<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Jacksonville Port Authority said Wednesday the Ocean Alliance will include the port on its Chesapeake Bay Express (CBX) service rotation as of this June. </div>

The Jacksonville Port Authority said Wednesday the Ocean Alliance will include the port on its Chesapeake Bay Express (CBX) service rotation as of this June.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM will add the Port of Jacksonville to its trans-Pacific express service, adding to the port’s roster of direct Asia services and tapping the recent modernization of Jaxport’s main marine terminal. The Jacksonville Port Authority said in a statement Wednesday the Ocean Alliance will include the port on its Chesapeake Bay Express (CBX) service rotation as of this June. The CBX, operated exclusively by CMA CGM, calls Vietnam, China, and South Korea before its eastbound rotation that includes US calls at Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah before Jacksonville. The CBX had previously called Miami, which is no longer on its rotation, according to its schedule. Ocean Alliance had previously been planning to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-alliance-adding-vietnam-calls-to-north-america-for-2026-6155909">add Jacksonille to one of its Gulf Coast services</a> but instead settled on including it on the CBX. Jaxport will see the first CBX call with the June 27 expected arrival of the 7,327-TEU CMA CGM Passion. Jaxport Chief Executive Eric Green said in the statement the introduction of the CBX “expands routing flexibility between the Southeast United States and key Asian markets.” Jaxport added that its position on the CBX rotation will mean “opportunities for equipment repositioning and expedited transit for US export cargoes.” Two other direct Far East services The addition of the CBX marks the third Far East Asia service now calling Jacksonville directly. Premier Alliance’s EC3 service, which made Jacksonville the first US Southeast port of call for that service last July, now dominates the port’s Asian trade volumes. During the past 12 months, Premier Alliance partner Ocean Network Express (ONE) has made 61 port calls to Jacksonville with ships of 14,000-TEU average capacity, according to Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. ONE’s standalone West India North America service also calls the port. Jacksonville also has a jointly operated trans-Pacific service from Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The two accounted for 21 of the post-Panamax ship calls to Jacksonville over the past 12 months. The CBX will be able to tap an expansion and modernization of Jacksonville’s Blount Island container terminal, which was completed last fall. The three-year project included adding six outbound truck lanes, additional staging areas, and newly paved asphalt to allow for higher container stacks. Blount, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jaxport-receives-30-million-in-state-funds-for-new-cranes-at-blount-island-5201528">which has six post-Panamax cranes</a>, will have capacity to handle 500,000 TEUs per year. The port is currently undertaking a project to raise power lines that span the St. John’s River and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jaxport-secures-funding-to-raise-power-lines-for-blount-island-big-ship-calls-5220798">increase the air clearance for larger vessels</a> to call its Dames Point Container Terminal. Jacksonville’s containerized imports from Asia and the Indian subcontinent slipped to 137,941 TEUs in 2025, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce, a 1.1% drop from a year earlier. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM will add the Port of Jacksonville to its trans-Pacific express service, adding to the port’s roster of direct Asia services and tapping the recent modernization of Jaxport’s main marine terminal. The Jacksonville Port Authority said in a statement Wednesday the Ocean Alliance will include the port on its Chesapeake Bay Express (CBX) service rotation as of this June. The CBX, operated exclusively by CMA CGM, calls Vietnam, China, and South Korea before its eastbound rotation that includes US calls at Norfolk, Charleston, and Savannah before Jacksonville. The CBX had previously called Miami, which is no longer on its rotation, according to its schedule. Ocean Alliance had previously been planning to add Jacksonille to one of its Gulf Coast services but instead settled on including it on the CBX. Jaxport will see the first CBX call with the June 27 expected arrival of the 7,327-TEU CMA CGM Passion. Jaxport Chief Executive Eric Green said in the statement the introduction of the CBX “expands routing flexibility between the Southeast United States and key Asian markets.” Jaxport added that its position on the CBX rotation will mean “opportunities for equipment repositioning and expedited transit for US export cargoes.” Two other direct Far East services The addition of the CBX marks the third Far East Asia service now calling Jacksonville directly. Premier Alliance’s EC3 service, which made Jacksonville the first US Southeast port of call for that service last July, now dominates the port’s Asian trade volumes. During the past 12 months, Premier Alliance partner Ocean Network Express (ONE) has made 61 port calls to Jacksonville with ships of 14,000-TEU average capacity, according to Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. ONE’s standalone West India North America service also calls the port. Jacksonville also has a jointly operated trans-Pacific service from Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The two accounted for 21 of the post-Panamax ship calls to Jacksonville over the past 12 months. The CBX will be able to tap an expansion and modernization of Jacksonville’s Blount Island container terminal, which was completed last fall. The three-year project included adding six outbound truck lanes, additional staging areas, and newly paved asphalt to allow for higher container stacks. Blount, which has six post-Panamax cranes , will have capacity to handle 500,000 TEUs per year. The port is currently undertaking a project to raise power lines that span the St. John’s River and increase the air clearance for larger vessels to call its Dames Point Container Terminal. Jacksonville’s containerized imports from Asia and the Indian subcontinent slipped to 137,941 TEUs in 2025, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce, a 1.1% drop from a year earlier. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Port News

