<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Main construction started Friday and includes the development of four berths capable of handling ships of more than 21,000 TEUs, plus 15 berths for regional feeder vessels. </div>

Main construction started Friday and includes the development of four berths capable of handling ships of more than 21,000 TEUs, plus 15 berths for regional feeder vessels.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Work has begun on the $2 billion fifth development phase of Nansha port, the main international container gateway for Guangzhou in southern China, as part of a move to increase Nansha’s capacity to 35 million TEUs by around 2030. Main construction started Friday and includes the development of four berths capable of handling ships of more than 21,000 TEUs, plus 15 berths for regional feeder vessels, China’s Transport Ministry said Monday. The extension, with a combined berth length of 2.4 miles, will boost capacity at Nansha by 6.7 million TEUs. Guangzhou Port Group is also developing the $1 billion Nansha International General Terminal that will add an additional 500,000 TEUs of capacity and berths for breakbulk, project cargo and vehicle shipments. Port group Chairman Huang Bo said the fifth development phase plus general terminal and other expansion work will add 11 million TEUs of operating capacity to Nansha port, located about 40 miles south of Guangzhou city. The work comes as Guangzhou is seeing an increase in container volumes as growth there largely keeps pace with rival Shenzhen about 60 miles south, while both ports are continuing to lure volumes away from Hong Kong. Guangzhou saw throughput climb 8% to over 27 million TEUs last year, of which more than 22 million TEUs were handled at Nansha, according to the Guangzhou Port Group. The growth has continued this year, with a 4% increase in Guangzhou’s total throughput in the first four months of this year, to 9 million TEUs. Container volumes at Shenzhen rose 5% last year to 35 million TEUs, with growth in the first four months climbing 8% to 8.5 million TEUs. Volumes at Hong Kong have continued to decline, falling 5% to 13.7 million TEUs last year and sliding a further 7% to 4.2 million TEUs this year through April. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Work has begun on the $2 billion fifth development phase of Nansha port, the main international container gateway for Guangzhou in southern China, as part of a move to increase Nansha’s capacity to 35 million TEUs by around 2030. Main construction started Friday and includes the development of four berths capable of handling ships of more than 21,000 TEUs, plus 15 berths for regional feeder vessels, China’s Transport Ministry said Monday. The extension, with a combined berth length of 2.4 miles, will boost capacity at Nansha by 6.7 million TEUs. Guangzhou Port Group is also developing the $1 billion Nansha International General Terminal that will add an additional 500,000 TEUs of capacity and berths for breakbulk, project cargo and vehicle shipments. Port group Chairman Huang Bo said the fifth development phase plus general terminal and other expansion work will add 11 million TEUs of operating capacity to Nansha port, located about 40 miles south of Guangzhou city. The work comes as Guangzhou is seeing an increase in container volumes as growth there largely keeps pace with rival Shenzhen about 60 miles south, while both ports are continuing to lure volumes away from Hong Kong. Guangzhou saw throughput climb 8% to over 27 million TEUs last year, of which more than 22 million TEUs were handled at Nansha, according to the Guangzhou Port Group. The growth has continued this year, with a 4% increase in Guangzhou’s total throughput in the first four months of this year, to 9 million TEUs. Container volumes at Shenzhen rose 5% last year to 35 million TEUs, with growth in the first four months climbing 8% to 8.5 million TEUs. Volumes at Hong Kong have continued to decline, falling 5% to 13.7 million TEUs last year and sliding a further 7% to 4.2 million TEUs this year through April. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

International ports

Maritime

Guangzhou begins work on $2 billion fifth development phase at Nansha port

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Abu Dhabi group is following its larger Dubai-based neighbor DP World in growing its end-to-end reach across the container shipping sector.</div>

The Abu Dhabi group is following its larger Dubai-based neighbor DP World in growing its end-to-end reach across the container shipping sector.

<div class="phx-topic">AD Ports said Monday it has signed a deal to acquire Cologne-based forwarder MBS Logistics Group, continuing a strategic expansion strategy to grow market access in Central Europe, East Asia and Southeast Asia. The acquisition by the Abu Dhabi group, subject to regulatory approval, is expected to be completed in the second half of the year. Financial terms were not disclosed. MBS will join Noatum Logistics, AD Ports’ forwarding arm that is led by Jochen Thewes, who was appointed CEO of the division last December. Thewes, the former CEO of DB Schenker, has been tasked with shepherding the strategic expansion of Noatum’s global reach, combining organic growth with targeted acquisitions. “Bringing MBS Logistics into our ecosystem is the right move at the right time, especially as markets seek greater connectivity and resilience in an evolving global trade and logistics landscape,” he said in a statement. Thewes said MBS would provide Noatum with an established operating platform and immediate access to key logistics corridors in Central Europe and globally. “Ultimately, the combined strengths of both organizations will allow us to raise our game and compete more effectively for major global accounts,” he added. If approved, the transaction would cover MBS’ forwarding and logistics operations across Germany, Switzerland, Asia-Pacific and the US. In 2025, MBS Logistics generated revenues of €205 million ($240 million) with a diversified and asset-light business model and core forwarding operations in Central Europe, and an established network across East Asia and Southeast Asia. The current shareholders of MBS Logistics will exit the operational business, except for Joerg Roehl, shareholder and group CEO. He will oversee the integration and then become part of Noatum’s senior leadership team. <h3>AD Ports expansion </h3>AD Ports has been rapidly expanding its end-to-end reach in the container shipping sector in the past few years, following in the footsteps of larger Dubai-based neighbor DP World. AD Ports, which acquired Spain-based Noatum for $760 million in 2023, has several strategic partnerships with CMA CGM. In the joint venture Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi, the ocean carrier holds a 70% share with AD Ports holding the remaining 30%. Last November, AD Ports took a 20% stake in the CMA CGM-operated <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-accelerates-232-million-syrian-med-port-expansion-project-6066188">Latakia International Container Terminal in Syria</a>. The two companies are also involved in the joint venture development of a multipurpose cargo terminal in Pointe Noire in the Republic of Congo. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

AD Ports said Monday it has signed a deal to acquire Cologne-based forwarder MBS Logistics Group, continuing a strategic expansion strategy to grow market access in Central Europe, East Asia and Southeast Asia. The acquisition by the Abu Dhabi group, subject to regulatory approval, is expected to be completed in the second half of the year. Financial terms were not disclosed. MBS will join Noatum Logistics, AD Ports’ forwarding arm that is led by Jochen Thewes, who was appointed CEO of the division last December. Thewes, the former CEO of DB Schenker, has been tasked with shepherding the strategic expansion of Noatum’s global reach, combining organic growth with targeted acquisitions. “Bringing MBS Logistics into our ecosystem is the right move at the right time, especially as markets seek greater connectivity and resilience in an evolving global trade and logistics landscape,” he said in a statement. Thewes said MBS would provide Noatum with an established operating platform and immediate access to key logistics corridors in Central Europe and globally. “Ultimately, the combined strengths of both organizations will allow us to raise our game and compete more effectively for major global accounts,” he added. If approved, the transaction would cover MBS’ forwarding and logistics operations across Germany, Switzerland, Asia-Pacific and the US. In 2025, MBS Logistics generated revenues of €205 million ($240 million) with a diversified and asset-light business model and core forwarding operations in Central Europe, and an established network across East Asia and Southeast Asia. The current shareholders of MBS Logistics will exit the operational business, except for Joerg Roehl, shareholder and group CEO. He will oversee the integration and then become part of Noatum’s senior leadership team. AD Ports expansion AD Ports has been rapidly expanding its end-to-end reach in the container shipping sector in the past few years, following in the footsteps of larger Dubai-based neighbor DP World. AD Ports, which acquired Spain-based Noatum for $760 million in 2023, has several strategic partnerships with CMA CGM. In the joint venture Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi, the ocean carrier holds a 70% share with AD Ports holding the remaining 30%. Last November, AD Ports took a 20% stake in the CMA CGM-operated Latakia International Container Terminal in Syria . The two companies are also involved in the joint venture development of a multipurpose cargo terminal in Pointe Noire in the Republic of Congo. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

AD Ports to expand Europe, Asia footprints with MBS Logistics takeover

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Trucking industry attorneys say last week’s decision by the Supreme Court is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage.</div>

Trucking industry attorneys say last week’s decision by the Supreme Court is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage.

<div class="phx-topic">The unanimous <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/supreme-court-ruling-strips-broker-protection-linked-to-carrier-safety-6220667">Supreme Court ruling</a> allowing certain state-level negligence claims against freight brokers is expected to increase pressure on motor carriers to carry higher insurance limits and could eventually contribute to higher transportation costs, trucking attorneys say. The May 14 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transports LLC held that freight brokers are not shielded from some state personal injury lawsuits, potentially expanding liability exposure for intermediaries that arrange truck freight. Attorneys on both sides of the trucking industry said the ruling is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage. “A lot of brokers are going to go to their trucking companies and say, ‘You’ve been running loads with $1 million worth of insurance. Since we’re exposed, you can cause a lot more than $1 million worth of damage,’” Ed Leonard, a partner at San Diego law firm Tyson &amp; Mendes, which represents trucking companies in civil litigation, said. Leonard told the Journal of Commerce that brokers are likely to require higher liability coverage from carriers moving freight, particularly smaller operators with marginal safety records. “They’re going to be asking these trucking companies to buy more insurance,” he said. “This is going to cost more money to get things done.” The ruling could also tighten trucking capacity if higher insurance premiums force some smaller fleets and owner-operators to exit the market, Leonard said. That could place additional upward pressure on freight rates at a time when parts of the trucking industry are already navigating labor and regulatory disruptions. <h3>‘A big deal’ </h3>Plaintiff attorneys, meanwhile, said the decision gives crash victims a significant new legal avenue by allowing brokers to be named in lawsuits involving serious injuries and fatalities. “These major trucking accidents result in deaths, amputations and traumatic brain injuries, and this opens the door to brokers, making them a viable defendant,” said Edward Bassett, a partner at Mirick Law and former president of the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America. “Whether you are popping champagne or Diet Coke at plaintiff firms, this is a big deal.” Bassett said brokers are likely to more carefully scrutinize the carriers they hire, rather than selecting providers primarily on price. “They’re going to start looking carefully at the carriers they hire and not just the cheaper ones,” he said. “They’re being held responsible if they hire fly-by-night companies.” The case decided by the Supreme Court last week stemmed from a 2017 crash in Illinois involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery, who suffered catastrophic injuries and lost a leg after his parked tractor-trailer was struck by another truck. The Supreme Court ruled Montgomery could pursue claims against freight broker C.H. Robinson, which arranged the shipment. Montgomery’s attorneys argued that carrier Caribe Transport II had a poor safety record and that the broker should share liability for hiring it. C.H. Robinson argued that because trucking companies are federally licensed and regulated, brokers should be shielded from state negligence claims tied to carrier safety. The court disagreed, concluding that federal transportation law does not broadly preempt those claims. <h3>Federal data under scrutiny </h3>The decision could renew debate over trucking insurance minimums, which have remained largely unchanged since the Reagan administration. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) currently requires minimum liability coverage ranging from $750,000 to $5 million depending on the type of freight being hauled. Since 1985, Congress has repeatedly considered raising those thresholds or indexing them to inflation, but those efforts have stalled. FMCSA studies have suggested current minimums may be insufficient to cover catastrophic crashes and rising medical costs. Industry groups, however, have argued most claims settle below existing coverage requirements and that raising insurance mandates would disproportionately hurt small and midsize carriers by increasing operating costs. “We think it’s a bad decision. We had to be defending these cases before and we’ll be defending them after,” said Nathaniel Saylor, a partner at transportation law firm Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson &amp; Feary. “The question in these cases before the jury will always be, what is reasonable care. That standard was the standard yesterday and tomorrow as well. Nothing has changed regarding the broker’s duty. But the temperature is up on this issue, and you can expect the plaintiff bar will be pursuing these cases very aggressively.” Saylor said one major issue going forward will be the reliability of FMCSA safety data used by brokers to evaluate carriers, because critics of the system have said the information can be incomplete or outdated. “Brokers are dealing with carriers authorized by the federal government to operate,” Saylor said. “If brokers can be liable, we should at least make sure brokers have the right information available. How is the broker supposed to know that one carrier is more or less safe than another? “More information is good, and it helps,” he added. “With that information, FMCSA can identify unsafe carriers, remove them from the market and ensure the available capacity is safer.” Contact Dan Ronan at <a href="mailto:contactdanronan@gmail.com">contactdanronan@gmail.com</a>. </div>

