Tristan Smith, associate professor at the UCL Energy Institute, and Femke Spiegelenberg, project manager of the Getting to Zero Coalition within the Global Maritime Forum. Three potential scenarios were covered by the report: adopting the NZF unchanged from the measures voted down last October, adopting a single-tier fuel standard with lower compliance costs, and removing the economic elements altogether. The report noted that each scenario would have materially different impacts on timelines, enforcement, investment signals, revenues, low-income countries, and regional policies. “At a minimum, the implementation dates in the text will need to be adjusted to reflect the postponed adoption,” the report said. “More fundamentally, the political dynamics that led to the NZF delay introduced new uncertainty not just about the timeline but also about the final shape and ambition of the framework. “At one extreme, the NZF could be adopted ‘as is’ later this year, entering into force in 2028 and coming into effect in 2029,” the report added. “At the other extreme, a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on GHG reductions for several years.” <h3>A battle to build consensus </h3>The motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework last October was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. Despite 80% approval for the NZF from member states voting last April, 34 countries switched positions between April and October to favor the deferment in the face of growing pressure from the US. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. Achieving the IMO target of full decarbonization by or around 2050 with benchmark targets set along the way will require narrowing the wide price gap that exists between fossil fuels and the low- or zero-emission alternatives, which by its very nature will require making fossil fuels more expensive. But the US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. That position, centered around President Donald Trump’s view that a price on carbon emissions was a “global green new scam tax on shipping,” triggered extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. The IMO is now focused on building consensus around some version of the NZF this year before a reconvened MEPC meets in November to finalize the legally binding measures. With the US so fundamentally opposed to any economic measure that penalizes carbon emissions, one of the potential scenarios being suggested by some member states was to remove it completely from the NZF and focus instead on a technical measure. The Global Maritime Forum report warned that any removal of the economic element that is designed to make green technologies cheaper than high-emission alternatives would also remove the likelihood of effective enforcement. “A standalone global fuel standard with no economic elements would likely merely replicate what already exists in the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) mechanism, which requires ships with repeated non-compliance at a certain level to file a corrective action plan,” the report noted. <h3>Geopolitical hurdles ahead for net-zero framework </h3>Eirik Nyhus, director of environment at DNV, has also been looking at possible scenarios that would enable the NZF to be adopted by IMO member states. But he was not convinced that an unchanged measure would make it across the line. “Geopolitics being what they are, there are no reasons to expect the opponents of the NZF to shift their positions or their approach to negotiations by November this year, and therefore repeating the same process with the same proposal under the same circumstances, while hoping for a different outcome is not the best strategy,” Nyhus told a recent online conference. Pushing through the NZF unchanged would require the framework’s supporters to provide diplomatic surety and cover for the countries being pressured by the US. “This is a high-stakes approach, high-risk, and not very likely to succeed, though there may be parties thinking it’s worth a shot again,” Nyhus said. Also presenting a challenge would be the removal of the economic element in a restructuring of the existing proposal with only the technical element put forward. The technical element covers the fuel intensity regulation that mandates progressively lower GHG emissions over time. “The opposition to any economic element, whether deferred or delayed, is going to be so strong that only a purely technical regulation really has any chance of going forward under that scenario,” Nyhus said. “If all relevant alternative fuel options are on the table, [a purely technical measure] could contain incentives for a large cross section of countries around the world, and in theory, this could lead to adoption in November this year,” he added. “But all the stars will need to align, and I think it will be a challenge for that to happen.” Another very real scenario would be flag states representing most of the global tonnage rejecting any proposal that is put forward. The NZF can be blocked if one-third of countries representing over 50% of global tonnage formally object during the adoption process. “In all of these cases, the timeline has really been pushed back significantly,” Nyhus said. “Despite it being theoretically possible to have something in place by November 2028, I think the issues to be solved are so thorny that the IMO will need more time, if an outcome can be negotiated at all. “Entering into force of some version of the regulation in 2029 is optimistic and 2030 is more likely, but I would not be shocked to see things slide even further,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Decarbonization experts are running through different scenarios that will enable the International Maritime Organization’s delayed net-zero emissions framework to be formally adopted in November. A best-case scenario will see the IMO framework, postponed for a year at a meeting last October , entering into force in 2028, a year later than planned, and coming into effect in 2029. But a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for several years. The Global Maritime Forum and maritime classification society DNV