<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In a 10-page notice published Friday, the USTR said it was now proposing a fee of $14 per net ton on foreign-built vehicle carriers, including roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels, arriving in US waters.</div>

In a 10-page notice published Friday, the USTR said it was now proposing a fee of $14 per net ton on foreign-built vehicle carriers, including roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels, arriving in US waters.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Vehicle carrier operators, including Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners, face changes in the way the United States Trade Representative (USTR) plans to impose levies on ships entering US waters beginning in October. In a 10-page notice published Friday, the USTR said it was now proposing a fee of $14 per net ton on foreign-built vehicle carriers, including roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels, arriving in US waters. That would replace an earlier proposal announced by USTR on April 17 charging vessel operators $150 per car equivalent unit (CEU) for non-US built vessels entering US waters. Despite the change, vessel operators still face millions in extra voyage costs. Jennifer Thornton, USTR general counsel, indicated the change was partly being made because it was easier to apply. The change from CEUs to net tonnage is “to address administrability and in light of the potential for fee evasion,” Thornton said in Friday’s notice, which also opened a public comment period on the planned change. The comment period closes July 7. Net tonnage is the volume of the cargo-carrying space within a ship while CEU is a measure of carrying capacity. It was a public holiday in Norway Monday, so executives at both Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh were not available to comment on the impact of the revised USTR charge. US-based executives from both companies either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. <h3>Will seek to pass new costs to customers </h3>Wallenius Wilhelmsen had previously said a levy based on CEU capacity would make it liable for around $300 million a year in additional voyage fees, assuming 300 to 350 voyages to the US per year. Höegh estimated its potential exposure to the USTR’s original plan at between $60 million and $70 million a year. Both operators said they would seek to pass the fees to customers, although acknowledged they could absorb the extra costs if necessary. Other major carriers with extensive US vehicle import business affected by the USTR measure include Japanese operators “K” Line, Mitsui OSK Lines and NYK Line and South Korea’s Hyundai Glovis. Thornton said the fees would not apply to US government cargo or vessels operated directly for the US government by an agent or contractor. That potentially includes ships operated by Wallenius Wilhelmsen’s US ro/ro subsidiary American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier (ARC) which handles military and diplomatic-related shipments of equipment, vehicles and household belongings. Revenues from its government business accounted for 11%, or $107 million, of Wallenius’ total revenues of $970 million in the first quarter. During first-quarter results presentations, both Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners said they would lobby US authorities to seek adjustments to the levies, which were announced as part of a wider package of measures by USTR that imposed fees on all China-built or operated vessels calling at US ports from Oct. 14. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Vehicle carrier operators, including Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners, face changes in the way the United States Trade Representative (USTR) plans to impose levies on ships entering US waters beginning in October. In a 10-page notice published Friday, the USTR said it was now proposing a fee of $14 per net ton on foreign-built vehicle carriers, including roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels, arriving in US waters. That would replace an earlier proposal announced by USTR on April 17 charging vessel operators $150 per car equivalent unit (CEU) for non-US built vessels entering US waters. Despite the change, vessel operators still face millions in extra voyage costs. Jennifer Thornton, USTR general counsel, indicated the change was partly being made because it was easier to apply. The change from CEUs to net tonnage is “to address administrability and in light of the potential for fee evasion,” Thornton said in Friday’s notice, which also opened a public comment period on the planned change. The comment period closes July 7. Net tonnage is the volume of the cargo-carrying space within a ship while CEU is a measure of carrying capacity. It was a public holiday in Norway Monday, so executives at both Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh were not available to comment on the impact of the revised USTR charge. US-based executives from both companies either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. Will seek to pass new costs to customers Wallenius Wilhelmsen had previously said a levy based on CEU capacity would make it liable for around $300 million a year in additional voyage fees, assuming 300 to 350 voyages to the US per year. Höegh estimated its potential exposure to the USTR’s original plan at between $60 million and $70 million a year. Both operators said they would seek to pass the fees to customers, although acknowledged they could absorb the extra costs if necessary. Other major carriers with extensive US vehicle import business affected by the USTR measure include Japanese operators “K” Line, Mitsui OSK Lines and NYK Line and South Korea’s Hyundai Glovis. Thornton said the fees would not apply to US government cargo or vessels operated directly for the US government by an agent or contractor. That potentially includes ships operated by Wallenius Wilhelmsen’s US ro/ro subsidiary American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier (ARC) which handles military and diplomatic-related shipments of equipment, vehicles and household belongings. Revenues from its government business accounted for 11%, or $107 million, of Wallenius’ total revenues of $970 million in the first quarter. During first-quarter results presentations, both Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners said they would lobby US authorities to seek adjustments to the levies, which were announced as part of a wider package of measures by USTR that imposed fees on all China-built or operated vessels calling at US ports from Oct. 14. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Maritime

Breakbulk News

Ro/ro cargo

Car carrier operators face changes to USTR voyage fee plans

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">TRAC Intermodal, DCLI and FlexiVan Leasing began unstacking chassis shortly after the Trump administration last month announced a 90-day pause on the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports.</div>

TRAC Intermodal, DCLI and FlexiVan Leasing began unstacking chassis shortly after the Trump administration last month announced a 90-day pause on the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports.

<div class="phx-topic">As an expected wave of imports from China begins arriving at US ports in the coming weeks, the country’s three largest marine chassis providers say they are pulling idle equipment from storage, inspecting and repairing units, and repositioning chassis to key inland hubs to avoid a repeat of the shortages seen during the pandemic. TRAC Intermodal, DCLI and FlexiVan Leasing, the US’ top three lessors by fleet size, respectively, began unstacking chassis shortly after the Trump administration last month announced a 90-day pause on the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports. TRAC owns more than 200,000 marine chassis, while DCLI has about 140,000 units and FlexiVan about 120,000. None of the companies disclosed the number of chassis they’ve taken out of long-term storage, but each said the total is in the “tens of thousands.” “Our current utilization, our working fleet, is rather soft,” said Val Noel, chief operating officer of TRAC. “But we think this could be a little bit like a tsunami, and we want to have extra capacity to make sure we don’t have any service disruptions.” TRAC will focus on repairing and positioning chassis in Chicago, Dallas and Memphis. Noel said chassis placed into Memphis can be redeployed to Kansas City, St. Louis and Omaha, if necessary, while chassis in Chicago can be redirected to the Ohio Valley. DCLI began unstacking equipment in Southern California days after the tariff pause announcement and has since expanded the process to inland locations including Chicago, Dallas and Memphis. “We have safety stocks in place in key markets and are working with our vendors to ensure we have the repair capacity necessary to respond to this demand,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s senior vice president of government and public relations. FlexiVan, which is exiting the Southern California’s Pool of Pools, has focused on ensuring chassis availability for its core partner, Ocean Network Express (ONE). “[We are] working continuously to get pool chassis into a ready to use condition and fleeted into our private pool for ONE and other customers,” Flexi said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. FlexiVan in late April opened its new private chassis pool serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with FlexiVan Pool “designed to enhance our service capabilities for carriers and customers.” <h3>Getting repairs done now </h3>The chassis providers emphasized that pulling equipment out of long-term storage is not a one-day process. Units stacked for months, sometimes years, must undergo full inspections and safety checks, and in many cases minor repairs before they are roadworthy. It can take several weeks to check lighting systems, brake lines, tires and structural components that can rust, corrode or suffer other weather-related fatigue. Technicians must also be available in sufficient numbers, and often work overtime, to meet repair deadlines. DCLI said it’s better prepared than during the pandemic because it did not significantly scale back repair operations with repair vendors when the market softened. DCLI said it learned how important it is to keep mechanics working even as volumes soften because widespread layoffs require rehiring and training later, which makes it difficult to complete repairs before a cargo surge. As a result, DCLI believes it can quickly inspect, repair and certify idle chassis without having to rebuild labor capacity from scratch. <h3>Communication is key </h3>Knowing when and where to deploy repaired units is crucial to prevent equipment shortages. Chassis providers rely on cargo forecasts from ocean carriers, railroads and shippers, and data from the US Department of Transportation’s Freight Logistics Optimization Works (FLOW) initiative to position chassis ahead of surges. Under normal conditions, imports going to secondary cities like Cincinnati, Columbus or St. Louis can be part of a block within a larger train to Chicago or Kansas City. During a surge, however, those cities may receive dedicated trains with double or triple the usual number of containers, flooding local terminals and straining chassis availability. “That’s one of the things that has beaten us in the past,” Noel acknowledged. “Normally a city might get a 3,000-foot block of containers, and during a surge it’s a 10,000-foot train. Both of our western roads (BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad) have been super in partnering with us, letting us know what’s coming so we can be prepared.” The landscape has also changed in recent years in ways that may increase supply chain resiliency. More trucking companies and cargo owners now operate private chassis fleets, reducing their reliance on shared pool equipment. Railroads have also adjusted terminal operations, placing more import containers into grounded stacks, allowing cargo owners to retrieve loads using their own equipment and easing pressure on the public pools managed by DCLI, TRAC, and FlexiVan. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a></div>

