<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The French liner is implementing changes to its Epic and Medex services due to operational complications caused by the war in the Persian Gulf. </div>

The French liner is implementing changes to its Epic and Medex services due to operational complications caused by the war in the Persian Gulf.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM will add a new call at Colombo Port in Sri Lanka to its India–North Europe "Epic” loop and revamp its “Medex” India–Mediterranean route amid operational pressures due to the war in the Middle East. Both moves are effective from early April. The call at Colombo will enable CMA CGM to handle Pakistan shipments that it was previously transshipping via the Persian Gulf. The new Epic rotation will start with the CMA CGM Gemini’s arrival in Mundra, slated for April 3. The new rotation for Epic will call Mundra, Nhava Sheva, Colombo, Tangier Med, Southampton, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, Le Havre, Algeciras and Nhava Sheva. Cosco Shipping is a vessel-sharing partner on the Epic, contributing three ships out of 10 vessels currently deployed on the rotation. The new Colombo call on the Epic loop will also allow CMA CGM to connect incremental volumes out of southern India by offering more reliable and faster transits than its existing coverage for the region via the “NEWMO” service out of Ennore Port (Chennai) that has longer roundtrip times. The reconfigured Medex, meanwhile, is due to begin westbound operations when the CMA CGM Ural arrives in Mundra on April 2. The changes to the route will introduce stops at Djibouti, Valencia and Fos-sur-Mer while dropping Abu Dhabi and Jebel Ali from the itinerary. Medex will call Mundra, Nhava Sheva, Colombo, Djibouti, Jeddah, Port Said, Valencia, Fos-sur-Mer, Genoa, Malta, Piraeus, Beirut, Port Said, Jeddah and Mundra. <h3>Rates on the rise </h3>Ocean rates on the India–Europe trade lane have more than doubled since the start of the war in the Middle East, according to forwarders. Sources put average spot booking rates from West India to North Europe at $3,000 to $3,200 per FEU, up from $1,400 to $1,500/FEU reported in late February. Local forwarder executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have linked the rate boost in large part to capacity disruptions along with the impact of emergency fuel fees now being levied by carriers. “We do not see the rate surge as a sign of a recovering market,” said an executive at a Mumbai-based forwarding house who didn’t want to be identified. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM will add a new call at Colombo Port in Sri Lanka to its India–North Europe "Epic” loop and revamp its “Medex” India–Mediterranean route amid operational pressures due to the war in the Middle East. Both moves are effective from early April. The call at Colombo will enable CMA CGM to handle Pakistan shipments that it was previously transshipping via the Persian Gulf. The new Epic rotation will start with the CMA CGM Gemini’s arrival in Mundra, slated for April 3. The new rotation for Epic will call Mundra, Nhava Sheva, Colombo, Tangier Med, Southampton, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, Le Havre, Algeciras and Nhava Sheva. Cosco Shipping is a vessel-sharing partner on the Epic, contributing three ships out of 10 vessels currently deployed on the rotation. The new Colombo call on the Epic loop will also allow CMA CGM to connect incremental volumes out of southern India by offering more reliable and faster transits than its existing coverage for the region via the “NEWMO” service out of Ennore Port (Chennai) that has longer roundtrip times. The reconfigured Medex, meanwhile, is due to begin westbound operations when the CMA CGM Ural arrives in Mundra on April 2. The changes to the route will introduce stops at Djibouti, Valencia and Fos-sur-Mer while dropping Abu Dhabi and Jebel Ali from the itinerary. Medex will call Mundra, Nhava Sheva, Colombo, Djibouti, Jeddah, Port Said, Valencia, Fos-sur-Mer, Genoa, Malta, Piraeus, Beirut, Port Said, Jeddah and Mundra. Rates on the rise Ocean rates on the India–Europe trade lane have more than doubled since the start of the war in the Middle East, according to forwarders. Sources put average spot booking rates from West India to North Europe at $3,000 to $3,200 per FEU, up from $1,400 to $1,500/FEU reported in late February. Local forwarder executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have linked the rate boost in large part to capacity disruptions along with the impact of emergency fuel fees now being levied by carriers. “We do not see the rate surge as a sign of a recovering market,” said an executive at a Mumbai-based forwarding house who didn’t want to be identified. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

Asia-Europe

Container Shipping News

Maritime

CMA CGM reorganizes India-Europe/Med network amid Middle East port woes 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">An estimated 30% of Asia-Europe air cargo is routed via the Middle East, so the sudden closure of airspace in the Persian Gulf has left forwarders scrambling for capacity on freighters and passenger aircraft out of Asia. </div>

An estimated 30% of Asia-Europe air cargo is routed via the Middle East, so the sudden closure of airspace in the Persian Gulf has left forwarders scrambling for capacity on freighters and passenger aircraft out of Asia.

<div class="phx-topic">Air cargo out of Asia is capitalizing on airlines relocating capacity from the war-torn Middle East, but the rising demand for direct flights to Europe is being quickly snapped up by forwarders. An estimated 30% of Asia-Europe air cargo is routed via the Middle East and the sudden closure of airspace in the Persian Gulf left forwarders scrambling for capacity on freighters and passenger aircraft out of Asia. Darren Greene, head of air, ocean and customs at EFL Distribution, the Irish partner of Hong Kong-based U-Freight Group, said there was heavy demand for space on air freight services being rerouted through London, Frankfurt and Istanbul. “In addition to rising surcharges, freighter aircraft capacity is tightening significantly, with space becoming increasingly scarce on these new routes,” Greene told the Journal of Commerce. To handle the demand, Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific has redirected capacity from canceled Dubai and Riyadh services to London, Paris and Zurich while increasing the size of aircraft on its Asia-Europe routes. Singapore Airlines has also suspended all flights to Dubai and increased its European services. While the additional capacity is predominantly aimed at providing lift for passengers unable to fly via the Middle East, the long-haul aircraft offer considerable below-deck cargo space. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1f8878b6-9e77-46fc-bdf5-c1982da8007e"></dynamic-object></div>Despite the capacity additions from Asian carriers and European airlines adding Asia-Europe flights, rates that leveled off last week have started to climb again, possibly on reports of growing backlogs at key hubs and rising fuel costs, according to Freightos. Data from the online rate marketplace showed Southeast Asia-Europe prices are up 17% from last week at $5/kg, China-Europe rates jumped 25% to $5.01/kg, and China-US prices rose 9% to $7.28/kg. “While base freight rates remain stable, the introduction of fuel and war risk surcharges has created significant cost constraints,” Greene said. <h3>Fuel price rise outstripping rate increases </h3>The rate increases are being outstripped by rising fuel prices that before the war made up around 30% of an airline’s total operating costs. Global average jet fuel prices increased to $197 per barrel for the week ended March 20, up 25% on the previous week and more than double the last week of February, according to the latest price data published by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Carriers have responded with fuel surcharges that are being revised regularly. Cathay Pacific tripled its fuel surcharge in mid-March to HK$12.9 per kilogram ($1.65) that will be valid until March 31. “If the steep increase of fuel costs cannot be effectively mitigated, we would not be able to sustain the effective operations of our network,” Cathay Pacific said in a statement Thursday. “To enable a more agile response to the volatile jet fuel prices, we will review and revise the fuel surcharge every two weeks to better capture jet fuel price movements in either upward or downward direction,” the carrier said. “This increased frequency of review is intended as a temporary measure and will be revisited when the Middle East situation stabilizes.” Singapore Airlines is charging CNY15/kg ($2.17) on long-haul shipments originating in China. Lufthansa Cargo will raise its fuel surcharge from €1.20/kg to €1.45 ($1.39 to $1.68) from March 30. Korean Air Cargo announced an "urgent adjustment" to its fuel surcharge policy effective April 1 without giving a surcharge price for cargo, while Maersk Air Freight has implemented emergency fuel surcharges and intermodal fuel fees because of the volatility in jet fuel prices. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Air cargo out of Asia is capitalizing on airlines relocating capacity from the war-torn Middle East, but the rising demand for direct flights to Europe is being quickly snapped up by forwarders. An estimated 30% of Asia-Europe air cargo is routed via the Middle East and the sudden closure of airspace in the Persian Gulf left forwarders scrambling for capacity on freighters and passenger aircraft out of Asia. Darren Greene, head of air, ocean and customs at EFL Distribution, the Irish partner of Hong Kong-based U-Freight Group, said there was heavy demand for space on air freight services being rerouted through London, Frankfurt and Istanbul. “In addition to rising surcharges, freighter aircraft capacity is tightening significantly, with space becoming increasingly scarce on these new routes,” Greene told the Journal of Commerce. To handle the demand, Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific has redirected capacity from canceled Dubai and Riyadh services to London, Paris and Zurich while increasing the size of aircraft on its Asia-Europe routes. Singapore Airlines has also suspended all flights to Dubai and increased its European services. While the additional capacity is predominantly aimed at providing lift for passengers unable to fly via the Middle East, the long-haul aircraft offer considerable below-deck cargo space. Despite the capacity additions from Asian carriers and European airlines adding Asia-Europe flights, rates that leveled off last week have started to climb again, possibly on reports of growing backlogs at key hubs and rising fuel costs, according to Freightos. Data from the online rate marketplace showed Southeast Asia-Europe prices are up 17% from last week at $5/kg, China-Europe rates jumped 25% to $5.01/kg, and China-US prices rose 9% to $7.28/kg. “While base freight rates remain stable, the introduction of fuel and war risk surcharges has created significant cost constraints,” Greene said. Fuel price rise outstripping rate increases The rate increases are being outstripped by rising fuel prices that before the war made up around 30% of an airline’s total operating costs. Global average jet fuel prices increased to $197 per barrel for the week ended March 20, up 25% on the previous week and more than double the last week of February, according to the latest price data published by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Carriers have responded with fuel surcharges that are being revised regularly. Cathay Pacific tripled its fuel surcharge in mid-March to HK$12.9 per kilogram ($1.65) that will be valid until March 31. “If the steep increase of fuel costs cannot be effectively mitigated, we would not be able to sustain the effective operations of our network,” Cathay Pacific said in a statement Thursday. “To enable a more agile response to the volatile jet fuel prices, we will review and revise the fuel surcharge every two weeks to better capture jet fuel price movements in either upward or downward direction,” the carrier said. “This increased frequency of review is intended as a temporary measure and will be revisited when the Middle East situation stabilizes.” Singapore Airlines is charging CNY15/kg ($2.17) on long-haul shipments originating in China. Lufthansa Cargo will raise its fuel surcharge from €1.20/kg to €1.45 ($1.39 to $1.68) from March 30. Korean Air Cargo announced an "urgent adjustment" to its fuel surcharge policy effective April 1 without giving a surcharge price for cargo, while Maersk Air Freight has implemented emergency fuel surcharges and intermodal fuel fees because of the volatility in jet fuel prices. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo

Demand for direct Asia-Europe air cargo fills rerouted Middle East flights

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Stocks that were already in the fuel supply chain and en route to refueling hubs when the Middle East conflict started have now been delivered, and those ports are running down their inventories.</div>

Stocks that were already in the fuel supply chain and en route to refueling hubs when the Middle East conflict started have now been delivered, and those ports are running down their inventories.

