<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Polyethylene prices have nearly doubled since the end of February as Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the region’s petrochemical plants from the rest of the world.</div>

Polyethylene prices have nearly doubled since the end of February as Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the region’s petrochemical plants from the rest of the world.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">(The following story appears in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine to be published May 4, 2026.) Following strong growth in 2025, US resins exports could see a repeat due to the global supply squeeze created by the war with Iran. But the degree of growth in 2026 will depend on how quickly new US supply can come online and whether surging resin prices will ultimately cause consumers to pull back. Outbound shipments of polyethylene and polypropylene, which account for over half of US chemicals exports, grew 10.7% to 1.23 million TEUs in 2025, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Last year’s growth was the strongest since 2023, when import container demand returned to normal and allowed more space for exporters. China last year again received the largest share of overall US chemicals exports for any single country, but at 11.2%, it was down from 14.3% in 2024 and the lowest share since before the COVID-19 pandemic, PIERS data showed. Brazil was next at 8%, down marginally from the year prior. Terry Glass, vice president at commodities price reporting agency Argus, said new supply coming online last year fueled 2025 growth. Dow Chemical opened its latest resins production line at its Freeport, Texas, plant, capable of producing enough polyethylene for filling 26,000 20-foot containers per year. After its first production line was completed in 2022, Shell now has three production lines operating at its Monaca plant in Pennsylvania, Glass said. The plant, largely dependent on export markets, can turn out enough resins to fill about 31,000, 20-foot containers annually. The new supply lowered margins on resin, causing producers to lower plant utilization to about 80% toward the end of 2025, Glass said. Producers also typically decrease production ahead of planned maintenance, which generally takes place during the first quarter. However, war in the Middle East has scrambled that plan. Since the end of February, polyethylene prices have nearly doubled as Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the region’s petrochemical plants from the rest of the world. Glass said North American plants are now running at 91% utilization and likely to defer maintenance due to the strong pricing. “Producers were starting to cut [output] through December and January because they were not getting enough incremental margin,” he said. “We’re forecasting another six months of elevated prices and elevated demand for the US producers.” <h3>War damage to energy infrastructure </h3>Ted Semesnyei, an associate director for S&amp;P Global, said the strong demand will play out in waves globally. Asia will be the first pinched by the cut in Mideast supply. While China has built up its own resin production to supply the region, it primarily uses crude oil from the Middle East as a feedstock. Chinese producers are starting to cut back because of high feedstock costs and are importing alternative feedstocks, which will also become more expensive over time. Europe has some buffer inventory, having built up resin stocks in anticipation of maintenance season, Glass said. European producers also have some flexibility as to sourcing feedstocks from the Mideast or the US. “Not only are skyrocketing feedstock costs a major upside pricing risk, but increasingly actual supply availability is a growing concern,” Semesnyei said. “Because of the way global trade is set up, the Asia region is most at risk, followed by Europe and then North America.” A big unknown for the resins market is the extent of the damage that has already occurred to Mideast petrochemical capacity. The attacks on Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG plant and Iran’s South Pars gas field threaten feedstock supply for Mideast resins producers, Glass said, with a preliminary estimate of $25 billion worth of damage. Those facilities could face months, if not years, of repairs. “Even if they could get in and assess the damage, they can’t get access to the parts,” Glass said. “They would need to get some major equipment that is already on back order for two years.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1798929d-28b3-4b03-be92-66a0e269ac32"></dynamic-object></div>There is little, if any, outbound logistical constraint facing North American resin shippers currently. Glass said the distributors and packagers that load resin into containers have enough capacity for more volumes, and container ships have ample space. Export freight rates have ticked higher in anticipation of more demand. The benchmark rate for shipping a dry 20-foot container from Houston to North Europe has reached $1,186, according to Xeneta, a 7% increase from the end of March. The US already exports about 50% of its total polyethylene production currently, Glass said, and that figure could reach 60% thanks to the current strong pricing. US resin customers have about 40 days of inventory, he added, which is a bit of a cushion for diverting product to export markets. But with about one-fifth of global supply coming out of the Mideast, US producers will not be able to replace it entirely. North American producers can likely bring utilization up to about 93% in the short term, but that much utilization will also mean more maintenance for plant equipment. In the near term, the next major supply for the export market will be a Chevron Phillips Chemical and QatarEnergy plant in Orange, Texas, that is expected to be completed in mid-2026. The plant will be capable of making enough polyethylene resins to fill 46,000 20-foot containers per year, but Glass said it will at take least another two to three months after completion for the plant to reach that maximum output. Utilization above 90% is “the max that they can run,” Glass said. “We don’t have a lot of excess capacity.” The ongoing strength in resins prices could also force the market to self-correct, Semesnyei said, with consumers and companies deciding to cut back demand entirely due to higher costs for downstream products. “Major demand destruction will become a growing risk the longer the conflict lasts, impacting the entire world,” he said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

(The following story appears in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine to be published May 4, 2026.) Following strong growth in 2025, US resins exports could see a repeat due to the global supply squeeze created by the war with Iran. But the degree of growth in 2026 will depend on how quickly new US supply can come online and whether surging resin prices will ultimately cause consumers to pull back. Outbound shipments of polyethylene and polypropylene, which account for over half of US chemicals exports, grew 10.7% to 1.23 million TEUs in 2025, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Last year’s growth was the strongest since 2023, when import container demand returned to normal and allowed more space for exporters. China last year again received the largest share of overall US chemicals exports for any single country, but at 11.2%, it was down from 14.3% in 2024 and the lowest share since before the COVID-19 pandemic, PIERS data showed. Brazil was next at 8%, down marginally from the year prior. Terry Glass, vice president at commodities price reporting agency Argus, said new supply coming online last year fueled 2025 growth. Dow Chemical opened its latest resins production line at its Freeport, Texas, plant, capable of producing enough polyethylene for filling 26,000 20-foot containers per year. After its first production line was completed in 2022, Shell now has three production lines operating at its Monaca plant in Pennsylvania, Glass said. The plant, largely dependent on export markets, can turn out enough resins to fill about 31,000, 20-foot containers annually. The new supply lowered margins on resin, causing producers to lower plant utilization to about 80% toward the end of 2025, Glass said. Producers also typically decrease production ahead of planned maintenance, which generally takes place during the first quarter. However, war in the Middle East has scrambled that plan. Since the end of February, polyethylene prices have nearly doubled as Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the region’s petrochemical plants from the rest of the world. Glass said North American plants are now running at 91% utilization and likely to defer maintenance due to the strong pricing. “Producers were starting to cut [output] through December and January because they were not getting enough incremental margin,” he said. “We’re forecasting another six months of elevated prices and elevated demand for the US producers.” War damage to energy infrastructure Ted Semesnyei, an associate director for S&P Global, said the strong demand will play out in waves globally. Asia will be the first pinched by the cut in Mideast supply. While China has built up its own resin production to supply the region, it primarily uses crude oil from the Middle East as a feedstock. Chinese producers are starting to cut back because of high feedstock costs and are importing alternative feedstocks, which will also become more expensive over time. Europe has some buffer inventory, having built up resin stocks in anticipation of maintenance season, Glass said. European producers also have some flexibility as to sourcing feedstocks from the Mideast or the US. “Not only are skyrocketing feedstock costs a major upside pricing risk, but increasingly actual supply availability is a growing concern,” Semesnyei said. “Because of the way global trade is set up, the Asia region is most at risk, followed by Europe and then North America.” A big unknown for the resins market is the extent of the damage that has already occurred to Mideast petrochemical capacity. The attacks on Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG plant and Iran’s South Pars gas field threaten feedstock supply for Mideast resins producers, Glass said, with a preliminary estimate of $25 billion worth of damage. Those facilities could face months, if not years, of repairs. “Even if they could get in and assess the damage, they can’t get access to the parts,” Glass said. “They would need to get some major equipment that is already on back order for two years.” There is little, if any, outbound logistical constraint facing North American resin shippers currently. Glass said the distributors and packagers that load resin into containers have enough capacity for more volumes, and container ships have ample space. Export freight rates have ticked higher in anticipation of more demand. The benchmark rate for shipping a dry 20-foot container from Houston to North Europe has reached $1,186, according to Xeneta, a 7% increase from the end of March. The US already exports about 50% of its total polyethylene production currently, Glass said, and that figure could reach 60% thanks to the current strong pricing. US resin customers have about 40 days of inventory, he added, which is a bit of a cushion for diverting product to export markets. But with about one-fifth of global supply coming out of the Mideast, US producers will not be able to replace it entirely. North American producers can likely bring utilization up to about 93% in the short term, but that much utilization will also mean more maintenance for plant equipment. In the near term, the next major supply for the export market will be a Chevron Phillips Chemical and QatarEnergy plant in Orange, Texas, that is expected to be completed in mid-2026. The plant will be capable of making enough polyethylene resins to fill 46,000 20-foot containers per year, but Glass said it will at take least another two to three months after completion for the plant to reach that maximum output. Utilization above 90% is “the max that they can run,” Glass said. “We don’t have a lot of excess capacity.” The ongoing strength in resins prices could also force the market to self-correct, Semesnyei said, with consumers and companies deciding to cut back demand entirely due to higher costs for downstream products. “Major demand destruction will become a growing risk the longer the conflict lasts, impacting the entire world,” he said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Supply chain

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

War-driven supply squeeze could boost US resins exports in 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The agency’s ruling maintains the competitive status quo in which NS is the only railroad with direct access to Norfolk International Terminals.</div>

The agency’s ruling maintains the competitive status quo in which NS is the only railroad with direct access to Norfolk International Terminals.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Surface Transportation Board (STB) has sided with Norfolk Southern Railway in a long-running dispute over rail access at the Port of Virginia, rejecting CSX Transportation’s bid for direct on-dock service to Norfolk International Terminals (NIT). The STB’s unanimous decision, announced Monday, preserves the competitive structure in Norfolk that has existed since the 1980s. Norfolk Southern has direct access to NIT with separate tracks, while CSX must reach the terminal through the Norfolk &amp; Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad (NPBL), a short-line railroad. Norfolk Southern had “de facto” control of the NPBL since the 1980s, but it was never formally approved by federal regulators until now. CSX wanted the STB to require Norfolk Southern to provide equal access to NIT. The NPBL, CSX argued, charges an unreasonable rate to access NIT, resulting in CSX draying containers from NIT to Virginia International Gateway (VIG). Regulators noted, though, that the Virginia Port Authority subsidizes CSX’s drayage costs between NIT and VIG, and the port typically routes CSX-aligned ocean carriers to VIG to avoid the issue altogether. Both railroads can directly access VIG. “There is not likely to be a substantial lessening of competition, the creation of a monopoly, or restraint of trade in freight surface transportation in any region of the United States as a result of this transaction,” the STB said in its ruling. The agency also wrote that its job was to evaluate whether formal approval of NS’ control of NPBL would create new competitive harm, not to remedy “pre-existing disadvantages that other railroads, shippers, or communities may have been experiencing.” The STB attached several conditions to its ruling. The NPBL must continue to operate as a neutral railroad and may not discriminate between Norfolk Southern and CSX. Norfolk Southern is also barred from using NPBL to render NIT inaccessible to CSX through unfair pricing. In addition, NPBL may not discontinue routes or service to CSX or other third parties, and it must notify the STB of pricing and operational changes for the next five years. CSX has already unsuccessfully challenged the arrangement in federal court. The Eastern District of Virginia dismissed CSX’s antitrust claims, and the US Supreme Court declined to hear CSX’s appeal in 2023. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The US Surface Transportation Board (STB) has sided with Norfolk Southern Railway in a long-running dispute over rail access at the Port of Virginia, rejecting CSX Transportation’s bid for direct on-dock service to Norfolk International Terminals (NIT). The STB’s unanimous decision, announced Monday, preserves the competitive structure in Norfolk that has existed since the 1980s. Norfolk Southern has direct access to NIT with separate tracks, while CSX must reach the terminal through the Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad (NPBL), a short-line railroad. Norfolk Southern had “de facto” control of the NPBL since the 1980s, but it was never formally approved by federal regulators until now. CSX wanted the STB to require Norfolk Southern to provide equal access to NIT. The NPBL, CSX argued, charges an unreasonable rate to access NIT, resulting in CSX draying containers from NIT to Virginia International Gateway (VIG). Regulators noted, though, that the Virginia Port Authority subsidizes CSX’s drayage costs between NIT and VIG, and the port typically routes CSX-aligned ocean carriers to VIG to avoid the issue altogether. Both railroads can directly access VIG. “There is not likely to be a substantial lessening of competition, the creation of a monopoly, or restraint of trade in freight surface transportation in any region of the United States as a result of this transaction,” the STB said in its ruling. The agency also wrote that its job was to evaluate whether formal approval of NS’ control of NPBL would create new competitive harm, not to remedy “pre-existing disadvantages that other railroads, shippers, or communities may have been experiencing.” The STB attached several conditions to its ruling. The NPBL must continue to operate as a neutral railroad and may not discriminate between Norfolk Southern and CSX. Norfolk Southern is also barred from using NPBL to render NIT inaccessible to CSX through unfair pricing. In addition, NPBL may not discontinue routes or service to CSX or other third parties, and it must notify the STB of pricing and operational changes for the next five years. CSX has already unsuccessfully challenged the arrangement in federal court. The Eastern District of Virginia dismissed CSX’s antitrust claims, and the US Supreme Court declined to hear CSX’s appeal in 2023. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

Surface

North American ports

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

STB rules for Norfolk Southern in dispute with CSX at Port of Virginia

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Earnings calls across home builders and home improvement and furniture retailers show an uneven market where consumers are choosing smaller maintenance and repair projects and delaying large discretionary purchases.</div>

Earnings calls across home builders and home improvement and furniture retailers show an uneven market where consumers are choosing smaller maintenance and repair projects and delaying large discretionary purchases.

