<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">China will remain the clear leader in U.S. footwear imports even as Vietnam and other countries nibble away at its market share, according to a new forecast by the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America.
 </div>

China will remain the clear leader in U.S. footwear imports even as Vietnam and other countries nibble away at its market share, according to a new forecast by the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America.

<div><div><img></div>China will remain the clear leader in U.S. footwear imports even as Vietnam and other countries nibble away at its market share, according to a new forecast by the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America.The association said China’s 81 percent share of U.S. imports in 2013, measured in pairs of footwear, is expected to slip to 71 percent by 2018. Second-ranked Vietnam’s 10 percent share is forecast to rise to 12 percent while smaller producers also gain market share.Vietnam’s footwear exports to the U.S. have risen for 13 consecutive years and jumped by 20 percent last year. They could get...

China will remain the clear leader in U.S. footwear imports even as Vietnam and other countries nibble away at its market share, according to a new forecast by the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America. The association said China’s 81 percent share of U.S. imports in 2013, measured in pairs of footwear, is expected to slip to 71 percent by 2018. Second-ranked Vietnam’s 10 percent share is forecast to rise to 12 percent while smaller producers also gain market share. Vietnam’s footwear exports to the U.S. have risen for 13 consecutive years and jumped by 20 percent last year. They could get an added boost if ongoing negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership produce a free trade agreement that eliminates or reduces duties. “The anticipation surrounding the completion of TPP negotiations cannot be overstated,” said the FDRA’s annual Global Footwear Sourcing Assessment, released at a sourcing conference the association hosted in New York. Last year’s $2.5 billion in U.S. footwear duties included $361 million paid on imports from Vietnam. “High duties combined with increasing costs of production have a dramatic impact on where footwear is produced and the development of a global supply chain,” the report said. Imports account for 99 percent of U.S. footwear. Only about 1.2 percent of the volume from the top 10 U.S. footwear suppliers enter the U.S. under free trade agreements. China, Vietnam and Indonesia combined accounted for 95 percent of the U.S. footwear market last year, according to statistics from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Vietnam’s reputation as a footwear source was tarnished a bit this year when Chinese-managed factories were targeted by rioters protesting China’s energy drilling in disputed waters off Vietnam in the South China Sea. With a population of 93 million and a transportation system that’s not fully developed, Vietnam can’t match China’s scale or efficiency. Many components of Vietnam’s footwear industry still must be imported from China and other countries. But some of China’s advantages in footwear production are starting to erode. For years, manufacturers benefited from a stable currency and labor supply, modest wage increases, government support and incentives, and factories’ proximity to ports. “We got a little spoiled with China,” footwear sourcing and strategy consultant Lev Gelfand said at the association’s conference. Although companies continue to rely heavily on China, they increasingly are looking to sources such as Vietnam, Cambodia, India, Ethiopia and the Americas. These sourcing decisions aren’t easy. Companies think long and hard before switching footwear production sources, said Matt Priest, the association’s president. “You can’t just run off when things get bad,” he said. Footwear manufacturing is capital- and labor-intensive, and efficient production requires scale economies, transportation links, and supplier networks that can’t be developed overnight. China had a 68.6 percent share of U.S. footwear imports by value in 2013. Full-size chart Although China’s share of footwear volume is shrinking, its share of the value of U.S. footwear imports is forecast to rise to 71 percent in 2018 from 69 percent last year because of expected price increases. Last year, China exported 1.89 billion pairs of shoes to the United States. The U.S. imported a total of 2.3 billion pairs, or an average of 7.32 pairs for every U.S. man, woman and child. “Americans love shoes,” Priest said. However, U.S. footwear imports have shown lackluster growth since the 2008-2009 recession. Measured in pairs of shoes, import volume inched up just 1 percent. Oceanborne container imports of footwear rose 6.2 percent last year, to 425,393 20-foot-equivalent units, according to PIERS, the data division of JOC Group Inc. Combined U.S. footwear imports from mainland China and Hong Kong were 334,120 TEUs last year, or 78.5 percent of total U.S. volume. Vietnam’s TEU volume was 49,534 TEUs, or 11.6 percent of U.S. volume. PIERS data for the first half of 2014 show mainland China and Hong Kong with a combined 74 percent share of U.S. footwear imports, compared with a 77.8 percent a year earlier. Vietnam’s share rose to 14.2 percent from 11.8 percent. Contact Joseph Bonney at jbonney@joc.com and follow him on Twitter: @josephbonney .

Forwarding

International ports

China forecast to remain top US footwear source

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Logistics and transportation veterans decried Amazon’s announcement this week that it is offering bundled supply chain services as merely a repackaging of current capabilities; others weren’t as quick to dismiss it. </div>