<div class="phx-topic">The availability of bunker fuel in Asia for ocean carriers is manageable for now but beginning to tighten, and global suppliers warn that shortages will be felt around the world should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed to ship traffic for much longer. Meanwhile, carriers are deploying a range of strategic operational and financial measures to mitigate the potential fuel shortages and the rising prices that will result. These include slow steaming to conserve fuel, filling ships in the US and Europe and transferring bunkers to Asia, and levying emergency fuel surcharges to recover rising costs. The implications of widening fuel shortages on container shipping operations could be profound, according to Erik Deventak, chief technology and data officer at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “In a worst-case scenario, any bunker shortage will hit supply because a carrier cannot run as many ships,” he said. “There’s no way around it and carriers will eventually need to reduce supply, likely through blank sailings.” While Deventak added a caveat — “realistically, no one is fully aware of what the scale of the bunker shortages could be” — he said the carriers would need to be selective on which services they were prepared to operate and which would be suspended. Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson Tim Seifert said the impact on the carrier’s operations so far was “limited and manageable,” but that Hapag was taking contingency measures to mitigate potential shortfalls. “We are taking on more fuel in ports where we would normally buy less to keep stock levels high,” he said. “As a fallback, we are considering bunker-only calls, but this has not been necessary so far.” About one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and refined products — 20 million barrels per day — is exported via the Strait of Hormuz, but that slowed to a trickle after the US and Israel began air strikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Export volumes of crude and refined products exiting the strait are currently at less than 10% of pre-war levels, forcing fuel suppliers across the region to reduce or shut down production. Bunker stocks that were already in the fuel supply chain and en route to refueling hubs when the war started have now been delivered, and those ports are running down their inventories. With Hormuz essentially unavailable to commercial shipping, there is no replenishment inbound. “If the Strait of Hormuz were to remain inaccessible, we would expect the market to tighten further — not only across Asia, but also into Europe and potentially parts of Africa,” Mikkel Kannegaard, head of global supply at Bunker Holding Group, the world’s largest bunker fuel supplier and trader, told the Journal of Commerce. “In Asia, availability remains acceptable so far, although supply uncertainty and backwardation are pushing up the delivery premiums,” he added. “At this stage, supply in Singapore and China appears to be holding up and looks manageable into April.” Backwardation is a market structure in which the spot price of a commodity is higher than its futures price, which can be a sign of supply disruptions. <h3>Emergency reserves inbound </h3>To address disruptions to oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East, the 32 member countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA) on March 11 agreed to make 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves available to the market. While the market has welcomed the measure, the fuel-strapped markets in Asia will not see the emergency reserves for at least two months, according to Sebastiaan Kosman, founder of bunker fuel analytics firm Spotbarge. “Even if you ship the oil now from the Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp area [known as ARA] to Asia, it will take two months to get the product loaded, shipped and refined,” Kosman said. Container shipping uses a range of different fuels, predominantly very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO), high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) and low-sulfur marine gasoil (MGO). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) demand is increasing as more dual-fuel ships hit the water, but its usage depends on its price differential compared with conventional fuels, particularly MGO. Bunker fuel prices soared when the war began but have fallen over the past few days. The March 24 prices from Singapore assessed by industry platform Ship &amp; Bunker show VLSFO up 71% since late February at $894 per metric ton but down 10% since the start of the week. MGO is up 151% at $1,784/metric ton but has fallen 8% this week. The largest pricing decline was from HSFO. After rising 146% since the end of February to a high of $1,073/mt on March 9, the heavy fuel dropped steadily to $712/mt by March 24. Rotterdam fuel prices have also fallen this week and are substantially lower than Singapore. As of March 24, VLSFO was at $757/mt, up 54% compared with Feb. 27; MGO at $1,334/mt was almost double the pre-conflict level, and HSFO was up 63% at $714/mt, according to Ship &amp; Bunker. Kosman said Singapore’s crude oil comes from the Middle East and the supply chain disruption was widening the bunker fuel price differential between Singapore and Rotterdam. “That already gives you indication that Singapore is really tight,” he noted. “If Hormuz remains closed in the long term, bunkers in Singapore, Korea or Japan will be empty way earlier than terminals in Antwerp and Rotterdam.” <h3>Offsetting fuel price impact </h3>To recover bunker costs that comprise half their operating expenses, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-reignites-tussle-between-ocean-carriers-cargo-owners-over-fuel-surcharges-6188632">carriers have rolled out emergency fuel surcharges</a> on top of the quarterly bunker adjustment factors (BAFs) that were no match for fuel prices that doubled in two weeks. Analysts at investment bank Jefferies said in a note to customers this week that rates would need to strengthen by 15% to fully offset the impact of rising fuel prices, which would be challenging given the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scrapping-strategy-looms-large-in-2026-as-carriers-manage-growing-oversupply-6168918">excess capacity in the market.</a>On Monday, the US Federal Maritime Commission <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers</a> to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ef167537-108b-4e1b-ac11-43e99f815839"></dynamic-object></div>Meanwhile, spot rates on the Asia outbound trade lanes rose through March but have softened on Asia-Europe and flattened or even fallen on some trans-Pacific routes, according to the various pricing indexes tracked by the Journal of Commerce. Asia-North Europe rates this week are 41% above their pre-war levels at $2,800 per FEU, while Asia-Mediterranean rates are up 34% at $3,800/FEU, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. However, prices on both trade lanes softened in the past week. Although rates from Asia to the US West and East coasts rose in the first week of the war, they have since fallen below Feb. 28 levels. Deventak said although the rising price of fuel will drive up the price of shipping in the short term, he noted that the underlying market fundamentals remained in place — an oversupply of vessel capacity and demand that has been softened by a weak global economy. “We have seen the initial shock to container shipping, but the ultimate supply and demand structure has not massively changed since the conflict escalated, and it is this supply-demand balance that carries most weight in driving freight rates rather than carriers’ costs,” he said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The availability of bunker fuel in Asia for ocean carriers is manageable for now but beginning to tighten, and global suppliers warn that shortages will be felt around the world should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed to ship traffic for much longer. Meanwhile, carriers are deploying a range of strategic operational and financial measures to mitigate the potential fuel shortages and the rising prices that will result. These include slow steaming to conserve fuel, filling ships in the US and Europe and transferring bunkers to Asia, and levying emergency fuel surcharges to recover rising costs. The implications of widening fuel shortages on container shipping operations could be profound, according to Erik Deventak, chief technology and data officer at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “In a worst-case scenario, any bunker shortage will hit supply because a carrier cannot run as many ships,” he said. “There’s no way around it and carriers will eventually need to reduce supply, likely through blank sailings.” While Deventak added a caveat — “realistically, no one is fully aware of what the scale of the bunker shortages could be” — he said the carriers would need to be selective on which services they were prepared to operate and which would be suspended. Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson Tim Seifert said the impact on the carrier’s operations so far was “limited and manageable,” but that Hapag was taking contingency measures to mitigate potential shortfalls. “We are taking on more fuel in ports where we would normally buy less to keep stock levels high,” he said. “As a fallback, we are considering bunker-only calls, but this has not been necessary so far.” About one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and refined products — 20 million barrels per day — is exported via the Strait of Hormuz, but that slowed to a trickle after the US and Israel began air strikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Export volumes of crude and refined products exiting the strait are currently at less than 10% of pre-war levels, forcing fuel suppliers across the region to reduce or shut down production. Bunker stocks that were already in the fuel supply chain and en route to refueling hubs when the war started have now been delivered, and those ports are running down their inventories. With Hormuz essentially unavailable to commercial shipping, there is no replenishment inbound. “If the Strait of Hormuz were to remain inaccessible, we would expect the market to tighten further — not only across Asia, but also into Europe and potentially parts of Africa,” Mikkel Kannegaard, head of global supply at Bunker Holding Group, the world’s largest bunker fuel supplier and trader, told the Journal of Commerce. “In Asia, availability remains acceptable so far, although supply uncertainty and backwardation are pushing up the delivery premiums,” he added. “At this stage, supply in Singapore and China appears to be holding up and looks manageable into April.” Backwardation is a market structure in which the spot price of a commodity is higher than its futures price, which can be a sign of supply disruptions. Emergency reserves inbound To address disruptions to oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East, the 32 member countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA) on March 11 agreed to make 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves available to the market. While the market has welcomed the measure, the fuel-strapped markets in Asia will not see the emergency reserves for at least two months, according to Sebastiaan Kosman, founder of bunker fuel analytics firm Spotbarge. “Even if you ship the oil now from the Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp area [known as ARA] to Asia, it will take two months to get the product loaded, shipped and refined,” Kosman said. Container shipping uses a range of different fuels, predominantly very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO), high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) and low-sulfur marine gasoil (MGO). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) demand is increasing as more dual-fuel ships hit the water, but its usage depends on its price differential compared with conventional fuels, particularly MGO. Bunker fuel prices soared when the war began but have fallen over the past few days. The March 24 prices from Singapore assessed by industry platform Ship & Bunker show VLSFO up 71% since late February at $894 per metric ton but down 10% since the start of the week. MGO is up 151% at $1,784/metric ton but has fallen 8% this week. The largest pricing decline was from HSFO. After rising 146% since the end of February to a high of $1,073/mt on March 9, the heavy fuel dropped steadily to $712/mt by March 24. Rotterdam fuel prices have also fallen this week and are substantially lower than Singapore. As of March 24, VLSFO was at $757/mt, up 54% compared with Feb. 27; MGO at $1,334/mt was almost double the pre-conflict level, and HSFO was up 63% at $714/mt, according to Ship & Bunker. Kosman said Singapore’s crude oil comes from the Middle East and the supply chain disruption was widening the bunker fuel price differential between Singapore and Rotterdam. “That already gives you indication that Singapore is really tight,” he noted. “If Hormuz remains closed in the long term, bunkers in Singapore, Korea or Japan will be empty way earlier than terminals in Antwerp and Rotterdam.” Offsetting fuel price impact To recover bunker costs that comprise half their operating expenses, carriers have rolled out emergency fuel surcharges on top of the quarterly bunker adjustment factors (BAFs) that were no match for fuel prices that doubled in two weeks. Analysts at investment bank Jefferies said in a note to customers this week that rates would need to strengthen by 15% to fully offset the impact of rising fuel prices, which would be challenging given the excess capacity in the market. On Monday, the US Federal Maritime Commission unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. Meanwhile, spot rates on the Asia outbound trade lanes rose through March but have softened on Asia-Europe and flattened or even fallen on some trans-Pacific routes, according to the various pricing indexes tracked by the Journal of Commerce. Asia-North Europe rates this week are 41% above their pre-war levels at $2,800 per FEU, while Asia-Mediterranean rates are up 34% at $3,800/FEU, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. However, prices on both trade lanes softened in the past week. Although rates from Asia to the US West and East coasts rose in the first week of the war, they have since fallen below Feb. 28 levels. Deventak said although the rising price of fuel will drive up the price of shipping in the short term, he noted that the underlying market fundamentals remained in place — an oversupply of vessel capacity and demand that has been softened by a weak global economy. “We have seen the initial shock to container shipping, but the ultimate supply and demand structure has not massively changed since the conflict escalated, and it is this supply-demand balance that carries most weight in driving freight rates rather than carriers’ costs,” he said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Port News

International ports

Bunker fuel shortages in Asia at tipping point as war disruption continues

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The American Trucking Associations’ February truck tonnage report showed a 2.6% month-over-month increase, making it the largest sequential gain in three years.</div>

The American Trucking Associations’ February truck tonnage report showed a 2.6% month-over-month increase, making it the largest sequential gain in three years.