looked separately at the different scenarios for net-zero implementation. And while the views of their decarbonization experts differed, there was consensus that whatever measure is ultimately agreed to this November, the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back. A new report from the Global Maritime Forum was released this week and looked at the different plausible outcomes for the net-zero framework (NZF). “Uncertainty at the IMO: Three scenarios and their consequences for shipping’s transition,” was co-authored by Tristan Smith, associate professor at the UCL Energy Institute, and Femke Spiegelenberg, project manager of the Getting to Zero Coalition within the Global Maritime Forum. Three potential scenarios were covered by the report: adopting the NZF unchanged from the measures voted down last October, adopting a single-tier fuel standard with lower compliance costs, and removing the economic elements altogether. The report noted that each scenario would have materially different impacts on timelines, enforcement, investment signals, revenues, low-income countries, and regional policies. “At a minimum, the implementation dates in the text will need to be adjusted to reflect the postponed adoption,” the report said. “More fundamentally, the political dynamics that led to the NZF delay introduced new uncertainty not just about the timeline but also about the final shape and ambition of the framework. “At one extreme, the NZF could be adopted ‘as is’ later this year, entering into force in 2028 and coming into effect in 2029,” the report added. “At the other extreme, a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on GHG reductions for several years.” A battle to build consensus The motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework last October was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. Despite 80% approval for the NZF from member states voting last April, 34 countries switched positions between April and October to favor the deferment in the face of growing pressure from the US. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. Achieving the IMO target of full decarbonization by or around 2050 with benchmark targets set along the way will require narrowing the wide price gap that exists between fossil fuels and the low- or zero-emission alternatives, which by its very nature will require making fossil fuels more expensive. But the US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. That position, centered around President Donald Trump’s view that a price on carbon emissions was a “global green new scam tax on shipping,” triggered extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. The IMO is now focused on building consensus around some version of the NZF this year before a reconvened MEPC meets in November to finalize the legally binding measures. With the US so fundamentally opposed to any economic measure that penalizes carbon emissions, one of the potential scenarios being suggested by some member states was to remove it completely from the NZF and focus instead on a technical measure. The Global Maritime Forum report warned that any removal of the economic element that is designed to make green technologies cheaper than high-emission alternatives would also remove the likelihood of effective enforcement. “A standalone global fuel standard with no economic elements would likely merely replicate what already exists in the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) mechanism, which requires ships with repeated non-compliance at a certain level to file a corrective action plan,” the report noted. Geopolitical hurdles ahead for net-zero framework Eirik Nyhus, director of environment at DNV, has also been looking at possible scenarios that would enable the NZF to be adopted by IMO member states. But he was not convinced that an unchanged measure would make it across the line. “Geopolitics being what they are, there are no reasons to expect the opponents of the NZF to shift their positions or their approach to negotiations by November this year, and therefore repeating the same process with the same proposal under the same circumstances, while hoping for a different outcome is not the best strategy,” Nyhus told a recent online conference. Pushing through the NZF unchanged would require the framework’s supporters to provide diplomatic surety and cover for the countries being pressured by the US. “This is a high-stakes approach, high-risk, and not very likely to succeed, though there may be parties thinking it’s worth a shot again,” Nyhus said. Also presenting a challenge would be the removal of the economic element in a restructuring of the existing proposal with only the technical element put forward. The technical element covers the fuel intensity regulation that mandates progressively lower GHG emissions over time. “The opposition to any economic element, whether deferred or delayed, is going to be so strong that only a purely technical regulation really has any chance of going forward under that scenario,” Nyhus said. “If all relevant alternative fuel options are on the table, [a purely technical measure] could contain incentives for a large cross section of countries around the world, and in theory, this could lead to adoption in November this year,” he added. “But all the stars will need to align, and I think it will be a challenge for that to happen.” Another very real scenario would be flag states representing most of the global tonnage rejecting any proposal that is put forward. The NZF can be blocked if one-third of countries representing over 50% of global tonnage formally object during the adoption process. “In all of these cases, the timeline has really been pushed back significantly,” Nyhus said. “Despite it being theoretically possible to have something in place by November 2028, I think the issues to be solved are so thorny that the IMO will need more time, if an outcome can be negotiated at all. “Entering into force of some version of the regulation in 2029 is optimistic and 2030 is more likely, but I would not be shocked to see things slide even further,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com . 

