<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The appointment of Maersk’s terminals arm came just hours after Panama’s Supreme Court nullified the concessions Hutchison had held at the Balboa and Cristobal ports for almost 30 years.</div>

The appointment of Maersk’s terminals arm came just hours after Panama’s Supreme Court nullified the concessions Hutchison had held at the Balboa and Cristobal ports for almost 30 years.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk’s APM Terminals on Friday was appointed the interim administrator of the Balboa and Cristobal terminals that bookend the Panama Canal after the country’s Supreme Court nullified the operating concessions long held by the Panama Ports Company, a subsidiary of Hutchinson Port Holdings. The Panama Maritime Authority said it hoped for an orderly and coordinated transition from Panama Ports to APMT, noting Hong Kong conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings is a “globally recognized organization known for its strong corporate reputation.” “In this context, we trust in their constructive collaboration during this phase, for the benefit of the port system’s stability,” the maritime authority said in a statement announcing the Maersk takeover. This came a day after Panama Ports Company (PPC) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-court-voids-ck-hutchison-canal-terminal-leases-6161145">angrily rejected the Supreme Court’s decision to cancel its concessions</a>, saying the ruling “lacks legal basis and jeopardizes not only PPC and its contract, but also the well-being and stability of thousands of Panamanian families who depend directly and indirectly on port activity, but also the rule of law and legal certainty in the country.” PPC also warned it could take national and international legal action against the Panamanian government in response to the court decision, which it said was the latest development in an ongoing campaign that included “a range of surprise actions” targeting the terminal concessions and PPC. PPC did not immediately respond to questions from the Journal of Commerce on whether it would allow APM Terminals to take over operational control of the terminals. PPC has operated the terminals at Balboa on the Pacific side of the canal and Cristobal on the Atlantic coast since 1997 following the award of an initial 25-year concession that was extended in 2021, deals the Supreme Court has now ruled unconstitutional. Hutchison had already agreed to sell the two terminals to a consortium of BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners and Mediterranean Shipping Co. subsidiary Terminal Investments Limited (TiL) as part of a $22.8 billion sale of its 43 terminal operations worldwide. But the deal has run into opposition from Beijing over ties between US President Donald Trump and BlackRock leadership. The maritime authority did not say when APM Terminals would assume responsibility as temporary operator, how long its assignment would last or the process for appointing a new terminal operator. In a separate statement Friday, APM Terminals said it would begin “operations at the terminals in compliance with all legal formalities and procedures.” “This will only occur after the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama becomes final, a timeframe beyond the company’s control,” APMT said. The terminal operator said it “confirms its willingness” to temporarily assume operation of both terminals. “This aims to mitigate risks that could affect essential services for regional and global trade and to support Panama’s logistics hub,” it said. The maritime authority said Panama, as the owner of the ports, guarantees the operational continuity of the national port system, which it said were “proceeding normally, without interruption, and maintaining optimal levels of productivity, efficiency, and service quality for shipping lines and their clients.” <h3>ACP seeks developers for two new terminals </h3>The legal wrangle over PPC’s concession and APM Terminals interim appointment came as the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) announced Friday that it was asking international terminal operators to prequalify to develop two new container terminals at either end of the canal. Companies have to submit prequalification documents by April 8. The common-user terminals, estimated to cost a total of $2.6 billon, will be built in Corozal at the Pacific entrance of the canal, and Telfers lsland at the canal’s Atlantic entrance. APMT was one of the 12 terminal operators that had individual meetings in October with ACP officials to discuss the project. Others were Cosco Shipping Ports, CMA Terminals, DP World, Hanseatic Global Terminals, MOL, PSA International, SSA Marine-Grupo Carrix, Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), ONE, and Evergreen. Several already run existing terminals. SSA Marine operates Manzanillo International Terminals, while Evergreen is concessionaire for Colon Container Terminal, both on the Atlantic side of the canal. Singapore’s PSA operates its Panama International Terminal on the Pacific Coast. The two new terminals are specifically aimed at boosting Panama’s annual transshipment capacity to between 5 million TEUs and 6 million TEUs and strengthening Panama’s position as a globally competitive intermodal hub. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Maersk’s APM Terminals on Friday was appointed the interim administrator of the Balboa and Cristobal terminals that bookend the Panama Canal after the country’s Supreme Court nullified the operating concessions long held by the Panama Ports Company, a subsidiary of Hutchinson Port Holdings. The Panama Maritime Authority said it hoped for an orderly and coordinated transition from Panama Ports to APMT, noting Hong Kong conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings is a “globally recognized organization known for its strong corporate reputation.” “In this context, we trust in their constructive collaboration during this phase, for the benefit of the port system’s stability,” the maritime authority said in a statement announcing the Maersk takeover. This came a day after Panama Ports Company (PPC) angrily rejected the Supreme Court’s decision to cancel its concessions , saying the ruling “lacks legal basis and jeopardizes not only PPC and its contract, but also the well-being and stability of thousands of Panamanian families who depend directly and indirectly on port activity, but also the rule of law and legal certainty in the country.” PPC also warned it could take national and international legal action against the Panamanian government in response to the court decision, which it said was the latest development in an ongoing campaign that included “a range of surprise actions” targeting the terminal concessions and PPC. PPC did not immediately respond to questions from the Journal of Commerce on whether it would allow APM Terminals to take over operational control of the terminals. PPC has operated the terminals at Balboa on the Pacific side of the canal and Cristobal on the Atlantic coast since 1997 following the award of an initial 25-year concession that was extended in 2021, deals the Supreme Court has now ruled unconstitutional. Hutchison had already agreed to sell the two terminals to a consortium of BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners and Mediterranean Shipping Co. subsidiary Terminal Investments Limited (TiL) as part of a $22.8 billion sale of its 43 terminal operations worldwide. But the deal has run into opposition from Beijing over ties between US President Donald Trump and BlackRock leadership. The maritime authority did not say when APM Terminals would assume responsibility as temporary operator, how long its assignment would last or the process for appointing a new terminal operator. In a separate statement Friday, APM Terminals said it would begin “operations at the terminals in compliance with all legal formalities and procedures.” “This will only occur after the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama becomes final, a timeframe beyond the company’s control,” APMT said. The terminal operator said it “confirms its willingness” to temporarily assume operation of both terminals. “This aims to mitigate risks that could affect essential services for regional and global trade and to support Panama’s logistics hub,” it said. The maritime authority said Panama, as the owner of the ports, guarantees the operational continuity of the national port system, which it said were “proceeding normally, without interruption, and maintaining optimal levels of productivity, efficiency, and service quality for shipping lines and their clients.” ACP seeks developers for two new terminals The legal wrangle over PPC’s concession and APM Terminals interim appointment came as the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) announced Friday that it was asking international terminal operators to prequalify to develop two new container terminals at either end of the canal. Companies have to submit prequalification documents by April 8. The common-user terminals, estimated to cost a total of $2.6 billon, will be built in Corozal at the Pacific entrance of the canal, and Telfers lsland at the canal’s Atlantic entrance. APMT was one of the 12 terminal operators that had individual meetings in October with ACP officials to discuss the project. Others were Cosco Shipping Ports, CMA Terminals, DP World, Hanseatic Global Terminals, MOL, PSA International, SSA Marine-Grupo Carrix, Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), ONE, and Evergreen. Several already run existing terminals. SSA Marine operates Manzanillo International Terminals, while Evergreen is concessionaire for Colon Container Terminal, both on the Atlantic side of the canal. Singapore’s PSA operates its Panama International Terminal on the Pacific Coast. The two new terminals are specifically aimed at boosting Panama’s annual transshipment capacity to between 5 million TEUs and 6 million TEUs and strengthening Panama’s position as a globally competitive intermodal hub. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

Marine terminals

International ports

Container Shipping News

Maritime

APMT to run Hutchison’s Panama terminals on interim basis after court ruling 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The move comes after Spain turned away three US-flag ships and a Danish multipurpose vessel on the grounds they were carrying military cargo bound for Israel.</div>

The move comes after Spain turned away three US-flag ships and a Danish multipurpose vessel on the grounds they were carrying military cargo bound for Israel.

<div class="phx-topic">Spanish-flagged vessels could be looking at US fees of up to $2.3 million per voyage and bans from US ports as Washington doubles down on a probe prompted by Spain’s refusal of multiple US-flag ships and a Danish multipurpose vessel (MPV) delivering weapons and military cargo to Israel. The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is considering industry comments through Feb. 20 after issuing a late-December notice requesting new information on whether Spain is creating conditions “unfavorable” to foreign trade. The FMC’s notice indicated that in November 2024, Spain barred three US-flag vessels that were operating under the US Maritime Administration’s (MARAD’s) Maritime Security Program, which supports the US Department of Defense during emergencies and wartime. According to the FMC, Spain turned the ships away on grounds they were carrying cargo to Israel. The FMC also cited policy changes the Spanish government adopted last September to limit military cargo shipments to Israel. “Spain’s recent announcement and information from multiple sources indicate that the basic conditions the commission initiated this investigation to address still exist and are likely creating general or special conditions unfavorable to shipping in US foreign commerce,” the FMC stated in the December notice. The three US-flagged ships were container vessels — the Maersk Denver, the Maersk Nysted, and the Maersk Seletar, which were denied access in Spain after departing from New York ports. The FMC’s investigation indicates that Spain also turned away a Danish MPV vessel, the Marianne Danica, in May 2024 on grounds that it was transporting weapons to Israel. Spanish newspaper El País reported that the ship was carrying 27 tons of explosive material from Chennai in India to the port of Haifa in Israel. Both container and multipurpose vessels are used to transport weapons and military cargo. MPVs can carry advanced weaponry as well as roll-on/roll-off military equipment such as tanks and armored vehicles. <h3>Initial probe launched in December 2024 </h3>The FMC launched an initial investigation in December 2024 and received over 8,000 comments, many of which related to respondents’ positions on the Israel-Hamas conflict. The commission requested a second round of public comments after the Spanish government last September announced formal measures to halt the flow of certain cargo bound to or from Israel. The measures include banning ships and aircraft transporting weapons to Israel and barring tankers carrying fuel for the Israeli military from using Spanish ports and airspace. The FMC is collecting public input “on whether Spain is creating general or special conditions unfavorable to shipping in foreign trade,” and if so, what actions the agency should take in response. Among those actions, the FMC said it could impose fees of up to $2.3 million per voyage on Spanish-flag ships calling US ports, restrict voyages to or from US ports, and limit cargo types and amounts. The commission could also order the Department of Homeland Security to detain, refuse, and fine vessels. The FMC’s inquiry is part of a broader overall effort by the agency to flex its muscle and effect changes that could reshape global maritime policy. In March 2025, the FMC launched an investigation into international maritime chokepoints, which the commission cited as a potential threat to US security. Last May, the FMC initiated an inquiry into whether foreign countries’ flagging practices, including “flags of convenience,” are creating barriers to US trade. The FMC has remained relatively silent on those investigations since then, but both remain active. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>.</div>

