<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Baltimore’s Sparrows Point Container Terminal is scheduled to debut its first berth in 2028, some 14 years after the site began its transformation from an old steel mill into a comprehensive logistics center. </div>

Baltimore’s Sparrows Point Container Terminal is scheduled to debut its first berth in 2028, some 14 years after the site began its transformation from an old steel mill into a comprehensive logistics center.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminal arm and real estate developer Tradepoint Atlantic broke ground Friday at the Port of Baltimore on what would be the first privately built container terminal in the US in 40 years, part of the ocean carrier’s massive push to build out North American capacity. Executives at Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) and Tradepoint took part in the ceremonial event at the future site of the Sparrows Point Container Terminal (SPCT). They were joined by Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), and other state and local officials, The groundbreaking comes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-unit-teaming-up-to-develop-new-baltimore-container-terminal-5242503">just over three years after TiL and Tradepoint announced their joint investment</a> in Sparrows Point, a 3,300-acre industrial development that was the former site of a Bethlehem Steel plant. SPCT will occupy 168 acres of the site. The terminal will have two berths, each capable of handling 18,000-TEU ships; 3,000 feet of on-dock rail track, and be capable of handling 2 million TEUs by its full buildout with a second berth. The terminal is expected to employ 1,100 longshore workers. The $1.2 billion project would be the first privately funded and operated container terminal in the US since Penn Terminals opened in Philadelphia in 1986. TiL Chief Executive Ammar Kanaan said it was a “unique project” because of the private funding, adding that Sparrows Point is a response to the port capacity constraints that came to light in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It’s adding capacity, much needed capacity,” Kanaan said. “With just a little bit of disruption, our ports clogged. For those in the industry that say there’s enough capacity, they are wrong.” Container demand in the mid-Atlantic appears strong. Last year, Baltimore’s Seagirt Marine Terminal handled 1.12 million total TEUs, the second highest since 2023, according to the Maryland Port Administration. Imports through the port have grown at an average annual rate of 4.5% since 2010.“This is like a renaissance for the Port of Baltimore,” said Scott Cowan, president of Local 333 International Longshoremen’s Association. “I can see us being in the top three on the East Coast in no time.”Even with the private investment, Sparrows Point will receive some government support. This week, the US Maritime Administration awarded the project $40 million under its port grants program to be used for purchasing container handling equipment. Locally, Maryland state legislators are considering $50 million in funding for the project, while the Baltimore County Council in December approved a 50-year tax abatement for the project. The government support comes as Sparrows Point’s expected costs have increased “significantly” since its 2022 announcement, Aaron Tomarchio, executive vice president of Tradepoint Atlantic, told the Journal of Commerce. The cost increases stem from overall inflation but also US tariffs on steel and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/looming-us-tariffs-put-economic-viability-of-sts-cranes-in-doubt-6055678">ship-to-shore cranes</a>. Tradepoint owner Redwood Holdings, which bought the site in 2014, is funding half of Sparrows Point. Tradepoint currently has about 15 million square feet of warehousing and distribution centers at the site, 90% of which is leased, Tomarchio said, with room for 6 million square feet of additional space. Among its biggest tenants are spice maker McCormick, Floor &amp; Decor, Under Armor, Amazon, and Home Depot. Many of the tenants will be deconsolidating ocean freight right at the site, Tomarchio said. Tradepoint will be able to handle many of their logistics needs through its short-line railroad, as well as the stevedoring service it will provide at Sparrows Point. “This site has transformed dramatically over that 12-year period,” Tomarchio said. “There’s massive capital that’s been deployed into building these facilities and outfitting them, so they are committed to it.” <h3>Boost rail use </h3>The other big play at Sparrows Point will be the fast rail connection to Chicago, Tom Van Eynde, director for TiL’s North American assets, told the Journal of Commerce. The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/csx-restarts-baltimore-tunnel-service-for-double-stack-in-2026-6087384">Howard Street Tunnel project</a> will allow CSX Transportation to double stack its intermodal cars out of Baltimore. Only about 2% of Baltimore’s international cargo is going out on rail currently due to the tunnel height clearance limits, Van Eynde said. But given MSC’s interest in serving inland US markets, he said Sparrows Point could see 25% of its cargo heading out on rail. “Rail has not been significant out of Baltimore before Howard Street,” Van Eynde said. “When you start looking at the map, it’s the closest of any port to Chicago.” The biggest lesson that TiL took from the last five years is to build in redundant capacity for cargo surges, Van Eynde said. Sparrows Point will be a rubber-tire gantry facility that can stack containers six high at full capacity, he said, although it will initially also deploy top handlers as it begins operations. The Sparrows Point groundbreaking comes amid a slew of other terminal investments TiL is making in the US. TiL is also funding half of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ny-njs-port-newark-terminal-takes-first-steps-in-next-big-expansion-6211543">Port Newark Container Terminal’s $1 billion plan</a> to increase capacity by 50% over the next three years, alongside its partner Ports America. The two are also developing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-america-msc-to-invest-800-million-in-proposed-new-orleans-terminal-5234722">the $1.8 billion Louisiana International Terminal</a>, along with the state. Along with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-ship-to-shore-cranes-with-us-parts-coming-to-long-beach-6085180">new ship-to-shore cranes at its Total Terminals International facility</a> in Long Beach, TiL is slated to invest some $25 billion in US terminal assets over the next decade, Van Eynde said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminal arm and real estate developer Tradepoint Atlantic broke ground Friday at the Port of Baltimore on what would be the first privately built container terminal in the US in 40 years, part of the ocean carrier’s massive push to build out North American capacity. Executives at Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) and Tradepoint took part in the ceremonial event at the future site of the Sparrows Point Container Terminal (SPCT). They were joined by Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), and other state and local officials, The groundbreaking comes just over three years after TiL and Tradepoint announced their joint investment in Sparrows Point, a 3,300-acre industrial development that was the former site of a Bethlehem Steel plant. SPCT will occupy 168 acres of the site. The terminal will have two berths, each capable of handling 18,000-TEU ships; 3,000 feet of on-dock rail track, and be capable of handling 2 million TEUs by its full buildout with a second berth. The terminal is expected to employ 1,100 longshore workers. The $1.2 billion project would be the first privately funded and operated container terminal in the US since Penn Terminals opened in Philadelphia in 1986. TiL Chief Executive Ammar Kanaan said it was a “unique project” because of the private funding, adding that Sparrows Point is a response to the port capacity constraints that came to light in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. “It’s adding capacity, much needed capacity,” Kanaan said. “With just a little bit of disruption, our ports clogged. For those in the industry that say there’s enough capacity, they are wrong.” Container demand in the mid-Atlantic appears strong. Last year, Baltimore’s Seagirt Marine Terminal handled 1.12 million total TEUs, the second highest since 2023, according to the Maryland Port Administration. Imports through the port have grown at an average annual rate of 4.5% since 2010. “This is like a renaissance for the Port of Baltimore,” said Scott Cowan, president of Local 333 International Longshoremen’s Association. “I can see us being in the top three on the East Coast in no time.” Even with the private investment, Sparrows Point will receive some government support. This week, the US Maritime Administration awarded the project $40 million under its port grants program to be used for purchasing container handling equipment. Locally, Maryland state legislators are considering $50 million in funding for the project, while the Baltimore County Council in December approved a 50-year tax abatement for the project. The government support comes as Sparrows Point’s expected costs have increased “significantly” since its 2022 announcement, Aaron Tomarchio, executive vice president of Tradepoint Atlantic, told the Journal of Commerce. The cost increases stem from overall inflation but also US tariffs on steel and ship-to-shore cranes . Tradepoint owner Redwood Holdings, which bought the site in 2014, is funding half of Sparrows Point. Tradepoint currently has about 15 million square feet of warehousing and distribution centers at the site, 90% of which is leased, Tomarchio said, with room for 6 million square feet of additional space. Among its biggest tenants are spice maker McCormick, Floor & Decor, Under Armor, Amazon, and Home Depot. Many of the tenants will be deconsolidating ocean freight right at the site, Tomarchio said. Tradepoint will be able to handle many of their logistics needs through its short-line railroad, as well as the stevedoring service it will provide at Sparrows Point. “This site has transformed dramatically over that 12-year period,” Tomarchio said. “There’s massive capital that’s been deployed into building these facilities and outfitting them, so they are committed to it.” Boost rail use The other big play at Sparrows Point will be the fast rail connection to Chicago, Tom Van Eynde, director for TiL’s North American assets, told the Journal of Commerce. The Howard Street Tunnel project will allow CSX Transportation to double stack its intermodal cars out of Baltimore. Only about 2% of Baltimore’s international cargo is going out on rail currently due to the tunnel height clearance limits, Van Eynde said. But given MSC’s interest in serving inland US markets, he said Sparrows Point could see 25% of its cargo heading out on rail. “Rail has not been significant out of Baltimore before Howard Street,” Van Eynde said. “When you start looking at the map, it’s the closest of any port to Chicago.” The biggest lesson that TiL took from the last five years is to build in redundant capacity for cargo surges, Van Eynde said. Sparrows Point will be a rubber-tire gantry facility that can stack containers six high at full capacity, he said, although it will initially also deploy top handlers as it begins operations. The Sparrows Point groundbreaking comes amid a slew of other terminal investments TiL is making in the US. TiL is also funding half of Port Newark Container Terminal’s $1 billion plan to increase capacity by 50% over the next three years, alongside its partner Ports America. The two are also developing the $1.8 billion Louisiana International Terminal , along with the state. Along with new ship-to-shore cranes at its Total Terminals International facility in Long Beach, TiL is slated to invest some $25 billion in US terminal assets over the next decade, Van Eynde said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Rail News

Surface

Port infrastructure

North American ports

Marine terminals

Container Shipping News

Maritime

MSC, Tradepoint begin work on first private US terminal in decades

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">TRAC Intermodal’s exit from the massive chassis cooperative on June 1, just one year after Flexi-Van’s departure, reflects the shift from a primarily pool-owned and operated chassis market to one that is trucker-owned or leased. </div>

TRAC Intermodal’s exit from the massive chassis cooperative on June 1, just one year after Flexi-Van’s departure, reflects the shift from a primarily pool-owned and operated chassis market to one that is trucker-owned or leased. 

<div class="phx-topic">TRAC Intermodal will leave the Southern California-based “Pool of Pools” on June 1, effectively ending the massive chassis cooperative that has served truckers and their customers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach since 2015. However, executives at the region’s three intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) — TRAC, DCLI and Flexi-Van — are assuring users they will continue to have access to a sufficient number of chassis for the 2026 peak season and beyond. . “An emphatic ‘yes,’” said Than Seeds, president of Flexi-Van, which exited the Pool of Pools (PoP) in May 2025. “I am confident that right now there is so much surplus chassis capacity in the market that we can handle a couple of peak seasons right on top of each other.”  The PoP began operations in 2015 with about 80,000 chassis; it is now down to about 25,000, according to the Pool of Pools website. With Flexi-Van’s departure from the pool a year ago and TRAC’s announcement this week, it leaves only DCLI as a member of the Pool of Pools, effectively bringing an end to the cooperative that began business just over 11 years ago. Jake Gilene, TRAC’s executive vice president and chief commercial officer, said the decision to leave PoP reflects the changing environment at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex from a primarily pool-owned and -operated chassis market to a trucker-owned or -leased market. In 2015, almost 80% of the chassis in Southern California were controlled by PoP members. That number has flipped to 75%-80% trucker-owned or -leased because of changing operating conditions that call for trucker and customer control of the chassis, Gilene said. He also said the move to leave PoP was based in large part on feedback from customers who were interested in more of a hybrid operating model that offered both a pool-type product and a daily product for customers who can use the chassis however they wish and be billed a daily rate. “Depending on what the customer is looking for, depending on what the motor carrier is looking for, we’re going to offer both options in the market,” Gilene said. <h3>Formed to ease logistical headaches </h3><a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-long-beach-chassis-lessors-form-neutral-chassis-pool-5247434">The Pool of Pools was formed in Los Angeles-Long Beach in 2015</a>, when container lines serving the US market ceased their decades-long practice of providing chassis to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) for a nominal fee with each booking. At the same time, a group of trans-Pacific container lines formed the G6 alliance, with the six member carriers serving all 12 container terminals in the port complex. This created logistical problems for carriers in repositioning the chassis where they were needed. A decision was made by the ports and their stakeholders to develop a neutral, or “grey,” chassis pool to eliminate the frustrating and costly requirements that truckers faced — delivering a container to one terminal but the chassis to another because of different ownership of the assets. The IEPs said that while each company has its own business model, they feel the transition out of the Pool of Pools will be seamless to truckers and their customers.  “DCLI remains committed to a comprehensive chassis pool solution to the LA-LB market,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s chief administrative officer. “We intend to maintain our terminal footprints, allowing motor carriers to pick up and drop off chassis at marine terminal and rail locations across the region.”  <h3>Trucker concerns for new environment </h3>While the Pool of Pools was the right solution for the post-2015 environment, motor carriers this past year have dealt with several problem areas in the port-related supply chain regarding inland point intermodal (IPI) and container handling chassis moves, said Robert Loya, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association. “We have seen incidents of inadequate support when PoP chassis were short, or simply not having the right number of chassis at the right location,” Loya said. “We continue to struggle with the increasing number of ocean carrier specialized pools. These pools result in the ‘deoptimization’ of our fleets due to the inherent inefficiencies they create: increased triangulation, a higher frequency of split returns, lost driver time and increased costs.”  As the IEPs enter the post-Pool of Pools era, Loya sees several red flags the IEPs must address, including whether the port’s rail ramps will still be considered start/stop locations for the chassis providers; how demurrage will be handled if there are insufficient chassis for inland point intermodal moves and appointments are missed; and how potential billing complications will be handled for equipment picked up under the PoP rules but returned after June 1. Loya is also concerned about dual transactions, or the ability of a trucker to drop off a container and pick up another on the same trip.“Dual transactions are critical for efficiency,” he said. “There must be a mechanism to handle the interchange of these chassis without incurring extra fees.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

