<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While attending the TOC Americas 2011 Conference in Panama last month, I heard four ocean carrier executives say very similar things about the future of vessels and services.</div>

While attending the TOC Americas 2011 Conference in Panama last month, I heard four ocean carrier executives say very similar things about the future of vessels and services.

<div>While attending the TOC Americas 2011 Conference in Panama last month, I heard four ocean carrier executives say very similar things about the future of vessels and services. What they said won&amp;rsquo;t please those who emphasize service, for a period of time at least. The bad news is that frequency, direct services and transit times will suffer, while transshipments will increase. The good news, if good news is to be found, is the carriers will use their larger vessels to reduce costs, which they hope will help return them to profitability. Shippers, of course, hope that translates to lower rates....

While attending the TOC Americas 2011 Conference in Panama last month, I heard four ocean carrier executives say very similar things about the future of vessels and services. What they said won&rsquo;t please those who emphasize service, for a period of time at least. The bad news is that frequency, direct services and transit times will suffer, while transshipments will increase. The good news, if good news is to be found, is the carriers will use their larger vessels to reduce costs, which they hope will help return them to profitability. Shippers, of course, hope that translates to lower rates. I&rsquo;m not sure the latter will happen, but some will want to see even lower rates. The carriers, with one possible exception, seemingly recognize the significant cost benefits of larger ships. Depending on the expert, the differences on a cost-per-slot basis for an 8,000-TEU ship and a 14,000-TEU ship is north of 20 percent. As one who pays attention to something called margins, that&rsquo;s a huge number, especially when you consider that in 2010, a particularly good year for carriers, the average margin per TEU for the industry was less than $100. With the recognized cost advantages, larger ships are replacing relatively smaller ships, and one might think, &ldquo;So what?&rdquo; That gets me back to what I heard in Panama from the four carrier executives. They each said, in essence, that with what amounts to 15 percent overcapacity globally, carriers would insert the larger vessels for relatively smaller vessels, and do so in a way that doesn&rsquo;t exacerbate the overcapacity in a specific trade. So it won&rsquo;t be a one-for-one vessel swap, and the service patterns will change. Change to what? They all said the same thing in slightly different ways, but it boils down to going to a hub-and-spoke service pattern using mega-ships to call at relatively few large ports and transshipping to relatively smaller ports. Logically, this would reduce frequency, say from three strings a week to two. It won&rsquo;t be that simple. This is a logistical challenge focused on protecting prized markets and, although Maersk Line, Evergreen or Mediterranean Shipping may not have too many issues in making their decisions, those in alliances will, because each carrier has its own criteria on which markets are the most prized. The simple reality is that until global trade grows into the more efficient vessels, the hub-and-spoke services will become the norm in major trades. That brings us to another reality: fuel costs. Some shippers still ask, &ldquo;When will slow steaming and super slow steaming go away?&rdquo; The four carriers addressed the issue head-on, saying with bunker fuel approaching $700 per ton and with no realistic chance of the price declining in the long run, operating conditions won&rsquo;t change. So, get used to it; it&rsquo;s a fact of ocean transportation life. The issue of transshipments is interesting because it&rsquo;s compelled by several factors, first and foremost, which facilities &mdash; ports and terminals &mdash; can handle the mega-ships? Even if the water is deep enough and the terminal facilities are modern, with dual lift cranes and other efficient equipment, do the processes and labor rules allow for efficient handling of these mega-ships? Although it&rsquo;s nice to save significant dollars in the ships&rsquo; operation while at sea, what if it takes extended days to unload and reload them because of poor processes or labor work rules? The four carriers in Panama talked about transshipment port alternatives &mdash; either side of the Panama Canal, Jamaica, Miami or other U.S. ports &mdash; but their focus with this audience, of course, was on the Americas. When was the last time you heard a shipper asking for a transshipment service that didn&rsquo;t relate to the most isolated of destinations where there was no other choice? Again, those who emphasize service and are hoping for improved services may be bitterly disappointed. The hub-and-spoke vessel operations won&rsquo;t be the answer to better overall services. I think the opposite will be true, in fact; services to non-direct ports will generally deteriorate initially unless you believe reliability will increase if they can make it work. But the whole point of this is that if slow steaming extended transit times and increased inventory levels, the changes noted here will make it worse and possibly more complex. Just miss a feeder connection or two and see what happens to your supply chain strategies. Gary Ferrulli, a veteran of nearly 40 years in the shipping industry, is director of export carrier relations for non-vessel-operating common carrier Ocean World Lines, a subsidiary of Pacer International. Contact him at mrgtf4811@mindspring.com . The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of OWL.