Logistics and transportation veterans decried Amazon’s announcement this week that it is offering bundled supply chain services as merely a repackaging of current capabilities; others weren’t as quick to dismiss it.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Amazon’s launch this week of a suite of supply chain services for shippers not currently using its e-commerce seller ecosystem has sparked a healthy debate within the logistics industry about whether the services represent a threat to third-party logistics providers (3PLs). On one side of that debate are mostly transportation and logistics veterans who suggest the announcement is primarily marketing — a neat and more digestible packaging of offerings that Amazon has long provided as individual services, such as warehousing, fulfillment, and brokered and for-hire transportation. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6215654_0.1.jpg"></img></div>On the other side are those who think Amazon’s foray into diversified logistics is taking shape in a way that threatens everyone from integrators like UPS and FedEx to mom-and-pop forwarders and freight brokers to supply chain software vendors. “I’m laughing at all the ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ over something that is essentially just a marketing ploy,” Eric Williams, CEO of freight brokerage pricing vendor Beagl and a former transportation executive with Target, wrote on X. In a response to a question posted on X about whether Amazon had just “knee-capped” the forwarder Flexport, its CEO Ryan Petersen replied: “No, they’ve had this offering for many years.” One longtime logistics veteran who did not want to be identified described the announcement to the Journal of Commerce as “Groundhog Day,” given that it felt familiar. <h3>‘Execution engine’ </h3>Still, there are certainly watchers of the supply chain space who assert that Amazon’s move is more than just a repackaging of existing capabilities. “Amazon has built a fully integrated execution engine,” Brittain Ladd, a former Amazon executive and prolific analyst of the retail, supply chain and technology space, said in a LinkedIn post. “Not a platform. Not software. An integrated execution engine that also includes robotics and automation.” Ladd said sources within Amazon believe the company will be able to save third-party shippers a sizable percentage over what they might be paying now by using current combinations of transportation, contract logistics, final mile, and software partners. “I don’t care how long a 3PL has done business with a customer,” he said. “When customers learn that Amazon can reduce their costs...and transition their logistics needs into Amazon’s ecosystem with minimal disruption, they will choose Amazon.” Or will they? This type of offering has been tried by large retailers before. Walmart in the late 2000s toyed with the idea of offering third-party contract logistics services to other shippers, but the idea never gained enough traction to grow into a substantial business unit. More recently, American Eagle Outfitters cut bait on a third-party logistics venture designed to attract other shippers. It’s hard to pinpoint how and why these ventures didn’t succeed, but some part of it is attributable to the reticence of shippers to use competitors as logistics partners. <h3>Competitor tension </h3>Amazon is a different beast than American Eagle and even Walmart, but some of that competitive tension will surely remain. Although Amazon noted in its announcement that retail customers like Lands’ End and, ironically, American Eagle, are existing users of its supply chain services, it’s hard to imagine retailers that compete directly with Amazon’s e-commerce business engaging in a massive migration to its logistics offering. Some commenters made the link between the announcement Monday of Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) and the wildly successful Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud infrastructure business. Surely, the branding team at Amazon would surely love for ACSC to become as synonymous with logistics as AWS has become with cloud. In business circles, the much-loved trope is that Amazon takes its biggest cost centers and eventually turns them into revenue drivers. But is logistics like other parts of its business? Amazon has long blended the digital and physical worlds, but the fragmentation of freight transportation across modes is much more challenging than what it has faced in parcel or web hosting or even warehousing and fulfillment. Take, for example, Amazon’s non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) business. That unit is big enough to be the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/journal-of-commerce-top-25-trans-pacific-nvos-in-2025-6182176">seventh-largest trans-Pacific NVO</a>, according to data from S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, but it is not in any way dominant. <h3>Domestic focus </h3>What’s more, the announcement Monday suggests Amazon’s focus is largely on domestic services — brokerage, drayage, warehousing, final-mile, inventory management, and distribution. Within each of those categories, Amazon will contend with a set of competitors that range from large, diversified, and often well-capitalized players, to the normal cohort of smaller providers. Given the highly fragmented nature of logistics on the whole, and even within each subcategory, this will be a test of whether Amazon’s technological might and huge scale will overpower businesses that focus on people-to-people relationships first and foremost. The not-so-small matter of which shippers might be reluctant to turn over the keys to their supply chains to a company that has become famously dominant in e-commerce, fulfillment and web services overlaps with the fragmentation issue. Competitors in each service category will also be split into ones that cater to many shipper verticals and ones that focus on single verticals. In the announcement, Amazon specifically mentioned automotive, healthcare, electronics, apparel &amp; beauty, and food &amp; beverage, as key verticals it would target. Some of those verticals can be neatly split into manufacturer and retailer segments. Are retailers ready to give Amazon intricate information on their supplier networks or customs information? Or will Amazon find more joy in targeting upstream suppliers within the retail industry, or larger shippers in the industrial sector? <h3>‘Base load’ benefits </h3>Aside from just generating more revenue from its decade of investment in third-party logistics, the benefit to Amazon bundling its services is clear: By providing what one LinkedIn commenter called a “base load“ of third-party cargo across various modes, Amazon could essentially subsidize or even zero out the cost of moving its own freight. That “own” freight could take the form of volume from third-party sellers already on Amazon’s e-commerce platform or its own products that Amazon moves as an outright shipper itself. That’s a target worth chasing for a company with the scale and reach of Amazon. And it would give them yet another lever to distance themselves from competition across the various categories in which it participates. That even includes AWS, where it is competing with Google and Microsoft to collect monetizable logistics industry information. Still... “This is not like AWS,” Dave Ross, chief strategy officer of less-than-truckload carrier Roadrunner and a former equities analyst, wrote on LinkedIn. “There is no ‘move to the cloud’ when it comes to freight. Amazon is adding no new capacity. [It] just wants to be a middleman to replace your current middleman. I’ll take the ‘under’ on its overall impact to the transportation &amp; logistics industry after hype and headlines pass.