<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Equipped with 12 quay cranes capable of handling ultra-large container ships, the expansion allows the East Container Terminal to handle 3 million TEUs annually at full speed. </div>

Equipped with 12 quay cranes capable of handling ultra-large container ships, the expansion allows the East Container Terminal to handle 3 million TEUs annually at full speed.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Sri Lanka is moving swiftly to fend off the threat of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-revalue-colombo-transshipment-calls-amid-congestion-indian-hub-push-5192152">alternative hub development efforts by India</a> as ocean carriers increasingly seek berthing window flexibility for transshipment calls in a volatile operating environment. The Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA)-operated East Container Terminal (ECT) in Colombo Port has opened a third berth to business, extending its total quay length to 1,300 meters. Equipped with 12 quay cranes capable of handling ultra-large container ships, the expansion allows ECT to handle 3 million TEUs annually at full speed. SLPA in a statement said the upgrades strengthen Colombo’s position as a primary transshipment hub for services linking the Indian subcontinent, the Bay of Bengal and major East–West trade lanes. “The addition of the third berth is expected to ease congestion, distribute vessel calls more efficiently across terminals and reinforce Colombo’s reputation for dependable, high-volume container handling,” SLPA said. The port authority projects a quick three-fold increase in container volumes through the expanded terminal, from 500,000 TEUs in 2025 to 1.5 million TEUs by the end of this year. That capacity expansion complements the recent launch of Phase I operations by the Colombo West Container Terminal (CWCT), a project led by India’s Adani Group. With multiple ongoing expansions, including Phase 2 development at CWCT that has a late-2026 completion timeline, Colombo’s combined capacity is estimated to reach 12 million TEUs over the next year. The port handled 8.3 million TEUs in 2025, up 6% year over year, industry data shows. <h3>Transshipment competition from India </h3>Transshipment trade out of the subcontinent region is no longer a given for Colombo after India opened the Vizhinjam terminal, also managed by Adani, a year ago. Thanks to cargo relay activity by Mediterranean Shipping Co., Vizhinjam's Phase 1 capacity of 1 million TEUs is already saturated, with 2025 volumes hitting 1.2 million TEUs — making it the fastest-growing port in India by capacity utilization. Stronger-than-expected demand has prompted Vizhinjam to fast-track the implementation of projects deemed necessary for longer-term market ambitions. The new hub now aims to put 5.7 million TEUs of capacity in operation by 2028/29, some 17 years ahead of the original development schedule. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Sri Lanka is moving swiftly to fend off the threat of alternative hub development efforts by India as ocean carriers increasingly seek berthing window flexibility for transshipment calls in a volatile operating environment. The Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA)-operated East Container Terminal (ECT) in Colombo Port has opened a third berth to business, extending its total quay length to 1,300 meters. Equipped with 12 quay cranes capable of handling ultra-large container ships, the expansion allows ECT to handle 3 million TEUs annually at full speed. SLPA in a statement said the upgrades strengthen Colombo’s position as a primary transshipment hub for services linking the Indian subcontinent, the Bay of Bengal and major East–West trade lanes. “The addition of the third berth is expected to ease congestion, distribute vessel calls more efficiently across terminals and reinforce Colombo’s reputation for dependable, high-volume container handling,” SLPA said. The port authority projects a quick three-fold increase in container volumes through the expanded terminal, from 500,000 TEUs in 2025 to 1.5 million TEUs by the end of this year. That capacity expansion complements the recent launch of Phase I operations by the Colombo West Container Terminal (CWCT), a project led by India’s Adani Group. With multiple ongoing expansions, including Phase 2 development at CWCT that has a late-2026 completion timeline, Colombo’s combined capacity is estimated to reach 12 million TEUs over the next year. The port handled 8.3 million TEUs in 2025, up 6% year over year, industry data shows. Transshipment competition from India Transshipment trade out of the subcontinent region is no longer a given for Colombo after India opened the Vizhinjam terminal, also managed by Adani, a year ago. Thanks to cargo relay activity by Mediterranean Shipping Co., Vizhinjam's Phase 1 capacity of 1 million TEUs is already saturated, with 2025 volumes hitting 1.2 million TEUs — making it the fastest-growing port in India by capacity utilization. Stronger-than-expected demand has prompted Vizhinjam to fast-track the implementation of projects deemed necessary for longer-term market ambitions. The new hub now aims to put 5.7 million TEUs of capacity in operation by 2028/29, some 17 years ahead of the original development schedule. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Port News