TRAC Intermodal will leave the Southern California-based “Pool of Pools” on June 1, effectively ending the massive chassis cooperative that has served truckers and their customers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach since 2015. However, executives at the region’s three intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) — TRAC, DCLI and Flexi-Van — are assuring users they will continue to have access to a sufficient number of chassis for the 2026 peak season and beyond. .  “An emphatic ‘yes,’” said Than Seeds, president of Flexi-Van, which exited the Pool of Pools (PoP) in May 2025. “I am confident that right now there is so much surplus chassis capacity in the market that we can handle a couple of peak seasons right on top of each other.”  The PoP began operations in 2015 with about 80,000 chassis; it is now down to about 25,000, according to the Pool of Pools website. With Flexi-Van’s departure from the pool a year ago and TRAC’s announcement this week, it leaves only DCLI as a member of the Pool of Pools, effectively bringing an end to the cooperative that began business just over 11 years ago. Jake Gilene, TRAC’s executive vice president and chief commercial officer, said the decision to leave PoP reflects the changing environment at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex from a primarily pool-owned and -operated chassis market to a trucker-owned or -leased market. In 2015, almost 80% of the chassis in Southern California were controlled by PoP members. That number has flipped to 75%-80% trucker-owned or -leased because of changing operating conditions that call for trucker and customer control of the chassis, Gilene said. He also said the move to leave PoP was based in large part on feedback from customers who were interested in more of a hybrid operating model that offered both a pool-type product and a daily product for customers who can use the chassis however they wish and be billed a daily rate. “Depending on what the customer is looking for, depending on what the motor carrier is looking for, we’re going to offer both options in the market,” Gilene said. Formed to ease logistical headaches  The Pool of Pools was formed in Los Angeles-Long Beach in 2015 , when container lines serving the US market ceased their decades-long practice of providing chassis to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) for a nominal fee with each booking. At the same time, a group of trans-Pacific container lines formed the G6 alliance, with the six member carriers serving all 12 container terminals in the port complex. This created logistical problems for carriers in repositioning the chassis where they were needed.  A decision was made by the ports and their stakeholders to develop a neutral, or “grey,” chassis pool to eliminate the frustrating and costly requirements that truckers faced — delivering a container to one terminal but the chassis to another because of different ownership of the assets. The IEPs said that while each company has its own business model, they feel the transition out of the Pool of Pools will be seamless to truckers and their customers.  “DCLI remains committed to a comprehensive chassis pool solution to the LA-LB market,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s chief administrative officer. “We intend to maintain our terminal footprints, allowing motor carriers to pick up and drop off chassis at marine terminal and rail locations across the region.”  Trucker concerns for new environment  While the Pool of Pools was the right solution for the post-2015 environment, motor carriers this past year have dealt with several problem areas in the port-related supply chain regarding inland point intermodal (IPI) and container handling chassis moves, said Robert Loya, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association. “We have seen incidents of inadequate support when PoP chassis were short, or simply not having the right number of chassis at the right location,” Loya said. “We continue to struggle with the increasing number of ocean carrier specialized pools. These pools result in the ‘deoptimization’ of our fleets due to the inherent inefficiencies they create: increased triangulation, a higher frequency of split returns, lost driver time and increased costs.”  As the IEPs enter the post-Pool of Pools era, Loya sees several red flags the IEPs must address, including whether the port’s rail ramps will still be considered start/stop locations for the chassis providers; how demurrage will be handled if there are insufficient chassis for inland point intermodal moves and appointments are missed; and how potential billing complications will be handled for equipment picked up under the PoP rules but returned after June 1. Loya is also concerned about dual transactions, or the ability of a trucker to drop off a container and pick up another on the same trip. “Dual transactions are critical for efficiency,” he said. “There must be a mechanism to handle the interchange of these chassis without incurring extra fees.”  Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .  

Trucking News

Container lines

Demise of ‘Pool of Pools’ marks new chassis era in Southern California

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Stockholders representing 97% of the shares in Zim, equivalent to 57.2 million shares, voted Thursday in favor of the $4.2 billion deal that was announced in mid-February.</div>

Stockholders representing 97% of the shares in Zim, equivalent to 57.2 million shares, voted Thursday in favor of the $4.2 billion deal that was announced in mid-February.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd is on course to complete <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">its $4.2 billion takeover</a> of Zim Integrated Shipping Services by the end of this year after shareholders of the Israel-headquartered carrier voted overwhelmingly to approve the deal Thursday. Stockholders representing 97% of the shares in Zim, equivalent to 57.2 million shares, voted in favor of the deal that was announced in mid-February, according to a filing the carrier made with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. “We are very pleased that ZIM’s general meeting has voted in favor of a merger with Hapag-Lloyd,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “Following this important milestone, we will now continue to focus on completing the transaction toward the end of the year.” Zim did not immediately comment on the results of the shareholder vote, which comes about three weeks before it will release its 2025 results on May 20. The Hapag-Zim deal still needs approval from regulatory authorities in several jurisdictions before it can be completed. <h3>Deal with Zim unions needed </h3>Hapag-Lloyd, Zim and private equity house FIMI Opportunity Funds also need to reach agreement with the Israeli carrier’s labor unions to prevent industrial unrest from derailing the takeover. About 900 Zim staff, protesting possible job cuts and collective bargaining issues, were involved in a series of strikes in April that briefly halted operations at ports in Israel and the company’s Haifa headquarters. The unrest ended after unions reached a temporary agreement with Zim management. Under the takeover offer, Hapag will acquire full 100% ownership of Zim and will subsequently split Zim’s international and domestic operations. Hapag-Lloyd will keep the international business, including Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered intra-Asia liner and car carrier operator Gold Star Line and 99 chartered container ships. But Hapag will sign a transfer agreement with FIMI through which the private equity house will take over Zim’s domestic operation, including 16 container ships, under a rebranded Zim Israel. The Zim acquisition will bolster Hapag-Lloyd’s fleet to more than 400 ships with a capacity of over 3 million TEUs. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd is on course to complete its $4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services by the end of this year after shareholders of the Israel-headquartered carrier voted overwhelmingly to approve the deal Thursday. Stockholders representing 97% of the shares in Zim, equivalent to 57.2 million shares, voted in favor of the deal that was announced in mid-February, according to a filing the carrier made with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. “We are very pleased that ZIM’s general meeting has voted in favor of a merger with Hapag-Lloyd,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “Following this important milestone, we will now continue to focus on completing the transaction toward the end of the year.” Zim did not immediately comment on the results of the shareholder vote, which comes about three weeks before it will release its 2025 results on May 20. The Hapag-Zim deal still needs approval from regulatory authorities in several jurisdictions before it can be completed. Deal with Zim unions needed Hapag-Lloyd, Zim and private equity house FIMI Opportunity Funds also need to reach agreement with the Israeli carrier’s labor unions to prevent industrial unrest from derailing the takeover. About 900 Zim staff, protesting possible job cuts and collective bargaining issues, were involved in a series of strikes in April that briefly halted operations at ports in Israel and the company’s Haifa headquarters. The unrest ended after unions reached a temporary agreement with Zim management. Under the takeover offer, Hapag will acquire full 100% ownership of Zim and will subsequently split Zim’s international and domestic operations. Hapag-Lloyd will keep the international business, including Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered intra-Asia liner and car carrier operator Gold Star Line and 99 chartered container ships. But Hapag will sign a transfer agreement with FIMI through which the private equity house will take over Zim’s domestic operation, including 16 container ships, under a rebranded Zim Israel. The Zim acquisition will bolster Hapag-Lloyd’s fleet to more than 400 ships with a capacity of over 3 million TEUs. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Asia-Europe

Supply chain

International ports

Longshore labor

Zim shareholders overwhelmingly approve takeover by Hapag-Lloyd

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US imports rose to new record high for the second straight year in 2025, while exports continued to recover from post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023.</div>

US imports rose to new record high for the second straight year in 2025, while exports continued to recover from post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023.