As an expected wave of imports from China begins arriving at US ports in the coming weeks, the country’s three largest marine chassis providers say they are pulling idle equipment from storage, inspecting and repairing units, and repositioning chassis to key inland hubs to avoid a repeat of the shortages seen during the pandemic. TRAC Intermodal, DCLI and FlexiVan Leasing, the US’ top three lessors by fleet size, respectively, began unstacking chassis shortly after the Trump administration last month announced a 90-day pause on the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports. TRAC owns more than 200,000 marine chassis, while DCLI has about 140,000 units and FlexiVan about 120,000. None of the companies disclosed the number of chassis they’ve taken out of long-term storage, but each said the total is in the “tens of thousands.” “Our current utilization, our working fleet, is rather soft,” said Val Noel, chief operating officer of TRAC. “But we think this could be a little bit like a tsunami, and we want to have extra capacity to make sure we don’t have any service disruptions.” TRAC will focus on repairing and positioning chassis in Chicago, Dallas and Memphis. Noel said chassis placed into Memphis can be redeployed to Kansas City, St. Louis and Omaha, if necessary, while chassis in Chicago can be redirected to the Ohio Valley. DCLI began unstacking equipment in Southern California days after the tariff pause announcement and has since expanded the process to inland locations including Chicago, Dallas and Memphis. “We have safety stocks in place in key markets and are working with our vendors to ensure we have the repair capacity necessary to respond to this demand,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s senior vice president of government and public relations. FlexiVan, which is exiting the Southern California’s Pool of Pools, has focused on ensuring chassis availability for its core partner, Ocean Network Express (ONE). “[We are] working continuously to get pool chassis into a ready to use condition and fleeted into our private pool for ONE and other customers,” Flexi said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. FlexiVan in late April opened its new private chassis pool serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with FlexiVan Pool “designed to enhance our service capabilities for carriers and customers.” Getting repairs done now The chassis providers emphasized that pulling equipment out of long-term storage is not a one-day process. Units stacked for months, sometimes years, must undergo full inspections and safety checks, and in many cases minor repairs before they are roadworthy. It can take several weeks to check lighting systems, brake lines, tires and structural components that can rust, corrode or suffer other weather-related fatigue. Technicians must also be available in sufficient numbers, and often work overtime, to meet repair deadlines. DCLI said it’s better prepared than during the pandemic because it did not significantly scale back repair operations with repair vendors when the market softened. DCLI said it learned how important it is to keep mechanics working even as volumes soften because widespread layoffs require rehiring and training later, which makes it difficult to complete repairs before a cargo surge. As a result, DCLI believes it can quickly inspect, repair and certify idle chassis without having to rebuild labor capacity from scratch. Communication is key Knowing when and where to deploy repaired units is crucial to prevent equipment shortages. Chassis providers rely on cargo forecasts from ocean carriers, railroads and shippers, and data from the US Department of Transportation’s Freight Logistics Optimization Works (FLOW) initiative to position chassis ahead of surges. Under normal conditions, imports going to secondary cities like Cincinnati, Columbus or St. Louis can be part of a block within a larger train to Chicago or Kansas City. During a surge, however, those cities may receive dedicated trains with double or triple the usual number of containers, flooding local terminals and straining chassis availability. “That’s one of the things that has beaten us in the past,” Noel acknowledged. “Normally a city might get a 3,000-foot block of containers, and during a surge it’s a 10,000-foot train. Both of our western roads (BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad) have been super in partnering with us, letting us know what’s coming so we can be prepared.” The landscape has also changed in recent years in ways that may increase supply chain resiliency. More trucking companies and cargo owners now operate private chassis fleets, reducing their reliance on shared pool equipment. Railroads have also adjusted terminal operations, placing more import containers into grounded stacks, allowing cargo owners to retrieve loads using their own equipment and easing pressure on the public pools managed by DCLI, TRAC, and FlexiVan. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com

North American ports

Drayage

US chassis providers getting equipment ready for US import surge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Demand from Cargado’s freight broker customers to add US-Canada carriers to its vetted network led the company to move to the northern border. </div>

Demand from Cargado’s freight broker customers to add US-Canada carriers to its vetted network led the company to move to the northern border.

<div class="phx-topic">Cross-border load board provider Cargado on Monday said it has expanded into Canada to complement its existing marketplace for US-Mexico truckload freight. The expansion, driven by demand from its freight broker customers, gives brokers access to Cargado’s network of vetted cross-border carriers that operate between the US and Mexico. Cargado’s customers include eight of the top 10 US freight brokers and more than half of the top 100. “Canadian expansion was a highly requested feature among our customers,” Cargado CEO Matt Silver said in a statement. The company also released a new rate benchmarking feature Monday, Cargado Market Rates, that allows brokers to see current and historical lane-level pricing data to inform their quoting activity to shippers. The benchmarking tool is based on more than 35,000 historical bids and freight matches between brokers and carriers, Cargado Chief Technology Officer Rylan Hawkins said in the statement. Cargado is connected to more than 200 brokers and 900 carriers. Founded in April 2024 as a cross-border load board specialist, Cargado in April <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mexico-potential-leads-investors-to-back-cross-border-load-board-5978223">landed a $12 million funding round</a> from investors to build out its invite-only product addressing the fast-growing US-Mexico freight market. The company has raised a total of $22 million from investors including LGVP, Conversion Capital, Assembly Ventures and RyderVentures. Silver previously <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/arrive-logistics-moves-into-cross-border-freight-with-forager-acquisition-5225326">sold the cross-border broker he founded</a>, Forager, to Arrive Logistics in 2022. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Cross-border load board provider Cargado on Monday said it has expanded into Canada to complement its existing marketplace for US-Mexico truckload freight. The expansion, driven by demand from its freight broker customers, gives brokers access to Cargado’s network of vetted cross-border carriers that operate between the US and Mexico. Cargado’s customers include eight of the top 10 US freight brokers and more than half of the top 100. “Canadian expansion was a highly requested feature among our customers,” Cargado CEO Matt Silver said in a statement. The company also released a new rate benchmarking feature Monday, Cargado Market Rates, that allows brokers to see current and historical lane-level pricing data to inform their quoting activity to shippers. The benchmarking tool is based on more than 35,000 historical bids and freight matches between brokers and carriers, Cargado Chief Technology Officer Rylan Hawkins said in the statement. Cargado is connected to more than 200 brokers and 900 carriers. Founded in April 2024 as a cross-border load board specialist, Cargado in April landed a $12 million funding round from investors to build out its invite-only product addressing the fast-growing US-Mexico freight market. The company has raised a total of $22 million from investors including LGVP, Conversion Capital, Assembly Ventures and RyderVentures. Silver previously sold the cross-border broker he founded , Forager, to Arrive Logistics in 2022. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Logistics Technology News

Cross-border truckload marketplace expands into Canada

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Because the West Coast’s share is higher for China-originating freight than any other region, any move away from China by importers can be expected to negatively affect the USWC’s share of inbound cargo, writes Larry Gross. </div>

Because the West Coast’s share is higher for China-originating freight than any other region, any move away from China by importers can be expected to negatively affect the USWC’s share of inbound cargo, writes Larry Gross.

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration seems to be heading toward a tariff future that will result in different tariff levels for different nations. If achieved and maintained, in the long run, this will result in shifts of origin for imported products toward those countries that end up with lower tariff levels. In the near term, this trend is already underway regarding imports from China. It seems reasonable to assume, given the escalating trade and political tensions between China and the US, that most, if not all, importers for China are scrambling for alternative sources. These changes will have differing impacts depending on which US coast is involved. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6021504_0.1.jpg"></img></div>I used S&amp;P Global PIERS data to try and gauge the impact of the China freeze-out. Of the loaded TEUs arriving in the US in 2024, over 41% originated in mainland China. Therefore, a dramatic slowdown in these volumes is very significant. Meanwhile, shipments from other origins such as other Asian nations are surging, given the 90-day reprieve that has been granted by President Donald Trump. Importers will try to crowd as much of this freight through the keyhole as they can. Approximately 32% of 2024 import TEUs came in from other Asian nations, including India. The surge in traffic from these origins will help cushion the blow from the China slowdown, but only to a limited effect. The US West Coast (USWC) will feel these changes more acutely than the East or Gulf coasts. Over 57% of the USWC import TEUs in 2024 arrived from China, while they composed “only” 25% of the East Coast’s volume, with the Gulf Coast in between at 35%. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="0464227f-7536-453b-84e2-d47a98ac6675"></dynamic-object></div>There is another way to look at the situation, which is to divvy up the US import volume originating in each global region by coast of arrival. This can help us gauge the potential impact of such shifts in origin. Once again, we’ll use PIERS data to provide the picture. However, as we look at these numbers, keep in mind that in 2024, USWC share was artificially boosted by cargo diversions away from the East Coast due to labor unrest. Therefore, some share loss will be inevitable even without changes in origin shipping points. In 2024, unsurprisingly, the USWC was the dominant recipient of China-originating cargo, accounting for 65% of the 2024 TEUs, followed by the East Coast at 27% and the Gulf Coast at 8%. It is reasonable to expect that some of the China volume will move to new originations in Southeast Asia. USWC share of Southeast Asia originations was 55% in 2024, 10 points lower than China. In other words, for every 100 TEUs of China-originating freight that migrates to, say, Vietnam, the USWC loses 10 inbound TEUs, the USGC loses six, and the USEC gains 16. The situation is even more extreme if the origin migrates to India. The USEC received 86% of the 2024 TEUs originating on the Indian subcontinent. Because the USWC share is higher for China-originating freight than any other region, even including the other nations of Northeast Asia (i.e. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea), literally any move away from China can be expected to negatively affect the USWC’s share of inbound cargo. What this potentially means for the USWC is that those ports are staring down what might be a triple-barreled threat: <ol><li>Overall lower trade volumes due to the trade war </li><li>Loss of share as imports that were diverted in 2024 due to both the East Coast labor uncertainty and the Red Sea/Suez Canal closure start to return to their previous East/Gulf coast routings </li><li>Additional loss of share due to migration of imports away from China toward other origin regions that are less favorable to the USWC </li></ol>In other words, when it comes to US ports, the trade war will result in winners and losers. Or perhaps more accurately, bigger losers and smaller losers. Contact Larry Gross at <a href="mailto:lgross@intermodalindepth.com">lgross@intermodalindepth.com</a>. </div>