The unanimous Supreme Court ruling allowing certain state-level negligence claims against freight brokers is expected to increase pressure on motor carriers to carry higher insurance limits and could eventually contribute to higher transportation costs, trucking attorneys say. The May 14 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transports LLC held that freight brokers are not shielded from some state personal injury lawsuits, potentially expanding liability exposure for intermediaries that arrange truck freight. Attorneys on both sides of the trucking industry said the ruling is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage. “A lot of brokers are going to go to their trucking companies and say, ‘You’ve been running loads with $1 million worth of insurance. Since we’re exposed, you can cause a lot more than $1 million worth of damage,’” Ed Leonard, a partner at San Diego law firm Tyson & Mendes, which represents trucking companies in civil litigation, said. Leonard told the Journal of Commerce that brokers are likely to require higher liability coverage from carriers moving freight, particularly smaller operators with marginal safety records. “They’re going to be asking these trucking companies to buy more insurance,” he said. “This is going to cost more money to get things done.” The ruling could also tighten trucking capacity if higher insurance premiums force some smaller fleets and owner-operators to exit the market, Leonard said. That could place additional upward pressure on freight rates at a time when parts of the trucking industry are already navigating labor and regulatory disruptions. ‘A big deal’ Plaintiff attorneys, meanwhile, said the decision gives crash victims a significant new legal avenue by allowing brokers to be named in lawsuits involving serious injuries and fatalities. “These major trucking accidents result in deaths, amputations and traumatic brain injuries, and this opens the door to brokers, making them a viable defendant,” said Edward Bassett, a partner at Mirick Law and former president of the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America. “Whether you are popping champagne or Diet Coke at plaintiff firms, this is a big deal.” Bassett said brokers are likely to more carefully scrutinize the carriers they hire, rather than selecting providers primarily on price. “They’re going to start looking carefully at the carriers they hire and not just the cheaper ones,” he said. “They’re being held responsible if they hire fly-by-night companies.” The case decided by the Supreme Court last week stemmed from a 2017 crash in Illinois involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery, who suffered catastrophic injuries and lost a leg after his parked tractor-trailer was struck by another truck. The Supreme Court ruled Montgomery could pursue claims against freight broker C.H. Robinson, which arranged the shipment. Montgomery’s attorneys argued that carrier Caribe Transport II had a poor safety record and that the broker should share liability for hiring it. C.H. Robinson argued that because trucking companies are federally licensed and regulated, brokers should be shielded from state negligence claims tied to carrier safety. The court disagreed, concluding that federal transportation law does not broadly preempt those claims. Federal data under scrutiny The decision could renew debate over trucking insurance minimums, which have remained largely unchanged since the Reagan administration. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) currently requires minimum liability coverage ranging from $750,000 to $5 million depending on the type of freight being hauled. Since 1985, Congress has repeatedly considered raising those thresholds or indexing them to inflation, but those efforts have stalled. FMCSA studies have suggested current minimums may be insufficient to cover catastrophic crashes and rising medical costs. Industry groups, however, have argued most claims settle below existing coverage requirements and that raising insurance mandates would disproportionately hurt small and midsize carriers by increasing operating costs. “We think it’s a bad decision. We had to be defending these cases before and we’ll be defending them after,” said Nathaniel Saylor, a partner at transportation law firm Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary. “The question in these cases before the jury will always be, what is reasonable care. That standard was the standard yesterday and tomorrow as well. Nothing has changed regarding the broker’s duty. But the temperature is up on this issue, and you can expect the plaintiff bar will be pursuing these cases very aggressively.” Saylor said one major issue going forward will be the reliability of FMCSA safety data used by brokers to evaluate carriers, because critics of the system have said the information can be incomplete or outdated. “Brokers are dealing with carriers authorized by the federal government to operate,” Saylor said. “If brokers can be liable, we should at least make sure brokers have the right information available. How is the broker supposed to know that one carrier is more or less safe than another? “More information is good, and it helps,” he added. “With that information, FMCSA can identify unsafe carriers, remove them from the market and ensure the available capacity is safer.” Contact Dan Ronan at contactdanronan@gmail.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Truck brokers

Trucking labor

Surface

‘Montgomery’ ruling likely to raise pressure on trucking insurance, broker vetting

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Paul Bird will be the next chief executive of the Montreal Port Authority as the gateway looks to his infrastructure expertise amid a major expansion project.</div>

Paul Bird will be the next chief executive of the Montreal Port Authority as the gateway looks to his infrastructure expertise amid a major expansion project.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Montreal is bringing back former commercial officer Paul Bird as its new chief executive, citing his experience with large-scale projects as the port embarks on its biggest expansion ever. The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) said in a statement Friday that Bird will take over as president and chief executive on June 8. Bird, who had been with the MPA since June 2020, had left to pursue new professional opportunities, the MPA said in March. Much of Bird’s previous tenure at the MPA involved helping shepherd through development of the Contrecoeur marine terminal project, which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/montreal-expands-to-handle-container-growth-5212062">had been proposed back in 2015</a>. It faced several delays <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/montreal-relaunches-search-process-for-contrecoeur-terminal-operator-5204826">as the port faced difficulties in finding operating partners</a> willing to help finance the project. The MPA has since <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/montreal-port-gets-federal-funds-for-mega-terminal-after-operators-balk-at-risk-5222977">agreed to handle the underwater work at Contrecoeur</a>, with the help of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/quebec-provides-new-funding-for-proposed-montreal-terminal-citing-us-trade-tensions-5947783">government funding</a> and a recently secured C$1.16 billion loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Citing Bird’s degree in geology and his previous experience with global steel producer ArcelorMittal, the MPA said it was important to have someone with infrastructure experience to develop Contrecoeur, expected to come online in 2030. “Building on significant achievements during his six years at the Port of Montreal, [Bird] is fully committed to contributing actively to the commissioning of the Contrecoeur terminal and to the continued development of new markets,” Nathalie Pilon, chair of the MPA’s board of directors, said in the statement. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Port of Montreal is bringing back former commercial officer Paul Bird as its new chief executive, citing his experience with large-scale projects as the port embarks on its biggest expansion ever. The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) said in a statement Friday that Bird will take over as president and chief executive on June 8. Bird, who had been with the MPA since June 2020, had left to pursue new professional opportunities, the MPA said in March. Much of Bird’s previous tenure at the MPA involved helping shepherd through development of the Contrecoeur marine terminal project, which had been proposed back in 2015 . It faced several delays as the port faced difficulties in finding operating partners willing to help finance the project. The MPA has since agreed to handle the underwater work at Contrecoeur , with the help of government funding and a recently secured C$1.16 billion loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Citing Bird’s degree in geology and his previous experience with global steel producer ArcelorMittal, the MPA said it was important to have someone with infrastructure experience to develop Contrecoeur, expected to come online in 2030. “Building on significant achievements during his six years at the Port of Montreal, [Bird] is fully committed to contributing actively to the commissioning of the Contrecoeur terminal and to the continued development of new markets,” Nathalie Pilon, chair of the MPA’s board of directors, said in the statement. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

Port of Montreal’s former commercial chief to return as CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Vancouver and Prince Rupert recorded solid year-over-year gains in the eastbound trans-Pacific as they focused on improving their intermodal efficiency to the interior of Canada and the US.</div>

Vancouver and Prince Rupert recorded solid year-over-year gains in the eastbound trans-Pacific as they focused on improving their intermodal efficiency to the interior of Canada and the US.