The largest US shippers moved slightly less freight last year despite a slight increase in overall market demand, according to the 2026 Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Importers and Exporters rankings. Containerized imports to the US rose to a new record high for the second straight year in 2025 amid widespread frontloading linked to uncertainty surrounding tariffs and other US trade policies, such as a proposed fee on Chinese-built and -operated vessels. Against this backdrop, however, the Top 100 Importers saw their combined volumes slip an estimated 1.1% year over year. Total container imports inched up 0.7% to 28.16 million TEUs in 2025 after skyrocketing 16.6% to a then-record 27.98 million TEUs in 2024, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. On the export side, the disparity in growth rates was even greater, as outbound container volumes continued to recover from the post-pandemic lows recorded in 2023. Volumes among the Top 100 Exporters fell an estimated 4.5% for the full year, while total US exports grew 3.1% in 2025 following a 0.9% uptick in 2024. The annual container volumes of major importers and exporters are not publicly available, so the Top 100 rankings are the best approximation using analysis of PIERS data, confirmation of volumes with cargo owners, and limited modeling. Modeling factors include historical volumes, industry vertical growth and company revenue growth. The following rankings appear in the Top 100 Importers and Exporters issue of the Journal of Commerce magazine to be published May 4, 2026. Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Importers in 2025 Annual containerized US imports, in laden TEUs Rank Importer TEUs Sector 1 Walmart 975,000 Retail 2 Home Depot 450,000 Retail 3 Target 400,000 Retail 4 Amazon 350,000 Retail 5 Dole Food 247,500 Foodstuffs 6 Lowe's 222,309 Retail 7 Chiquita Brands International 201,709 Foodstuffs 8 Ashley Furniture 200,710 Furniture 9 LG Group 168,404 Conglomerate 10 Dollar Tree 160,000 Retail 11 IKEA 125,368 Retail 12 Fresh Del Monte Produce 124,827 Foodstuffs 13 Hyundai Motor Company 119,805 Automotive goods 14 Ross Stores 101,500 Retail 15 Samsung America 100,000 Conglomerate 16 Sumitomo Corporation 99,708 Conglomerate 17 First Solar 85,651 Solar 18 GE Appliances, a Haier Company 83,000 Retail and household goods 19 Toyota Tsusho America 82,068 Automotive goods 20 General Motors 80,000 Automotive goods 21 Bob’s Discount Furniture 73,000 Household goods 22 Rooms to Go 62,800 Furniture 23 Electrolux 62,397 Electronics and household goods 24 Dollar General 59,006 Retail 25 Heineken USA 52,333 Alcoholic and beverages 26 SharkNinja Operating LLC 51,259 Household goods 27 Tractor Supply Company 49,000 Retail 28 John Deere 48,000 Heavy machinery 29 Sailun Tire Americas 47,432 Automotive goods 30 Newell Brands 45,000 Electronics 31 Costco Wholesale 44,548 Retail 32 Mercedes Benz USA 44,188 Automotive goods 33 Canadian Solar 44,017 Renewable energy 34 Yokohama Tire 43,302 Automotive goods 35 Hankook Tire America 41,517 Automotive goods 36 VF Corp. 41,000 Apparel and footwear 37 Kubota Tractor Company 40,688 Heavy machinery 38 Adidas Group 39,348 Apparel and footwear 39 Midea Group 38,963 Household goods 40 Goodyear Rubber & Tire 38,390 Automotive goods 41 ALDI 37,524 Retail 42 Continental Tire 36,484 Automotive goods 43 Q Cells 34,948 Solar 44 Toyo Tires 34,429 Automotive goods 45 TMALL 34,397 Retail 46 Dole Packaged Foods 33,000 Foodstuffs 47 Element Electronics 32,397 Electronics 48 Michelin North America 30,000 Automotive goods 49 Tesla 29,978 Automotive goods 50 Euromarket Designs 29,885 Retail 51 Hewlett-Packard 28,000 Electronics 52 Olam International 27,498 Cotton, spices and vegetables 53 Best Buy 27,000 Electronics 54 Dollarama L.P. 26,910 Retail 55 Mitsubishi Motors 26,552 Automotive goods 56 Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits 26,490 Foodstuffs 57 Ford Motor Company 25,140 Automotive goods 58 ABC Carpet and Home 25,012 Furniture 59 Dorel Industries 25,000 Conglomerate 60 Goya Foods 24,835 Foodstuffs 61 Bissell Homecare 24,500 Household goods 62 Bridgestone Tire 24,290 Automotive goods 63 Tatung Company of America 23,213 Electronics 64 Subaru of America 22800 Automotive goods 65 LKQ 22,482 Automotive goods 66 Fiji Water 22,332 Retail 67 EGA America Inc 22,226 Metals and recyclables 68 Kumho Tire 22,072 Automotive goods 69 Raymour & Flanigan 22,000 Retail 70 Curtis International 21,487 Electronics 71 CMPC Maderas 21,428 Paper product 72 Keter North America Inc 21,152 Storage 73 TTE Technology 20,856 Electronics 74 New Balance Athletics 20,202 Apparel and footwear 75 LollicupStore 20,164 Retail 76 Sentury Tire 19,910 Automotive goods 77 The Vita Coco Company 19,734 Foodstuffs 78 Sazerac 19,518 Alcoholic and beverages 79 Bechtel 19,390 Engineering and construction 80 American Furniture Warehouse 19,353 Furniture 81 Old Navy 19,005 Retail clothing 82 SanMar 18,964 Apparel and footwear 83 Yamaha Motor Corporation 18,581 Automotive goods 84 API Tires  18,521 Automotive goods 85 Conair LLC 18,291 Electronics 86 Sol Foods 18,116 Foodstuffs 87 Procter & Gamble 17,894 Conglomerate 88 Direct Pack 17,868 Packaging 89 Living Spaces Furniture 17,708 Furniture 90 Tireco 17,698 Automotive goods 91 ESWINDOWS 17,364 Glass manufacturer  92 Kawasaki 17,197 Powersports manufacturing 93 Loblaws 16,810 Retail 94 Runergy 16,483 Solar 95 Medical Depot 16,388 Medical devices 96 QVC 16,098 Retail 97 Danone Waters 16,022 Foodstuffs 98 Cozy Office 15,928 Furniture 99 FUYAO AUTOMOTIVE 15,776 Automotive goods 100 Schneider Electric 15,499 Electrical equipment Source: S&P Global © 2026 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Exporters in 2025 Annual containerized US exports, in laden TEUs Rank Exporter TEUs Sector 1 Koch Industries 215,280 Conglomerate 2 Dow Chemical 199,900 Chemicals 3 International Paper 156,000 Paper and packaging 4 DeLong 131,492 Animal Feed and Grain 5 ExxonMobil Chemical 130,159 Chemicals 6 America Chung Nam 110,913 Paper and plastics recyclables 7 Tricon Energy 110,000 Chemicals 8 Shintech 108,812 Chemicals 9 Ravago 107,855 Chemicals 10 WM Recycle America 106,952 Diversified recyclables 11 POET Nutrition 99,266 Animal Feed and Grain 12 Archer Daniels Midland  90,140 Foodstuffs 13 Newport CH International 86,363 Paper, metals and plastics recyclables 14 Scoular 83,456 Animal Feed and Grain 15 International Forest Products 82,300 Paper and recyclables 16 Sims Metal Management 78,501 Metal and electronics recyclables 17 JBS USA 76,286 Refrigerated meats and poultry 18 Viterra US 72,606 Agribusiness 19 Frey Commodities 72,182 Commodity trading 20 Cargill 68,000 Conglomerate 21 Winfibre 67,441 Paper and recyclables 22 The Anderson's Inc. 67,314 Agricultural goods 23 CellMark Group 66,984 Diversified 24 Louis Dreyfus Company 57,734 Cotton 25 CHS 55,554 Agriculture, energy and foodstuffs 26 Smurfit Westrock 53,633 Paper and packaging 27 Domtar 51,887 Paper and forest products 28 BMW of North America 50,256 Automotive goods 29 Tyson Foods 49,861 Refrigerated meats and poultry 30 Olam International 46,177 Cotton, spices and vegetables 31 Walmart 43,559 Retail 32 Montachem International 43,027 Plastics 33 Vipa Group 40,130 Paper and recyclables 34 Canusa Hershman Recycling 38,000 Diversified recyclables 35 PriceSmart 37,712 Membership warehouse club 36 Eastman Chemical 36,786 Chemicals, fibers and plastics 37 Staple Cotton 36,000 Cotton 38 Rayonier Advanced Materials 36,000 Chemicals and forest products 39 Cycle Link 35,803 Recycling  40 AJC International 35,740 Foodstuffs 41 Prairie Creek Grain 35,669 Plastics, rubber and chemicals 42 Celanese 33,500 Chemicals 43 Vinmar International LTD 31,955 Chemicals and plastics 44 Genesis Resource Enterprises 31,324 Paper and recyclables 45 KaMin 31,258 Minerals and clay 46 Almarai 31,032 Animal feed 47 Valero 30,598 Petrochemical products 48 International Feed 29,952 Agricultural goods 49 Smithfield Foods 29,340 Foodstuffs 50 U.S. Borax Inc. 29,000 Chemicals 51 Al Dahra ACX Inc. 26,702 Animal Feed and Grain 52 Mitsui & Co. 25,084 Conglomerate 53 Stone Arch Commodities 24,050 Animal Feed and Grain 54 Fornazor International 22,703 Animal feed 55 America Metal Export 21,892 Metals and recyclables 56 Chevron Phillips Chemical 21,633 Chemicals 57 Costco Wholesale 21,300 Retail 58 Gildan Activewear 21,046 Apparel and footwear 59 Seaboard Foods 20,811 Foodstuffs 60 Hawkeye Gold 20,341 Minerals 61 Global Cellulose Fibers 20,057 Paper and forest products 62 Michelin North America 20,000 Automotive goods 63 Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds 20,000 Food and beverage 64 Sappi North America 19,036 Paper and recyclables 65 Procter & Gamble 18,176 Consumer goods 66 DuPont 17,960 Diversified 67 Haykingdom 17,718 Agricultural goods 68 Potential Industries 17,635 Paper and recyclables 69 Fibre Trade 17,336 Paper and recyclables 70 Bayer CropScience 17,313 Agricultural goods 71 Ascend Performance Materials 17,166 Chemicals, fibers and plastics 72 Mercedes Benz USA 16,838 Automotive 73 Anheuser Busch InBev 15,679 Foodstuffs 74 Alco Iron and Metal 15,205 Metals and recyclables 75 Perdue 14,549 Foodstuffs 76 Central National Gottesman 14,508 Paper and forest products 77 Darling Ingredients 14,387 Consumer staples 78 Ekman Group 14,379 Paper and recyclables 79 ECOM USA 13,939 Commodity trading 80 GE Healthcare 13,689 Retail and household goods 81 Chemours 13,050 Chemicals 82 Healthy Green Life 12,584 Consumer goods 83 Nova Chemicals 12,508 Chemicals 84 Conveyco Technologies 12,293 Manufacture 85 Toyota Tsusho America 11,781 Automotive goods 86 Sysco 11,775 Foodstuffs 87 National Beef 11,773 Foodstuffs 88 Home Depot 11,614 Retail 89 Prosper International Trading 11,264 Paper and forest products 90 Caterpillar 11,250 Heavy machinery 91 John Deere 11,040 Industrial machinery 92 SA Recycling 10,860 Scrap metal recycling 93 Active Minerals International 9,674 Minerals 94 Sun International Produce 9,615 Food and beverage 95 Wheaton Grain 9,527 Agribusiness 96 Anderson Hay & Grain 9,285 Animal feed 97 Zen Trading 9,159 Animal Feed and Grain 98 Ford Motor Company 9,059 Automotive goods 99 Linden Trading Company 9,000 Recycling and commodities Trading 100 Border Valley Trading 8,889 Animal feed Source: S&P Global © 2026 S&P Global.

Journal of Commerce Top 100 US Importers and Exporters in 2025

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Tobias Meyer said 10 dedicated DHL Supply Chain warehouses with 7 million square feet of capacity will go live in North America this year, specifically targeting data center logistics.</div>

Tobias Meyer said 10 dedicated DHL Supply Chain warehouses with 7 million square feet of capacity will go live in North America this year, specifically targeting data center logistics.

<div class="phx-topic">DHL is targeting the booming US data center market to help boost revenues at its three main transportation divisions as part of efforts to develop its industrial customer base. Group CEO Tobias Meyer, speaking during the company’s first-quarter earnings call Thursday, said industrial customers typically ship heavier cargoes that, in turn, would drive group revenues. Meyer said 10 dedicated DHL Supply Chain warehouses with 7 million square feet of capacity will go live in North America this year, specifically targeting data center logistics. The facilities would support hyperscale and co-location data center operators amid AI-driven capacity expansion, he said. “We see particularly high demand in North America to stage inbound supplies there,” Meyer told analysts during the call. Typically, DHL would transport components to warehouses close to data center job sites so they can be “stored locally to have components available when construction of the data center progresses,” he explained. Meyer pointed out this would involve international and domestic shipments of data center servers, server racks, and other electrical equipment that are “significant components and significant tonnage” that would be moved by DHL’s three main transportation divisions: global forwarding, supply chain and express. He gave no indication how much the business, which he described as “still unfolding,” would be worth. But real estate company JLL estimated US data center capacity would more than double to 109 gigawatts by 2030 from 49 GW last year. More than 1,500 data centers are in various stages of development nationwide, with 75% planned in the US Southwest and Midwest, according to a Pew Research Center report published in mid-April. <h3>Jet fuel concerns in Asia </h3>More immediately, Meyer said jet fuel constraints in Asia, a key market for Middle Eastern crude, meant DHL is increasing the amount of fuel its aircraft carry on short-haul express cargo flights in the region to avoid airplanes running out of fuel. He said aircraft have been “tanking” fuel from DHL’s regional hubs in Asia so they have enough for round-trip flights in its Asia network rather than refueling at each destination. “We’ve seen at some airports there is no fuel available for additional flights or there are structural shortages,” Meyer said. He indicated that the situation could worsen, with jet fuel only available to airlines that were prepared to pay higher prices if Middle East oil shipments continued to be limited due to the Middle East war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. “If there’s a continued shortfall of 10 to 12 million barrels of crude every day, something has to give at some point,” Meyer said. “And that’s also why higher prices are a logical outcome that allows fuel to be distributed to those areas where there’s biggest demand and highest willingness to pay.” Meyer declined to provide a full outlook for the rest of this year, but group earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) this year are forecast to be unchanged from last year at $7.3 billion due to the “muted macro environment.” His comments came after the company reported mixed first-quarter results. DHL Global Forwarding saw air freight volumes climb 4% to 438,000 metric tons while gross profit was flat at $698 per metric ton. Ocean freight volumes increased 2% to 804,000 TEUs, but gross profit fell 20% to $378 per TEU on lower freight rates. Overall, global forwarding saw its EBIT drop 19% to $193 million, while revenues fell 5% to $5.3 billion. DHL Express saw a slight decrease in volumes, but EBIT surged 21% to $941 million, supported by higher prices and cost savings. Revenues slipped 2% to $7 billion, with Europe being the only one of the four main express regions posting a revenue gain. Meyer said DHL’s total first-quarter revenue was 2% lower at $24 billion, while net profit increased 3% to $956 million. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