Maritime

Container lines

Forwarding

Shipping's Mega Wave

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As 2026 begins, US import demand remains uncertain, but the record amounts of capacity container lines plan to deploy in January and February could put further pressure on already weak rates.</div>

As 2026 begins, US import demand remains uncertain, but the record amounts of capacity container lines plan to deploy in January and February could put further pressure on already weak rates.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">(The following is part of the Journal of Commerce’s 2026 Annual Review and Outlook.) The big picture: An injection of vessels pushed available capacity on the trans-Atlantic beyond market demand in 2025 despite relatively steady volumes. That leaves carriers with little leverage to raise rates from the sustained 16-month low reached in the fourth quarter. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6135199_0.1.jpg"></img></div>A look back: US importers frontloading cargo ahead of threatened 30% tariffs on EU goods caused a spring volume surge on the westbound trans-Atlantic. US imports from North Europe peaked in March at 219,560 TEUs, up 14.3% from March 2024 and the third-highest total for any month in nearly nine years of data from PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. However, that momentum waned following a late-July trade deal that capped US tariffs on most EU imports at 15%, dragging year-over-year volume growth through November down to just 2.5%. At the same time, carriers added capacity to the trade via new and larger vessels. Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC), for example, added a trans-Atlantic leg to its Asia–Mediterranean Dragon service, which operates with vessels averaging roughly 13,000 TEUs. For context, the largest vessel deployed on any other service between the Mediterranean and East Coast of North America was 9,600 TEUs. That helped boost the average size of container ships deployed on trans-Atlantic routes to nearly 6,200 TEUs in the third quarter, compared with 5,500 TEUs at the start of the year, according to data from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. A look ahead: As 2026 begins, US import demand remains uncertain, but the record amounts of capacity container lines plan to deploy in January and February could put further pressure on already weak rates. After briefly rising to $2,000 per FEU in March, average spot pricing from North Europe to the US East Coast has been stuck at $1,400 per FEU since early November, according to Platts, also part of S&amp;P Global. Even with a significant number of blank sailings, carriers plan to deploy more than 435,000 TEUs of capacity between North Europe and the US East and Gulf coasts in January and 390,000 TEUs in February, both of which would be all-time highs for the trade, according to eeSea. Further complicating demand projections are growing tensions over the implementation of the US-EU trade agreement. EU member states have been slow to approve the agreement — which would eliminate EU tariffs on most US products and reduce US tariffs on EU goods to 15% — on the grounds that it unfairly favors the US. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ba342d44-7d63-4c55-a3ba-b135fbe604e7"></dynamic-object></div>The next inflection: The trans-Atlantic is indirectly exposed to a resumption of regular Suez Canal transits. If congestion spreads across European ports, as predicted, when Asia–Europe vessels return to the Red Sea, it will be felt acutely on the shorter routes between Europe and the US East Coast. US importers would be wise to increase inventory levels of critical stock before carriers flip the Suez switch to mitigate any resulting disruption. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

(The following is part of the Journal of Commerce’s 2026 Annual Review and Outlook.) The big picture: An injection of vessels pushed available capacity on the trans-Atlantic beyond market demand in 2025 despite relatively steady volumes. That leaves carriers with little leverage to raise rates from the sustained 16-month low reached in the fourth quarter. A look back: US importers frontloading cargo ahead of threatened 30% tariffs on EU goods caused a spring volume surge on the westbound trans-Atlantic. US imports from North Europe peaked in March at 219,560 TEUs, up 14.3% from March 2024 and the third-highest total for any month in nearly nine years of data from PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. However, that momentum waned following a late-July trade deal that capped US tariffs on most EU imports at 15%, dragging year-over-year volume growth through November down to just 2.5%. At the same time, carriers added capacity to the trade via new and larger vessels. Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC), for example, added a trans-Atlantic leg to its Asia–Mediterranean Dragon service, which operates with vessels averaging roughly 13,000 TEUs. For context, the largest vessel deployed on any other service between the Mediterranean and East Coast of North America was 9,600 TEUs. That helped boost the average size of container ships deployed on trans-Atlantic routes to nearly 6,200 TEUs in the third quarter, compared with 5,500 TEUs at the start of the year, according to data from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. A look ahead: As 2026 begins, US import demand remains uncertain, but the record amounts of capacity container lines plan to deploy in January and February could put further pressure on already weak rates. After briefly rising to $2,000 per FEU in March, average spot pricing from North Europe to the US East Coast has been stuck at $1,400 per FEU since early November, according to Platts, also part of S&P Global. Even with a significant number of blank sailings, carriers plan to deploy more than 435,000 TEUs of capacity between North Europe and the US East and Gulf coasts in January and 390,000 TEUs in February, both of which would be all-time highs for the trade, according to eeSea. Further complicating demand projections are growing tensions over the implementation of the US-EU trade agreement. EU member states have been slow to approve the agreement — which would eliminate EU tariffs on most US products and reduce US tariffs on EU goods to 15% — on the grounds that it unfairly favors the US. The next inflection: The trans-Atlantic is indirectly exposed to a resumption of regular Suez Canal transits. If congestion spreads across European ports, as predicted, when Asia–Europe vessels return to the Red Sea, it will be felt acutely on the shorter routes between Europe and the US East Coast. US importers would be wise to increase inventory levels of critical stock before carriers flip the Suez switch to mitigate any resulting disruption. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Container Shipping News