<div class="phx-topic">The Western Canadian ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert are enhancing their presence in the Asia-North America trade by building on their intermodal advantages in serving the interior of North America, resulting in an increase in imports in the first quarter while their western US counterparts recorded a first-quarter import decline. Containerized imports moving through Vancouver in the first quarter increased 9% year over year, while imports in Prince Rupert grew 7.8%, according to data from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. Vancouver, Canada’s largest container gateway, serves both the interior of Canada and the US Midwest with direct inland point intermodal (IPI) service. The most obvious advantage this gives Vancouver over US West Coast ports is that “rail costs are significantly lower from Vancouver to the Midwest than from any US port,” Cliff Stewart, vice president of operations for the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority, told the Journal of Commerce. The rail passage route through the Canadian Rockies to the North American interior is at a much lower altitude than through the US Rocky Mountains, Stewart explained. “It just takes a whole lot less fuel to move a train from Vancouver to Chicago than it does to move a train from either Los Angeles-Long Beach, Northern California or the Puget Sound area,” he said. The Trump administration’s tariffs that were levied on imports from Asia a year ago do not generally influence retailers on how to route their goods because importers must pay the tariffs regardless of whether the containers move through a US or Canadian port, Stewart said. But the tariffs do influence some retailers, namely big-box stores that have outlets in both countries. Those retailers had been shipping their Canadian-destined merchandise as a subcomponent of US shipments from common origins in Asia. The containers entered a US West Coast port, and then the Canadian freight was broken out and moved by truck into Canada. Those big box retailers are now choosing to ship their Canadian freight through Vancouver or Prince Rupert so the Canadian freight is not subject to a US duty, Stewart said. “There’s some repatriation of Canadian-destined cargo back to Canadian ports,” he acknowledged. <h3>US-destined import share declining </h3>That’s not to say that British Columbia ports are growing by focusing only on US-destined cargo. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The port’s records show that US-destined imports as a percentage of Vancouver’s total import volumes have declined steadily from about 25% in 2010 to about 8% today, Stewart said. Rather, the BC ports are focusing even more on attracting import and export cargo to and from Canada’s interior. “Canada is certainly where the growth is coming from,” said Stewart. Still, some high-volume retailers and importers of high-value merchandise are saving money by shipping through the British Columbia ports to avoid other costs, such as the US Harbor Maintenance Tax, he said. Vancouver has also been attracting cargo destined for the Canadian interior that was moving through Montreal and Halifax before the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-mulls-potential-red-sea-return-as-hopes-rise-over-us-iran-deal-6217039">attacks on vessels transiting the Red Sea began more than two years ago</a>, effectively closing the Suez routing and forcing shipowners to take the longer, costlier route around the southern tip of Africa. “It’s cheaper now to come through Vancouver and then rail it to central Canada,” Stewart said. Prince Rupert is likewise experiencing steady growth this year. “We have seen a sustained recovery in all imports compared to previous years,” the port authority said in a statement. This is especially true compared with the first quarter of 2025, when volumes were softer as reconfigured alliances and service strings affected carriers’ arrival schedules, the port said. Prince Rupert, which is also working to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/prince-rupert-promoting-transload-operations-to-improve-logistics-efficiency-5937532">attract more export cargo as well as imports</a>, is developing an intermodal center close to the port to improve intermodal efficiency. The LinX facility is scheduled to open in 2027. <h3>Sharp declines in NWSA </h3>While Vancouver and Prince Rupert saw their import volumes increase in the first quarter, imports declined by 3.6% in Los Angeles, 5.6% in Long Beach, and 6.8% in Oakland, according to Sea-Intelligence. The Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma (NWSA) was especially hard-hit, with first-quarter imports declining 18% year over year. For more than a decade now, US West Coast ports have been losing market share of US imports from Asia to ports along the East and Gulf coasts, given their location closer to major population centers in the eastern half of the country where two-thirds of the US population resides. Still, that share can shift considerably from month to month based on market dynamics and seasonality. In March, the West Coast had a market share of 53.2% for US imports from Asia, with the East Coast at 37.8% and the Gulf Coast at 9%, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. For April, the shares had moved significantly, with the West Coast jumping to 61.9%, the East Coast falling to 30.5%, and the Gulf slipping to 7.6%. The West Coast’s share last month was the highest since last June. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="14122523-b515-4dea-a851-1389ef954bcd"></dynamic-object></div>Competition among US West Coast ports for imports from Asia has become a battle of internal competition, with Los Angeles-Long Beach capitalizing on the steep losses in the NWSA, said Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). PMSA represents shipping lines and USWC terminal operators on regulatory issues. “You’re looking at an amazing amount of consolidation in Southern California,” Jacob told the Journal of Commerce. Carriers and railroads seek density in freight volumes. Carriers continue to deploy the bulk of their assets in Southern California, which has not only a much larger local population, but also offers intermodal services to most regions to the east, including Dallas, Kansas City, Chicago, Columbus, and Atlanta. Intermodal services from the NWSA are limited primarily to Chicago and the Midwest, Jacob said. “LA-LB isn’t just attempting to claw back market share from the East and Gulf coast ports,” he said. “They’re at the same time consolidating volumes from across the entire West Coast.” In order to stem its loss of cargo and return to growth, Jacob believes the NWSA must double down on its investments in intermodal infrastructure and focus on promoting more efficient, lower-cost IPI service. For its part, the NWSA said it is taking PMSA’s admonition to invest in infrastructure and intermodal efficiency seriously. “The market share trends PMSA has documented are real and we are investing accordingly — in terminal infrastructure, increased intermodal efficiency and aggressive efforts to attract and retain services,” the NWSA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “We are not complacent about our long-term competitive position and instead are doubling down on our best-in-class service and port investment.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Western Canadian ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert are enhancing their presence in the Asia-North America trade by building on their intermodal advantages in serving the interior of North America, resulting in an increase in imports in the first quarter while their western US counterparts recorded a first-quarter import decline. Containerized imports moving through Vancouver in the first quarter increased 9% year over year, while imports in Prince Rupert grew 7.8%, according to data from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. Vancouver, Canada’s largest container gateway, serves both the interior of Canada and the US Midwest with direct inland point intermodal (IPI) service. The most obvious advantage this gives Vancouver over US West Coast ports is that “rail costs are significantly lower from Vancouver to the Midwest than from any US port,” Cliff Stewart, vice president of operations for the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority, told the Journal of Commerce. The rail passage route through the Canadian Rockies to the North American interior is at a much lower altitude than through the US Rocky Mountains, Stewart explained. “It just takes a whole lot less fuel to move a train from Vancouver to Chicago than it does to move a train from either Los Angeles-Long Beach, Northern California or the Puget Sound area,” he said. The Trump administration’s tariffs that were levied on imports from Asia a year ago do not generally influence retailers on how to route their goods because importers must pay the tariffs regardless of whether the containers move through a US or Canadian port, Stewart said. But the tariffs do influence some retailers, namely big-box stores that have outlets in both countries. Those retailers had been shipping their Canadian-destined merchandise as a subcomponent of US shipments from common origins in Asia. The containers entered a US West Coast port, and then the Canadian freight was broken out and moved by truck into Canada. Those big box retailers are now choosing to ship their Canadian freight through Vancouver or Prince Rupert so the Canadian freight is not subject to a US duty, Stewart said. “There’s some repatriation of Canadian-destined cargo back to Canadian ports,” he acknowledged. US-destined import share declining That’s not to say that British Columbia ports are growing by focusing only on US-destined cargo. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The port’s records show that US-destined imports as a percentage of Vancouver’s total import volumes have declined steadily from about 25% in 2010 to about 8% today, Stewart said. Rather, the BC ports are focusing even more on attracting import and export cargo to and from Canada’s interior. “Canada is certainly where the growth is coming from,” said Stewart. Still, some high-volume retailers and importers of high-value merchandise are saving money by shipping through the British Columbia ports to avoid other costs, such as the US Harbor Maintenance Tax, he said. Vancouver has also been attracting cargo destined for the Canadian interior that was moving through Montreal and Halifax before the attacks on vessels transiting the Red Sea began more than two years ago , effectively closing the Suez routing and forcing shipowners to take the longer, costlier route around the southern tip of Africa. “It’s cheaper now to come through Vancouver and then rail it to central Canada,” Stewart said. Prince Rupert is likewise experiencing steady growth this year. “We have seen a sustained recovery in all imports compared to previous years,” the port authority said in a statement. This is especially true compared with the first quarter of 2025, when volumes were softer as reconfigured alliances and service strings affected carriers’ arrival schedules, the port said. Prince Rupert, which is also working to attract more export cargo as well as imports , is developing an intermodal center close to the port to improve intermodal efficiency. The LinX facility is scheduled to open in 2027. Sharp declines in NWSA While Vancouver and Prince Rupert saw their import volumes increase in the first quarter, imports declined by 3.6% in Los Angeles, 5.6% in Long Beach, and 6.8% in Oakland, according to Sea-Intelligence. The Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma (NWSA) was especially hard-hit, with first-quarter imports declining 18% year over year. For more than a decade now, US West Coast ports have been losing market share of US imports from Asia to ports along the East and Gulf coasts, given their location closer to major population centers in the eastern half of the country where two-thirds of the US population resides. Still, that share can shift considerably from month to month based on market dynamics and seasonality. In March, the West Coast had a market share of 53.2% for US imports from Asia, with the East Coast at 37.8% and the Gulf Coast at 9%, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. For April, the shares had moved significantly, with the West Coast jumping to 61.9%, the East Coast falling to 30.5%, and the Gulf slipping to 7.6%. The West Coast’s share last month was the highest since last June. Competition among US West Coast ports for imports from Asia has become a battle of internal competition, with Los Angeles-Long Beach capitalizing on the steep losses in the NWSA, said Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). PMSA represents shipping lines and USWC terminal operators on regulatory issues. “You’re looking at an amazing amount of consolidation in Southern California,” Jacob told the Journal of Commerce. Carriers and railroads seek density in freight volumes. Carriers continue to deploy the bulk of their assets in Southern California, which has not only a much larger local population, but also offers intermodal services to most regions to the east, including Dallas, Kansas City, Chicago, Columbus, and Atlanta. Intermodal services from the NWSA are limited primarily to Chicago and the Midwest, Jacob said. “LA-LB isn’t just attempting to claw back market share from the East and Gulf coast ports,” he said. “They’re at the same time consolidating volumes from across the entire West Coast.” In order to stem its loss of cargo and return to growth, Jacob believes the NWSA must double down on its investments in intermodal infrastructure and focus on promoting more efficient, lower-cost IPI service. For its part, the NWSA said it is taking PMSA’s admonition to invest in infrastructure and intermodal efficiency seriously. “The market share trends PMSA has documented are real and we are investing accordingly — in terminal infrastructure, increased intermodal efficiency and aggressive efforts to attract and retain services,” the NWSA said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “We are not complacent about our long-term competitive position and instead are doubling down on our best-in-class service and port investment.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Western Canadian ports push IPI advantage to grow Q1 imports from Asia

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">New legislation passed by the US House will help fight cargo crime, but theft prevention starts with identity verification, experts told a Journal of Commerce webcast.</div>

New legislation passed by the US House will help fight cargo crime, but theft prevention starts with identity verification, experts told a Journal of Commerce webcast.

<div class="phx-topic">Logistics groups and executives are welcoming federal legislation that would help combat cargo crime, but warn that new laws are no “silver bullet” in the battle for supply chain security. Speakers on a Journal of Commerce webcast this week emphasized the need for freight shippers and brokers to verify the identities of truck drivers and motor carriers. Proactive verification of identities is a key step toward preventing cargo crime in the first place, before a theft takes place and law enforcement becomes involved, they said. “We’ve seen a lot of investment in carrier onboarding, and we haven’t seen as much on driver verification until recently,” Aqil Naeem, co-founder and CEO of technology company E3 Group, said during the webcast. His company launched a driver verification system last month. “There are really three tiers to the ID of anyone picking up a load: the dispatcher, the carrier and the actual driver,” Naeem said. “It would be a mistake to focus only on one layer.” Naeem spoke after the US House of Representatives easily <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2853">passed the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act (CORCA) of 2025</a> on Tuesday. The bill would make it easier for federal and state authorities to prosecute cargo crimes. CORCA, which now goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, would also establish a supply chain crime response center within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). That could foster greater coordination among federal and state agencies. “It’s a significant step in the right direction,” Jeff Tucker, CEO of logistics provider Tucker Company Worldwide, told the Journal of Commerce webcast. “The proof is going to be in the execution. What will the coordination look like?” <h3>Supreme Court ruling raises stakes </h3>On Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/knight-swift-making-safety-related-cuts-to-brokerage-fleet-6210440">automatically shield freight brokers</a> from accident lawsuits alleging they hired unsafe motor carriers. The unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II is expected to focus more attention on verification and vetting throughout the supply chain, starting with brokers. That has implications for cargo security, as well as highway safety. “Brokers are best positioned to detect anomalies,” said Naeem. “But you can’t just point your finger exclusively at brokers if something goes wrong.” Fraud permeates every link in the supply chain, according to Tucker. “To suggest this issue is a broker problem is missing a huge point,” he said. “There’s fraud happening at the broker, carrier and shipper level. We recently experienced a fraudulent shipper, an imposter. Bad actors are trying to find a weak link.” Many brokers already go far beyond federal requirements when it comes to carrier vetting. Shippers are demanding greater security, Tucker said. “We had one recent RFP [request for proposal] which had 70 questions about our technology,” he said. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/knight-swift-making-safety-related-cuts-to-brokerage-fleet-6210440">made deep cuts</a> in its pool of third-party brokerage carriers in the first quarter, targeting businesses that company officials said may be unsafe. Identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck is a real challenge for brokers and shippers, Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” he said. “We’re already seeing that.” Greater coordination, not just among agencies but among supply chain partners, is crucial, said Keith Lewis, vice president of operations at CargoNet, a Verisk company. “This is not a broker issue. This is an everybody involved in the supply chain issue,” Lewis said during the webcast. “Don’t look at the government as a silver bullet,” he added. “We already have cargo theft laws on the books. We need money to pay for enforcement.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Logistics groups and executives are welcoming federal legislation that would help combat cargo crime, but warn that new laws are no “silver bullet” in the battle for supply chain security. Speakers on a Journal of Commerce webcast this week emphasized the need for freight shippers and brokers to verify the identities of truck drivers and motor carriers. Proactive verification of identities is a key step toward preventing cargo crime in the first place, before a theft takes place and law enforcement becomes involved, they said. “We’ve seen a lot of investment in carrier onboarding, and we haven’t seen as much on driver verification until recently,” Aqil Naeem, co-founder and CEO of technology company E3 Group, said during the webcast. His company launched a driver verification system last month. “There are really three tiers to the ID of anyone picking up a load: the dispatcher, the carrier and the actual driver,” Naeem said. “It would be a mistake to focus only on one layer.” Naeem spoke after the US House of Representatives easily passed the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act (CORCA) of 2025 on Tuesday. The bill would make it easier for federal and state authorities to prosecute cargo crimes. CORCA, which now goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, would also establish a supply chain crime response center within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). That could foster greater coordination among federal and state agencies. “It’s a significant step in the right direction,” Jeff Tucker, CEO of logistics provider Tucker Company Worldwide, told the Journal of Commerce webcast. “The proof is going to be in the execution. What will the coordination look like?” Supreme Court ruling raises stakes On Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not automatically shield freight brokers from accident lawsuits alleging they hired unsafe motor carriers. The unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II is expected to focus more attention on verification and vetting throughout the supply chain, starting with brokers. That has implications for cargo security, as well as highway safety. “Brokers are best positioned to detect anomalies,” said Naeem. “But you can’t just point your finger exclusively at brokers if something goes wrong.” Fraud permeates every link in the supply chain, according to Tucker. “To suggest this issue is a broker problem is missing a huge point,” he said. “There’s fraud happening at the broker, carrier and shipper level. We recently experienced a fraudulent shipper, an imposter. Bad actors are trying to find a weak link.” Many brokers already go far beyond federal requirements when it comes to carrier vetting. Shippers are demanding greater security, Tucker said. “We had one recent RFP [request for proposal] which had 70 questions about our technology,” he said. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings made deep cuts in its pool of third-party brokerage carriers in the first quarter, targeting businesses that company officials said may be unsafe. Identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck is a real challenge for brokers and shippers, Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” he said. “We’re already seeing that.” Greater coordination, not just among agencies but among supply chain partners, is crucial, said Keith Lewis, vice president of operations at CargoNet, a Verisk company. “This is not a broker issue. This is an everybody involved in the supply chain issue,” Lewis said during the webcast. “Don’t look at the government as a silver bullet,” he added. “We already have cargo theft laws on the books. We need money to pay for enforcement.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Supply chain

Verify supply chain IDs, starting with drivers: logistics experts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The application of emergency fuel charges amid the war in the Middle East is the latest episode in poorly thought-out ideas and “short-termism” by carriers that has hammered another nail in the coffin of trust between them and BCOs. </div>

The application of emergency fuel charges amid the war in the Middle East is the latest episode in poorly thought-out ideas and “short-termism” by carriers that has hammered another nail in the coffin of trust between them and BCOs.