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

International ports

Maritime

Colombo expands box capacity as regional hub competition intensifies 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 2025 result follows a familiar trend seen across the full-year financials reported so far by Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express as the industry moves into an overcapacity-driven downcycle. </div>

The 2025 result follows a familiar trend seen across the full-year financials reported so far by Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express as the industry moves into an overcapacity-driven downcycle.

<div class="phx-topic">The sharply correcting container shipping market pulled down HMM’s 2025 earnings as a drop in average rates across its network offset an increase in volume, the South Korean carrier said Wednesday. It is a familiar trend seen across the full-year 2025 results reported so far by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gemini-benefits-face-looming-challenge-from-oversupplied-market-maersk-ceo-6164887">Maersk</a>, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fourth-quarter-rate-slump-drags-down-hapag-lloyds-2025-financials-6166755">Hapag-Lloyd</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">Ocean Network Express</a> as the carriers move into an overcapacity-driven downcycle. “A large volume of new container vessel deliveries is expected to result in oversupply, while demand growth remains weak, likely to exacerbate supply-demand imbalances,” HMM said in its results statement. The carrier’s total volume in 2025 reached 3.9 million TEUs, up 3.2% year over year. But the higher throughput was undermined by average revenue per TEU that fell 24.3% to $1,214. The declining rates saw HMM’s total revenue for the year sliding 6.9% to $7.5 billion, while operating profit dropped 58.4% to $220 million and net profit slid 50.3% to $1.3 billion. Although HMM’s fourth-quarter performance was a slight improvement on the third quarter, the weakening market saw key metrics decline significantly year over year. Fourth-quarter revenue of $1.86 billion was a drop of 14.2% year over year, operating profit fell 68.3% to $220 million and net profit of $250 million was down 59.5% compared with the fourth quarter of 2024. Excess capacity in the market will continue to exert downward pressure on rate levels. The global container shipping order book sits near 10.7 million TEUs, or 32% of the current in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Just over 1 million TEUs of capacity via ships above 10,000 TEUs is scheduled to be delivered this year. But 2.3 million TEUs are due for delivery in 2027, with another 3.4 million TEUs due to come online in 2028, equal to all the tonnage received in 2022 and 2023. Despite the growing supply-demand imbalance, analysts expect global container shipping volume growth of 2% to 4% in 2026. Maritime consultant Drewry has even raised the collective financial outlook for carriers this year from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. <h3>Hub-and-spoke network expansion </h3>In its outlook for the year, HMM announced plans to expand its hub-and-spoke network. Last October, the carrier <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hmm-inks-25-billion-lng-container-ship-order-6098410">said it would spend $8 billion on eco-friendly vessels</a> by 2030 to boost its operational fleet to 130 container ships totaling 1.55 million TEUs. The investment is part of a $17 billion spending plan that also includes $3 billion on its logistics business with the acquisition of new container terminals and expanding existing facilities by 2030. HMM is part of the Premier Alliance with ONE and Yang Ming that operates or calls at terminals in the hubs of Felixstowe, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Le Havre, Algeciras and Singapore on the Asia-Europe trade; Piraeus, Istanbul, Damietta and Jeddah in the Mediterranean; and Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Kaohsiung, Ningbo, Shanghai, Pusan and Yantian on the trans-Pacific. HMM also said Wednesday it plans to strengthen low-emission services in a bid to increase market share and “improve cost structures through optimized feeder operations.” An area the Premier Alliance carriers will need to significantly improve on is schedule reliability, which was at 26% last year, according to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gemini-schedule-reliability-shows-sum-greater-than-its-parts-xeneta-6167423">Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025</a>. Partners ONE and Yang Ming both saw individual on-time performance hit close to that mark, but HMM was only at a 15% on-time rate. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The sharply correcting container shipping market pulled down HMM’s 2025 earnings as a drop in average rates across its network offset an increase in volume, the South Korean carrier said Wednesday. It is a familiar trend seen across the full-year 2025 results reported so far by Maersk , Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express as the carriers move into an overcapacity-driven downcycle. “A large volume of new container vessel deliveries is expected to result in oversupply, while demand growth remains weak, likely to exacerbate supply-demand imbalances,” HMM said in its results statement. The carrier’s total volume in 2025 reached 3.9 million TEUs, up 3.2% year over year. But the higher throughput was undermined by average revenue per TEU that fell 24.3% to $1,214. The declining rates saw HMM’s total revenue for the year sliding 6.9% to $7.5 billion, while operating profit dropped 58.4% to $220 million and net profit slid 50.3% to $1.3 billion. Although HMM’s fourth-quarter performance was a slight improvement on the third quarter, the weakening market saw key metrics decline significantly year over year. Fourth-quarter revenue of $1.86 billion was a drop of 14.2% year over year, operating profit fell 68.3% to $220 million and net profit of $250 million was down 59.5% compared with the fourth quarter of 2024. Excess capacity in the market will continue to exert downward pressure on rate levels. The global container shipping order book sits near 10.7 million TEUs, or 32% of the current in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Just over 1 million TEUs of capacity via ships above 10,000 TEUs is scheduled to be delivered this year. But 2.3 million TEUs are due for delivery in 2027, with another 3.4 million TEUs due to come online in 2028, equal to all the tonnage received in 2022 and 2023. Despite the growing supply-demand imbalance, analysts expect global container shipping volume growth of 2% to 4% in 2026. Maritime consultant Drewry has even raised the collective financial outlook for carriers this year from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Hub-and-spoke network expansion In its outlook for the year, HMM announced plans to expand its hub-and-spoke network. Last October, the carrier said it would spend $8 billion on eco-friendly vessels by 2030 to boost its operational fleet to 130 container ships totaling 1.55 million TEUs. The investment is part of a $17 billion spending plan that also includes $3 billion on its logistics business with the acquisition of new container terminals and expanding existing facilities by 2030. HMM is part of the Premier Alliance with ONE and Yang Ming that operates or calls at terminals in the hubs of Felixstowe, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Le Havre, Algeciras and Singapore on the Asia-Europe trade; Piraeus, Istanbul, Damietta and Jeddah in the Mediterranean; and Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Kaohsiung, Ningbo, Shanghai, Pusan and Yantian on the trans-Pacific. HMM also said Wednesday it plans to strengthen low-emission services in a bid to increase market share and “improve cost structures through optimized feeder operations.” An area the Premier Alliance carriers will need to significantly improve on is schedule reliability, which was at 26% last year, according to Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 . Partners ONE and Yang Ming both saw individual on-time performance hit close to that mark, but HMM was only at a 15% on-time rate. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