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Amazon’s launch this week of a suite of supply chain services for shippers not currently using its e-commerce seller ecosystem has sparked a healthy debate within the logistics industry about whether the services represent a threat to third-party logistics providers (3PLs). On one side of that debate are mostly transportation and logistics veterans who suggest the announcement is primarily marketing — a neat and more digestible packaging of offerings that Amazon has long provided as individual services, such as warehousing, fulfillment, and brokered and for-hire transportation. On the other side are those who think Amazon’s foray into diversified logistics is taking shape in a way that threatens everyone from integrators like UPS and FedEx to mom-and-pop forwarders and freight brokers to supply chain software vendors. “I’m laughing at all the ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs’ over something that is essentially just a marketing ploy,” Eric Williams, CEO of freight brokerage pricing vendor Beagl and a former transportation executive with Target, wrote on X. In a response to a question posted on X about whether Amazon had just “knee-capped” the forwarder Flexport, its CEO Ryan Petersen replied: “No, they’ve had this offering for many years.” One longtime logistics veteran who did not want to be identified described the announcement to the Journal of Commerce as “Groundhog Day,” given that it felt familiar. ‘Execution engine’ Still, there are certainly watchers of the supply chain space who assert that Amazon’s move is more than just a repackaging of existing capabilities. “Amazon has built a fully integrated execution engine,” Brittain Ladd, a former Amazon executive and prolific analyst of the retail, supply chain and technology space, said in a LinkedIn post. “Not a platform. Not software. An integrated execution engine that also includes robotics and automation.” Ladd said sources within Amazon believe the company will be able to save third-party shippers a sizable percentage over what they might be paying now by using current combinations of transportation, contract logistics, final mile, and software partners. “I don’t care how long a 3PL has done business with a customer,” he said. “When customers learn that Amazon can reduce their costs...and transition their logistics needs into Amazon’s ecosystem with minimal disruption, they will choose Amazon.” Or will they? This type of offering has been tried by large retailers before. Walmart in the late 2000s toyed with the idea of offering third-party contract logistics services to other shippers, but the idea never gained enough traction to grow into a substantial business unit. More recently, American Eagle Outfitters cut bait on a third-party logistics venture designed to attract other shippers. It’s hard to pinpoint how and why these ventures didn’t succeed, but some part of it is attributable to the reticence of shippers to use competitors as logistics partners. Competitor tension Amazon is a different beast than American Eagle and even Walmart, but some of that competitive tension will surely remain. Although Amazon noted in its announcement that retail customers like Lands’ End and, ironically, American Eagle, are existing users of its supply chain services, it’s hard to imagine retailers that compete directly with Amazon’s e-commerce business engaging in a massive migration to its logistics offering. Some commenters made the link between the announcement Monday of Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) and the wildly successful Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud infrastructure business. Surely, the branding team at Amazon would surely love for ACSC to become as synonymous with logistics as AWS has become with cloud. In business circles, the much-loved trope is that Amazon takes its biggest cost centers and eventually turns them into revenue drivers. But is logistics like other parts of its business? Amazon has long blended the digital and physical worlds, but the fragmentation of freight transportation across modes is much more challenging than what it has faced in parcel or web hosting or even warehousing and fulfillment. Take, for example, Amazon’s non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) business. That unit is big enough to be the seventh-largest trans-Pacific NVO , according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence, but it is not in any way dominant. Domestic focus What’s more, the announcement Monday suggests Amazon’s focus is largely on domestic services — brokerage, drayage, warehousing, final-mile, inventory management, and distribution. Within each of those categories, Amazon will contend with a set of competitors that range from large, diversified, and often well-capitalized players, to the normal cohort of smaller providers. Given the highly fragmented nature of logistics on the whole, and even within each subcategory, this will be a test of whether Amazon’s technological might and huge scale will overpower businesses that focus on people-to-people relationships first and foremost. The not-so-small matter of which shippers might be reluctant to turn over the keys to their supply chains to a company that has become famously dominant in e-commerce, fulfillment and web services overlaps with the fragmentation issue. Competitors in each service category will also be split into ones that cater to many shipper verticals and ones that focus on single verticals. In the announcement, Amazon specifically mentioned automotive, healthcare, electronics, apparel & beauty, and food & beverage, as key verticals it would target. Some of those verticals can be neatly split into manufacturer and retailer segments. Are retailers ready to give Amazon intricate information on their supplier networks or customs information? Or will Amazon find more joy in targeting upstream suppliers within the retail industry, or larger shippers in the industrial sector? ‘Base load’ benefits Aside from just generating more revenue from its decade of investment in third-party logistics, the benefit to Amazon bundling its services is clear: By providing what one LinkedIn commenter called a “base load“ of third-party cargo across various modes, Amazon could essentially subsidize or even zero out the cost of moving its own freight. That “own” freight could take the form of volume from third-party sellers already on Amazon’s e-commerce platform or its own products that Amazon moves as an outright shipper itself. That’s a target worth chasing for a company with the scale and reach of Amazon. And it would give them yet another lever to distance themselves from competition across the various categories in which it participates. That even includes AWS, where it is competing with Google and Microsoft to collect monetizable logistics industry information. Still... “This is not like AWS,” Dave Ross, chief strategy officer of less-than-truckload carrier Roadrunner and a former equities analyst, wrote on LinkedIn. “There is no ‘move to the cloud’ when it comes to freight. Amazon is adding no new capacity. [It] just wants to be a middleman to replace your current middleman. I’ll take the ‘under’ on its overall impact to the transportation & logistics industry after hype and headlines pass.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Amazon’s 3PL foray: marketing ploy or existential threat to 3PLs?