DHL is targeting the booming US data center market to help boost revenues at its three main transportation divisions as part of efforts to develop its industrial customer base. Group CEO Tobias Meyer, speaking during the company’s first-quarter earnings call Thursday, said industrial customers typically ship heavier cargoes that, in turn, would drive group revenues. Meyer said 10 dedicated DHL Supply Chain warehouses with 7 million square feet of capacity will go live in North America this year, specifically targeting data center logistics. The facilities would support hyperscale and co-location data center operators amid AI-driven capacity expansion, he said. “We see particularly high demand in North America to stage inbound supplies there,” Meyer told analysts during the call. Typically, DHL would transport components to warehouses close to data center job sites so they can be “stored locally to have components available when construction of the data center progresses,” he explained. Meyer pointed out this would involve international and domestic shipments of data center servers, server racks, and other electrical equipment that are “significant components and significant tonnage” that would be moved by DHL’s three main transportation divisions: global forwarding, supply chain and express. He gave no indication how much the business, which he described as “still unfolding,” would be worth. But real estate company JLL estimated US data center capacity would more than double to 109 gigawatts by 2030 from 49 GW last year. More than 1,500 data centers are in various stages of development nationwide, with 75% planned in the US Southwest and Midwest, according to a Pew Research Center report published in mid-April. Jet fuel concerns in Asia More immediately, Meyer said jet fuel constraints in Asia, a key market for Middle Eastern crude, meant DHL is increasing the amount of fuel its aircraft carry on short-haul express cargo flights in the region to avoid airplanes running out of fuel. He said aircraft have been “tanking” fuel from DHL’s regional hubs in Asia so they have enough for round-trip flights in its Asia network rather than refueling at each destination. “We’ve seen at some airports there is no fuel available for additional flights or there are structural shortages,” Meyer said. He indicated that the situation could worsen, with jet fuel only available to airlines that were prepared to pay higher prices if Middle East oil shipments continued to be limited due to the Middle East war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. “If there’s a continued shortfall of 10 to 12 million barrels of crude every day, something has to give at some point,” Meyer said. “And that’s also why higher prices are a logical outcome that allows fuel to be distributed to those areas where there’s biggest demand and highest willingness to pay.” Meyer declined to provide a full outlook for the rest of this year, but group earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) this year are forecast to be unchanged from last year at $7.3 billion due to the “muted macro environment.” His comments came after the company reported mixed first-quarter results. DHL Global Forwarding saw air freight volumes climb 4% to 438,000 metric tons while gross profit was flat at $698 per metric ton. Ocean freight volumes increased 2% to 804,000 TEUs, but gross profit fell 20% to $378 per TEU on lower freight rates. Overall, global forwarding saw its EBIT drop 19% to $193 million, while revenues fell 5% to $5.3 billion. DHL Express saw a slight decrease in volumes, but EBIT surged 21% to $941 million, supported by higher prices and cost savings. Revenues slipped 2% to $7 billion, with Europe being the only one of the four main express regions posting a revenue gain. Meyer said DHL’s total first-quarter revenue was 2% lower at $24 billion, while net profit increased 3% to $956 million. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo

DHL targeting US data center development to boost group revenues: CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With lower space allocations offered by Gemini, competing carriers have been able to keep their sailings on the routes maxed out and push rates higher, sources say.</div>

With lower space allocations offered by Gemini, competing carriers have been able to keep their sailings on the routes maxed out and push rates higher, sources say.

<div class="phx-topic">The capacity withdrawn by the Gemini Cooperation from the India-Mediterranean trade following its recent Middle East network adjustments has effectively tightened supply, thus proving a boon for active carrier participants in the market, market sources say. Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in early March, shortly after the war began, <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Fgemini-suspends-revamps-middle-east-services-amid-growing-conflict-6182114&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ckevin.saville2%40spglobal.com%7C9bc4790300504e3d15ab08dea6a733c1%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C639131434230985857%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=U6cMDZFpCsKNvoKG%2Bh4hwX699iOagbTAe%2FcM2tzx4F0%3D&amp;reserved=0">halted their independently branded ME11/IMX network operations</a> linking the Middle East, India and the Mediterranean, and opened a revamped India-Middle East-Europe service (ME1/IOS) with access to a West Mediterranean hub. The suspended ME11/IMX loop deployed ultra-large vessels with an average capacity of 15,000 TEUs to 16,000 TEUs, so space availability on the lane for Indian headhaul loads was substantial. With lower space allocations now offered by Gemini for India-North Europe/Med loadings due to combined operations and comparatively smaller tonnage, existing competing carriers, most notably CMA CGM, have been able to keep their sailings on the routes maxed out and push rates higher, local freight forwarder sources told the Journal of Commerce. CMA CGM serves the India-Mediterranean trade through its “Medex” service, which transits via the Red Sea/Suez Canal and loads for North Europe on its premier “Epic” loop. According to an analysis of port flow data, CMA CGM’s weekly liftings out of West India for Medex and Epic sailings through April have hit a level of 5,000 TEUs per call on average, thanks to additional volume uptake from that altered supply-demand picture. “All the recent vessels have sailed full despite persistent muted demand conditions,” said a forwarder executive who didn’t want to be identified. “CMA CGM has also benefited to some extent from the rotation update centered on Red Sea cargo demand via Jeddah [Saudi Arabia].” India-Med booking rates gained between $800 and $1,000 per FEU from late March through April before stabilizing over the last week, data from forwarders shows. “While varying from carrier to carrier, spot rates are now in the range of $3,000 to $3,200 per FEU from Nhava Sheva to Port Said or Valencia,” a forwarder executive said. Sources with CMA CGM in India were not available for comment.<h3>Middle East inland bottlenecks </h3>Meanwhile, Maersk seems to be dealing with fresh logistics bottlenecks in Middle East-bound trades. The carrier said in a customer advisory that it has temporarily paused new bookings involving extensive land bridge solutions, including shipments to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar via Jeddah and Oman, as well as from Salalah/Sohar in Oman to the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain. Updates from Middle East-based industry sources who spoke with the Journal of Commerce indicate that a shortage of landside assets, especially trucks, is hindering the ability of carriers to move imports into the region inland. The sources added that CMA CGM is now doing much of its India-Persian Gulf cargo handling via Fujairah in the UAE on the back of a priority service arrangement it set up with port operator AD Ports Group. As a result, the carrier has curtailed Indian calls into the UAE’s Khor Fakkan, the other newfound alternative gateway to Jebel Ali, the sources said. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

The capacity withdrawn by the Gemini Cooperation from the India-Mediterranean trade following its recent Middle East network adjustments has effectively tightened supply, thus proving a boon for active carrier participants in the market, market sources say. Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in early March, shortly after the war began, halted their independently branded ME11/IMX network operations linking the Middle East, India and the Mediterranean, and opened a revamped India-Middle East-Europe service (ME1/IOS) with access to a West Mediterranean hub. The suspended ME11/IMX loop deployed ultra-large vessels with an average capacity of 15,000 TEUs to 16,000 TEUs, so space availability on the lane for Indian headhaul loads was substantial. With lower space allocations now offered by Gemini for India-North Europe/Med loadings due to combined operations and comparatively smaller tonnage, existing competing carriers, most notably CMA CGM, have been able to keep their sailings on the routes maxed out and push rates higher, local freight forwarder sources told the Journal of Commerce. CMA CGM serves the India-Mediterranean trade through its “Medex” service, which transits via the Red Sea/Suez Canal and loads for North Europe on its premier “Epic” loop. According to an analysis of port flow data, CMA CGM’s weekly liftings out of West India for Medex and Epic sailings through April have hit a level of 5,000 TEUs per call on average, thanks to additional volume uptake from that altered supply-demand picture. “All the recent vessels have sailed full despite persistent muted demand conditions,” said a forwarder executive who didn’t want to be identified. “CMA CGM has also benefited to some extent from the rotation update centered on Red Sea cargo demand via Jeddah [Saudi Arabia].” India-Med booking rates gained between $800 and $1,000 per FEU from late March through April before stabilizing over the last week, data from forwarders shows. “While varying from carrier to carrier, spot rates are now in the range of $3,000 to $3,200 per FEU from Nhava Sheva to Port Said or Valencia,” a forwarder executive said. Sources with CMA CGM in India were not available for comment. Middle East inland bottlenecks Meanwhile, Maersk seems to be dealing with fresh logistics bottlenecks in Middle East-bound trades. The carrier said in a customer advisory that it has temporarily paused new bookings involving extensive land bridge solutions, including shipments to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar via Jeddah and Oman, as well as from Salalah/Sohar in Oman to the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain. Updates from Middle East-based industry sources who spoke with the Journal of Commerce indicate that a shortage of landside assets, especially trucks, is hindering the ability of carriers to move imports into the region inland. The sources added that CMA CGM is now doing much of its India-Persian Gulf cargo handling via Fujairah in the UAE on the back of a priority service arrangement it set up with port operator AD Ports Group. As a result, the carrier has curtailed Indian calls into the UAE’s Khor Fakkan, the other newfound alternative gateway to Jebel Ali, the sources said. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Gemini capacity cutbacks make India-Med market hotter for rival carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Trump administration’s threatened, and actual, withdrawal from numerous international groups and forums can eventually upset the relative stability that has existed in post-World War II global trade, writes Ted Prince.</div>

The Trump administration’s threatened, and actual, withdrawal from numerous international groups and forums can eventually upset the relative stability that has existed in post-World War II global trade, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Following World War II, the US led the establishment of numerous multilateral organizations in the belief that a rules-based international order could prevent future global conflicts and promote stability. Our industry has grown and prospered under this doctrine. Today, this post-war consensus is under strain. While our oft-threatened NATO withdrawal is problematic due to (then) Sen. Marco Rubio’s legislation prohibiting any US President from unilaterally withdrawing from the group, this administration has eliminated many multilateral arrangements. On Jan. 7, 2026, President Donald Trump announced the US’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations. It is worth reviewing how just a handful of these organizations impact our industry. <h3>Trade and tariffs </h3>The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established in 1964 to serve as a voice for developing nations within the international economic system. From 1968 through 1974, UNCTAD considered “Liner Code” proposals that might have been favorably received by the current administration with its avowed interest in reviving US-flag shipping. One proposal allocated cargo between two countries as follows: one-third each to the fleets of the origin and destination country, with the remainder “open.” This code was never codified as it ran into objections of inefficiency, higher freight costs, protection of weak national lines, and conflict with liberal/trade rules. These trade rules originated from UNCTAD’s complementary organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a multilateral treaty ratified in 1947 to foster free trade by reducing tariffs. It was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. China’s membership in 2001 is viewed as an inflection point in global trade growth. Despite recent Supreme Court rulings, the WTO is confronted with Trump’s tariff initiatives. Its director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has called for urgent reforms to maintain a stable, rules-based trading system against unilateral action. It is unclear how that will end. <h3>Law of the sea </h3>With the Strait of Hormuz generating global attention, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty adopted in 1982 and effective since 1994, has generated renewed interest. It established a comprehensive legal framework for maritime zones that governs navigation, environmental protection, and provides dispute resolution mechanisms. The United States never ratified UNCLOS, despite recognizing most of its provisions as customary international law. The Reagan administration was opposed to terms governing deep seabed mining. Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously supported ratification in 2004, the full Senate has never held a final vote because the required two-thirds approval for treaty ratification was not apparent. UNCLOS treats the Strait of Hormuz as an international strait, meaning the regime of transit passage applies. Ships of all states have the right of unimpeded transit through the strait even when passing through the territorial sea of bordering states (e.g., Iran and Oman). <h3>IMO net-zero </h3>The United States is still an active member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency responsible for regulating international shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its most ambitious policy is its “net-zero” framework, which sets various intermediate targets on the way to net-zero shipping emissions by or around 2050. This was the first international effort to combine mandatory emissions limits and greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing across an entire industry. However, last October, the US contended the proposal relies on costly and unproven fuels while unfairly penalizing existing technologies. This objection forced the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">postponement of adoption</a>. Although positions vary widely, there is an industry consensus on the need for uniform rules. Many ports and US shipowners already have decarbonization initiatives or low‑carbon fuel commitments underway. Certainty is essential for expensive assets with long lives. In today’s uncertain world, multilateral threats are harder to insulate against because they may obviate specific bilateral — or unilateral — actions. They can propagate quickly through interconnected trade, transportation, and finance networks. These lifelines are core to our industry and often require coordinated international policy actions; however, they can be slow (or politically difficult) to create quickly. As the architect (and major funder) of core multilateral institutions, will the US continue to use these forums to set rules, coordinate macroeconomic policy, and resolve disputes? Or, will we see a world where other nations seek alternative arrangements? Our entire industry literally hangs in that balance. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