Trans-Atlantic capacity injection overtakes market demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The investment plan was developed amid growing alarm that the country is losing out in the trade stakes due to a lack of investment by South Korean companies in overseas logistics facilities.</div>

The investment plan was developed amid growing alarm that the country is losing out in the trade stakes due to a lack of investment by South Korean companies in overseas logistics facilities.

<div class="phx-topic">South Korea will invest $3 billion to expand the country's global terminals and logistics network to help strengthen trade efforts in an increasingly challenging business environment. A three-point plan unveiled by the country’s Ocean and Fisheries Ministry Monday involves increasing the number of publicly supported logistics facilities in other countries from nine to 40, securing investment in 10 overseas port terminals, and helping to develop three major logistics companies by 2030. Priority will be given to investing in storage and processing facilities, including warehouses and container yards in 11 existing target markets that include the US, Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Germany and Poland. The 11 were chosen based on the volume of import and export trade with South Korea over the past 10 years. "Securing overseas logistics bases is a key task for stabilizing the supply chain in an uncertain logistics environment," Vice Minister of Oceans and Fisheries Kim Seong-beom said in a statement announcing the initiative. “...We will strengthen our logistics competitiveness and firmly support the import and export economy." Most of the investment will be overseen by the government-backed Korea Ocean Business Corporation (KOBC). The plan calls for the creation of a foreign terminal investment group involving KOBC, shipping companies, logistics operators and port authorities such as Busan that will assess potential terminal targets and develop expansion strategies. Also part of the proposal is the creation of a container terminal investment fund that will be given $670 million to secure stakes in foreign terminals “and use this as a springboard to secure terminal operation rights in the future,” the ministry said. Cash available through KOBC’s Global Logistics Supply Chain Investment Fund will double to $1.3 billion to help small and medium-sized logistics companies expand overseas. <h3>Shift in global trade environment </h3>The investment plan was developed amid growing alarm that South Korea is losing out in the trade stakes due to the lack of investment by South Korean companies in overseas logistics facilities. "Due to changes in the global trade environment represented by tariff hikes, the protracted Russia-Ukraine war, the Red Sea conflict, and the intensification of the climate crisis, supply chain instability has been increasing in the global logistics market in recent years,” the ministry said. “As a result, logistics companies and shipping companies in various countries are strengthening their market dominance by securing logistics infrastructure and acquiring container terminals.” Only 9% of the overseas logistics centers operated by 15 of South Korea’s top companies are owned facilities, the rest are leased, the ministry said. ”There is a high risk of disruption in the provision of logistics services due to the rapid rise in logistics costs and difficulty in securing facilities at the right time in the event of a supply chain crisis,” it said. The ministry pointed out that only seven South Korean companies have stakes in overseas container terminals. They include HMM, which has interests in six terminals including Long Beach, Tacoma, Singapore and Algeciras; CJ Logistics, with facilities in Shenyang in northern China, Klang in Malaysia, and Thailand; and Lotte Global Logistics, which has warehouses in Vietnam, the Philippines and Europe. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

South Korea will invest $3 billion to expand the country's global terminals and logistics network to help strengthen trade efforts in an increasingly challenging business environment. A three-point plan unveiled by the country’s Ocean and Fisheries Ministry Monday involves increasing the number of publicly supported logistics facilities in other countries from nine to 40, securing investment in 10 overseas port terminals, and helping to develop three major logistics companies by 2030. Priority will be given to investing in storage and processing facilities, including warehouses and container yards in 11 existing target markets that include the US, Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Germany and Poland. The 11 were chosen based on the volume of import and export trade with South Korea over the past 10 years. "Securing overseas logistics bases is a key task for stabilizing the supply chain in an uncertain logistics environment," Vice Minister of Oceans and Fisheries Kim Seong-beom said in a statement announcing the initiative. “...We will strengthen our logistics competitiveness and firmly support the import and export economy." Most of the investment will be overseen by the government-backed Korea Ocean Business Corporation (KOBC). The plan calls for the creation of a foreign terminal investment group involving KOBC, shipping companies, logistics operators and port authorities such as Busan that will assess potential terminal targets and develop expansion strategies. Also part of the proposal is the creation of a container terminal investment fund that will be given $670 million to secure stakes in foreign terminals “and use this as a springboard to secure terminal operation rights in the future,” the ministry said. Cash available through KOBC’s Global Logistics Supply Chain Investment Fund will double to $1.3 billion to help small and medium-sized logistics companies expand overseas. Shift in global trade environment The investment plan was developed amid growing alarm that South Korea is losing out in the trade stakes due to the lack of investment by South Korean companies in overseas logistics facilities. "Due to changes in the global trade environment represented by tariff hikes, the protracted Russia-Ukraine war, the Red Sea conflict, and the intensification of the climate crisis, supply chain instability has been increasing in the global logistics market in recent years,” the ministry said. “As a result, logistics companies and shipping companies in various countries are strengthening their market dominance by securing logistics infrastructure and acquiring container terminals.” Only 9% of the overseas logistics centers operated by 15 of South Korea’s top companies are owned facilities, the rest are leased, the ministry said. ”There is a high risk of disruption in the provision of logistics services due to the rapid rise in logistics costs and difficulty in securing facilities at the right time in the event of a supply chain crisis,” it said. The ministry pointed out that only seven South Korean companies have stakes in overseas container terminals. They include HMM, which has interests in six terminals including Long Beach, Tacoma, Singapore and Algeciras; CJ Logistics, with facilities in Shenyang in northern China, Klang in Malaysia, and Thailand; and Lotte Global Logistics, which has warehouses in Vietnam, the Philippines and Europe. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