The Trump administration seems to be heading toward a tariff future that will result in different tariff levels for different nations. If achieved and maintained, in the long run, this will result in shifts of origin for imported products toward those countries that end up with lower tariff levels. In the near term, this trend is already underway regarding imports from China. It seems reasonable to assume, given the escalating trade and political tensions between China and the US, that most, if not all, importers for China are scrambling for alternative sources. These changes will have differing impacts depending on which US coast is involved. I used S&P Global PIERS data to try and gauge the impact of the China freeze-out. Of the loaded TEUs arriving in the US in 2024, over 41% originated in mainland China. Therefore, a dramatic slowdown in these volumes is very significant. Meanwhile, shipments from other origins such as other Asian nations are surging, given the 90-day reprieve that has been granted by President Donald Trump. Importers will try to crowd as much of this freight through the keyhole as they can. Approximately 32% of 2024 import TEUs came in from other Asian nations, including India. The surge in traffic from these origins will help cushion the blow from the China slowdown, but only to a limited effect. The US West Coast (USWC) will feel these changes more acutely than the East or Gulf coasts. Over 57% of the USWC import TEUs in 2024 arrived from China, while they composed “only” 25% of the East Coast’s volume, with the Gulf Coast in between at 35%. There is another way to look at the situation, which is to divvy up the US import volume originating in each global region by coast of arrival. This can help us gauge the potential impact of such shifts in origin. Once again, we’ll use PIERS data to provide the picture. However, as we look at these numbers, keep in mind that in 2024, USWC share was artificially boosted by cargo diversions away from the East Coast due to labor unrest. Therefore, some share loss will be inevitable even without changes in origin shipping points. In 2024, unsurprisingly, the USWC was the dominant recipient of China-originating cargo, accounting for 65% of the 2024 TEUs, followed by the East Coast at 27% and the Gulf Coast at 8%. It is reasonable to expect that some of the China volume will move to new originations in Southeast Asia. USWC share of Southeast Asia originations was 55% in 2024, 10 points lower than China. In other words, for every 100 TEUs of China-originating freight that migrates to, say, Vietnam, the USWC loses 10 inbound TEUs, the USGC loses six, and the USEC gains 16. The situation is even more extreme if the origin migrates to India. The USEC received 86% of the 2024 TEUs originating on the Indian subcontinent. Because the USWC share is higher for China-originating freight than any other region, even including the other nations of Northeast Asia (i.e. Japan, Taiwan and South Korea), literally any move away from China can be expected to negatively affect the USWC’s share of inbound cargo. What this potentially means for the USWC is that those ports are staring down what might be a triple-barreled threat: Overall lower trade volumes due to the trade war Loss of share as imports that were diverted in 2024 due to both the East Coast labor uncertainty and the Red Sea/Suez Canal closure start to return to their previous East/Gulf coast routings Additional loss of share due to migration of imports away from China toward other origin regions that are less favorable to the USWC In other words, when it comes to US ports, the trade war will result in winners and losers. Or perhaps more accurately, bigger losers and smaller losers. Contact Larry Gross at lgross@intermodalindepth.com .

Cargo origin will determine trade war winners and losers among US coasts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The change at the top of the freight-matching platform comes as the truckload sector enters the fourth year of a freight downturn that began in 2022. </div>

The change at the top of the freight-matching platform comes as the truckload sector enters the fourth year of a freight downturn that began in 2022.

<div class="phx-topic">Scott Moscrip, an entrepreneur who founded digital freight-matching platform Truckstop in his basement in 1995, is returning as interim CEO following the departure of three-year CEO Kendra Tucker. No reason was given for Tucker’s departure. Moscrip will lead a “strategic realignment” of Truckstop, the company said in a statement Thursday, with an emphasis on customer-focused innovation. Idaho-based Truckstop, one of the largest US spot market load-board operators and a technology provider, has begun a search for a permanent CEO. Moscrip retained an ownership stake in Truckstop when the company was acquired by ICONIQ Capital in 2019. The change at the top of the freight-matching platform comes as the truckload sector enters the fourth year of a freight downturn that began in 2022, putting enormous pressure on the small trucking firms that are Truckstop’s core customers. “We continue to be laser-focused on serving our customers through existing products and new innovations,” Truckstop told the Journal of Commerce in an email Friday. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Scott Moscrip, an entrepreneur who founded digital freight-matching platform Truckstop in his basement in 1995, is returning as interim CEO following the departure of three-year CEO Kendra Tucker. No reason was given for Tucker’s departure. Moscrip will lead a “strategic realignment” of Truckstop, the company said in a statement Thursday, with an emphasis on customer-focused innovation. Idaho-based Truckstop, one of the largest US spot market load-board operators and a technology provider, has begun a search for a permanent CEO. Moscrip retained an ownership stake in Truckstop when the company was acquired by ICONIQ Capital in 2019. The change at the top of the freight-matching platform comes as the truckload sector enters the fourth year of a freight downturn that began in 2022, putting enormous pressure on the small trucking firms that are Truckstop’s core customers. “We continue to be laser-focused on serving our customers through existing products and new innovations,” Truckstop told the Journal of Commerce in an email Friday. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Surface

Truckstop begins ‘strategic realignment,’ names founder as interim CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The group that oversees maritime contracts said the complex nature of the USTR’s new port fees needs to be made clear through a standard clause in shipping contracts. </div>

The group that oversees maritime contracts said the complex nature of the USTR’s new port fees needs to be made clear through a standard clause in shipping contracts.

<div class="phx-topic">The standard-setting body for maritime contracts is looking to establish how ocean carriers will charge shippers for the pending US port fees on Chinese ships and carriers, a move that will “significantly raise” shipping costs, the group warned. BIMCO said in a statement Thursday it has started development of a standard industry clause that would “address contractual uncertainties” arising from the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) tariffs against China’s maritime industry. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">Released in April</a>, the fees on Chinese-built ships and operators go into effect Oct. 14. With the enforcement date coming in five months, BIMCO said it’s making a standard clause for the USTR fee “a priority,” with legal and commercial experts assigned to weigh in on what a standard clause would look like. “When implemented, the measures will significantly raise the cost of seaborne trade to and from the United States,” BIMCO Chief Executive David Loosley said. “Additionally, the actions present complex contractual challenges for the shipping industry.” While the port fee will apply across all maritime trades into the US, container shipping poses more of a challenge due to having multiple port calls, the rotation of vessels into services, the mix of vessels stemming from alliance structures and the differing methodologies for assessing fees. <h3>No way to entirely avoid fees </h3>Container shipping advisory Bluspark Global said in an April report that ocean carriers will look to mitigate the fee by using non-Chinese ships in their US services or restructure alliance networks so Chinese carriers will no longer serve US ports. But those moves will not be entirely cost-free either, it added. “Carriers will strategize to minimize how often and where they incur these fees, but they will also ensure they recover the costs from customers,” Bluspark said. We may see some shifts in network design, but the fundamental impacts — higher costs that will be passed on — remain.” As laid out in April, the USTR will charge a fee based on the net tonnage of a Chinese-operated ship upon first arrival at a US port, up to five times per year, with the fee escalating over five years. Chinese-built ships, however, can face either the escalating net tonnage fee or a fee based on the number of containers carried on a voyage, whichever is higher. Bluspark laid out those different fee scenarios on Chinese ships. A 10,000-TEU ship would be about 60,000 net tons and have capacity for about 5,000 standard dry containers. Under the net tonnage fee — which starts at $18 in 2025 — the ship would face a $1.08 million fee on its first port call. But the 2025 container rate of $120 would yield a port fee of $600,000, Bluspark said. Bluspark said shippers should ask carriers to justify any surcharges relative to the actual fees they incur. “Keep a close eye on carrier announcements in late 2025 and beyond,” it said. “When a carrier implements a [USTR] surcharge, scrutinize the level and mechanism.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The standard-setting body for maritime contracts is looking to establish how ocean carriers will charge shippers for the pending US port fees on Chinese ships and carriers, a move that will “significantly raise” shipping costs, the group warned. BIMCO said in a statement Thursday it has started development of a standard industry clause that would “address contractual uncertainties” arising from the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) tariffs against China’s maritime industry. Released in April , the fees on Chinese-built ships and operators go into effect Oct. 14. With the enforcement date coming in five months, BIMCO said it’s making a standard clause for the USTR fee “a priority,” with legal and commercial experts assigned to weigh in on what a standard clause would look like. “When implemented, the measures will significantly raise the cost of seaborne trade to and from the United States,” BIMCO Chief Executive David Loosley said. “Additionally, the actions present complex contractual challenges for the shipping industry.” While the port fee will apply across all maritime trades into the US, container shipping poses more of a challenge due to having multiple port calls, the rotation of vessels into services, the mix of vessels stemming from alliance structures and the differing methodologies for assessing fees. No way to entirely avoid fees Container shipping advisory Bluspark Global said in an April report that ocean carriers will look to mitigate the fee by using non-Chinese ships in their US services or restructure alliance networks so Chinese carriers will no longer serve US ports. But those moves will not be entirely cost-free either, it added. “Carriers will strategize to minimize how often and where they incur these fees, but they will also ensure they recover the costs from customers,” Bluspark said. We may see some shifts in network design, but the fundamental impacts — higher costs that will be passed on — remain.” As laid out in April, the USTR will charge a fee based on the net tonnage of a Chinese-operated ship upon first arrival at a US port, up to five times per year, with the fee escalating over five years. Chinese-built ships, however, can face either the escalating net tonnage fee or a fee based on the number of containers carried on a voyage, whichever is higher. Bluspark laid out those different fee scenarios on Chinese ships. A 10,000-TEU ship would be about 60,000 net tons and have capacity for about 5,000 standard dry containers. Under the net tonnage fee — which starts at $18 in 2025 — the ship would face a $1.08 million fee on its first port call. But the 2025 container rate of $120 would yield a port fee of $600,000, Bluspark said. Bluspark said shippers should ask carriers to justify any surcharges relative to the actual fees they incur. “Keep a close eye on carrier announcements in late 2025 and beyond,” it said. “When a carrier implements a [USTR] surcharge, scrutinize the level and mechanism.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container Shipping News