Spanish-flagged vessels could be looking at US fees of up to $2.3 million per voyage and bans from US ports as Washington doubles down on a probe prompted by Spain’s refusal of multiple US-flag ships and a Danish multipurpose vessel (MPV) delivering weapons and military cargo to Israel. The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is considering industry comments through Feb. 20 after issuing a late-December notice requesting new information on whether Spain is creating conditions “unfavorable” to foreign trade. The FMC’s notice indicated that in November 2024, Spain barred three US-flag vessels that were operating under the US Maritime Administration’s (MARAD’s) Maritime Security Program, which supports the US Department of Defense during emergencies and wartime. According to the FMC, Spain turned the ships away on grounds they were carrying cargo to Israel. The FMC also cited policy changes the Spanish government adopted last September to limit military cargo shipments to Israel. “Spain’s recent announcement and information from multiple sources indicate that the basic conditions the commission initiated this investigation to address still exist and are likely creating general or special conditions unfavorable to shipping in US foreign commerce,” the FMC stated in the December notice. The three US-flagged ships were container vessels — the Maersk Denver, the Maersk Nysted, and the Maersk Seletar, which were denied access in Spain after departing from New York ports. The FMC’s investigation indicates that Spain also turned away a Danish MPV vessel, the Marianne Danica, in May 2024 on grounds that it was transporting weapons to Israel. Spanish newspaper El País reported that the ship was carrying 27 tons of explosive material from Chennai in India to the port of Haifa in Israel. Both container and multipurpose vessels are used to transport weapons and military cargo. MPVs can carry advanced weaponry as well as roll-on/roll-off military equipment such as tanks and armored vehicles. Initial probe launched in December 2024 The FMC launched an initial investigation in December 2024 and received over 8,000 comments, many of which related to respondents’ positions on the Israel-Hamas conflict. The commission requested a second round of public comments after the Spanish government last September announced formal measures to halt the flow of certain cargo bound to or from Israel. The measures include banning ships and aircraft transporting weapons to Israel and barring tankers carrying fuel for the Israeli military from using Spanish ports and airspace. The FMC is collecting public input “on whether Spain is creating general or special conditions unfavorable to shipping in foreign trade,” and if so, what actions the agency should take in response. Among those actions, the FMC said it could impose fees of up to $2.3 million per voyage on Spanish-flag ships calling US ports, restrict voyages to or from US ports, and limit cargo types and amounts. The commission could also order the Department of Homeland Security to detain, refuse, and fine vessels. The FMC’s inquiry is part of a broader overall effort by the agency to flex its muscle and effect changes that could reshape global maritime policy. In March 2025, the FMC launched an investigation into international maritime chokepoints, which the commission cited as a potential threat to US security. Last May, the FMC initiated an inquiry into whether foreign countries’ flagging practices, including “flags of convenience,” are creating barriers to US trade. The FMC has remained relatively silent on those investigations since then, but both remain active. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Supply chain

Breakbulk News

FMC weighs hefty fees, port bans for Spanish vessels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">CEO Mark Rourke said a spot rate surge in December was the first sign of truckload capacity exits having a material impact on prices that will eventually lead to the carrier being able to charge shippers higher rates.</div>

CEO Mark Rourke said a spot rate surge in December was the first sign of truckload capacity exits having a material impact on prices that will eventually lead to the carrier being able to charge shippers higher rates.

<div class="phx-topic">Schneider National was disappointed with freight demand in the fourth quarter but remains hopeful that regulatory crackdowns in the trucking industry will pull out enough supply in 2026 to end the freight recession. Schneider CEO Mark Rourke said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call Thursday the intermodal provider was “not satisfied” with its results, which included a more than 30% drop in net income. But he said a spot rate surge in December was the first sign of truckload capacity exits having a material impact on prices that will eventually lead to the carrier being able to charge shippers higher rates. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has been pressuring states to cancel non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants with expired or invalid work authorizations and those seeking asylum. It has also taken drivers out of service who cannot demonstrate the ability to read and understand English and shut down driving schools that do not rigorously train students before qualifying them to operate a rig. “The industry is already feeling the impact of supply rationalization related to regulatory actions in areas such as non-domiciled CDLs, English language proficiency, and driver school certifications,” Rourke said. “We expect capacity attrition to continue to ramp up, and we continue to believe the impact is likely to be greater than what we saw from the electronic logging mandate in 2017.” Rourke, however, said the USDOT crackdowns will tighten available truck capacity over quarters, not months. He also said economic drivers of freight demand must recover in 2026 to truly flip the market toward carriers. “The trajectory of consumer spending, the impacts from the [Republican-led appropriations bill], and interest rate policy all have the potential to significantly influence the timing and magnitude of improvement in market conditions,” he said. Schneider grew revenue 4.5% year over year to $1.4 billion during the fourth quarter. But net income of $22.1 million was down 32% from the year-ago quarter. Schneider reported fourth-quarter truckload revenues of $610 million, up nearly $50 million compared with the prior year, driven by a 21% increase in dedicated volume. Logistics revenues were $329.3 million, up 2% compared with the same quarter in 2024. <h3>Intermodal volume gains </h3>Results in the trucking and logistics divisions were propped by the integration of the Cowan Systems business. Schneider bought the Baltimore-based trucking company for $390 million, with the deal closing at the end of 2024. Cowan’s business lines included one-way truckload, dedicated truckload, and logistics brokerage. Schneider’s intermodal revenues in the fourth quarter were $268.2 million, down 3% from the year-ago period and driven by a 5% decrease in revenue per order. Intermodal volume increased 3%, suggesting Schneider was able to take market share from competitor J.B. Hunt Transport Services, which dropped 2% year over year in the fourth quarter. Schneider, meanwhile, also announced Rourke would transition to the role of executive chairman effective July 1, 2026, and that longtime company executive Jim Filter will become the new CEO. Filter will become only the fifth CEO in the history of the company, which has been around since 1935. Filter is currently the executive vice president and group president of transportation logistics, a position he has held since 2022. He ran Schneider’s intermodal division prior to that. “Despite a challenging market in 2025, our actions throughout the year have strengthened our foundation and positioned us to benefit as conditions continue to improve,” Filter said on Thursday’s call. Contact Dan Ronan at <a href="mailto:contactdanronan@gmail.com">contactdanronan@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Schneider National was disappointed with freight demand in the fourth quarter but remains hopeful that regulatory crackdowns in the trucking industry will pull out enough supply in 2026 to end the freight recession. Schneider CEO Mark Rourke said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call Thursday the intermodal provider was “not satisfied” with its results, which included a more than 30% drop in net income. But he said a spot rate surge in December was the first sign of truckload capacity exits having a material impact on prices that will eventually lead to the carrier being able to charge shippers higher rates. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has been pressuring states to cancel non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants with expired or invalid work authorizations and those seeking asylum. It has also taken drivers out of service who cannot demonstrate the ability to read and understand English and shut down driving schools that do not rigorously train students before qualifying them to operate a rig. “The industry is already feeling the impact of supply rationalization related to regulatory actions in areas such as non-domiciled CDLs, English language proficiency, and driver school certifications,” Rourke said. “We expect capacity attrition to continue to ramp up, and we continue to believe the impact is likely to be greater than what we saw from the electronic logging mandate in 2017.” Rourke, however, said the USDOT crackdowns will tighten available truck capacity over quarters, not months. He also said economic drivers of freight demand must recover in 2026 to truly flip the market toward carriers. “The trajectory of consumer spending, the impacts from the [Republican-led appropriations bill], and interest rate policy all have the potential to significantly influence the timing and magnitude of improvement in market conditions,” he said. Schneider grew revenue 4.5% year over year to $1.4 billion during the fourth quarter. But net income of $22.1 million was down 32% from the year-ago quarter. Schneider reported fourth-quarter truckload revenues of $610 million, up nearly $50 million compared with the prior year, driven by a 21% increase in dedicated volume. Logistics revenues were $329.3 million, up 2% compared with the same quarter in 2024. Intermodal volume gains Results in the trucking and logistics divisions were propped by the integration of the Cowan Systems business. Schneider bought the Baltimore-based trucking company for $390 million, with the deal closing at the end of 2024. Cowan’s business lines included one-way truckload, dedicated truckload, and logistics brokerage. Schneider’s intermodal revenues in the fourth quarter were $268.2 million, down 3% from the year-ago period and driven by a 5% decrease in revenue per order. Intermodal volume increased 3%, suggesting Schneider was able to take market share from competitor J.B. Hunt Transport Services, which dropped 2% year over year in the fourth quarter. Schneider, meanwhile, also announced Rourke would transition to the role of executive chairman effective July 1, 2026, and that longtime company executive Jim Filter will become the new CEO. Filter will become only the fifth CEO in the history of the company, which has been around since 1935. Filter is currently the executive vice president and group president of transportation logistics, a position he has held since 2022. He ran Schneider’s intermodal division prior to that. “Despite a challenging market in 2025, our actions throughout the year have strengthened our foundation and positioned us to benefit as conditions continue to improve,” Filter said on Thursday’s call. Contact Dan Ronan at contactdanronan@gmail.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Intermodal providers

Surface

Schneider Q4 profit weakens, but company pins hopes on capacity exits

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A surge in tariff-driven frontloading from Asia to North America earlier in the year led to a wait-and-see approach from US importers, resulting in weaker demand.</div>

A surge in tariff-driven frontloading from Asia to North America earlier in the year led to a wait-and-see approach from US importers, resulting in weaker demand.