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Rates to the US East Coast and Europe are down by as much as $500 per FEU in recent weeks as ocean carriers look to lift volumes that softened in April.</div>

Rates to the US East Coast and Europe are down by as much as $500 per FEU in recent weeks as ocean carriers look to lift volumes that softened in April.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean rates out of India to the US and Europe have weakened in recent weeks as carriers face an uncertain demand environment amid geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges. Spot booking rates from West India to the US East Coast have fallen $400 to $500 per FEU from late-April levels, an analysis of new data collected by the Journal of Commerce from local freight forwarders indicates. Forwarder sources have pegged spot pricing by lead European carriers for loads from Nhava Sheva to New York at between $2,200 to $2,500 per FEU, while reporting even lower quotes of $2,000 to $2,200 from Asian liners. Sources say most India–USEC carriers have extended current short-term contract rates for bookings through May after abandoning rate increase plans for April and early May. But carriers continue to file fresh rate increase notices on the trade lane, including two separate hikes of $1,000 per container now planned by Hapag-Lloyd for May 15 and June 1. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, assessed India-USEC spot rates at $1,950 per FEU as of May 5, marking a 10% week-on-week decline. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="893ffa5c-0a69-45c7-a555-425e44318711"></dynamic-object></div>Similarly, on the India-Europe trade lane, active carriers have pushed rates lower by up to $500 per FEU over the past two weeks in an effort to lift volumes as close as possible to their declared space allocations. Rates from Nhava Sheva to Felixstowe/London Gateway/Rotterdam now stand at around $2,000 per FEU, the analysis shows. Despite tactical price adjustments, cargo liftings for some of the recent West India-USEC/North Europe sailings have been lighter, with average capacity utilization near 70%, down from the 80% to 90% level normally fulfilled and/or targeted by carriers, according to the sources. Forwarders generally believe the rate pressure will persist through the second quarter, which is traditionally a slack period for Indian exports following the fiscal year-end rush in March. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ae1df54b-4003-46b5-a8c3-e0d35707e941"></dynamic-object></div>Apart from that seasonal factor, carriers’ heightened sales efforts to pick up additional volumes from India to compensate for the lack or limited availability of transshipment cargo out of the Middle East hubs has contributed to the downward rate shift, liner executives agree. “There has been a 20% bump in our Indian westbound allocations for the USEC since the Middle East war,” a sales executive at a major European liner told the Journal of Commerce. “We are also seeing consistent sailings across major services, so there is no pricing opportunity to gain from blanked capacity.” Corroborating that, industry data points to only two void calls across five India-USEC connections operated by Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM and Maersk in the week 19 to 23 period. Data from PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce, shows Indian exports to the US East Coast jumped more than 20% in March from February, to 73,540 TEUs. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Ocean rates out of India to the US and Europe have weakened in recent weeks as carriers face an uncertain demand environment amid geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges. Spot booking rates from West India to the US East Coast have fallen $400 to $500 per FEU from late-April levels, an analysis of new data collected by the Journal of Commerce from local freight forwarders indicates. Forwarder sources have pegged spot pricing by lead European carriers for loads from Nhava Sheva to New York at between $2,200 to $2,500 per FEU, while reporting even lower quotes of $2,000 to $2,200 from Asian liners. Sources say most India–USEC carriers have extended current short-term contract rates for bookings through May after abandoning rate increase plans for April and early May. But carriers continue to file fresh rate increase notices on the trade lane, including two separate hikes of $1,000 per container now planned by Hapag-Lloyd for May 15 and June 1. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, assessed India-USEC spot rates at $1,950 per FEU as of May 5, marking a 10% week-on-week decline. Similarly, on the India-Europe trade lane, active carriers have pushed rates lower by up to $500 per FEU over the past two weeks in an effort to lift volumes as close as possible to their declared space allocations. Rates from Nhava Sheva to Felixstowe/London Gateway/Rotterdam now stand at around $2,000 per FEU, the analysis shows. Despite tactical price adjustments, cargo liftings for some of the recent West India-USEC/North Europe sailings have been lighter, with average capacity utilization near 70%, down from the 80% to 90% level normally fulfilled and/or targeted by carriers, according to the sources. Forwarders generally believe the rate pressure will persist through the second quarter, which is traditionally a slack period for Indian exports following the fiscal year-end rush in March. Apart from that seasonal factor, carriers’ heightened sales efforts to pick up additional volumes from India to compensate for the lack or limited availability of transshipment cargo out of the Middle East hubs has contributed to the downward rate shift, liner executives agree. “There has been a 20% bump in our Indian westbound allocations for the USEC since the Middle East war,” a sales executive at a major European liner told the Journal of Commerce. “We are also seeing consistent sailings across major services, so there is no pricing opportunity to gain from blanked capacity.” Corroborating that, industry data points to only two void calls across five India-USEC connections operated by Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM and Maersk in the week 19 to 23 period. Data from PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce, shows Indian exports to the US East Coast jumped more than 20% in March from February, to 73,540 TEUs. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

Asia-Europe

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Indian westbound rates under pressure amid demand uncertainty, overcapacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 14-day lead time now in place at Asian hubs would become a “global standard” for vessels seeking bunker fuel should the key waterway remain closed for another month, says S&amp;P Global’s Fotios Katsoulas.</div>

The 14-day lead time now in place at Asian hubs would become a “global standard” for vessels seeking bunker fuel should the key waterway remain closed for another month, says S&P Global’s Fotios Katsoulas.