Trans-Pacific

Port infrastructure

North American ports

Marine terminals

International ports

Container Shipping News

CMA CGM taps Jaxport as newest call for Asia express service

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The largest US LTL carrier looks to add new business in the healthcare, food, and energy sectors and among small businesses to grow volume and improve profitability. </div>

The largest US LTL carrier looks to add new business in the healthcare, food, and energy sectors and among small businesses to grow volume and improve profitability.

<div class="phx-topic">FedEx Freight is planning for growth despite a weak industrial freight economy by reaching into new markets as it prepares for a June 1 spin-off from parent company FedEx. The largest US less-than-truckload (LTL) provider and US trucking company sees big opportunities in small businesses, or SMBs, as well as the healthcare, data center, energy, and food and grocery sectors. Those markets represent a $9 billion revenue opportunity largely untapped by FedEx Freight, which had $8.9 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025. “We’re doing little business in those verticals,” John Smith, FedEx Freight’s incoming president and CEO, told analysts Wednesday at the company’s first standalone investor day in New York. The company expects “modest” top-line growth in a transition period from June 1 through Dec. 31, CFO Marshall Witt said at the event, which was webcast. He stressed the company will put profit before short-term volume growth. In its current fiscal year, which ends on the eve of the spin-off on May 31, FedEx Freight expects $8.7 billion in revenue and $1.1 billion in adjusted operating profit. In its last quarter ended February, revenue dropped 4.6% year over year, but operating profit increased 8.5%. Going forward, the company expects a 4% to 6% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in revenue as it disentangles its operations from FedEx’s parcel business. ”We’re focused on improving our financial position within the first 12 months of the spin-off,” Witt said, noting the industry is facing a “tough freight market with macro-economic volatility.” FedEx Freight, which has reduced its physical network by a net of 30 terminals and 400 service center doors over the past three years, doesn’t plan to cut capacity. “We have 30% excess capacity in our network today, and we feel we’re in a good position in the right markets,” said COO Clint McCoy. LTL carriers typically try to keep 20% to 30% excess capacity in their terminal networks to avoid chokepoints and allow for expansion in times of growth. FedEx Freight currently has 355 LTL service centers and 10 linehaul relay centers or hubs. <h3>Shipment shortfall </h3>Most of the company’s shipments come from industrial, transportation, logistics, and consumer goods customers, according to data shared during the event. Those shipments are declining amid industrial weakness. Total shipments per day at FedEx Freight fell 5.7% year over year in the fiscal quarter ended Feb. 28, dropping to 80,233 daily shipments. The year-to-date average daily shipment count, at 85,938 shipments, is down 13.8% from 2023, FedEx data shows. That underscores a long industry-wide decline in LTL shipment volumes attributed to weakness in US manufacturing and lower demand for physical goods. Recent improvements in US manufacturing activity, evident in purchasing manager’s indexes (PMIs) from S&amp;P Global and the Institute for Supply Management, haven’t added much to LTL volumes yet, though XPO and Saia both saw volumes rise in February. “We’re seeing some upside” in manufacturing, compared with other sectors, Witt said. But he expects improved profitability and yield to drive revenue growth more than volume. Weak volumes are driving the focus on growing business with new shippers in markets underserved by LTL carriers. “We are targeting higher growth in end-markets that align with our offerings,” said Mike Lyons, the company’s chief specialized services and commercial officer. The hiring of a dedicated sales force of 500 regional sales representatives “gives us the engine to go out and address markets where we have little penetration today,” Lyons said. <h3>Disciplined pricing </h3>FedEx isn’t the only LTL carrier eyeing new customers and new markets. XPO, the third-largest LTL provider, also has strengthened its sales force and targeted small businesses, while launching new premium services that support higher profit margins. "The expansion we're driving with local customers and premium services is contributing to our above-market pricing growth,” XPO CEO Mario Harik said during a March earnings call. Increases in yield helped offset lower volumes in the fourth quarter at XPO. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ccca9ba6-556b-417d-9e3d-83b396f754e8"></dynamic-object></div>The focus on yield, a measure of profitability based partly on pricing, means a rate war for market share is not on the table, even as LTL carriers sweat the decline in shipments. FedEx Freight plans to increase its market share, currently at about 15%, according to SJ Consulting Group data, but only when it can do so profitably. “This will be done through maintaining a disciplined approach to pricing, optimizing productivity, and reducing the overall cost to serve and support growth,” Witt said. LTL carriers are still seeing mid-single-digit price increases, according to the Producer Price Index, but those increases are lower than last year. In February, the LTL PPI rose 5.3% year over year, compared with a 9.5% average increase for the last six months of 2025. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