<div class="phx-topic">Soaring diesel fuel prices and the nationwide crackdown by the federal government on non-domiciled commercial drivers is tightening truckload capacity in the US, putting a floor under rates. And new data showing that demand may be perking up has raised hopes in the trucking industry, albeit cautiously, that the freight recession going on four years could be nearing an end. Still, trucking executives say for any recovery to be long-term, demand needs to show steady and solid growth over several months. The American Trucking Associations’ (ATA’s) February truck tonnage report showed a 2.6% month-over-month increase, making it the largest sequential gain in three years, according to Bob Costello, the group’s chief economist. On a year-over-year basis, the increase was 2.1%. “February’s robust gain is great to see, but the size of the gain is likely magnified due to lower industry capacity,” Costello said in a statement. “Particularly after a very prolonged freight recession, improving volumes in any manner is welcomed.” Capacity, meanwhile, is being crimped by diesel prices that have rocketed higher since the war in the Middle East began Feb. 28, forcing many small and midsize drivers to park their trucks given the fast-rising expense. The average price of on-highway diesel in the US jumped to almost $5.38 per gallon as of March 23, up 30 cents in one week and $1.80 higher than it was a year ago. Prices in California were at $6.87/gal. The sudden and steep increase in diesel is impacting capacity, according to Dean Croke, principal analyst for DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. “Diesel is up about $1.30 a gallon since the war started and that’s really crushed a lot of the small carriers because they haven’t been able to get the full fuel surcharge built into the loads,” Croke said. “A lot of carriers are saying they’re going to sit this out until things stabilize.” The latest information on rates from DAT showed that for the week ending March 21, dry van spot rates were flat week to week at $1.92 per mile. Reefer spot rates increased to $2.32 per mile, up 2 cents, and flatbed spot rates moved 3 cents higher to $2.34 per mile. DAT said as fuel surcharges have increased 44% to 64 cents per mile, carriers are struggling to negotiate load-by-load rate increases that fully offset the higher prices for diesel. “Capacity is tightening. It is putting a floor on rates that we’ve not seen in many years,” Croke said. “I suspect as you get into the spring building, construction and nursery season volume bump, you’ll see rates start to move up again.” <h3>CDLs culled in California </h3>Adding to the tightening capacity is the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/capacity-cuts-fuel-shocks-provide-openings-for-trucking-and-rail-6188739">US Department of Transportation’s crackdown</a> on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) while toughening standards around the English language proficiency of all drivers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has canceled an estimated 13,000 CDLs in California. Raman Dillon, president of the 2,000-member North American Punjabi Trucking Association, said the loss of those drivers and high diesel prices will continue to tighten capacity in the state. “The drivers are suffering and the impact on the public and the supply chain has yet to be seen,” Dillon told the Journal of Commerce. “These CDLs were not picked up at a convenience store, they were issued by the government. You cannot say that every one of the 13,000 drivers they took out is a bad driver... “We feel like we are being made scapegoats, but it will tighten capacity, because our industry has a shortage of good drivers,” he added. Dillon agreed with Croke that high diesel prices will push drivers to the sidelines, at least for the time being, tightening capacity and impacting shippers by making it more costly and harder to find dependable ways to move freight. “We have diesel in some places being sold for seven dollars or more a gallon, and that’s a surcharge that you and me, we’re going to pay,” he said. “Everything is going to get more expensive.” <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/house-committee-advances-bill-targeting-non-domiciled-commercial-drivers-licenses-6188801">Legislation making its way through Congress</a>, meanwhile, contains several provisions that go far beyond the scope of the FMCSA’s rule restricting non-domiciled CDLs, which the agency estimates could remove up to 194,000 drivers from the market over five years. Still, the trucking industry is <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/impact-of-non-domiciled-cdl-enforcement-splits-us-trucking-sector-6135184">split on whether the federal regulations will significantly impact trucking and drayage capacity</a> amid the more than four-year freight recession. Contact Dan Ronan at <a href="mailto:contactdanronan@gmail.com">contactdanronan@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Soaring diesel fuel prices and the nationwide crackdown by the federal government on non-domiciled commercial drivers is tightening truckload capacity in the US, putting a floor under rates. And new data showing that demand may be perking up has raised hopes in the trucking industry, albeit cautiously, that the freight recession going on four years could be nearing an end. Still, trucking executives say for any recovery to be long-term, demand needs to show steady and solid growth over several months. The American Trucking Associations’ (ATA’s) February truck tonnage report showed a 2.6% month-over-month increase, making it the largest sequential gain in three years, according to Bob Costello, the group’s chief economist. On a year-over-year basis, the increase was 2.1%. “February’s robust gain is great to see, but the size of the gain is likely magnified due to lower industry capacity,” Costello said in a statement. “Particularly after a very prolonged freight recession, improving volumes in any manner is welcomed.” Capacity, meanwhile, is being crimped by diesel prices that have rocketed higher since the war in the Middle East began Feb. 28, forcing many small and midsize drivers to park their trucks given the fast-rising expense. The average price of on-highway diesel in the US jumped to almost $5.38 per gallon as of March 23, up 30 cents in one week and $1.80 higher than it was a year ago. Prices in California were at $6.87/gal. The sudden and steep increase in diesel is impacting capacity, according to Dean Croke, principal analyst for DAT Freight & Analytics. “Diesel is up about $1.30 a gallon since the war started and that’s really crushed a lot of the small carriers because they haven’t been able to get the full fuel surcharge built into the loads,” Croke said. “A lot of carriers are saying they’re going to sit this out until things stabilize.” The latest information on rates from DAT showed that for the week ending March 21, dry van spot rates were flat week to week at $1.92 per mile. Reefer spot rates increased to $2.32 per mile, up 2 cents, and flatbed spot rates moved 3 cents higher to $2.34 per mile. DAT said as fuel surcharges have increased 44% to 64 cents per mile, carriers are struggling to negotiate load-by-load rate increases that fully offset the higher prices for diesel. “Capacity is tightening. It is putting a floor on rates that we’ve not seen in many years,” Croke said. “I suspect as you get into the spring building, construction and nursery season volume bump, you’ll see rates start to move up again.” CDLs culled in California Adding to the tightening capacity is the US Department of Transportation’s crackdown on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) while toughening standards around the English language proficiency of all drivers. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has canceled an estimated 13,000 CDLs in California. Raman Dillon, president of the 2,000-member North American Punjabi Trucking Association, said the loss of those drivers and high diesel prices will continue to tighten capacity in the state. “The drivers are suffering and the impact on the public and the supply chain has yet to be seen,” Dillon told the Journal of Commerce. “These CDLs were not picked up at a convenience store, they were issued by the government. You cannot say that every one of the 13,000 drivers they took out is a bad driver... “We feel like we are being made scapegoats, but it will tighten capacity, because our industry has a shortage of good drivers,” he added. Dillon agreed with Croke that high diesel prices will push drivers to the sidelines, at least for the time being, tightening capacity and impacting shippers by making it more costly and harder to find dependable ways to move freight. “We have diesel in some places being sold for seven dollars or more a gallon, and that’s a surcharge that you and me, we’re going to pay,” he said. “Everything is going to get more expensive.” Legislation making its way through Congress , meanwhile, contains several provisions that go far beyond the scope of the FMCSA’s rule restricting non-domiciled CDLs, which the agency estimates could remove up to 194,000 drivers from the market over five years. Still, the trucking industry is split on whether the federal regulations will significantly impact trucking and drayage capacity amid the more than four-year freight recession. Contact Dan Ronan at contactdanronan@gmail.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Surface

Diesel shock puts floor under trucking rates as demand shows some life

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">TotalEnergies accepted a $1 billion payment from the Trump administration to walk away from two offshore wind projects and instead reinvest the funds in fossil fuel projects along the Gulf Coast.</div>

TotalEnergies accepted a $1 billion payment from the Trump administration to walk away from two offshore wind projects and instead reinvest the funds in fossil fuel projects along the Gulf Coast.

<div class="phx-topic">The cancellation of a pair of US offshore wind projects in exchange for a $1 billion payment from the Trump administration is the latest development to chip away at renewable project cargo opportunities. But the deal could potentially drive cargo for fossil fuel projects. French energy giant TotalEnergies signed off on a March 23 agreement to accept $1 billion from the US government to give up the leases on its two offshore wind projects — Carolina Long Bay and New York Bight — and instead pivot to the buildout of gas and power production and export facilities in the US. “Considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest, we have decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States in exchange for the reimbursement of the lease fees,” TotalEnergies chairman and CEO Patrick Pouyanné said in a statement. US offshore wind projects have come under attack by President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order banning new wind power projects upon taking office in January 2025. In December, the administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued stop-work orders on five East Coast offshore wind projects that are fully permitted and over halfway complete. The TotalEnergies projects were not among the five. The payout to TotalEnergies comes after the administration <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-administration-seeks-to-undo-court-rulings-favoring-offshore-wind-projects-6173748">began taking steps to reverse a sweep of recent court victories</a> for the five offshore wind projects as developers rush to complete work on the projects after courts allowed work to resume. Sam Salustro, senior vice president of policy and market affairs for industry group Oceantic Network, told the Journal of Commerce that TotalEnergies’ projects were still in the pre-environmental review phase when project cargo and logistics activity is limited. “These two projects were not well advanced in the development or permitting pipeline, so impacts stemming directly from this would be negligible,” he said. Salustro said that despite the project cancellations, the long-term trajectory of the US offshore wind industry remains secure because states continue to rely on wind as a foundational power source amid rapidly rising energy demands. “This is political theater meant to obscure the fact that offshore wind capacity is being pulled out of the pipeline when energy prices are skyrocketing, even as other offshore wind projects continue delivering reliable and affordable power to the grid,” he said. Under the agreement, TotalEnergies will reinvest the refunded lease fees to finance the construction of NextDecade Corp.’s Rio Grande LNG plant under way near Brownsville, Texas, and to support the development of other US gas production and export projects. TotalEnergies’ energy pivot comes at a time when LNG export capacity in the US, which is already the world’s largest LNG exporter, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lng-project-cargo-poised-for-us-boom-amid-war-6185867">is expected to nearly double in the next five years</a>, according to recent analyses by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). <h3>Wind cargo shifting to Canada </h3>For facilities such as the Port of Vancouver USA in Washington state, project cargo movement has been reflecting the move away from wind energy in the US. Alex Strogen, the port’s chief commercial officer, told the Journal of Commerce that he has observed more wind cargo moving to Canada because of the falloff in US wind projects. “This is a shift that we’ve seen gaining momentum for the past three or four years,” he said. From a ports perspective, policies under Trump and former President Joe Biden have made wind farm installations more expensive, Strogen said. He cited Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act incentivizing manufacturers to move production to the US — creating short-term capital expenses while domestic supply chains were gaining their footing — and Trump’s push to dial back permits for wind farms on federal lands. Because Canadian ports don’t have the infrastructure in place to move massive wind turbine components, one silver lining for US facilities such as the Port of Vancouver is that they have been able to capture some of Canada’s wind project cargo business. “The Port of Vancouver and the Port of Longview [Washington] have been taking advantage of the falloff of US wind projects and capitalizing on the relatively steady demand for wind farms going up historically in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and now we are seeing a shift into British Columbia as well,” Strogen said. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>.</div>

The cancellation of a pair of US offshore wind projects in exchange for a $1 billion payment from the Trump administration is the latest development to chip away at renewable project cargo opportunities. But the deal could potentially drive cargo for fossil fuel projects. French energy giant TotalEnergies signed off on a March 23 agreement to accept $1 billion from the US government to give up the leases on its two offshore wind projects — Carolina Long Bay and New York Bight — and instead pivot to the buildout of gas and power production and export facilities in the US. “Considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest, we have decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States in exchange for the reimbursement of the lease fees,” TotalEnergies chairman and CEO Patrick Pouyanné said in a statement. US offshore wind projects have come under attack by President Donald Trump, who issued an executive order banning new wind power projects upon taking office in January 2025. In December, the administration’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued stop-work orders on five East Coast offshore wind projects that are fully permitted and over halfway complete. The TotalEnergies projects were not among the five. The payout to TotalEnergies comes after the administration began taking steps to reverse a sweep of recent court victories for the five offshore wind projects as developers rush to complete work on the projects after courts allowed work to resume. Sam Salustro, senior vice president of policy and market affairs for industry group Oceantic Network, told the Journal of Commerce that TotalEnergies’ projects were still in the pre-environmental review phase when project cargo and logistics activity is limited. “These two projects were not well advanced in the development or permitting pipeline, so impacts stemming directly from this would be negligible,” he said. Salustro said that despite the project cancellations, the long-term trajectory of the US offshore wind industry remains secure because states continue to rely on wind as a foundational power source amid rapidly rising energy demands. “This is political theater meant to obscure the fact that offshore wind capacity is being pulled out of the pipeline when energy prices are skyrocketing, even as other offshore wind projects continue delivering reliable and affordable power to the grid,” he said. Under the agreement, TotalEnergies will reinvest the refunded lease fees to finance the construction of NextDecade Corp.’s Rio Grande LNG plant under way near Brownsville, Texas, and to support the development of other US gas production and export projects. TotalEnergies’ energy pivot comes at a time when LNG export capacity in the US, which is already the world’s largest LNG exporter, is expected to nearly double in the next five years , according to recent analyses by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Wind cargo shifting to Canada For facilities such as the Port of Vancouver USA in Washington state, project cargo movement has been reflecting the move away from wind energy in the US. Alex Strogen, the port’s chief commercial officer, told the Journal of Commerce that he has observed more wind cargo moving to Canada because of the falloff in US wind projects. “This is a shift that we’ve seen gaining momentum for the past three or four years,” he said. From a ports perspective, policies under Trump and former President Joe Biden have made wind farm installations more expensive, Strogen said. He cited Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act incentivizing manufacturers to move production to the US — creating short-term capital expenses while domestic supply chains were gaining their footing — and Trump’s push to dial back permits for wind farms on federal lands. Because Canadian ports don’t have the infrastructure in place to move massive wind turbine components, one silver lining for US facilities such as the Port of Vancouver is that they have been able to capture some of Canada’s wind project cargo business. “The Port of Vancouver and the Port of Longview [Washington] have been taking advantage of the falloff of US wind projects and capitalizing on the relatively steady demand for wind farms going up historically in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and now we are seeing a shift into British Columbia as well,” Strogen said. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Offshore wind cancellations set up energy project pivot in the US