BIMCO looks to set contract standard for charging USTR port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Trump administration’s tariff policy is yet another milestone that has shaken the US economy over the past 60 years, writes Ted Prince. </div>

The Trump administration’s tariff policy is yet another milestone that has shaken the US economy over the past 60 years, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Since the announcement of reciprocal tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day” last month, we have been bombarded by conflicting predictions of the possible benefits and disasters that may befall our country, our economy and our industry. What I find interesting is that the history of the past 60 years seems to have been forgotten. While there are many important dates, I will focus on four. <h3>Yanqui go home! </h3>I would start in April 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Marines and 82nd Airborne to the Dominican Republic to quell a civil war that broke out after a military junta. While the intervention was intended to protect US nationals, mission creep led to the deployment of over 22,000 American troops. While the invasion successfully reinstalled a conservative government, it increased distrust of the US. At the same time, companies such as Hewlett Packard were rolling out a continuous pipeline of electronic innovations. Their intention was to near-shore manufacturing in Latin America; however, the prevalence of “Yanqui Go Home!” made them look elsewhere. Japan and then the “Four Tigers” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) became the factory sites instead. The Vietnam War had become the first containerized war, and plentiful equipment was available to load back to the US. While electronics required factories, much of the manufacturing was cottage industries. For example, importers of blue jeans were buying from hundreds of small vendors. Ocean carrier consolidators would send pickup trucks into the New Territories to pick up loose articles of clothing (some which no doubt had been made in China) for consolidation at their facilities adjacent to the Kwai Tsing container terminals. <h3>Voluntary restraint </h3>In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to “voluntary export restraint,” which limited exports of passenger cars to the US. However, at the same time, they implemented a strategy of “transplants,” whereby cars were assembled in the US. Some might consider this an example of “reshoring;” however, it is not that simple. Initially, the plants were built in Japan, then disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled. Most of the parts (CKD: cars knocked down) came from Japan, so actual US content — other than labor — was minimal. Over time, suppliers proliferated along Interstates 65 and 75 to support these plants. However, many of these were also Japanese transplants. Some were joint ventures with US partners, but many were just US subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturers. Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison described this phenomenon in their 1982 work, “The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.” They pointed out the irony that the Japanese were successfully investing in US industrial sectors that scarcely a decade ago were said to be declining, uncompetitive, and suffering from deindustrialization. <h3>The Plaza Accord </h3>The Plaza Accord in September 1985 effectively devalued the dollar against other major currencies. Initially, the US trade deficit worsened, as imports rose in price with a devalued dollar. However, the devaluation made US exports cheaper for its trading partners to purchase, which grew the market in goods and services — which are unaccounted for in the current administration’s calculation. <h3>China and the WTO </h3>Finally, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). What followed was a massive dislocation in trade as China built world-class factories and world-class ports to ship goods throughout the world. Some of those factories have since relocated to nations with cheaper labor. However, a whole ecosystem of suppliers has grown up that supports the manufacturing and assembly of sophisticated products. China’s development took over 30 years. It was no shortcut. It was also the result of extensive industrial policy similar to what Japan and the Four Tigers had done previously. Most importantly, these policies did not deviate for decades and supported a long-term strategy whereby investment could be made with confidence. Our current politics are such that it is impossible to invest in today’s doctrine because it may no longer be applicable by the time the factory opens in three to eight years. In the past 30 years, trade has increased dramatically as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). However, while most economists believe that this has been good for the economy, the general public’s outlook is less sanguine. In large part, this is because trade’s impacts can vary widely: localized changes in jobs (both gains and losses) and reduced prices of goods and services. Freight is inextricably linked to trade. It has transformed our industry. We will no doubt have a ringside seat to the policy that is evolving. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

Since the announcement of reciprocal tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day” last month, we have been bombarded by conflicting predictions of the possible benefits and disasters that may befall our country, our economy and our industry. What I find interesting is that the history of the past 60 years seems to have been forgotten. While there are many important dates, I will focus on four. Yanqui go home! I would start in April 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Marines and 82nd Airborne to the Dominican Republic to quell a civil war that broke out after a military junta. While the intervention was intended to protect US nationals, mission creep led to the deployment of over 22,000 American troops. While the invasion successfully reinstalled a conservative government, it increased distrust of the US. At the same time, companies such as Hewlett Packard were rolling out a continuous pipeline of electronic innovations. Their intention was to near-shore manufacturing in Latin America; however, the prevalence of “Yanqui Go Home!” made them look elsewhere. Japan and then the “Four Tigers” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) became the factory sites instead. The Vietnam War had become the first containerized war, and plentiful equipment was available to load back to the US. While electronics required factories, much of the manufacturing was cottage industries. For example, importers of blue jeans were buying from hundreds of small vendors. Ocean carrier consolidators would send pickup trucks into the New Territories to pick up loose articles of clothing (some which no doubt had been made in China) for consolidation at their facilities adjacent to the Kwai Tsing container terminals. Voluntary restraint In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to “voluntary export restraint,” which limited exports of passenger cars to the US. However, at the same time, they implemented a strategy of “transplants,” whereby cars were assembled in the US. Some might consider this an example of “reshoring;” however, it is not that simple. Initially, the plants were built in Japan, then disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled. Most of the parts (CKD: cars knocked down) came from Japan, so actual US content — other than labor — was minimal. Over time, suppliers proliferated along Interstates 65 and 75 to support these plants. However, many of these were also Japanese transplants. Some were joint ventures with US partners, but many were just US subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturers. Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison described this phenomenon in their 1982 work, “The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.” They pointed out the irony that the Japanese were successfully investing in US industrial sectors that scarcely a decade ago were said to be declining, uncompetitive, and suffering from deindustrialization. The Plaza Accord The Plaza Accord in September 1985 effectively devalued the dollar against other major currencies. Initially, the US trade deficit worsened, as imports rose in price with a devalued dollar. However, the devaluation made US exports cheaper for its trading partners to purchase, which grew the market in goods and services — which are unaccounted for in the current administration’s calculation. China and the WTO Finally, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). What followed was a massive dislocation in trade as China built world-class factories and world-class ports to ship goods throughout the world. Some of those factories have since relocated to nations with cheaper labor. However, a whole ecosystem of suppliers has grown up that supports the manufacturing and assembly of sophisticated products. China’s development took over 30 years. It was no shortcut. It was also the result of extensive industrial policy similar to what Japan and the Four Tigers had done previously. Most importantly, these policies did not deviate for decades and supported a long-term strategy whereby investment could be made with confidence. Our current politics are such that it is impossible to invest in today’s doctrine because it may no longer be applicable by the time the factory opens in three to eight years. In the past 30 years, trade has increased dramatically as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). However, while most economists believe that this has been good for the economy, the general public’s outlook is less sanguine. In large part, this is because trade’s impacts can vary widely: localized changes in jobs (both gains and losses) and reduced prices of goods and services. Freight is inextricably linked to trade. It has transformed our industry. We will no doubt have a ringside seat to the policy that is evolving. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Supply chain

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The new global trade environment has significantly increased supply chain challenges, notably the arbitrary nature of the implementation of US tariffs.</div>