<div class="phx-topic">(The following story appears in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine to be published May 4, 2026.) US imports of household goods declined slightly in 2025, a pause driven by a weak housing market, persistent inflation, and affordability concerns weighing on the demand for furniture, appliances, and home furnishings. Earnings calls across home builders and home improvement and furniture retailers show an uneven market where consumers are choosing smaller maintenance and repair projects and delaying large discretionary purchases. Imports of household goods fell 1.3% last year to 5.3 million TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The compound annual growth rate was 3.4% in the last five years, but it has been a volatile and rocky road. Imports jumped 25% year over year in 2021 during the pandemic, then declined 5.8% in 2022 and 16.1% in 2023, before jumping 21.2% in 2024. Volume was approximately flat year over year at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York and New Jersey, and Savannah. China remained the largest origin for US household goods imports, but its share fell to 49.9% last year from 55.4% in 2024 amid the tariff conflict and move for alternative sourcing. Vietnam increased its share to 23.9%, up from 20.3% the prior year. <h3>Industry fundamentals are weak </h3>The data points to a sector struggling with underlying housing fundamentals. Industrial production of household appliances fell 8.5% year over year in February, according to the US Federal Reserve. The biggest culprit is a continued imbalance between homebuyers and home inventory. “A typical home sale generates about $134,000 in economic activity, and a part of that is tied to furniture, appliances, and home-related goods,” Nadia Evangelou, principal economist for the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told the Journal of Commerce. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e18618ef-aa21-4767-bb0a-eea49b17ddf2"></dynamic-object></div>However, existing home sales dropped 1.4% year over year in February, while housing inventory grew 4.9% during the same period, according to NAR. New home construction, or “housing starts,” rose 9.2% year over year in January, according to the US Census Bureau, meaning there is even more inventory coming. “It’s very hard to predict how housing will play out,” Wayfair CEO Niraj Shah said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call. “Every quarter that goes by, the percentage of mortgages that get refinanced at the current rates keeps ticking up, but it’s a relatively slow process.” Jason Miller, an associate professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, told the Journal of Commerce that this uncertainty is not good for freight volume. “The current ‘slow burn’ suggests at best a stabilization of freight volumes at lower levels than 2017-2019 for these types of goods, such as appliances,” Miller said. “It isn’t pointing towards a slow recovery.” <h3>Remodeling vs. repairs </h3>The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University forecasts just 1.6% growth in US remodeling spending later this year. Because that figure is nominal and not adjusted for inflation — currently about 2.5% to 3% — it effectively signals a decline in actual renovation activity. Dr. Rachel Bogardus Drew, director of the Remodeling Futures Program at Harvard, said people who are moving spend more on renovations than those staying in their existing homes. “People who have recently moved spend 50% more in the first year on home renovation than a similar homeowner who has not moved,” she told the Journal of Commerce. “Sometimes there’s upgrading that needs to be done, or they just want to remake the home to meet their needs or their tastes. So, a slowdown in existing home sales can cause a break on some remodeling activity.” For people remaining in their current homes, Drew said the tendency is to forego huge remodeling projects in favor of less expensive maintenance and repair work. That is consistent with commentary from home improvement retailers. “Consumers are still cautious about discretionary big-ticket purchases,” Brandon Sink, CFO for Lowe’s Companies, said on a February earnings call. “We forecast the home improvement market to be roughly flat this year.” Home construction companies such as D.R. Horton and Lennar can also drive demand for household goods like sofas and appliances, but mortgage rates hurt them as much as they hurt Home Depot and Lowe’s. “Mortgage interest rates, which showed some early signs of easing towards the end of last year, have remained stubbornly over 6%, hovering around 6.2% to 6.4%,” Stewart Miller, Lennar’s executive chairman, said on a March earnings call. “Affordability remains the central challenge facing our buyers. Consumer confidence, while not collapsing, continues to be tested by a range of uncertainties.” <h3>Outlook tied to housing recovery </h3>The outlook for household goods imports remains tied to the housing market. Harvard’s Drew said there is no silver bullet, but many things that can trigger a housing recovery. “Interest rates go down, then people start to think, ‘It’s a little more affordable now for me to look at moving, or to take out the funds to do renovations on my existing house, to tap that home equity,’” she said. “But the same thing could happen if house prices were to soften ... or if labor costs went down, or if it was cheaper to buy that sofa. Any one of these levers could kick start more activity, and all of them operating together is ideal.” NAR’s Evangelou said existing home sales should improve through the year, which will gradually increase demand for household goods, but it will also be a slow process that might drag into 2027. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

(The following story appears in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine to be published May 4, 2026.) US imports of household goods declined slightly in 2025, a pause driven by a weak housing market, persistent inflation, and affordability concerns weighing on the demand for furniture, appliances, and home furnishings. Earnings calls across home builders and home improvement and furniture retailers show an uneven market where consumers are choosing smaller maintenance and repair projects and delaying large discretionary purchases. Imports of household goods fell 1.3% last year to 5.3 million TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The compound annual growth rate was 3.4% in the last five years, but it has been a volatile and rocky road. Imports jumped 25% year over year in 2021 during the pandemic, then declined 5.8% in 2022 and 16.1% in 2023, before jumping 21.2% in 2024. Volume was approximately flat year over year at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York and New Jersey, and Savannah. China remained the largest origin for US household goods imports, but its share fell to 49.9% last year from 55.4% in 2024 amid the tariff conflict and move for alternative sourcing. Vietnam increased its share to 23.9%, up from 20.3% the prior year. Industry fundamentals are weak The data points to a sector struggling with underlying housing fundamentals. Industrial production of household appliances fell 8.5% year over year in February, according to the US Federal Reserve. The biggest culprit is a continued imbalance between homebuyers and home inventory. “A typical home sale generates about $134,000 in economic activity, and a part of that is tied to furniture, appliances, and home-related goods,” Nadia Evangelou, principal economist for the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told the Journal of Commerce. However, existing home sales dropped 1.4% year over year in February, while housing inventory grew 4.9% during the same period, according to NAR. New home construction, or “housing starts,” rose 9.2% year over year in January, according to the US Census Bureau, meaning there is even more inventory coming. “It’s very hard to predict how housing will play out,” Wayfair CEO Niraj Shah said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call. “Every quarter that goes by, the percentage of mortgages that get refinanced at the current rates keeps ticking up, but it’s a relatively slow process.” Jason Miller, an associate professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, told the Journal of Commerce that this uncertainty is not good for freight volume. “The current ‘slow burn’ suggests at best a stabilization of freight volumes at lower levels than 2017-2019 for these types of goods, such as appliances,” Miller said. “It isn’t pointing towards a slow recovery.” Remodeling vs. repairs The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University forecasts just 1.6% growth in US remodeling spending later this year. Because that figure is nominal and not adjusted for inflation — currently about 2.5% to 3% — it effectively signals a decline in actual renovation activity. Dr. Rachel Bogardus Drew, director of the Remodeling Futures Program at Harvard, said people who are moving spend more on renovations than those staying in their existing homes. “People who have recently moved spend 50% more in the first year on home renovation than a similar homeowner who has not moved,” she told the Journal of Commerce. “Sometimes there’s upgrading that needs to be done, or they just want to remake the home to meet their needs or their tastes. So, a slowdown in existing home sales can cause a break on some remodeling activity.” For people remaining in their current homes, Drew said the tendency is to forego huge remodeling projects in favor of less expensive maintenance and repair work. That is consistent with commentary from home improvement retailers. “Consumers are still cautious about discretionary big-ticket purchases,” Brandon Sink, CFO for Lowe’s Companies, said on a February earnings call. “We forecast the home improvement market to be roughly flat this year.” Home construction companies such as D.R. Horton and Lennar can also drive demand for household goods like sofas and appliances, but mortgage rates hurt them as much as they hurt Home Depot and Lowe’s. “Mortgage interest rates, which showed some early signs of easing towards the end of last year, have remained stubbornly over 6%, hovering around 6.2% to 6.4%,” Stewart Miller, Lennar’s executive chairman, said on a March earnings call. “Affordability remains the central challenge facing our buyers. Consumer confidence, while not collapsing, continues to be tested by a range of uncertainties.” Outlook tied to housing recovery The outlook for household goods imports remains tied to the housing market. Harvard’s Drew said there is no silver bullet, but many things that can trigger a housing recovery. “Interest rates go down, then people start to think, ‘It’s a little more affordable now for me to look at moving, or to take out the funds to do renovations on my existing house, to tap that home equity,’” she said. “But the same thing could happen if house prices were to soften ... or if labor costs went down, or if it was cheaper to buy that sofa. Any one of these levers could kick start more activity, and all of them operating together is ideal.” NAR’s Evangelou said existing home sales should improve through the year, which will gradually increase demand for household goods, but it will also be a slow process that might drag into 2027. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Maritime

US household goods imports flatten as housing weakness weighs on demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ocean carrier said it would no longer call Oakland on one of its trans-Pacific services, with another service into the Pacific Northwest dropping a Vietnam call.</div>