International ports

South Korea to invest $3 billion expanding foreign logistics, terminal network

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">ONE and SM Line are ocean carrier partners to Union Pacific on the West Coast, and a majority of UP’s international intermodal volume originates at the Port of Los Angeles. </div>

ONE and SM Line are ocean carrier partners to Union Pacific on the West Coast, and a majority of UP’s international intermodal volume originates at the Port of Los Angeles.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific Railroad (UP) has received support from the Port of Los Angeles and ocean carriers Ocean Network Express (ONE) and SM Lines for its proposed acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), with the parties citing faster transit times, potential new business opportunities and reduced drayage costs for international intermodal freight. ONE and SM Line are ocean carrier partners to Union Pacific on the West Coast, and a majority of UP’s international intermodal volume originates at the Port of Los Angeles. All three provided letters of support for the $85 billion acquisition that were included in the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-in-merger-filing-vows-to-convert-millions-of-loads-to-intermodal-annually-6138380">nearly 7,000-page application</a> UP filed Friday with the US Surface Transportation Board, which needs to approve the merger. “The merger has the potential to remove several days delay from existing transit times,” wrote Tim Walsh, ONE’s senior vice president of product and network in the US. “The resulting improvement in continuity of service and transit times will enhance ONE’s ability to reliably serve our existing customers and expand our capacity to serve US customers that require faster, more dependable cargo transportation.” SM Line said the combined railroad would enable intermodal service for shippers that do not currently use rail, while POLA emphasized the implications for US exporters. “The unified network expands the reach and speed-to-market for American exports ... thereby reinforcing the Port of Los Angeles’ role in driving national economic growth,” wrote Gene Seroka, the port’s executive director. A primary benefit for international intermodal is reducing the need for long-haul and cross-town truck drayage. UP estimates that approximately 67,000 long-haul drays could be eliminated annually if the merger with NS is approved. The estimate includes three regional dray moves that would disappear: Chicago to Detroit and Toledo, Ohio — ranging from 230 to 290 miles — and Memphis to Huntsville, Alabama, nearly 215 miles. UP estimates that $112.8 million in annual long-haul drayage costs incurred by shippers would be eliminated. While UP does not break out international versus domestic intermodal in its estimate, the issue is more pronounced for ocean containers. Truckload pricing often makes it difficult to win domestic intermodal freight that requires drays of 200 miles or more. By contrast, many beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) prefer long-haul drays to avoid added handling and potential cargo damage during transloading. “The post-merger addition of single-line service linking terminals closer to the freight could result in 100% of this traffic switching to an extended haul,” David Hunt and Matthew Schabas of Oliver Wyman, a consultancy firm hired by UP to analyze the transaction, wrote in the application. “Shippers would benefit from reducing drayage miles and, as a result, their door-to-door cost per shipment.” The analysis did not include Louisville, Kentucky, despite Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern announcing a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ns-joint-intermodal-service-to-link-west-coast-with-louisville-in-midwest-6080692">joint service</a> to the city earlier this year. While the service was marketed as a domestic intermodal product, ocean containers are often interspersed within longer domestic intermodal trains. Union Pacific does not expect a sharp surge in Louisville traffic. The application states that annual lift capacity in Louisville currently stands at 140,000 units and would rise to 145,000 units following the merger — an increase of 3.6%. By contrast, UP projects lift capacity to increase 17% to 227,000 units annually in Toledo and surge 50% to 219,000 units annually in Detroit. <h3>Cross-town drayage reductions </h3>The formal merger application also projects a significant reduction in cross-town drayage within Chicago. In 2023, UP and NS said an average of 1,139 containers per day were interchanged between the railroads, including via trucks and a third-party switching railroad known as the Belt Railway of Chicago. Both options can add a day or more to the transit times on containers. The merger should eliminate more than 500 crosstown drays, known as “rubber tire” interchanges, per day, or more than 100,000 hauls on Chicago’s roadways annually. Across the US, the application identifies 82 specific intermodal routes where containers will stay on the rail for the entire journey but today require a cross-town dray between two terminals. “Intermodal companies currently tasked with trucking their containers between UP and NS intermodal yards in Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis and Memphis will finally be able to leave their trailers and containers on railcars for the entirety of the move,” Scott Harris, chief commercial officer of drayage provider CAD Logistics, wrote in the application. “This time and cost savings will help US intermodal traffic grow over the next decade.” UP and NS estimate that approximately 250,000 annual rail lifts across Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis and Memphis currently dedicated to cross-town drayage would be eliminated, saving about $12 million per year and freeing crane capacity to load and unload other containers more efficiently. The merger would not eliminate all cross-town drayage, however. Chicago hosts six Class I railroads, while Memphis has five and Kansas City four, meaning terminal-to-terminal drayage will remain necessary. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) has received support from the Port of Los Angeles and ocean carriers Ocean Network Express (ONE) and SM Lines for its proposed acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), with the parties citing faster transit times, potential new business opportunities and reduced drayage costs for international intermodal freight. ONE and SM Line are ocean carrier partners to Union Pacific on the West Coast, and a majority of UP’s international intermodal volume originates at the Port of Los Angeles. All three provided letters of support for the $85 billion acquisition that were included in the nearly 7,000-page application UP filed Friday with the US Surface Transportation Board, which needs to approve the merger. “The merger has the potential to remove several days delay from existing transit times,” wrote Tim Walsh, ONE’s senior vice president of product and network in the US. “The resulting improvement in continuity of service and transit times will enhance ONE’s ability to reliably serve our existing customers and expand our capacity to serve US customers that require faster, more dependable cargo transportation.” SM Line said the combined railroad would enable intermodal service for shippers that do not currently use rail, while POLA emphasized the implications for US exporters. “The unified network expands the reach and speed-to-market for American exports ... thereby reinforcing the Port of Los Angeles’ role in driving national economic growth,” wrote Gene Seroka, the port’s executive director. A primary benefit for international intermodal is reducing the need for long-haul and cross-town truck drayage. UP estimates that approximately 67,000 long-haul drays could be eliminated annually if the merger with NS is approved. The estimate includes three regional dray moves that would disappear: Chicago to Detroit and Toledo, Ohio — ranging from 230 to 290 miles — and Memphis to Huntsville, Alabama, nearly 215 miles. UP estimates that $112.8 million in annual long-haul drayage costs incurred by shippers would be eliminated. While UP does not break out international versus domestic intermodal in its estimate, the issue is more pronounced for ocean containers. Truckload pricing often makes it difficult to win domestic intermodal freight that requires drays of 200 miles or more. By contrast, many beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) prefer long-haul drays to avoid added handling and potential cargo damage during transloading. “The post-merger addition of single-line service linking terminals closer to the freight could result in 100% of this traffic switching to an extended haul,” David Hunt and Matthew Schabas of Oliver Wyman, a consultancy firm hired by UP to analyze the transaction, wrote in the application. “Shippers would benefit from reducing drayage miles and, as a result, their door-to-door cost per shipment.” The analysis did not include Louisville, Kentucky, despite Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern announcing a joint service to the city earlier this year. While the service was marketed as a domestic intermodal product, ocean containers are often interspersed within longer domestic intermodal trains. Union Pacific does not expect a sharp surge in Louisville traffic. The application states that annual lift capacity in Louisville currently stands at 140,000 units and would rise to 145,000 units following the merger — an increase of 3.6%. By contrast, UP projects lift capacity to increase 17% to 227,000 units annually in Toledo and surge 50% to 219,000 units annually in Detroit. Cross-town drayage reductions The formal merger application also projects a significant reduction in cross-town drayage within Chicago. In 2023, UP and NS said an average of 1,139 containers per day were interchanged between the railroads, including via trucks and a third-party switching railroad known as the Belt Railway of Chicago. Both options can add a day or more to the transit times on containers. The merger should eliminate more than 500 crosstown drays, known as “rubber tire” interchanges, per day, or more than 100,000 hauls on Chicago’s roadways annually. Across the US, the application identifies 82 specific intermodal routes where containers will stay on the rail for the entire journey but today require a cross-town dray between two terminals. “Intermodal companies currently tasked with trucking their containers between UP and NS intermodal yards in Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis and Memphis will finally be able to leave their trailers and containers on railcars for the entirety of the move,” Scott Harris, chief commercial officer of drayage provider CAD Logistics, wrote in the application. “This time and cost savings will help US intermodal traffic grow over the next decade.” UP and NS estimate that approximately 250,000 annual rail lifts across Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis and Memphis currently dedicated to cross-town drayage would be eliminated, saving about $12 million per year and freeing crane capacity to load and unload other containers more efficiently. The merger would not eliminate all cross-town drayage, however. Chicago hosts six Class I railroads, while Memphis has five and Kansas City four, meaning terminal-to-terminal drayage will remain necessary. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Carriers, POLA back UP-NS deal, citing lower transit times, costs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The pause on work at five major offshore wind farms along the US East Coast is likely to have an impact on heavy-lift and project cargoes supporting the installations. </div>