FedEx Freight is planning for growth despite a weak industrial freight economy by reaching into new markets as it prepares for a June 1 spin-off from parent company FedEx. The largest US less-than-truckload (LTL) provider and US trucking company sees big opportunities in small businesses, or SMBs, as well as the healthcare, data center, energy, and food and grocery sectors. Those markets represent a $9 billion revenue opportunity largely untapped by FedEx Freight, which had $8.9 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025. “We’re doing little business in those verticals,” John Smith, FedEx Freight’s incoming president and CEO, told analysts Wednesday at the company’s first standalone investor day in New York. The company expects “modest” top-line growth in a transition period from June 1 through Dec. 31, CFO Marshall Witt said at the event, which was webcast. He stressed the company will put profit before short-term volume growth. In its current fiscal year, which ends on the eve of the spin-off on May 31, FedEx Freight expects $8.7 billion in revenue and $1.1 billion in adjusted operating profit. In its last quarter ended February, revenue dropped 4.6% year over year, but operating profit increased 8.5%. Going forward, the company expects a 4% to 6% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in revenue as it disentangles its operations from FedEx’s parcel business. ”We’re focused on improving our financial position within the first 12 months of the spin-off,” Witt said, noting the industry is facing a “tough freight market with macro-economic volatility.” FedEx Freight, which has reduced its physical network by a net of 30 terminals and 400 service center doors over the past three years, doesn’t plan to cut capacity. “We have 30% excess capacity in our network today, and we feel we’re in a good position in the right markets,” said COO Clint McCoy. LTL carriers typically try to keep 20% to 30% excess capacity in their terminal networks to avoid chokepoints and allow for expansion in times of growth. FedEx Freight currently has 355 LTL service centers and 10 linehaul relay centers or hubs. Shipment shortfall Most of the company’s shipments come from industrial, transportation, logistics, and consumer goods customers, according to data shared during the event. Those shipments are declining amid industrial weakness. Total shipments per day at FedEx Freight fell 5.7% year over year in the fiscal quarter ended Feb. 28, dropping to 80,233 daily shipments. The year-to-date average daily shipment count, at 85,938 shipments, is down 13.8% from 2023, FedEx data shows. That underscores a long industry-wide decline in LTL shipment volumes attributed to weakness in US manufacturing and lower demand for physical goods. Recent improvements in US manufacturing activity, evident in purchasing manager’s indexes (PMIs) from S&P Global and the Institute for Supply Management, haven’t added much to LTL volumes yet, though XPO and Saia both saw volumes rise in February. “We’re seeing some upside” in manufacturing, compared with other sectors, Witt said. But he expects improved profitability and yield to drive revenue growth more than volume. Weak volumes are driving the focus on growing business with new shippers in markets underserved by LTL carriers. “We are targeting higher growth in end-markets that align with our offerings,” said Mike Lyons, the company’s chief specialized services and commercial officer. The hiring of a dedicated sales force of 500 regional sales representatives “gives us the engine to go out and address markets where we have little penetration today,” Lyons said. Disciplined pricing FedEx isn’t the only LTL carrier eyeing new customers and new markets. XPO, the third-largest LTL provider, also has strengthened its sales force and targeted small businesses, while launching new premium services that support higher profit margins. "The expansion we're driving with local customers and premium services is contributing to our above-market pricing growth,” XPO CEO Mario Harik said during a March earnings call. Increases in yield helped offset lower volumes in the fourth quarter at XPO. The focus on yield, a measure of profitability based partly on pricing, means a rate war for market share is not on the table, even as LTL carriers sweat the decline in shipments. FedEx Freight plans to increase its market share, currently at about 15%, according to SJ Consulting Group data, but only when it can do so profitably. “This will be done through maintaining a disciplined approach to pricing, optimizing productivity, and reducing the overall cost to serve and support growth,” Witt said. LTL carriers are still seeing mid-single-digit price increases, according to the Producer Price Index, but those increases are lower than last year. In February, the LTL PPI rose 5.3% year over year, compared with a 9.5% average increase for the last six months of 2025. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Surface

FedEx Freight plans diversification as spin-off date approaches

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier said the ships, with a combined value of up to $1.8 billion, will be deployed on Asia-Europe services as part of a strategic plan to increase the size of vessels serving that trade by 2030.</div>

The carrier said the ships, with a combined value of up to $1.8 billion, will be deployed on Asia-Europe services as part of a strategic plan to increase the size of vessels serving that trade by 2030.