<div class="phx-topic">Keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed for another month would expand the two-week bunker refueling lead times now required in Asia across the globe and create a new price floor for low-sulfur fuel oil, energy analysts at S&amp;P Global warn. Much of Asia’s bunker fuel is sourced from Persian Gulf countries and exported via Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the Middle East war began Feb. 28. The availability of the fuel has tightened across key Asian hubs, where carriers report wait times of up to 15 days in Singapore and at Japanese ports. “The 14-day lead time will become the global standard, not just an Eastern one,” Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&amp;P Global Energy, told the Journal of Commerce. “We anticipate a permanent price floor for very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) in Asia as the cost of rerouting supply from the US and Europe becomes baked into the local market.” Katsoulas said the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz will also lead to refining imbalances and potentially force a shift in production away from marine fuels toward higher-value distillates such as jet fuel and diesel, further strangling bunker availability. <h3>Uptick in satellite fuel hub activity </h3>While the regional nature of the conflict may be having a limited effect on major container shipping trade lanes, about 20% of the world’s oil and gas exports are moved via Hormuz, and its closure is being acutely felt at key bunkering hubs. Katsoulas said as Singapore and Fujairah in the UAE become increasingly difficult to navigate, there has been a significant uptick in activity at satellite hubs. Chinese ports at Zhoushan and Hong Kong are acting as overflow valves for North Asian traffic, while Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas in Malaysia are seeing a surge in bunker demand from container lines that traditionally would have topped off in Singapore. Port Louis in Mauritius is emerging as a vital pit stop for vessels making long-haul voyages to and from Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, although the fast-growing demand has seen lead times there jump to more than 10 days. But Katsoulas said the most significant change in container line behavior has been a shift toward what he labeled “extreme tankering.” “Lines are no longer looking for the cheapest fuel; they are looking for the highest volume per call,” he said. “We see vessels maxing out their tanks in Rotterdam or the US Gulf — carrying a higher fuel load than is aerodynamically or economically optimal— to ensure they can bypass the volatility of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia entirely. “This heavy-lifting strategy is effectively a hedge against being caught in a dry port in the East,” Katsoulas added. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. <h3>‘Project Freedom’ paused </h3>The shifting bunker market dynamics come as a US initiative to free vessels stranded in the Persian Gulf has been paused, mere days after it began. In a social media post Wednesday, President Donald Trump said “Project Freedom,” announced Sunday, was put on hold because “great progress” was being made on a deal with Iran to end hostilities. The Pentagon estimated that about 22,500 mariners on 1,550 vessels were still trapped in the Persian Gulf. Jakob Larsen, chief safety and security officer at shipping association Bimco, called the suspension of Project Freedom so soon after its launch “a surprise.” “Changes announced at short notice or changes that are surprising, such as the sudden suspension of Project Freedom, are a challenge for shipowners attempting to assess the risks and planning for leaving the Persian Gulf,” Larsen said in a statement Wednesday. “While a few ships made it out safely while Project Freedom was in place, it was clear that transits without coordination with Iran entailed significant risk,” he added. Indeed, that was demonstrated Tuesday when a CMA CGM vessel was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The carrier said in a statement that the attack on the CMA CGM San Antonio injured an undisclosed number of seafarers and damaged the vessel. “The injured crew members have been evacuated and are provided with the necessary medical care ... CMA CGM is closely monitoring the situation and remains fully mobilized alongside the crew,” the carrier said. Reuters reported that the vessel <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/cma-cgm-container-ship-hit-strait-hormuz-injuring-crew-2026-05-06/">was hit by an “Iranian projectile”</a> while moving past the coast of Oman at night. The ongoing security concerns are keeping the waterway firmly out of bounds to commercial shipping. “The situation in and around the Strait of Hormuz remains uncertain,” Hapag-Lloyd said in an update Tuesday. “The safety of our crews and personnel remains our top priority. We will continue to avoid transiting the Strait of Hormuz for now and instead <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-msc-to-use-feeders-to-restore-upper-persian-gulf-cargo-links-6214083">use third-party feeder services to serve Upper Gulf ports</a>.” Meanwhile, the US, alongside Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar, on Tuesday presented a draft of a UN Security Council resolution defending freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. “The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to hold the world’s economy hostage with its efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, threats to attack ships in the Strait, laying of sea mines that pose a danger to shipping, and attempts to charge tolls for the world’s most important waterway,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement announcing the draft resolution. The resolution requires Iran to cease attacks on ships, and to stop laying mines and applying tolls on vessels using Hormuz. It also demands that Iran disclose the number and location of the mines it has laid and cooperate with efforts to remove them, while also supporting the creation of a humanitarian corridor. The US expects the Security Council to vote on the resolution “in the next couple of days.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed for another month would expand the two-week bunker refueling lead times now required in Asia across the globe and create a new price floor for low-sulfur fuel oil, energy analysts at S&P Global warn. Much of Asia’s bunker fuel is sourced from Persian Gulf countries and exported via Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the Middle East war began Feb. 28. The availability of the fuel has tightened across key Asian hubs, where carriers report wait times of up to 15 days in Singapore and at Japanese ports. “The 14-day lead time will become the global standard, not just an Eastern one,” Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&P Global Energy, told the Journal of Commerce. “We anticipate a permanent price floor for very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) in Asia as the cost of rerouting supply from the US and Europe becomes baked into the local market.” Katsoulas said the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz will also lead to refining imbalances and potentially force a shift in production away from marine fuels toward higher-value distillates such as jet fuel and diesel, further strangling bunker availability. Uptick in satellite fuel hub activity While the regional nature of the conflict may be having a limited effect on major container shipping trade lanes, about 20% of the world’s oil and gas exports are moved via Hormuz, and its closure is being acutely felt at key bunkering hubs. Katsoulas said as Singapore and Fujairah in the UAE become increasingly difficult to navigate, there has been a significant uptick in activity at satellite hubs. Chinese ports at Zhoushan and Hong Kong are acting as overflow valves for North Asian traffic, while Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas in Malaysia are seeing a surge in bunker demand from container lines that traditionally would have topped off in Singapore. Port Louis in Mauritius is emerging as a vital pit stop for vessels making long-haul voyages to and from Asia around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa, although the fast-growing demand has seen lead times there jump to more than 10 days. But Katsoulas said the most significant change in container line behavior has been a shift toward what he labeled “extreme tankering.” “Lines are no longer looking for the cheapest fuel; they are looking for the highest volume per call,” he said. “We see vessels maxing out their tanks in Rotterdam or the US Gulf — carrying a higher fuel load than is aerodynamically or economically optimal— to ensure they can bypass the volatility of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia entirely. “This heavy-lifting strategy is effectively a hedge against being caught in a dry port in the East,” Katsoulas added. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. ‘Project Freedom’ paused The shifting bunker market dynamics come as a US initiative to free vessels stranded in the Persian Gulf has been paused, mere days after it began. In a social media post Wednesday, President Donald Trump said “Project Freedom,” announced Sunday, was put on hold because “great progress” was being made on a deal with Iran to end hostilities. The Pentagon estimated that about 22,500 mariners on 1,550 vessels were still trapped in the Persian Gulf. Jakob Larsen, chief safety and security officer at shipping association Bimco, called the suspension of Project Freedom so soon after its launch “a surprise.” “Changes announced at short notice or changes that are surprising, such as the sudden suspension of Project Freedom, are a challenge for shipowners attempting to assess the risks and planning for leaving the Persian Gulf,” Larsen said in a statement Wednesday. “While a few ships made it out safely while Project Freedom was in place, it was clear that transits without coordination with Iran entailed significant risk,” he added. Indeed, that was demonstrated Tuesday when a CMA CGM vessel was attacked while transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The carrier said in a statement that the attack on the CMA CGM San Antonio injured an undisclosed number of seafarers and damaged the vessel. “The injured crew members have been evacuated and are provided with the necessary medical care ... CMA CGM is closely monitoring the situation and remains fully mobilized alongside the crew,” the carrier said. Reuters reported that the vessel was hit by an “Iranian projectile” while moving past the coast of Oman at night. The ongoing security concerns are keeping the waterway firmly out of bounds to commercial shipping. “The situation in and around the Strait of Hormuz remains uncertain,” Hapag-Lloyd said in an update Tuesday. “The safety of our crews and personnel remains our top priority. We will continue to avoid transiting the Strait of Hormuz for now and instead use third-party feeder services to serve Upper Gulf ports .” Meanwhile, the US, alongside Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar, on Tuesday presented a draft of a UN Security Council resolution defending freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. “The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to hold the world’s economy hostage with its efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, threats to attack ships in the Strait, laying of sea mines that pose a danger to shipping, and attempts to charge tolls for the world’s most important waterway,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement announcing the draft resolution. The resolution requires Iran to cease attacks on ships, and to stop laying mines and applying tolls on vessels using Hormuz. It also demands that Iran disclose the number and location of the mines it has laid and cooperate with efforts to remove them, while also supporting the creation of a humanitarian corridor. The US expects the Security Council to vote on the resolution “in the next couple of days.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Ongoing Hormuz closure could expand bunker wait times globally: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the window to lock in those savings over long-haul trucking will shrink because railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too.</div>