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

No clear path to get IMO’s net-zero framework over the line: industry experts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A number of forwarders and software vendors are providing products, often for free, to help shippers and customs brokers calculate refunds they may have coming following Friday’s Supreme Court ruling. </div>

A number of forwarders and software vendors are providing products, often for free, to help shippers and customs brokers calculate refunds they may have coming following Friday’s Supreme Court ruling.

<div class="phx-topic">A range of software tools has emerged over the past few months that should help importers and customs brokers determine the level of refunds available to them as a result of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling rejecting the mechanism used by the Trump administration to collect tariffs over the past 10 months. The decision, which ruled the administration improperly assessed an estimated $175 billion in tariffs on importers by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), has set in motion a scramble to claw back refunds on those tariffs. But the process is far from clear. The Court made no determination on how the refund process should be handled and President Donald Trump suggested on Friday after the ruling that refunds might be tied up in legal disputes for two or more years. Trade experts have said the US Court of International Trade (CIT) will ultimately decide the refund process. While importers await word from the government about the process, or until a case is brought before the CIT that might provide clarity, most will be turning to an administrative filing called a post-summary correction (PSC) to get in line to claim their refund. A PSC is an electronic tool within the government’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) that allows importers to fix errors in their customs entries and claim refunds for any duty improperly collected. To calculate what those refunds might amount to, software vendors and forwarders have established products for customs brokers and importers to use. Digital forwarder Flexport, well-versed in marketing its services to shippers in trying times, has been front and center on the tariff issue by promoting its free-to-use tariff refund calculator. It has added an IEEPA tariff refund product that calculates the refund amount and starts the process for claiming refunds. <h3>Multiple tools available </h3>Flexport is far from the only refund tool on the market. Wove, an automation technology provider for forwarders, customs brokers and shippers, launched an IEEPA tariff refund calculator over the weekend that allows users to upload a spreadsheet into a web portal with the harmonized tariff schedule (HTS) code, country of origin, customs value and entry date information to determine their refunds. Amari AI, which last week landed a $4.5 million seed funding round from venture investors, also has a tariff calculator based on HTS code and shipment details. That’s aside from its core product, which automates the extraction of information from commercial invoices, packing lists, bills of lading and arrival notices to help customs brokers file entries more efficiently. Reform, yet another provider catering to customs brokers and importers, this week said a post-summary correction audit and filing tool that helps determine in minutes whether an entry error has occurred has seen demand increase significantly since the Supreme Court decision. “Brokers simply import their 7501 entry summaries and supporting commercial invoices, and the tool delivers results in a matter of minutes,” Reform said in a blog Tuesday. Reform said brokers can receive a corrected entry formatted for transmission to CBP through systems such as Descartes NetCHB or CargoWise or a detailed spreadsheet flagging missing HTS codes, provisional tariffs, and discrepancies between entries and invoices. Reform said the issue is particularly acute for importers and the customs brokers they use because CBP is itself using artificial intelligence and automation to better target incorrect entries. Pallet, another logistics automation specialist, said it has enabled forwarder Mallory Alexander to double the number of import filings its employees can handle while increasing the accuracy of those filings from about 80% to 97%. In addition, importers are turning to tax and trade compliance advisory specialists to ensure that the paperwork they need to apply for refunds is in order. All this comes as the Trump administration, seeking to pivot after the Court ruling, implemented on Monday a 10% tariff on all trade partners using so-called Section 122 authority. But there are myriad exemptions for specific products or countries covered by existing trade agreements, as well as legal questions about whether the market factors that would justify using Section 122 powers are even in place. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A range of software tools has emerged over the past few months that should help importers and customs brokers determine the level of refunds available to them as a result of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling rejecting the mechanism used by the Trump administration to collect tariffs over the past 10 months. The decision, which ruled the administration improperly assessed an estimated $175 billion in tariffs on importers by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), has set in motion a scramble to claw back refunds on those tariffs. But the process is far from clear. The Court made no determination on how the refund process should be handled and President Donald Trump suggested on Friday after the ruling that refunds might be tied up in legal disputes for two or more years. Trade experts have said the US Court of International Trade (CIT) will ultimately decide the refund process. While importers await word from the government about the process, or until a case is brought before the CIT that might provide clarity, most will be turning to an administrative filing called a post-summary correction (PSC) to get in line to claim their refund. A PSC is an electronic tool within the government’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) that allows importers to fix errors in their customs entries and claim refunds for any duty improperly collected. To calculate what those refunds might amount to, software vendors and forwarders have established products for customs brokers and importers to use. Digital forwarder Flexport, well-versed in marketing its services to shippers in trying times, has been front and center on the tariff issue by promoting its free-to-use tariff refund calculator. It has added an IEEPA tariff refund product that calculates the refund amount and starts the process for claiming refunds. Multiple tools available Flexport is far from the only refund tool on the market. Wove, an automation technology provider for forwarders, customs brokers and shippers, launched an IEEPA tariff refund calculator over the weekend that allows users to upload a spreadsheet into a web portal with the harmonized tariff schedule (HTS) code, country of origin, customs value and entry date information to determine their refunds. Amari AI, which last week landed a $4.5 million seed funding round from venture investors, also has a tariff calculator based on HTS code and shipment details. That’s aside from its core product, which automates the extraction of information from commercial invoices, packing lists, bills of lading and arrival notices to help customs brokers file entries more efficiently. Reform, yet another provider catering to customs brokers and importers, this week said a post-summary correction audit and filing tool that helps determine in minutes whether an entry error has occurred has seen demand increase significantly since the Supreme Court decision. “Brokers simply import their 7501 entry summaries and supporting commercial invoices, and the tool delivers results in a matter of minutes,” Reform said in a blog Tuesday. Reform said brokers can receive a corrected entry formatted for transmission to CBP through systems such as Descartes NetCHB or CargoWise or a detailed spreadsheet flagging missing HTS codes, provisional tariffs, and discrepancies between entries and invoices. Reform said the issue is particularly acute for importers and the customs brokers they use because CBP is itself using artificial intelligence and automation to better target incorrect entries. Pallet, another logistics automation specialist, said it has enabled forwarder Mallory Alexander to double the number of import filings its employees can handle while increasing the accuracy of those filings from about 80% to 97%. In addition, importers are turning to tax and trade compliance advisory specialists to ensure that the paperwork they need to apply for refunds is in order. All this comes as the Trump administration, seeking to pivot after the Court ruling, implemented on Monday a 10% tariff on all trade partners using so-called Section 122 authority. But there are myriad exemptions for specific products or countries covered by existing trade agreements, as well as legal questions about whether the market factors that would justify using Section 122 powers are even in place. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