The ocean carrier said it would no longer call Oakland on one of its trans-Pacific services, with another service into the Pacific Northwest dropping a Vietnam call.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is reducing the number of West Coast port calls it makes on one of its trans-Pacific services and changing its Asian port rotations in a bid to improve schedule reliability and service consistency. MSC said in a customer advisory late last week that its Orient service from China would no longer call Oakland, effective as of the April 30 departure of the 8,827-TEU MSC Naomi from Qingdao. MSC said it made the change so “the service will be less exposed to port congestion risks, allowing for improved schedule reliability and more consistent on-time arrivals.” Amid last year’s tariff turmoil, Oakland saw an 8.6% drop in imports from China in 2025, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, close to the overall 8.1% drop for all inbound volumes from China to West Coast ports. Although not in MSC’s advisory, the Orient service, whose only West Coast call will be the carrier’s Long Beach terminal, has also effectively dropped Portland, Oregon, as a regular call, even though the port was listed on the rotation in earlier Orient service brochures. MSC, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-restores-trans-pacific-liberty-service-with-new-call-at-philadelphia-5703074">which has offered intermittent service to Portland since the pandemic</a>, last called Portland with a post-Panamax container ship in May 2025, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. The carrier, meanwhile, is adding Vietnam’s Haiphong as a regular call to its Sentosa service from Southeast Asia to Long Beach and Oakland. The new call from Haiphong, MSC’s first direct service from that port into Long Beach, will be in effect as of the April 16 departure from Haiphong of the 16,616-TEU MSC Lorenza. MSC said the change “will offer improved transit times compared to the previous routing, while optimizing port coverage within a more stable network structure.” <h3>Dropping Haiphong on Chinook service </h3>However, MSC will be dropping Haiphong as a call on its Chinook service into the Pacific Northwest, leaving Vietnam’s Vung Tau, major Chinese ports, and South Korea’s Busan on the service. The new Chinook rotation will be in effect as of the April 13 departure of the 10,114-TEU Express Athens from Vung Tau. MSC said the dropped call from Haiphong will provide Pacific Northwest shippers with more schedule buffer in the event of delays. But it also comes as the Pacific Northwest saw only 3% growth in imports from Southeast Asia last year, according to PIERS data, versus a 19.6% overall growth for Southeast Asian imports into West Coast ports. Third-party logistics provider <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/uwl-locks-in-new-vessel-partner-for-trans-pacific-vietnam-service-6032327">UWL recently shut down its express service from northern Vietnam into the Pacific Northwest</a> due to the lack of business. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is reducing the number of West Coast port calls it makes on one of its trans-Pacific services and changing its Asian port rotations in a bid to improve schedule reliability and service consistency. MSC said in a customer advisory late last week that its Orient service from China would no longer call Oakland, effective as of the April 30 departure of the 8,827-TEU MSC Naomi from Qingdao. MSC said it made the change so “the service will be less exposed to port congestion risks, allowing for improved schedule reliability and more consistent on-time arrivals.” Amid last year’s tariff turmoil, Oakland saw an 8.6% drop in imports from China in 2025, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, close to the overall 8.1% drop for all inbound volumes from China to West Coast ports. Although not in MSC’s advisory, the Orient service, whose only West Coast call will be the carrier’s Long Beach terminal, has also effectively dropped Portland, Oregon, as a regular call, even though the port was listed on the rotation in earlier Orient service brochures. MSC, which has offered intermittent service to Portland since the pandemic , last called Portland with a post-Panamax container ship in May 2025, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. The carrier, meanwhile, is adding Vietnam’s Haiphong as a regular call to its Sentosa service from Southeast Asia to Long Beach and Oakland. The new call from Haiphong, MSC’s first direct service from that port into Long Beach, will be in effect as of the April 16 departure from Haiphong of the 16,616-TEU MSC Lorenza. MSC said the change “will offer improved transit times compared to the previous routing, while optimizing port coverage within a more stable network structure.” Dropping Haiphong on Chinook service However, MSC will be dropping Haiphong as a call on its Chinook service into the Pacific Northwest, leaving Vietnam’s Vung Tau, major Chinese ports, and South Korea’s Busan on the service. The new Chinook rotation will be in effect as of the April 13 departure of the 10,114-TEU Express Athens from Vung Tau. MSC said the dropped call from Haiphong will provide Pacific Northwest shippers with more schedule buffer in the event of delays. But it also comes as the Pacific Northwest saw only 3% growth in imports from Southeast Asia last year, according to PIERS data, versus a 19.6% overall growth for Southeast Asian imports into West Coast ports. Third-party logistics provider UWL recently shut down its express service from northern Vietnam into the Pacific Northwest due to the lack of business. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Container lines

MSC consolidates USWC, Asian calls to boost trans-Pacific reliability

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The state was largely insulated from the volatility seen in the Midwest and Northeast over the winter because it did not face the same prolonged cold and snowstorms. </div>

The state was largely insulated from the volatility seen in the Midwest and Northeast over the winter because it did not face the same prolonged cold and snowstorms.

<div class="phx-topic">The war with Iran has pushed up diesel prices and driven spot truckload rates sharply higher in California, the one major freight market that had largely avoided the winter pricing pressure seen in the Midwest and Northeast. California has been the clearest holdout in a truckload market that has shown signs of tightening after a prolonged freight recession. Outbound dry-van spot rates from Illinois climbed 55 cents per mile between Dec. 1 and Feb. 28 while rates from New York rose 49 cents due to snowstorms and frigid temperatures during that period, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of trucking data covering more than 4,000 lanes from DAT Freight &amp; Analytics, Loadsmart, Sunset Transportation, and a survey of other brokers and shippers. By contrast, California outbound rates rose only 11 cents in the same three months. California was largely insulated from the volatility seen in the Midwest and Northeast because it did not face the same prolonged cold and snowstorms. That enabled some shippers to believe rates would ease when the winter weather ended, something that went by the boards once the war with Iran began on the last day of February. Since then, average US diesel prices have climbed approximately $1.50 per gallon through the first month of the conflict, according to the US Energy Information Administration. In a state that already has some of the nation’s highest fuel costs because of taxes and specialized environmental fuel rules, the increase quickly changed California’s pricing picture. The state’s average diesel price jumped $2.23 during the first month of the war, to $7.22/gal, according to the EIA. At the same time, California canceled 13,000 non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses last month. The higher diesel prices and tighter capacity caused spot truckload rates in the state to jump 18 cents in March from February, according to the Journal of Commerce analysis, while national rates rose approximately the same amount. The latest figures from DAT Freight &amp; Analytics show spot rates climbing across all major equipment types as capacity tightens and fuel costs increase. The national average dry-van linehaul spot rate reached $2.04 per mile last week, up 12 cents over two weeks and 24% higher year over year. Refrigerated rates averaged $2.43 per mile, up 53 cents from a year ago, while flatbed rates rose to $2.55 per mile — the highest in four years. “The trucking industry is doing quite well,” Avery Vise, vice president of trucking at FTR Intelligence, said in an interview on SiriusXM’s Channel 146. “A lot of these fuel costs have been recovered. It’s a cash flow problem for some carriers, but capacity is driving this. It is steadily declining and has been since 2022 and 2023. Capacity is very tight. I think we can declare the freight rate recession is over.” While midsize and large carriers can pass through higher diesel costs to customers via fuel surcharges, which have risen approximately 25 to 30 cents per mile since March 1, smaller owner-operators and port drayage drivers often negotiate all-in rates that include fuel. That means a sudden jolt in rates intensifies short-term cash-flow pressure. Robert Loya, president of the West Coast-based Harbor Trucking Association, said port drayage operators are often waiting weeks to recover those costs. “It’s insane,” Loya said. “Especially if you are doing ocean carrier business, you are looking at 45 days minimum before you are paid. With beneficial cargo owners, some may pay you in two or three weeks, but at the end of the day you are still carrying those costs.” Despite the pressure, Loya said he has not seen fleets or independent operators pull capacity off the road — an indication that underlying freight demand remains firm enough to sustain operations. On the demand side, manufacturing is showing early signs of recovery that could support additional freight volumes. The Institute for Supply Management’s Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index registered 52.7 in March, marking a third consecutive month of expansion. Whether the current shift develops into a sustained recovery will depend on the consistency of freight demand in the months ahead. <h3>Pushing freight to intermodal</h3>Three intermodal providers, who asked not to be identified, said they have seen a resurgence in shippers investigating the rail option amid the strength in truckload. A western US asset-based intermodal provider said the inquiries have picked up in recent weeks. “It isn’t necessarily desperation. The shippers are contacting us after not hearing them for a few years to ask about rates on certain lanes or asking what lanes might work [on intermodal] that they hadn’t thought of before,” the president of the carrier said. “Shippers are offering us freight starting as soon as next week.” A non-asset-based intermodal marketing company (IMC) based in the Northeast said its business last month was double that of March 2025. The owner of the IMC agreed the conversations did not feel like shippers were desperate, just inquisitive. “We haven’t received many customers who are converting from truckload,” the source said. “They’re using other intermodal providers who have struggled with the business, and they turn to us.” One Midwest-based truckload and intermodal broker told the Journal of Commerce that many of its long-term existing customers are shifting their freight from truckload to rail. Domestic intermodal data for March has not been released yet by the Intermodal Association of North America. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US intermodal provider, will hold a call with industry analysts after reporting earnings on April 15. Contact Dan Ronan at <a href="mailto:contactdanronan@gmail.com">contactdanronan@gmail.com</a>. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The war with Iran has pushed up diesel prices and driven spot truckload rates sharply higher in California, the one major freight market that had largely avoided the winter pricing pressure seen in the Midwest and Northeast. California has been the clearest holdout in a truckload market that has shown signs of tightening after a prolonged freight recession. Outbound dry-van spot rates from Illinois climbed 55 cents per mile between Dec. 1 and Feb. 28 while rates from New York rose 49 cents due to snowstorms and frigid temperatures during that period, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of trucking data covering more than 4,000 lanes from DAT Freight & Analytics, Loadsmart, Sunset Transportation, and a survey of other brokers and shippers. By contrast, California outbound rates rose only 11 cents in the same three months. California was largely insulated from the volatility seen in the Midwest and Northeast because it did not face the same prolonged cold and snowstorms. That enabled some shippers to believe rates would ease when the winter weather ended, something that went by the boards once the war with Iran began on the last day of February. Since then, average US diesel prices have climbed approximately $1.50 per gallon through the first month of the conflict, according to the US Energy Information Administration. In a state that already has some of the nation’s highest fuel costs because of taxes and specialized environmental fuel rules, the increase quickly changed California’s pricing picture. The state’s average diesel price jumped $2.23 during the first month of the war, to $7.22/gal, according to the EIA. At the same time, California canceled 13,000 non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses last month. The higher diesel prices and tighter capacity caused spot truckload rates in the state to jump 18 cents in March from February, according to the Journal of Commerce analysis, while national rates rose approximately the same amount. The latest figures from DAT Freight & Analytics show spot rates climbing across all major equipment types as capacity tightens and fuel costs increase. The national average dry-van linehaul spot rate reached $2.04 per mile last week, up 12 cents over two weeks and 24% higher year over year. Refrigerated rates averaged $2.43 per mile, up 53 cents from a year ago, while flatbed rates rose to $2.55 per mile — the highest in four years. “The trucking industry is doing quite well,” Avery Vise, vice president of trucking at FTR Intelligence, said in an interview on SiriusXM’s Channel 146. “A lot of these fuel costs have been recovered. It’s a cash flow problem for some carriers, but capacity is driving this. It is steadily declining and has been since 2022 and 2023. Capacity is very tight. I think we can declare the freight rate recession is over.” While midsize and large carriers can pass through higher diesel costs to customers via fuel surcharges, which have risen approximately 25 to 30 cents per mile since March 1, smaller owner-operators and port drayage drivers often negotiate all-in rates that include fuel. That means a sudden jolt in rates intensifies short-term cash-flow pressure. Robert Loya, president of the West Coast-based Harbor Trucking Association, said port drayage operators are often waiting weeks to recover those costs. “It’s insane,” Loya said. “Especially if you are doing ocean carrier business, you are looking at 45 days minimum before you are paid. With beneficial cargo owners, some may pay you in two or three weeks, but at the end of the day you are still carrying those costs.” Despite the pressure, Loya said he has not seen fleets or independent operators pull capacity off the road — an indication that underlying freight demand remains firm enough to sustain operations. On the demand side, manufacturing is showing early signs of recovery that could support additional freight volumes. The Institute for Supply Management’s Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index registered 52.7 in March, marking a third consecutive month of expansion. Whether the current shift develops into a sustained recovery will depend on the consistency of freight demand in the months ahead. Pushing freight to intermodal Three intermodal providers, who asked not to be identified, said they have seen a resurgence in shippers investigating the rail option amid the strength in truckload. A western US asset-based intermodal provider said the inquiries have picked up in recent weeks. “It isn’t necessarily desperation. The shippers are contacting us after not hearing them for a few years to ask about rates on certain lanes or asking what lanes might work [on intermodal] that they hadn’t thought of before,” the president of the carrier said. “Shippers are offering us freight starting as soon as next week.” A non-asset-based intermodal marketing company (IMC) based in the Northeast said its business last month was double that of March 2025. The owner of the IMC agreed the conversations did not feel like shippers were desperate, just inquisitive. “We haven’t received many customers who are converting from truckload,” the source said. “They’re using other intermodal providers who have struggled with the business, and they turn to us.” One Midwest-based truckload and intermodal broker told the Journal of Commerce that many of its long-term existing customers are shifting their freight from truckload to rail. Domestic intermodal data for March has not been released yet by the Intermodal Association of North America. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US intermodal provider, will hold a call with industry analysts after reporting earnings on April 15. Contact Dan Ronan at contactdanronan@gmail.com . Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

California truckload rates rise as fuel spikes, capacity cuts tighten market

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">It has become difficult, if not impossible, for Los Angeles-Long Beach terminals wishing to automate to gain the necessary approvals from port commissions, despite the terminals’ right to automate being guaranteed since 2008. </div>

It has become difficult, if not impossible, for Los Angeles-Long Beach terminals wishing to automate to gain the necessary approvals from port commissions, despite the terminals’ right to automate being guaranteed since 2008.