But the window to lock in those savings over long-haul trucking will shrink because railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too.

<div class="phx-topic">US shippers saved a record 30.6% on spot market freight and 26.2% on contract loads in the first quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking amid a rise in truckload spot rates, according to <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/intermodal-savings-index">the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index</a> (ISI).       For the second consecutive quarter, the spot market index was higher than the contract index. The window to lock in these record savings, however, will shrink as railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too. Similar to motor carriers, railroads and intermodal providers have been unable to recover cost inflation in their intermodal operations for three years. Railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) have begun the repricing process, which typically lags full truckload by three to six months. Major asset-based IMCs are rejecting tenders, shedding low-margin freight, or taking other measures to limit their exposure to the shipments that they accepted in recent years to keep their containers full. As shippers face the prospect of losing guaranteed capacity, there are many who will agree to rate increases to keep product moving. The higher rates will also show up in annual contracts being negotiated in the second and third quarters. “In terms of pricing, the over-the-road market dropped much further than intermodal did, so, in terms of the degree of change, I am not sure we will see the same degree in Intermodal as over the road,” said Jim Filter, executive vice president of Schneider National, on an April 30 earnings call. “In terms of timing, typically we say about two quarters [lag], and from what we can see, we stay pretty consistent with that.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9f0dff14-0731-4ad3-859c-d093757d1ed4"></dynamic-object></div>Domestic intermodal volume in March jumped 9.5% year over year, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). North American railroads hauled 2.19 million domestic containers in the first quarter, up 4% compared with a year ago, according to IANA. The results were slightly higher than the Journal of Commerce mid-range forecast of volume growth between 1% and 3%, due mostly to the unanticipated surge in March. “We are seeing increased demand in how [shippers] are thinking about intermodal and what they can allocate to intermodal,” Filter said. “Current fuel cost is making a difference, as well as [shippers’] anticipation of what capacity will look like later this year ... While there is plenty of box capacity, the real constraint in this industry is always dray capacity.” <h3>Rates on the way up </h3>The Spot ISI averaged 130.6 in the first quarter, up from 118.4 a year ago. The Contract ISI rose to 126.3 from 124.9 a year ago.     Index values above 100 indicate intermodal is the more cost-effective mode; the higher the index number, the greater the savings. A Spot ISI of 130.6 translates to a 30.6% savings on intermodal versus truckload, while a Contract ISI of 126.3 implies a 26.3% savings.     All calculations assume local drayage at origin and destination, so shippers with distribution centers more than 30 miles from the terminal may save significantly less than the index values.   Spot truckload rates in the first quarter jumped 19 cents sequentially to $2.34 per mile, including fuel, while spot intermodal rates rose 10 cents to $1.64 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates surged 27 cents to $2.25 per mile, including fuel, while contract intermodal prices climbed 15 cents to $1.65 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates, excluding fuel spikes, rose 4.6% year over year in the first quarter, while contract intermodal rates climbed 2.5% year over year on the same lanes. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $1,025 per container on the spot market in the first quarter compared with truckload, and $900 per box on the contract market. In the first quarter of 2025, the average spot intermodal load saved $675 per container, with the contract load saving $830.   <h3>Service will be put to the test </h3>The coming months will be the first major stress test for the railroads and the drayage networks of the IMCs since the service meltdowns during the pandemic-related freight surge. Multiple shippers have told the Journal of Commerce that on-time pickups and deliveries slipped in March, with their intermodal partners citing dray capacity as a root cause. The pressure isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon. The  Journal of Commerce forecasts that domestic intermodal volume will grow between 3% and 4.5% year over year in the second quarter. Using advanced statistical analysis, the Journal of Commerce forecasts a 98% probability that volumes will exceed the 2.12 million loads hauled in the second quarter of 2025. The average intermodal train speed among US railroads was 2.7% faster year to date through the end of April compared with the same period a year ago, according to the US Surface Transportation Board. That came as the number of rail cars carrying containers that idled for more than 48 hours through the first four months of the year declined 14% compared with a year ago. Both data points show that, for now, intermodal trains are moving quickly through their service networks, and the handoffs between railroads and trucks remain fluid at most US rail hubs. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.       The data behind the Contract ISI and Spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription. </div>