IEEPA tariff decision prompts flood of correction tools for refunds, customs entries

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.</div>

The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf">did not have the authority</a> under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners, upending the cornerstone of his administration’s economic policy. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. Trump, during a press briefing at the White House after the ruling, said he was “ashamed” of the justices who voted to kill the tariffs, but vowed he would pursue new options to put them in place. “Other alternatives will be used to replace the ones the Court incorrectly suspended,” he said. That includes the immediate implementation of a 10% “global” tariff under so-called Section 122 action, presumably levied against all US trading partners. “We’ll go in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice,” Trump said. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, although most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper <a href="https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/">published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve</a> found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. <h3>What’s next? </h3>The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS [Harmonized Tariff Schedule] because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. The calls for refunds are coming fast. The National Retail Federation praised the Supreme Court’s decision and urged lower courts to “ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers.” “[The Court’s decision] provides much-needed certainty for US businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity,” David French, the NRF’s executive vice president of government relations, said in a statement. Analysts at Global Trade Alert estimate that the trade-weighted average tariff will fall from 15.4% to 8.3% on US imports, notwithstanding the imminent imposition of 10% tariffs under the Section 122 provision. <h3>Other tariff mechanisms available </h3>In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include the aforementioned Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared with other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners, upending the cornerstone of his administration’s economic policy. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. Trump, during a press briefing at the White House after the ruling, said he was “ashamed” of the justices who voted to kill the tariffs, but vowed he would pursue new options to put them in place. “Other alternatives will be used to replace the ones the Court incorrectly suspended,” he said. That includes the immediate implementation of a 10% “global” tariff under so-called Section 122 action, presumably levied against all US trading partners. “We’ll go in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice,” Trump said. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, although most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. What’s next? The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS [Harmonized Tariff Schedule] because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. The calls for refunds are coming fast. The National Retail Federation praised the Supreme Court’s decision and urged lower courts to “ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers.” “[The Court’s decision] provides much-needed certainty for US businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity,” David French, the NRF’s executive vice president of government relations, said in a statement. Analysts at Global Trade Alert estimate that the trade-weighted average tariff will fall from 15.4% to 8.3% on US imports, notwithstanding the imminent imposition of 10% tariffs under the Section 122 provision. Other tariff mechanisms available In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include the aforementioned Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared with other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