<div class="phx-topic">Trust, like any other brand, takes a long time to build. It requires patience, competence, consistency, reliability, and the impression (not always reality) of being not too self-serving. On the other side of the equation, trust is fragile and, depending on the action, can erode over time or vanish in a puff of smoke. I will not attempt to speculate on individual carrier and beneficial cargo owner (BCO) relationships as they are both individualistic and often dependent on one-to-one relationships rather than structural business-to-business in the wider sense. And so to describe the state of BCO-carrier relationships broadly, there is a predominance of mistrust on both sides. Part of this is structural and dates back to the early days of container shipping where the rules were unclear and many of the actors came from a bulk shipping background where charter parties were the benchmark of BCO/carrier contractual and relationship behavior. I recall a venerable shipper, steeped in charter party fine details, insisting we had to position refrigerated containers AND a vessel into Rockhampton, Queensland (Australia), as this was a named port in the annual meat shippers’ negotiations with the Japan Shipping conference. Needless to say, we didn’t do so, much to his disgust. And so it continued through the years. Carriers slowly shifting from trying to manage providing a service and making a profit to maximizing profit, while shippers played at relationships, too. BCOs cashed in when markets crashed and tried to limit the damage when markets were high. Meanwhile, carriers abandoned their attempt to provide a service versus profit. Schedule reliability is laughably low by any measure despite the best efforts to constrain supply through blank sailings, abandoning the chassis market, schedule slippages, etc. All make complete commercial and financial sense, but all contribute to erosion of trust. Shippers have not helped this dynamic, either, with poor forecasting, “best estimate” of volumes, etc., giving many a low reliability standing with carriers. <h3>A ‘new low’ after the pandemic </h3>COVID-19 ushered in a new low, with carriers generating extraordinary profits and cash piles enough to placate their long-suffering shareholders, allowing them to engage in seemingly random excursions into tangential asset plays (aircraft, tankers etc.) while retaining enough cash for the inevitable cyclical downturn. The downturn did not arrive, but in its place we found the geopolitical mess of the war that led to the effective closing of the Strait of Hormuz with all its implications for shipping and seafarers. Which leads to the latest significant erosion of trust. While spot rates typically incorporate the bunker adjustment factor (BAF) and other surcharges into an all-in price (quote, not invoice), a BCO has two contract options for a BAF mechanism. They can choose the carrier-published rates (some BCOs have been coerced to use these), or they can use their own formulas. BAF mechanisms are usually set for a quarter with a tolerance for movement above or below a certain percentage. For example, if the BAF moves 2%, this would be considered an insufficient change to warrant the administration required, thus a threshold is typically set at 5%. However, in either case the mechanism has relied on one overriding truth. The calculation is made at an agreed point before the end of the quarter, and the new BAF (if beyond the threshold) is applied for the subsequent quarter. This means that any significant movement up or down within the current quarter will only be recovered in the subsequent quarter. <h3>‘When is a contract not a contract?’ </h3>Certain carriers have insisted that an emergency BAF is warranted. BCOs read the papers too and know there is a major price and supply issue. Many BCOs have asked for detailed clarification in order to get a sense of what is being asked. In some cases, a flat rate across trades was proposed, which makes no sense. Account managers providing the advice were in most cases unable to explain in any detail what was proposed. Another point of contention is the carrier assertion they are burning cash because of fuel while accumulating cash over time to cover at least three years of operations. As one BCO said to me: “When is a contract not a contract?” This latest episode in poorly thought-out ideas and “short-termism” by carriers has hammered another nail in the coffin of trust between them and BCOs. Surely not the final one? John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>. </div>

Trust, like any other brand, takes a long time to build. It requires patience, competence, consistency, reliability, and the impression (not always reality) of being not too self-serving. On the other side of the equation, trust is fragile and, depending on the action, can erode over time or vanish in a puff of smoke. I will not attempt to speculate on individual carrier and beneficial cargo owner (BCO) relationships as they are both individualistic and often dependent on one-to-one relationships rather than structural business-to-business in the wider sense. And so to describe the state of BCO-carrier relationships broadly, there is a predominance of mistrust on both sides. Part of this is structural and dates back to the early days of container shipping where the rules were unclear and many of the actors came from a bulk shipping background where charter parties were the benchmark of BCO/carrier contractual and relationship behavior. I recall a venerable shipper, steeped in charter party fine details, insisting we had to position refrigerated containers AND a vessel into Rockhampton, Queensland (Australia), as this was a named port in the annual meat shippers’ negotiations with the Japan Shipping conference. Needless to say, we didn’t do so, much to his disgust. And so it continued through the years. Carriers slowly shifting from trying to manage providing a service and making a profit to maximizing profit, while shippers played at relationships, too. BCOs cashed in when markets crashed and tried to limit the damage when markets were high. Meanwhile, carriers abandoned their attempt to provide a service versus profit. Schedule reliability is laughably low by any measure despite the best efforts to constrain supply through blank sailings, abandoning the chassis market, schedule slippages, etc. All make complete commercial and financial sense, but all contribute to erosion of trust. Shippers have not helped this dynamic, either, with poor forecasting, “best estimate” of volumes, etc., giving many a low reliability standing with carriers. A ‘new low’ after the pandemic COVID-19 ushered in a new low, with carriers generating extraordinary profits and cash piles enough to placate their long-suffering shareholders, allowing them to engage in seemingly random excursions into tangential asset plays (aircraft, tankers etc.) while retaining enough cash for the inevitable cyclical downturn. The downturn did not arrive, but in its place we found the geopolitical mess of the war that led to the effective closing of the Strait of Hormuz with all its implications for shipping and seafarers. Which leads to the latest significant erosion of trust. While spot rates typically incorporate the bunker adjustment factor (BAF) and other surcharges into an all-in price (quote, not invoice), a BCO has two contract options for a BAF mechanism. They can choose the carrier-published rates (some BCOs have been coerced to use these), or they can use their own formulas. BAF mechanisms are usually set for a quarter with a tolerance for movement above or below a certain percentage. For example, if the BAF moves 2%, this would be considered an insufficient change to warrant the administration required, thus a threshold is typically set at 5%. However, in either case the mechanism has relied on one overriding truth. The calculation is made at an agreed point before the end of the quarter, and the new BAF (if beyond the threshold) is applied for the subsequent quarter. This means that any significant movement up or down within the current quarter will only be recovered in the subsequent quarter. ‘When is a contract not a contract?’ Certain carriers have insisted that an emergency BAF is warranted. BCOs read the papers too and know there is a major price and supply issue. Many BCOs have asked for detailed clarification in order to get a sense of what is being asked. In some cases, a flat rate across trades was proposed, which makes no sense. Account managers providing the advice were in most cases unable to explain in any detail what was proposed. Another point of contention is the carrier assertion they are burning cash because of fuel while accumulating cash over time to cover at least three years of operations. As one BCO said to me: “When is a contract not a contract?” This latest episode in poorly thought-out ideas and “short-termism” by carriers has hammered another nail in the coffin of trust between them and BCOs. Surely not the final one? John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Container lines

Another nail in the coffin of trust between carriers, clients

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">ASCS debuted last week with great fanfare; now that the dust has settled, the question for shipper traffic and procurement teams is more practical: What do we do about it?</div>

ASCS debuted last week with great fanfare; now that the dust has settled, the question for shipper traffic and procurement teams is more practical: What do we do about it?

<div class="phx-topic">Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/amazons-3pl-foray-marketing-ploy-or-existential-threat-to-3pls-6215791">launched on May 4</a>. By the end of June, it will land on every shipper’s desk as either an inbound sales call or a CFO-mandated cost study. The market reaction was dramatic: UPS down more than 10% on launch day, FedEx down 9%, GXO and Forward Air down double digits. The question for shipper traffic and procurement teams is more practical. What do we do about it? At Maersk, I ran a multi-billion-dollar procurement portfolio. The benchmarking tools we used were built to evaluate rate, service tier, and capacity reliability. None were built to evaluate a trade in which the cost of a service is partial control of our own demand data. ASCS forces that trade. Most procurement organizations do not have a playbook for it. Here is the framework I would run today: <h3>What data does Amazon need, and what data does Amazon retain? </h3>The rate is not the cost. The rate plus the data exposure is the cost. Before any commercial conversation, map exactly what data Amazon ingests across forecasting, transportation, inventory and fulfillment, and what Amazon retains and aggregates outside your account. Patrick Tyler Brown at Raymond James flagged this as the central shipper concern in his post-launch note. The contract language matters more than the rate sheet. <h3>What is the exit cost in 24 months? </h3>Every logistics decision has a switching cost. ASCS’s switching cost is structurally higher than a typical third-party logistics provider (3PL) relationship because the data dependency compounds. Once Amazon’s forecasting models are tuned to your demand pattern, leaving means rebuilding that capability internally or with another partner. If you cannot articulate a clean 24-month exit, you do not have a contract. You have a dependency. <h3>Does ASCS make sense for your network? </h3>Three categories where the answer is yes: long-tail small and medium-sized business customer lanes where current 3PL service is uneven, and volume does not justify direct carrier contracting; regional fulfillment positioning where Amazon’s 200-plus US node count creates a service tier you cannot replicate; and specific intermodal corridors where Amazon’s 24,000 container fleet provides density your current intermodal marketing company (IMC) cannot match. Three categories where the answer is no: lanes where you have enough volume to negotiate directly with the steamship line, the Class I railroad, or the less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier; lanes that touch your most strategic customer relationships; and lanes where your demand data is itself a competitive advantage in your industry. <h3>What is the hybrid model that protects optionality? </h3>The decision is not binary. Most shippers should run a hybrid. The mistake is going all in on rate compression and discovering at the next contract cycle that you no longer have a benchmarking baseline outside the Amazon network. LTL is a useful test case. Amazon Freight already operates inbound LTL into its own fulfillment network and is expanding shipper outreach. FedEx Freight spins off as an independent public company on June 1. Shippers who lock LTL into ASCS without evaluating FDXF will be repricing that decision in 2027. <h3>Is your procurement organization equipped to make this decision? </h3>The honest answer for most teams is no. Procurement organizations were built around request-for-proposal cadence, contract management, cost-per-mode benchmarking, and supplier scorecards. None of those tools price the data-exposure trade. A real ASCS evaluation needs three things most teams do not have: a data governance reviewer with authority to veto data terms, a contract attorney with experience in cloud-style master service agreements rather than transportation contracts, and a scenario modeler who can run the eight-year dependency curve, not just the 12-month rate comparison. Most folks thought USPS had a moat on rural deliveries. Think again. The shippers using 2010 procurement frameworks to evaluate 2026 architecture decisions are about to repeat the mistake. <h3>The bottom line </h3>ASCS is a real product with real network capability. For some lanes and some shippers, it will be the right answer. For others, it will be a strategic mistake dressed up as a cost saving. The difference will not be visible on the rate sheet. It will be visible at the eight-year mark when one set of shippers has built optionality, and another set has built dependency. The CFO is going to ask the question. Be ready with the framework before the question arrives. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals &amp; Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) launched on May 4 . By the end of June, it will land on every shipper’s desk as either an inbound sales call or a CFO-mandated cost study. The market reaction was dramatic: UPS down more than 10% on launch day, FedEx down 9%, GXO and Forward Air down double digits. The question for shipper traffic and procurement teams is more practical. What do we do about it? At Maersk, I ran a multi-billion-dollar procurement portfolio. The benchmarking tools we used were built to evaluate rate, service tier, and capacity reliability. None were built to evaluate a trade in which the cost of a service is partial control of our own demand data. ASCS forces that trade. Most procurement organizations do not have a playbook for it. Here is the framework I would run today: What data does Amazon need, and what data does Amazon retain? The rate is not the cost. The rate plus the data exposure is the cost. Before any commercial conversation, map exactly what data Amazon ingests across forecasting, transportation, inventory and fulfillment, and what Amazon retains and aggregates outside your account. Patrick Tyler Brown at Raymond James flagged this as the central shipper concern in his post-launch note. The contract language matters more than the rate sheet. What is the exit cost in 24 months? Every logistics decision has a switching cost. ASCS’s switching cost is structurally higher than a typical third-party logistics provider (3PL) relationship because the data dependency compounds. Once Amazon’s forecasting models are tuned to your demand pattern, leaving means rebuilding that capability internally or with another partner. If you cannot articulate a clean 24-month exit, you do not have a contract. You have a dependency. Does ASCS make sense for your network? Three categories where the answer is yes: long-tail small and medium-sized business customer lanes where current 3PL service is uneven, and volume does not justify direct carrier contracting; regional fulfillment positioning where Amazon’s 200-plus US node count creates a service tier you cannot replicate; and specific intermodal corridors where Amazon’s 24,000 container fleet provides density your current intermodal marketing company (IMC) cannot match. Three categories where the answer is no: lanes where you have enough volume to negotiate directly with the steamship line, the Class I railroad, or the less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier; lanes that touch your most strategic customer relationships; and lanes where your demand data is itself a competitive advantage in your industry. What is the hybrid model that protects optionality? The decision is not binary. Most shippers should run a hybrid. The mistake is going all in on rate compression and discovering at the next contract cycle that you no longer have a benchmarking baseline outside the Amazon network. LTL is a useful test case. Amazon Freight already operates inbound LTL into its own fulfillment network and is expanding shipper outreach. FedEx Freight spins off as an independent public company on June 1. Shippers who lock LTL into ASCS without evaluating FDXF will be repricing that decision in 2027. Is your procurement organization equipped to make this decision? The honest answer for most teams is no. Procurement organizations were built around request-for-proposal cadence, contract management, cost-per-mode benchmarking, and supplier scorecards. None of those tools price the data-exposure trade. A real ASCS evaluation needs three things most teams do not have: a data governance reviewer with authority to veto data terms, a contract attorney with experience in cloud-style master service agreements rather than transportation contracts, and a scenario modeler who can run the eight-year dependency curve, not just the 12-month rate comparison. Most folks thought USPS had a moat on rural deliveries. Think again. The shippers using 2010 procurement frameworks to evaluate 2026 architecture decisions are about to repeat the mistake. The bottom line ASCS is a real product with real network capability. For some lanes and some shippers, it will be the right answer. For others, it will be a strategic mistake dressed up as a cost saving. The difference will not be visible on the rate sheet. It will be visible at the eight-year mark when one set of shippers has built optionality, and another set has built dependency. The CFO is going to ask the question. Be ready with the framework before the question arrives. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals & Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

A shipper’s decision framework for Amazon Supply Chain Services

Year-over-year % change

PIERS containerized US import and export volumes is the transportation industry’s largest US waterborne trade data set, covering all US ports. Every day, the PIERS team processes an average of about 60,000 bills of lading filed with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and integrates this transactional trade data with standardized company details. PIERS contains US trade data going back to 2003. [PIERS](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/products/piers.html)

Asia to US container volumes (PIERS)

PIERS Total US imports from Asia (Monthly) (year-over-year change) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The issue of carrier terminal control is front and center with the coming sale of Maher given that carriers overall have become aggressive acquirers and developers of terminal capacity globally, including on the US East Coast. </div>

The issue of carrier terminal control is front and center with the coming sale of Maher given that carriers overall have become aggressive acquirers and developers of terminal capacity globally, including on the US East Coast.