Following World War II, the US led the establishment of numerous multilateral organizations in the belief that a rules-based international order could prevent future global conflicts and promote stability. Our industry has grown and prospered under this doctrine. Today, this post-war consensus is under strain. While our oft-threatened NATO withdrawal is problematic due to (then) Sen. Marco Rubio’s legislation prohibiting any US President from unilaterally withdrawing from the group, this administration has eliminated many multilateral arrangements. On Jan. 7, 2026, President Donald Trump announced the US’ withdrawal from 66 international organizations. It is worth reviewing how just a handful of these organizations impact our industry. Trade and tariffs The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was established in 1964 to serve as a voice for developing nations within the international economic system. From 1968 through 1974, UNCTAD considered “Liner Code” proposals that might have been favorably received by the current administration with its avowed interest in reviving US-flag shipping. One proposal allocated cargo between two countries as follows: one-third each to the fleets of the origin and destination country, with the remainder “open.” This code was never codified as it ran into objections of inefficiency, higher freight costs, protection of weak national lines, and conflict with liberal/trade rules. These trade rules originated from UNCTAD’s complementary organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a multilateral treaty ratified in 1947 to foster free trade by reducing tariffs. It was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. China’s membership in 2001 is viewed as an inflection point in global trade growth. Despite recent Supreme Court rulings, the WTO is confronted with Trump’s tariff initiatives. Its director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has called for urgent reforms to maintain a stable, rules-based trading system against unilateral action. It is unclear how that will end. Law of the sea With the Strait of Hormuz generating global attention, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty adopted in 1982 and effective since 1994, has generated renewed interest. It established a comprehensive legal framework for maritime zones that governs navigation, environmental protection, and provides dispute resolution mechanisms. The United States never ratified UNCLOS, despite recognizing most of its provisions as customary international law. The Reagan administration was opposed to terms governing deep seabed mining. Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously supported ratification in 2004, the full Senate has never held a final vote because the required two-thirds approval for treaty ratification was not apparent. UNCLOS treats the Strait of Hormuz as an international strait, meaning the regime of transit passage applies. Ships of all states have the right of unimpeded transit through the strait even when passing through the territorial sea of bordering states (e.g., Iran and Oman). IMO net-zero The United States is still an active member of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations specialized agency responsible for regulating international shipping safety, security, and environmental performance. Its most ambitious policy is its “net-zero” framework, which sets various intermediate targets on the way to net-zero shipping emissions by or around 2050. This was the first international effort to combine mandatory emissions limits and greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing across an entire industry. However, last October, the US contended the proposal relies on costly and unproven fuels while unfairly penalizing existing technologies. This objection forced the postponement of adoption . Although positions vary widely, there is an industry consensus on the need for uniform rules. Many ports and US shipowners already have decarbonization initiatives or low‑carbon fuel commitments underway. Certainty is essential for expensive assets with long lives. In today’s uncertain world, multilateral threats are harder to insulate against because they may obviate specific bilateral — or unilateral — actions. They can propagate quickly through interconnected trade, transportation, and finance networks. These lifelines are core to our industry and often require coordinated international policy actions; however, they can be slow (or politically difficult) to create quickly. As the architect (and major funder) of core multilateral institutions, will the US continue to use these forums to set rules, coordinate macroeconomic policy, and resolve disputes? Or, will we see a world where other nations seek alternative arrangements? Our entire industry literally hangs in that balance. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Container shipping’s ‘multilateral world’ under threat by US-driven strain

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">After more than two decades of inconsistent federal enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving, raising hopes for a safer trucking industry and the general public it serves. </div>

After more than two decades of inconsistent federal enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving, raising hopes for a safer trucking industry and the general public it serves.

<div class="phx-topic">I’ve watched the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) struggle to fulfill its most critical responsibility: ensuring safer roads. This is not a casual observation; it is a conclusion drawn from over 20 years of experience with the data, policies and the consequences that arise from them. The April 12 60 Minutes segment on trucking fraud is a direct consequence of the FMCSA’s failure to listen, engage, or understand the safety risks associated with the industry it is supposed to regulate. This is just one of many examples that underscores its shortcomings. In 2004, the FMCSA announced its flagship safety initiative, CSA 2010. The premise was straightforward: Use data to identify unsafe carriers and reduce crashes. It did not achieve its intended goals. And its failure was not quiet. It was public, repeated and consequential. More than two decades later, the industry still lacks a reliable, trusted framework to identify and avoid unsafe motor carriers. That outcome is extraordinary given the time, funding and regulatory focus dedicated to the effort. CSA is the most visible example, but not the only one. The program relied on data that could not reliably predict crash risk, yet it was promoted as though it could. Investigations by the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office confirmed that key elements were not statistically valid for their intended use, prompting Congressional intervention. This is not refinement, but systemic failure. More broadly, it reflects a pattern: initiatives launched with hope, but without a solid grounding in how safety actually operates in the real world. <h3>A disconnect from the real world </h3>As a member of the FMCSA’s Carrier Safety and Accountability Subcommittee, I saw firsthand how far decision-making had drifted from operational reality. Too often, the FMCSA treated the industry as an adversary rather than a partner. The people responsible for selecting carriers, managing risk and ensuring safe freight movement every day were not meaningfully included. At one point, I renamed my working folder for the CSA Subcommittee meetings to “FMCSA Lies.” This name reflected my frustration with senior-level FMCSA staff who defended positions that contradicted data, real-world situations, and basic common sense. They also seemed unwilling to listen to reason. Meanwhile, the private sector adapted. In 2007, I founded QualifiedCarriers.com to provide actionable safety intelligence to the shipping community on motor carriers. It was later acquired by Highway. The market built what it needed because the FMCSA would not. The problem has been compounded by a focus on issues with little direct impact on safety outcomes. Examining the economics of broker-carrier relationships — such as pricing structures — does not prevent accidents, remove unsafe drivers, or improve training and enforcement. Safety is operational. It comes down to who is behind the wheel, how they were trained, and whether standards are enforced consistently across jurisdictions. Anything else is a distraction. <h3>A turning point </h3>For the first time in 22 years, there are signs that the FMCSA is refocusing on what matters. Under Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs, the agency has begun taking steps that directly affect safety outcomes. In a short period, the FMCSA has shut down deficient commercial drivers’ license (CDL) schools, eliminating pipelines of underqualified drivers; actively enforced English language proficiency rules; begun cooperating with federal law enforcement on fraud, including risks tied to foreign-controlled dispatch operations; and started evaluating prior CDL issuances from substandard programs. The agency is also engaging directly with industry at major events, including the Mid-America Trucking Show and the Truckload Carriers Association annual meeting. At the Truckload Carriers Association meeting in March, Barrs received a standing ovation — not because enforcement is easier, but because it is finally becoming more meaningful. He may be the first FMCSA leader since Annette Sandberg to fully grasp that safety is an operational discipline grounded in qualification, enforcement and measurable outcomes. To the professionals inside the FMCSA: you now have leadership aligned with real-world safety. Support it, build on it and do not revert to frameworks that have already failed. To industry leaders — carriers, brokers, shippers and associations: engage constructively. Demand rigor, share data and hold the agency accountable while reinforcing what works. The path forward is not complicated. Put qualified drivers on the road, remove unqualified ones, enforce standards consistently, and use data that reflects reality. Do that, and safety improves. But we should be clear-eyed about the cost of delay. After more than two decades of inconsistent enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving all at once — tightening standards, removing capacity and straining the system. Had these steps been taken steadily over time, the disruption would be far less — and lives would almost certainly have been saved. For 22 years, the FMCSA drifted. Now it has a chance to lead and an obligation not to waste it again.Jeff Tucker is chairman of the National Industrial Transportation League’s Highway Committee. Contact him at <a href="mailto:jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com">jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com</a>. </div>

I’ve watched the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) struggle to fulfill its most critical responsibility: ensuring safer roads. This is not a casual observation; it is a conclusion drawn from over 20 years of experience with the data, policies and the consequences that arise from them. The April 12 60 Minutes segment on trucking fraud is a direct consequence of the FMCSA’s failure to listen, engage, or understand the safety risks associated with the industry it is supposed to regulate. This is just one of many examples that underscores its shortcomings. In 2004, the FMCSA announced its flagship safety initiative, CSA 2010. The premise was straightforward: Use data to identify unsafe carriers and reduce crashes. It did not achieve its intended goals. And its failure was not quiet. It was public, repeated and consequential. More than two decades later, the industry still lacks a reliable, trusted framework to identify and avoid unsafe motor carriers. That outcome is extraordinary given the time, funding and regulatory focus dedicated to the effort. CSA is the most visible example, but not the only one. The program relied on data that could not reliably predict crash risk, yet it was promoted as though it could. Investigations by the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office confirmed that key elements were not statistically valid for their intended use, prompting Congressional intervention. This is not refinement, but systemic failure. More broadly, it reflects a pattern: initiatives launched with hope, but without a solid grounding in how safety actually operates in the real world. A disconnect from the real world As a member of the FMCSA’s Carrier Safety and Accountability Subcommittee, I saw firsthand how far decision-making had drifted from operational reality. Too often, the FMCSA treated the industry as an adversary rather than a partner. The people responsible for selecting carriers, managing risk and ensuring safe freight movement every day were not meaningfully included. At one point, I renamed my working folder for the CSA Subcommittee meetings to “FMCSA Lies.” This name reflected my frustration with senior-level FMCSA staff who defended positions that contradicted data, real-world situations, and basic common sense. They also seemed unwilling to listen to reason. Meanwhile, the private sector adapted. In 2007, I founded QualifiedCarriers.com to provide actionable safety intelligence to the shipping community on motor carriers. It was later acquired by Highway. The market built what it needed because the FMCSA would not. The problem has been compounded by a focus on issues with little direct impact on safety outcomes. Examining the economics of broker-carrier relationships — such as pricing structures — does not prevent accidents, remove unsafe drivers, or improve training and enforcement. Safety is operational. It comes down to who is behind the wheel, how they were trained, and whether standards are enforced consistently across jurisdictions. Anything else is a distraction. A turning point For the first time in 22 years, there are signs that the FMCSA is refocusing on what matters. Under Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs, the agency has begun taking steps that directly affect safety outcomes. In a short period, the FMCSA has shut down deficient commercial drivers’ license (CDL) schools, eliminating pipelines of underqualified drivers; actively enforced English language proficiency rules; begun cooperating with federal law enforcement on fraud, including risks tied to foreign-controlled dispatch operations; and started evaluating prior CDL issuances from substandard programs. The agency is also engaging directly with industry at major events, including the Mid-America Trucking Show and the Truckload Carriers Association annual meeting. At the Truckload Carriers Association meeting in March, Barrs received a standing ovation — not because enforcement is easier, but because it is finally becoming more meaningful. He may be the first FMCSA leader since Annette Sandberg to fully grasp that safety is an operational discipline grounded in qualification, enforcement and measurable outcomes. To the professionals inside the FMCSA: you now have leadership aligned with real-world safety. Support it, build on it and do not revert to frameworks that have already failed. To industry leaders — carriers, brokers, shippers and associations: engage constructively. Demand rigor, share data and hold the agency accountable while reinforcing what works. The path forward is not complicated. Put qualified drivers on the road, remove unqualified ones, enforce standards consistently, and use data that reflects reality. Do that, and safety improves. But we should be clear-eyed about the cost of delay. After more than two decades of inconsistent enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving all at once — tightening standards, removing capacity and straining the system. Had these steps been taken steadily over time, the disruption would be far less — and lives would almost certainly have been saved. For 22 years, the FMCSA drifted. Now it has a chance to lead and an obligation not to waste it again. Jeff Tucker is chairman of the National Industrial Transportation League’s Highway Committee. Contact him at jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com .

Truckload

Trucking labor

How FMCSA missed the mark on safety — and how it can get it right

Index

The index for each vessel type is produced from two variables: the number of those vessels chartered compared to the previous month, and the lead time to charter those vessels compared to the previous month. If fewer vessels are chartered than in the previous month, this implies more capacity may be available. If the lead time needed to charter vessels is shorter than the previous month, this implies capacity is more quickly available. Both these scenarios imply a more positive market position from the shipper’s perspective. A rising index line indicates a more positive market position due to the availability of capacity. The start point of 100 denotes the point that accurate results began. The trend is taken from this position (February 2025) and shows movement in capacity compared to this point. The individual indices of the five major vessel types are weighted and consolidated to produce. The data is collected by the Journal of Commerce Breakbulk Shipper Group

Breakbulk ship capacity indicator (JOC) 

JOC Breakbulk and Project Cargo Index Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Midsize importers are generally satisfied with the base rates contained in their 2026–27 service contracts, but many are at the mercy of ocean carriers as to how emergency fuel surcharges are being handled.</div>

Midsize importers are generally satisfied with the base rates contained in their 2026–27 service contracts, but many are at the mercy of ocean carriers as to how emergency fuel surcharges are being handled.