<div class="phx-topic">Weak demand on the trans-Pacific and an oversupply of shipping capacity pulled down rate levels and dragged Ocean Network Express (ONE) to an $88 million loss in its fiscal third quarter that ended Dec. 31, the carrier said Friday. It was the Singapore-based liner’s first quarterly loss of its current financial year as a surge in US tariff-driven frontloading from Asia to North America earlier in the year led to a wait-and-see approach from US importers, resulting in weaker demand. ONE’s financial year runs from April to March. “Our Q3 FY2025 results reflect a challenging operating environment as we continue to navigate the complexities of the current global landscape,” ONE CEO Jeremy Nixon said in a statement. “Although market dynamics have impacted our performance during the quarter, we remain focused on disciplined capacity management, cost control and ongoing network optimization to enhance operational resilience,” Nixon added. A persistent increase in container ship supply and slowing demand eroded freight rates on the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe trades. Data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows US containerized imports from China in October declined 16% year over year, November imports fell 18.2% and December was down 22.3%. This led to sharp year-over-year declines across ONE’s four main earnings metrics in its fiscal third quarter. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="3fc7098b-efc8-4b40-945d-b76f29f9698c"></dynamic-object></div>Revenue from the period fell 16% to just over $4 billion, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) were down 66% at $536 million; and an earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) loss of $84 million was recorded, along with the $88 million net loss. <h3>Utilization falls on excess supply </h3>The oversupply of capacity could be seen in a drop in ONE’s volume and ship utilization during the fiscal quarter. Trans-Pacific volume of 678,000 TEUs was down 5% both year over year and compared with its second fiscal quarter. Utilization of 90% continued a steady decline over the last financial year when ships were 100% utilized. On Asia-Europe, demand dropped off after Golden Week at the beginning of October, although volume of 444,000 TEUs, while down 11% compared with the fiscal second quarter, was up 6% year over year. Still, an excess in market supply saw ship utilization falling sharply to 81%, down from 91% in the first half. For the first nine months of its financial year, ONE revenue of $12.5 billion was down 18% year over year, while EBITDA of $2 billion was down from $5.2 billion in the previous fiscal nine months. EBIT of $236 million was down from $3.6 billion and the carrier recorded a $283 million net profit in the most recent nine months compared with the $3.9 billion in the previous year. ONE expects demand and rates to improve “modestly” through its fourth quarter from January through March and has made a slight upward adjustment to its full-year 2025–26 forecast. The carrier is now expecting full-year revenue of $16.6 billion (previously $16.5 billion), EBITDA of $2.7 billion ($2.6 billion) and EBIT of $300 million ($250 million), with net profit remaining at $310 million. The forecast earnings reflect the enormous correction facing ocean carriers compared with last year. In its 2024–25 financial year, ONE posted revenue of $19.2 billion, EBITDA of $5.9 billion, EBIT of $3.8 billion and a net profit of $4.2 billion. Still, maritime consultant Drewry has upgraded its financial year 2025 profit forecast from $20 billion to $32 billion following “better than expected” third-quarter results from the carriers and has raised the outlook for 2026 from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Weak demand on the trans-Pacific and an oversupply of shipping capacity pulled down rate levels and dragged Ocean Network Express (ONE) to an $88 million loss in its fiscal third quarter that ended Dec. 31, the carrier said Friday. It was the Singapore-based liner’s first quarterly loss of its current financial year as a surge in US tariff-driven frontloading from Asia to North America earlier in the year led to a wait-and-see approach from US importers, resulting in weaker demand. ONE’s financial year runs from April to March. “Our Q3 FY2025 results reflect a challenging operating environment as we continue to navigate the complexities of the current global landscape,” ONE CEO Jeremy Nixon said in a statement. “Although market dynamics have impacted our performance during the quarter, we remain focused on disciplined capacity management, cost control and ongoing network optimization to enhance operational resilience,” Nixon added. A persistent increase in container ship supply and slowing demand eroded freight rates on the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe trades. Data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows US containerized imports from China in October declined 16% year over year, November imports fell 18.2% and December was down 22.3%. This led to sharp year-over-year declines across ONE’s four main earnings metrics in its fiscal third quarter. Revenue from the period fell 16% to just over $4 billion, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) were down 66% at $536 million; and an earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) loss of $84 million was recorded, along with the $88 million net loss. Utilization falls on excess supply The oversupply of capacity could be seen in a drop in ONE’s volume and ship utilization during the fiscal quarter. Trans-Pacific volume of 678,000 TEUs was down 5% both year over year and compared with its second fiscal quarter. Utilization of 90% continued a steady decline over the last financial year when ships were 100% utilized. On Asia-Europe, demand dropped off after Golden Week at the beginning of October, although volume of 444,000 TEUs, while down 11% compared with the fiscal second quarter, was up 6% year over year. Still, an excess in market supply saw ship utilization falling sharply to 81%, down from 91% in the first half. For the first nine months of its financial year, ONE revenue of $12.5 billion was down 18% year over year, while EBITDA of $2 billion was down from $5.2 billion in the previous fiscal nine months. EBIT of $236 million was down from $3.6 billion and the carrier recorded a $283 million net profit in the most recent nine months compared with the $3.9 billion in the previous year. ONE expects demand and rates to improve “modestly” through its fourth quarter from January through March and has made a slight upward adjustment to its full-year 2025–26 forecast. The carrier is now expecting full-year revenue of $16.6 billion (previously $16.5 billion), EBITDA of $2.7 billion ($2.6 billion) and EBIT of $300 million ($250 million), with net profit remaining at $310 million. The forecast earnings reflect the enormous correction facing ocean carriers compared with last year. In its 2024–25 financial year, ONE posted revenue of $19.2 billion, EBITDA of $5.9 billion, EBIT of $3.8 billion and a net profit of $4.2 billion. Still, maritime consultant Drewry has upgraded its financial year 2025 profit forecast from $20 billion to $32 billion following “better than expected” third-quarter results from the carriers and has raised the outlook for 2026 from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com . 

Asia-Europe

Frontloading drags ONE to a loss in its fiscal third quarter

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision nullifies Hong Kong-based Hutchison’s ability to operate the Balboa and Christobal ports that bookend the Panama Canal and clouds its attempt to sell its global terminals portfolio.</div>

The decision nullifies Hong Kong-based Hutchison’s ability to operate the Balboa and Christobal ports that bookend the Panama Canal and clouds its attempt to sell its global terminals portfolio.

<div class="phx-topic">The Panama Supreme Court late Thursday ruled that the longstanding leases allowing CK Hutchison to operate two marine terminals that bookend the Panama Canal are unconstitutional, further clouding an attempt to sell its global terminals portfolio. The decision nullifies Hong Kong-based Hutchison’s ability to operate the Balboa and Cristobal ports and represents a victory for US President Donald Trump, who has pressured Panama to end the leases over what he claims is China’s outsized influence on the canal’s operations via the terminals. The Trump administration has called the concession bidding process unfair.Hutchison had already agreed to sell the two terminals to a consortium of BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners and Mediterranean Shipping Co. subsidiary Terminal Investments Limited (TiL) as part of a $22.8 billion sale of its 43 terminal operations worldwide. But the deal has run into opposition from Beijing over ties between Trump and BlackRock leadership. As a way around that opposition, Hutchison last summer confirmed it was in talks with a “major strategic investor from China.” China’s involvement as part of the buying consortium would likely draw Trump’s attention again. Hutchison said in a statement the court’s decision was “inconsistent with the relevant legal framework and the law that approved the contract” enabling its operation of the terminals. The company said the bidding process that secured its concessions for the facilities was transparent. CK Hutchison can try to delay the Panama court decision by seeking clarification on the ruling. But ultimately, the Panamanian government will seek an interim operator for the two terminals and then decide whether to put their operating lease out for tender. Hutchison’s concession for the Panama ports began in 1997 and was renewed for another 25-year lease in 2021. <h3>Potential Maersk involvement </h3>Panama President José Raúl Mulino said in a statement that APMT Terminals, part of Maersk, has “shown a willingness” to operate the two terminals in the interim until a long-term lease is tendered. APMT said in a separate statement Friday that it would only take over operations if all legal requirements involving the Hutchison case were completed, and emphasized it isn’t involved in the Supreme Court ruling nor in future planning for the Balboa and Cristobal terminals. Maersk in October <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-considering-investment-in-panamas-new-terminals-6100150">signaled its intent</a> to invest in two terminals the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-canal-mulls-developing-corozal-to-allay-neutrality-fears-over-hutchison-deal-6023330">hopes to build</a> in Corozal, on the Pacific side of the canal, and near Colon on the Atlantic side. In April, Maersk <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-canal-mulls-developing-corozal-to-allay-neutrality-fears-over-hutchison-deal-6023330">bought the Panama Canal Railway</a>, the short-line railroad that links the ports of Balboa and Colon. Maersk, which is the railway’s largest customer, also operates a logistics park in the country. Louis Sola, then chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, told US senators during a January 2025 hearing that US terminal operators did not get a fair shake in Panama due to corruption in the government. US-based SSA Marine, Singapore-based PSA and Taiwan-based Evergreen Terminal also have terminals in Panama. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Panama Supreme Court late Thursday ruled that the longstanding leases allowing CK Hutchison to operate two marine terminals that bookend the Panama Canal are unconstitutional, further clouding an attempt to sell its global terminals portfolio. The decision nullifies Hong Kong-based Hutchison’s ability to operate the Balboa and Cristobal ports and represents a victory for US President Donald Trump, who has pressured Panama to end the leases over what he claims is China’s outsized influence on the canal’s operations via the terminals. The Trump administration has called the concession bidding process unfair. Hutchison had already agreed to sell the two terminals to a consortium of BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners and Mediterranean Shipping Co. subsidiary Terminal Investments Limited (TiL) as part of a $22.8 billion sale of its 43 terminal operations worldwide. But the deal has run into opposition from Beijing over ties between Trump and BlackRock leadership. As a way around that opposition, Hutchison last summer confirmed it was in talks with a “major strategic investor from China.” China’s involvement as part of the buying consortium would likely draw Trump’s attention again. Hutchison said in a statement the court’s decision was “inconsistent with the relevant legal framework and the law that approved the contract” enabling its operation of the terminals. The company said the bidding process that secured its concessions for the facilities was transparent. CK Hutchison can try to delay the Panama court decision by seeking clarification on the ruling. But ultimately, the Panamanian government will seek an interim operator for the two terminals and then decide whether to put their operating lease out for tender. Hutchison’s concession for the Panama ports began in 1997 and was renewed for another 25-year lease in 2021. Potential Maersk involvement Panama President José Raúl Mulino said in a statement that APMT Terminals, part of Maersk, has “shown a willingness” to operate the two terminals in the interim until a long-term lease is tendered. APMT said in a separate statement Friday that it would only take over operations if all legal requirements involving the Hutchison case were completed, and emphasized it isn’t involved in the Supreme Court ruling nor in future planning for the Balboa and Cristobal terminals. Maersk in October signaled its intent to invest in two terminals the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) hopes to build in Corozal, on the Pacific side of the canal, and near Colon on the Atlantic side. In April, Maersk bought the Panama Canal Railway , the short-line railroad that links the ports of Balboa and Colon. Maersk, which is the railway’s largest customer, also operates a logistics park in the country. Louis Sola, then chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, told US senators during a January 2025 hearing that US terminal operators did not get a fair shake in Panama due to corruption in the government. US-based SSA Marine, Singapore-based PSA and Taiwan-based Evergreen Terminal also have terminals in Panama. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Panama court voids CK Hutchison canal terminal leases

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">DiBella, nominated to be a commissioner last September, said her focus for the agency will be to support Trump’s push to restore the American maritime industry. </div>

DiBella, nominated to be a commissioner last September, said her focus for the agency will be to support Trump’s push to restore the American maritime industry.