<div class="phx-topic">As Maher Terminals, the largest terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, is being prepped for sale with active discussions under way with potential buyers, a possible unfavorable outcome for the port is for all major terminals ending up owned by ocean carriers. The 450-acre Maher facility in New Jersey, at approximately one-third of container capacity and market share within the port, is the last remaining non-carrier-owned terminal following the 2023 acquisition by CMA CGM of previously neutral Global Container Terminals facilities at Bayonne and Howland Hook, other than a small facility in Brooklyn under control of the NYC Economic Development Corp. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6218881_0.1.jpg"></img></div>If Maher were to be sold to a carrier by its owner, Macquarie Asset Management, the result could be several large carriers who don’t own terminals at the port ending up as customers of other carriers. Those carriers and their customers would thus be left at a perpetual disadvantage in terms of berth windows and cargo handling when serving New York-New Jersey. That would make the port less attractive for such carriers versus competitive ports for inland cargo such as Virginia that are operated on a neutral basis. “Maher Terminals has combined an exceptional leadership team with expansive capital investment to create a leading neutral stevedoring operation on the East Coast,” said Ken O’Brien, CEO of Gemini Shippers Group. “It is hard to envision how a purchase of the terminal by one of the liner companies would lead to improved service levels.” The other major terminals partly or fully carrier-owned are APM Terminals, a unit of AP Moller-Maersk; and Port Newark Container Terminal, or PNCT, which is 50% owned by Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), the terminal operating business of Mediterranean Shipping Co. Different outcomes are possible. If Maher were sold to MSC, the world’s largest carrier and an aggressive acquirer of terminal space in the US and globally, it would likely force MSC to sell its PNCT stake due to antitrust concerns over market dominance at the East Coast’s largest port, according to a knowledgeable source. MSC is one of the parties that have expressed interest in Maher, according to a February <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/maritime-giants-target-major-new-york-area-port-terminal-3ba57f47?mod=Searchresults&amp;pos=1&amp;page=1">report</a> in the Wall Street Journal. Such a scenario could leave PNCT in the hands of neutral owners, giving the port a common-user facility. “It is important to the port’s competitiveness to retain a common-user facility,” a source said. <h3>Carriers’ healthy appetite for terminal assets </h3>The issue of carrier terminal control is front and center with the impending sale of Maher given that carriers overall have become aggressive acquirers and developers of terminal capacity globally, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/more-carrier-controlled-terminal-operations-could-be-coming-to-the-east-coast-6207482">including on the US East Coast</a>. For example, if Maher were to fall into the hands of Hapag-Lloyd or Ocean Network Express (ONE), both top 10 carriers that are expanding their terminal portfolios, it could leave the port as essentially a closed shop where non-terminal operating carriers are deprioritized, making the port less competitive overall. The reason is that while carrier-owned terminals often claim to be neutral, in reality they are not. “Within carriers that own terminals, internal debates take place between the port operations team and the liner teams regarding terminals the carrier owns,” said George Goldman, former president of Zim Integrated Shipping Services and CMA CGM in the US. “Third-party terminal revenue is a big deal for the terminal guys, but ultimately decisions pay homage to the mothership and ultimately preference is given to the carrier.” He added: “Independent carriers really have very little leverage so ... I think ultimately it’s a disadvantage for them and the industry.” Such are the implications for non-terminal-owning carriers that — depending on who the buyer is — it could impact alliances and port calls on the US East Coast, said a port expert who asked to remain anonymous. <h3>‘Single-most attractive terminal target in the world’ </h3>The Maher sale, moreover, isn’t just any transaction. It’s the premier terminal property in the heart of the world’s <a href="https://financesonline.com/10-wealthiest-cities-in-the-world-its-not-new-york-or-london-at-the-top/">second-largest</a> metropolitan region by GDP, as well as a dominant player within a strategically located port that over several years has held its own among competitors. The Maher facility is “the single-most attractive terminal target in the world today,” according to the knowledgeable source. The import market share of New York-New Jersey among Northeast ports (including Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Virginia) was 63.1% in 2025 versus 63.6% in 2020, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. A further benefit to NY-NJ stems from long-term growth in East Coast market share as Asia manufacturing gravitates south from China, which favors the westbound route into North America. It has been widely reported that Maher will be put up for sale in the coming months by Macquarie. JP Morgan has been named as the sell-side advisor, according to Infralogic, an infrastructure publication. The bank is incentivized to achieve a price possibly as lofty as $6 billion, said the knowledgeable source. Macquarie in December renewed Maher’s lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for 33 years through 2063, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/macquarie-seals-deal-for-new-maher-lease-at-nynj-through-2063-6137751">agreeing</a> to terms that include responsibility for upkeep of wharves and berths and a commitment to increase capacity in line with demand. The lease renewal was seen as a critical step in Macquarie’s ability to put the terminal up for sale as it removes uncertainty as to what a buyer is committing to. The knowledgeable source said the terminal, which was acquired by Macquarie from Deutsche Bank in 2016, will attract interest from potential buyers including carrier-owned terminal operators, independent operators such as DP World, PSA or Carrix, as well as potentially infrastructure-focused financial players. Yet with indications the port is committed to maintaining a common-user facility within the port, it remains to be seen whether it will intervene to achieve that result given that it has the right to approve the Maher transaction but can’t dictate who the buyer would be. Some port sources speculate that Macquarie would not have renewed the Maher lease without a commitment from the port not to reopen the lease as a condition for approving the sale, which it did to force concessions from CMA CGM regarding the Global terminals deal. A spokesperson for the port of NY-NJ would only say: “We are unable to comment on possible sales or negotiations.” Macquarie could not be reached for comment. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

As Maher Terminals, the largest terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, is being prepped for sale with active discussions under way with potential buyers, a possible unfavorable outcome for the port is for all major terminals ending up owned by ocean carriers. The 450-acre Maher facility in New Jersey, at approximately one-third of container capacity and market share within the port, is the last remaining non-carrier-owned terminal following the 2023 acquisition by CMA CGM of previously neutral Global Container Terminals facilities at Bayonne and Howland Hook, other than a small facility in Brooklyn under control of the NYC Economic Development Corp. If Maher were to be sold to a carrier by its owner, Macquarie Asset Management, the result could be several large carriers who don’t own terminals at the port ending up as customers of other carriers. Those carriers and their customers would thus be left at a perpetual disadvantage in terms of berth windows and cargo handling when serving New York-New Jersey. That would make the port less attractive for such carriers versus competitive ports for inland cargo such as Virginia that are operated on a neutral basis. “Maher Terminals has combined an exceptional leadership team with expansive capital investment to create a leading neutral stevedoring operation on the East Coast,” said Ken O’Brien, CEO of Gemini Shippers Group. “It is hard to envision how a purchase of the terminal by one of the liner companies would lead to improved service levels.” The other major terminals partly or fully carrier-owned are APM Terminals, a unit of AP Moller-Maersk; and Port Newark Container Terminal, or PNCT, which is 50% owned by Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), the terminal operating business of Mediterranean Shipping Co. Different outcomes are possible. If Maher were sold to MSC, the world’s largest carrier and an aggressive acquirer of terminal space in the US and globally, it would likely force MSC to sell its PNCT stake due to antitrust concerns over market dominance at the East Coast’s largest port, according to a knowledgeable source. MSC is one of the parties that have expressed interest in Maher, according to a February report in the Wall Street Journal. Such a scenario could leave PNCT in the hands of neutral owners, giving the port a common-user facility. “It is important to the port’s competitiveness to retain a common-user facility,” a source said. Carriers’ healthy appetite for terminal assets The issue of carrier terminal control is front and center with the impending sale of Maher given that carriers overall have become aggressive acquirers and developers of terminal capacity globally, including on the US East Coast . For example, if Maher were to fall into the hands of Hapag-Lloyd or Ocean Network Express (ONE), both top 10 carriers that are expanding their terminal portfolios, it could leave the port as essentially a closed shop where non-terminal operating carriers are deprioritized, making the port less competitive overall. The reason is that while carrier-owned terminals often claim to be neutral, in reality they are not. “Within carriers that own terminals, internal debates take place between the port operations team and the liner teams regarding terminals the carrier owns,” said George Goldman, former president of Zim Integrated Shipping Services and CMA CGM in the US. “Third-party terminal revenue is a big deal for the terminal guys, but ultimately decisions pay homage to the mothership and ultimately preference is given to the carrier.” He added: “Independent carriers really have very little leverage so ... I think ultimately it’s a disadvantage for them and the industry.” Such are the implications for non-terminal-owning carriers that — depending on who the buyer is — it could impact alliances and port calls on the US East Coast, said a port expert who asked to remain anonymous. ‘Single-most attractive terminal target in the world’ The Maher sale, moreover, isn’t just any transaction. It’s the premier terminal property in the heart of the world’s second-largest metropolitan region by GDP, as well as a dominant player within a strategically located port that over several years has held its own among competitors. The Maher facility is “the single-most attractive terminal target in the world today,” according to the knowledgeable source. The import market share of New York-New Jersey among Northeast ports (including Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Virginia) was 63.1% in 2025 versus 63.6% in 2020, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. A further benefit to NY-NJ stems from long-term growth in East Coast market share as Asia manufacturing gravitates south from China, which favors the westbound route into North America. It has been widely reported that Maher will be put up for sale in the coming months by Macquarie. JP Morgan has been named as the sell-side advisor, according to Infralogic, an infrastructure publication. The bank is incentivized to achieve a price possibly as lofty as $6 billion, said the knowledgeable source. Macquarie in December renewed Maher’s lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for 33 years through 2063, agreeing to terms that include responsibility for upkeep of wharves and berths and a commitment to increase capacity in line with demand. The lease renewal was seen as a critical step in Macquarie’s ability to put the terminal up for sale as it removes uncertainty as to what a buyer is committing to. The knowledgeable source said the terminal, which was acquired by Macquarie from Deutsche Bank in 2016, will attract interest from potential buyers including carrier-owned terminal operators, independent operators such as DP World, PSA or Carrix, as well as potentially infrastructure-focused financial players. Yet with indications the port is committed to maintaining a common-user facility within the port, it remains to be seen whether it will intervene to achieve that result given that it has the right to approve the Maher transaction but can’t dictate who the buyer would be. Some port sources speculate that Macquarie would not have renewed the Maher lease without a commitment from the port not to reopen the lease as a condition for approving the sale, which it did to force concessions from CMA CGM regarding the Global terminals deal. A spokesperson for the port of NY-NJ would only say: “We are unable to comment on possible sales or negotiations.” Macquarie could not be reached for comment. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Impending sale of Maher likely to reshape competitive dynamics at Port of NY-NJ

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker. </div>

The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker.