<div class="phx-topic">Midsize US retailers and direct importers of Asia-sourced goods are finalizing 2026–27 service contracts with ocean carriers at base rates roughly comparable to last year — but with hundreds of dollars of additional bunker fuel surcharges baked in amid the war-driven jump in global oil prices. Container lines, despite facing a year of flat or negative volume growth and mounting global overcapacity, have generally been able to hold the line on trans-Pacific base rates while negotiating with cargo owners over how the higher fuel prices will be billed. Midsize importers — those moving approximately 20,000 to 100,000 TEUs annually — have secured contracts in the range of $1,650 to $1,950 per FEU to the West Coast, with East Coast business about $1,000 per FEU higher, according to multiple industry sources. Those levels are comparable to the base rates in the expiring 2025–26 service contracts. However, with crude oil trading over $100 per barrel <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-imposes-emergency-fuel-surcharges-on-third-party-feeder-cargo-6207629">due to the war in the Middle East</a> and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, carriers are approaching customers in the final stages of their 2026–27 service contract negotiations with bunker surcharges of as much as $400 per FEU, which would push the all-in freight rates to the US West Coast above $2,000 per FEU. That’s noticeably higher than last year when bunker fuel prices were stable. Most annual service contracts begin May 1 and run through April 30 of the following year. The Journal of Commerce spoke to seven ocean carriers, five forwarders, and three industry consultants for this story. “A lot of time customers push back on the surcharges, but the market is going to dictate what they are,” one carrier executive said. “Perhaps some carriers are more rigid than others as to how they apply additional surcharges, but I think that’s a matter of discussion.” Direct importers and forwarders are objecting to what they say are unilateral decisions by some carriers to change the standard bunker adjustment factor (BAF) in service contracts from a quarterly review to a monthly reset. Customers are also challenging carriers that are charging <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-handling-of-fuel-surcharges-agitates-small-midsize-trans-pac-shippers-6208047">emergency bunker surcharges (EBSs) that do not contain a clause</a> that would shift the EBS lower as oil prices drop. A second carrier executive said that given the current uncertainties due to the war in the Middle East, customers are asking shipping lines to offer guarantees and specify timelines around the bunker surcharges that are impossible to give. “If you ask a shipping line today, ‘Can you put an expiration date on the EBS, they cannot,’” the source said. A third carrier executive noted that fuel surcharges will vary noticeably based on the size of the customer and also the business relationship each carrier has with its customers. A large customer with a history of meeting the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in its annual contracts may be able to limit its fuel surcharge to as little as $100 per container, whereas smaller customers who have not booked frequently with the carrier may be offered a take-it-or-leave-it EBS of $400 per container, the carrier source explained. An industry consultant who has negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers said in order to finalize their negotiations, midsize retailers and importers should shift their focus to fuel surcharges. “The key for shippers is don’t focus on just the base rate,” the consultant said. “Also understand what the floating bunker [charge] looks like and the emergency bunker surcharge, which at some point will go away.” The source added it is a fact that carriers are getting hit hard right now by higher fuel costs, with bunker fuel prices at major hubs, especially in Asia, essentially doubling after the war began. “It has to be passed down,” the source said. “They can’t just absorb those kinds of costs.” Carriers are including BAFs and EBSs in their service contract negotiations not only because they are being hit with higher bunker costs, but also because they are paying railroads and truckers more due to increased costs in those sectors, said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “They’re definitely standing firm on fuel surcharges,” Cook said of ocean carriers. “All costs are going up.” <h3>Contract extensions not a big issue </h3>In mid-April, two weeks before the May 1 start date of 2026–27 contracts, BCOs expressed concern that, facing a backlog of unsigned contracts, carriers would not be able to finalize all of the outstanding deals on time. Customers feared they would have no choice but to pay much higher spot rates until their new contracts were finalized. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast as of Wednesday were $2,767 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,767 to the East Coast, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Drewry pegged spot rates as of April 23 at $2,934 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,562 per FEU to the East Coast. In the case of both indexes, West Coast spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates have been above $2,000 per FEU for all of April. In their expiring 2025–26 service contracts, midsize BCOs are paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 per FEU to the West Coast, so shipping under spot rates would add hundreds of dollars per container to the all-in rate. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7f641553-97ec-4014-8e54-fef6408538d9"></dynamic-object></div>But most carriers this week are agreeing to give their customers an extension of their 2025–26 service contracts until mid- to late-May while new deals are finalized, sources say, thus sparing customers from the more expensive spot market. “They’re extending the contracts now,” Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said of ocean carriers. Bob Fredman, an industry consultant who for many years managed logistics for national retailers, said he encountered similar situations in years when there was a backlog of contracts waiting to be processed. The delays were often needed to wrap up the language in new contracts that went down to the wire. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a deal-breaker for anyone,” Fredman said. <h3>Carriers limiting fixed-account bookings for NVOs </h3>As is customary, carriers have waited until the final week or so before the May 1 deadline to finalize contracts with most of the non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) that book with them. That is once again the case this year, forwarders say. Some carriers are being especially restrictive as to how many containers their NVO customers can ship under their named account (NAC) rates, several forwarders said. NAC rates are fixed for the duration of the contract. Many carriers right now are requiring that NVOs book as many as four containers under higher FAK rates for each fixed-account booking. NAC rates are likely to settle in below $2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, so that means forwarders will be shipping about 80% of their containers under the higher FAK rates, the forwarders said. However, requiring that ratio is not a new strategy, especially when FAK rates are noticeably higher than the fixed rates at the time the contracts are being signed, one forwarder said. “We don’t see this as being any more prevalent than in the past,” said the source. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi contributed to this report.</div>

Midsize US retailers and direct importers of Asia-sourced goods are finalizing 2026–27 service contracts with ocean carriers at base rates roughly comparable to last year — but with hundreds of dollars of additional bunker fuel surcharges baked in amid the war-driven jump in global oil prices. Container lines, despite facing a year of flat or negative volume growth and mounting global overcapacity, have generally been able to hold the line on trans-Pacific base rates while negotiating with cargo owners over how the higher fuel prices will be billed. Midsize importers — those moving approximately 20,000 to 100,000 TEUs annually — have secured contracts in the range of $1,650 to $1,950 per FEU to the West Coast, with East Coast business about $1,000 per FEU higher, according to multiple industry sources. Those levels are comparable to the base rates in the expiring 2025–26 service contracts. However, with crude oil trading over $100 per barrel due to the war in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, carriers are approaching customers in the final stages of their 2026–27 service contract negotiations with bunker surcharges of as much as $400 per FEU, which would push the all-in freight rates to the US West Coast above $2,000 per FEU. That’s noticeably higher than last year when bunker fuel prices were stable. Most annual service contracts begin May 1 and run through April 30 of the following year. The Journal of Commerce spoke to seven ocean carriers, five forwarders, and three industry consultants for this story. “A lot of time customers push back on the surcharges, but the market is going to dictate what they are,” one carrier executive said. “Perhaps some carriers are more rigid than others as to how they apply additional surcharges, but I think that’s a matter of discussion.” Direct importers and forwarders are objecting to what they say are unilateral decisions by some carriers to change the standard bunker adjustment factor (BAF) in service contracts from a quarterly review to a monthly reset. Customers are also challenging carriers that are charging emergency bunker surcharges (EBSs) that do not contain a clause that would shift the EBS lower as oil prices drop. A second carrier executive said that given the current uncertainties due to the war in the Middle East, customers are asking shipping lines to offer guarantees and specify timelines around the bunker surcharges that are impossible to give. “If you ask a shipping line today, ‘Can you put an expiration date on the EBS, they cannot,’” the source said. A third carrier executive noted that fuel surcharges will vary noticeably based on the size of the customer and also the business relationship each carrier has with its customers. A large customer with a history of meeting the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in its annual contracts may be able to limit its fuel surcharge to as little as $100 per container, whereas smaller customers who have not booked frequently with the carrier may be offered a take-it-or-leave-it EBS of $400 per container, the carrier source explained. An industry consultant who has negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers said in order to finalize their negotiations, midsize retailers and importers should shift their focus to fuel surcharges. “The key for shippers is don’t focus on just the base rate,” the consultant said. “Also understand what the floating bunker [charge] looks like and the emergency bunker surcharge, which at some point will go away.” The source added it is a fact that carriers are getting hit hard right now by higher fuel costs, with bunker fuel prices at major hubs, especially in Asia, essentially doubling after the war began. “It has to be passed down,” the source said. “They can’t just absorb those kinds of costs.” Carriers are including BAFs and EBSs in their service contract negotiations not only because they are being hit with higher bunker costs, but also because they are paying railroads and truckers more due to increased costs in those sectors, said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “They’re definitely standing firm on fuel surcharges,” Cook said of ocean carriers. “All costs are going up.” Contract extensions not a big issue In mid-April, two weeks before the May 1 start date of 2026–27 contracts, BCOs expressed concern that, facing a backlog of unsigned contracts, carriers would not be able to finalize all of the outstanding deals on time. Customers feared they would have no choice but to pay much higher spot rates until their new contracts were finalized. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast as of Wednesday were $2,767 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,767 to the East Coast, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Drewry pegged spot rates as of April 23 at $2,934 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,562 per FEU to the East Coast. In the case of both indexes, West Coast spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates have been above $2,000 per FEU for all of April. In their expiring 2025–26 service contracts, midsize BCOs are paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 per FEU to the West Coast, so shipping under spot rates would add hundreds of dollars per container to the all-in rate. But most carriers this week are agreeing to give their customers an extension of their 2025–26 service contracts until mid- to late-May while new deals are finalized, sources say, thus sparing customers from the more expensive spot market. “They’re extending the contracts now,” Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said of ocean carriers. Bob Fredman, an industry consultant who for many years managed logistics for national retailers, said he encountered similar situations in years when there was a backlog of contracts waiting to be processed. The delays were often needed to wrap up the language in new contracts that went down to the wire. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a deal-breaker for anyone,” Fredman said. Carriers limiting fixed-account bookings for NVOs As is customary, carriers have waited until the final week or so before the May 1 deadline to finalize contracts with most of the non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) that book with them. That is once again the case this year, forwarders say. Some carriers are being especially restrictive as to how many containers their NVO customers can ship under their named account (NAC) rates, several forwarders said. NAC rates are fixed for the duration of the contract. Many carriers right now are requiring that NVOs book as many as four containers under higher FAK rates for each fixed-account booking. NAC rates are likely to settle in below $2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, so that means forwarders will be shipping about 80% of their containers under the higher FAK rates, the forwarders said. However, requiring that ratio is not a new strategy, especially when FAK rates are noticeably higher than the fixed rates at the time the contracts are being signed, one forwarder said. “We don’t see this as being any more prevalent than in the past,” said the source. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi contributed to this report.

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

Fuel charges complicate rush to ink new trans-Pacific service contracts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The truckload provider slashed its logistics division’s third-party carrier pool by 30% in the first quarter amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing. </div>

The truckload provider slashed its logistics division’s third-party carrier pool by 30% in the first quarter amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing.

<div class="phx-topic">Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings is making deep cuts in its brokerage carrier base, targeting businesses that company officials say may be unsafe. “We have cut down the number of carriers that we work with dramatically,” Adam Miller, CEO of the truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) provider, told Wall Street analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings call last week. “Just since the beginning of this year, we’re down 30% and we had made a large cut even earlier last year,” Miller said. The cuts at Knight-Swift come amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide, allegations of widespread illegal trucking and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-releases-interim-final-rule-on-non-domiciled-cdl-holders-6169023">a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing</a>. “We felt it was prudent for us to take the steps to eliminate capacity that we didn’t feel comfortable with,” Miller said. “And do I think others will do that? I think some will.” Knight-Swift, which reported $7.5 billion in total revenue last year, had $127.6 million in logistics revenue, largely brokerage-based business, in the first quarter. That revenue was down 9.9% from a year earlier, driven by an 18.9% decline in load counts. <h3>Growing pressure to tighten standards </h3>Brokerages and carriers such as Knight-Swift that operate brokerages as part of a transportation portfolio are under growing pressure to tighten standards used to vet carriers. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine what level of <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/court-to-consider-whether-freight-brokers-can-be-held-liable-for-negligent-hiring/">legal liability</a> brokerages bear when contracting with asset-based trucking firms. <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-dangerous-trucking-schemes-putting-americans-at-risk-60-minutes-transcript/">Recent media coverage</a> about illegal trucking and unsafe carriers has heightened public attention on how brokers vet the carriers they select to haul freight. “We have taken a great number of steps to really ensure that we have high-quality, safe carriers,” Miller said during the conference call. “We vet how long you've been in business. We're looking at evidence that you have logs that we could see where your tractors are.” A real challenge for brokers and shippers, he said, is identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck. “The broker has no idea, in most cases,” said Miller. “We are taking steps to ensure we have a copy of the license, [that] we know who’s in the truck, especially if they’re going to operate and leverage one of our trailers,” he added. In doing so, Knight-Swift is going well beyond basic legal requirements that a freight broker select trucking firms with active operating authority and motor carrier insurance. That’s a decision more brokers and carriers are going to face, said Miller, as a regulatory crackdown on truck driver licensing eliminates more capacity. “Some logistics companies may not have a choice because the capacity they’re leveraging today won’t exist,” he said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” Miller said. “We’re already seeing that.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings is making deep cuts in its brokerage carrier base, targeting businesses that company officials say may be unsafe. “We have cut down the number of carriers that we work with dramatically,” Adam Miller, CEO of the truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) provider, told Wall Street analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings call last week. “Just since the beginning of this year, we’re down 30% and we had made a large cut even earlier last year,” Miller said. The cuts at Knight-Swift come amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide, allegations of widespread illegal trucking and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing . “We felt it was prudent for us to take the steps to eliminate capacity that we didn’t feel comfortable with,” Miller said. “And do I think others will do that? I think some will.” Knight-Swift, which reported $7.5 billion in total revenue last year, had $127.6 million in logistics revenue, largely brokerage-based business, in the first quarter. That revenue was down 9.9% from a year earlier, driven by an 18.9% decline in load counts. Growing pressure to tighten standards Brokerages and carriers such as Knight-Swift that operate brokerages as part of a transportation portfolio are under growing pressure to tighten standards used to vet carriers. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine what level of legal liability brokerages bear when contracting with asset-based trucking firms. Recent media coverage about illegal trucking and unsafe carriers has heightened public attention on how brokers vet the carriers they select to haul freight. “We have taken a great number of steps to really ensure that we have high-quality, safe carriers,” Miller said during the conference call. “We vet how long you've been in business. We're looking at evidence that you have logs that we could see where your tractors are.” A real challenge for brokers and shippers, he said, is identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck. “The broker has no idea, in most cases,” said Miller. “We are taking steps to ensure we have a copy of the license, [that] we know who’s in the truck, especially if they’re going to operate and leverage one of our trailers,” he added. In doing so, Knight-Swift is going well beyond basic legal requirements that a freight broker select trucking firms with active operating authority and motor carrier insurance. That’s a decision more brokers and carriers are going to face, said Miller, as a regulatory crackdown on truck driver licensing eliminates more capacity. “Some logistics companies may not have a choice because the capacity they’re leveraging today won’t exist,” he said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” Miller said. “We’re already seeing that.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Truck brokers