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ocean carriers have a stronger financial backstop than past downcycles after having retired significant debt and increasing their profitability in the last five years post-pandemic, writes Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi.</div>

Ocean carriers have a stronger financial backstop than past downcycles after having retired significant debt and increasing their profitability in the last five years post-pandemic, writes Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi.

<div class="phx-topic">This container shipping downcycle is shaping up to be “shallow,” and there’s an argument to be made that so-called ship overordering may be prudent in the long term despite overcapacity rising over the next few years. Most immediately, ocean carriers have a stronger financial backstop than past downcycles, having retired significant debt after reaping $600 billion in operating profits from 2021 to 2024, said Rahul Kapoor, S&amp;P Global’s global head of shipping and analytics research. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6192742_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Average leverage for the industry, as measured by total debt to earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), was a mere 1% to 2% between 2021 and 2025. Comparatively, the average leverage was in the range of 7% to 8% in 2012–20. “When we look at the industry and when we look at this downturn which we are talking about, I think the industry is very well-prepared, and we have to look at that when we’re talking about the container shipping downcycle which is going to come,” Kapoor said March 2 at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM26 conference in Long Beach. “So in our view, it’s a shallow cycle.” Beyond driving record profits for the industry, the disruption during the pandemic set carriers on a more profitable course, recording EBIT margins of 21% to 22% in 2021–25, compared with EBIT in the range of just 2% to 3% in the nine prior years, he said. The data is based only on carriers that report earnings, and thus excludes Mediterranean Shipping Co. Kapoor said he expected the container shipping industry to report losses over the next two or three years. Profitability is already falling. The average operating profit of major carriers fell to 5.3% for the fourth quarter of 2025 and was the first quarterly operating loss since the first quarter of 2024, according to analyst Alphaliner. But while overcapacity will pull balance sheets into the red in the coming years, container ship orders, representing more than one-third of the existing fleet, are a better bet than they appear, Kapoor said. In a capital-intensive industry, ordering more ships, partly to prepare for tighter decarbonization regulations, makes more sense than returning the profits to shareholders, he said. “Maybe [the industry] went a bit overboard. It always does. But the balance sheets are strong,” Kapoor said. “The cash buffers are extremely strong, and the windfall profits the industry saw were better utilized.” <h3>Why this order cycle is different </h3>Since 2020, there’s been two waves of ship orders, with the first between 2021 and 2024 being driven by record profits tied to pandemic-era disruption. “They were all building and forming a long conga line with a glass of champagne in their hand, and they ordered,” Jan Tiedemann, senior analyst at Alphaliner, said at TPM26. “But now there’s a second ordering wave going on. We have to think about why that is happening because this one is clearly deliberate, and it also focuses on more and smaller ships.” Whereas the first wave of orders centered on ships with capacities of up to 24,000 TEUs, the second wave is dominated by orders of small ships with capacities under 6,000 TEUs. Non-operating common carriers are also driving the ordering of small ships. “Since roughly 2005, if you look at the fleet and the fleet growth over these 20 years, it’s gone up in an almost linear way,” Tiedemann said. “It’s 1 million [TEUs] added year-in, year-out, and it’s almost stable.” Industry consolidation, with the top 10 carriers operating 85% of the total fleet compared with 65% a decade ago, and record profits during the pandemic give the major ocean carriers confidence in the long game, he said. “They understood that the ship is an asset which probably can break even for 10 years of its lifetime, probably can be slightly loss-making for another 10 years of its lifetime, but then makes all its money back in five years,” said Tiedemann. “So you have that asset, and especially in this time of constant disruption, where we’re going into a phase, that disruption is the new normal.” Not all container lines were able to capitalize on the disruption caused by diversions away from the Suez Canal starting in late 2023 because they failed to order enough tonnage, Tiedemann said. Carriers without enough tonnage for the longer sailings around the Cape of Good Hope had to turn to more expensive chartering and buying secondhand ships. Simon Heaney, senior manager of container research at Drewry, doesn’t see the massive order book as benign as others. Betting on a ‘black swan’ event to cause disruption and soak up functional capacity “doesn’t constitute as a plan,” he said. “Also, over-ordering means they are not fully capitalizing on the given situation,” Heaney said. “A smarter bet would have been to limit orders as they would win in any scenario without the expense.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

This container shipping downcycle is shaping up to be “shallow,” and there’s an argument to be made that so-called ship overordering may be prudent in the long term despite overcapacity rising over the next few years. Most immediately, ocean carriers have a stronger financial backstop than past downcycles, having retired significant debt after reaping $600 billion in operating profits from 2021 to 2024, said Rahul Kapoor, S&P Global’s global head of shipping and analytics research. Average leverage for the industry, as measured by total debt to earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), was a mere 1% to 2% between 2021 and 2025. Comparatively, the average leverage was in the range of 7% to 8% in 2012–20. “When we look at the industry and when we look at this downturn which we are talking about, I think the industry is very well-prepared, and we have to look at that when we’re talking about the container shipping downcycle which is going to come,” Kapoor said March 2 at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM26 conference in Long Beach. “So in our view, it’s a shallow cycle.” Beyond driving record profits for the industry, the disruption during the pandemic set carriers on a more profitable course, recording EBIT margins of 21% to 22% in 2021–25, compared with EBIT in the range of just 2% to 3% in the nine prior years, he said. The data is based only on carriers that report earnings, and thus excludes Mediterranean Shipping Co. Kapoor said he expected the container shipping industry to report losses over the next two or three years. Profitability is already falling. The average operating profit of major carriers fell to 5.3% for the fourth quarter of 2025 and was the first quarterly operating loss since the first quarter of 2024, according to analyst Alphaliner. But while overcapacity will pull balance sheets into the red in the coming years, container ship orders, representing more than one-third of the existing fleet, are a better bet than they appear, Kapoor said. In a capital-intensive industry, ordering more ships, partly to prepare for tighter decarbonization regulations, makes more sense than returning the profits to shareholders, he said. “Maybe [the industry] went a bit overboard. It always does. But the balance sheets are strong,” Kapoor said. “The cash buffers are extremely strong, and the windfall profits the industry saw were better utilized.” Why this order cycle is different Since 2020, there’s been two waves of ship orders, with the first between 2021 and 2024 being driven by record profits tied to pandemic-era disruption. “They were all building and forming a long conga line with a glass of champagne in their hand, and they ordered,” Jan Tiedemann, senior analyst at Alphaliner, said at TPM26. “But now there’s a second ordering wave going on. We have to think about why that is happening because this one is clearly deliberate, and it also focuses on more and smaller ships.” Whereas the first wave of orders centered on ships with capacities of up to 24,000 TEUs, the second wave is dominated by orders of small ships with capacities under 6,000 TEUs. Non-operating common carriers are also driving the ordering of small ships. “Since roughly 2005, if you look at the fleet and the fleet growth over these 20 years, it’s gone up in an almost linear way,” Tiedemann said. “It’s 1 million [TEUs] added year-in, year-out, and it’s almost stable.” Industry consolidation, with the top 10 carriers operating 85% of the total fleet compared with 65% a decade ago, and record profits during the pandemic give the major ocean carriers confidence in the long game, he said. “They understood that the ship is an asset which probably can break even for 10 years of its lifetime, probably can be slightly loss-making for another 10 years of its lifetime, but then makes all its money back in five years,” said Tiedemann. “So you have that asset, and especially in this time of constant disruption, where we’re going into a phase, that disruption is the new normal.” Not all container lines were able to capitalize on the disruption caused by diversions away from the Suez Canal starting in late 2023 because they failed to order enough tonnage, Tiedemann said. Carriers without enough tonnage for the longer sailings around the Cape of Good Hope had to turn to more expensive chartering and buying secondhand ships. Simon Heaney, senior manager of container research at Drewry, doesn’t see the massive order book as benign as others. Betting on a ‘black swan’ event to cause disruption and soak up functional capacity “doesn’t constitute as a plan,” he said. “Also, over-ordering means they are not fully capitalizing on the given situation,” Heaney said. “A smarter bet would have been to limit orders as they would win in any scenario without the expense.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Container shipping faces ‘shallow’ downcycle amid strong carrier finances

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

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

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

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

Supply chain

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dry Van

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {van_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Flatbed

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {flatbed_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Refrigerated

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
 Weekly % change: {reefer_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

DAT Freight & Analytics is an independent source of truckload pricing and business intelligence. Using an automated daily process, DAT collects invoices from nearly 1,200 transportation companies totaling more than $137 billion in freight spend annually. It verifies and updates data daily; each market rate reported in RateView Analytics requires a minimum number of submissions, so prices cannot be manipulated; and the algorithms account for outliers. [DAT](https://dat.com)

US dry-van, flatbed and refrigerated truckload spot rates (DAT)

US Truckload spot rates weekly (DAT) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Containers that were inbound when the war started have been plugged into reefer slots in terminals outside the Gulf, accruing mounting storage charges as cargo owners either wait for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen or start looking for new markets</div>

Containers that were inbound when the war started have been plugged into reefer slots in terminals outside the Gulf, accruing mounting storage charges as cargo owners either wait for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen or start looking for new markets