US shippers saved a record 30.6% on spot market freight and 26.2% on contract loads in the first quarter by using domestic intermodal instead of long-haul trucking amid a rise in truckload spot rates, according to the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index  (ISI).       For the second consecutive quarter, the spot market index was higher than the contract index. The window to lock in these record savings, however, will shrink as railroads eventually will increase their spot and contract pricing, too. Similar to motor carriers, railroads and intermodal providers have been unable to recover cost inflation in their intermodal operations for three years. Railroads and intermodal marketing companies (IMCs) have begun the repricing process, which typically lags full truckload by three to six months. Major asset-based IMCs are rejecting tenders, shedding low-margin freight, or taking other measures to limit their exposure to the shipments that they accepted in recent years to keep their containers full. As shippers face the prospect of losing guaranteed capacity, there are many who will agree to rate increases to keep product moving. The higher rates will also show up in annual contracts being negotiated in the second and third quarters. “In terms of pricing, the over-the-road market dropped much further than intermodal did, so, in terms of the degree of change, I am not sure we will see the same degree in Intermodal as over the road,” said Jim Filter, executive vice president of Schneider National, on an April 30 earnings call. “In terms of timing, typically we say about two quarters [lag], and from what we can see, we stay pretty consistent with that.” Domestic intermodal volume in March jumped 9.5% year over year, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). North American railroads hauled 2.19 million domestic containers in the first quarter, up 4% compared with a year ago, according to IANA. The results were slightly higher than the Journal of Commerce mid-range forecast of volume growth between 1% and 3%, due mostly to the unanticipated surge in March. “We are seeing increased demand in how [shippers] are thinking about intermodal and what they can allocate to intermodal,” Filter said. “Current fuel cost is making a difference, as well as [shippers’] anticipation of what capacity will look like later this year ... While there is plenty of box capacity, the real constraint in this industry is always dray capacity.” Rates on the way up The Spot ISI averaged 130.6 in the first quarter, up from 118.4 a year ago. The Contract ISI rose to 126.3 from 124.9 a year ago.     Index values above 100 indicate intermodal is the more cost-effective mode; the higher the index number, the greater the savings. A Spot ISI of 130.6 translates to a 30.6% savings on intermodal versus truckload, while a Contract ISI of 126.3 implies a 26.3% savings.     All calculations assume local drayage at origin and destination, so shippers with distribution centers more than 30 miles from the terminal may save significantly less than the index values.   Spot truckload rates in the first quarter jumped 19 cents sequentially to $2.34 per mile, including fuel, while spot intermodal rates rose 10 cents to $1.64 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates surged 27 cents to $2.25 per mile, including fuel, while contract intermodal prices climbed 15 cents to $1.65 per mile on the same routes. Contract truckload rates, excluding fuel spikes, rose 4.6% year over year in the first quarter, while contract intermodal rates climbed 2.5% year over year on the same lanes. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $1,025 per container on the spot market in the first quarter compared with truckload, and $900 per box on the contract market. In the first quarter of 2025, the average spot intermodal load saved $675 per container, with the contract load saving $830.   Service will be put to the test The coming months will be the first major stress test for the railroads and the drayage networks of the IMCs since the service meltdowns during the pandemic-related freight surge. Multiple shippers have told the Journal of Commerce that on-time pickups and deliveries slipped in March, with their intermodal partners citing dray capacity as a root cause. The pressure isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon. The  Journal of Commerce forecasts that domestic intermodal volume will grow between 3% and 4.5% year over year in the second quarter. Using advanced statistical analysis, the Journal of Commerce forecasts a 98% probability that volumes will exceed the 2.12 million loads hauled in the second quarter of 2025. The average intermodal train speed among US railroads was 2.7% faster year to date through the end of April compared with the same period a year ago, according to the US Surface Transportation Board. That came as the number of rail cars carrying containers that idled for more than 48 hours through the first four months of the year declined 14% compared with a year ago. Both data points show that, for now, intermodal trains are moving quickly through their service networks, and the handoffs between railroads and trucks remain fluid at most US rail hubs. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .       The data behind the Contract ISI and Spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription.

Rail News

North-American rail

Surface

Shippers banked record discounts via intermodal in Q1: ISI

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Midwest outperformed other US regions in the latest U.S. Bank Freight Index, with freight volumes up 9.5% year over year and shipper spending jumping 26.7%. </div>

The Midwest outperformed other US regions in the latest U.S. Bank Freight Index, with freight volumes up 9.5% year over year and shipper spending jumping 26.7%.