<div class="phx-topic">Laura DiBella has been tapped by President Donald Trump as the new chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), the agency said Thursday. DiBella said her focus for the FMC will be to support Trump’s push to restore the American maritime industry. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-taps-two-floridians-to-serve-on-the-fmc-6075573">DiBella was nominated to be a member of the FMC in September</a> to fill the remaining term of previous chairman Louis Sola, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmcs-sola-to-leave-agency-months-after-being-elevated-to-chairmans-slot-6031245">a two-term commissioner who left the agency in June</a>. DiBella was confirmed by the Senate in December and only sworn in three weeks ago to a term that expires in June 2028. DiBella’s experience includes serving as government affairs advisor for a Florida law firm and overseeing business development for Florida’s Department of Commerce. She was also the executive director for the Florida Harbor Pilots Association and the director of the Port of Fernandina. DiBella, in a statement from the FMC, said being tapped as the agency’s next chairman “is nothing short of a privilege” and that she intends to focus the commission on how it can implement Trump’s maritime agenda for the US. The five-member FMC still has one vacant seat, which is expected to be filled by Trump nominee Robert Harvey pending Senate confirmation. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Laura DiBella has been tapped by President Donald Trump as the new chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), the agency said Thursday. DiBella said her focus for the FMC will be to support Trump’s push to restore the American maritime industry. DiBella was nominated to be a member of the FMC in September to fill the remaining term of previous chairman Louis Sola, a two-term commissioner who left the agency in June . DiBella was confirmed by the Senate in December and only sworn in three weeks ago to a term that expires in June 2028. DiBella’s experience includes serving as government affairs advisor for a Florida law firm and overseeing business development for Florida’s Department of Commerce. She was also the executive director for the Florida Harbor Pilots Association and the director of the Port of Fernandina. DiBella, in a statement from the FMC, said being tapped as the agency’s next chairman “is nothing short of a privilege” and that she intends to focus the commission on how it can implement Trump’s maritime agenda for the US. The five-member FMC still has one vacant seat, which is expected to be filled by Trump nominee Robert Harvey pending Senate confirmation. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trump elevates Laura DiBella to be FMC chairman

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The current market situation is favorable for BCOs, and the temptation will be great to drive down base rates because of internal cost pressures, writes John McCauley.</div>

The current market situation is favorable for BCOs, and the temptation will be great to drive down base rates because of internal cost pressures, writes John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">At this time of year, many have reflected on 2025 and made resolutions for 2026. I have adjusted this to make no resolutions, but a few predictions that, in most cases, I hope will not materialize. In addition, I want to give some advice to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), many of whom are in various stages of negotiations for 2026–27 service contracts. Starting with the predictions, let’s consider some supply, capacity, and demand issues. <h3>Capacity </h3>I expect Red Sea transits will resume, but very slowly and primarily for East Med cargo and for the India sub-continent to the East Coast of the US. Asia-Europe transits will only resume if insurance premiums disappear. The Houthis are still present and will be volatile and unreliable, so they remain the wild card for this prediction. At best, Asia-Europe, if Suez passage resumes, would take six months to stabilize. The US port fees for Chinese-built and -owned vessels will be a non-event. However, for carriers, the sword of Damocles is hanging over this one, so don’t expect any major service reshuffles. Sadly, service reliability levels will stay stable at a horrible 60%, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of Gemini to drag the industry up. Most carriers won’t care enough to do something about it. Expect significant trucking and drayage disruption in the US. Bankruptcies will rise as seasonality gets more unpredictable. Driver shortages will get worse. The consequences will be price volatility, both up and down, with significant backlogs adding to detention and demurrage bills. Berthing and landside restrictions will continue to hinder moving larger vessels to north-south trades as few terminals are deep-sea; they are river or bay, at best, and are often hemmed in by towns and cities and tidal-constrained. <h3>Demand </h3>Many BCOs are under high internal pressure to contribute to reductions in overall supply chain costs as margins become thinner through higher input costs (somewhat largely driven by tariffs), downstream price squeezing, and weaker demand. Container freight downward trends will be an obvious target. Keep an eye on US credit card debt and defaults, which will rise significantly by the third quarter at the latest, thus further softening demand. Macro level indicators will prey on demand. US inflation will remain stubbornly near at least 2.5% to 3% while unemployment will remain at about 4.5% as immigration net deficits offset layoffs. Job creation will stagnate. Depending on the GDP trend, expect a high likelihood of stagflation toward the end of the fourth quarter (subject to the reliability of US government data). China will continue manufacturing export expansion and increase its proportion of global trade. <h3>Recommendation </h3>What does this mean for upcoming service contract negotiations? With the expectation of vessel oversupply continuing through the year, BCOs will push to the limit to reduce base rates. They will face several dilemmas, including how to get rid of unmerited and unjustifiable surcharges and which carriers to choose from in alliances and vessel-sharing agreements. Overall, the market situation is favorable for BCOs. The temptation to drive down base rates will be great because of internal cost pressures and/or wanting to make up for some years of carrier supply strength. This should be tempered with a caveat that many BCOs have been burnt in the past for being too empathetic to carriers’ financial difficulties. If I were in the shoes of a medium-size BCO of 30,000 TEUs and above, I would select a mix that would aim for base rates around the Xeneta/NYSHEX forecast average index levels, even if offered lower rates than those levels. It is important to keep in with Mediterranean Shipping Co. even if you don’t use them today. I would use index-linked contracts today and continue to do so with a maximum of 50% to leave yourself some volume for fixed rates and some spot prices. Of that remaining volume, I would leave about 25% for spot as the downside risk is still relatively low. Finally, the market situation should allow for BCOs to get into their contracts the exclusion of any non-explainable (by the carrier) and justifiable (judged and accepted by the BCO) surcharges. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>.</div>

At this time of year, many have reflected on 2025 and made resolutions for 2026. I have adjusted this to make no resolutions, but a few predictions that, in most cases, I hope will not materialize. In addition, I want to give some advice to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), many of whom are in various stages of negotiations for 2026–27 service contracts. Starting with the predictions, let’s consider some supply, capacity, and demand issues. Capacity I expect Red Sea transits will resume, but very slowly and primarily for East Med cargo and for the India sub-continent to the East Coast of the US. Asia-Europe transits will only resume if insurance premiums disappear. The Houthis are still present and will be volatile and unreliable, so they remain the wild card for this prediction. At best, Asia-Europe, if Suez passage resumes, would take six months to stabilize. The US port fees for Chinese-built and -owned vessels will be a non-event. However, for carriers, the sword of Damocles is hanging over this one, so don’t expect any major service reshuffles. Sadly, service reliability levels will stay stable at a horrible 60%, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of Gemini to drag the industry up. Most carriers won’t care enough to do something about it. Expect significant trucking and drayage disruption in the US. Bankruptcies will rise as seasonality gets more unpredictable. Driver shortages will get worse. The consequences will be price volatility, both up and down, with significant backlogs adding to detention and demurrage bills. Berthing and landside restrictions will continue to hinder moving larger vessels to north-south trades as few terminals are deep-sea; they are river or bay, at best, and are often hemmed in by towns and cities and tidal-constrained. Demand Many BCOs are under high internal pressure to contribute to reductions in overall supply chain costs as margins become thinner through higher input costs (somewhat largely driven by tariffs), downstream price squeezing, and weaker demand. Container freight downward trends will be an obvious target. Keep an eye on US credit card debt and defaults, which will rise significantly by the third quarter at the latest, thus further softening demand. Macro level indicators will prey on demand. US inflation will remain stubbornly near at least 2.5% to 3% while unemployment will remain at about 4.5% as immigration net deficits offset layoffs. Job creation will stagnate. Depending on the GDP trend, expect a high likelihood of stagflation toward the end of the fourth quarter (subject to the reliability of US government data). China will continue manufacturing export expansion and increase its proportion of global trade. Recommendation What does this mean for upcoming service contract negotiations? With the expectation of vessel oversupply continuing through the year, BCOs will push to the limit to reduce base rates. They will face several dilemmas, including how to get rid of unmerited and unjustifiable surcharges and which carriers to choose from in alliances and vessel-sharing agreements. Overall, the market situation is favorable for BCOs. The temptation to drive down base rates will be great because of internal cost pressures and/or wanting to make up for some years of carrier supply strength. This should be tempered with a caveat that many BCOs have been burnt in the past for being too empathetic to carriers’ financial difficulties. If I were in the shoes of a medium-size BCO of 30,000 TEUs and above, I would select a mix that would aim for base rates around the Xeneta/NYSHEX forecast average index levels, even if offered lower rates than those levels. It is important to keep in with Mediterranean Shipping Co. even if you don’t use them today. I would use index-linked contracts today and continue to do so with a maximum of 50% to leave yourself some volume for fixed rates and some spot prices. Of that remaining volume, I would leave about 25% for spot as the downside risk is still relatively low. Finally, the market situation should allow for BCOs to get into their contracts the exclusion of any non-explainable (by the carrier) and justifiable (judged and accepted by the BCO) surcharges. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

A few market predictions and some advice for BCOs as contract season heats up

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight recession, but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components, writes Ted Prince.</div>