<div class="phx-topic">Düsseldorf — Cold chain shippers with containers destined for the Middle East are in a state of suspended animation with reefer boxes offloaded early at other ports in the region and no timeline on when their voyages will be able to resume through the war zone. Ocean carriers have suspended the acceptance of reefer, dangerous goods and special cargo in and out of the UAE, Oman, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia until further notice. Reefer containers that were inbound when the war started on Feb. 28 have been dropped off and plugged into reefer slots in terminals outside the Persian Gulf, accruing mounting storage charges and leaving cargo owners waiting until shipping can again pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Alternatively, cargo owners will need to start looking for new markets. One such shipper with reefers out of position is Tyson Foods. The Middle East is a major market for the global protein producer that brings in halal chicken from Brazil, but Gulf-bound reefer containers were offloaded before reaching their destination, according to Juliana Violato, Tyson’s senior manager of procurement in Europe. “In Brazil we have slowed down production because all containers that were on the water are now sitting in ports near the Gulf or in India or Singapore,” Violato told the Journal of Commerce at the Global Cold Chain Association (GCCA) Europe conference in Dusseldorf this week. “They will be there until they find a new trade lane that could be through Oman or Saudi Arabia, but we don’t know how or when because of the war,” she added. “What we do know is that the market is still there.” Thomas Eskesen, founder of cold chain industry consultants Eskesen Advisory, said the fate of frozen food shipments and perishables with a limited shelf life has been the number one issue for the global cold chain since the Middle East war began. “This has a massive cascading effect with equipment tied up and booking stops affecting carriers individually,” Eskesen told the Journal of Commerce. “Lots of cargo is being diverted via the Jeddah back door [in Saudi Arabia], but it is more difficult if dumped in India and Sri Lanka.” <h3>Land-based options under pressure </h3>The land options via Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE, Sohar in Oman and Jeddah that are being offered by ocean carriers and forwarders <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rising-road-volume-puts-middle-east-land-based-options-under-pressure-6187755">are creaking under the heavy demand</a>. Port delays are growing fast, as are trucking bottlenecks, with one forwarder reporting a 20-mile line of trucks waiting to get into Dubai’s Jebel Ali container port. Violato said the clock was ticking as reefers could not wait forever and new markets will need to be found if Hormuz remains unpassable “in the coming weeks,” a move that would bring its own set of problems. “There will be a decision to bring back the containers [to origin] or to sell the products in different markets,” she said. “If it’s chicken breast it can be sold in Europe, and if it’s dark meat it can be sold in Africa, but if the war continues, they will need to find another destination.” Kevin Marchetti, co-founder of Lineage Logistics, said although he had no customers with reefers stuck in the region, those shippers are in a difficult position as there will need to be a different solution depending on the customer, the product and the destination. “Some of the products are pre-approved for certain markets where some traders have licenses and some don’t, so it is a really complicated issue,” Marchetti said on the sidelines of the GCCA conference. “The bigger question is that you produce goods thinking you have the end markets open and the goods will just flow, but now reefers are backing up,” he added. “There is also a limited amount of equipment and although we don’t have shortages yet, people have started to talk about it.” <h3>Holding back shipments from Europe </h3>Andrew Mates, managing director of Europe for temperature-controlled warehousing and food logistics specialist Americold, said shipments from Europe to the Middle East have been held back because of the war. “Our Dubai joint venture has reported the UAE government is being very active in redirecting cargo coming in from ports in Oman and Saudi Arabia and arranging land-based routes to keep the supply chain moving,” Mates said. “But there are trucking constraints where all of a sudden containers need to go thousands of kilometers,” he added. “The UAE government realizes that if the situation stays as it is for a few more weeks, they will simply have to get products in somehow.” While exceptions are being made for critical foodstuffs, pharma and other essential goods, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-forced-to-ship-fuel-from-us-europe-as-asia-bunkers-start-to-run-dry-6184651">in a recent interview with the Journal of Commerce</a>, Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said that at some point “all cargo becomes urgent,” including aluminum, petrochemicals and polyethylene that are all raw materials for plastics production. Persian Gulf states import more than 90% of their goods, and while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has long been factored into their scenario planning, a long-term closure will start to hit the shelves. Another fast-developing problem is outward-bound cargo, particularly fertilizer from the Middle East that comprises about 30% of the global market and is crucial for food production, according to Violato. “If the war takes longer, we will not have fertilizer for planting and grain production will drop,” she said. “When we impact grain, we impact animal feed and protein becomes more expensive and inflation is impossible to avoid. But again, everything depends on how long the war goes on for.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Düsseldorf — Cold chain shippers with containers destined for the Middle East are in a state of suspended animation with reefer boxes offloaded early at other ports in the region and no timeline on when their voyages will be able to resume through the war zone. Ocean carriers have suspended the acceptance of reefer, dangerous goods and special cargo in and out of the UAE, Oman, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia until further notice. Reefer containers that were inbound when the war started on Feb. 28 have been dropped off and plugged into reefer slots in terminals outside the Persian Gulf, accruing mounting storage charges and leaving cargo owners waiting until shipping can again pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Alternatively, cargo owners will need to start looking for new markets. One such shipper with reefers out of position is Tyson Foods. The Middle East is a major market for the global protein producer that brings in halal chicken from Brazil, but Gulf-bound reefer containers were offloaded before reaching their destination, according to Juliana Violato, Tyson’s senior manager of procurement in Europe. “In Brazil we have slowed down production because all containers that were on the water are now sitting in ports near the Gulf or in India or Singapore,” Violato told the Journal of Commerce at the Global Cold Chain Association (GCCA) Europe conference in Dusseldorf this week. “They will be there until they find a new trade lane that could be through Oman or Saudi Arabia, but we don’t know how or when because of the war,” she added. “What we do know is that the market is still there.” Thomas Eskesen, founder of cold chain industry consultants Eskesen Advisory, said the fate of frozen food shipments and perishables with a limited shelf life has been the number one issue for the global cold chain since the Middle East war began. “This has a massive cascading effect with equipment tied up and booking stops affecting carriers individually,” Eskesen told the Journal of Commerce. “Lots of cargo is being diverted via the Jeddah back door [in Saudi Arabia], but it is more difficult if dumped in India and Sri Lanka.” Land-based options under pressure The land options via Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE, Sohar in Oman and Jeddah that are being offered by ocean carriers and forwarders are creaking under the heavy demand . Port delays are growing fast, as are trucking bottlenecks, with one forwarder reporting a 20-mile line of trucks waiting to get into Dubai’s Jebel Ali container port. Violato said the clock was ticking as reefers could not wait forever and new markets will need to be found if Hormuz remains unpassable “in the coming weeks,” a move that would bring its own set of problems. “There will be a decision to bring back the containers [to origin] or to sell the products in different markets,” she said. “If it’s chicken breast it can be sold in Europe, and if it’s dark meat it can be sold in Africa, but if the war continues, they will need to find another destination.” Kevin Marchetti, co-founder of Lineage Logistics, said although he had no customers with reefers stuck in the region, those shippers are in a difficult position as there will need to be a different solution depending on the customer, the product and the destination. “Some of the products are pre-approved for certain markets where some traders have licenses and some don’t, so it is a really complicated issue,” Marchetti said on the sidelines of the GCCA conference. “The bigger question is that you produce goods thinking you have the end markets open and the goods will just flow, but now reefers are backing up,” he added. “There is also a limited amount of equipment and although we don’t have shortages yet, people have started to talk about it.” Holding back shipments from Europe Andrew Mates, managing director of Europe for temperature-controlled warehousing and food logistics specialist Americold, said shipments from Europe to the Middle East have been held back because of the war. “Our Dubai joint venture has reported the UAE government is being very active in redirecting cargo coming in from ports in Oman and Saudi Arabia and arranging land-based routes to keep the supply chain moving,” Mates said. “But there are trucking constraints where all of a sudden containers need to go thousands of kilometers,” he added. “The UAE government realizes that if the situation stays as it is for a few more weeks, they will simply have to get products in somehow.” While exceptions are being made for critical foodstuffs, pharma and other essential goods, in a recent interview with the Journal of Commerce, Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said that at some point “all cargo becomes urgent,” including aluminum, petrochemicals and polyethylene that are all raw materials for plastics production. Persian Gulf states import more than 90% of their goods, and while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has long been factored into their scenario planning, a long-term closure will start to hit the shelves. Another fast-developing problem is outward-bound cargo, particularly fertilizer from the Middle East that comprises about 30% of the global market and is crucial for food production, according to Violato. “If the war takes longer, we will not have fertilizer for planting and grain production will drop,” she said. “When we impact grain, we impact animal feed and protein becomes more expensive and inflation is impossible to avoid. But again, everything depends on how long the war goes on for.” Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com . 

Forwarding

Reefer shippers play waiting game with boxes stuck outside Persian Gulf

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Changing market dynamics offer an opportunity for motor carriers to raise rates, but also for intermodal providers to win business from cost-conscious shippers looking to shift modes.</div>

Changing market dynamics offer an opportunity for motor carriers to raise rates, but also for intermodal providers to win business from cost-conscious shippers looking to shift modes.