Knight-Swift making safety-related cuts to brokerage fleet

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">New research from software vendor Altana found that some of the declining China-US trade flows last year morphed into complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico to qualify for USMCA treatment and thus avoid billions in tariffs. </div>

New research from software vendor Altana found that some of the declining China-US trade flows last year morphed into complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico to qualify for USMCA treatment and thus avoid billions in tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">Increased trade volumes from China to Mexico via intermediary Asian nations last year demonstrated a new path for US-bound goods that were able to avoid steep tariffs — an estimated $40 billion — on imports from China, according to a report from global trade software vendor Altana. The company, in a report released Thursday, said that shipment-level supply chain data from its platform, plus a survey of 91 US trade professionals that include former lawmakers and customs officials, found that some of the declining trade flows from China to the US in 2025 morphed into more complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico in order to qualify under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Altana’s report contends that activity is illegal under current US customs rules — and that the US has lost approximately $40 billion in tariff revenue from goods that passed through Mexico and Canada under the USMCA treaty without going through a substantial transformation. “As US tariff laws became more robust, the flow of global trade shifted, with China-to-US trade contracting and trade that involved intermediary channels that fed into the USMCA market all growing,” Altana said. While China-US direct trade from January through October 2025 fell 28% to $276.5 billion compared with the same period in 2024, trade from Vietnam to Mexico rose 46% to $18.1 billion, according to data from UN Comtrade, which tracks annual global trade flows. The data also showed that trade rose 19% from Thailand to Mexico in the same period, and by 13% from Malaysia to Mexico. Direct Mexico to US imports, meanwhile, rose 6% to $450.5 billion. The Altana report suggests that these trade spikes used existing transshipment pathways, meaning the tariffs didn’t immediately induce “new, capital-intensive supply chain relationships,” but rather rerouted goods “being pumped through established networks of suppliers, facilities and actors.” To wit, Altana said transactions observed in its network on those “pre-existing transshipment routes that end in the USMCA bloc” rose 76% year over year through the first 10 months of 2025. “The estimated dollar value of shipments demonstrating patterns consistent with illegal transshipment rose sharply throughout 2025, accelerating at each major tariff escalation,” the report said. <h3>Scrutinizing transshipment </h3>The Trump administration, in the wake of assessing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners throughout 2025, said US Customs and Border Protection would be scrutinizing the shipment of goods that utilized intermediate countries of origin with lower duty rates to evade higher tariffs on the actual countries of origin. In January and February 2025, Altana said it identified $2.2 billion per month of what it called “suspected transshipment-linked trade entering the US.” By December, that number had reached $31.5 billion. The Trump administration’s so-called liberation day tariffs were rolled out in early April. “The trajectory is telling,” the report said. “As tariff complexity increased throughout 2025, so did the non-compliant rerouting of goods that were subject to tariffs.” Ultimately, the alleged non-compliance activity is related to what trade professionals call transformation, the idea that goods stopping in intermediary markets undergo enough of a change to impact country or origin determination, thus allowing those goods to use preferential trade agreements. The Altana report identified vehicles, machinery and electronics as the three sectors most represented in these transshipment paths. “A Chinese-origin vehicle subject to a 152% duty can be rerouted through a Mexico facility and potentially enter the United States at USMCA preferential rates, if it qualifies under rules of origin,” the report said. “At question is whether meaningful transformation occurred at the Mexican stop, and whether these known transshipment facilities will accurately record regional value content and other, upstream component-level information necessary to calculate and apply complex tariff rates and origin rules.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Increased trade volumes from China to Mexico via intermediary Asian nations last year demonstrated a new path for US-bound goods that were able to avoid steep tariffs — an estimated $40 billion — on imports from China, according to a report from global trade software vendor Altana. The company, in a report released Thursday, said that shipment-level supply chain data from its platform, plus a survey of 91 US trade professionals that include former lawmakers and customs officials, found that some of the declining trade flows from China to the US in 2025 morphed into more complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico in order to qualify under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Altana’s report contends that activity is illegal under current US customs rules — and that the US has lost approximately $40 billion in tariff revenue from goods that passed through Mexico and Canada under the USMCA treaty without going through a substantial transformation. “As US tariff laws became more robust, the flow of global trade shifted, with China-to-US trade contracting and trade that involved intermediary channels that fed into the USMCA market all growing,” Altana said. While China-US direct trade from January through October 2025 fell 28% to $276.5 billion compared with the same period in 2024, trade from Vietnam to Mexico rose 46% to $18.1 billion, according to data from UN Comtrade, which tracks annual global trade flows. The data also showed that trade rose 19% from Thailand to Mexico in the same period, and by 13% from Malaysia to Mexico. Direct Mexico to US imports, meanwhile, rose 6% to $450.5 billion. The Altana report suggests that these trade spikes used existing transshipment pathways, meaning the tariffs didn’t immediately induce “new, capital-intensive supply chain relationships,” but rather rerouted goods “being pumped through established networks of suppliers, facilities and actors.” To wit, Altana said transactions observed in its network on those “pre-existing transshipment routes that end in the USMCA bloc” rose 76% year over year through the first 10 months of 2025. “The estimated dollar value of shipments demonstrating patterns consistent with illegal transshipment rose sharply throughout 2025, accelerating at each major tariff escalation,” the report said. Scrutinizing transshipment The Trump administration, in the wake of assessing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners throughout 2025, said US Customs and Border Protection would be scrutinizing the shipment of goods that utilized intermediate countries of origin with lower duty rates to evade higher tariffs on the actual countries of origin. In January and February 2025, Altana said it identified $2.2 billion per month of what it called “suspected transshipment-linked trade entering the US.” By December, that number had reached $31.5 billion. The Trump administration’s so-called liberation day tariffs were rolled out in early April. “The trajectory is telling,” the report said. “As tariff complexity increased throughout 2025, so did the non-compliant rerouting of goods that were subject to tariffs.” Ultimately, the alleged non-compliance activity is related to what trade professionals call transformation, the idea that goods stopping in intermediary markets undergo enough of a change to impact country or origin determination, thus allowing those goods to use preferential trade agreements. The Altana report identified vehicles, machinery and electronics as the three sectors most represented in these transshipment paths. “A Chinese-origin vehicle subject to a 152% duty can be rerouted through a Mexico facility and potentially enter the United States at USMCA preferential rates, if it qualifies under rules of origin,” the report said. “At question is whether meaningful transformation occurred at the Mexican stop, and whether these known transshipment facilities will accurately record regional value content and other, upstream component-level information necessary to calculate and apply complex tariff rates and origin rules.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Tariff escalation led to enforcement gaps in Mexico rerouted goods: report

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The terminal, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited, unveiled new container handling equipment as part of a growth drive to increase capacity by 40%.</div>

The terminal, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited, unveiled new container handling equipment as part of a growth drive to increase capacity by 40%.

<div class="phx-topic">Newark — The Port of New York and New Jersey’s third-busiest marine terminal on Wednesday unveiled $100 million in new container handling equipment and related facilities, the first step in a $1 billion plan to add a new berth and more rail capacity for its main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co. Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) held a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a new maintenance shop designed for the terminal’s new, larger straddle carriers, which can span four-high container stacks. Along with the new shop, PNCT took delivery of the first 15 of the straddle carriers, with another 20 set for delivery by early 2027. The new yard equipment and shop are the first phase of PNCT’s plan to increase container volumes by 40% over the next three years, its Chief Executive Jim Pellicio told the Journal of Commerce. PNCT, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), eventually plans to replace its entire fleet with 150 of the new straddle carriers, effectively increasing yard capacity by nearly a third through higher stacks. The new fleet will also be entirely diesel-electric hybrid as PNCT switches an increasing amount of its energy use to renewables. Over the past decade, PNCT has installed a solar array over its truck lanes and parking lot that takes up the equivalent of 12 acres of land, Pellicio said, generating half of the terminal’s energy. “This $100 million is a down payment on where PNCT has to go next,” Pellicio said. “The maintenance facility is built to support a much larger terminal than what we have today.” PNCT’s last upgrade cycle started in 2014, with a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/upgrade-boosts-nynjs-pnct-terminal-capacity-5224445">$600 million investment</a> that included adding about 17 acres of terminal space, strengthening its three berths for larger ships, and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-cranes-put-ny-nj-port-on-track-to-handle-more-ultra-large-ships-by-2025-5226275">adding two ultra-large ship cranes</a>. By 2020, that project had increased PNCT’s nominal capacity to about 2 million TEUs, up from 1.4 million TEUs. The next investment cycle will bring PNCT’s capacity to about 2.8 million TEUs, Pellicio said, adding that the terminal could add another 150 longshore jobs by 2029 due to the expansion. A big part of that upgrade will be an additional 68 acres on the terminal’s eastern end. The new space will come from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/newark-port-project-to-give-mscs-terminal-more-room-to-grow-5703152">the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s $198 million rehabilitation</a> of a general cargo berth on the Newark peninsula’s southeastern end, along with the relocation of other port tenant properties to make way for container operations. The rehabilitation of Newark’s southeastern portion will provide PNCT another 400 feet of berth space on its eastern end by 2028. PNCT is also renovating another 700 feet of berth space on its western end, which will turn it into a four-berth facility. Pellicio said the additional space would allow PNCT to handle two 18,000-TEU ships simultaneously, along with a 9,000-TEU ship. Currently, its three berths can handle two 9,000-TEU ships and one 18,000-TEU ship. Although ships of that size will also require further dredging of the NY-NJ port to a 55-foot depth, Pellicio said it’s important to have PNCT ready for that next step. “There are no ships that need a 55-foot depth today, but you better build it today because they won’t come otherwise,” he said. <h3>Will add on-dock rail yard </h3>Along with the new equipment and berth, PNCT plans to add an on-dock rail yard at its eastern end, which should allow containers to move more easily to railcars. PNCT currently relies on yard hostlers to ferry containers over a flyover bridge to its rail yard adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike. PNCT already leads the port in terms of inland cargo moves, with about 24% of its containers moving out on rail compared with a port-wide average of about 15%. Pellicio said the terminal needs more intermodal capacity because “MSC has a significant amount of rail containers.” “The shipping company might say ‘just take my New York boxes and leave the rail boxes for Savannah or Baltimore,’” Pellicio said. “I’m saying to them with this investment, take all the boxes off at PNCT. We will have the berths to do it and the rail to do it.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Newark — The Port of New York and New Jersey’s third-busiest marine terminal on Wednesday unveiled $100 million in new container handling equipment and related facilities, the first step in a $1 billion plan to add a new berth and more rail capacity for its main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co. Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) held a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a new maintenance shop designed for the terminal’s new, larger straddle carriers, which can span four-high container stacks. Along with the new shop, PNCT took delivery of the first 15 of the straddle carriers, with another 20 set for delivery by early 2027. The new yard equipment and shop are the first phase of PNCT’s plan to increase container volumes by 40% over the next three years, its Chief Executive Jim Pellicio told the Journal of Commerce. PNCT, jointly owned by Ports America and MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), eventually plans to replace its entire fleet with 150 of the new straddle carriers, effectively increasing yard capacity by nearly a third through higher stacks. The new fleet will also be entirely diesel-electric hybrid as PNCT switches an increasing amount of its energy use to renewables. Over the past decade, PNCT has installed a solar array over its truck lanes and parking lot that takes up the equivalent of 12 acres of land, Pellicio said, generating half of the terminal’s energy. “This $100 million is a down payment on where PNCT has to go next,” Pellicio said. “The maintenance facility is built to support a much larger terminal than what we have today.” PNCT’s last upgrade cycle started in 2014, with a $600 million investment that included adding about 17 acres of terminal space, strengthening its three berths for larger ships, and adding two ultra-large ship cranes . By 2020, that project had increased PNCT’s nominal capacity to about 2 million TEUs, up from 1.4 million TEUs. The next investment cycle will bring PNCT’s capacity to about 2.8 million TEUs, Pellicio said, adding that the terminal could add another 150 longshore jobs by 2029 due to the expansion. A big part of that upgrade will be an additional 68 acres on the terminal’s eastern end. The new space will come from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s $198 million rehabilitation of a general cargo berth on the Newark peninsula’s southeastern end, along with the relocation of other port tenant properties to make way for container operations. The rehabilitation of Newark’s southeastern portion will provide PNCT another 400 feet of berth space on its eastern end by 2028. PNCT is also renovating another 700 feet of berth space on its western end, which will turn it into a four-berth facility. Pellicio said the additional space would allow PNCT to handle two 18,000-TEU ships simultaneously, along with a 9,000-TEU ship. Currently, its three berths can handle two 9,000-TEU ships and one 18,000-TEU ship. Although ships of that size will also require further dredging of the NY-NJ port to a 55-foot depth, Pellicio said it’s important to have PNCT ready for that next step. “There are no ships that need a 55-foot depth today, but you better build it today because they won’t come otherwise,” he said. Will add on-dock rail yard Along with the new equipment and berth, PNCT plans to add an on-dock rail yard at its eastern end, which should allow containers to move more easily to railcars. PNCT currently relies on yard hostlers to ferry containers over a flyover bridge to its rail yard adjacent to the New Jersey Turnpike. PNCT already leads the port in terms of inland cargo moves, with about 24% of its containers moving out on rail compared with a port-wide average of about 15%. Pellicio said the terminal needs more intermodal capacity because “MSC has a significant amount of rail containers.” “The shipping company might say ‘just take my New York boxes and leave the rail boxes for Savannah or Baltimore,’” Pellicio said. “I’m saying to them with this investment, take all the boxes off at PNCT. We will have the berths to do it and the rail to do it.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