There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight recession, but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">In 1948, Gerald Hern, sports editor of the Boston Post, composed a brief poem describing the Boston Braves’ pitching en route to the 1948 National League pennant: First we’ll use Spahn then we’ll use Sain Then an off day, followed by rain Back will come Spahn, followed by Sain And followed, we hope, by two days of rain Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain were responsible for 39 of the Braves’ 91 victories that year. However, it was common to have a one-two punch at the top of a team’s pitching rotation. Intermodal has a similar duality: international and domestic — primarily dry 40- and 53-foot containers, respectively. While intermodal has a plethora of markets and equipment, the two segments have been carrying the industry for decades to constant new heights. They are also closely correlated in that a great deal of the domestic market is import cargo that was transloaded on the West Coast for movement inland. Hern’s work comes to mind when thinking about intermodal’s performance in 2025 and its prospects for 2026. Unlike the hoped-for two days of good rain, the industry has endured four years of painful rain since the halcyon volumes of 2021, the “good old days” of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight “recession,” but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components. As a result, intermodal has frequently found itself as a surface freight alternative that is slower and more expensive than trucking. And while there were some green shoots in 2024, the industry has been hoping for a second-half recovery — that has failed to materialize — in each of the past three years. The same seems true for 2026. <h3>Supply and demand drivers </h3>As we look forward, we need to consider supply and demand drivers. “Affordability” has taken the place of prominence in our political lexicon. As the costs of food and housing rise, discretionary income for other consumer products has shriveled and reduced demand. The same goes for increasing credit card, car, and student loan debt. Regardless of mortgage rates, there are long-term limitations on housing starts. This can further reduce consumer demand because so many purchases — e.g., furniture, home, electronics, etc. — are often associated with new homes. And although seven-year car loans have become more common, I don’t believe 50-year home mortgages will have the same penetration. With demand problematic, intermodal success will probably rely on supply changes. Many contend that the demand during the early days of COVID-19 created excess capacity that the truck market is still trying to absorb. However, it is unclear whether there was really an increase in overall capacity, or just realignment as many truckers decided to go out on their own. Regardless, there were a number of carriers that acquired capacity at historically high prices and must keep operating to just make their payments. The normal culling of unprofitable capacity was precluded by this inability to exit the market, ensuring a never-ending supply of zombie truckers. This capacity is getting older and more expensive to operate. Nevertheless, there is a feeling (or hope?) that 2026 will finally see marginal carriers leave the market and rate stability restored. <h3>Enhanced regulatory oversight </h3>The environmental green benefits of intermodal are not a priority for the current administration, so economic green will be paramount. Most likely that would come from increased regulatory oversight. Enhanced enforcement on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses is reducing driver supply. And there is still the unknown of hacked electronic logging devices allowing for illegal hours of service. What is unclear is whether these initiatives will impact truckload and drayage carriers equally, or whether one segment will suffer disproportionate opprobrium. If it is the former, intermodal will be advantaged; however, if it is the latter, maybe not. The former would be a rising tide that would raise all intermodal ships, whereas the latter could see the further ascendance of bimodal operations with integrated drayage overseen by robust safety regimens. In an attempt to increase demand, we can expect major players to assume prominent roles. Railroads and bimodals will seek to deploy equipment that has been stored for years. Ocean carriers will continue to consider their inland options. Finally, ports may become more involved as they explore inland options to attract more discretionary cargo. There are no historical comparisons for the last five years. It is unclear when the market will turn, but when it does, the recovery will follow Ernest Hemingway’s description: “Gradually, then suddenly.” We can then hope for the sun also to rise on intermodal. 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>

In 1948, Gerald Hern, sports editor of the Boston Post, composed a brief poem describing the Boston Braves’ pitching en route to the 1948 National League pennant: First we’ll use Spahn then we’ll use Sain Then an off day, followed by rain Back will come Spahn, followed by Sain And followed, we hope, by two days of rain Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain were responsible for 39 of the Braves’ 91 victories that year. However, it was common to have a one-two punch at the top of a team’s pitching rotation. Intermodal has a similar duality: international and domestic — primarily dry 40- and 53-foot containers, respectively. While intermodal has a plethora of markets and equipment, the two segments have been carrying the industry for decades to constant new heights. They are also closely correlated in that a great deal of the domestic market is import cargo that was transloaded on the West Coast for movement inland. Hern’s work comes to mind when thinking about intermodal’s performance in 2025 and its prospects for 2026. Unlike the hoped-for two days of good rain, the industry has endured four years of painful rain since the halcyon volumes of 2021, the “good old days” of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of theories explaining the current freight “recession,” but there is no disputing that decreased demand, cutthroat competition, and plummeting rates have occurred simultaneously with inflationary cost components. As a result, intermodal has frequently found itself as a surface freight alternative that is slower and more expensive than trucking. And while there were some green shoots in 2024, the industry has been hoping for a second-half recovery — that has failed to materialize — in each of the past three years. The same seems true for 2026. Supply and demand drivers As we look forward, we need to consider supply and demand drivers. “Affordability” has taken the place of prominence in our political lexicon. As the costs of food and housing rise, discretionary income for other consumer products has shriveled and reduced demand. The same goes for increasing credit card, car, and student loan debt. Regardless of mortgage rates, there are long-term limitations on housing starts. This can further reduce consumer demand because so many purchases — e.g., furniture, home, electronics, etc. — are often associated with new homes. And although seven-year car loans have become more common, I don’t believe 50-year home mortgages will have the same penetration. With demand problematic, intermodal success will probably rely on supply changes. Many contend that the demand during the early days of COVID-19 created excess capacity that the truck market is still trying to absorb. However, it is unclear whether there was really an increase in overall capacity, or just realignment as many truckers decided to go out on their own. Regardless, there were a number of carriers that acquired capacity at historically high prices and must keep operating to just make their payments. The normal culling of unprofitable capacity was precluded by this inability to exit the market, ensuring a never-ending supply of zombie truckers. This capacity is getting older and more expensive to operate. Nevertheless, there is a feeling (or hope?) that 2026 will finally see marginal carriers leave the market and rate stability restored. Enhanced regulatory oversight The environmental green benefits of intermodal are not a priority for the current administration, so economic green will be paramount. Most likely that would come from increased regulatory oversight. Enhanced enforcement on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses is reducing driver supply. And there is still the unknown of hacked electronic logging devices allowing for illegal hours of service. What is unclear is whether these initiatives will impact truckload and drayage carriers equally, or whether one segment will suffer disproportionate opprobrium. If it is the former, intermodal will be advantaged; however, if it is the latter, maybe not. The former would be a rising tide that would raise all intermodal ships, whereas the latter could see the further ascendance of bimodal operations with integrated drayage overseen by robust safety regimens. In an attempt to increase demand, we can expect major players to assume prominent roles. Railroads and bimodals will seek to deploy equipment that has been stored for years. Ocean carriers will continue to consider their inland options. Finally, ports may become more involved as they explore inland options to attract more discretionary cargo. There are no historical comparisons for the last five years. It is unclear when the market will turn, but when it does, the recovery will follow Ernest Hemingway’s description: “Gradually, then suddenly.” We can then hope for the sun also to rise on intermodal. Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

North-American rail

Pace of freight market recovery a matter of ‘gradually, then suddenly’

US East Coast

{name}: {valueY.formatNumber('###,###.')}

US West Coast

Total US

Bookings represent shipments entered as booking requests during a given week, with a normalized assigned TEU value to these shipments. Original port of lading and port of discharge are used to map against given trade lanes. Vizion's Booking Trends insights and other details such as shipper, consignee, product value, and transit times are available via its Tradeview platform - sourcing from over 54% of all container booking transactions globally, with over 10 years of historical shipment data available. [Vizion](https://www.vizionapi.com/global-trade-monitoring/tradeview-global-trade-intelligence-platform)

China weekly import bookings to US index (Vizion)

Vizion Trade Index TEU booking volume China to US Coasts Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">After announcing a pause on ship attacks in November, the Iran-backed militants posted a pair of threatening videos over the weekend that are sure to cause fresh concerns for ocean carriers planning a return to the Red Sea.</div>

After announcing a pause on ship attacks in November, the Iran-backed militants posted a pair of threatening videos over the weekend that are sure to cause fresh concerns for ocean carriers planning a return to the Red Sea.