<div class="phx-topic">An article of faith for nearly two decades — that marine terminals along the US West Coast have the right to automate and thereby increase capacity despite limited port land to physically expand — is under threat in Southern California. It has become difficult, if not impossible, for terminals wishing to automate to gain the necessary approvals from port commissions to proceed. This is despite the terminals’ right to automate being guaranteed since 2008 in the collective bargaining agreement between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and employers represented by the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6199901_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The result of this hesitance means the largest port gateway in North America being denied the easiest route to capacity expansion to mitigate bottlenecks that for years have bogged down flow during periods of surge demand. “It doesn’t matter what is in the contract or who has negotiated what,” said a knowledgeable observer of longshore labor in Southern California. “The ports are not going to agree to any redevelopment that supports automation and goes against the will of the ILWU.” The long-term consequences are limits on effective capacity able to handle US container flows, increasing the potential for bottlenecks and delays given limited new terminal acreage coming online. The roadblocks come despite the known benefits of automation. During the COVID-19 disruptions, throughput at existing automated terminals at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach was 44% higher than at nonautomated terminals, <a href="https://www.pmanet.org/fact-sheets/technology-automation/">according to a recent study cited</a> by the PMA. Also, longshore employment rose faster than at nonautomated terminals, countering the union’s argument that automation is a job killer. “Technological advancement, including automation, is essential to maintaining the competitiveness, efficiency and long-term viability of West Coast ports,” the PMA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce late last week. <h3>The need to work ‘hand-in-hand’ with the union </h3>Illustrations of the snail’s pace at which automation is proceeding can be seen in two scenarios in Southern California where terminals aspire to automate. At TTI, the largest terminal at the Port of Long Beach, a manning agreement was struck three years ago with the ILWU Southern California local, sources said. The deal was meant to allow automation to proceed at the former Hanjin terminal, now owned by Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), the terminal arm of Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC). But despite concessions to the union that would undermine the financial case for automation by increasing labor costs, there is no sign of automation being announced to allow MSC to increase throughput, let alone being approved by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners. Similarly, at the Pier 300 Fenix terminal at Los Angeles owned by CMA CGM, no application has been filed to automate, according to the port. This is despite the terminal allowing construction to proceed on a rail project in return for what it hoped, sources said, would be the port’s support to automate a new berth slated for a long-vacant lot next to the existing terminal. The knowledgeable observer of Southern California longshore labor said TTI and Fenix might be far enough along to eventually implement automation, but “anything beyond that, you are not going to see it unless something changes politically.” The unofficial view at the two ports, based on numerous interviews, is that for automation to proceed, a terminal must come to the port commission hand-in-hand with the union. The precedent, sources said, is Long Beach Container Terminal, which secured the union’s approval to engage in a multiyear automation project completed in 2021. It is now widely regarded as the most efficient facility in the harbor. “Technology is moving fast, but it cannot leave the workforce behind,” Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka told the Journal of Commerce. “There is a way to combine both, an employer and the union coming together with politicians to find a way forward.” Without ILWU sign-off, the ports risk — and wish to avoid — a repeat of the headline-grabbing union protests that disrupted meetings of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners in 2019, when it was considering a construction permit necessary for automation at APM Terminals’ Pier 400 facility. That clash, over what in prior years would have been a routine construction permit to be signed off by the port commission, signaled a new phase wherein the union would seek to slow or stop automation by going outside the collective bargaining agreement. “This all started with Pier 400 and APMT,” said one management source. The union’s views over automation had hardened since 2008, in parallel with the emergence of new labor-saving technology like AI and, more recently, a global anti-automation crusade led by International Longshoremen’s Association President Harold Daggett. The risk of negative publicity for the ports, and the opportunity for the union to grab a global megaphone, is heighted due to the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles — set to begin two weeks after the current West Coast longshore contract expires on July 1, 2028. The ports also wish to avoid a labor showdown that could lead to further market share loss to the East and Gulf coasts. The ILWU declined to comment. <h3>The legislative route </h3>It isn’t just influence at the port commissions, moreover, where dockworkers are trying to thwart automation. In recent years, the PMA has found itself fighting off efforts by the union to undermine automation through legislation in Sacramento. Employers prevailed last October, for example, when Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have banned current and future automated or remotely operated technology at California ports from plugging into the state’s power grid, in effect killing automation. “Efforts to use the political process to block or delay automation have not succeeded and will not alter the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, which explicitly allows for automation at port terminals,” the PMA said in its statement. The PMA now carefully scrutinizes all proposed legislation for possible new restrictions on automation inserted by ILWU lobbyists. Union efforts to thwart automation, whether at the state or port level, raise the question of whether in doing so it is in violation of the contract. According to the PMA website, the contract states, “There shall be no interference by the union with the employers’ right to operate efficiently and to change methods of work to utilize labor-saving devices.” To this point, some argue the labor activity is merely individual union members engaging in First Amendment-protected speech. But others point to apparently official union views, including “profound disappointment” at the Newsom veto <a href="https://ilwu13.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/10-13-25-ILWU-President-Olvera-Jr-letter-to-Gov.-Newsom-re-SB-34-Veto.pdf">expressed in a toughly worded letter</a> by ILWU International President Robert Olvera Jr. The union’s assertive anti-automation stance raises the possibility it will seek to roll back terminals’ automation rights during negotiations for the next coastwide contract. “I do believe that ILWU will take a run at further restricting automation on the USWC,” said a second knowledgeable source. “They are actively seeking to control automation today through other means including licensing, permitting and trying to use legislation to restrict the use of green electricity.” Other sources believe the PMA will never negotiate away its automation rights, while others believe the ILWU has already effectively won the issue. Said the first informed source: “The union can move on to other topics. They have their playbook, so they don’t need to renegotiate automation.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An article of faith for nearly two decades — that marine terminals along the US West Coast have the right to automate and thereby increase capacity despite limited port land to physically expand — is under threat in Southern California. It has become difficult, if not impossible, for terminals wishing to automate to gain the necessary approvals from port commissions to proceed. This is despite the terminals’ right to automate being guaranteed since 2008 in the collective bargaining agreement between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and employers represented by the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). The result of this hesitance means the largest port gateway in North America being denied the easiest route to capacity expansion to mitigate bottlenecks that for years have bogged down flow during periods of surge demand. “It doesn’t matter what is in the contract or who has negotiated what,” said a knowledgeable observer of longshore labor in Southern California. “The ports are not going to agree to any redevelopment that supports automation and goes against the will of the ILWU.” The long-term consequences are limits on effective capacity able to handle US container flows, increasing the potential for bottlenecks and delays given limited new terminal acreage coming online. The roadblocks come despite the known benefits of automation. During the COVID-19 disruptions, throughput at existing automated terminals at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach was 44% higher than at nonautomated terminals, according to a recent study cited by the PMA. Also, longshore employment rose faster than at nonautomated terminals, countering the union’s argument that automation is a job killer. “Technological advancement, including automation, is essential to maintaining the competitiveness, efficiency and long-term viability of West Coast ports,” the PMA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce late last week. The need to work ‘hand-in-hand’ with the union Illustrations of the snail’s pace at which automation is proceeding can be seen in two scenarios in Southern California where terminals aspire to automate. At TTI, the largest terminal at the Port of Long Beach, a manning agreement was struck three years ago with the ILWU Southern California local, sources said. The deal was meant to allow automation to proceed at the former Hanjin terminal, now owned by Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), the terminal arm of Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC). But despite concessions to the union that would undermine the financial case for automation by increasing labor costs, there is no sign of automation being announced to allow MSC to increase throughput, let alone being approved by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners. Similarly, at the Pier 300 Fenix terminal at Los Angeles owned by CMA CGM, no application has been filed to automate, according to the port. This is despite the terminal allowing construction to proceed on a rail project in return for what it hoped, sources said, would be the port’s support to automate a new berth slated for a long-vacant lot next to the existing terminal. The knowledgeable observer of Southern California longshore labor said TTI and Fenix might be far enough along to eventually implement automation, but “anything beyond that, you are not going to see it unless something changes politically.” The unofficial view at the two ports, based on numerous interviews, is that for automation to proceed, a terminal must come to the port commission hand-in-hand with the union. The precedent, sources said, is Long Beach Container Terminal, which secured the union’s approval to engage in a multiyear automation project completed in 2021. It is now widely regarded as the most efficient facility in the harbor. “Technology is moving fast, but it cannot leave the workforce behind,” Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka told the Journal of Commerce. “There is a way to combine both, an employer and the union coming together with politicians to find a way forward.” Without ILWU sign-off, the ports risk — and wish to avoid — a repeat of the headline-grabbing union protests that disrupted meetings of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners in 2019, when it was considering a construction permit necessary for automation at APM Terminals’ Pier 400 facility. That clash, over what in prior years would have been a routine construction permit to be signed off by the port commission, signaled a new phase wherein the union would seek to slow or stop automation by going outside the collective bargaining agreement. “This all started with Pier 400 and APMT,” said one management source. The union’s views over automation had hardened since 2008, in parallel with the emergence of new labor-saving technology like AI and, more recently, a global anti-automation crusade led by International Longshoremen’s Association President Harold Daggett. The risk of negative publicity for the ports, and the opportunity for the union to grab a global megaphone, is heighted due to the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles — set to begin two weeks after the current West Coast longshore contract expires on July 1, 2028. The ports also wish to avoid a labor showdown that could lead to further market share loss to the East and Gulf coasts. The ILWU declined to comment. The legislative route It isn’t just influence at the port commissions, moreover, where dockworkers are trying to thwart automation. In recent years, the PMA has found itself fighting off efforts by the union to undermine automation through legislation in Sacramento. Employers prevailed last October, for example, when Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have banned current and future automated or remotely operated technology at California ports from plugging into the state’s power grid, in effect killing automation. “Efforts to use the political process to block or delay automation have not succeeded and will not alter the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, which explicitly allows for automation at port terminals,” the PMA said in its statement. The PMA now carefully scrutinizes all proposed legislation for possible new restrictions on automation inserted by ILWU lobbyists. Union efforts to thwart automation, whether at the state or port level, raise the question of whether in doing so it is in violation of the contract. According to the PMA website, the contract states, “There shall be no interference by the union with the employers’ right to operate efficiently and to change methods of work to utilize labor-saving devices.” To this point, some argue the labor activity is merely individual union members engaging in First Amendment-protected speech. But others point to apparently official union views, including “profound disappointment” at the Newsom veto expressed in a toughly worded letter by ILWU International President Robert Olvera Jr. The union’s assertive anti-automation stance raises the possibility it will seek to roll back terminals’ automation rights during negotiations for the next coastwide contract. “I do believe that ILWU will take a run at further restricting automation on the USWC,” said a second knowledgeable source. “They are actively seeking to control automation today through other means including licensing, permitting and trying to use legislation to restrict the use of green electricity.” Other sources believe the PMA will never negotiate away its automation rights, while others believe the ILWU has already effectively won the issue. Said the first informed source: “The union can move on to other topics. They have their playbook, so they don’t need to renegotiate automation.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Marine terminals

Longshore labor

Hesitation from port authorities slows automation in Southern California

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Southern California’s traditional solutions to surging freight volumes ignore the fact that they might well have reached the limits of being effective, writes Ted Prince.</div>