US Supreme Court rules against Trump in critical IEEPA tariff case

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Hapag-Lloyd said it wants to integrate Zim into the alliance with Maersk, but adding new ports and overlapping coverage means changes to services. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd said it wants to integrate Zim into the alliance with Maersk, but adding new ports and overlapping coverage means changes to services.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services raises questions of how much of Zim’s express, port-direct services will survive under Gemini Cooperation’s transshipment model and to what extent the acquisition will force further changes in trans-Pacific networks, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime AnalysisIntegrating Zim’s services into the Gemini network makes more sense than operating Zim as a separate product, Sea-Intelligence said in a report Sunday. Even though Zim offers a premium product based on its transit times and direct service, Sea-Intelligence said a premium, standalone service confuses the messaging for Gemini customers “Operating premium direct strings outside the alliance effectively positions Hapag-Lloyd in competition with its own shared hub-and-spoke infrastructure, which could potentially draw high-yield cargo away from Gemini’s core network.” Sea-Intelligence said. Adding Zim’s current trans-Pacific services would increase Gemini’s port coverage by 28%, Sea-Intelligence said. In particular, Zim’s network would give Gemini more coverage between origin ports in southeast China, South Korea, and Taiwan to US East Coast ports. Yet offering those additional port calls will introduce more complexity into Gemini’s network, Sea-Intelligence said. Offering the same port coverage to the Gemini network will require “careful product design to avoid undermining customer expectations.”Speaking during a briefing last week after the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">$4.2 billion acquisition of Zim was announced</a>, Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said the approximately 100 vessels controlled by Zim will eventually be integrated into services that Hapag-Lloyd offers alongside Maersk under the Gemini banner. He added that the additional capacity could help Gemini gain market share in certain trade lanes. “It’s very likely to assume that indeed, some of the tonnage that Zim deploys on the east-west trades would also phase into Gemini,” Habben Jansen said. “We think that’s actually a good thing that will help Gemini gain a little bit of scale that will help us to bring unit cost further down.” <h3>‘Structural challenge’ for Gemini</h3>Integrating Zim’s current network would also mean Gemini offering a second Asia service to the Port of Baltimore and providing service to Boston. Sea-Intelligence said that while some services with port overlap could be consolidated, servicing smaller ports might require standalone services that won’t affect Gemini’s reliability. “If this market reach is integrated, Gemini faces a structural challenge: servicing these secondary gateways via transshipment hubs can add transit time on the ocean leg, and it may dilute the faster transit times some legacy Zim customers currently value,” Sea-Intelligence said. Along with Gemini’s network, the acquisition of Zim has the potential to reshape other vessel-sharing arrangements, Sea-Intelligence said. For the past two years, Hapag-Lloyd has offered a jointly-operated Asia-US East Coast service with Wan Hai Lines, the AA7. But Sea-Intelligence said the AA7’s large overlap with existing Zim services suggests “Hapag-Lloyd could exit this joint operation over time.” Zim has its own vessel-sharing agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for five services between Asia and the US East and Gulf coasts. Zim and MSC each operate two of the services, while the fifth service is jointly operated. While it would take between six months and a year to dissolve the joint agreement, Sea-Intelligence said the end of the agreement would reduce MSC’s port coverage on Asia-to-US East Coast services by nearly one-third. Sea-Intelligence said it’s likely that MSC will launch a new US East Coast anchor service to compensate for the potential exit of Zim. “If MSC opts not to launch a replacement service, they would be ceding a defined strategic advantage to the potentially expanded Gemini network,” Sea-Intelligence said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Hapag-Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services raises questions of how much of Zim’s express, port-direct services will survive under Gemini Cooperation’s transshipment model and to what extent the acquisition will force further changes in trans-Pacific networks, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis Integrating Zim’s services into the Gemini network makes more sense than operating Zim as a separate product, Sea-Intelligence said in a report Sunday. Even though Zim offers a premium product based on its transit times and direct service, Sea-Intelligence said a premium, standalone service confuses the messaging for Gemini customers “Operating premium direct strings outside the alliance effectively positions Hapag-Lloyd in competition with its own shared hub-and-spoke infrastructure, which could potentially draw high-yield cargo away from Gemini’s core network.” Sea-Intelligence said. Adding Zim’s current trans-Pacific services would increase Gemini’s port coverage by 28%, Sea-Intelligence said. In particular, Zim’s network would give Gemini more coverage between origin ports in southeast China, South Korea, and Taiwan to US East Coast ports. Yet offering those additional port calls will introduce more complexity into Gemini’s network, Sea-Intelligence said. Offering the same port coverage to the Gemini network will require “careful product design to avoid undermining customer expectations.” Speaking during a briefing last week after the $4.2 billion acquisition of Zim was announced , Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said the approximately 100 vessels controlled by Zim will eventually be integrated into services that Hapag-Lloyd offers alongside Maersk under the Gemini banner. He added that the additional capacity could help Gemini gain market share in certain trade lanes. “It’s very likely to assume that indeed, some of the tonnage that Zim deploys on the east-west trades would also phase into Gemini,” Habben Jansen said. “We think that’s actually a good thing that will help Gemini gain a little bit of scale that will help us to bring unit cost further down.” ‘Structural challenge’ for Gemini Integrating Zim’s current network would also mean Gemini offering a second Asia service to the Port of Baltimore and providing service to Boston. Sea-Intelligence said that while some services with port overlap could be consolidated, servicing smaller ports might require standalone services that won’t affect Gemini’s reliability. “If this market reach is integrated, Gemini faces a structural challenge: servicing these secondary gateways via transshipment hubs can add transit time on the ocean leg, and it may dilute the faster transit times some legacy Zim customers currently value,” Sea-Intelligence said. Along with Gemini’s network, the acquisition of Zim has the potential to reshape other vessel-sharing arrangements, Sea-Intelligence said. For the past two years, Hapag-Lloyd has offered a jointly-operated Asia-US East Coast service with Wan Hai Lines, the AA7. But Sea-Intelligence said the AA7’s large overlap with existing Zim services suggests “Hapag-Lloyd could exit this joint operation over time.” Zim has its own vessel-sharing agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for five services between Asia and the US East and Gulf coasts. Zim and MSC each operate two of the services, while the fifth service is jointly operated. While it would take between six months and a year to dissolve the joint agreement, Sea-Intelligence said the end of the agreement would reduce MSC’s port coverage on Asia-to-US East Coast services by nearly one-third. Sea-Intelligence said it’s likely that MSC will launch a new US East Coast anchor service to compensate for the potential exit of Zim. “If MSC opts not to launch a replacement service, they would be ceding a defined strategic advantage to the potentially expanded Gemini network,” Sea-Intelligence said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Zim acquisition sets up network changes for Gemini: Sea-Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend. </div>

Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend.

<div class="phx-topic">Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026–27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The levels and direction of spot rates impact service contracting, as it’s a barometer of the degree to which carriers can effectively match supply to demand. Long-term contract rates generally allow shippers to lock in lower prices than they could find in the spot market, leading shippers to watch the latter closely ahead of and during service contract negotiations. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until [TPM26] to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, midsize and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1–4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. <h3>Shippers’ market </h3>The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/soft-demand-in-eastbound-trans-pacific-overwhelms-carriers-gri-attempt-6109240">softer demand</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pre-lunar-new-year-demand-to-give-trans-pac-market-first-test-of-2026-6149869">falling spot rates</a>, no significant surge in imports is projected in March, when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. “That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the [big retailers].” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56cdc0fc-22a5-4ef9-9e3e-11f96f369c70"></dynamic-object></div>A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year over year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year over year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” <h3>Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand </h3>But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the midsize and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e5c8a2a0-9aa5-4787-bbed-bf4b7a9f9677"></dynamic-object></div>A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026–27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The levels and direction of spot rates impact service contracting, as it’s a barometer of the degree to which carriers can effectively match supply to demand. Long-term contract rates generally allow shippers to lock in lower prices than they could find in the spot market, leading shippers to watch the latter closely ahead of and during service contract negotiations. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until [TPM26] to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, midsize and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1–4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. Shippers’ market The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to softer demand and falling spot rates , no significant surge in imports is projected in March, when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026–27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. “That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the [big retailers].” A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year over year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year over year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the midsize and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Zim deal offers Hapag-Lloyd entry into niche car carrier market

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Maersk, MSC units begin interim management of Panama Canal terminals

No clear path to get IMO’s net-zero framework over the line: industry experts

IEEPA tariff decision prompts flood of correction tools for refunds, customs entries

Recent Commentary

Intermodal needs ‘closest to the pin’ strategy to compete with trucking

A few market predictions and some advice for BCOs as contract season heats up

Top 5 Most Read Stories