<div class="phx-topic">Yemen’s Houthi militants have warned of new attacks on shipping in the Red Sea as tensions escalate between the US and Iran, raising questions over whether moves by some carriers to return services to the shorter Suez Canal route will actually happen. A Houthi video posted on YouTube over the weekend showed a ship on fire accompanied by the headline: “Soon.” It was followed by another video, this one from Houthi spokesman Brigadier Yahya Saree, pointing to “the escalation of possibilities” of the US launching a military strike against Iran, which he said would be met by retaliation against the US and Israel. The Iran-backed Houthi announced a pause on ship attacks in November following the Israel-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza that was agreed the previous month and have so far honored that pledge. But Iran’s clampdown on anti-government protests in late December sparked a threat earlier this month by US President Donald Trump to respond militarily, with a carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln now heading for the region. Even before the new Houthi threat, CMA CGM, one of the main Red Sea users over the past two years, said it would <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-backs-off-plans-to-resume-suez-transits-for-asia-europe-services-6155264">scale back plans to send three Asia-Europe westbound services</a> through the Suez, citing the “complex and uncertain international context.” <h3>Maersk India-US service due to begin shorter route </h3>Maersk’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-set-to-resume-regular-suez-transits-on-india-usec-mecl-loop-sources-6152441">MECL service from India to the US East Coast</a> is due to be rerouted through the Suez and Red Sea beginning Monday. While no change of plan has been announced, the volatility in the region prompted the carrier to include a caveat in its Jan. 15 advisory announcing a return to the shorter route. “Maersk has contingency plans in place should the security situation deteriorate, which may necessitate reverting individual MECL sailings or the wider structural change of the MECL service back to the Cape of Good Hope route,” the carrier said. While Maersk tests the waters and CMA CGM continues to send regional and back-haul services through the Red Sea, most of the other major carriers are content to maintain longer transits around southern Africa until the fluid geopolitical environment stabilizes. Carriers have used the longer route since the Houthis began attacks against commercial shipping in late 2023 in response to the Israel-Hamas war. Resuming services through the Suez represents more than just a routing change. Oversupplied carriers have benefited from the longer route absorbing about 8% of global capacity, preventing rates from falling. “A full-scale return of liner services to the Red Sea would initially be disruptive, with increased risks of port congestion, landside capacity constraints and short-term cost implications,” Bjoern Schoon, senior vice president of ocean freight at DHL Global Forwarding/Asia-Pacific, said in a market update last week. “However, once networks stabilize, it will benefit shippers through faster transit times, and the trade is likely to become more competitive on pricing,” Schoon added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Yemen’s Houthi militants have warned of new attacks on shipping in the Red Sea as tensions escalate between the US and Iran, raising questions over whether moves by some carriers to return services to the shorter Suez Canal route will actually happen. A Houthi video posted on YouTube over the weekend showed a ship on fire accompanied by the headline: “Soon.” It was followed by another video, this one from Houthi spokesman Brigadier Yahya Saree, pointing to “the escalation of possibilities” of the US launching a military strike against Iran, which he said would be met by retaliation against the US and Israel. The Iran-backed Houthi announced a pause on ship attacks in November following the Israel-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza that was agreed the previous month and have so far honored that pledge. But Iran’s clampdown on anti-government protests in late December sparked a threat earlier this month by US President Donald Trump to respond militarily, with a carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln now heading for the region. Even before the new Houthi threat, CMA CGM, one of the main Red Sea users over the past two years, said it would scale back plans to send three Asia-Europe westbound services through the Suez, citing the “complex and uncertain international context.” Maersk India-US service due to begin shorter route Maersk’s MECL service from India to the US East Coast is due to be rerouted through the Suez and Red Sea beginning Monday. While no change of plan has been announced, the volatility in the region prompted the carrier to include a caveat in its Jan. 15 advisory announcing a return to the shorter route. “Maersk has contingency plans in place should the security situation deteriorate, which may necessitate reverting individual MECL sailings or the wider structural change of the MECL service back to the Cape of Good Hope route,” the carrier said. While Maersk tests the waters and CMA CGM continues to send regional and back-haul services through the Red Sea, most of the other major carriers are content to maintain longer transits around southern Africa until the fluid geopolitical environment stabilizes. Carriers have used the longer route since the Houthis began attacks against commercial shipping in late 2023 in response to the Israel-Hamas war. Resuming services through the Suez represents more than just a routing change. Oversupplied carriers have benefited from the longer route absorbing about 8% of global capacity, preventing rates from falling. “A full-scale return of liner services to the Red Sea would initially be disruptive, with increased risks of port congestion, landside capacity constraints and short-term cost implications,” Bjoern Schoon, senior vice president of ocean freight at DHL Global Forwarding/Asia-Pacific, said in a market update last week. “However, once networks stabilize, it will benefit shippers through faster transit times, and the trade is likely to become more competitive on pricing,” Schoon added. Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Latest Houthi threat renews questions about Suez route as US-Iran tensions rise 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The agency ruled in 2024 that shippers can pick their own chassis when they arrange for truck transportation, but compliance with that ruling remains unclear. </div>

The agency ruled in 2024 that shippers can pick their own chassis when they arrange for truck transportation, but compliance with that ruling remains unclear.

<div class="phx-topic">The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is launching its second probe into chassis restrictions ocean carriers put on truckers when hauling a container. The probe comes after the agency ruled in 2024 that shippers can choose their own chassis when they contract with their own trucker. In a federal register notice Friday, the FMC said it plans to open a 60-day window for comments about “service contract terms or other means to mandate that motor carriers [truckers] and shippers use the ocean common carriers’ designated chassis.” The comments are sought in relation to an investigation by the FMC over allegations that “ocean common carriers may be in violation of the Shipping Act by unjustly and unreasonably restricting truckers and shippers from negotiating and dealing with chassis providers.”The investigation stems from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rules-for-truckers-in-chassis-dispute-with-ocean-carriers-5234355">the 2024 agency ruling</a> that ocean carriers have to stop mandating what specific chassis must be used under merchant haulage contracts. The agency upheld an administrative law judge’s earlier decision in a case between the American Trucking Association and the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocema-appeals-chassis-ruling-to-fmc-commissioners-5193253">container lines violate the Shipping Act when they restrict chassis choice</a> among shippers who are arranging their own container trucking. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-says-investigating-potential-violations-of-recent-ruling-on-chassis-control-5192272">The FMC was already investigating compliance</a> with a cease-and-desist order in the 2024 ruling, which is still ongoing. The new probe is looking for “any information concerning new or ongoing ocean common carrier practices ... to affect, restrict, or inhibit chassis provider selection,” the notice said. Part of the new probe involves whether ocean carriers designate single chassis providers at Chicago and Memphis rail ramps, if providers have enough chassis on-hand, any reimbursement for truckers on chassis split, and whether truckers are given notice about a container being under merchant or carrier haulage, the latter allowing an ocean carrier to choose a chassis. Along with the inland rail ramps, the FMC said its investigation is looking at chassis choice at the Savannah, Los Angeles, and Long Beach ports. As part of the probe into the Southern California market, the FMC is seeking how the “Pool of Pools” (PoP) operated by the three main chassis providers for the LA-LB ports distinguishes between “carrier haulage and merchant haulage containers and coordinate billing accordingly,” the notice said. OCEMA did not immediately respond to a request for comment into the new investigation.<h3>‘Sweetheart Deals’</h3>Robert Loya, chief executive of the Harbor Trucking Association, which represents drayage providers in Southern California, told the Journal of Commerce that some shippers have merchant haulage contracts that include a chassis at no additional cost, requiring the trucker to use the ocean carrier’s designated chassis. But servicing the LA-LB ports with the trucker’s own chassis and one from the PoP can result in wasted miles and more costs, he added.Returning an empty container on a PoP chassis can require a trip back to the trucker’s own yard for a shipper without an ocean carrier-provisioned chassis. Truckers are also forced to pay gate fees that marine terminals charge for temporarily storing PoP chassis.“The intermodal equipment providers have negotiated sweetheart deals with the shipping lines to use their chassis, then that gets negotiated into the ocean contract with the beneficial cargo owner,” Loya said. “That puts pressure on us, so we’re forced by the lines to use their chassis. That’s the rub for us.”<h3>Chassis mis-mounts</h3>An executive of a Tennessee-based drayage provider told the Journal of Commerce that ocean carrier chassis pools at inland rail terminals are vulnerable to shortages in times of high demand, resulting in potential delays if a trucker cannot use their own chassis.Containers can also come off a train and be mis-mounted onto the wrong chassis, causing a trucker to wait for the correct chassis. The executive said that what appears to be a no-cost chassis can mean added costs and inefficiencies for truckers.“The trucker is squeezed,” she said. “The frustration is that there’s no change after years. The US would have been better served if we had chassis choice during the pandemic. We need a faster and more fluid way to move freight.”Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is launching its second probe into chassis restrictions ocean carriers put on truckers when hauling a container. The probe comes after the agency ruled in 2024 that shippers can choose their own chassis when they contract with their own trucker. In a federal register notice Friday, the FMC said it plans to open a 60-day window for comments about “service contract terms or other means to mandate that motor carriers [truckers] and shippers use the ocean common carriers’ designated chassis.” The comments are sought in relation to an investigation by the FMC over allegations that “ocean common carriers may be in violation of the Shipping Act by unjustly and unreasonably restricting truckers and shippers from negotiating and dealing with chassis providers.” The investigation stems from the 2024 agency ruling that ocean carriers have to stop mandating what specific chassis must be used under merchant haulage contracts. The agency upheld an administrative law judge’s earlier decision in a case between the American Trucking Association and the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) that container lines violate the Shipping Act when they restrict chassis choice among shippers who are arranging their own container trucking. The FMC was already investigating compliance with a cease-and-desist order in the 2024 ruling, which is still ongoing. The new probe is looking for “any information concerning new or ongoing ocean common carrier practices ... to affect, restrict, or inhibit chassis provider selection,” the notice said. Part of the new probe involves whether ocean carriers designate single chassis providers at Chicago and Memphis rail ramps, if providers have enough chassis on-hand, any reimbursement for truckers on chassis split, and whether truckers are given notice about a container being under merchant or carrier haulage, the latter allowing an ocean carrier to choose a chassis. Along with the inland rail ramps, the FMC said its investigation is looking at chassis choice at the Savannah, Los Angeles, and Long Beach ports. As part of the probe into the Southern California market, the FMC is seeking how the “Pool of Pools” (PoP) operated by the three main chassis providers for the LA-LB ports distinguishes between “carrier haulage and merchant haulage containers and coordinate billing accordingly,” the notice said. OCEMA did not immediately respond to a request for comment into the new investigation. ‘Sweetheart Deals’ Robert Loya, chief executive of the Harbor Trucking Association, which represents drayage providers in Southern California, told the Journal of Commerce that some shippers have merchant haulage contracts that include a chassis at no additional cost, requiring the trucker to use the ocean carrier’s designated chassis. But servicing the LA-LB ports with the trucker’s own chassis and one from the PoP can result in wasted miles and more costs, he added. Returning an empty container on a PoP chassis can require a trip back to the trucker’s own yard for a shipper without an ocean carrier-provisioned chassis. Truckers are also forced to pay gate fees that marine terminals charge for temporarily storing PoP chassis. “The intermodal equipment providers have negotiated sweetheart deals with the shipping lines to use their chassis, then that gets negotiated into the ocean contract with the beneficial cargo owner,” Loya said. “That puts pressure on us, so we’re forced by the lines to use their chassis. That’s the rub for us.” Chassis mis-mounts An executive of a Tennessee-based drayage provider told the Journal of Commerce that ocean carrier chassis pools at inland rail terminals are vulnerable to shortages in times of high demand, resulting in potential delays if a trucker cannot use their own chassis. Containers can also come off a train and be mis-mounted onto the wrong chassis, causing a trucker to wait for the correct chassis. The executive said that what appears to be a no-cost chassis can mean added costs and inefficiencies for truckers. “The trucker is squeezed,” she said. “The frustration is that there’s no change after years. The US would have been better served if we had chassis choice during the pandemic. We need a faster and more fluid way to move freight.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Drayage

FMC takes second look at ocean carrier limits on chassis choice

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Tighter capacity amid the federal government’s crackdown on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses and English language proficiency among drivers will likely boost rates, the company says.</div>

Tighter capacity amid the federal government’s crackdown on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses and English language proficiency among drivers will likely boost rates, the company says.