Southern California’s traditional solutions to surging freight volumes ignore the fact that they might well have reached the limits of being effective, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">The Journal of Commerce’s TPM conference has completed another big show in Long Beach. And while most attendees were living with the lingering impacts of the Trump administration’s tariff policy, we were all faced with the added geopolitical suspense brought about by the US and Israeli strikes on Iran that commenced as TPM attendees arrived. While this drama played out, I thought back to Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas eating a banana during a 1967 performance of “California Dreamin’” on the Ed Sullivan Show. This was to protest the band being forced to lip-sync rather than perform live. Just as the protest distracted from the singing, war and tariffs effectively blocked out any consideration of how California is planning to handle current volumes, let alone a doubling by 2050. Traditionally, this has meant bemoaning California’s “socialist state” — albeit with the fourth- or fifth-largest economy in the world. There is no shortage of issues. California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules on advanced clean trucks and advanced clean fleets impact freight transportation by mandating a transition to zero-emission trucks over time. These are on top of previous diesel tractor emission and “clean” diesel truck regulations. CARB has also adopted policies to reduce emissions from marine terminals and at-berth ship emissions. In addition, the harbor drayage community continues to deal with the AB5 legislation dealing with worker classification. Much like tariffs, all of these are subject to conflicting interpretations with the federal government. And, on a global level, confusion reigns over the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero framework. But the list of greatest hits being lip-synched is much larger. Let’s roll the tape. <h3>Will projects become reality? </h3>The Port of Long Beach continues to talk up its Pier B Rail expansion. But this project doesn’t solve the problem of destination disaggregation. Assembling less-than-fully-loaded stack cars to a plethora of destinations actually cannibalizes double-stack linehaul economics. (This network scope vs. scale issue is also pertinent in the current transcontinental railroad debate.) The Port of Los Angeles has its own multi-billion-dollar long shot — Pier 500. Given its configuration, the most realistic method to handle bigger, next-generation cargo ships is to make it an adjunct to APM Terminals’ Pier 400 — and obviate the need to replicate gates, buildings and on-dock rail. Otherwise, there simply isn’t enough land short of container levitation. The Barstow International Gateway (BIG) is BNSF’s planned inland intermodal and logistics complex. It is still in the environmental review and permitting stage. I am sure that BNSF hopes it progresses better than its current Phoenix project, which is even more ambitious than BIG. BNSF’s need for BIG is no doubt driven by previous Southern California failures: passing on the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) and failing to garner approval for the Southern California Intermodal Gateway (SCIG). Part of BIG’s value proposition is that distribution centers will locate there because traffic will be processed using zero- and near-zero-emission cargo-handling equipment. However, getting new or upgraded electric service in the Inland Empire has proven problematic, so a clear trajectory of electrified warehouse space cannot be assumed. Further north, the Wonderful Logistics Center has a SeaCube Cold Solutions container depot already supporting local refrigerated exporters; however, the planned international rail shuttle linking Shafter to the Port of Los Angeles using BNSF is still under development. Whereas BIG is a many-to-one network, this is more complicated because traffic is not transitive and it is one-to-many. (Pesky car utilization issues again.) Also, refrigerated produce is a much more complicated rail transportation product than dry imports. Meanwhile, the Mojave Inland Port remains a proposed, private development that has not progressed beyond county-level approvals in 2022. Perhaps the issue is that there does not appear to be a sustainable desire to build distribution centers in the middle of a desert. For decades, Southern California has held itself out to be the answer to the impending freight tsunami, yet a focus on more-of-the-same traditional solutions ignores the fact that these might well have reached their limits. Otherwise, the greatest hits lip-synching will continue, and we may be reminded that “banana” can come to stand for “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.” In that case, the global supply chain will need to sing a new song. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>.</div>

The Journal of Commerce’s TPM conference has completed another big show in Long Beach. And while most attendees were living with the lingering impacts of the Trump administration’s tariff policy, we were all faced with the added geopolitical suspense brought about by the US and Israeli strikes on Iran that commenced as TPM attendees arrived. While this drama played out, I thought back to Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas eating a banana during a 1967 performance of “California Dreamin’” on the Ed Sullivan Show. This was to protest the band being forced to lip-sync rather than perform live. Just as the protest distracted from the singing, war and tariffs effectively blocked out any consideration of how California is planning to handle current volumes, let alone a doubling by 2050. Traditionally, this has meant bemoaning California’s “socialist state” — albeit with the fourth- or fifth-largest economy in the world. There is no shortage of issues. California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules on advanced clean trucks and advanced clean fleets impact freight transportation by mandating a transition to zero-emission trucks over time. These are on top of previous diesel tractor emission and “clean” diesel truck regulations. CARB has also adopted policies to reduce emissions from marine terminals and at-berth ship emissions. In addition, the harbor drayage community continues to deal with the AB5 legislation dealing with worker classification. Much like tariffs, all of these are subject to conflicting interpretations with the federal government. And, on a global level, confusion reigns over the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero framework. But the list of greatest hits being lip-synched is much larger. Let’s roll the tape. Will projects become reality? The Port of Long Beach continues to talk up its Pier B Rail expansion. But this project doesn’t solve the problem of destination disaggregation. Assembling less-than-fully-loaded stack cars to a plethora of destinations actually cannibalizes double-stack linehaul economics. (This network scope vs. scale issue is also pertinent in the current transcontinental railroad debate.) The Port of Los Angeles has its own multi-billion-dollar long shot — Pier 500. Given its configuration, the most realistic method to handle bigger, next-generation cargo ships is to make it an adjunct to APM Terminals’ Pier 400 — and obviate the need to replicate gates, buildings and on-dock rail. Otherwise, there simply isn’t enough land short of container levitation. The Barstow International Gateway (BIG) is BNSF’s planned inland intermodal and logistics complex. It is still in the environmental review and permitting stage. I am sure that BNSF hopes it progresses better than its current Phoenix project, which is even more ambitious than BIG. BNSF’s need for BIG is no doubt driven by previous Southern California failures: passing on the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) and failing to garner approval for the Southern California Intermodal Gateway (SCIG). Part of BIG’s value proposition is that distribution centers will locate there because traffic will be processed using zero- and near-zero-emission cargo-handling equipment. However, getting new or upgraded electric service in the Inland Empire has proven problematic, so a clear trajectory of electrified warehouse space cannot be assumed. Further north, the Wonderful Logistics Center has a SeaCube Cold Solutions container depot already supporting local refrigerated exporters; however, the planned international rail shuttle linking Shafter to the Port of Los Angeles using BNSF is still under development. Whereas BIG is a many-to-one network, this is more complicated because traffic is not transitive and it is one-to-many. (Pesky car utilization issues again.) Also, refrigerated produce is a much more complicated rail transportation product than dry imports. Meanwhile, the Mojave Inland Port remains a proposed, private development that has not progressed beyond county-level approvals in 2022. Perhaps the issue is that there does not appear to be a sustainable desire to build distribution centers in the middle of a desert. For decades, Southern California has held itself out to be the answer to the impending freight tsunami, yet a focus on more-of-the-same traditional solutions ignores the fact that these might well have reached their limits. Otherwise, the greatest hits lip-synching will continue, and we may be reminded that “banana” can come to stand for “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.” In that case, the global supply chain will need to sing a new song. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Are SoCal’s planned freight projects a matter of ‘California Dreamin’’?

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves have combined to create a rare window in which transformative deals among ocean carriers are both feasible and strategically rational.</div>

Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves have combined to create a rare window in which transformative deals among ocean carriers are both feasible and strategically rational.

<div class="phx-topic">Debate over consolidation in the container shipping industry has persisted for decades. Advocates argue that the sector has long been fragmented, and that further consolidation is essential to improve financial resilience, operational efficiency, and long-term sustainability. Critics counter that consolidation concentrates pricing power in the hands of a few large players, potentially leading to higher freight rates and reduced competition. In my personal experience, the industry’s structural cyclicality has changed little over time. Freight rate movements in recent months suggest that competitive pressure remains intense, both within alliances and between independent carriers. Indeed, competition is likely to increase over the next three to five years as new vessel capacity enters the market. However, the competitive landscape itself has shifted dramatically. The global container ship order book currently stands at more than 35% of the existing fleet — an unprecedented level. At the same time, the four largest carriers — Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Maersk and Cosco — have taken decisive steps to widen the gap between themselves and the rest of the industry. Meanwhile, Hapag-Lloyd has strengthened its position as a clear number five, extending its lead over mid-tier competitors such as Ocean Network Express, Evergreen, HMM and PIL. (Industry data sources include Drewry and Clarksons Research.) Shipping is a low-margin, capital-intensive business where scale matters enormously. Larger fleets enable lower unit costs, stronger purchasing power, and more efficient network deployment, yet there are limits to what alliances alone can deliver. Alliances primarily provide network coordination and slot sharing; they do not generate the full cost synergies available through unified ownership structures. True economies of scale typically come from either expanding fleets organically or pursuing mergers and acquisitions. Of the two, M&amp;A offers the additional advantage of organizational synergies — streamlined management, consolidated procurement, integrated IT platforms, and rationalized overhead — that alliances cannot replicate. This raises an important question: Why is consolidation particularly relevant now? In cyclical industries such as container shipping, mergers rarely occur at market peaks. When profits are strong, shareholder expectations rise, valuations expand and forward multiples make transactions difficult to justify. Conversely, consolidation tends to occur during downturns or when markets are transitioning toward weaker conditions. That transition phase appears to be underway today. <h3>COVID-era profits provide ‘window of opportunity’ for carriers </h3>Many carriers still retain significant liquidity accumulated during the extraordinary profitability of the COVID-19 era boom. These financial reserves provide a unique window of opportunity. Companies can invest in strategic partnerships or acquisitions while still maintaining operational stability and customer confidence. They also have the resources needed to execute careful integrations that are critical to preserving service quality and avoiding customer disruption. If carriers wait several years, those reserves may be eroded by weaker freight markets, rising costs, or capital expenditures tied to fleet renewal and decarbonization requirements. The mid-tier segment of the industry presents multiple potential merger candidates. Historically, national interests have complicated cross-border consolidation, as governments often view shipping lines as strategic assets tied to trade security and economic policy. Yet recent developments suggest that such barriers are not insurmountable. Hapag-Lloyd’s proposed acquisition of Zim demonstrates that creative structures can address national security concerns while still enabling industrial consolidation. The ability to design tailored governance or ownership arrangements may unlock additional transactions that once seemed politically impossible. Customers, too, have a stake in consolidation, perhaps more than is commonly recognized. Over time, a more consolidated industry can produce greater stability. Previous downturns, including those in 2001, 2009 and 2016, revealed how financially distressed carriers can disrupt supply chains. When shipping lines suffer sustained losses, they often resort to abrupt service cancellations, capacity withdrawals, and large-scale blank sailings. These measures create uncertainty for shippers, ports, logistics providers, and equipment lessors. Most of us vividly remember the collapse of Hanjin Shipping. Its bankruptcy triggered widespread cargo disruptions, stranded containers, port congestion and financial losses across the logistics ecosystem. Such systemic shocks underscore the broader economic value of financially stronger carriers. Consolidation, if executed in a timely manner, can reduce the likelihood of extreme distress events by improving cost structures and balance sheet resilience. <h3>‘Pivotal moment’ </h3>To reassure the skeptics, we can rest assured that competition authorities will continue to monitor market concentration carefully, and customers will demand tangible service improvements rather than promises of efficiency. Nevertheless, the strategic logic is compelling. The container shipping industry stands at a pivotal moment. Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves combine to create a rare window in which transformative deals are both feasible and strategically rational. Delaying action could mean missing that window, as market conditions tighten and financial flexibility declines. For carriers, investors and customers alike, timely consolidation offers the prospect of a more stable and sustainable industry. In a sector long defined by volatility, that outcome should be in everyone’s interest. Robbert van Trooijen, founder and president of Inception Partners and a McKinsey consultant, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&amp;O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at <a href="mailto:robbert@inceptionpartners.org">robbert@inceptionpartners.org</a>. </div>