The pause on work at five major offshore wind farms along the US East Coast is likely to have an impact on heavy-lift and project cargoes supporting the installations.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Department of the Interior on Monday suspended the leases of five major offshore wind power projects along the East Coast due to what it says are “national security risks.” The affected projects, all assisted by leasing and tax credit provisions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, are operated by Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW), Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind 1. “Today’s action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our East Coast population centers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said. In an interview with Fox Business Monday, Burgum said the projects create “radar interference” and a “jamming risk.” <h3>Trump a long-time foe of wind projects </h3>The pausing of the five wind energy projects is likely to impact project cargo shipments; wind farms are a major source of project cargo. The Port of Virginia, for example, said in October it was seeing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/wind-cargo-helps-virginia-port-lay-groundwork-for-more-heavy-lift-business-6102932">increasing heavy-lift demand</a> because of the now-curtailed CVOW project. President Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire to move the US away from wind projects in favor of building more oil and gas pipelines. “Unclassified reports from the US government have long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference called ‘clutter,’” the Department of the Interior said in its statement Monday. “The clutter caused by offshore wind projects obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects.” Interior cited a 2024 US Department of Energy report that a radar’s threshold for false alarm detection can be increased to reduce some clutter, but an increased detection threshold could cause the radar to “miss actual targets.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Department of the Interior on Monday suspended the leases of five major offshore wind power projects along the East Coast due to what it says are “national security risks.” The affected projects, all assisted by leasing and tax credit provisions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, are operated by Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW), Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind 1. “Today’s action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our East Coast population centers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said. In an interview with Fox Business Monday, Burgum said the projects create “radar interference” and a “jamming risk.” Trump a long-time foe of wind projects The pausing of the five wind energy projects is likely to impact project cargo shipments; wind farms are a major source of project cargo. The Port of Virginia, for example, said in October it was seeing increasing heavy-lift demand because of the now-curtailed CVOW project. President Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire to move the US away from wind projects in favor of building more oil and gas pipelines. “Unclassified reports from the US government have long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference called ‘clutter,’” the Department of the Interior said in its statement Monday. “The clutter caused by offshore wind projects obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects.” Interior cited a 2024 US Department of Energy report that a radar’s threshold for false alarm detection can be increased to reduce some clutter, but an increased detection threshold could cause the radar to “miss actual targets.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Breakbulk News

Trump administration suspends wind energy projects over ‘national security’ threat

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Widening global overcapacity and import volume forecasts warning of weak volume growth will embolden cargo owners to attempt to secure more favorable fine print in their contracts on key service issues.</div>

Widening global overcapacity and import volume forecasts warning of weak volume growth will embolden cargo owners to attempt to secure more favorable fine print in their contracts on key service issues.