<div class="phx-topic">Truckload shippers should expect their annual contract rates to rise by low-to mid-single-digit percentages due to the likelihood of tighter capacity this year, according to Knight-Swift Transportation. Negotiations are ongoing or about to begin with many truckload customers. The company said the momentum that propelled rates upward in December had trickled into the first couple of weeks of January, while more shippers are shifting their business from non-asset brokers to asset-based carriers. Shippers are making the move because of uneasiness about the federal government’s crackdown on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and English language proficiency among drivers, Knight Swift said. Shippers who have spoken to the Journal of Commerce have generally said truckload rates are rising 1.5% to 3% in their 2026 bids, although some have been able to lock in unchanged rates by switching away from incumbent carriers. “What we’d be pushing for would be low-to mid-single-digit improvements in contract rates and maybe closer to mid than low,” Knight Swift CEO Adam Miller said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call Wednesday. “Maybe that may not align with what our customers want to see in a pre-bid. Some of this stuff is going to go into a bid to see where the market is from a balance standpoint.” Despite what Knight Swift said was a disappointing peak season, it believes capacity is fragile, as the December spot market surge in truckload showed, and more capacity will come out this year. If a disruption occurred, or manufacturing and industrial demand pick up, then capacity might become tight quickly. Knight-Swift, similar to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/truckload-at-a-tipping-point-intermodal-still-lagging-jb-hunt-6153949">J.B. Hunt Transport Services last week</a>, was careful not to call the end of the freight recession. “We’ve seen head fakes before, but I think we’re feeling better about where this market is headed,” Miller said. “And we do feel better about what the [US Department of Transportation] is doing to clean up capacity in our industry.” The US Department of Transportation and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, a sub-agency, have cracked down on non-domiciled CDLs issued to non-citizens who have certain types of visas, including asylum seekers. Miller also pointed out that temporary protective status is ending for countries such as Ethiopia, Haiti, and Somalia, which would disqualify those drivers from continuing to operate a truck here. “Also, there were 3,000 [driving] schools recently removed because of noncompliance and another 4,000 schools that have placed on notice for noncompliance,” Miller said. “Two of our schools at Swift were audited, and we passed with flying colors, as we’d expect. So, it is real. It is happening.” <h3>Consolidating LTL business </h3>Knight Swift said it saw some “softness” in less-than-truckload (LTL) demand toward the end of the fourth quarter. The company’s emphasis in 2026 is uniting all its LTL businesses under one brand, AAA Cooper Transportation. When Knight Swift started its LTL division in July 2021, it kept the AAA Cooper and Midwest Motor Express brands separate. It continued to keep the brands separate when acquiring the LTL division of Dependable Highway Express in 2024. Nevertheless, it has reversed course because the company believes it has caused confusion among existing and potential LTL shippers. “We had integrated systems from a back-end perspective between the three businesses that we have combined, [but] it was creating confusion in our sales efforts,” Miller said. “We’ve already seen [a united brand] really help us in our sales efforts to present a single face to our customers and get them comfortable with our ability to deliver across our network in a way that meets their needs.” The company’s intermodal volumes decreased 6% year over year in the fourth quarter, but revenue per load rose 2.8%. Nevertheless, the company highlighted that the division’s operating ratio was 100.1%, still losing money, but only barely, after years of significant operating losses in the business. Swift Intermodal and Hub Group are the two companies who would most benefit if federal regulators approved a deal for Union Pacific Railroad to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway. They are the only two asset-owning intermodal providers in the US who are already exclusive partners to both railroads, making any transition in 2027 relatively seamless. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Truckload shippers should expect their annual contract rates to rise by low-to mid-single-digit percentages due to the likelihood of tighter capacity this year, according to Knight-Swift Transportation. Negotiations are ongoing or about to begin with many truckload customers. The company said the momentum that propelled rates upward in December had trickled into the first couple of weeks of January, while more shippers are shifting their business from non-asset brokers to asset-based carriers. Shippers are making the move because of uneasiness about the federal government’s crackdown on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and English language proficiency among drivers, Knight Swift said. Shippers who have spoken to the Journal of Commerce have generally said truckload rates are rising 1.5% to 3% in their 2026 bids, although some have been able to lock in unchanged rates by switching away from incumbent carriers. “What we’d be pushing for would be low-to mid-single-digit improvements in contract rates and maybe closer to mid than low,” Knight Swift CEO Adam Miller said during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call Wednesday. “Maybe that may not align with what our customers want to see in a pre-bid. Some of this stuff is going to go into a bid to see where the market is from a balance standpoint.” Despite what Knight Swift said was a disappointing peak season, it believes capacity is fragile, as the December spot market surge in truckload showed, and more capacity will come out this year. If a disruption occurred, or manufacturing and industrial demand pick up, then capacity might become tight quickly. Knight-Swift, similar to J.B. Hunt Transport Services last week , was careful not to call the end of the freight recession. “We’ve seen head fakes before, but I think we’re feeling better about where this market is headed,” Miller said. “And we do feel better about what the [US Department of Transportation] is doing to clean up capacity in our industry.” The US Department of Transportation and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, a sub-agency, have cracked down on non-domiciled CDLs issued to non-citizens who have certain types of visas, including asylum seekers. Miller also pointed out that temporary protective status is ending for countries such as Ethiopia, Haiti, and Somalia, which would disqualify those drivers from continuing to operate a truck here. “Also, there were 3,000 [driving] schools recently removed because of noncompliance and another 4,000 schools that have placed on notice for noncompliance,” Miller said. “Two of our schools at Swift were audited, and we passed with flying colors, as we’d expect. So, it is real. It is happening.” Consolidating LTL business Knight Swift said it saw some “softness” in less-than-truckload (LTL) demand toward the end of the fourth quarter. The company’s emphasis in 2026 is uniting all its LTL businesses under one brand, AAA Cooper Transportation. When Knight Swift started its LTL division in July 2021, it kept the AAA Cooper and Midwest Motor Express brands separate. It continued to keep the brands separate when acquiring the LTL division of Dependable Highway Express in 2024. Nevertheless, it has reversed course because the company believes it has caused confusion among existing and potential LTL shippers. “We had integrated systems from a back-end perspective between the three businesses that we have combined, [but] it was creating confusion in our sales efforts,” Miller said. “We’ve already seen [a united brand] really help us in our sales efforts to present a single face to our customers and get them comfortable with our ability to deliver across our network in a way that meets their needs.” The company’s intermodal volumes decreased 6% year over year in the fourth quarter, but revenue per load rose 2.8%. Nevertheless, the company highlighted that the division’s operating ratio was 100.1%, still losing money, but only barely, after years of significant operating losses in the business. Swift Intermodal and Hub Group are the two companies who would most benefit if federal regulators approved a deal for Union Pacific Railroad to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway. They are the only two asset-owning intermodal providers in the US who are already exclusive partners to both railroads, making any transition in 2027 relatively seamless. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Shippers will see rates climb as truckload capacity tightens: Knight Swift

Use code GTW595 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 NYW26 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

NEW YEAR SALE

Use code NYW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe today using code NYW26 at checkout and save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Use code NYW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code NYW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW26 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

NEW YEAR SALE: Subscribe today using code NYW26 at checkout and save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

NEW YEAR SALE: Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code NYW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

NEW YEAR SALE: Use code NYW995 at checkout to save $500 on 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 premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Stonepeak will pay $2.4 billion to take a 25% stake in the United Ports JV while the French carrier will hold 75% and maintain operational control of the terminals involved. </div>

Stonepeak will pay $2.4 billion to take a 25% stake in the United Ports JV while the French carrier will hold 75% and maintain operational control of the terminals involved.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM and private equity firm Stonepeak on Wednesday said they’ve formed a global marine terminals joint venture that involves 11 of the carrier’s major port assets in the US, South America, Europe, and Asia. Stonepeak will pay $2.4 billion to take a 25% stake in the JV, known as United Ports LLC. CMA CGM will hold 75% and maintain operational control of the terminals. The sale to Stonepeak puts the value of the terminals venture at $9.6 billion.“By joining forces with a partner with strong infrastructure expertise, we strengthen our ability to invest further in our port terminals, secure access to key gateways and enhance service quality for our customers,” CMA CGM Chief Executive Rodolphe Saadé said in a statement. Under the deal, Stonepeak has the option to contribute $3.6 billion in additional funding for future joint terminal projects, while CMA CGM said it will reinvest the initial $2.4 billion from the minority stake sale into its core business. The United Ports JV comes about 11 months after Saadé visited US President Donald Trump at the White House and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-to-invest-20-billion-in-us-shipping-ports-and-logistics-5957748">announced CMA CGM would spend $20 billion</a> over the next four years to significantly bolster its logistics presence in the US, including port assets. <h3>Los Angeles, New York terminals part of JV </h3>In the US, the terminals that will be part of the United Ports joint venture are the Fenix Marine Services (FMS) terminal in Los Angeles, and the Port Liberty Terminals in Bayonne, New Jersey. and Staten Island. United Ports will also include four container terminals in Spain: CSP Valencia, CSP Bilbao, Terminal Maritima de Guadalquivir, and TTI Algeciras. Other terminals in the joint venture include Brazil’s Santos terminal, CMA CGM’s Kaohsiung terminal in Taiwan, Nhava Sheva Freeport in India, and Vietnam’s Gemalink terminal in Cai Mep. Stonepeak is a major investor in container logistics and related infrastructure. It owns chassis provider TRAC Intermodal and has invested in cold-storage operator Lineage, container lessor Textainer and breakbulk terminal operator Logistec. “Container terminals play an essential role in global trade and are among the most difficult to substitute or replicate transportation infrastructure assets,” James Wyper, senior managing director and head of US private equity for Stonepeak, said in the statement. CMA CGM operates 41 terminals globally, according to its website, handling over 17 million TEUs annually. CMA CGM is also the majority owner of Terminal Link, a joint venture with China Merchants Port Holdings, that operates 21 terminals handling 29 million TEUs. Much of the CMA CGM terminals portfolio, as with the terminal assets of its competitors, has been assembled since liners pulled in record profits during the pandemic, providing ocean carriers a homeport in major markets. The pandemic highlighted <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hutchison-deal-shows-thirst-of-big-carriers-to-control-global-terminal-assets-5960717">the need for ocean carriers to have operational control of terminals</a> instead of having ships wait in a queue at third-party terminals. In 2021, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-flexes-financial-might-with-fenix-marine-acquisition-5206339">it purchased the 90% share it did not already own in Fenix Marine</a>, which alone had a $2.3 billion enterprise value, according to CMA CGM. The following year, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-adds-terminal-assets-in-new-yorknew-jersey-5217593">it bought out Global Container Terminals’ leases for the Bayonne and Staten Island terminals</a>. CMA CGM terminals also formed a joint venture in 2022 with India’s JM Baxi Group for a 30-year concession on the Nhava Sheva terminal. Last year, CMA CGM began a public tender offer <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-becomes-majority-shareholder-in-santos-brasil-terminal-operator-5991343">for the remaining stake it did not own in the Santos terminal</a>, a deal worth about $2.3 billion. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