<div class="phx-topic">The tightening of truckload capacity and a sharp rise in diesel prices are beginning to reset surface transportation rates in the US, giving carriers renewed leverage while opening a potential growth opportunity for intermodal rail. Crackdowns on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/impact-of-non-domiciled-cdl-enforcement-splits-us-trucking-sector-6135184">non-domiciled commercial drivers</a> and stricter English-language enforcement are constraining truckload capacity after a four-year freight recession. Meanwhile, diesel prices have surged to their highest level since late 2022 amid the war with Iran, lifting transportation costs for all and forcing shippers to reassess their budgets. It has started a cascading effect across domestic US transportation. Brokers and asset-based truckload carriers are rejecting freight and insisting on renegotiating contract rates, while shippers facing blown transportation budgets consider cheaper options such as intermodal rail. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="f7dc31b8-1e1c-4a59-907f-2391c69d4e9f"></dynamic-object></div>Early signs of that repricing are already evident. Spot truckload rates are up between 15% and 20% from a year ago, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics, even as freight demand remains muted amid elevated interest rates, a lackluster housing market, and mixed signals from the US industrial sector. “Not only are you seeing elevated rates across other modalities such as flatbed, but in the overall dry-van market, you’re seeing 14%, 15% tender rejections coming out of the slowest freight month of the year,” said Jared Weisfeld, chief strategy officer for RXO, a non-asset broker, speaking at the J.P. Morgan Industrials Conference on Tuesday. As recently as last year, tender rejections were at or less than 5%, according to Weisfeld. <h3>Regulatory tightening reinforces supply constraint </h3>The supply side could tighten further as new federal regulations take hold. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FCMSA) enacted a rule earlier this week restricting non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), a move the agency estimates could remove up to 194,000 drivers over five years. On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives advanced “Delilah’s Law,” which would accelerate enforcement over non-domiciled CDLs by retroactively invalidating certain licenses, rather than waiting for a non-domiciled CDL holder to interact with state licensing agencies. Despite higher rates, fleets have been cautious about adding capacity, even though stricter emissions regulations in 2027 will increase the purchase price of a new truck. “Our customers are more middle- to smaller-sized [carriers], and I think there’s still a lot of hesitation on that side to make the decisions,” said Cristina Gallo-Aquino, CFO of Ryder Systems, speaking at the J.P. Morgan event. “We are pointing it all out to them to show them how much of a price increase could be coming ... but we haven’t really seen the shift to make a decision and preorder.” <h3>Fuel surge amplifies pricing pressure </h3>Diesel prices averaged $5.07 per gallon last week, according to the US Energy Information Administration, the highest since November 2022 and adding another layer of cost pressure across the truckload market. On the spot market, where rates are often negotiated on an all-in basis, the increase is squeezing owner-operators and smaller carriers that cannot pass through fuel costs. That dynamic may cause more capacity to exit the truckload sector. In the contract market, larger asset-based carriers pass through higher fuel costs via surcharges. Since March 1, the average surcharge has risen nearly 20 cents per mile, although methodologies vary. For shippers, the result is sticker shock on invoices and a renewed focus on lower-cost alternatives such as rail. “For the intermodal space, it starts to put pressure on truck rates, which is a pretty good thing for us,” Mark George, CEO of Norfolk Southern, said at the J.P. Morgan event. “We’ve been pretty depressed [price-wise] for a while. We’d love to see some evacuation of capacity in trucking.” Intermodal providers are already prepared for that shift. Darren Field, president of intermodal at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said the company is actively engaging with shippers looking to manage rising transportation costs. “How can we convert business from the highway back to intermodal, or to intermodal for the first time to hopefully save you a little money and prepare your budget for a year where truckload capacity and prices could get difficult for you,” Field said at the J.P. Morgan conference. “How can you hedge against the potential for a cost increase coming at your budget as a shipper by utilizing more intermodal?” But capturing that opportunity will depend on execution. Railroads must maintain service reliability even as volumes rise, a lesson of the pandemic when congestion and labor shortages left intermodal with a lingering stigma among some shippers. Service metrics suggest the industry has made progress. In a Journal of Commerce survey conducted late last year, 91.3% of respondents said they were satisfied with domestic intermodal service, up from 45.3% in the spring of 2023. Whether that improvement holds under renewed demand may determine how much freight ultimately shifts modes. Shippers, having experienced pandemic-era disruptions, are unlikely to tolerate a repeat. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The tightening of truckload capacity and a sharp rise in diesel prices are beginning to reset surface transportation rates in the US, giving carriers renewed leverage while opening a potential growth opportunity for intermodal rail. Crackdowns on non-domiciled commercial drivers and stricter English-language enforcement are constraining truckload capacity after a four-year freight recession. Meanwhile, diesel prices have surged to their highest level since late 2022 amid the war with Iran, lifting transportation costs for all and forcing shippers to reassess their budgets. It has started a cascading effect across domestic US transportation. Brokers and asset-based truckload carriers are rejecting freight and insisting on renegotiating contract rates, while shippers facing blown transportation budgets consider cheaper options such as intermodal rail. Early signs of that repricing are already evident. Spot truckload rates are up between 15% and 20% from a year ago, according to DAT Freight & Analytics, even as freight demand remains muted amid elevated interest rates, a lackluster housing market, and mixed signals from the US industrial sector. “Not only are you seeing elevated rates across other modalities such as flatbed, but in the overall dry-van market, you’re seeing 14%, 15% tender rejections coming out of the slowest freight month of the year,” said Jared Weisfeld, chief strategy officer for RXO, a non-asset broker, speaking at the J.P. Morgan Industrials Conference on Tuesday. As recently as last year, tender rejections were at or less than 5%, according to Weisfeld. Regulatory tightening reinforces supply constraint The supply side could tighten further as new federal regulations take hold. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FCMSA) enacted a rule earlier this week restricting non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), a move the agency estimates could remove up to 194,000 drivers over five years. On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives advanced “Delilah’s Law,” which would accelerate enforcement over non-domiciled CDLs by retroactively invalidating certain licenses, rather than waiting for a non-domiciled CDL holder to interact with state licensing agencies. Despite higher rates, fleets have been cautious about adding capacity, even though stricter emissions regulations in 2027 will increase the purchase price of a new truck. “Our customers are more middle- to smaller-sized [carriers], and I think there’s still a lot of hesitation on that side to make the decisions,” said Cristina Gallo-Aquino, CFO of Ryder Systems, speaking at the J.P. Morgan event. “We are pointing it all out to them to show them how much of a price increase could be coming ... but we haven’t really seen the shift to make a decision and preorder.” Fuel surge amplifies pricing pressure Diesel prices averaged $5.07 per gallon last week, according to the US Energy Information Administration, the highest since November 2022 and adding another layer of cost pressure across the truckload market. On the spot market, where rates are often negotiated on an all-in basis, the increase is squeezing owner-operators and smaller carriers that cannot pass through fuel costs. That dynamic may cause more capacity to exit the truckload sector. In the contract market, larger asset-based carriers pass through higher fuel costs via surcharges. Since March 1, the average surcharge has risen nearly 20 cents per mile, although methodologies vary. For shippers, the result is sticker shock on invoices and a renewed focus on lower-cost alternatives such as rail. “For the intermodal space, it starts to put pressure on truck rates, which is a pretty good thing for us,” Mark George, CEO of Norfolk Southern, said at the J.P. Morgan event. “We’ve been pretty depressed [price-wise] for a while. We’d love to see some evacuation of capacity in trucking.” Intermodal providers are already prepared for that shift. Darren Field, president of intermodal at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said the company is actively engaging with shippers looking to manage rising transportation costs. “How can we convert business from the highway back to intermodal, or to intermodal for the first time to hopefully save you a little money and prepare your budget for a year where truckload capacity and prices could get difficult for you,” Field said at the J.P. Morgan conference. “How can you hedge against the potential for a cost increase coming at your budget as a shipper by utilizing more intermodal?” But capturing that opportunity will depend on execution. Railroads must maintain service reliability even as volumes rise, a lesson of the pandemic when congestion and labor shortages left intermodal with a lingering stigma among some shippers. Service metrics suggest the industry has made progress. In a Journal of Commerce survey conducted late last year, 91.3% of respondents said they were satisfied with domestic intermodal service, up from 45.3% in the spring of 2023. Whether that improvement holds under renewed demand may determine how much freight ultimately shifts modes. Shippers, having experienced pandemic-era disruptions, are unlikely to tolerate a repeat. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

Capacity cuts, fuel shocks provide openings for trucking and rail

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The most disruptive energy shock in modern history has reawakened the debate over whether emergency fuel surcharges are a fair way for ocean carriers to recoup unexpected costs or blatant “double-dipping” that angers shippers.</div>

The most disruptive energy shock in modern history has reawakened the debate over whether emergency fuel surcharges are a fair way for ocean carriers to recoup unexpected costs or blatant “double-dipping” that angers shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">The speed and severity of the jump in global oil prices amid the war in the Middle East have reignited long-standing suspicions by cargo owners that fuel surcharges levied by ocean carriers are used as a revenue stream rather than a cost recovery mechanism. Container lines defend the fees, ranging from $30 to $300 per TEU depending on the trade lane, arguing that what is widely seen as the most significant energy shock in history has forced them to recoup costs with fees beyond the lagging quarterly bunker adjustment factor (BAF). Bunker fuel prices contribute approximately 15% to 30% of operating costs, depending on the year, according to various container line financial reports.And while the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, according to a Vizion analysis, shippers nonetheless are retaining a cynical view of the emergency fuel surcharges. “Shipping lines always seem to manage to turn a crisis into a cash-grab,” was the blunt message from James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum. “This apparent ‘double-dipping’ brings the whole sordid practice of surcharging into further disrepute.” Emergency bunker adjustment factors (EBAFs) on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense were acceptable for the current contract period ending March 26, said Antonios Rigalos, managing partner of shipper network ShiftX. But going forward, increased bunker costs should be recovered by the quarterly BAF review, he noted.“The BAF reviews executed for Q3 will reflect the higher bunker costs for the previous quarter [March/April/May], and an EBAF plus BAF review would create a double charging of customers,” Rigalos said. “While we understand the situation of carriers and that increased bunker costs have a big impact that somehow needs to be recovered, it needs to be carried out in a fair way and not by double charging BCOs [beneficial cargo owners] and clients.” Several carriers have announced emergency bunker fuel surcharges on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense, but the moves have sparked growing concern from shippers. An Asia-Europe shipper based in Hong Kong said he negotiated contracts based on the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) that covers both BAF and EBAF surcharges. “We adjust the bunker fuel surcharge bi-monthly and as far as we are concerned, we will fight any additional emergency fuel surcharge from the carriers,” the source said. <h3>Long hauls hit with surcharges </h3>CMA CGM this week announced an upward review of its “emergency fuel surcharge” imposed on March 16 that will increase from $150 per TEU to $265/TEU on all long-haul trade lanes. OOCL said it will impose a temporary emergency bunker surcharge (EBS) from March 23 to manage global challenges to fuel availability because the increased costs are “beyond the scope of existing fuel cost recovery and low sulfur adjustment mechanisms.” Cosco Shipping has also announced emergency bunker surcharges on various trades between Europe, South America and Africa, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. introduced a temporary emergency bunker surcharge on March 16 that varies from $30/TEU to $300/TEU depending on the trade lane. Maersk on March 10 announced it would implement an emergency bunker surcharge of $200/TEU on all long hauls “to safeguard cargo integrity and maintain the stability of our network.” “This surcharge covers the impact of fuel availability, cost and mix outside of what is covered in our fossil fuel fee [FFF],” the carrier said in a statement. “This means we are better positioned to have the necessary access to fuel and the ability to move it to necessary locations.” Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said the carrier was being forced to take the unprecedented step of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-forced-to-ship-fuel-from-us-europe-as-asia-bunkers-start-to-run-dry-6184651">filling ships with fuel in the US and Europe and transferring the bunkers to vessels in Asia as supplies at bunkering hubs dried up</a>. Most of the emergency fuel surcharges will be reviewed by carriers every two weeks, but with the Strait of Hormuz — through which about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies move each day — out of bounds to commercial shipping, there is little chance the EBAF will be dropped anytime soon. The speed with which the fuel surcharges were imposed by carriers made it “nigh on impossible” for shippers to recover costs from their own customers or suppliers, Hookham told the Journal of Commerce. “For smaller businesses, that cash flow hit can be fatal when payments are likely to be late due to late or non-delivery of cargo,” he said, noting that the number of surcharges being introduced made it difficult for shippers to track which ones applied to their shipments. “The US got it right when the [Federal Maritime Commission] <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-says-closely-monitoring-carrier-rate-moves-tied-to-middle-east-war-6184781">required 30-day notice periods</a> before surcharges could take effect on US services,” Hookham said. “The current surcharging behavior will only hasten demands for similar notice periods to become mandatory worldwide.” <h3>Fractured fuel links </h3>While carriers roll out their fuel surcharges to try to recover rising costs, freight tracking platform Vizion believes the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In a recent review of bunker surcharges, Vizion noted that average very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) prices of $535 per metric ton in 2025 were down 14.4% year over year, the lowest since 2020, with BAF contributing just 10% to 20% to total freight costs. The launch of US and Israeli strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 triggered a 73% fuel price spike to $939/metric ton in under two weeks, and carriers within days responded with emergency surcharges of $60/TEU to $190/TEU, far faster than standard quarterly BAF adjustments. That shows the traditional BAF fuel-price correlation has weakened as carriers shift to emergency mechanisms to manage extreme volatility, according to Vizion. But Vizion said a deeper trend was emerging with a market fracture in progress as carriers divided into two camps: immediate risk transfer versus contract stability. Carriers such as Maersk initially absorbed the volatility to protect long-term contract relationships, although the carrier has subsequently announced an emergency fuel surcharge. A more aggressive strategy was taken by MSC and CMA CGM, with both adopting a rapid pass-through of fuel spikes to protect their margins immediately. Shippers with locked-in rates will enjoy a short-term cost advantage, but it will be a temporary relief before fuel adjustments hit. Vizion warned that over the next three to six months, shippers can expect aggressive second-quarter BAF corrections to capture the remaining fuel cost delta. Chantal McRoberts, director and head of advisory at Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, said shippers understand they will pay an increased fuel cost in the third quarter as that is part of the BAF policy that enables carriers to recover fuel costs over time. “The concern around the introduction of EBAF is the potential for double recovery,” McRoberts told the Journal of Commerce. “In practice, a shipper may pay an EBAF during Q2 to reflect higher fuel prices and then see its underlying BAF increase in Q3 as the formula catches up with those same Q2 fuel costs. At that point, the EBAF risks becoming revenue‑generating rather than purely cost‑recovering. “This is the dilemma currently facing shippers,” she added. “As a result, those operating under transparent, formula‑based BAF mechanisms are, in many cases, pushing back on EBAF charges.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The speed and severity of the jump in global oil prices amid the war in the Middle East have reignited long-standing suspicions by cargo owners that fuel surcharges levied by ocean carriers are used as a revenue stream rather than a cost recovery mechanism. Container lines defend the fees, ranging from $30 to $300 per TEU depending on the trade lane, arguing that what is widely seen as the most significant energy shock in history has forced them to recoup costs with fees beyond the lagging quarterly bunker adjustment factor (BAF). Bunker fuel prices contribute approximately 15% to 30% of operating costs, depending on the year, according to various container line financial reports. And while the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, according to a Vizion analysis, shippers nonetheless are retaining a cynical view of the emergency fuel surcharges. “Shipping lines always seem to manage to turn a crisis into a cash-grab,” was the blunt message from James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum. “This apparent ‘double-dipping’ brings the whole sordid practice of surcharging into further disrepute.” Emergency bunker adjustment factors (EBAFs) on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense were acceptable for the current contract period ending March 26, said Antonios Rigalos, managing partner of shipper network ShiftX. But going forward, increased bunker costs should be recovered by the quarterly BAF review, he noted. “The BAF reviews executed for Q3 will reflect the higher bunker costs for the previous quarter [March/April/May], and an EBAF plus BAF review would create a double charging of customers,” Rigalos said. “While we understand the situation of carriers and that increased bunker costs have a big impact that somehow needs to be recovered, it needs to be carried out in a fair way and not by double charging BCOs [beneficial cargo owners] and clients.” Several carriers have announced emergency bunker fuel surcharges on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense, but the moves have sparked growing concern from shippers. An Asia-Europe shipper based in Hong Kong said he negotiated contracts based on the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) that covers both BAF and EBAF surcharges. “We adjust the bunker fuel surcharge bi-monthly and as far as we are concerned, we will fight any additional emergency fuel surcharge from the carriers,” the source said. Long hauls hit with surcharges CMA CGM this week announced an upward review of its “emergency fuel surcharge” imposed on March 16 that will increase from $150 per TEU to $265/TEU on all long-haul trade lanes. OOCL said it will impose a temporary emergency bunker surcharge (EBS) from March 23 to manage global challenges to fuel availability because the increased costs are “beyond the scope of existing fuel cost recovery and low sulfur adjustment mechanisms.” Cosco Shipping has also announced emergency bunker surcharges on various trades between Europe, South America and Africa, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. introduced a temporary emergency bunker surcharge on March 16 that varies from $30/TEU to $300/TEU depending on the trade lane. Maersk on March 10 announced it would implement an emergency bunker surcharge of $200/TEU on all long hauls “to safeguard cargo integrity and maintain the stability of our network.” “This surcharge covers the impact of fuel availability, cost and mix outside of what is covered in our fossil fuel fee [FFF],” the carrier said in a statement. “This means we are better positioned to have the necessary access to fuel and the ability to move it to necessary locations.” Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said the carrier was being forced to take the unprecedented step of filling ships with fuel in the US and Europe and transferring the bunkers to vessels in Asia as supplies at bunkering hubs dried up . Most of the emergency fuel surcharges will be reviewed by carriers every two weeks, but with the Strait of Hormuz — through which about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies move each day — out of bounds to commercial shipping, there is little chance the EBAF will be dropped anytime soon. The speed with which the fuel surcharges were imposed by carriers made it “nigh on impossible” for shippers to recover costs from their own customers or suppliers, Hookham told the Journal of Commerce. “For smaller businesses, that cash flow hit can be fatal when payments are likely to be late due to late or non-delivery of cargo,” he said, noting that the number of surcharges being introduced made it difficult for shippers to track which ones applied to their shipments. “The US got it right when the [Federal Maritime Commission] required 30-day notice periods before surcharges could take effect on US services,” Hookham said. “The current surcharging behavior will only hasten demands for similar notice periods to become mandatory worldwide.” Fractured fuel links While carriers roll out their fuel surcharges to try to recover rising costs, freight tracking platform Vizion believes the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In a recent review of bunker surcharges, Vizion noted that average very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) prices of $535 per metric ton in 2025 were down 14.4% year over year, the lowest since 2020, with BAF contributing just 10% to 20% to total freight costs. The launch of US and Israeli strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 triggered a 73% fuel price spike to $939/metric ton in under two weeks, and carriers within days responded with emergency surcharges of $60/TEU to $190/TEU, far faster than standard quarterly BAF adjustments. That shows the traditional BAF fuel-price correlation has weakened as carriers shift to emergency mechanisms to manage extreme volatility, according to Vizion. But Vizion said a deeper trend was emerging with a market fracture in progress as carriers divided into two camps: immediate risk transfer versus contract stability. Carriers such as Maersk initially absorbed the volatility to protect long-term contract relationships, although the carrier has subsequently announced an emergency fuel surcharge. A more aggressive strategy was taken by MSC and CMA CGM, with both adopting a rapid pass-through of fuel spikes to protect their margins immediately. Shippers with locked-in rates will enjoy a short-term cost advantage, but it will be a temporary relief before fuel adjustments hit. Vizion warned that over the next three to six months, shippers can expect aggressive second-quarter BAF corrections to capture the remaining fuel cost delta. Chantal McRoberts, director and head of advisory at Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, said shippers understand they will pay an increased fuel cost in the third quarter as that is part of the BAF policy that enables carriers to recover fuel costs over time. “The concern around the introduction of EBAF is the potential for double recovery,” McRoberts told the Journal of Commerce. “In practice, a shipper may pay an EBAF during Q2 to reflect higher fuel prices and then see its underlying BAF increase in Q3 as the formula catches up with those same Q2 fuel costs. At that point, the EBAF risks becoming revenue‑generating rather than purely cost‑recovering. “This is the dilemma currently facing shippers,” she added. “As a result, those operating under transparent, formula‑based BAF mechanisms are, in many cases, pushing back on EBAF charges.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