NY-NJ’s Port Newark terminal takes first steps in next big expansion

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">STG’s deal with a group of lenders who filed a lawsuit in New York last year clears the way for it to emerge from bankruptcy as the company has benefited from the rebound in intermodal demand.</div>

STG’s deal with a group of lenders who filed a lawsuit in New York last year clears the way for it to emerge from bankruptcy as the company has benefited from the rebound in intermodal demand.

<div class="phx-topic">STG Logistics has cleared the last major obstacle to emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy next month after reaching a settlement with a group of minority lenders that had challenged its restructuring. The settlement removes the last serious challenge to STG’s reorganization and leaves the company positioned to exit bankruptcy with customers, and freight volumes, largely intact. STG, which provides transloading, drayage, and domestic intermodal services, has met all the financial commitments made when it filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection in January. Those included maintaining more than $50 million in cash and staying within budget targets for revenue and expenses over the past three months. The company increased volume year over year in the first quarter in Southern California, based on data from RailState, suggesting customers did not pull back business during the restructuring. The company is the fifth-largest US domestic intermodal provider, with 15,000 containers and about $720 million in annual revenue, according to an analysis of bankruptcy filings. STG also benefited from a broader rebound in intermodal demand as March was the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strong-march-volumes-give-intermodal-its-first-real-stress-test-in-years-6205604">third-strongest month on record for intermodal volume</a>, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). The settlement ends a bitter fight that played out over the last two years. After expanding rapidly during the pandemic-related freight boom, including its 2022 purchase of XPO Logistics’ intermodal division, STG entered the freight downturn with too much debt. The company restructured its debt and shifted valuable assets backing older loans into a new entity beyond the reach of some existing lenders, according to Axos and Siemens, who filed a lawsuit in New York last year. In January, Axos and Siemens scored an important win when a New York court ruled that the claims against STG could move forward. Less than a week later, STG filed for bankruptcy in New Jersey, moving the fight into bankruptcy court. Axos and Siemens continued to object, but the settlement has now resolved that challenge. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

STG Logistics has cleared the last major obstacle to emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy next month after reaching a settlement with a group of minority lenders that had challenged its restructuring. The settlement removes the last serious challenge to STG’s reorganization and leaves the company positioned to exit bankruptcy with customers, and freight volumes, largely intact. STG, which provides transloading, drayage, and domestic intermodal services, has met all the financial commitments made when it filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection in January. Those included maintaining more than $50 million in cash and staying within budget targets for revenue and expenses over the past three months. The company increased volume year over year in the first quarter in Southern California, based on data from RailState, suggesting customers did not pull back business during the restructuring. The company is the fifth-largest US domestic intermodal provider, with 15,000 containers and about $720 million in annual revenue, according to an analysis of bankruptcy filings. STG also benefited from a broader rebound in intermodal demand as March was the third-strongest month on record for intermodal volume , according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). The settlement ends a bitter fight that played out over the last two years. After expanding rapidly during the pandemic-related freight boom, including its 2022 purchase of XPO Logistics’ intermodal division, STG entered the freight downturn with too much debt. The company restructured its debt and shifted valuable assets backing older loans into a new entity beyond the reach of some existing lenders, according to Axos and Siemens, who filed a lawsuit in New York last year. In January, Axos and Siemens scored an important win when a New York court ruled that the claims against STG could move forward. Less than a week later, STG filed for bankruptcy in New Jersey, moving the fight into bankruptcy court. Axos and Siemens continued to object, but the settlement has now resolved that challenge. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Drayage

Intermodal providers

STG clears final obstacle to exit bankruptcy as lender dispute ends

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The current pipeline of newbuilding programs for ultra-large container vessels vastly outstrips the construction of new berths intended to receive them, meaning we are literally building a fleet for which there may soon be no room at the inn, writes Robbert van Trooijen.</div>

The current pipeline of newbuilding programs for ultra-large container vessels vastly outstrips the construction of new berths intended to receive them, meaning we are literally building a fleet for which there may soon be no room at the inn, writes Robbert van Trooijen.

<div class="phx-topic">In his recent work, Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare, Edward Fishman argues that while great powers once rose by controlling geographic straits like the Bosphorus, modern power relies on different, often digital, levers. Today we are reminded that even in the Digital Age, physical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz can still disrupt supply chains to such an extent that they threaten global recession. But as we look toward a post-2026 horizon — assuming current geopolitical fires are eventually extinguished — a more systemic bottleneck looms: the stagnation of global port infrastructure. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6209409_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The math of global trade is currently heading toward a collision course. Available ocean terminal capacity at major gateways and hubs is reaching a saturation point. While the industry has leaned heavily on efficiency gains and automation to squeeze more “moves per hour” out of existing footprints, there is a lack of new physical capacity being added to the global map. We see a flurry of merger and acquisition activity — such as the planned sale of assets such as Hutchison Port Holdings — but shifting ownership of an existing facility in itself does nothing to accommodate the actual growth of global trade. The strongest evidence of this disconnect lies in the shipyards. The current pipeline of newbuilding programs for ultra-large container vessels vastly outstrips the construction of new berths intended to receive them. We are, quite literally, building a fleet for which there may soon be no room at the inn. <h3>Protecting margins — at the expense of cargo flow </h3>The hesitation to build is certainly not due to a lack of profitability. The investment case for terminal infrastructure is, in fact, staggering. APM Terminals, a subsidiary of Danish conglomerate A.P. Moller Maersk, reported a return on invested capital (ROIC) of no less than 16.1% in the 2025 fourth quarter, a figure that outperforms almost every other sub-sector in the maritime industry. So, why the inertia? There is no simple answer, but part of the answer lies in a classic “incumbent’s dilemma.” While new capacity would benefit the global economy by increasing competitiveness, it would also — at least temporarily — dilute the high returns currently enjoyed by existing operators. In some markets, bottlenecks are not just a nuisance; they are lucrative. This creates a perverse incentive for incumbents to lobby against greenfield projects, effectively protecting their margins at the expense of trade fluidity. The investment gap is most visible in the Southern Hemisphere. As industry analyst Lars Jensen highlighted at TPM26 in Long Beach in early March, demographic shifts identify Latin America and Africa as the next great trade frontiers. Yet, these are the very regions where the pushback against “carrier-owned” terminals is loudest. Local players often lobby against the participation of ocean carriers, arguing that vertical integration is anti-competitive. This is an understandable yet somewhat protectionist stance. It is the ocean carriers who possess the most direct incentive to drive capacity growth — they are the ones who need the berths to keep their growing fleet of vessels moving. The “dominance” argument falls flat when compared with the alternative: a stagnant, expensive status quo maintained by local (family-owned) oligopolies. <h3>The need to act now </h3>Any legitimate anti-competitive concerns can be easily mitigated through clear, enforceable neutrality clauses within concession agreements. These clauses ensure that while a carrier may own the terminal, it remains an open-access utility for the broader market. The construction of a greenfield site takes three to five years. If we do not break ground today, the “landside chokepoint” of 2028 and beyond could very well make today’s Red Sea/Strait of Hormuz disruptions look like a minor logistical hiccup. To secure the future of global trade, we must look past the protectionist rhetoric of local incumbents and embrace the capital and operational drive of carrier-terminal combinations. The returns are there and the demand is there. But the berths are not. It is time for a virtuous cycle to take over the industry. Robbert van Trooijen, founder of Inception Partners and a McKinsey Senior Advisor, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&amp;O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at <a href="mailto:robbert@inceptionpartners.org">robbert@inceptionpartners.org</a>. </div>

In his recent work, Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare, Edward Fishman argues that while great powers once rose by controlling geographic straits like the Bosphorus, modern power relies on different, often digital, levers. Today we are reminded that even in the Digital Age, physical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz can still disrupt supply chains to such an extent that they threaten global recession. But as we look toward a post-2026 horizon — assuming current geopolitical fires are eventually extinguished — a more systemic bottleneck looms: the stagnation of global port infrastructure. The math of global trade is currently heading toward a collision course. Available ocean terminal capacity at major gateways and hubs is reaching a saturation point. While the industry has leaned heavily on efficiency gains and automation to squeeze more “moves per hour” out of existing footprints, there is a lack of new physical capacity being added to the global map. We see a flurry of merger and acquisition activity — such as the planned sale of assets such as Hutchison Port Holdings — but shifting ownership of an existing facility in itself does nothing to accommodate the actual growth of global trade. The strongest evidence of this disconnect lies in the shipyards. The current pipeline of newbuilding programs for ultra-large container vessels vastly outstrips the construction of new berths intended to receive them. We are, quite literally, building a fleet for which there may soon be no room at the inn. Protecting margins — at the expense of cargo flow The hesitation to build is certainly not due to a lack of profitability. The investment case for terminal infrastructure is, in fact, staggering. APM Terminals, a subsidiary of Danish conglomerate A.P. Moller Maersk, reported a return on invested capital (ROIC) of no less than 16.1% in the 2025 fourth quarter, a figure that outperforms almost every other sub-sector in the maritime industry. So, why the inertia? There is no simple answer, but part of the answer lies in a classic “incumbent’s dilemma.” While new capacity would benefit the global economy by increasing competitiveness, it would also — at least temporarily — dilute the high returns currently enjoyed by existing operators. In some markets, bottlenecks are not just a nuisance; they are lucrative. This creates a perverse incentive for incumbents to lobby against greenfield projects, effectively protecting their margins at the expense of trade fluidity. The investment gap is most visible in the Southern Hemisphere. As industry analyst Lars Jensen highlighted at TPM26 in Long Beach in early March, demographic shifts identify Latin America and Africa as the next great trade frontiers. Yet, these are the very regions where the pushback against “carrier-owned” terminals is loudest. Local players often lobby against the participation of ocean carriers, arguing that vertical integration is anti-competitive. This is an understandable yet somewhat protectionist stance. It is the ocean carriers who possess the most direct incentive to drive capacity growth — they are the ones who need the berths to keep their growing fleet of vessels moving. The “dominance” argument falls flat when compared with the alternative: a stagnant, expensive status quo maintained by local (family-owned) oligopolies. The need to act now Any legitimate anti-competitive concerns can be easily mitigated through clear, enforceable neutrality clauses within concession agreements. These clauses ensure that while a carrier may own the terminal, it remains an open-access utility for the broader market. The construction of a greenfield site takes three to five years. If we do not break ground today, the “landside chokepoint” of 2028 and beyond could very well make today’s Red Sea/Strait of Hormuz disruptions look like a minor logistical hiccup. To secure the future of global trade, we must look past the protectionist rhetoric of local incumbents and embrace the capital and operational drive of carrier-terminal combinations. The returns are there and the demand is there. But the berths are not. It is time for a virtuous cycle to take over the industry. Robbert van Trooijen, founder of Inception Partners and a McKinsey Senior Advisor, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at robbert@inceptionpartners.org .

MSC, Tradepoint begin work on first private US terminal in decades

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Fuel charges complicate rush to ink new trans-Pacific service contracts

Knight-Swift making safety-related cuts to brokerage fleet

Tariff escalation led to enforcement gaps in Mexico rerouted goods: report

Recent Commentary

Container shipping’s ‘multilateral world’ under threat by US-driven strain

How FMCSA missed the mark on safety — and how it can get it right

Top 5 Most Read Stories