CMA CGM and private equity firm Stonepeak on Wednesday said they’ve formed a global marine terminals joint venture that involves 11 of the carrier’s major port assets in the US, South America, Europe, and Asia. Stonepeak will pay $2.4 billion to take a 25% stake in the JV, known as United Ports LLC. CMA CGM will hold 75% and maintain operational control of the terminals. The sale to Stonepeak puts the value of the terminals venture at $9.6 billion. “By joining forces with a partner with strong infrastructure expertise, we strengthen our ability to invest further in our port terminals, secure access to key gateways and enhance service quality for our customers,” CMA CGM Chief Executive Rodolphe Saadé said in a statement. Under the deal, Stonepeak has the option to contribute $3.6 billion in additional funding for future joint terminal projects, while CMA CGM said it will reinvest the initial $2.4 billion from the minority stake sale into its core business. The United Ports JV comes about 11 months after Saadé visited US President Donald Trump at the White House and announced CMA CGM would spend $20 billion over the next four years to significantly bolster its logistics presence in the US, including port assets. Los Angeles, New York terminals part of JV In the US, the terminals that will be part of the United Ports joint venture are the Fenix Marine Services (FMS) terminal in Los Angeles, and the Port Liberty Terminals in Bayonne, New Jersey. and Staten Island. United Ports will also include four container terminals in Spain: CSP Valencia, CSP Bilbao, Terminal Maritima de Guadalquivir, and TTI Algeciras. Other terminals in the joint venture include Brazil’s Santos terminal, CMA CGM’s Kaohsiung terminal in Taiwan, Nhava Sheva Freeport in India, and Vietnam’s Gemalink terminal in Cai Mep. Stonepeak is a major investor in container logistics and related infrastructure. It owns chassis provider TRAC Intermodal and has invested in cold-storage operator Lineage, container lessor Textainer and breakbulk terminal operator Logistec. “Container terminals play an essential role in global trade and are among the most difficult to substitute or replicate transportation infrastructure assets,” James Wyper, senior managing director and head of US private equity for Stonepeak, said in the statement. CMA CGM operates 41 terminals globally, according to its website, handling over 17 million TEUs annually. CMA CGM is also the majority owner of Terminal Link, a joint venture with China Merchants Port Holdings, that operates 21 terminals handling 29 million TEUs. Much of the CMA CGM terminals portfolio, as with the terminal assets of its competitors, has been assembled since liners pulled in record profits during the pandemic, providing ocean carriers a homeport in major markets. The pandemic highlighted the need for ocean carriers to have operational control of terminals instead of having ships wait in a queue at third-party terminals. In 2021, it purchased the 90% share it did not already own in Fenix Marine , which alone had a $2.3 billion enterprise value, according to CMA CGM. The following year, it bought out Global Container Terminals’ leases for the Bayonne and Staten Island terminals . CMA CGM terminals also formed a joint venture in 2022 with India’s JM Baxi Group for a 30-year concession on the Nhava Sheva terminal. Last year, CMA CGM began a public tender offer for the remaining stake it did not own in the Santos terminal , a deal worth about $2.3 billion. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

CMA CGM forms global terminals venture with private equity firm

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Metro Express Terminal at Pier S will serve smaller, independent container lines on the trans-Pacific that carry e-commerce merchandise requiring rapid movement once onshore.</div>

The Metro Express Terminal at Pier S will serve smaller, independent container lines on the trans-Pacific that carry e-commerce merchandise requiring rapid movement once onshore.

<div class="phx-topic">The new zero-emission container terminal planned for Pier S at the Port of Long Beach will be built to attract independent carriers operating express services geared for the trans-Pacific e-commerce market, according to developers of the project. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/long-beach-considering-development-of-conventional-zero-emissions-terminal-ceo-6153068">The Metro Express Terminal at Pier S</a> is likely to pull in smaller container lines that operate vessels of 9,000-TEU capacity or less making faster turn-times than the mainline trans-Pacific carriers operating vessels of 15,000-TEU-plus capacity, said Peter Stone, senior vice president/strategic projects at Brookfield Properties. Express services carrying e-commerce merchandise require rapid movement of containers through marine terminals once they are discharged from vessels. “The nature of express services is not that the ships go faster. It’s that they get in and out of the terminal faster,” Stone told the Journal of Commerce Monday. The Pier S terminal will be designed for “regular” e-commerce merchandise that is sold online and shipped by retailers. The e-commerce market that will be served by Pier S is shipped in ocean containers under a speed-to-market model. “The carriers and [third-party logistics] companies we talked to are asking for this type of product,” Stone said. “They want a fast transfer from ship to warehouse.” Metro Express will not be adversely affected by the US eliminating the de minimis exemption on low-value and e-commerce imports, Stone said, because the goods that enjoyed the duty-free exemption — those valued at under $800 — were never shipped in ocean containers. All efforts now by the port and its partners in the Pier S project are geared toward finalizing the business deal and getting the necessary environmental approvals, said Noel Hacegaba, CEO of the Port of Long Beach. “Our next steps include finalizing the negotiation of the preferred assignment agreement, along with design, environmental review and outreach to our many stakeholders, including labor, community members and industry partners,” Hacegaba told the Journal of Commerce. <h3>Short timeline anticipated </h3>Stone said he does not have an answer yet as to how long it will take to finalize the business deals and secure the necessary environmental approvals, but he anticipates it will be rather seamless. The partners will build a conventional marine terminal, ship-to-shore cranes will be electric, and cargo-handling equipment will be zero-emission and manually operated by longshoremen. “This terminal is a very straightforward project and ready for construction,” he said. Hacegaba said Pier S is used now by other terminals for container peel-offs and temporary container storage. “No structures will need to be removed prior to construction,” he said. Given those conditions, once construction begins on the Metro Express Terminal, it should only take three to five years to complete, Stone said. Pier S will utilize about 105 acres of the 160-acre site, and the terminal will have an annual capacity of 1.8 million TEUs, he said. The eventual price tag, Stone added, will be known after the business negotiations are completed. There will be no need for on-dock rail on the terminal because containers will be moved by truck to local warehouses or off-dock transload facilities, said Bob Owens, CEO of Nautilus International Holding Corp., which is partnering with Brookfield on the project. Nautilus provides business administration, management, and strategic oversight for marine transportation companies. Plans are to operate Pier S around the clock in order to better utilize the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) workforce. That will reduce container dwell times on the terminal, which in turn will enable the workforce to achieve container crane productivity that rivals terminals along the US Southeast coast, Owens said, adding it all fits in with what the e-commerce business model is built on. “The market is already there,” he said. “We’re just looking to serve that market.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The new zero-emission container terminal planned for Pier S at the Port of Long Beach will be built to attract independent carriers operating express services geared for the trans-Pacific e-commerce market, according to developers of the project. The Metro Express Terminal at Pier S is likely to pull in smaller container lines that operate vessels of 9,000-TEU capacity or less making faster turn-times than the mainline trans-Pacific carriers operating vessels of 15,000-TEU-plus capacity, said Peter Stone, senior vice president/strategic projects at Brookfield Properties. Express services carrying e-commerce merchandise require rapid movement of containers through marine terminals once they are discharged from vessels. “The nature of express services is not that the ships go faster. It’s that they get in and out of the terminal faster,” Stone told the Journal of Commerce Monday. The Pier S terminal will be designed for “regular” e-commerce merchandise that is sold online and shipped by retailers. The e-commerce market that will be served by Pier S is shipped in ocean containers under a speed-to-market model. “The carriers and [third-party logistics] companies we talked to are asking for this type of product,” Stone said. “They want a fast transfer from ship to warehouse.” Metro Express will not be adversely affected by the US eliminating the de minimis exemption on low-value and e-commerce imports, Stone said, because the goods that enjoyed the duty-free exemption — those valued at under $800 — were never shipped in ocean containers. All efforts now by the port and its partners in the Pier S project are geared toward finalizing the business deal and getting the necessary environmental approvals, said Noel Hacegaba, CEO of the Port of Long Beach. “Our next steps include finalizing the negotiation of the preferred assignment agreement, along with design, environmental review and outreach to our many stakeholders, including labor, community members and industry partners,” Hacegaba told the Journal of Commerce. Short timeline anticipated Stone said he does not have an answer yet as to how long it will take to finalize the business deals and secure the necessary environmental approvals, but he anticipates it will be rather seamless. The partners will build a conventional marine terminal, ship-to-shore cranes will be electric, and cargo-handling equipment will be zero-emission and manually operated by longshoremen. “This terminal is a very straightforward project and ready for construction,” he said. Hacegaba said Pier S is used now by other terminals for container peel-offs and temporary container storage. “No structures will need to be removed prior to construction,” he said. Given those conditions, once construction begins on the Metro Express Terminal, it should only take three to five years to complete, Stone said. Pier S will utilize about 105 acres of the 160-acre site, and the terminal will have an annual capacity of 1.8 million TEUs, he said. The eventual price tag, Stone added, will be known after the business negotiations are completed. There will be no need for on-dock rail on the terminal because containers will be moved by truck to local warehouses or off-dock transload facilities, said Bob Owens, CEO of Nautilus International Holding Corp., which is partnering with Brookfield on the project. Nautilus provides business administration, management, and strategic oversight for marine transportation companies. Plans are to operate Pier S around the clock in order to better utilize the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) workforce. That will reduce container dwell times on the terminal, which in turn will enable the workforce to achieve container crane productivity that rivals terminals along the US Southeast coast, Owens said, adding it all fits in with what the e-commerce business model is built on. “The market is already there,” he said. “We’re just looking to serve that market.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

APMT to run Hutchison’s Panama terminals on interim basis after court ruling

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Latest Houthi threat renews questions about Suez route as US-Iran tensions rise

FMC takes second look at ocean carrier limits on chassis choice

Shippers will see rates climb as truckload capacity tightens: Knight Swift

Recent Commentary

A few market predictions and some advice for BCOs as contract season heats up

Pace of freight market recovery a matter of ‘gradually, then suddenly’

Top 5 Most Read Stories