War reignites tussle between ocean carriers, cargo owners over fuel surcharges

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim will be forced to wait until early April before implementing surcharges designed to recoup higher operating costs associated with the war in the Middle East. </div>

The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim will be forced to wait until early April before implementing surcharges designed to recoup higher operating costs associated with the war in the Middle East.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Monday unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, as required by US shipping law, filed 30-day notices with the FMC in early March informing the agency of their intent to implement special surcharges on customers in order to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-reignites-tussle-between-ocean-carriers-cargo-owners-over-fuel-surcharges-6188632">recoup the higher operating costs</a> tied to spiking fuel prices and the disruption to ships and equipment after the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Along with the notices came requests by the carriers to waive the 30-day waiting period, which would have allowed the liners to implement the new charges immediately. Zim’s surcharge applies to all US trades, while the charges for the other three carriers apply only to their US-Middle East trade. “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge,” FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said in a statement. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.” DiBella recommended that carriers provide data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” <h3>Seeking to recoup higher costs </h3>The surcharge notices filed with the FMC are just one of the ways container lines are trying to recoup the higher costs. Cargo contracted on a long-term basis rather than via freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates are subject to bunker adjustment factors reset quarterly and floating fuel surcharges that can be reset as frequently as monthly. Ocean carriers began assessing war-related surcharges for any shipments to and from the Persian Gulf states on March 2. The FMC must grant special permission for any such charges to be implemented on US trades prior to the end of a 30-day review period. The surcharges filed with the FMC by Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk pertain only to shipments between the US and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Maersk’s surcharge specifically noted eastern Saudi Arabia. Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot unit; and $3,800 for refrigerated and special containers. Hapag-Lloyd plans to levy $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 for reefer containers. CMA CGM said it would implement an emergency conflict surcharge on exports and imports from the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU and $4,000 for reefer and special containers. Zim plans to seek a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. Zim said the war has increased the cost of running its network and operations at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel. “These increased costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums and tighter P&amp;I coverage terms; the need to delay, speed up, and/or re-route vessels and cargo; increased equipment positioning/repositioning costs resulting from changes in vessel schedules; and a loss of productivity as the result of employees having to take refuge in bomb shelters throughout the day and night, among others,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing three of the carriers, wrote to the FMC. While the carriers filed their surcharge notices separately, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim are represented by Cozen O’Conner. The carriers each told the FMC that unless the 30-day notice period for the surcharges was waived, they would be unable to begin recovering the increased costs they are experiencing for almost a full month. <h3>Waiver requests filed in early March </h3>The various requests were filed by the carriers between March 2 and March 5, following the beginning of the war on Feb. 28. The four requests are the only ones that have been processed by the agency so far, an FMC spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce on Monday. The FMC in mid-March told shippers to check their ocean freight bills for any surcharges related to the war in the Middle East that have not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the agency said it was “closely monitoring the impact the current conflict in the Middle East is having on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz” and any rate adjustments ocean carriers are making in response. The FMC in early 2024 came under fire from shippers, including the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, after waiving for one ocean carrier the 30-day notice period for surcharges tied to vessel diversions away from the Suez Canal due to attacks by Houthi militants on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. A subsequent economic analysis questioned whether the surcharge was warranted, given the carrier was also avoiding Suez Canal tolls by diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. AgTC Executive Director Peter Friedmann praised the FMC for rejecting the carriers’ requests to waive the 30-day waiting period and criticized the lack of explanation from the liners on how the surcharges were calculated. He noted in a statement Monday that none of the requests from the carriers specified the actual costs they were accruing from the Middle East disruption. While recognizing that container lines have made efforts to understand and support US agriculture exporters, Friedmann nonetheless said AgTC was “shocked by the manner in which these requests were drafted, the disrespect shown to carriers’ customers and even to the [FMC].” Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Monday unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, as required by US shipping law, filed 30-day notices with the FMC in early March informing the agency of their intent to implement special surcharges on customers in order to recoup the higher operating costs tied to spiking fuel prices and the disruption to ships and equipment after the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Along with the notices came requests by the carriers to waive the 30-day waiting period, which would have allowed the liners to implement the new charges immediately. Zim’s surcharge applies to all US trades, while the charges for the other three carriers apply only to their US-Middle East trade. “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge,” FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said in a statement. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.” DiBella recommended that carriers provide data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” Seeking to recoup higher costs The surcharge notices filed with the FMC are just one of the ways container lines are trying to recoup the higher costs. Cargo contracted on a long-term basis rather than via freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates are subject to bunker adjustment factors reset quarterly and floating fuel surcharges that can be reset as frequently as monthly. Ocean carriers began assessing war-related surcharges for any shipments to and from the Persian Gulf states on March 2. The FMC must grant special permission for any such charges to be implemented on US trades prior to the end of a 30-day review period. The surcharges filed with the FMC by Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk pertain only to shipments between the US and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Maersk’s surcharge specifically noted eastern Saudi Arabia. Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot unit; and $3,800 for refrigerated and special containers. Hapag-Lloyd plans to levy $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 for reefer containers. CMA CGM said it would implement an emergency conflict surcharge on exports and imports from the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU and $4,000 for reefer and special containers. Zim plans to seek a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. Zim said the war has increased the cost of running its network and operations at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel. “These increased costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums and tighter P&I coverage terms; the need to delay, speed up, and/or re-route vessels and cargo; increased equipment positioning/repositioning costs resulting from changes in vessel schedules; and a loss of productivity as the result of employees having to take refuge in bomb shelters throughout the day and night, among others,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing three of the carriers, wrote to the FMC. While the carriers filed their surcharge notices separately, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim are represented by Cozen O’Conner. The carriers each told the FMC that unless the 30-day notice period for the surcharges was waived, they would be unable to begin recovering the increased costs they are experiencing for almost a full month. Waiver requests filed in early March The various requests were filed by the carriers between March 2 and March 5, following the beginning of the war on Feb. 28. The four requests are the only ones that have been processed by the agency so far, an FMC spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce on Monday. The FMC in mid-March told shippers to check their ocean freight bills for any surcharges related to the war in the Middle East that have not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the agency said it was “closely monitoring the impact the current conflict in the Middle East is having on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz” and any rate adjustments ocean carriers are making in response. The FMC in early 2024 came under fire from shippers, including the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, after waiving for one ocean carrier the 30-day notice period for surcharges tied to vessel diversions away from the Suez Canal due to attacks by Houthi militants on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. A subsequent economic analysis questioned whether the surcharge was warranted, given the carrier was also avoiding Suez Canal tolls by diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. AgTC Executive Director Peter Friedmann praised the FMC for rejecting the carriers’ requests to waive the 30-day waiting period and criticized the lack of explanation from the liners on how the surcharges were calculated. He noted in a statement Monday that none of the requests from the carriers specified the actual costs they were accruing from the Middle East disruption. While recognizing that container lines have made efforts to understand and support US agriculture exporters, Friedmann nonetheless said AgTC was “shocked by the manner in which these requests were drafted, the disrespect shown to carriers’ customers and even to the [FMC].” Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

FMC rejects requests by carriers to waive waiting period for Middle East surcharges

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off a major source of global resin supply, teeing up US production to fill in some of the gap.</div>

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off a major source of global resin supply, teeing up US production to fill in some of the gap.