<div class="phx-topic">The traditional peak shipping season in the US may effectively pass unnoticed this year, a major retail group suggested Friday, citing weak consumer confidence and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “With inflation rising and consumer confidence falling among global economic uncertainty driven by the conflict in Iran, the overall trend of lower imports is expected to continue...,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy, said in a statement accompanying the group’s forecast. The NRF said US imports in May and June will actually be moderately higher than the year-ago figures, but noted that growth is largely artificial because it’s being compared with May and June 2025 when imports fell sharply following the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread tariffs that April. The true import picture will come into focus in the heart of summer, with the NRF’s July forecast of 2.2 million TEUs down almost 8% year over year. And things will weaken progressively from there, despite August being the traditional start of peak shipping season when retailers stock up ahead of the year-end holidays. The NRF projects August imports at 2.19 million TEUs, down 5.5% year over year; and September at 2.08 million TEUs, 1.3% below the year prior. The fact that September — typically the heart of peak season — is forecast to be one of the weaker import months of 2026 is especially telling. “Containerized imports in the first quarter were down year over year, and forward demand is weakening,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the statement. “<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/potential-new-us-tariffs-cloud-sourcing-strategies-peak-season-demand-6187613">Stalling restocking efforts</a> and rising geopolitical tensions are increasingly clouding the outlook.” This year would be the second in a row without the typical August through October peak season, following last year’s tariff-linked disruptions. “It’s not like we have a traditional peak season anymore,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at the forwarder MTS Logistics. “There may be a couple months peak, year over year, but at the end of the day, the expectations are not that great right now from our customers and from what I’m hearing from industry and from other companies too.” Encouragingly, booking demand is increasing according to an index that has shown sluggish China import ordering since January. The index, based on data from customers of maritime intelligence provider Vizion, hit its 2026 high of 110 in the week ended April 23, the most recent data available, after moving into positive territory earlier in April. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9c729d7f-c13b-49a7-a0dd-b8aeb67b80c2"></dynamic-object></div><h3>Consumer confidence at new low </h3>Meanwhile, fresh consumer indicators were grim. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, out Friday, fell to a new record low of 48.2, down from 49.8 in April. “About one-third of consumers [surveyed] spontaneously mentioned gasoline prices and about 30% mentioned tariffs. Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump,” Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said in a statement. “Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall,” Hsu added. US retail sales in March, the most recent data available, increased 1.7% month over month to $752.1 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, driven mainly by soaring gasoline prices, which do not contribute to retail merchandise imports. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b0bc7107-6699-4b28-9759-684b190b845a"></dynamic-object></div>Container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific are nevertheless deploying or planning to deploy progressively more capacity in May through July than they did a year ago. According to ocean freight visibility provider eeSea, carriers are deploying almost 2 million TEUs in May, 2.13 million TEUs in June and just under 2.2 million TEUs in July. That’s up from 1.6 million TEUs, 1.98 million TEUs, and 2 million TEUs, respectively, in May–July 2025. Carriers are also blanking less capacity, according to eeSea: 207,797 TEUs in May, 117,403 TEUs in June, and 50,969 TEUs in July. That compares with 472,948 TEUs, 249,745 TEUs, and 239,573 TEUs, respectively, in the same period last year. The GPT forecasts imports at 13 US ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York/New Jersey, Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville and Houston. Contact Kevin Saville at <a href="mailto:kevin.saville2@spglobal.com">kevin.saville2@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The traditional peak shipping season in the US may effectively pass unnoticed this year, a major retail group suggested Friday, citing weak consumer confidence and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “With inflation rising and consumer confidence falling among global economic uncertainty driven by the conflict in Iran, the overall trend of lower imports is expected to continue...,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy, said in a statement accompanying the group’s forecast. The NRF said US imports in May and June will actually be moderately higher than the year-ago figures, but noted that growth is largely artificial because it’s being compared with May and June 2025 when imports fell sharply following the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread tariffs that April. The true import picture will come into focus in the heart of summer, with the NRF’s July forecast of 2.2 million TEUs down almost 8% year over year. And things will weaken progressively from there, despite August being the traditional start of peak shipping season when retailers stock up ahead of the year-end holidays. The NRF projects August imports at 2.19 million TEUs, down 5.5% year over year; and September at 2.08 million TEUs, 1.3% below the year prior. The fact that September — typically the heart of peak season — is forecast to be one of the weaker import months of 2026 is especially telling. “Containerized imports in the first quarter were down year over year, and forward demand is weakening,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the statement. “ Stalling restocking efforts and rising geopolitical tensions are increasingly clouding the outlook.” This year would be the second in a row without the typical August through October peak season, following last year’s tariff-linked disruptions. “It’s not like we have a traditional peak season anymore,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at the forwarder MTS Logistics. “There may be a couple months peak, year over year, but at the end of the day, the expectations are not that great right now from our customers and from what I’m hearing from industry and from other companies too.” Encouragingly, booking demand is increasing according to an index that has shown sluggish China import ordering since January. The index, based on data from customers of maritime intelligence provider Vizion, hit its 2026 high of 110 in the week ended April 23, the most recent data available, after moving into positive territory earlier in April. Consumer confidence at new low Meanwhile, fresh consumer indicators were grim. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, out Friday, fell to a new record low of 48.2, down from 49.8 in April. “About one-third of consumers [surveyed] spontaneously mentioned gasoline prices and about 30% mentioned tariffs. Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump,” Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said in a statement. “Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall,” Hsu added. US retail sales in March, the most recent data available, increased 1.7% month over month to $752.1 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, driven mainly by soaring gasoline prices, which do not contribute to retail merchandise imports. Container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific are nevertheless deploying or planning to deploy progressively more capacity in May through July than they did a year ago. According to ocean freight visibility provider eeSea, carriers are deploying almost 2 million TEUs in May, 2.13 million TEUs in June and just under 2.2 million TEUs in July. That’s up from 1.6 million TEUs, 1.98 million TEUs, and 2 million TEUs, respectively, in May–July 2025. Carriers are also blanking less capacity, according to eeSea: 207,797 TEUs in May, 117,403 TEUs in June, and 50,969 TEUs in July. That compares with 472,948 TEUs, 249,745 TEUs, and 239,573 TEUs, respectively, in the same period last year. The GPT forecasts imports at 13 US ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York/New Jersey, Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville and Houston. Contact Kevin Saville at kevin.saville2@spglobal.com . Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With demand on the corridor continuing to outstrip available capacity constrained by the Middle East war, any resumption of hostilities would keep upward pressure on rates. </div>

With demand on the corridor continuing to outstrip available capacity constrained by the Middle East war, any resumption of hostilities would keep upward pressure on rates.

<div class="phx-topic">Peace talks between the US and Iran deteriorated this week, keeping air freight rates elevated and potentially stalling a recovery of flight operations into Persian Gulf airports that before the war handled a third of Asia-Europe air cargo traffic. Spot rates from China to Europe hit $5.76 per kilogram in the first week of May, the highest this year, before easing slightly to $5.42/kg on May 11, according to the Baltic Air Index (BAI). Airport hubs in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar steadily scaled up flight frequencies since the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire in April, with Dubai-based Emirates announcing last week that 96% of its global network has now been restored. But in a May market report, BAI said a resumption of attacks would pause the recovery. With demand for air cargo on the Asia-Europe corridor continuing to outstrip available capacity constrained by the war, an escalation of hostilities would also keep upward pressure on rates. “Air space across parts of the Gulf remains restricted or closed ... the biggest impact is being felt by Asia-Europe traffic,” BAI said. “In a system with little spare capacity, even modest disruptions now move rates quickly. Even when aircraft are available, longer flight times and operational instability reduce how much cargo they can carry. The result is simple: There is less usable capacity in the system.” The Freightos Air Index also reflected a strengthening of rates. Spot rates from China to Europe on May 10 were up 57% since late February at $5.16/kg, almost 50% higher year over year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1f8878b6-9e77-46fc-bdf5-c1982da8007e"></dynamic-object></div>Air freight analyst Rotate said in a first quarter report that over the last 26 months, air cargo demand grew 10% against 6% capacity growth, noting that “the gap was adding pressure across the market even before the conflict in the Middle East exacerbated matters.” An estimated 30% of Asia-Europe traffic was routed via the Middle East before the war began on Feb. 28. More than 520,000 tons of international cargo capacity was lost in the first two weeks of March when air space across the Persian Gulf was closed, according to Rotate. Air freight capacity is now back to about 30% of pre-war levels. <h3>No sudden demand spike </h3>While cargo fills aircraft out of Asia, forwarders note that it is more a reflection of the disruption to the Asia-Europe network rather than a sudden demand spike. “Air freight demand continues to grow, but not at a super high pace for now and is following GDP expectations of plus 3%,” Frank Sobotka, CEO for air and sea at DSV, told analysts Tuesday at the forwarder’s capital markets day. “The drivers are predominantly high-tech cloud computing and still e-commerce from Asia that has shifted from the trans-Pacific corridor following the end of de minimis in the US into the European markets,” he said. DSV reported a 55% increase in first-quarter air cargo volume, boosted by the integration of DB Schenker traffic. But compared with the fourth quarter of 2025, seasonality and capacity constraints in the Middle East dragged sequential quarterly volume down 12%. The Denmark-based forwarder is optimistic about volume growth in the second quarter that it believes will be generated by the summer tender season and further integration of Schenker business. Kuehne + Nagel reported flat volume growth in the first quarter, a slowdown from the 7% growth seen in the last quarter of 2025. The forwarder attributed the slowdown to reduced demand for perishables and e-commerce volumes carried by its Apex subsidiary in Asia, but expects volume in air freight to be “slightly up” in the second quarter compared with the previous year. One air freight operator seeing robust demand is Maersk Air Cargo. Its air freight volume increased 20% in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, which CEO Vincent Clerc attributed to “operational improvements, enhanced productivity and more effective revenue management.” Clerc told analysts during an earnings call last week he is confident the carrier will continue to grow air cargo volume. He also said that air freight, together with ground freight and contract logistics, “will remain a key area for further productivity improvements and profitability gains throughout the year.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Peace talks between the US and Iran deteriorated this week, keeping air freight rates elevated and potentially stalling a recovery of flight operations into Persian Gulf airports that before the war handled a third of Asia-Europe air cargo traffic. Spot rates from China to Europe hit $5.76 per kilogram in the first week of May, the highest this year, before easing slightly to $5.42/kg on May 11, according to the Baltic Air Index (BAI). Airport hubs in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar steadily scaled up flight frequencies since the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire in April, with Dubai-based Emirates announcing last week that 96% of its global network has now been restored. But in a May market report, BAI said a resumption of attacks would pause the recovery. With demand for air cargo on the Asia-Europe corridor continuing to outstrip available capacity constrained by the war, an escalation of hostilities would also keep upward pressure on rates. “Air space across parts of the Gulf remains restricted or closed ... the biggest impact is being felt by Asia-Europe traffic,” BAI said. “In a system with little spare capacity, even modest disruptions now move rates quickly. Even when aircraft are available, longer flight times and operational instability reduce how much cargo they can carry. The result is simple: There is less usable capacity in the system.” The Freightos Air Index also reflected a strengthening of rates. Spot rates from China to Europe on May 10 were up 57% since late February at $5.16/kg, almost 50% higher year over year. Air freight analyst Rotate said in a first quarter report that over the last 26 months, air cargo demand grew 10% against 6% capacity growth, noting that “the gap was adding pressure across the market even before the conflict in the Middle East exacerbated matters.” An estimated 30% of Asia-Europe traffic was routed via the Middle East before the war began on Feb. 28. More than 520,000 tons of international cargo capacity was lost in the first two weeks of March when air space across the Persian Gulf was closed, according to Rotate. Air freight capacity is now back to about 30% of pre-war levels. No sudden demand spike While cargo fills aircraft out of Asia, forwarders note that it is more a reflection of the disruption to the Asia-Europe network rather than a sudden demand spike. “Air freight demand continues to grow, but not at a super high pace for now and is following GDP expectations of plus 3%,” Frank Sobotka, CEO for air and sea at DSV, told analysts Tuesday at the forwarder’s capital markets day. “The drivers are predominantly high-tech cloud computing and still e-commerce from Asia that has shifted from the trans-Pacific corridor following the end of de minimis in the US into the European markets,” he said. DSV reported a 55% increase in first-quarter air cargo volume, boosted by the integration of DB Schenker traffic. But compared with the fourth quarter of 2025, seasonality and capacity constraints in the Middle East dragged sequential quarterly volume down 12%. The Denmark-based forwarder is optimistic about volume growth in the second quarter that it believes will be generated by the summer tender season and further integration of Schenker business. Kuehne + Nagel reported flat volume growth in the first quarter, a slowdown from the 7% growth seen in the last quarter of 2025. The forwarder attributed the slowdown to reduced demand for perishables and e-commerce volumes carried by its Apex subsidiary in Asia, but expects volume in air freight to be “slightly up” in the second quarter compared with the previous year. One air freight operator seeing robust demand is Maersk Air Cargo. Its air freight volume increased 20% in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, which CEO Vincent Clerc attributed to “operational improvements, enhanced productivity and more effective revenue management.” Clerc told analysts during an earnings call last week he is confident the carrier will continue to grow air cargo volume. He also said that air freight, together with ground freight and contract logistics, “will remain a key area for further productivity improvements and profitability gains throughout the year.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

Asia-Europe air cargo rates remain elevated as Gulf tensions escalate

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Subscribe Today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Subscribe and Save: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The unanimous ruling in a case involving C.H. Robinson adds a new layer of responsibility for brokers to consider the safety history of the motor carriers they hire to haul loads.</div>

The unanimous ruling in a case involving C.H. Robinson adds a new layer of responsibility for brokers to consider the safety history of the motor carriers they hire to haul loads.