Debate over consolidation in the container shipping industry has persisted for decades. Advocates argue that the sector has long been fragmented, and that further consolidation is essential to improve financial resilience, operational efficiency, and long-term sustainability. Critics counter that consolidation concentrates pricing power in the hands of a few large players, potentially leading to higher freight rates and reduced competition. In my personal experience, the industry’s structural cyclicality has changed little over time. Freight rate movements in recent months suggest that competitive pressure remains intense, both within alliances and between independent carriers. Indeed, competition is likely to increase over the next three to five years as new vessel capacity enters the market. However, the competitive landscape itself has shifted dramatically. The global container ship order book currently stands at more than 35% of the existing fleet — an unprecedented level. At the same time, the four largest carriers — Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Maersk and Cosco — have taken decisive steps to widen the gap between themselves and the rest of the industry. Meanwhile, Hapag-Lloyd has strengthened its position as a clear number five, extending its lead over mid-tier competitors such as Ocean Network Express, Evergreen, HMM and PIL. (Industry data sources include Drewry and Clarksons Research.) Shipping is a low-margin, capital-intensive business where scale matters enormously. Larger fleets enable lower unit costs, stronger purchasing power, and more efficient network deployment, yet there are limits to what alliances alone can deliver. Alliances primarily provide network coordination and slot sharing; they do not generate the full cost synergies available through unified ownership structures. True economies of scale typically come from either expanding fleets organically or pursuing mergers and acquisitions. Of the two, M&A offers the additional advantage of organizational synergies — streamlined management, consolidated procurement, integrated IT platforms, and rationalized overhead — that alliances cannot replicate. This raises an important question: Why is consolidation particularly relevant now? In cyclical industries such as container shipping, mergers rarely occur at market peaks. When profits are strong, shareholder expectations rise, valuations expand and forward multiples make transactions difficult to justify. Conversely, consolidation tends to occur during downturns or when markets are transitioning toward weaker conditions. That transition phase appears to be underway today. COVID-era profits provide ‘window of opportunity’ for carriers Many carriers still retain significant liquidity accumulated during the extraordinary profitability of the COVID-19 era boom. These financial reserves provide a unique window of opportunity. Companies can invest in strategic partnerships or acquisitions while still maintaining operational stability and customer confidence. They also have the resources needed to execute careful integrations that are critical to preserving service quality and avoiding customer disruption. If carriers wait several years, those reserves may be eroded by weaker freight markets, rising costs, or capital expenditures tied to fleet renewal and decarbonization requirements. The mid-tier segment of the industry presents multiple potential merger candidates. Historically, national interests have complicated cross-border consolidation, as governments often view shipping lines as strategic assets tied to trade security and economic policy. Yet recent developments suggest that such barriers are not insurmountable. Hapag-Lloyd’s proposed acquisition of Zim demonstrates that creative structures can address national security concerns while still enabling industrial consolidation. The ability to design tailored governance or ownership arrangements may unlock additional transactions that once seemed politically impossible. Customers, too, have a stake in consolidation, perhaps more than is commonly recognized. Over time, a more consolidated industry can produce greater stability. Previous downturns, including those in 2001, 2009 and 2016, revealed how financially distressed carriers can disrupt supply chains. When shipping lines suffer sustained losses, they often resort to abrupt service cancellations, capacity withdrawals, and large-scale blank sailings. These measures create uncertainty for shippers, ports, logistics providers, and equipment lessors. Most of us vividly remember the collapse of Hanjin Shipping. Its bankruptcy triggered widespread cargo disruptions, stranded containers, port congestion and financial losses across the logistics ecosystem. Such systemic shocks underscore the broader economic value of financially stronger carriers. Consolidation, if executed in a timely manner, can reduce the likelihood of extreme distress events by improving cost structures and balance sheet resilience. ‘Pivotal moment’ To reassure the skeptics, we can rest assured that competition authorities will continue to monitor market concentration carefully, and customers will demand tangible service improvements rather than promises of efficiency. Nevertheless, the strategic logic is compelling. The container shipping industry stands at a pivotal moment. Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves combine to create a rare window in which transformative deals are both feasible and strategically rational. Delaying action could mean missing that window, as market conditions tighten and financial flexibility declines. For carriers, investors and customers alike, timely consolidation offers the prospect of a more stable and sustainable industry. In a sector long defined by volatility, that outcome should be in everyone’s interest. Robbert van Trooijen, founder and president of Inception Partners and a McKinsey consultant, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at robbert@inceptionpartners.org .

In wake of Zim deal, the time for industry consolidation is now

Shanghai to Korea

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
Y-o-Y: {percet_year_Pusan.formatNumber("##.#%")}

The Shanghai Shipping Exchange’s (SSE) Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) reflects spot rates and associated seaborne charges for containerized exports from Shanghai. The SCFI includes indices of freight rates in 13 individual shipping routes and a composite index, using Oct. 16, 2009, as the base period (Oct. 16, 2009 = 1,000). [SSE](https://en.sse.net.cn/indices/scfinew.jsp)

Shanghai to Korea container spot rates (SSE)

Shanghai to Korea Containe Spot Rates (SCFI-Weekly) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The comments by the US Secretary of State heighten the Trump administration’s involvement a week after the top federal maritime regulator flagged the ship detentions. </div>

The comments by the US Secretary of State heighten the Trump administration’s involvement a week after the top federal maritime regulator flagged the ship detentions.

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration Thursday escalated its concern over the recent detention of Panama-flagged vessels at Chinese ports, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying the practice, “raise(s) serious concerns about the use of economic tools to undermine the rule of law...” Rubio’s comments come a week after Laura DiBella, chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, said the agency was “closely monitoring” an apparent “surge” in detentions of Panama-flag ships by Chinese port authorities and the effect it could have on US container trade. “Detentions, delays, or other impediments to the movement of vessels undermine the stability of global supply chains, increase costs for businesses and consumers, and erode confidence in the international trading system,” Rubio said in a statement. Similar to DiBella, Rubio linked the Chinese activity against the vessels to retaliation for the Panamanian Supreme Court recently nullifying the operating concessions at Panama’s Balboa and Cristóbal ports held by Panama Ports Company (PPC), which is 90% owned by Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. Hutchison held the operating concessions at the two ports for 28 years. Striking back after the ruling, Hutchison  filed an international arbitration claim against the Panamanian government and Panama Maritime Authority (PMA), seeking more than $2 billion in damages. China’s Cosco Shipping Lines earlier this month halted calls at Balboa, redirecting its services to Manzanillo on the Atlantic side of the canal. Cosco and Hong Kong-based OOCL operate nearly one-fifth of the trans-Pacific capacity that transits the canal, according to data from benchmarking platform Xeneta’s eeSea. Panama’s move against Hutchison came a year after US President Donald Trump threatened to take over the canal if Panama did not rid itself of Chinese influence. <a href="mailto:News@joc.com">News@joc.com.</a></div>

The Trump administration Thursday escalated its concern over the recent detention of Panama-flagged vessels at Chinese ports, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying the practice, “raise(s) serious concerns about the use of economic tools to undermine the rule of law...” Rubio’s comments come a week after Laura DiBella, chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, said the agency was “closely monitoring” an apparent “surge” in detentions of Panama-flag ships by Chinese port authorities and the effect it could have on US container trade. “Detentions, delays, or other impediments to the movement of vessels undermine the stability of global supply chains, increase costs for businesses and consumers, and erode confidence in the international trading system,” Rubio said in a statement. Similar to DiBella, Rubio linked the Chinese activity against the vessels to retaliation for the Panamanian Supreme Court recently nullifying the operating concessions at Panama’s Balboa and Cristóbal ports held by Panama Ports Company (PPC), which is 90% owned by Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. Hutchison held the operating concessions at the two ports for 28 years. Striking back after the ruling, Hutchison  filed an international arbitration claim against the Panamanian government and Panama Maritime Authority (PMA), seeking more than $2 billion in damages. China’s Cosco Shipping Lines earlier this month halted calls at Balboa, redirecting its services to Manzanillo on the Atlantic side of the canal. Cosco and Hong Kong-based OOCL operate nearly one-fifth of the trans-Pacific capacity that transits the canal, according to data from benchmarking platform Xeneta’s eeSea. Panama’s move against Hutchison came a year after US President Donald Trump threatened to take over the canal if Panama did not rid itself of Chinese influence. News@joc.com.

International ports

Rubio, in escalation, criticizes China for detaining Panama-flag ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With more than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war started on Feb. 28, suppliers are feeling the pinch.</div>

With more than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war started on Feb. 28, suppliers are feeling the pinch.

<div class="phx-topic">Suppliers in the world’s largest bunkering hub of Singapore are under growing stress, with analysts reporting less than a month’s supply remaining and no replenishment in sight from one of its most important fuel supply lines. More than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel is believed to be imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war in the Middle East started on Feb. 28. Although Singapore remains able to refuel ships, the clock is ticking on the available supply, according to Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&amp;P Global Energy. "If the current supply-demand imbalance persists, we expect a rapid acceleration in stock drawdowns as existing inventories — currently sufficient for about three weeks of typical demand — begin to deplete,” he said. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Katsoulas said the Singapore market was under “significant stress,” with recommended lead times for ocean carriers replenishing very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) currently stretching to more than a week in some cases. “Prompt availability is extremely tight,” he said. “We are seeing reports of suppliers already prioritizing existing term contracts and resisting new tenders for the next (few) months.” The immense scale of Singapore’s bunkering industry underlines the problem facing fuel suppliers in the port should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed. Singapore sold 56.2 million metric tons (mt) of bunker fuel in 2025, up 3.2% year over year, according to data from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. That was more than five times the bunker sales at the world’s second-largest ship refueling hub of Rotterdam, with sales driven by strong high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) demand as VLSFO sales dropped off. Traders in Singapore have been sourcing oil from areas outside the Middle East, such as Brazil and Russia, according to reports. The US in March issued a 30-day waiver allowing the purchase of previously sanctioned Russian oil and gas, and Singapore is taking advantage of that by increasing imports to support bunker availability. <h3>Fuel prices drop off mid-March highs </h3>The scarcity of supply since Feb. 28 has pushed up bunker fuel prices in Singapore, but prices have declined since the mid-March highs. On April 1, VLSFO in Singapore was selling at $873.50 per metric ton, up 70% since Feb. 27 but far below its March 16 high of $1,119/mt, according to the Ship &amp; Bunker platform. HSFO has followed a similar path, up 60% from Feb. 27 at $695/mt, but down 35% from the March 9 price of $1,073/mt. Bucking the trend is low sulfur marine gas oil (MGO), used by carriers in emission control areas such as the coasts of North America, the Caribbean, the Baltic and North seas, and the Mediterranean. MGO prices in Singapore on April 1 were at $1,836/mt, not far off the March 23 high of $1,940, but 160% above the pre-war price, Ship &amp; Bunker data showed. In Rotterdam, VLSFO was trading at $716.50/mt on April 1, up almost 50% from Feb. 27. HSFO was at $661.50, up 50% since before the war, while MGO was 85% higher at $1,331/mt, Ship &amp; Bunker’s latest pricing showed. Katsoulas said Rotterdam was currently the most stable and well-supplied bunkering point compared to the hubs east of the Suez Canal. “It is shielded from the immediate Middle East disruptions, and as a result, Singapore is trading at a massive $140 to $250 per ton premium over Rotterdam prices,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said bunker fuel in Singapore was available at prices almost double pre-conflict levels, but the prices were trending slowly downwards after the initial spike of 200%. “With no visible end to the crisis, however, carriers are almost certainly drawing up another set of contingency plans,” Sand said in a market update Thursday. “The coming weeks will show whether slow steaming and alternative routing can hold the line, or whether blank sailings become the next lever carriers reach for.” <h3>Emergency surcharge prices rise </h3>One of the contingency plans being aggressively pursued by carriers are emergency bunker fuel surcharges piled on top of existing quarterly fuel cost recovery mechanisms. For instance, Maersk from March 25 has been charging $400 per FEU on long-haul head-haul routes and $600/FEU for reefers, while CMA CGM since March 27 has been charging emergency fuel surcharges of $265/TEU, and $320/TEU for reefers. Ocean Network Express set long-haul head-haul surcharges at $160/TEU, with $210/TEU for reefers, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. has implemented a range of fuel surcharges covering specific regional routes. Maersk this week again asked US maritime regulators to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-again-asks-fmc-to-waive-30-day-review-period-for-emergency-fuel-surcharge-6197792">waive the 30-day notice period</a> required before liners can implement surcharges so it could immediately roll out emergency fuel surcharges on long-haul US trades. The Federal Maritime Commission <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period</a> and is expected to rule on the second request soon. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, last week put a price on the Middle East war, telling reporters that the carrier <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">was shouldering added operating costs of $40 million to $50 million a week</a>. Most of that was driven by higher bunker fuel prices and rising insurance premiums in the Middle East. “Our intention is not to make a profit (from surcharges),” Habben Jansen told reporters during a media briefing. “We are trying to limit the charges to the extra costs we need to recover. We are trying to ring-fence the problem as much as possible.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Suppliers in the world’s largest bunkering hub of Singapore are under growing stress, with analysts reporting less than a month’s supply remaining and no replenishment in sight from one of its most important fuel supply lines. More than 50% of the city-state's bunker fuel is believed to be imported via the Strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively closed since the war in the Middle East started on Feb. 28. Although Singapore remains able to refuel ships, the clock is ticking on the available supply, according to Fotios Katsoulas, director and head of tankers, freight and alternative fuels research at S&P Global Energy. "If the current supply-demand imbalance persists, we expect a rapid acceleration in stock drawdowns as existing inventories — currently sufficient for about three weeks of typical demand — begin to deplete,” he said. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Katsoulas said the Singapore market was under “significant stress,” with recommended lead times for ocean carriers replenishing very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) currently stretching to more than a week in some cases. “Prompt availability is extremely tight,” he said. “We are seeing reports of suppliers already prioritizing existing term contracts and resisting new tenders for the next (few) months.” The immense scale of Singapore’s bunkering industry underlines the problem facing fuel suppliers in the port should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed. Singapore sold 56.2 million metric tons (mt) of bunker fuel in 2025, up 3.2% year over year, according to data from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. That was more than five times the bunker sales at the world’s second-largest ship refueling hub of Rotterdam, with sales driven by strong high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) demand as VLSFO sales dropped off. Traders in Singapore have been sourcing oil from areas outside the Middle East, such as Brazil and Russia, according to reports. The US in March issued a 30-day waiver allowing the purchase of previously sanctioned Russian oil and gas, and Singapore is taking advantage of that by increasing imports to support bunker availability. Fuel prices drop off mid-March highs The scarcity of supply since Feb. 28 has pushed up bunker fuel prices in Singapore, but prices have declined since the mid-March highs. On April 1, VLSFO in Singapore was selling at $873.50 per metric ton, up 70% since Feb. 27 but far below its March 16 high of $1,119/mt, according to the Ship & Bunker platform. HSFO has followed a similar path, up 60% from Feb. 27 at $695/mt, but down 35% from the March 9 price of $1,073/mt. Bucking the trend is low sulfur marine gas oil (MGO), used by carriers in emission control areas such as the coasts of North America, the Caribbean, the Baltic and North seas, and the Mediterranean. MGO prices in Singapore on April 1 were at $1,836/mt, not far off the March 23 high of $1,940, but 160% above the pre-war price, Ship & Bunker data showed. In Rotterdam, VLSFO was trading at $716.50/mt on April 1, up almost 50% from Feb. 27. HSFO was at $661.50, up 50% since before the war, while MGO was 85% higher at $1,331/mt, Ship & Bunker’s latest pricing showed. Katsoulas said Rotterdam was currently the most stable and well-supplied bunkering point compared to the hubs east of the Suez Canal. “It is shielded from the immediate Middle East disruptions, and as a result, Singapore is trading at a massive $140 to $250 per ton premium over Rotterdam prices,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said bunker fuel in Singapore was available at prices almost double pre-conflict levels, but the prices were trending slowly downwards after the initial spike of 200%. “With no visible end to the crisis, however, carriers are almost certainly drawing up another set of contingency plans,” Sand said in a market update Thursday. “The coming weeks will show whether slow steaming and alternative routing can hold the line, or whether blank sailings become the next lever carriers reach for.” Emergency surcharge prices rise One of the contingency plans being aggressively pursued by carriers are emergency bunker fuel surcharges piled on top of existing quarterly fuel cost recovery mechanisms. For instance, Maersk from March 25 has been charging $400 per FEU on long-haul head-haul routes and $600/FEU for reefers, while CMA CGM since March 27 has been charging emergency fuel surcharges of $265/TEU, and $320/TEU for reefers. Ocean Network Express set long-haul head-haul surcharges at $160/TEU, with $210/TEU for reefers, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. has implemented a range of fuel surcharges covering specific regional routes. Maersk this week again asked US maritime regulators to waive the 30-day notice period required before liners can implement surcharges so it could immediately roll out emergency fuel surcharges on long-haul US trades. The Federal Maritime Commission previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period and is expected to rule on the second request soon. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, last week put a price on the Middle East war, telling reporters that the carrier was shouldering added operating costs of $40 million to $50 million a week . Most of that was driven by higher bunker fuel prices and rising insurance premiums in the Middle East. “Our intention is not to make a profit (from surcharges),” Habben Jansen told reporters during a media briefing. “We are trying to limit the charges to the extra costs we need to recover. We are trying to ring-fence the problem as much as possible.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Singapore bunker supply continues to run down as Middle East war drags on