<div class="phx-topic">Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine is adding to its lengthening order book with a deal for six 24,000-TEU container ships to be built at South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean shipyard, the carrier said Wednesday. The value for the new order of LNG-fueled vessels is between $1.6 billion and $1.8 billion, Evergreen said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange. The deal means Taiwan’s largest container line has splashed out more than $6 billion on new ships since November. Earlier contracts comprise orders worth almost $1.5 billion <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/evergreen-adds-to-order-backlog-with-deals-for-23-ships-worth-up-to-almost-15-billion-6159700">for 23 container ships in January</a> and an order close to $3 billion for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/evergreen-says-will-spend-almost-3-billion-on-14-new-lng-fueled-ships-6114739">14 14,000-TEU LNG-fueled vessels in November</a>. Evergreen said the latest ships will be deployed on Asia-Europe services as part of a strategic plan to increase the size of vessels serving that trade by 2030. The carrier also said it aims to launch an additional Asia-Europe service by the end of the decade. Evergreen currently has 12 24,000-TEU ships assigned to European sailings after the last vessel in the series, Ever Aeon, was completed in late 2024. It now offers seven Asia-North Europe services as a member of Ocean Alliance with Cosco, OOCL and CMA CGM, under which it launched its “Day 10” network this month. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ef78ab1f-3609-44d0-a713-fb260bc40609"></dynamic-object></div>The ship order announced Wednesday would increase Evergreen’s total group fleet to about 274 vessels with a deployed capacity of more than 2.9 million TEUs, according to the carrier’s fleet figures. The LNG-powered ships will increase the number of dual-fuel vessels in the Evergreen fleet to more than 60 by 2029 — 22% of the enlarged fleet by that date, according to the carrier’s data. The order, meanwhile, reinforces LNG as the next-generation fuel of choice for carriers. LNG vessels now account for almost 80% of the dual-fuel ships on order, equivalent to over 6.4 million TEUs of capacity, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine is adding to its lengthening order book with a deal for six 24,000-TEU container ships to be built at South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean shipyard, the carrier said Wednesday. The value for the new order of LNG-fueled vessels is between $1.6 billion and $1.8 billion, Evergreen said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange. The deal means Taiwan’s largest container line has splashed out more than $6 billion on new ships since November. Earlier contracts comprise orders worth almost $1.5 billion for 23 container ships in January and an order close to $3 billion for 14 14,000-TEU LNG-fueled vessels in November . Evergreen said the latest ships will be deployed on Asia-Europe services as part of a strategic plan to increase the size of vessels serving that trade by 2030. The carrier also said it aims to launch an additional Asia-Europe service by the end of the decade. Evergreen currently has 12 24,000-TEU ships assigned to European sailings after the last vessel in the series, Ever Aeon, was completed in late 2024. It now offers seven Asia-North Europe services as a member of Ocean Alliance with Cosco, OOCL and CMA CGM, under which it launched its “Day 10” network this month. The ship order announced Wednesday would increase Evergreen’s total group fleet to about 274 vessels with a deployed capacity of more than 2.9 million TEUs, according to the carrier’s fleet figures. The LNG-powered ships will increase the number of dual-fuel vessels in the Evergreen fleet to more than 60 by 2029 — 22% of the enlarged fleet by that date, according to the carrier’s data. The order, meanwhile, reinforces LNG as the next-generation fuel of choice for carriers. LNG vessels now account for almost 80% of the dual-fuel ships on order, equivalent to over 6.4 million TEUs of capacity, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines

Asia-Europe

Evergreen adds to order book with deal for six 24,000-TEU vessels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As part of the deal, Iran said it would allow shipping to resume through the strait with vessel passages coordinated by the Iranian military, but it has not yet issued any technical details.</div>

As part of the deal, Iran said it would allow shipping to resume through the strait with vessel passages coordinated by the Iranian military, but it has not yet issued any technical details.