<div class="phx-topic">Federal law does not automatically shield freight brokers from lawsuits alleging they hired unsafe carriers involved in accidents, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday, a decision likely to reshape how shippers and third-party logistics providers assess carrier risk. The unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II does not make brokers liable every time a truck crashes. But it removes a major legal shield the brokerage industry has relied on for years. The case involved a December 2017 crash in Illinois involving a Caribe Transport II truck that struck a vehicle parked on the side of the road. The accident injured Shawn Montgomery, who was forced to have one of his legs amputated. C.H. Robinson brokered the freight to Caribe. Robinson argued that brokers arrange transportation but do not own trucks, maintain equipment, hire drivers, or operate vehicles. Because selecting a carrier is a brokerage service, the company argued that negligent hiring claims against brokers should be preempted by federal law. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, rejected that argument, allowing Montgomery’s lawsuit against Caribe and Robinson to proceed. “Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim thus falls within the FAAAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s] safety exception, which saves it from preemption,” Barrett wrote. “The safety exception saves only a subset of preempted claims: those involving regulations concerning motor vehicle safety. State laws related to motor carrier prices, routes, and services that have no relationship to safety remain preempted [by federal law].” The case is centered on the FAAAA, a federal law that broadly preempts state regulation of freight rates, routes and services. The question before the court was whether that preemption also blocks state law negligent hiring claims against brokers, or whether those claims survive under the law’s safety exception. Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson, claiming the broker negligently hired Caribe, which had a “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and several violations involving driver qualification, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, and crash rates. Lower courts sided with Robinson, stating that FAAAA blocked the claim because the law preempts state rules related to freight rates, routes and services. But the Supreme Court ruling Thursday reversed that, deciding that a broker does not have to own, drive, or repair trucks for its carrier-selection decision to involve highway safety. “Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore ‘concerns’ motor vehicles — most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods,” Barrett wrote. “So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception.” C.H. Robinson said it was “disappointed with the outcome [but] respects the court’s ruling.” “While we are disappointed in the court’s decision, we will continue to operate responsibly, support stronger federal enforcement, and work constructively with regulators, carriers, and customers to strengthen the national safety system and support safe, reliable transportation across the country,” the company said in a statement. The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) said it was “deeply disappointed with the decision.” “...The law and legal precedent for decades has given the federal government, not states, the responsibility for setting safety standards for motor carriers,” TIA said in a statement. “To date, carriers, not brokers, have been responsible for complying with these standards.” <h3>Brokers can’t fall back on FMCSA registration </h3>Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito said the case was a close one, but they concurred with the unanimous opinion. Kavanaugh and Alito pointed out that motor carriers are already open to lawsuits for injuries on a state level, and rejected the idea that FMCSA registration alone ends the safety conversation for brokers. “Given that Congress in the FAA Authorization Act sought economic deregulation — not safety deregulation — it is hard to read the statute as written and conclude that Congress subtly sliced and diced state tort law so that trucking companies would be subject to state tort suits for accidents, but brokers would operate free of any such tort liability,” they wrote. The ruling does not impose a new checklist or instruct brokers on how to vet carriers. But it enforces an important standard of reasonable care when deciding whether a broker was negligent in hiring. For a small carrier with clean authority and no visible problems, reasonable care may be simple. For a carrier with a conditional safety rating, a poor crash record, or repeated serious violations, reasonable care may now mean more than what the brokerage industry has historically been accustomed to. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:Ari.Ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Federal law does not automatically shield freight brokers from lawsuits alleging they hired unsafe carriers involved in accidents, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday, a decision likely to reshape how shippers and third-party logistics providers assess carrier risk. The unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II does not make brokers liable every time a truck crashes. But it removes a major legal shield the brokerage industry has relied on for years. The case involved a December 2017 crash in Illinois involving a Caribe Transport II truck that struck a vehicle parked on the side of the road. The accident injured Shawn Montgomery, who was forced to have one of his legs amputated. C.H. Robinson brokered the freight to Caribe. Robinson argued that brokers arrange transportation but do not own trucks, maintain equipment, hire drivers, or operate vehicles. Because selecting a carrier is a brokerage service, the company argued that negligent hiring claims against brokers should be preempted by federal law. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, rejected that argument, allowing Montgomery’s lawsuit against Caribe and Robinson to proceed. “Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim thus falls within the FAAAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s] safety exception, which saves it from preemption,” Barrett wrote. “The safety exception saves only a subset of preempted claims: those involving regulations concerning motor vehicle safety. State laws related to motor carrier prices, routes, and services that have no relationship to safety remain preempted [by federal law].” The case is centered on the FAAAA, a federal law that broadly preempts state regulation of freight rates, routes and services. The question before the court was whether that preemption also blocks state law negligent hiring claims against brokers, or whether those claims survive under the law’s safety exception. Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson, claiming the broker negligently hired Caribe, which had a “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and several violations involving driver qualification, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, and crash rates. Lower courts sided with Robinson, stating that FAAAA blocked the claim because the law preempts state rules related to freight rates, routes and services. But the Supreme Court ruling Thursday reversed that, deciding that a broker does not have to own, drive, or repair trucks for its carrier-selection decision to involve highway safety. “Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore ‘concerns’ motor vehicles — most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods,” Barrett wrote. “So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception.” C.H. Robinson said it was “disappointed with the outcome [but] respects the court’s ruling.” “While we are disappointed in the court’s decision, we will continue to operate responsibly, support stronger federal enforcement, and work constructively with regulators, carriers, and customers to strengthen the national safety system and support safe, reliable transportation across the country,” the company said in a statement. The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) said it was “deeply disappointed with the decision.” “...The law and legal precedent for decades has given the federal government, not states, the responsibility for setting safety standards for motor carriers,” TIA said in a statement. “To date, carriers, not brokers, have been responsible for complying with these standards.” Brokers can’t fall back on FMCSA registration Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito said the case was a close one, but they concurred with the unanimous opinion. Kavanaugh and Alito pointed out that motor carriers are already open to lawsuits for injuries on a state level, and rejected the idea that FMCSA registration alone ends the safety conversation for brokers. “Given that Congress in the FAA Authorization Act sought economic deregulation — not safety deregulation — it is hard to read the statute as written and conclude that Congress subtly sliced and diced state tort law so that trucking companies would be subject to state tort suits for accidents, but brokers would operate free of any such tort liability,” they wrote. The ruling does not impose a new checklist or instruct brokers on how to vet carriers. But it enforces an important standard of reasonable care when deciding whether a broker was negligent in hiring. For a small carrier with clean authority and no visible problems, reasonable care may be simple. For a carrier with a conditional safety rating, a poor crash record, or repeated serious violations, reasonable care may now mean more than what the brokerage industry has historically been accustomed to. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Supreme Court ruling strips broker protection linked to carrier safety

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE and Sohar in Oman had kept carriers restricted to imports since the war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. </div>

Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE and Sohar in Oman had kept carriers restricted to imports since the war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints.

<div class="phx-topic">Terminals at alternative ports of call in the Persian Gulf have reopened gates to outbound freight flows, albeit slowly, market sources say. The ports — Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Sohar in Oman — had kept container carriers restricted to import discharges since the Middle East war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. The ports have been the supply chain lifeline for Middle East-bound shipments since the Middle East war erupted Feb. 28. But contingency port operations effectively meant a “single leg” cargo opportunity for vessel operators as they were not allowed to pick up boxes on the backhaul in order to avoid longer berth stays. Multiple Dubai-based freight forwarder executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce confirmed that a few mainliners, notably CMA CGM, and other major feeder operators, usually backed by non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), are now moving Middle East-origin containers into India. “Although uneven and dependent on the space situation, export gate-ins have resumed,” said a source who didn’t want to be identified. CMA CGM has regular weekly sailings connecting three western Indian ports — Hazira, Mundra and Nhava Sheva — to Fujairah and Sohar under its “BIGEX” network. The French carrier is also understood to have evacuated most Middle East-bound containers rerouted to Nhava Sheva, including accumulated hazardous/dangerous cargo boxes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rerouted-middle-east-hazmat-containers-spark-safety-concerns-at-indian-ports-6208692">that had sparked safety concerns for the port authority</a>. Middle East ports traditionally play a major role for carriers in repositioning empty containers to demand locations, including India. With the renewed operational flexibility, CMA CGM has been able to relocate accumulated empties via Fujairah into Nhava Sheva to replenish its tightening inventory capacity in India. While the Middle East disruption strained carriers’ inventory cycles, weaker export demand from India prevented any sort of industrywide equipment imbalance issues, local sources said. <h3>CMA CGM, AD Ports ink logistics deal </h3>Meanwhile, CMA CGM has reached an agreement with AD Ports Group to work together on intermodal logistics solutions across the UAE to neighboring countries. The move comes as demand for multimodal/land bridge alternatives continues to grow in the region. “The collaboration will explore opportunities to strengthen cargo flows across the UAE and regional markets, including the northern Emirates, whilst extending trade corridor optionality through rail-linked inland connectivity to the borders of ... Oman and ... Saudi Arabia,” the partners said in a joint statement. Through its CMA Terminals subsidiary, the Marseille-based carrier already has a terminal joint venture with AD Ports at Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Terminals at alternative ports of call in the Persian Gulf have reopened gates to outbound freight flows, albeit slowly, market sources say. The ports — Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Sohar in Oman — had kept container carriers restricted to import discharges since the Middle East war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. The ports have been the supply chain lifeline for Middle East-bound shipments since the Middle East war erupted Feb. 28. But contingency port operations effectively meant a “single leg” cargo opportunity for vessel operators as they were not allowed to pick up boxes on the backhaul in order to avoid longer berth stays. Multiple Dubai-based freight forwarder executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce confirmed that a few mainliners, notably CMA CGM, and other major feeder operators, usually backed by non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), are now moving Middle East-origin containers into India. “Although uneven and dependent on the space situation, export gate-ins have resumed,” said a source who didn’t want to be identified. CMA CGM has regular weekly sailings connecting three western Indian ports — Hazira, Mundra and Nhava Sheva — to Fujairah and Sohar under its “BIGEX” network. The French carrier is also understood to have evacuated most Middle East-bound containers rerouted to Nhava Sheva, including accumulated hazardous/dangerous cargo boxes that had sparked safety concerns for the port authority . Middle East ports traditionally play a major role for carriers in repositioning empty containers to demand locations, including India. With the renewed operational flexibility, CMA CGM has been able to relocate accumulated empties via Fujairah into Nhava Sheva to replenish its tightening inventory capacity in India. While the Middle East disruption strained carriers’ inventory cycles, weaker export demand from India prevented any sort of industrywide equipment imbalance issues, local sources said. CMA CGM, AD Ports ink logistics deal Meanwhile, CMA CGM has reached an agreement with AD Ports Group to work together on intermodal logistics solutions across the UAE to neighboring countries. The move comes as demand for multimodal/land bridge alternatives continues to grow in the region. “The collaboration will explore opportunities to strengthen cargo flows across the UAE and regional markets, including the northern Emirates, whilst extending trade corridor optionality through rail-linked inland connectivity to the borders of ... Oman and ... Saudi Arabia,” the partners said in a joint statement. Through its CMA Terminals subsidiary, the Marseille-based carrier already has a terminal joint venture with AD Ports at Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Disrupted Middle East-India shipments restart as choked supply chains ease

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carrier sources have reported an average berthing delay of two days for regular services and up to five days for ad-hoc vessel calls at both ports, with the problems driven by inadequate drayage capacity.</div>

Carrier sources have reported an average berthing delay of two days for regular services and up to five days for ad-hoc vessel calls at both ports, with the problems driven by inadequate drayage capacity.