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The World Shipping Council argued unsuccessfully that a section of OSRA-22 aimed at US exports was an overreach by the country’s maritime regulator. </div>

The World Shipping Council argued unsuccessfully that a section of OSRA-22 aimed at US exports was an overreach by the country’s maritime regulator.

<div class="phx-topic">An appeals court has denied a challenge to US shipping law that blocks ocean carriers from unfairly denying vessel space to exporters, ruling that the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has broad latitude to review a carrier’s rates and export policy when it believes such violations occur. A three-judge panel for the District of Columbia appellate court on Tuesday turned down <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dc-court-hears-challenge-to-fmc-rulemaking-on-refusal-to-deal-6078353">the World Shipping Council’s (WSC’s) petition</a> to review a section of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22) that bars ocean carriers from “unreasonably refus[ing] to deal or negotiate ... with respect to vessel space accommodations.” The provision stemmed from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-regulators-warn-container-lines-on-obligation-to-serve-exporters-5251170">the US agriculture industry’s difficulties in getting export space</a> during the COVID-19-era container shipping surge. After OSRA-22 was passed, a July 2024 rulemaking by the FMC sought to clarify how the agency would determine an unreasonable refusal to deal. The WSC claimed the rulemaking exceeded the FMC’s authority because it allowed the agency to review export freight rates, even though it gave up its ratemaking authority in 1984. The rulemaking also requires ocean carriers to document their export policies, which the WSC claimed also oversteps the agency’s powers, and removed references to “business decisions” as a factor in deciding whether an ocean carrier unreasonably refused to deal. However, the court ruled that even if the FMC no longer regulates rates, it can still review ocean freight rates if they appear to be dissuading an export container booking. The ruling said that removing the FMC’s authority to review export rates “would permit any ocean carrier to refuse to deal or to negotiate with impunity, simply by quoting an unrealistically high rate.” “There is no practical difference between quoting a rate of one billion dollars and outright refusing to deal,” the ruling said. The court also turned away the WSC’s argument that a documented export policy was government overreach because it is “prospective” information, not a factual recounting of what occurred in a particular instance. The judges said the FMC has authority under US shipping law to collect information about carrier pricing strategies and export policies. As for the exclusion of business decisions in the rulemaking, the judges said the rulemaking did not explicitly prevent the FMC from considering that factor in whether a shipper was unfairly denied vessel space. The FMC itself said that it could also consider business decisions. “Counsel for the Commission acknowledged that the Commission may not decline to consider a relevant business decision because failure to consider a relevant factor would itself be arbitrary,” the ruling said. “In short, the Commission did not meaningfully change course by dropping its main reference to business decisions.” <h3>Despite loss, WSC notes ‘clarity’ in ruling </h3>In a statement to the Journal of Commerce, WSC Chief Executive Joe Kramek said, “the ruling provides the liner shipping industry with clarity on the factors the [FMC] must consider in reviewing refusal-to-deal cases.” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC), said in a statement the FMC’s refusal-to-deal rulemaking followed Congress’ intent on providing a level playing field for US exporters. “The provision in OSRA-22 and the subsequent FMC implementing regulation was designed to address refusals of ocean carriers to accept booking of many agriculture commodities during the COVID crisis,” Friedmann said. “Congress responded, on behalf of agriculture and other constituents, leading to this provision of OSRA-22. AgTC is pleased with the Court of Appeals decision denying efforts to derail this FMC regulation.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An appeals court has denied a challenge to US shipping law that blocks ocean carriers from unfairly denying vessel space to exporters, ruling that the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has broad latitude to review a carrier’s rates and export policy when it believes such violations occur. A three-judge panel for the District of Columbia appellate court on Tuesday turned down the World Shipping Council’s (WSC’s) petition to review a section of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22) that bars ocean carriers from “unreasonably refus[ing] to deal or negotiate ... with respect to vessel space accommodations.” The provision stemmed from the US agriculture industry’s difficulties in getting export space during the COVID-19-era container shipping surge. After OSRA-22 was passed, a July 2024 rulemaking by the FMC sought to clarify how the agency would determine an unreasonable refusal to deal. The WSC claimed the rulemaking exceeded the FMC’s authority because it allowed the agency to review export freight rates, even though it gave up its ratemaking authority in 1984. The rulemaking also requires ocean carriers to document their export policies, which the WSC claimed also oversteps the agency’s powers, and removed references to “business decisions” as a factor in deciding whether an ocean carrier unreasonably refused to deal. However, the court ruled that even if the FMC no longer regulates rates, it can still review ocean freight rates if they appear to be dissuading an export container booking. The ruling said that removing the FMC’s authority to review export rates “would permit any ocean carrier to refuse to deal or to negotiate with impunity, simply by quoting an unrealistically high rate.” “There is no practical difference between quoting a rate of one billion dollars and outright refusing to deal,” the ruling said. The court also turned away the WSC’s argument that a documented export policy was government overreach because it is “prospective” information, not a factual recounting of what occurred in a particular instance. The judges said the FMC has authority under US shipping law to collect information about carrier pricing strategies and export policies. As for the exclusion of business decisions in the rulemaking, the judges said the rulemaking did not explicitly prevent the FMC from considering that factor in whether a shipper was unfairly denied vessel space. The FMC itself said that it could also consider business decisions. “Counsel for the Commission acknowledged that the Commission may not decline to consider a relevant business decision because failure to consider a relevant factor would itself be arbitrary,” the ruling said. “In short, the Commission did not meaningfully change course by dropping its main reference to business decisions.” Despite loss, WSC notes ‘clarity’ in ruling In a statement to the Journal of Commerce, WSC Chief Executive Joe Kramek said, “the ruling provides the liner shipping industry with clarity on the factors the [FMC] must consider in reviewing refusal-to-deal cases.” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC), said in a statement the FMC’s refusal-to-deal rulemaking followed Congress’ intent on providing a level playing field for US exporters. “The provision in OSRA-22 and the subsequent FMC implementing regulation was designed to address refusals of ocean carriers to accept booking of many agriculture commodities during the COVID crisis,” Friedmann said. “Congress responded, on behalf of agriculture and other constituents, leading to this provision of OSRA-22. AgTC is pleased with the Court of Appeals decision denying efforts to derail this FMC regulation.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Appeals court upholds FMC rules on carrier refusal-to-deal, export policies

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier is implementing a second surcharge on US trades to recoup higher operating costs driven by the war in the Middle East, and is asking maritime regulators for permission to levy the fee immediately.</div>