<div class="phx-topic">The shipping industry is awaiting details from the US and Iran on how to transit the Strait of Hormuz safely following a narrow two-week ceasefire window agreed to Wednesday between Washington and Tehran. As part of the deal, Iran said it would allow shipping to resume through the strait with vessel passages coordinated by the Iranian military, but it has not yet issued any technical details. Complicating matters is that Iran has proposed a toll system for Hormuz passage, with Tehran suggesting it would charge vessels $2 million for transiting and split the fee with neighboring Oman. And underscoring the sensitivity around transits, a container ship near the strait received a message Wednesday from the Iranian navy warning that operators needed permission from authorities or vessels would be targeted and attacked, according to a source close to the matter who didn’t want to be identified. “In the next couple of days, we will have to see what really happens and how many of the ships can go in and out, and then we’ll have to stay close to that situation to judge what’s going to happen after those 14 days,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told customers in a briefing Wednesday. As negotiations between the US and Iran get underway, the top priority from ocean carriers is to remove an estimated 170 container ships representing 450,000 TEUs, or about 1.5% of global capacity, that have been stuck in the Persian Gulf since the Middle East conflict began on Feb. 28. Hapag-Lloyd has six ships comprising a total of 25,000 TEUs in the Gulf. But the two-week window is too short and too uncertain for carriers to make long-term plans for reestablishing disrupted Middle East networks, Habben Jansen noted. “Hopefully it remains open, and then we can start looking at how quickly we can return to the Persian Gulf,” he said. “How that will go over the upcoming couple of weeks depends on how stable it is, but you should assume that it will still take six to eight weeks or so until we get back to a more normal situation. “Maybe on the back of that, we will also see the Red Sea open up again, but first priority is now clearly with the strait,” he added. <h3>Iran issues 10-point plan </h3>Whether the ceasefire will result in a lasting peace settlement remains highly uncertain. In agreeing to the ceasefire, Iran also issued an ambitious 10-point plan in a statement to its National Security Council that includes an end to US military presence in the region, cessation of war by the US “on all fronts” in the Middle East, Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, and compensation for reconstruction from war damages. Bimco chief shipping analyst Niels Rasmussen said if it was considered safe to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, ships trapped within the Persian Gulf will want to leave as soon as possible. “They will load cargoes prior to leaving but only if loading does not jeopardize the chance of leaving within the two weeks,” Rasmussen said in a statement from the shipping association Wednesday. “Unless the two-week window is quickly lengthened, I doubt there will be a large influx of ships into the Persian Gulf,” he said. “Partly because many ships have already sailed to other regions and partly because they do not want to risk being trapped after the two-week window closes.” Any rush to sail through the Strait of Hormuz without prior coordination with the US and Iran “would entail heightened risk and would not be advisable,” said Jakob Larsen, Bimco’s chief safety and security officer. An uncoordinated exit would present navigational risks from collisions and groundings in the narrow waterway, while the potential lack of communication within the depleted Iranian military and political system presents other problems, he noted. “Iran has announced that they want to be in control of transits in the strait,” Larsen said in the Bimco statement. “However, Iran’s military command structure has been severely impacted by attacks in recent weeks which could lead to misunderstandings between the Iranian authorities approving transits and the Iranian military formations that control the weapons. “Such misunderstandings could potentially lead to unintended targeting and attacks on ships approved for transit,” he added. <h3>Reestablishing oil flows ‘will take months’ </h3>News of the ceasefire saw oil prices falling by 13% on Wednesday, although they remain more than 30% above pre-conflict levels. About one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and refined products — 20 million barrels per day — is exported via the Strait of Hormuz, but that slowed to a trickle after the conflict began. Still, even if the ceasefire holds and shipping resumes through Hormuz, it will take months to reestablish disrupted oil and gas production in the Persian Gulf, according to Tristan Abbey, an administrator at the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Just as we had never before seen the strait close, we’ve never seen it reopen ... what exactly that looks like remains to be seen,” Abbey said in an EIA market forecast released Tuesday before the ceasefire announcement. “Full restoration of flows will take months. Our modeling indicates that fuel prices will continue to rise until these variables resolve." The EIA forecast noted that limited oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz caused oil storage to fill quickly in countries that relied on the waterway for exports. As a result, the EIA estimated that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain collectively shut in 7.5 million b/d of crude oil production in March, with production shut-ins to rise to 9.1 million b/d in April. The EIA outlook assumes the conflict will not persist past April, and that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will gradually resume. Under those assumptions, the agency expects production shut-ins will fall to 6.7 million b/d in May and return close to pre-conflict levels in late 2026. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The shipping industry is awaiting details from the US and Iran on how to transit the Strait of Hormuz safely following a narrow two-week ceasefire window agreed to Wednesday between Washington and Tehran. As part of the deal, Iran said it would allow shipping to resume through the strait with vessel passages coordinated by the Iranian military, but it has not yet issued any technical details. Complicating matters is that Iran has proposed a toll system for Hormuz passage, with Tehran suggesting it would charge vessels $2 million for transiting and split the fee with neighboring Oman. And underscoring the sensitivity around transits, a container ship near the strait received a message Wednesday from the Iranian navy warning that operators needed permission from authorities or vessels would be targeted and attacked, according to a source close to the matter who didn’t want to be identified. “In the next couple of days, we will have to see what really happens and how many of the ships can go in and out, and then we’ll have to stay close to that situation to judge what’s going to happen after those 14 days,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told customers in a briefing Wednesday. As negotiations between the US and Iran get underway, the top priority from ocean carriers is to remove an estimated 170 container ships representing 450,000 TEUs, or about 1.5% of global capacity, that have been stuck in the Persian Gulf since the Middle East conflict began on Feb. 28. Hapag-Lloyd has six ships comprising a total of 25,000 TEUs in the Gulf. But the two-week window is too short and too uncertain for carriers to make long-term plans for reestablishing disrupted Middle East networks, Habben Jansen noted. “Hopefully it remains open, and then we can start looking at how quickly we can return to the Persian Gulf,” he said. “How that will go over the upcoming couple of weeks depends on how stable it is, but you should assume that it will still take six to eight weeks or so until we get back to a more normal situation. “Maybe on the back of that, we will also see the Red Sea open up again, but first priority is now clearly with the strait,” he added. Iran issues 10-point plan Whether the ceasefire will result in a lasting peace settlement remains highly uncertain. In agreeing to the ceasefire, Iran also issued an ambitious 10-point plan in a statement to its National Security Council that includes an end to US military presence in the region, cessation of war by the US “on all fronts” in the Middle East, Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions, and compensation for reconstruction from war damages. Bimco chief shipping analyst Niels Rasmussen said if it was considered safe to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, ships trapped within the Persian Gulf will want to leave as soon as possible. “They will load cargoes prior to leaving but only if loading does not jeopardize the chance of leaving within the two weeks,” Rasmussen said in a statement from the shipping association Wednesday. “Unless the two-week window is quickly lengthened, I doubt there will be a large influx of ships into the Persian Gulf,” he said. “Partly because many ships have already sailed to other regions and partly because they do not want to risk being trapped after the two-week window closes.” Any rush to sail through the Strait of Hormuz without prior coordination with the US and Iran “would entail heightened risk and would not be advisable,” said Jakob Larsen, Bimco’s chief safety and security officer. An uncoordinated exit would present navigational risks from collisions and groundings in the narrow waterway, while the potential lack of communication within the depleted Iranian military and political system presents other problems, he noted. “Iran has announced that they want to be in control of transits in the strait,” Larsen said in the Bimco statement. “However, Iran’s military command structure has been severely impacted by attacks in recent weeks which could lead to misunderstandings between the Iranian authorities approving transits and the Iranian military formations that control the weapons. “Such misunderstandings could potentially lead to unintended targeting and attacks on ships approved for transit,” he added. Reestablishing oil flows ‘will take months’ News of the ceasefire saw oil prices falling by 13% on Wednesday, although they remain more than 30% above pre-conflict levels. About one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and refined products — 20 million barrels per day — is exported via the Strait of Hormuz, but that slowed to a trickle after the conflict began. Still, even if the ceasefire holds and shipping resumes through Hormuz, it will take months to reestablish disrupted oil and gas production in the Persian Gulf, according to Tristan Abbey, an administrator at the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Just as we had never before seen the strait close, we’ve never seen it reopen ... what exactly that looks like remains to be seen,” Abbey said in an EIA market forecast released Tuesday before the ceasefire announcement. “Full restoration of flows will take months. Our modeling indicates that fuel prices will continue to rise until these variables resolve." The EIA forecast noted that limited oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz caused oil storage to fill quickly in countries that relied on the waterway for exports. As a result, the EIA estimated that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain collectively shut in 7.5 million b/d of crude oil production in March, with production shut-ins to rise to 9.1 million b/d in April. The EIA outlook assumes the conflict will not persist past April, and that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will gradually resume. Under those assumptions, the agency expects production shut-ins will fall to 6.7 million b/d in May and return close to pre-conflict levels in late 2026. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Ocean carriers wait for clarity on safe Hormuz passage after US-Iran ceasefire