<div class="phx-topic">US importers who will ink annual Asia-US service contracts in the new year are confident enough of their market power in the weakening trade that rates could take a back seat to service-related issues in their coming negotiations with ocean carriers, sources say. Widening global overcapacity and import volume forecasts warning of weak volume growth will embolden cargo owners to attempt to secure more favorable fine print in their 2026–27 contracts on key service issues such as schedule reliability and flexibility in handling contracted allocations, according to sources. For most beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), addressing nettlesome service issues, some of which have been around for years, will be the main focus of BCOs when contract negotiations kick into high gear this spring, said David Bennett, an industry adviser who has dealt with service issues as both a carrier and forwarder executive. “That’s where the conversation needs to go,” Bennett told the Journal of Commerce. Most service contracts in the largest US trade lane generally run from May 1 through April 30 of the following year. The largest retailers who are able to negotiate the lowest contract rates due to their large volumes normally set the pricing floor for midsize retailers and other importers. The big-box retailers usually wrap up their agreements in January and February. Midsize and smaller importers do most of their bargaining after the annual Journal of Commerce TPM Conference in early March in Long Beach. <h3>MQCs in the spotlight </h3>Importers, consultants and forwarders say that with low single-digit growth in container volumes projected in 2026, this will be the year to fine-tune service-related clauses in their contracts, especially those issues that can have a monetary impact. Chief among these is the minimum quantity commitment (MQC) that importers agree to for the life of the contract. The higher the MQC, the lower the fixed rate. Most carriers calculate the fixed rate by taking the total MQC and dividing it by 52. That means the importer is expected to meet its allocation each week, whether it’s at the height of the peak shipping season each fall or during slack seasons such as during the Lunar New Year or post-peak season months. Industry consultant Bob Fredman, who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers, said he had a clause in his contracts that allowed the importer to exceed the MQC in peak weeks by 20% and still retain the lower fixed rate on those containers. A carrier executive source explained that the MQC mechanism is a tool that carriers use to manage their capacity during peak periods and limit their exposure to unused capacity when the market heads south. He agreed, though, that some retailers have had agreements with their regular customers for years that allow them to exceed their weekly allocation by 10% to 20% during peak periods. A more recent development that is driven by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/surging-southeast-asia-volumes-strain-intra-asia-capacity-6078465">the migration of sourcing from China to Southeast Asia and the Indian sub-continent</a> due to US tariffs is that some carriers are not providing sufficient capacity from load ports in those regions. The carrier executive said Haiphong, Vietnam, is booming with increased manufacturing, but carrier service levels have not kept up with the growth. An importer in the automotive sector said he is experiencing that issue. “As our business continues to grow and we have had to shift production due to the Trump tariffs, our focus is more around [securing sufficient] MQC out of new ports,” the source said. “[So far] we have been able to get space beyond existing contract volumes due to the soft market, but certain ports are tighter than others.” BCOs in 2026 want greater predictability of capacity deployments from carriers so they will have visibility into their freight spend as they negotiate their service contracts, said James Caradonna, executive vice president at the forwarder Spedag Americas. If market demand drops steeply and carriers increase their blank sailings or suspend vessel strings, Caradonna said his clients may find they are not receiving the allocations at fixed rates that they were guaranteed in their MQC commitments. “They don’t want to go off-contract to get space,” he said. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-takes-significant-step-toward-return-to-red-sea-transits-6138361">If carriers return to the Suez Canal in 2026</a> as some lines indicate may happen, and the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/easing-container-tonnage-delivery-in-2026-belies-signs-of-saturation-6136817">delivery of new container ships from shipyards meets forecasts</a>, spot and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates charged by forwarders would likely drop below the fixed rates in service contracts given the influx of capacity, a second carrier executive said. BCOs would then look to shift more of their business to the lower FAK rates charged by forwarders, he said. “Those BCOs who feel 2026 will be a year when supply exceeds demand, they will go where they can save money,” the source said. “It’s the nature of the business.” <h3>Spot rates to influence negotiations </h3>As usual, spot rates that are in effect each spring set the tone for service contract negotiations, and retailers and BCOs anticipate that weak rates will be in place this spring, strengthening their bargaining power. Industry adviser Kevin Parkerson, who previously negotiated service contracts for large retailers, said he doesn’t expect the market to strengthen much, if at all, during the next three months, which will bolster BCOs’ negotiating position insofar as the fixed rates in their service contracts. “Retailers are feeling good,” Parkerson said. “Carriers definitely don’t feel too good.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e7a71889-00bc-46ce-97f0-58e270f5dace"></dynamic-object></div>The spot rate from Asia to the US West Coast as of Dec. 18 was $2,474 per FEU, according to data from Drewry, with the East Coast rate at $3,293 per FEU. In mid-March 2025 with the 2025–26 service contract talks in full steam, rates to the West Coast were $2,906 per FEU, while East Coast rates were at $4,038 per FEU. Several forwarders and industry analysts said they expect the final service contract rates that will be negotiated this spring <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-capacity-cuts-on-the-rise-as-carriers-look-to-stem-rate-slide-6086815">will resemble the rates in the current 2025–26 contracts</a>, which for the largest retailers were in the range of $1,500 to $1,600 per FEU to the West Coast and about $1,000 higher to the East Coast. For midsize retailers, the negotiated price to the West Coast was about $1,800 to $1,900 per FEU. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US importers who will ink annual Asia-US service contracts in the new year are confident enough of their market power in the weakening trade that rates could take a back seat to service-related issues in their coming negotiations with ocean carriers, sources say. Widening global overcapacity and import volume forecasts warning of weak volume growth will embolden cargo owners to attempt to secure more favorable fine print in their 2026–27 contracts on key service issues such as schedule reliability and flexibility in handling contracted allocations, according to sources. For most beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), addressing nettlesome service issues, some of which have been around for years, will be the main focus of BCOs when contract negotiations kick into high gear this spring, said David Bennett, an industry adviser who has dealt with service issues as both a carrier and forwarder executive. “That’s where the conversation needs to go,” Bennett told the Journal of Commerce. Most service contracts in the largest US trade lane generally run from May 1 through April 30 of the following year. The largest retailers who are able to negotiate the lowest contract rates due to their large volumes normally set the pricing floor for midsize retailers and other importers. The big-box retailers usually wrap up their agreements in January and February. Midsize and smaller importers do most of their bargaining after the annual Journal of Commerce TPM Conference in early March in Long Beach. MQCs in the spotlight Importers, consultants and forwarders say that with low single-digit growth in container volumes projected in 2026, this will be the year to fine-tune service-related clauses in their contracts, especially those issues that can have a monetary impact. Chief among these is the minimum quantity commitment (MQC) that importers agree to for the life of the contract. The higher the MQC, the lower the fixed rate. Most carriers calculate the fixed rate by taking the total MQC and dividing it by 52. That means the importer is expected to meet its allocation each week, whether it’s at the height of the peak shipping season each fall or during slack seasons such as during the Lunar New Year or post-peak season months. Industry consultant Bob Fredman, who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers, said he had a clause in his contracts that allowed the importer to exceed the MQC in peak weeks by 20% and still retain the lower fixed rate on those containers. A carrier executive source explained that the MQC mechanism is a tool that carriers use to manage their capacity during peak periods and limit their exposure to unused capacity when the market heads south. He agreed, though, that some retailers have had agreements with their regular customers for years that allow them to exceed their weekly allocation by 10% to 20% during peak periods. A more recent development that is driven by the migration of sourcing from China to Southeast Asia and the Indian sub-continent due to US tariffs is that some carriers are not providing sufficient capacity from load ports in those regions. The carrier executive said Haiphong, Vietnam, is booming with increased manufacturing, but carrier service levels have not kept up with the growth. An importer in the automotive sector said he is experiencing that issue. “As our business continues to grow and we have had to shift production due to the Trump tariffs, our focus is more around [securing sufficient] MQC out of new ports,” the source said. “[So far] we have been able to get space beyond existing contract volumes due to the soft market, but certain ports are tighter than others.” BCOs in 2026 want greater predictability of capacity deployments from carriers so they will have visibility into their freight spend as they negotiate their service contracts, said James Caradonna, executive vice president at the forwarder Spedag Americas. If market demand drops steeply and carriers increase their blank sailings or suspend vessel strings, Caradonna said his clients may find they are not receiving the allocations at fixed rates that they were guaranteed in their MQC commitments. “They don’t want to go off-contract to get space,” he said. If carriers return to the Suez Canal in 2026 as some lines indicate may happen, and the delivery of new container ships from shipyards meets forecasts , spot and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates charged by forwarders would likely drop below the fixed rates in service contracts given the influx of capacity, a second carrier executive said. BCOs would then look to shift more of their business to the lower FAK rates charged by forwarders, he said. “Those BCOs who feel 2026 will be a year when supply exceeds demand, they will go where they can save money,” the source said. “It’s the nature of the business.” Spot rates to influence negotiations As usual, spot rates that are in effect each spring set the tone for service contract negotiations, and retailers and BCOs anticipate that weak rates will be in place this spring, strengthening their bargaining power. Industry adviser Kevin Parkerson, who previously negotiated service contracts for large retailers, said he doesn’t expect the market to strengthen much, if at all, during the next three months, which will bolster BCOs’ negotiating position insofar as the fixed rates in their service contracts. “Retailers are feeling good,” Parkerson said. “Carriers definitely don’t feel too good.” The spot rate from Asia to the US West Coast as of Dec. 18 was $2,474 per FEU, according to data from Drewry, with the East Coast rate at $3,293 per FEU. In mid-March 2025 with the 2025–26 service contract talks in full steam, rates to the West Coast were $2,906 per FEU, while East Coast rates were at $4,038 per FEU. Several forwarders and industry analysts said they expect the final service contract rates that will be negotiated this spring will resemble the rates in the current 2025–26 contracts , which for the largest retailers were in the range of $1,500 to $1,600 per FEU to the West Coast and about $1,000 higher to the East Coast. For midsize retailers, the negotiated price to the West Coast was about $1,800 to $1,900 per FEU. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Service-related issues to take center stage in 2026–27 ocean contract talks: sources

Use code GTW595 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 SSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SEASON"S SAVINGS

Use code SSW495 and upgrade to Gold for just $495! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SEASON'S SAVINGS

Subscribe today using code SSW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual 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 SSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code SSW995 at checkout!

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

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Use code SSW30 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

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Subscribe today using code SSW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code SSW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Use code SSW495 and upgrade to Gold for just $495! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Use code SSW995 at checkout to save $500 on 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

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Trans-Atlantic capacity injection overtakes market demand

South Korea to invest $3 billion expanding foreign logistics, terminal network

Carriers, POLA back UP-NS deal, citing lower transit times, costs