The new global trade environment has significantly increased supply chain challenges, notably the arbitrary nature of the implementation of US tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">This commentary is not specifically about tariffs, or about capacity shortages or surpluses or what to expect if your shipment happens to be transferred to a Chinese vessel or service — whatever that means today. Instead, it considers a related question: How do supply chain practitioners balance demand and supply planning in the current environment of uncertainty? To start, let’s assume you are a medium-size importer into the US from any Asian country subject to tariffs nominally above 20%. At this stage, you have called on the more recent lessons from the first term of Donald Trump and from the COVID-19 pandemic. These will include, but are not limited to, some form of cost-sharing of the increase, somewhere between you absorbing it all to the supplier wearing the whole lot. If you are buying in US dollars, then your supplier is already suffering and will have less room to maneuver. To counter this, a temporary option could be to switch to buying in your supplier’s local currency. This will have some appeal to your supplier as they are possibly overweight in the dollar and have actual costs in local currency. A lot will depend on your view of the trajectory of the dollar. However, two notes of caution: You will still have transaction costs when converting from the US dollar to the local currency, and depending on the country you source from, you may face capital controls if you need to get money back. Furthermore, changing back and forth in currencies has administrative risks with potential payment delays and errors. No doubt there will be a suggestion of suppliers providing lower-than-correct value invoices and some form of offline reconciliation. But doing the right thing in the face of malevolence has its longer-term reward. And besides, the penalties do not merit the risk. <h3>‘Roulette game’ </h3>You will have reduced your destination-side inventory to the degree of ensuring safety stocks. If you managed to get ahead of the tariff increases, you will be sitting on volume that requires warehousing. But as you have avoided tariffs to some degree, this will maintain your competitiveness — despite the increased warehousing and inventory working capital cost — assuming your competitors source from outside the US However, the new environment has significantly increased challenges. First, the rate at which tariff levels are changing makes supply planning a roulette game. This is primarily due to the arbitrary nature of their implementation, unlike previous changes that gave some degree of leeway for orders already in process and/or on the water. Equally challenging is the rollercoaster nature of the degree of tariff moves both up and down. Finally, the tactical response <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">to avoid Chinese-built, -owned, and -operated ships</a> will be a nightmare for all logisticians. This is particularly important because carrier and vessel choice is largely transactional at an operational level based on guidance from sourcing, so the likelihood of an error costing thousands is high. Where does that leave beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) in deciding which tactics to adopt? Frankly, for the foreseeable future, you will need to choose your poison. The somewhat binary options of manufacturing and storing at origin have appeal, particularly if the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-volumes-fall-on-trans-pacific-as-us-de-minimis-changes-loom-5993599">removal of de minimis</a> has a projected impact of freeing up air freight space, allowing cheaper (but not cheap) delivery for urgent orders. Alternatively, having the right stocks in place at the right time will do much for customer relations and, intuitively, result in less likelihood of discounting. The downside will be increased costs that will depend on the cost of the tariff versus your sale price. This will mean you either absorb the increase, thus reducing margins and profitability, or try to pass it on to consumers. The final kicker to this issue is consumer demand. With quite consistent indicators from many sources — Goldman Sachs, the International Monetary Fund, the University of Michigan and others— indicating at best a slowdown in all economies, the likelihood of stagflation emerging in the US, or at best/worst the return of inflation, is actually your greatest risk. Because if consumers truly defer consumption expecting lower prices through price reduction and/or discounting to stimulate demand (stagflation), or cannot afford to spend or increase credit card debt (inflation), then these two factors will cause greater headaches than your deliberations on supply planning. John McCauley, formerly a long-standing vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>.</div>

This commentary is not specifically about tariffs, or about capacity shortages or surpluses or what to expect if your shipment happens to be transferred to a Chinese vessel or service — whatever that means today. Instead, it considers a related question: How do supply chain practitioners balance demand and supply planning in the current environment of uncertainty? To start, let’s assume you are a medium-size importer into the US from any Asian country subject to tariffs nominally above 20%. At this stage, you have called on the more recent lessons from the first term of Donald Trump and from the COVID-19 pandemic. These will include, but are not limited to, some form of cost-sharing of the increase, somewhere between you absorbing it all to the supplier wearing the whole lot. If you are buying in US dollars, then your supplier is already suffering and will have less room to maneuver. To counter this, a temporary option could be to switch to buying in your supplier’s local currency. This will have some appeal to your supplier as they are possibly overweight in the dollar and have actual costs in local currency. A lot will depend on your view of the trajectory of the dollar. However, two notes of caution: You will still have transaction costs when converting from the US dollar to the local currency, and depending on the country you source from, you may face capital controls if you need to get money back. Furthermore, changing back and forth in currencies has administrative risks with potential payment delays and errors. No doubt there will be a suggestion of suppliers providing lower-than-correct value invoices and some form of offline reconciliation. But doing the right thing in the face of malevolence has its longer-term reward. And besides, the penalties do not merit the risk. ‘Roulette game’ You will have reduced your destination-side inventory to the degree of ensuring safety stocks. If you managed to get ahead of the tariff increases, you will be sitting on volume that requires warehousing. But as you have avoided tariffs to some degree, this will maintain your competitiveness — despite the increased warehousing and inventory working capital cost — assuming your competitors source from outside the US However, the new environment has significantly increased challenges. First, the rate at which tariff levels are changing makes supply planning a roulette game. This is primarily due to the arbitrary nature of their implementation, unlike previous changes that gave some degree of leeway for orders already in process and/or on the water. Equally challenging is the rollercoaster nature of the degree of tariff moves both up and down. Finally, the tactical response to avoid Chinese-built, -owned, and -operated ships will be a nightmare for all logisticians. This is particularly important because carrier and vessel choice is largely transactional at an operational level based on guidance from sourcing, so the likelihood of an error costing thousands is high. Where does that leave beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) in deciding which tactics to adopt? Frankly, for the foreseeable future, you will need to choose your poison. The somewhat binary options of manufacturing and storing at origin have appeal, particularly if the removal of de minimis has a projected impact of freeing up air freight space, allowing cheaper (but not cheap) delivery for urgent orders. Alternatively, having the right stocks in place at the right time will do much for customer relations and, intuitively, result in less likelihood of discounting. The downside will be increased costs that will depend on the cost of the tariff versus your sale price. This will mean you either absorb the increase, thus reducing margins and profitability, or try to pass it on to consumers. The final kicker to this issue is consumer demand. With quite consistent indicators from many sources — Goldman Sachs, the International Monetary Fund, the University of Michigan and others— indicating at best a slowdown in all economies, the likelihood of stagflation emerging in the US, or at best/worst the return of inflation, is actually your greatest risk. Because if consumers truly defer consumption expecting lower prices through price reduction and/or discounting to stimulate demand (stagflation), or cannot afford to spend or increase credit card debt (inflation), then these two factors will cause greater headaches than your deliberations on supply planning. John McCauley, formerly a long-standing vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Navigating the current supply chain is a matter of choosing your poison

Ningbo

{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}
 {name}: {valueY} 

Shanghai

Hong Kong

Portcast reports on port congestion by processing and analyzing rich automatic identification system (AIS) data to determine vessels’ behavior and speed on the way to a given destination port and generate a congestion index for each port. The congestion tracker includes ships that do not have estimated times of arrival or are waiting at anchorage and uses multiple human-monitored data sources to make corrections around outliers. [Portcast](https://portcast.io/solutions/port-congestion-tracker)

China ports vessels waiting to berth (Portcast)

China port congestion number of vessels waiting (Portcast) Gateway

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

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

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

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

Container lines

Global uncertainty to erode ocean carrier profits in 2025

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">That the port is the largest transshipment hub makes it convenient for carriers to transship cargo as they redeploy vessels from European and other long-haul trades to US-focused services. </div>

That the port is the largest transshipment hub makes it convenient for carriers to transship cargo as they redeploy vessels from European and other long-haul trades to US-focused services.