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

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

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

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

Supply chain

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

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

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

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

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

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

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">GLP-1 weight loss drugs are the most visible example of a force reshaping freight that supply chains weren’t built to detect, writes Paul Tonsager. </div>

GLP-1 weight loss drugs are the most visible example of a force reshaping freight that supply chains weren’t built to detect, writes Paul Tonsager.

<div class="phx-topic">Plus-size apparel is contracting. The numbers are in the earnings calls — store closures accelerating, revenues declining, and CEOs attributing the cause directly to GLP-1 weight loss medications. Approximately 25% of customers at major plus-size retailers are actively losing weight and deferring purchases until they reach their goal size. For freight operators, the translation is straightforward: fewer container bookings out of Bangladesh, softening elastane import volumes from South Korea and China, rising return flows through apparel distribution centers, and athleisure volume shifting to different origins, different factories, different lanes. That’s the GLP-1 story in freight terms. But the more important question isn’t what GLP-1 does to one commodity flow. It’s what GLP-1 represents — and whether the industry is paying attention to the category it belongs to. <h3>A different kind of demand shift </h3>Supply chains are inference machines. They watch what moved last season and build a model of what will move next. Carrier contracts, network design, capacity commitments, inventory positioning — all of them are calibrated to demand cycles that move in human decision-time. A trend emerges. Shippers respond. Freight adjusts. That’s the model. GLP-1 doesn’t fit the model. The consumer isn’t choosing differently based on preference. Their body is changing on a pharmaceutical timeline with no seasonal pattern and no historical precedent in any demand planning system. The signal isn’t coming from the market. It’s coming from a lab. That’s the category: structural demand shifts originating outside the market. And GLP-1 is not the only one in play. <h3>The pattern repeating </h3>The electric vehicle transition is doing to auto parts freight what GLP-1 is doing to apparel — but slower and at far larger scale. An internal combustion vehicle contains approximately 30,000 parts. An EV eliminates approximately 10,000 of them. Transmissions, exhaust systems, fuel injectors — the freight lanes serving these components are in structural decline. The lanes serving battery materials — lithium, cobalt, copper — are being built in real time, often on entirely different corridors with different modal requirements. Carriers and third-party logistics providers (3PLs) who built capacity around internal combustion engine component flows are holding assets against a demand base that is shrinking by design. Food and beverage may be the next GLP-1 impact larger than apparel. If 23% of US households are on these medications — up four points in a single year, according to Circana — and consuming meaningfully fewer calories, the freight infrastructure built around the old consumption baseline is exposed. Bulk grain movements, refrigerated less-than-truckload networks, warehouse footprint, replenishment frequency — all sized to a caloric demand curve that is quietly bending downward. The volume impact hasn’t fully materialized. It will. Remote work ran the same playbook earlier this decade. Office-bound freight flows — commercial furniture, facilities supplies, workplace technology, food service — didn’t disappear. They redistributed to suburbs and residential addresses in patterns that no demand planning model had anticipated. Last-mile density assumptions broke. The signal came from a public health event, not a consumer preference survey. <h3>What the industry is missing </h3>The common thread isn’t the specific force — pharmaceutical, technological, epidemiological. It’s the origin. These signals don’t come from the market. They come from labs, legislatures and external shocks. Freight networks optimized to read market signals — booking velocity, tender acceptance, seasonal lift — are structurally late to detect them. GLP-1 is the most legible example yet because it has a drug name, a measurable penetration curve, and identifiable freight consequences already showing up in origin mix and return volumes. That clarity is unusual. Most structural demand shifts are harder to see until capacity is misaligned, contracts don’t match the freight, and the repositioning cost is already real. The operators who outperform in the next decade won’t necessarily be the ones who move the most freight. They’ll be the ones who developed the capability to read demand signals that don’t originate in the market — and built network flexibility before the curve arrived. GLP-1 is the canary. The question is whether the industry treats it as a one-time anomaly or as a preview of the operating environment it now lives in. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals &amp; Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

Plus-size apparel is contracting. The numbers are in the earnings calls — store closures accelerating, revenues declining, and CEOs attributing the cause directly to GLP-1 weight loss medications. Approximately 25% of customers at major plus-size retailers are actively losing weight and deferring purchases until they reach their goal size. For freight operators, the translation is straightforward: fewer container bookings out of Bangladesh, softening elastane import volumes from South Korea and China, rising return flows through apparel distribution centers, and athleisure volume shifting to different origins, different factories, different lanes. That’s the GLP-1 story in freight terms. But the more important question isn’t what GLP-1 does to one commodity flow. It’s what GLP-1 represents — and whether the industry is paying attention to the category it belongs to. A different kind of demand shift Supply chains are inference machines. They watch what moved last season and build a model of what will move next. Carrier contracts, network design, capacity commitments, inventory positioning — all of them are calibrated to demand cycles that move in human decision-time. A trend emerges. Shippers respond. Freight adjusts. That’s the model. GLP-1 doesn’t fit the model. The consumer isn’t choosing differently based on preference. Their body is changing on a pharmaceutical timeline with no seasonal pattern and no historical precedent in any demand planning system. The signal isn’t coming from the market. It’s coming from a lab. That’s the category: structural demand shifts originating outside the market. And GLP-1 is not the only one in play. The pattern repeating The electric vehicle transition is doing to auto parts freight what GLP-1 is doing to apparel — but slower and at far larger scale. An internal combustion vehicle contains approximately 30,000 parts. An EV eliminates approximately 10,000 of them. Transmissions, exhaust systems, fuel injectors — the freight lanes serving these components are in structural decline. The lanes serving battery materials — lithium, cobalt, copper — are being built in real time, often on entirely different corridors with different modal requirements. Carriers and third-party logistics providers (3PLs) who built capacity around internal combustion engine component flows are holding assets against a demand base that is shrinking by design. Food and beverage may be the next GLP-1 impact larger than apparel. If 23% of US households are on these medications — up four points in a single year, according to Circana — and consuming meaningfully fewer calories, the freight infrastructure built around the old consumption baseline is exposed. Bulk grain movements, refrigerated less-than-truckload networks, warehouse footprint, replenishment frequency — all sized to a caloric demand curve that is quietly bending downward. The volume impact hasn’t fully materialized. It will. Remote work ran the same playbook earlier this decade. Office-bound freight flows — commercial furniture, facilities supplies, workplace technology, food service — didn’t disappear. They redistributed to suburbs and residential addresses in patterns that no demand planning model had anticipated. Last-mile density assumptions broke. The signal came from a public health event, not a consumer preference survey. What the industry is missing The common thread isn’t the specific force — pharmaceutical, technological, epidemiological. It’s the origin. These signals don’t come from the market. They come from labs, legislatures and external shocks. Freight networks optimized to read market signals — booking velocity, tender acceptance, seasonal lift — are structurally late to detect them. GLP-1 is the most legible example yet because it has a drug name, a measurable penetration curve, and identifiable freight consequences already showing up in origin mix and return volumes. That clarity is unusual. Most structural demand shifts are harder to see until capacity is misaligned, contracts don’t match the freight, and the repositioning cost is already real. The operators who outperform in the next decade won’t necessarily be the ones who move the most freight. They’ll be the ones who developed the capability to read demand signals that don’t originate in the market — and built network flexibility before the curve arrived. GLP-1 is the canary. The question is whether the industry treats it as a one-time anomaly or as a preview of the operating environment it now lives in. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals & Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