<div class="phx-topic">US resin exports have ticked higher as the war in the Middle East shuts off the largest source of global plastics supply. The sustainability of the export demand, though, hinges largely on the war’s duration and the capacity of North American producers to make more resin.Export container bookings for resins hit 6,191 on March 16, according to maritime visibility provider Vizion. That compares with the nearly 3,500 to 4,500 daily bookings typically made throughout all of 2026. The first week of March saw the highest number of export resin bookings, 22,653, since the last week of January. Most bookings occur during weekdays.The bookings come as Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have cut off the Middle East’s resin producers from world markets. The Middle East accounts for 15% of global polyethylene supply, the most widely traded type of resin, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. The disruption in the Gulf has already sent US polyethylene prices higher. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, said Thursday that US prices have tripled since Feb. 25, now hovering between $1,268 and $1,290 per metric ton, depending on the grade. “The sharp price increases reflected a fundamental shift in global supply dynamics, as the US emerged as the primary supplier of polyethylene ... following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Platts said. Asia and Europe are the most affected by the disruption in Middle East resin exports, Shruthi Vangipuram, an analyst with Wood Mackenzie, told the Journal of Commerce. While both regions have their own resin production, they depend on crude oil feedstocks that have also become more expensive. “Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been impacted the most,” she said. “Producers in the region are struggling to secure feedstock and operating rates in these countries have been severely curtailed.” Vangipuram estimates that resin plants in Asia and Europe are running at only about 70% of their production capacity due to higher prices for feedstock crude oil. In contrast, US producers are running at about 90% utilization. She said US producers can delay maintenance to keep production levels high through the second quarter, but that would still not fill the gap in global demand. “We can flex to 95%, 98% utilization, but it depends on which markets it makes sense to sell to,” Vangipuram said. <h3>Pricing arbitrage favors trans-Atlantic</h3>Export capacity from the US to Asia is ample, according to an executive of a third-party logistics provider, who estimated that backhaul utilization for most ocean carriers hovers near 50%. Spot rates for dry freight to Asia from the US Gulf, which dominates resin exports, are currently running between $500 and $700 for a standard-sized container, while shipping a 20-foot container used primarily for resins runs about 80% of that rate. Trans-Atlantic rates have also been stable, hovering near $1,100 for a 20-foot container from the US Gulf to Northern Europe, according to Xeneta. The rate for shipping a 20-foot container out of the Southeast Atlantic ports has moved higher since the start of the year, going from just over $700 to $757 this week, Xeneta said. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-alliance-one-rework-trans-atlantic-services-remove-ships-6169751">Carriers are removing ships and port calls from trans-Atlantic services</a>, tightening up some of the capacity in that market. Outbound US cargo does not face any significant delays with bookings available about two weeks out. The real risk for shippers will be in fuel surcharges that are being applied on global trades due to the Middle East war, as well as a potential general rate increase in April. Outside of freight rates and vessel space, Vangipuram said the real driver for US exports will be the direction of local pricing. Asian prices will still need to move higher to attract more US imports. With a four- to six-week lead time for imports, Asian buyers will need to see the conflict drag out before buying from the US. Europe, which is the second-biggest market for US resins after South America, has seen its benchmark polyethylene prices rise by one-third since the end of February. Vangipuram said Europe would likely be the first market to see additional US imports thanks to the much shorter voyage time and the sharper price move. “The arbitrage works out better in the Atlantic than to Asia because of freight rates and shorter shipping times,” Vangipuram said. “We may not see the volume from the US make it into those markets that would appear to need it most.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US resin exports have ticked higher as the war in the Middle East shuts off the largest source of global plastics supply. The sustainability of the export demand, though, hinges largely on the war’s duration and the capacity of North American producers to make more resin. Export container bookings for resins hit 6,191 on March 16, according to maritime visibility provider Vizion. That compares with the nearly 3,500 to 4,500 daily bookings typically made throughout all of 2026. The first week of March saw the highest number of export resin bookings, 22,653, since the last week of January. Most bookings occur during weekdays. The bookings come as Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have cut off the Middle East’s resin producers from world markets. The Middle East accounts for 15% of global polyethylene supply, the most widely traded type of resin, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. The disruption in the Gulf has already sent US polyethylene prices higher. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, said Thursday that US prices have tripled since Feb. 25, now hovering between $1,268 and $1,290 per metric ton, depending on the grade. “The sharp price increases reflected a fundamental shift in global supply dynamics, as the US emerged as the primary supplier of polyethylene ... following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Platts said. Asia and Europe are the most affected by the disruption in Middle East resin exports, Shruthi Vangipuram, an analyst with Wood Mackenzie, told the Journal of Commerce. While both regions have their own resin production, they depend on crude oil feedstocks that have also become more expensive. “Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been impacted the most,” she said. “Producers in the region are struggling to secure feedstock and operating rates in these countries have been severely curtailed.” Vangipuram estimates that resin plants in Asia and Europe are running at only about 70% of their production capacity due to higher prices for feedstock crude oil. In contrast, US producers are running at about 90% utilization. She said US producers can delay maintenance to keep production levels high through the second quarter, but that would still not fill the gap in global demand. “We can flex to 95%, 98% utilization, but it depends on which markets it makes sense to sell to,” Vangipuram said. Pricing arbitrage favors trans-Atlantic Export capacity from the US to Asia is ample, according to an executive of a third-party logistics provider, who estimated that backhaul utilization for most ocean carriers hovers near 50%. Spot rates for dry freight to Asia from the US Gulf, which dominates resin exports, are currently running between $500 and $700 for a standard-sized container, while shipping a 20-foot container used primarily for resins runs about 80% of that rate. Trans-Atlantic rates have also been stable, hovering near $1,100 for a 20-foot container from the US Gulf to Northern Europe, according to Xeneta. The rate for shipping a 20-foot container out of the Southeast Atlantic ports has moved higher since the start of the year, going from just over $700 to $757 this week, Xeneta said. Carriers are removing ships and port calls from trans-Atlantic services , tightening up some of the capacity in that market. Outbound US cargo does not face any significant delays with bookings available about two weeks out. The real risk for shippers will be in fuel surcharges that are being applied on global trades due to the Middle East war, as well as a potential general rate increase in April. Outside of freight rates and vessel space, Vangipuram said the real driver for US exports will be the direction of local pricing. Asian prices will still need to move higher to attract more US imports. With a four- to six-week lead time for imports, Asian buyers will need to see the conflict drag out before buying from the US. Europe, which is the second-biggest market for US resins after South America, has seen its benchmark polyethylene prices rise by one-third since the end of February. Vangipuram said Europe would likely be the first market to see additional US imports thanks to the much shorter voyage time and the sharper price move. “The arbitrage works out better in the Atlantic than to Asia because of freight rates and shorter shipping times,” Vangipuram said. “We may not see the volume from the US make it into those markets that would appear to need it most.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

US resin shippers look to tap new customers amid Iran war

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">China’s largest shipping company commented on current geopolitical events as it released its 2025 financial results, which saw net profits plummet 38%.</div>

China’s largest shipping company commented on current geopolitical events as it released its 2025 financial results, which saw net profits plummet 38%.

<div class="phx-topic">Geopolitical tensions, heightened by war in the Middle East, will accelerate the pace of regionalization in global trade and nearshoring this year while “amplifying the volatility of global supply chains,” Cosco Shipping said Thursday. Momentum for global economic growth is weak, and the external environment for the container shipping industry remains severe, the liner shipping and terminals group said in its 2025 results statement filed with the Shanghai stock exchange. “Looking ahead to 2026, the complexity and uncertainty of the container shipping market will further intensify,” Cosco said. More favorably for global trade, Cosco said emerging economies are showing strong growth potential, cooperation among developing countries is warming and tariff uncertainties have temporarily eased. Cosco specifically highlighted Southeast Asia and Latin America, where demand is strengthening, buoyed by the widening implementation of free trade agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in Asia. China’s biggest shipping company said the imbalance between cargo demand and fleet growth will also ease this year, with cargo volumes rising by a “low to moderate 2.5%” compared with 3.8% fleet growth, “the lowest in the past three years.” While this increase in capacity is likely to put downward pressure on freight rates, the impact could be mitigated by port congestion caused by the realignment of carrier alliance networks and the war in the Middle East, the carrier said. <h3>Net profit down 38% in 2025 </h3>Cosco saw mixed results last year, largely reflected by volatile US tariff policy, the deteriorating global economy and the crash in freight rates in the fourth quarter. Overall, net profit fell 38% to $4.3 billion last year while operating revenues slipped 6% to $30.7 billion. Cosco said net profit in the fourth quarter was the lowest of all four quarters, falling 60% to $532 million. The carrier said the worst-performing trades last year were the Asia-Europe and Mediterranean services, which saw an 18% decline in total revenues to $5.3 billion. Revenue from trans-Pacific services fell 17% to $7.7 billion, while revenue from intra-Asia routes was unchanged at $7.6 billion. Cosco saw a better performance from its terminals business, with revenue climbing 11% to $1.7 billion last year, supported by a 6% increase in total throughput to 153 million TEUs. Cosco said it would focus the development of its terminal business on emerging markets and trade lanes to reflect the growing trade between Southeast Asia and Latin America and the increasing importance of ports in areas such as North Africa and India. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Geopolitical tensions, heightened by war in the Middle East, will accelerate the pace of regionalization in global trade and nearshoring this year while “amplifying the volatility of global supply chains,” Cosco Shipping said Thursday. Momentum for global economic growth is weak, and the external environment for the container shipping industry remains severe, the liner shipping and terminals group said in its 2025 results statement filed with the Shanghai stock exchange. “Looking ahead to 2026, the complexity and uncertainty of the container shipping market will further intensify,” Cosco said. More favorably for global trade, Cosco said emerging economies are showing strong growth potential, cooperation among developing countries is warming and tariff uncertainties have temporarily eased. Cosco specifically highlighted Southeast Asia and Latin America, where demand is strengthening, buoyed by the widening implementation of free trade agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in Asia. China’s biggest shipping company said the imbalance between cargo demand and fleet growth will also ease this year, with cargo volumes rising by a “low to moderate 2.5%” compared with 3.8% fleet growth, “the lowest in the past three years.” While this increase in capacity is likely to put downward pressure on freight rates, the impact could be mitigated by port congestion caused by the realignment of carrier alliance networks and the war in the Middle East, the carrier said. Net profit down 38% in 2025 Cosco saw mixed results last year, largely reflected by volatile US tariff policy, the deteriorating global economy and the crash in freight rates in the fourth quarter. Overall, net profit fell 38% to $4.3 billion last year while operating revenues slipped 6% to $30.7 billion. Cosco said net profit in the fourth quarter was the lowest of all four quarters, falling 60% to $532 million. The carrier said the worst-performing trades last year were the Asia-Europe and Mediterranean services, which saw an 18% decline in total revenues to $5.3 billion. Revenue from trans-Pacific services fell 17% to $7.7 billion, while revenue from intra-Asia routes was unchanged at $7.6 billion. Cosco saw a better performance from its terminals business, with revenue climbing 11% to $1.7 billion last year, supported by a 6% increase in total throughput to 153 million TEUs. Cosco said it would focus the development of its terminal business on emerging markets and trade lanes to reflect the growing trade between Southeast Asia and Latin America and the increasing importance of ports in areas such as North Africa and India. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

CMA CGM reorganizes India-Europe/Med network amid Middle East port woes

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Reefer shippers play waiting game with boxes stuck outside Persian Gulf

Capacity cuts, fuel shocks provide openings for trucking and rail

War reignites tussle between ocean carriers, cargo owners over fuel surcharges

Recent Commentary

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

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

Top 5 Most Read Stories