<div class="phx-topic">Singapore has joined Shanghai, the world’s second-busiest and busiest ports, respectively, in facing congestion driven by a rush of exports to the US during a 90-day tariff cooldown, according to forwarder and carrier sources. Operations in Singapore have been “heavily disrupted,” with transshipment cargo delayed by up to two weeks, forwarder Kuehne + Nagel said in an update Wednesday on its SeaExplorer visibility platform. According to a Monday update from container carrier Hapag-Lloyd, ships are waiting up to three days to berth at Singapore’s primary terminals due to vessel bunching and congestion. That Singapore is the world’s largest transshipment hub makes it convenient for carriers to transship cargo as they redeploy vessels from European and other long-haul trades to US-focused services. Congestion at other Asian ports is also contributing to a backlog of ships in Singapore. “PSA Singapore has seen a high concentration of container vessel arrivals in recent weeks, attributable to several factors, including some service reconfigurations by shipping lines in response to various business changes and global issues to optimize their network operations, as well as ripple effects from congestion and delays at other locations,” a PSA spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. The spokesperson said the port’s spare capacity and resources are being utilized to mitigate the impact of the rise in vessel arrivals. <h3>Shanghai congestion worsens</h3>The situation has also deteriorated in Shanghai, with carriers reporting wait times of up to five days, compared with about three days last week, according to K+N. The largest global forwarder said shippers are diverting cargo away from Shanghai to Ningbo to avoid delays, slowing operations in Ningbo. Similarly, congestion has worsened at Port Klang, Malaysia’s gateway terminal complex, with “heavily disrupted operations” and vessel wait times of up to three days, K+N said in its SeaExplorer update. Tan Hua Joo, co-founder of shipping data platform Linerlytica, told the Journal of Commerce, “Both Singapore and Port Klang are experiencing longer berthing delays due to heavy vessel traffic and bunching of arrivals due to delays at upstream ports.” And in South Asia, the ports of Colombo, Sri Lanka; Mundra, India; and Chittagong, Bangladesh, “are also seeing increased waiting times at the moment,” Hua Joo said. Vessel schedules from Ocean Network Express (ONE) this week provide an example of how the additional pressures in Singapore and Port Klang are impacting network fluidity. ONE’s 3,000-TEU Wan Hai 331, deployed on its Japan-Straits-Malaysia service, was four days late departing Hong Kong last Friday, but berthing delays in Singapore and Port Klang have increased these delays to eight days, with the ship scheduled to arrive in Singapore on June 3. Schedules for June and July indicate ONE has lengthened the estimated time of arrival from four days to up to seven days from Hong Kong to Singapore for a raft of vessels operating on intra-Asia and Europe-Mediterranean services to account for berthing delays in Singapore. Other ports in Asia, including Tianjin, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Nansha and Hong Kong in China; Busan, South Korea; Yokohama, Japan; Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam; and Manila, Philippines, are also dealing with declining port performance, K+N said. The number of vessels waiting at key ports in Asia has been trending upward again in the last two weeks after plunging from a high at the start of May, according to Portcast’s ship tracking index. There were 62 ships waiting to berth at Shanghai on Wednesday, approximately double the number in mid-May. The vessel backlog outside Singapore hit 55 on May 14, before plunging as low as 23 on May 21, Portcast data shows. <h3>Attention turns to US West Coast</h3>During Evergreen Marine’s annual general meeting Thursday, chairman Chang Yen-yi said port congestion would spread to US West Coast ports next month as vessels from Asia, including extra capacity that carriers are deploying during the current tariff pause, start arriving at Los Angeles and Long Beach. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, is confident that the nation’s busiest US container gateway is ready to handle what he expects to be a relatively minor surge in volumes compared with previous sudden demand increases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. “You won’t see a deluge of freight here at the Port of Los Angeles,” Seroka said in a May 18 briefing. “We will not be caught off guard.” Similar to during the pandemic, the sharpest limits to capacity during an import surge will be outside the truck gates, not at the marine terminals. As containers exit the ports, the influx of international intermodal shipments will test rail car supply, and importers and consignees could face less availability of warehousing and chassis. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Singapore has joined Shanghai, the world’s second-busiest and busiest ports, respectively, in facing congestion driven by a rush of exports to the US during a 90-day tariff cooldown, according to forwarder and carrier sources. Operations in Singapore have been “heavily disrupted,” with transshipment cargo delayed by up to two weeks, forwarder Kuehne + Nagel said in an update Wednesday on its SeaExplorer visibility platform. According to a Monday update from container carrier Hapag-Lloyd, ships are waiting up to three days to berth at Singapore’s primary terminals due to vessel bunching and congestion. That Singapore is the world’s largest transshipment hub makes it convenient for carriers to transship cargo as they redeploy vessels from European and other long-haul trades to US-focused services. Congestion at other Asian ports is also contributing to a backlog of ships in Singapore. “PSA Singapore has seen a high concentration of container vessel arrivals in recent weeks, attributable to several factors, including some service reconfigurations by shipping lines in response to various business changes and global issues to optimize their network operations, as well as ripple effects from congestion and delays at other locations,” a PSA spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. The spokesperson said the port’s spare capacity and resources are being utilized to mitigate the impact of the rise in vessel arrivals. Shanghai congestion worsens The situation has also deteriorated in Shanghai, with carriers reporting wait times of up to five days, compared with about three days last week, according to K+N. The largest global forwarder said shippers are diverting cargo away from Shanghai to Ningbo to avoid delays, slowing operations in Ningbo. Similarly, congestion has worsened at Port Klang, Malaysia’s gateway terminal complex, with “heavily disrupted operations” and vessel wait times of up to three days, K+N said in its SeaExplorer update. Tan Hua Joo, co-founder of shipping data platform Linerlytica, told the Journal of Commerce, “Both Singapore and Port Klang are experiencing longer berthing delays due to heavy vessel traffic and bunching of arrivals due to delays at upstream ports.” And in South Asia, the ports of Colombo, Sri Lanka; Mundra, India; and Chittagong, Bangladesh, “are also seeing increased waiting times at the moment,” Hua Joo said. Vessel schedules from Ocean Network Express (ONE) this week provide an example of how the additional pressures in Singapore and Port Klang are impacting network fluidity. ONE’s 3,000-TEU Wan Hai 331, deployed on its Japan-Straits-Malaysia service, was four days late departing Hong Kong last Friday, but berthing delays in Singapore and Port Klang have increased these delays to eight days, with the ship scheduled to arrive in Singapore on June 3. Schedules for June and July indicate ONE has lengthened the estimated time of arrival from four days to up to seven days from Hong Kong to Singapore for a raft of vessels operating on intra-Asia and Europe-Mediterranean services to account for berthing delays in Singapore. Other ports in Asia, including Tianjin, Qingdao, Shenzhen, Nansha and Hong Kong in China; Busan, South Korea; Yokohama, Japan; Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam; and Manila, Philippines, are also dealing with declining port performance, K+N said. The number of vessels waiting at key ports in Asia has been trending upward again in the last two weeks after plunging from a high at the start of May, according to Portcast’s ship tracking index. There were 62 ships waiting to berth at Shanghai on Wednesday, approximately double the number in mid-May. The vessel backlog outside Singapore hit 55 on May 14, before plunging as low as 23 on May 21, Portcast data shows. Attention turns to US West Coast During Evergreen Marine’s annual general meeting Thursday, chairman Chang Yen-yi said port congestion would spread to US West Coast ports next month as vessels from Asia, including extra capacity that carriers are deploying during the current tariff pause, start arriving at Los Angeles and Long Beach. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, is confident that the nation’s busiest US container gateway is ready to handle what he expects to be a relatively minor surge in volumes compared with previous sudden demand increases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic. “You won’t see a deluge of freight here at the Port of Los Angeles,” Seroka said in a May 18 briefing. “We will not be caught off guard.” Similar to during the pandemic, the sharpest limits to capacity during an import surge will be outside the truck gates, not at the marine terminals. As containers exit the ports, the influx of international intermodal shipments will test rail car supply, and importers and consignees could face less availability of warehousing and chassis. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

Trans-Pacific

Marine terminals

International ports

Asia port disruption wave reaches Singapore

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">To achieve the promised 95% on-time performance, J.B. Hunt will require a strong collaboration with BNSF Railway and Grupo México Transportes to navigate challenges in cross-border rail.</div>

To achieve the promised 95% on-time performance, J.B. Hunt will require a strong collaboration with BNSF Railway and Grupo México Transportes to navigate challenges in cross-border rail.

<div class="phx-topic">J.B. Hunt Transport Services, BNSF Railway and Mexican rail operator Grupo Mexico Transportes (GMXT, parent company of Ferromex) are launching a cross-border intermodal service pledging at least 95% on-time performance, underscoring rising demand for truck-like dependable intermodal service from Mexico to the US. The Quantum de Mexico service was launched Friday, starting with the formal process of reaching out to current and potential shippers, gauging interest and their delivery standards. It’s a process that could take a few months to complete, the company said. The 95% on-time guarantee will be measured differently based on criteria established with each shipper, but in general, J.B. Hunt will deliver cargo within a delivery window, much like a window a homeowner might see waiting for a plumber or HVAC technician. “Each standard operating procedure for Quantum de Mexico will be tailored to the customer,” said Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing at J.B. Hunt. “We will design the service based on customer needs at point of delivery.” The Quantum de Mexico service — based on the US Quantum service launched by J.B. Hunt and BNSF in 2023 — will connect Guadalajara, Mexico City, and Monterrey to Chicago, Dallas, and parts of the US West Coast and East Coast which have yet to be named. Quantum de Mexico will fuel rising competition for cross-border freight, both in intermodal and trucking markets. On the rails, Quantum will compete with Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) Falcon Premium and Canadian Pacific Kansas City’s (CPKC’s) Mexico Midwest Express. J.B. Hunt’s direct competitors are Hub Group and Schneider National. Hub Group has partnered with UP’s Falcon Premium and launched a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hub-group-boosts-cross-border-business-in-jv-with-mexican-dray-carrier-5745355">joint venture</a> with Mexican drayage provider Easo. Schneider is the primary customer of CPKC’s cross-border services. The intermodal providers all compete with long-established truckload options. Trucking handles most of the cross-border freight, with intermodal rail accounting for about 10% to 15% of dry freight business, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The total number of trucks entering the US from Mexico increased 3.5% in 2024, rising to 7.6 million. Just eight border crossings handled 92.8% of those trucks. Those border crossings are a narrow funnel that is getting tighter as cross-border volumes rise. <h3>Where it gets complicated </h3>Shippers are looking for new solutions and ways to avoid delays and speed cross-border shipments, and time-sensitive intermodal, once a contradiction in terms, is now a real option, J.B. Hunt, BNSF and GMXT told the Journal of Commerce. “In Mexico, potential issues with over-the-road capacity and lack of infrastructure investment are driving our customer to say, ‘Hey, we need something different,” Frazier said in an interview. “It’s not just consistent capacity; it’s the high level of service.” The need for speed in replenishment and to avoid penalties for missing delivery deadlines continues to drive changes in supply chains, creating opportunities for services such as Quantum, which will be up to one day faster than regular intermodal service. In the US, Quantum service is more expensive than regular intermodal but not as expensive as expedited trains. The nature of the US-Mexico border makes delivering 95% reliability significantly tougher than hitting such a target on US domestic moves. For example, Mexican regulations allow an electronic submission of customs documents, known as pedimentos, but also require a physical copy to be delivered. That requires a runner to hand over documents for a stamp before a container can be loaded or rejected. Additionally, customs offices are open 24 hours in Monterrey, but others in less populated cities close outside of standard business hours. Quantum de Mexico will set up processes with each customer to clear customs hurdles before freight is loaded, Frazier said. “We will have specific operational spots at GMXT terminals [in Mexico] for Quantum shipments at a schedule dictated by the customer,” he said. “We will have someone from GMXT in Fort Worth, Texas, for 24/7 oversight of Quantum shipments.” J.B. Hunt’s partnership with BNSF includes a co-located office in Fort Worth, Texas, where employees of both companies monitor Quantum loads 24 hours a day. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. Senior Editor William B. Cassidy contributed to this report. </div>