<div class="phx-topic">Supply chain stakeholders at India’s Nhava Sheva and Mundra ports have been struggling to deploy adequate drayage capacity to keep export/import cargo flowing in recent weeks, leaving ocean carriers grappling with multiple operational challenges. Sources say inter-terminal container transfers linked to transshipment activity have also been affected. The inland cutbacks are primarily due to an unusual shortage of truck drivers after a large number of domestic migrant workers returned to their hometowns for a variety of reasons. Labor availability typically drops every year during the April–June summer holiday period, but a crunch of this scale was unexpected, port sources say. Carrier sources have reported an average berthing delay of two days for regular/window services and up to five days for ad-hoc vessel calls at Nhava Sheva and Mundra. Mega-liners with dedicated terminal operations are able to manage vessel turnarounds better, however. Late vessel arrivals from previous ports of call are adding to the delays, a bigger concern for Mundra given the pattern of Indian service rotations. To relieve the heightened berth pressure, the busier terminals at Adani Ports’ Mundra are now turning away ad-hoc callers, sources said. “There has been an acute shortage of drivers, coupled with disruptions at the port, due to which we anticipate that first- and last-mile movement of containers may get impacted,” inland service provider Adani Logistics told customers in an advisory. “We strongly recommend engaging with your respective shipping lines regarding any financial implications that may arise ... which may be due to reasons beyond our control...” On-dock yards in Nhava Sheva and Mundra are overflowing with containers, triggering abrupt gate closings by terminals for cargo intake into the wharf, a major concern for carriers trying to push westbound cargo lifts. “The window to gate in exports is short and constantly changing,” said an executive at a leading European carrier who didn’t want to be identified. “That also means shippers have to run around quickly to organize a container trailer, often unable to find one in the present situation.” <h3>Container ‘no-shows’ also a problem </h3>Sunil Vaswani, executive director of India’s Container Shipping Lines Association, acknowledged that deployed trucking capacity remains a challenge. “The evacuation of import containers out of the terminals at Nhava Sheva still remains slow, which in turn impacts vessel productivity and berthing windows,” Vaswani said. “At Mundra, the import inventory situation is not as critical as at Nhava Sheva because about half of the boxes [there] move by rail.” Carriers are also said to be seeing a higher number of container “no-shows” because of the drayage disruption. Booked containers failing to turn up for loading generally run a penalty risk for shippers. Additionally, the slowdown in inter-terminal activity is weighing on the pace of evacuating Middle East-linked transshipment volumes currently held at Indian docks. As container dwells climb and service reliability deteriorates, freight depot owners and customs brokers are seeking safeguards for potential liability consequences. “Given the exceptional and unforeseen nature of the current situation, it may be treated as force majeure,” a trade notice from the Container Freight Stations Association of India said. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Supply chain stakeholders at India’s Nhava Sheva and Mundra ports have been struggling to deploy adequate drayage capacity to keep export/import cargo flowing in recent weeks, leaving ocean carriers grappling with multiple operational challenges. Sources say inter-terminal container transfers linked to transshipment activity have also been affected. The inland cutbacks are primarily due to an unusual shortage of truck drivers after a large number of domestic migrant workers returned to their hometowns for a variety of reasons. Labor availability typically drops every year during the April–June summer holiday period, but a crunch of this scale was unexpected, port sources say. Carrier sources have reported an average berthing delay of two days for regular/window services and up to five days for ad-hoc vessel calls at Nhava Sheva and Mundra. Mega-liners with dedicated terminal operations are able to manage vessel turnarounds better, however. Late vessel arrivals from previous ports of call are adding to the delays, a bigger concern for Mundra given the pattern of Indian service rotations. To relieve the heightened berth pressure, the busier terminals at Adani Ports’ Mundra are now turning away ad-hoc callers, sources said. “There has been an acute shortage of drivers, coupled with disruptions at the port, due to which we anticipate that first- and last-mile movement of containers may get impacted,” inland service provider Adani Logistics told customers in an advisory. “We strongly recommend engaging with your respective shipping lines regarding any financial implications that may arise ... which may be due to reasons beyond our control...” On-dock yards in Nhava Sheva and Mundra are overflowing with containers, triggering abrupt gate closings by terminals for cargo intake into the wharf, a major concern for carriers trying to push westbound cargo lifts. “The window to gate in exports is short and constantly changing,” said an executive at a leading European carrier who didn’t want to be identified. “That also means shippers have to run around quickly to organize a container trailer, often unable to find one in the present situation.” Container ‘no-shows’ also a problem Sunil Vaswani, executive director of India’s Container Shipping Lines Association, acknowledged that deployed trucking capacity remains a challenge. “The evacuation of import containers out of the terminals at Nhava Sheva still remains slow, which in turn impacts vessel productivity and berthing windows,” Vaswani said. “At Mundra, the import inventory situation is not as critical as at Nhava Sheva because about half of the boxes [there] move by rail.” Carriers are also said to be seeing a higher number of container “no-shows” because of the drayage disruption. Booked containers failing to turn up for loading generally run a penalty risk for shippers. Additionally, the slowdown in inter-terminal activity is weighing on the pace of evacuating Middle East-linked transshipment volumes currently held at Indian docks. As container dwells climb and service reliability deteriorates, freight depot owners and customs brokers are seeking safeguards for potential liability consequences. “Given the exceptional and unforeseen nature of the current situation, it may be treated as force majeure,” a trade notice from the Container Freight Stations Association of India said. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Drayage

Rising container dwells hobble vessel flows at India’s Nhava Sheva, Mundra ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Weather-related port congestion in January and February caused higher terminal storage costs while the war in the Middle East raised operating expenses late in the quarter.</div>

Weather-related port congestion in January and February caused higher terminal storage costs while the war in the Middle East raised operating expenses late in the quarter.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd recorded a $300 million loss in the first quarter as severe winter weather on both sides of the Atlantic, rising energy costs and sharply declining rates dragged down the carrier’s earnings. It was “an unsatisfactory start to the year,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters during a results briefing Wednesday. “We had adverse weather conditions in north and south Europe in January and February, and similar conditions on the East Coast of the US, and we are heavily exposed to those markets,” he said. Although bunker prices fell in the first quarter because of the time lag between purchase and consumption, higher terminal storage costs stacked up from weather-related port congestion in January and February, with Middle East-related disruptions adding to March operating costs. Hapag-Lloyd’s first-quarter volume was down 0.7% at 3.2 million TEUs, while average freight rates fell 10% year over year to $1,330 per TEU. The weak performance in the liner shipping segment dragged Hapag’s revenue down 7.5% to $4.9 billion. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 54% to $500 million and earnings before interest and taxes were down 60% at $200 million. The $300 million net loss was down from a $500 million profit in the first quarter of 2025. War in the Middle East drove up energy prices from the end of February. Habben Jansen said the carrier was bunkering 100,000 tons of fuel a week, which was adding $50 million to $60 million to its weekly bills. “The situation in the Middle East caused significant extra cost from March, which we hope to recover through surcharges in the second quarter,” the CEO said. “A significant increase in bunker cost is expected in Q2 which will be covered by our emergency fuel surcharge and the regular marine fuel recovery mechanism.” <h3>Recovering rising bunker costs </h3>Half of the carrier’s volume is under contract where surcharges enable rising fuel costs to be fully recovered. On the spot market, Habben Jansen said rising rates through the peak season will factor in the bunker costs. “Looking at the sheer magnitude of the additional costs that we face, I think in most cases we have sensible discussions with customers, and that can be that we either come up with an emergency additional charge, or in some cases we move from a quarterly adjustment in the bunker formula to a monthly adjustment,” he said. While volume was flat compared with the first quarter of last year, the carrier was seeing solid market demand into May and beyond, and Habben Jansen said the industry was on track for a “decent” peak season. “We don’t see any real softening in demand for cargo at this point,” he said. “When we look at forward bookings, when we look at futures markets, when we talk to customers, there is an expectation that we will have a pretty decent peak season.” That’s not a view necessarily shared by the National Retail Federation, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/weak-consumer-confidence-rising-inflation-dim-peak-season-hopes-6217405">which indicated on Friday</a> that peak season for US imports will be less than impressive due to weak consumer confidence, rising inflation and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. <h3>HMM’s Q1 earnings also fall </h3>Meanwhile, South Korea carrier HMM also reported a sharp drop in first-quarter earnings as falling rates and rising costs from the Middle East war weighed on its results despite a 14.2% increase in volume. The carrier handled just over 1 million TEUs in Q1 compared to 926,000 TEUs in the same period last year.The damage came from average freight rates that fell 20% year over year to $1,089/TEU that impacted all the key earnings metrics. Revenue fell 4.8% year over year to $1.8 million, operating profit declined 56% to $181 million and first-quarter net profit of $237 million was down 52%, HMM said in a statement Wednesday. The carrier warned of growing market uncertainty driven by increasing vessel capacity from a bloated order book, rising costs associated with the Middle East war, and US tariff policies. “HMM will implement fuel cost optimization strategies to mitigate the impact of prolonged high oil prices,” the carrier noted. “HMM also plans to launch new routes to markets like Africa by adopting a hub-and-spoke strategy, while securing new demand in regions such as Southeast Asia.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd recorded a $300 million loss in the first quarter as severe winter weather on both sides of the Atlantic, rising energy costs and sharply declining rates dragged down the carrier’s earnings. It was “an unsatisfactory start to the year,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters during a results briefing Wednesday. “We had adverse weather conditions in north and south Europe in January and February, and similar conditions on the East Coast of the US, and we are heavily exposed to those markets,” he said. Although bunker prices fell in the first quarter because of the time lag between purchase and consumption, higher terminal storage costs stacked up from weather-related port congestion in January and February, with Middle East-related disruptions adding to March operating costs. Hapag-Lloyd’s first-quarter volume was down 0.7% at 3.2 million TEUs, while average freight rates fell 10% year over year to $1,330 per TEU. The weak performance in the liner shipping segment dragged Hapag’s revenue down 7.5% to $4.9 billion. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 54% to $500 million and earnings before interest and taxes were down 60% at $200 million. The $300 million net loss was down from a $500 million profit in the first quarter of 2025. War in the Middle East drove up energy prices from the end of February. Habben Jansen said the carrier was bunkering 100,000 tons of fuel a week, which was adding $50 million to $60 million to its weekly bills. “The situation in the Middle East caused significant extra cost from March, which we hope to recover through surcharges in the second quarter,” the CEO said. “A significant increase in bunker cost is expected in Q2 which will be covered by our emergency fuel surcharge and the regular marine fuel recovery mechanism.” Recovering rising bunker costs Half of the carrier’s volume is under contract where surcharges enable rising fuel costs to be fully recovered. On the spot market, Habben Jansen said rising rates through the peak season will factor in the bunker costs. “Looking at the sheer magnitude of the additional costs that we face, I think in most cases we have sensible discussions with customers, and that can be that we either come up with an emergency additional charge, or in some cases we move from a quarterly adjustment in the bunker formula to a monthly adjustment,” he said. While volume was flat compared with the first quarter of last year, the carrier was seeing solid market demand into May and beyond, and Habben Jansen said the industry was on track for a “decent” peak season. “We don’t see any real softening in demand for cargo at this point,” he said. “When we look at forward bookings, when we look at futures markets, when we talk to customers, there is an expectation that we will have a pretty decent peak season.” That’s not a view necessarily shared by the National Retail Federation, which indicated on Friday that peak season for US imports will be less than impressive due to weak consumer confidence, rising inflation and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. HMM’s Q1 earnings also fall Meanwhile, South Korea carrier HMM also reported a sharp drop in first-quarter earnings as falling rates and rising costs from the Middle East war weighed on its results despite a 14.2% increase in volume. The carrier handled just over 1 million TEUs in Q1 compared to 926,000 TEUs in the same period last year. The damage came from average freight rates that fell 20% year over year to $1,089/TEU that impacted all the key earnings metrics. Revenue fell 4.8% year over year to $1.8 million, operating profit declined 56% to $181 million and first-quarter net profit of $237 million was down 52%, HMM said in a statement Wednesday. The carrier warned of growing market uncertainty driven by increasing vessel capacity from a bloated order book, rising costs associated with the Middle East war, and US tariff policies. “HMM will implement fuel cost optimization strategies to mitigate the impact of prolonged high oil prices,” the carrier noted. “HMM also plans to launch new routes to markets like Africa by adopting a hub-and-spoke strategy, while securing new demand in regions such as Southeast Asia.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Guangzhou begins work on $2 billion fifth development phase at Nansha port

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Impending sale of Maher likely to reshape competitive dynamics at Port of NY-NJ

Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes

Asia-Europe air cargo rates remain elevated as Gulf tensions escalate

Recent Commentary

Another nail in the coffin of trust between carriers, clients

A shipper’s decision framework for Amazon Supply Chain Services

Top 5 Most Read Stories