When the demand signal comes from outside the market

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

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

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

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

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

Shanghai to Korea

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

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

Shanghai to Korea container spot rates (SSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The departure of the Montreal Port Authority CEO comes just as development work begins on a new US$1.15 billion container terminal.</div>

The departure of the Montreal Port Authority CEO comes just as development work begins on a new US$1.15 billion container terminal.

<div class="phx-topic">The two-year tenure of Montreal Port Authority (MPA) chief Julie Gascon ended abruptly Friday, just as development work is beginning on a C$1.6 billion (US$1.15 billion) container terminal to be operated by DP World. A statement from the port authority gave no reason for the departure of Gascon, who became president and CEO of the agency in February 2024. A committee of the port authority’s board of directors will work to ensure interim leadership is in place as Gascon’s successor is sought, according to the statement. “With the Contrecoeur terminal expansion project actively progressing, the Port of Montreal is entering a new phase in its development, which will take place as part of a new strategic cycle for the MPA,” said Nathalie Pilon, chair of the MPA’s board of directors. “The organization is in an excellent position to fulfill its mandate and contribute to Canada’s competitiveness in global markets.” Gascon oversaw DP World <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-world-aims-to-run-carney-backed-montreal-terminal-6072977">being awarded the winning bid</a> to operate the Contrecoeur terminal, which, with a planned annual capacity of 1.15 million TEUs, would increase the total capacity of Canada’s second-largest container port by 150%. Gascon was viewed locally as bringing more maritime expertise and a greater commercial understanding to the role as MPA chief when she succeeded utility veteran Martin Imbleau, who also abruptly exited in July 2023. Contact the JOC news team at <a href="mailto:News@joc.com">news@joc.com.</a></div>

The two-year tenure of Montreal Port Authority (MPA) chief Julie Gascon ended abruptly Friday, just as development work is beginning on a C$1.6 billion (US$1.15 billion) container terminal to be operated by DP World. A statement from the port authority gave no reason for the departure of Gascon, who became president and CEO of the agency in February 2024. A committee of the port authority’s board of directors will work to ensure interim leadership is in place as Gascon’s successor is sought, according to the statement. “With the Contrecoeur terminal expansion project actively progressing, the Port of Montreal is entering a new phase in its development, which will take place as part of a new strategic cycle for the MPA,” said Nathalie Pilon, chair of the MPA’s board of directors. “The organization is in an excellent position to fulfill its mandate and contribute to Canada’s competitiveness in global markets.” Gascon oversaw DP World being awarded the winning bid to operate the Contrecoeur terminal, which, with a planned annual capacity of 1.15 million TEUs, would increase the total capacity of Canada’s second-largest container port by 150%. Gascon was viewed locally as bringing more maritime expertise and a greater commercial understanding to the role as MPA chief when she succeeded utility veteran Martin Imbleau, who also abruptly exited in July 2023. Contact the JOC news team at news@joc.com.

CMA CGM taps Jaxport as newest call for Asia express service

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

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

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

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

Recent Commentary

When the demand signal comes from outside the market

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

Top 5 Most Read Stories