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, BNSF Railway and Mexican rail operator Grupo Mexico Transportes (GMXT, parent company of Ferromex) are launching a cross-border intermodal service pledging at least 95% on-time performance, underscoring rising demand for truck-like dependable intermodal service from Mexico to the US. The Quantum de Mexico service was launched Friday, starting with the formal process of reaching out to current and potential shippers, gauging interest and their delivery standards. It’s a process that could take a few months to complete, the company said. The 95% on-time guarantee will be measured differently based on criteria established with each shipper, but in general, J.B. Hunt will deliver cargo within a delivery window, much like a window a homeowner might see waiting for a plumber or HVAC technician. “Each standard operating procedure for Quantum de Mexico will be tailored to the customer,” said Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing at J.B. Hunt. “We will design the service based on customer needs at point of delivery.” The Quantum de Mexico service — based on the US Quantum service launched by J.B. Hunt and BNSF in 2023 — will connect Guadalajara, Mexico City, and Monterrey to Chicago, Dallas, and parts of the US West Coast and East Coast which have yet to be named. Quantum de Mexico will fuel rising competition for cross-border freight, both in intermodal and trucking markets. On the rails, Quantum will compete with Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) Falcon Premium and Canadian Pacific Kansas City’s (CPKC’s) Mexico Midwest Express. J.B. Hunt’s direct competitors are Hub Group and Schneider National. Hub Group has partnered with UP’s Falcon Premium and launched a joint venture with Mexican drayage provider Easo. Schneider is the primary customer of CPKC’s cross-border services. The intermodal providers all compete with long-established truckload options. Trucking handles most of the cross-border freight, with intermodal rail accounting for about 10% to 15% of dry freight business, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The total number of trucks entering the US from Mexico increased 3.5% in 2024, rising to 7.6 million. Just eight border crossings handled 92.8% of those trucks. Those border crossings are a narrow funnel that is getting tighter as cross-border volumes rise. Where it gets complicated Shippers are looking for new solutions and ways to avoid delays and speed cross-border shipments, and time-sensitive intermodal, once a contradiction in terms, is now a real option, J.B. Hunt, BNSF and GMXT told the Journal of Commerce. “In Mexico, potential issues with over-the-road capacity and lack of infrastructure investment are driving our customer to say, ‘Hey, we need something different,” Frazier said in an interview. “It’s not just consistent capacity; it’s the high level of service.” The need for speed in replenishment and to avoid penalties for missing delivery deadlines continues to drive changes in supply chains, creating opportunities for services such as Quantum, which will be up to one day faster than regular intermodal service. In the US, Quantum service is more expensive than regular intermodal but not as expensive as expedited trains. The nature of the US-Mexico border makes delivering 95% reliability significantly tougher than hitting such a target on US domestic moves. For example, Mexican regulations allow an electronic submission of customs documents, known as pedimentos, but also require a physical copy to be delivered. That requires a runner to hand over documents for a stamp before a container can be loaded or rejected. Additionally, customs offices are open 24 hours in Monterrey, but others in less populated cities close outside of standard business hours. Quantum de Mexico will set up processes with each customer to clear customs hurdles before freight is loaded, Frazier said. “We will have specific operational spots at GMXT terminals [in Mexico] for Quantum shipments at a schedule dictated by the customer,” he said. “We will have someone from GMXT in Fort Worth, Texas, for 24/7 oversight of Quantum shipments.” J.B. Hunt’s partnership with BNSF includes a co-located office in Fort Worth, Texas, where employees of both companies monitor Quantum loads 24 hours a day. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com . Senior Editor William B. Cassidy contributed to this report.

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

J.B. Hunt launching Quantum de Mexico for time-sensitive cross-border freight

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE TODAY AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers are looking to ride the higher rates as long as they can before the fresh vessel capacity that is making its way to the trans-Pacific begins to dull the momentum.</div>

Carriers are looking to ride the higher rates as long as they can before the fresh vessel capacity that is making its way to the trans-Pacific begins to dull the momentum.

<div class="phx-topic">Trans-Pacific spot rates are rising at a faster clip than the pandemic-linked boom in the spring of 2021 amid a spike in imports from Asia driven by the temporary pause in tariff hikes put in place by the Trump administration. An ocean carrier executive said liners are being “very aggressive on spot rates” to capitalize on the cargo surge, with so-called general rate increases (GRIs) implemented on June 1 and two other price hikes planned for mid-June and July 1. A half-dozen forwarders told the Journal of Commerce that spot rates this week are in the low $6,000s per FEU to the US West Coast and low $7,000s to the East Coast. Rate indexes, which take a week or two to capture the full rate gains, still showed a big jump this week. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, listed the spot rate from Asia to the West Coast as of Monday at $5,600 per FEU, up 33% from just last week. The East Coast rate was $6,500 per FEU, up 25%. Platts data shows the West Coast spot rate has rocketed 173% higher since mid-April, with the East Coast rate doubling over that time. By comparison, as US imports from Asia began to climb in May 2021 following the COVID-related slump, spot rates to the US rose about 20% from mid-April. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8c13a3e-9f5a-412f-8741-adbf5e1a7779"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers are looking to ride the higher rates as long as they can before the fresh vessel capacity that is making its way to the trans-Pacific in the form of extra-loaders and new services begins to dull the momentum. “It seems like the next [rate] increase or two will be the last ones,” said Jason Cook, CEO of Ardent Global Logistics. “I’m getting the impression that this capacity is already finding its way into the trade.” The new capacity is especially significant on the trade lanes from Asia to the West Coast. Carriers in June have increased capacity by 12.8% and plan another 16.5% hike in July, Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, said in his Sunday Spotlight newsletter. “In total, this is an injection of 397,000 TEUs of capacity in June/July compared to the situation just three weeks ago,” Murphy said. <h3>Import surge coming to Southern California </h3>The surge in imports from Asia is tied to the Trump administration’s time-limited pause in higher tariffs. The pauses are expiring over the next two months — one on July 9 on imports from most nations except for China, and another in mid-August on the huge <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/federal-court-ruling-blocking-tariffs-resets-shipping-outlook-6013402">145% tariff on imports from China that has been reduced to 30%</a>. The White House says it is busy negotiating new trade deals in the meantime. As those deadlines approach, the import spike is manifesting itself in the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex, which handles about 50% of US imports from Asia. According to data from both ports, the Southern California complex is projecting a huge volume of imports over the next few weeks. Los Angeles, which this week will handle about 92,000 TEUs of laden imports, is forecasting more than 103,000 TEUs next week and 112,000 TEUs in the week of June 15. Long Beach, which will handle about 75,000 import TEUs next week, is projecting imports of more than 90,000 TEUs per week during the last three weeks of June. “Clearly shippers are trying to catch up on lost time out of China,” one forwarder said. Bookings out of Southeast Asia are quite strong, while bookings from China, which spiked after the May 12 “pause” announcement, are now “slightly weaker, but nothing that will throw the trade off,” said James Caradonna, executive vice president of the forwarder Spedag America. <h3>Short, but intense, peak season expected </h3>Based on the significant level of frontloading that has already taken place from Southeast Asia and China, forwarders say this year’s peak shipping season will start earlier and be noticeably shorter than typical peak seasons, which run from August through October. “The peak season has already started,” said Christian Sur, executive vice president of ocean freight contract logistics at the forwarder Unique Logistics International. “The peak of the peak will be in the second half of June.” For that reason, carriers are attempting to maintain cargo flow and bookings from their core customers so that when imports fall off, liners will maintain what business is left for the remainder of the year, the carrier executive said. Carriers right now are slow-walking peak season surcharges (PSSs), which are applied to cargo owners’ service contracts and forwarders’ named-account (NAC) rates, even while they announce additional spot rate increases, the executive said. “The lines are very cautious about PSSs...,” the source said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Trans-Pacific spot rates are rising at a faster clip than the pandemic-linked boom in the spring of 2021 amid a spike in imports from Asia driven by the temporary pause in tariff hikes put in place by the Trump administration. An ocean carrier executive said liners are being “very aggressive on spot rates” to capitalize on the cargo surge, with so-called general rate increases (GRIs) implemented on June 1 and two other price hikes planned for mid-June and July 1. A half-dozen forwarders told the Journal of Commerce that spot rates this week are in the low $6,000s per FEU to the US West Coast and low $7,000s to the East Coast. Rate indexes, which take a week or two to capture the full rate gains, still showed a big jump this week. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, listed the spot rate from Asia to the West Coast as of Monday at $5,600 per FEU, up 33% from just last week. The East Coast rate was $6,500 per FEU, up 25%. Platts data shows the West Coast spot rate has rocketed 173% higher since mid-April, with the East Coast rate doubling over that time. By comparison, as US imports from Asia began to climb in May 2021 following the COVID-related slump, spot rates to the US rose about 20% from mid-April. Carriers are looking to ride the higher rates as long as they can before the fresh vessel capacity that is making its way to the trans-Pacific in the form of extra-loaders and new services begins to dull the momentum. “It seems like the next [rate] increase or two will be the last ones,” said Jason Cook, CEO of Ardent Global Logistics. “I’m getting the impression that this capacity is already finding its way into the trade.” The new capacity is especially significant on the trade lanes from Asia to the West Coast. Carriers in June have increased capacity by 12.8% and plan another 16.5% hike in July, Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, said in his Sunday Spotlight newsletter. “In total, this is an injection of 397,000 TEUs of capacity in June/July compared to the situation just three weeks ago,” Murphy said. Import surge coming to Southern California The surge in imports from Asia is tied to the Trump administration’s time-limited pause in higher tariffs. The pauses are expiring over the next two months — one on July 9 on imports from most nations except for China, and another in mid-August on the huge 145% tariff on imports from China that has been reduced to 30% . The White House says it is busy negotiating new trade deals in the meantime. As those deadlines approach, the import spike is manifesting itself in the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex, which handles about 50% of US imports from Asia. According to data from both ports, the Southern California complex is projecting a huge volume of imports over the next few weeks. Los Angeles, which this week will handle about 92,000 TEUs of laden imports, is forecasting more than 103,000 TEUs next week and 112,000 TEUs in the week of June 15. Long Beach, which will handle about 75,000 import TEUs next week, is projecting imports of more than 90,000 TEUs per week during the last three weeks of June. “Clearly shippers are trying to catch up on lost time out of China,” one forwarder said. Bookings out of Southeast Asia are quite strong, while bookings from China, which spiked after the May 12 “pause” announcement, are now “slightly weaker, but nothing that will throw the trade off,” said James Caradonna, executive vice president of the forwarder Spedag America. Short, but intense, peak season expected Based on the significant level of frontloading that has already taken place from Southeast Asia and China, forwarders say this year’s peak shipping season will start earlier and be noticeably shorter than typical peak seasons, which run from August through October. “The peak season has already started,” said Christian Sur, executive vice president of ocean freight contract logistics at the forwarder Unique Logistics International. “The peak of the peak will be in the second half of June.” For that reason, carriers are attempting to maintain cargo flow and bookings from their core customers so that when imports fall off, liners will maintain what business is left for the remainder of the year, the carrier executive said. Carriers right now are slow-walking peak season surcharges (PSSs), which are applied to cargo owners’ service contracts and forwarders’ named-account (NAC) rates, even while they announce additional spot rate increases, the executive said. “The lines are very cautious about PSSs...,” the source said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Pause in tariff hikes drives big gains in trans-Pacific spot rates