The carrier is implementing a second surcharge on US trades to recoup higher operating costs driven by the war in the Middle East, and is asking maritime regulators for permission to levy the fee immediately.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk is making another attempt to win approval from US maritime regulators to waive a 30-day notice period and permit the carrier to immediately implement an emergency bunker fuel surcharge on long-haul US trades to offset rising costs driven by the war in the Middle East. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is expected to vote soon on Maersk’s new request, a spokesperson for the agency said. That comes as the agency on Wednesday rejected requests from two forwarders for a waiver of the 30-day notice period that is required before liners can implement surcharges. The FMC <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers</a> to waive the notice period. How the FMC votes on Maersk’s latest request for special permission to implement surcharges in the hundreds of dollars per container could prove a test case for other carriers seeking to recoup war-driven energy costs from US shippers and forwarders. The FMC’s four commissioners on March 23 unanimously voted to reject separate requests from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim Integrated Shipping Services to waive the notice period, forcing the carriers to wait until this week to implement the initial surcharges. FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said the carriers should have provided data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” In its initial March 11 filing to the FMC, Maersk asked the agency to waive the notice period for the new emergency bunker fuel surcharge so it could take effect March 25, coinciding with the implementation of similar surcharges on non-US trades, rather than April 8. In its latest petition, the carrier said low-sulfur bunker fuel prices jumped 82% on average, to $929 per metric ton, between Feb. 6 and March 9. The war began Feb. 28. “Maersk cannot absorb the full impact of this dramatic increase,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing Maersk, wrote in the filing to the FMC. “Moreover, bunker fuel prices are likely to remain elevated and volatile given the uncertainty of the duration of hostilities and their impact on the price of oil and bunker fuel.” For dry shipments on long-haul trades, Maersk is seeking an emergency fuel surcharge of $200 per TEU for the head-haul and $100 per TEU for the backhaul. Comparatively, Maersk has implemented a $300-per-TEU surcharge for refrigerated shipments on the head-haul of long-haul shipments and $150 for reefer backhaul cargoes. <h3>Holding the line </h3>The FMC on Wednesday rejected two separate requests to waive the 30-day review period for emergency surcharges. The agency denied a request by Turkon Container Transportation and Shipping to immediately impose a fee on all shipments to and from the Middle East of $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $3,500 for refrigerated and special containers. The agency also denied a request by Vanguard Logistics Services, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, to immediately implement a $75 surcharge on shipments to and from the Middle East. In both cases, the FMC said the parties had failed to establish good cause to have the review period waived.The latest round of requests shows that “carriers are making the same fatal error that led to the prior denials — failing to provide their customers and the FMC specific cost information so they can determine their need for immediate imposition of very specific surcharges,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said in a statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk is making another attempt to win approval from US maritime regulators to waive a 30-day notice period and permit the carrier to immediately implement an emergency bunker fuel surcharge on long-haul US trades to offset rising costs driven by the war in the Middle East. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is expected to vote soon on Maersk’s new request, a spokesperson for the agency said. That comes as the agency on Wednesday rejected requests from two forwarders for a waiver of the 30-day notice period that is required before liners can implement surcharges. The FMC previously rejected an initial attempt by Maersk and three other carriers to waive the notice period. How the FMC votes on Maersk’s latest request for special permission to implement surcharges in the hundreds of dollars per container could prove a test case for other carriers seeking to recoup war-driven energy costs from US shippers and forwarders. The FMC’s four commissioners on March 23 unanimously voted to reject separate requests from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim Integrated Shipping Services to waive the notice period, forcing the carriers to wait until this week to implement the initial surcharges. FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said the carriers should have provided data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” In its initial March 11 filing to the FMC, Maersk asked the agency to waive the notice period for the new emergency bunker fuel surcharge so it could take effect March 25, coinciding with the implementation of similar surcharges on non-US trades, rather than April 8. In its latest petition, the carrier said low-sulfur bunker fuel prices jumped 82% on average, to $929 per metric ton, between Feb. 6 and March 9. The war began Feb. 28. “Maersk cannot absorb the full impact of this dramatic increase,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing Maersk, wrote in the filing to the FMC. “Moreover, bunker fuel prices are likely to remain elevated and volatile given the uncertainty of the duration of hostilities and their impact on the price of oil and bunker fuel.” For dry shipments on long-haul trades, Maersk is seeking an emergency fuel surcharge of $200 per TEU for the head-haul and $100 per TEU for the backhaul. Comparatively, Maersk has implemented a $300-per-TEU surcharge for refrigerated shipments on the head-haul of long-haul shipments and $150 for reefer backhaul cargoes. Holding the line The FMC on Wednesday rejected two separate requests to waive the 30-day review period for emergency surcharges. The agency denied a request by Turkon Container Transportation and Shipping to immediately impose a fee on all shipments to and from the Middle East of $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU, and $3,500 for refrigerated and special containers. The agency also denied a request by Vanguard Logistics Services, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, to immediately implement a $75 surcharge on shipments to and from the Middle East. In both cases, the FMC said the parties had failed to establish good cause to have the review period waived. The latest round of requests shows that “carriers are making the same fatal error that led to the prior denials — failing to provide their customers and the FMC specific cost information so they can determine their need for immediate imposition of very specific surcharges,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said in a statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Maersk again asks FMC to waive 30-day review period for emergency fuel surcharge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The CMA CGM Kribi successfully transited the strait late Thursday, the first passage for a Western-operated container ship since the war between the US/Israel and Iran disrupted access to the crucial waterway five weeks ago.</div>

The CMA CGM Kribi successfully transited the strait late Thursday, the first passage for a Western-operated container ship since the war between the US/Israel and Iran disrupted access to the crucial waterway five weeks ago.

<div class="phx-topic">French ocean carrier CMA CGM is understood to have secured assurances from Iranian authorities guaranteeing safe passage for its 14 container ships trapped inside the Strait of Hormuz since the war began, industry sources with knowledge of the matter told the Journal of Commerce Friday. Signaling that breakthrough, the Malta-flagged CMA CGM Kribi successfully transited the strait late Thursday local time, the first passage for a Western-operated container ship since the war between the US/Israel and Iran disrupted access to the crucial waterway five weeks ago. The 5,500-TEU Kribi is part of the Marseille-based carrier’s Middle East-India-West Africa network known as Midas1 and operated in conjunction with Maersk, available data shows. The industry sources also indicated that there are another six CMA CGM container vessels held up in the Persian Gulf and awaiting clearance to transit Hormuz. The sources believe the measured approach adopted by French President Emmanuel Macron during the Persian Gulf conflict has helped CMA CGM strike a deal with Iran, which recently reiterated that Hormuz would only remain open to maritime traffic from nonhostile countries. Specifics of any possible deal between the carrier and Iran were not known. There have been unconfirmed reports that Tehran is asking carriers to pay a “toll fee” of $1 million or $2 million per ship to guarantee safe passage through the strait. During a briefing with reporters last week, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen was asked</a> whether the carrier would pay Tehran to secure safe passage for its six ships that remain trapped in the war zone. “We are pursuing every avenue that we can to try to get the ships and the crews safely out, and I would not rule out anything at this point,” Habben Jansen said. Earlier this week, three Chinese-linked vessels, including two container ships operated by Cosco Shipping, transited through Hormuz. The industry sources also told the Journal of Commerce that 15 ships operated by Mediterranean Shipping Co. are stuck in the conflict zone, as well as six from Maersk. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com.</a></div>

French ocean carrier CMA CGM is understood to have secured assurances from Iranian authorities guaranteeing safe passage for its 14 container ships trapped inside the Strait of Hormuz since the war began, industry sources with knowledge of the matter told the Journal of Commerce Friday. Signaling that breakthrough, the Malta-flagged CMA CGM Kribi successfully transited the strait late Thursday local time, the first passage for a Western-operated container ship since the war between the US/Israel and Iran disrupted access to the crucial waterway five weeks ago. The 5,500-TEU Kribi is part of the Marseille-based carrier’s Middle East-India-West Africa network known as Midas1 and operated in conjunction with Maersk, available data shows. The industry sources also indicated that there are another six CMA CGM container vessels held up in the Persian Gulf and awaiting clearance to transit Hormuz. The sources believe the measured approach adopted by French President Emmanuel Macron during the Persian Gulf conflict has helped CMA CGM strike a deal with Iran, which recently reiterated that Hormuz would only remain open to maritime traffic from nonhostile countries. Specifics of any possible deal between the carrier and Iran were not known. There have been unconfirmed reports that Tehran is asking carriers to pay a “toll fee” of $1 million or $2 million per ship to guarantee safe passage through the strait. During a briefing with reporters last week, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen was asked whether the carrier would pay Tehran to secure safe passage for its six ships that remain trapped in the war zone. “We are pursuing every avenue that we can to try to get the ships and the crews safely out, and I would not rule out anything at this point,” Habben Jansen said. Earlier this week, three Chinese-linked vessels, including two container ships operated by Cosco Shipping, transited through Hormuz. The industry sources also told the Journal of Commerce that 15 ships operated by Mediterranean Shipping Co. are stuck in the conflict zone, as well as six from Maersk. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com.

CMA CGM said to have deal with Iran to allow safe passage through Hormuz: sources

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With operations at Salalah suspended on Saturday due to a drone strike, Hapag-Lloyd has positioned its upcoming westbound sailing on the India-USEC “TPI” service to call at Port Qasim in Pakistan. </div>

With operations at Salalah suspended on Saturday due to a drone strike, Hapag-Lloyd has positioned its upcoming westbound sailing on the India-USEC “TPI” service to call at Port Qasim in Pakistan.

<div class="phx-topic">Stop-and-start operations at Salalah Port in Oman are adding to the schedule challenges that had already forced major carriers on the Indian westbound trades to rework their network rotations in response to the Middle East crisis. Salalah remains a critical hub for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, both for the Gemini Cooperation India-Europe/Mediterranean loop and their standalone India-US East Coast services. With operations at Salalah suspended on Saturday due to a drone strike, although <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/drone-strike-closes-key-middle-east-transit-hub-of-salalah-6195094">gradually resuming from Tuesday</a>, Hapag-Lloyd has now positioned its upcoming westbound sailing on the India-USEC “TPI” service to call at Port Qasim (Karachi) in Pakistan. The Niledutch Lion has an estimated time of arrival of April 9 in Karachi after a scheduled departure from India’s Mundra port on April 7, updated data shows. Hapag-Lloyd last year halted calls to Karachi following the country-to-country trade restrictions between India and Pakistan, and instead has been connecting Pakistan cargo via Salalah by using common feeder capacity. Maersk did not immediately disclose its contingency plans for Indian regional transshipment affected by the Salalah shutdown. All the vessels deployed on the Gemini India-Europe loop, known as the ME1 for Maersk and the IOS for Hapag-Lloyd, are from the Danish liner. <h3>Multi-modal solutions </h3>Meanwhile, ocean carriers are rapidly shifting from port-to-port shipping to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/as-war-rages-multimodal-demand-surges-on-asia-europe-landbridge-6185162">integrated regional multimodal solutions</a> to handle imports into the Middle East, an alternative supply chain model that industry observers believe could outlast the war as cargo interests seek reliability and resilience in the supply chain. Supporting that transformation, there have been a series of collaborative attempts by Persian Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia, to establish “land bridges” by trucking and/or “green corridors” through sea-land networks for cargo flows within the region. One example is a strategic partnership between the UAE’s Gulftainer and the Saudi Ports Authority (Mawani) to open alternative logistics links between Sharjah in the UAE and Dammam in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Saudi Arabia is offering an extended 60-day free time for the storage of Gulf import/export containers in addition to implementing multiple regulatory relaxations, including raising the permitted operational age of trucks in the country from 20 years to 22 years. Major liners have also stepped up the evacuation of Middle East-bound containers rerouted to Indian ports. Hapag-Lloyd this week has a shuttle sailing from Nhava Sheva in West India to Fujairah in the UAE, with onward connections available for Jebel Ali by trucking. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Stop-and-start operations at Salalah Port in Oman are adding to the schedule challenges that had already forced major carriers on the Indian westbound trades to rework their network rotations in response to the Middle East crisis. Salalah remains a critical hub for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, both for the Gemini Cooperation India-Europe/Mediterranean loop and their standalone India-US East Coast services. With operations at Salalah suspended on Saturday due to a drone strike, although gradually resuming from Tuesday , Hapag-Lloyd has now positioned its upcoming westbound sailing on the India-USEC “TPI” service to call at Port Qasim (Karachi) in Pakistan. The Niledutch Lion has an estimated time of arrival of April 9 in Karachi after a scheduled departure from India’s Mundra port on April 7, updated data shows. Hapag-Lloyd last year halted calls to Karachi following the country-to-country trade restrictions between India and Pakistan, and instead has been connecting Pakistan cargo via Salalah by using common feeder capacity. Maersk did not immediately disclose its contingency plans for Indian regional transshipment affected by the Salalah shutdown. All the vessels deployed on the Gemini India-Europe loop, known as the ME1 for Maersk and the IOS for Hapag-Lloyd, are from the Danish liner. Multi-modal solutions Meanwhile, ocean carriers are rapidly shifting from port-to-port shipping to integrated regional multimodal solutions to handle imports into the Middle East, an alternative supply chain model that industry observers believe could outlast the war as cargo interests seek reliability and resilience in the supply chain. Supporting that transformation, there have been a series of collaborative attempts by Persian Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia, to establish “land bridges” by trucking and/or “green corridors” through sea-land networks for cargo flows within the region. One example is a strategic partnership between the UAE’s Gulftainer and the Saudi Ports Authority (Mawani) to open alternative logistics links between Sharjah in the UAE and Dammam in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Saudi Arabia is offering an extended 60-day free time for the storage of Gulf import/export containers in addition to implementing multiple regulatory relaxations, including raising the permitted operational age of trucks in the country from 20 years to 22 years. Major liners have also stepped up the evacuation of Middle East-bound containers rerouted to Indian ports. Hapag-Lloyd this week has a shuttle sailing from Nhava Sheva in West India to Fujairah in the UAE, with onward connections available for Jebel Ali by trucking. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

War-driven supply squeeze could boost US resins exports in 2026

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Rubio, in escalation, criticizes China for detaining Panama-flag ships

Singapore bunker supply continues to run down as Middle East war drags on

Appeals court upholds FMC rules on carrier refusal-to-deal, export policies

Recent Commentary

Are SoCal’s planned freight projects a matter of ‘California Dreamin’’?

In wake of Zim deal, the time for industry consolidation is now

Top 5 Most Read Stories