<div class="phx-topic">Freight costs and shipper expenditures are rising across the US, but most rapidly in the Midwest. Shipper spending on freight in the US industrial heartland rose 19.6% sequentially from the fourth quarter to the first quarter and 26.7% year over year, according to the latest U.S. Bank Freight Payment Index, released Tuesday. The Midwest outperformed other US regions in both shipment volume and shipper spending, U.S. Bank data showed. Nationally, shipper spending was up 12.9% from the previous quarter and 21.8% year over year, while shipment volume fell 0.3% quarter over quarter and was down 0.6% compared with the 2025 first quarter. Tighter truckload capacity was the main reason for the jump in shipper spending, followed by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rising-fuel-costs-forcing-us-truck-shippers-to-shift-freight-6214133">the rapid increase in the price of diesel</a> in March, U.S. Bank said. The US average retail diesel price leapt from $3.47 at the start of the quarter to $5.40 at the end, a 55% gain. That included the global oil gains in March driven by the war in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Crackdowns on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/impact-of-non-domiciled-cdl-enforcement-splits-us-trucking-sector-6135184">non-domiciled commercial drivers</a> and stricter English-language enforcement are constraining truckload capacity after a four-year freight recession. The U.S. Bank data aligns with modest increases in manufacturing reported for the Midwest in the US Federal Reserve Board’s Beige Book <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/beigebook202604.htm">economic report released in April</a>. Data center development remains a “primary demand driver” for many industries, according to the Federal Reserve report, along with aerospace and automotive production. “Auto production provided a tailwind for Midwest freight early in the quarter,” U.S. Bank said in its report. Automotive output in January and February increased 3.3% from the fourth-quarter average and 3% from a year earlier.” Heavy-duty truck production was also a positive for freight in the region as motor carriers replace aging fleets,” U.S. Bank said. <h3>Shipper spending outpaces volume growth </h3>FTR Transportation Intelligence on Tuesday reported preliminary North American Class 8 tractor net orders rose 199% year over year last month from a low base in April 2025. Orders declined 34% from an “elevated level” in March but were still up 110% year over year in the first four months of 2026, the transportation research firm said. However, shipper spending far outpaced shipment volume growth. In the Midwest, shipments rose 5.7% from the fourth quarter and were up 9.5% year over year, the U.S. Bank Freight Index showed. Truckload rate increases and higher fuel surcharges in March helped push shipper spending higher despite tepid volume gains, U.S. Bank said. The Midwest’s sequential first-quarter increase in shipper spend far outpaced other regions, with the Southwest showing the second-highest quarter-over-quarter growth rate at 11.5%, according to U.S. Bank. By contrast, the Northeast, Southeast and West all saw shipper freight spending rise by high single-digit percentages from the fourth quarter. In terms of volume, Western states saw Q1 shipments climb 1.9% from the previous quarter, U.S. Bank reported, but shipments dropped everywhere else sequentially, falling 2.7%, 3% and 9.6% in the Northeast, Southeast and Southwest, respectively. But all regions saw double-digit growth year over year in the quarter. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Freight costs and shipper expenditures are rising across the US, but most rapidly in the Midwest. Shipper spending on freight in the US industrial heartland rose 19.6% sequentially from the fourth quarter to the first quarter and 26.7% year over year, according to the latest U.S. Bank Freight Payment Index, released Tuesday. The Midwest outperformed other US regions in both shipment volume and shipper spending, U.S. Bank data showed. Nationally, shipper spending was up 12.9% from the previous quarter and 21.8% year over year, while shipment volume fell 0.3% quarter over quarter and was down 0.6% compared with the 2025 first quarter. Tighter truckload capacity was the main reason for the jump in shipper spending, followed by the rapid increase in the price of diesel in March, U.S. Bank said. The US average retail diesel price leapt from $3.47 at the start of the quarter to $5.40 at the end, a 55% gain. That included the global oil gains in March driven by the war in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Crackdowns on non-domiciled commercial drivers and stricter English-language enforcement are constraining truckload capacity after a four-year freight recession. The U.S. Bank data aligns with modest increases in manufacturing reported for the Midwest in the US Federal Reserve Board’s Beige Book economic report released in April . Data center development remains a “primary demand driver” for many industries, according to the Federal Reserve report, along with aerospace and automotive production. “Auto production provided a tailwind for Midwest freight early in the quarter,” U.S. Bank said in its report. Automotive output in January and February increased 3.3% from the fourth-quarter average and 3% from a year earlier.” Heavy-duty truck production was also a positive for freight in the region as motor carriers replace aging fleets,” U.S. Bank said. Shipper spending outpaces volume growth FTR Transportation Intelligence on Tuesday reported preliminary North American Class 8 tractor net orders rose 199% year over year last month from a low base in April 2025. Orders declined 34% from an “elevated level” in March but were still up 110% year over year in the first four months of 2026, the transportation research firm said. However, shipper spending far outpaced shipment volume growth. In the Midwest, shipments rose 5.7% from the fourth quarter and were up 9.5% year over year, the U.S. Bank Freight Index showed. Truckload rate increases and higher fuel surcharges in March helped push shipper spending higher despite tepid volume gains, U.S. Bank said. The Midwest’s sequential first-quarter increase in shipper spend far outpaced other regions, with the Southwest showing the second-highest quarter-over-quarter growth rate at 11.5%, according to U.S. Bank. By contrast, the Northeast, Southeast and West all saw shipper freight spending rise by high single-digit percentages from the fourth quarter. In terms of volume, Western states saw Q1 shipments climb 1.9% from the previous quarter, U.S. Bank reported, but shipments dropped everywhere else sequentially, falling 2.7%, 3% and 9.6% in the Northeast, Southeast and Southwest, respectively. But all regions saw double-digit growth year over year in the quarter. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Autos, data centers boosting US Midwest freight: U.S. Bank

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 SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% 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

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold 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

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

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 latest port news from the Journal of Commerce spans the globe from North Carolina and Florida to Shanghai and Singapore. Port news includes port automation, terminal construction projects, the future of decarbonization and net-zero shipping, dredging, port hinterland connectivity, labor, disruption, port congestion and cargo flow.

Marine terminals

Longshore labor

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

Port News

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

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

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Amazon’s 3PL foray: marketing ploy or existential threat to 3PLs?

Indian westbound rates under pressure amid demand uncertainty, overcapacity

Ongoing Hormuz closure could expand bunker wait times globally: analyst