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

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

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

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

Asia-Europe

Asia-Europe ocean rates spike on congestion, capacity shift

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

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

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

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

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Lower LTL volumes are likely in the coming months, but pricing remains elevated, according to producer price index data. </div>

Lower LTL volumes are likely in the coming months, but pricing remains elevated, according to producer price index data.

<div class="phx-topic">Soft demand for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight and service in the US appears poised to get even softer, as publicly owned LTL providers prepare to release mid-quarter market reports. Shippers should expect volumes to vary across carriers, but pricing is likely to stay at its current elevated levels, with the US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) at 259 for the past three months, a record high and about 5% higher than a year ago. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9014abeb-369b-4328-97ae-ee1793647b6e"></dynamic-object></div>Shipments and tonnage both decreased year over year in May at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/journal-of-commerce-rankings-us-ltl-sector-defies-soft-demand-regains-traction-6010008">second-largest US LTL trucking company</a>, ODFL said Wednesday. ODFL reported an 8.4% decrease in LTL tonnage and a 6.8% drop in LTL shipments per day Revenue fell 5.8% year over year in May, but LTL revenue per hundredweight, excluding fuel surcharges, rose 5.6%. ODFL remains one of the most disciplined LTL carriers when it comes to pricing, and its operating ratio — a measure of profitability — is in the 70s. A drop in LTL revenue, or shipments, may not point to a broader market slump, but may reflect a carrier’s refusal to lower rates to get freight at the expense of profitability. Last year, the aggregate LTL shipment count among the Top 25 LTL Carriers rose 2.5%. The drop in demand ODFL saw in May comes as US manufacturers cope with high input inventories and fluctuations in orders as vendors frontload freight to avoid high US tariffs. Industrial manufacturing makes up the bulk of LTL freight in the US. The S&amp;P Global Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) rose to 52 in May, up from 50.2 in April and the fifth straight month the PMI has been above 50, the breaking point dividing expansion from contraction. But that’s not necessarily a sign of industrial health. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56be088e-5b54-4d09-add3-f841e65711ec"></dynamic-object></div>“The rise in the PMI during May masks worrying developments under the hood of the US manufacturing economy,” said Chris Williamson, S&amp;P Global’s chief business economist. “While growth of new orders picked up and suppliers were reportedly busier as companies built up their inventory levels at an unprecedented rate, the common theme was a temporary surge in demand as manufacturers and their customers worry about supply issues and rising prices,” Williamson said in a statement this week. That surge in demand and inventories also coincides with frontloading of goods from China and elsewhere during a pair of 90-day pauses on higher US tariffs, pauses that will expire in July and August, barring further extensions or the successful negotiation of trade deals. While the S&amp;P Global monthly US Manufacturing PMI has shown tepid expansion in 2025, the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) PMI has been in contraction for four months, dropping 0.2 percentage point in May to 48.5. The ISM inventories index dropped into contraction after three positive months as businesses completed frontloading of goods ahead of tariffs, ISM said. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Soft demand for less-than-truckload (LTL) freight and service in the US appears poised to get even softer, as publicly owned LTL providers prepare to release mid-quarter market reports. Shippers should expect volumes to vary across carriers, but pricing is likely to stay at its current elevated levels, with the US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) at 259 for the past three months, a record high and about 5% higher than a year ago. Shipments and tonnage both decreased year over year in May at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), the second-largest US LTL trucking company , ODFL said Wednesday. ODFL reported an 8.4% decrease in LTL tonnage and a 6.8% drop in LTL shipments per day Revenue fell 5.8% year over year in May, but LTL revenue per hundredweight, excluding fuel surcharges, rose 5.6%. ODFL remains one of the most disciplined LTL carriers when it comes to pricing, and its operating ratio — a measure of profitability — is in the 70s. A drop in LTL revenue, or shipments, may not point to a broader market slump, but may reflect a carrier’s refusal to lower rates to get freight at the expense of profitability. Last year, the aggregate LTL shipment count among the Top 25 LTL Carriers rose 2.5%. The drop in demand ODFL saw in May comes as US manufacturers cope with high input inventories and fluctuations in orders as vendors frontload freight to avoid high US tariffs. Industrial manufacturing makes up the bulk of LTL freight in the US. The S&P Global Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) rose to 52 in May, up from 50.2 in April and the fifth straight month the PMI has been above 50, the breaking point dividing expansion from contraction. But that’s not necessarily a sign of industrial health. “The rise in the PMI during May masks worrying developments under the hood of the US manufacturing economy,” said Chris Williamson, S&P Global’s chief business economist. “While growth of new orders picked up and suppliers were reportedly busier as companies built up their inventory levels at an unprecedented rate, the common theme was a temporary surge in demand as manufacturers and their customers worry about supply issues and rising prices,” Williamson said in a statement this week. That surge in demand and inventories also coincides with frontloading of goods from China and elsewhere during a pair of 90-day pauses on higher US tariffs, pauses that will expire in July and August, barring further extensions or the successful negotiation of trade deals. While the S&P Global monthly US Manufacturing PMI has shown tepid expansion in 2025, the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) PMI has been in contraction for four months, dropping 0.2 percentage point in May to 48.5. The ISM inventories index dropped into contraction after three positive months as businesses completed frontloading of goods ahead of tariffs, ISM said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Car carrier operators face changes to USTR voyage fee plans

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Global uncertainty to erode ocean carrier profits in 2025

Asia port disruption wave reaches Singapore

J.B. Hunt launching Quantum de Mexico for time-sensitive cross-border freight

Recent Commentary

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

Navigating the current supply chain is a matter of choosing your poison

Top 5 Most Read Stories