HMM profitability falls as carrier warns of growing supply-demand imbalance

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Kevin Price, president of the port’s stevedoring services company Gateway Terminals, will join GPA in July as president and then add the CEO’s role in mid-2027.</div>

Kevin Price, president of the port’s stevedoring services company Gateway Terminals, will join GPA in July as president and then add the CEO’s role in mid-2027.

<div class="phx-topic">The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) on Tuesday unveiled an 18-month succession plan that will see long-time CEO Griff Lynch step down in mid-2027 and replaced by a marine terminals veteran who will initially come aboard as GPA’s president this summer.Kevin Price, president of the Port of Savannah’s stevedoring services company Gateway Terminals, will join GPA in July as president and then add the CEO’s role in mid-2027, GPA said in a statement. Price will lead Savannah as it plans its next growth phase with the opening of a new container terminal in the next decade.“Georgia Ports’ long-term approach with its employees, customers, business partners and infrastructure investments are competitive differentiators,” Price said in the statement. Price has served as president of Gateway Terminals since 2022. Prior to that, he spent four years at stevedore Virginia International Terminals, where he rose to chief operating officer. His prior experience includes time at the former Global Container Terminals facility in New Jersey, and with Maersk and APM Terminals in their Northeast operations. Under Lynch, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lynch-to-succeed-foltz-as-georgia-ports-chief-5212877">who became chief executive of the port in 2016</a>, Savannah saw total container volumes handled go from 3.6 million TEUs to 5.7 million TEUs in 2025, a 4.5% annual average rate. During that time, the Port of Savannah <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/savannah-expands-with-2030-goal-of-9-million-teu-5222906">dredged its harbor to 47 feet</a> and modernized <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/savannah-project-reflects-growing-premium-for-us-berth-space-5243335">the Garden City Terminal, allowing it to handle three post-Panamax ships at once</a>. The GPA likewise built up rail capacity at Savannah with upgrades to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-se-ports-prepping-more-growth-amid-continued-west-coast-diversions_20230306.html">the Mason Mega rail terminal that allowed it to handle 1 million container lifts annually</a>, and the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-southeast-ports-expand-intermodal-rail-reach-5245618">completion of the Appalachian Regional Port in 2018</a> and expected completion this year of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ns-to-eliminate-midwest-service-from-charleston-savannah-due-to-low-volumes-5200097">the Blue Ridge Connector inland port</a>. Along with finishing the Blue Ridge Connector, the GPA’s near-term plans include opening two new container berths at its Ocean Terminal by 2027. The GPA is also working with the state to increase the air clearance for ships on the Savannah River by raising the Talmadge Bridge. The GPA said in its most recent annual report that it expects container volume to increase just over 45% through 2035. That equates to a 3.7% average annual growth rate that would put Savannah’s volumes at 8.3 million TEUs over the next decade. To handle that growth, the GPA is looking to secure a permit for the construction of the Savannah Container Terminal on Tybee Island at the mouth of the Savannah River. The terminal, which would have berths for three large vessels, is targeted for completion in 2032 at a cost of approximately $4.5 billion. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) on Tuesday unveiled an 18-month succession plan that will see long-time CEO Griff Lynch step down in mid-2027 and replaced by a marine terminals veteran who will initially come aboard as GPA’s president this summer. Kevin Price, president of the Port of Savannah’s stevedoring services company Gateway Terminals, will join GPA in July as president and then add the CEO’s role in mid-2027, GPA said in a statement. Price will lead Savannah as it plans its next growth phase with the opening of a new container terminal in the next decade. “Georgia Ports’ long-term approach with its employees, customers, business partners and infrastructure investments are competitive differentiators,” Price said in the statement. Price has served as president of Gateway Terminals since 2022. Prior to that, he spent four years at stevedore Virginia International Terminals, where he rose to chief operating officer. His prior experience includes time at the former Global Container Terminals facility in New Jersey, and with Maersk and APM Terminals in their Northeast operations. Under Lynch, who became chief executive of the port in 2016 , Savannah saw total container volumes handled go from 3.6 million TEUs to 5.7 million TEUs in 2025, a 4.5% annual average rate. During that time, the Port of Savannah dredged its harbor to 47 feet and modernized the Garden City Terminal, allowing it to handle three post-Panamax ships at once . The GPA likewise built up rail capacity at Savannah with upgrades to the Mason Mega rail terminal that allowed it to handle 1 million container lifts annually , and the completion of the Appalachian Regional Port in 2018 and expected completion this year of the Blue Ridge Connector inland port . Along with finishing the Blue Ridge Connector, the GPA’s near-term plans include opening two new container berths at its Ocean Terminal by 2027. The GPA is also working with the state to increase the air clearance for ships on the Savannah River by raising the Talmadge Bridge. The GPA said in its most recent annual report that it expects container volume to increase just over 45% through 2035. That equates to a 3.7% average annual growth rate that would put Savannah’s volumes at 8.3 million TEUs over the next decade. To handle that growth, the GPA is looking to secure a permit for the construction of the Savannah Container Terminal on Tybee Island at the mouth of the Savannah River. The terminal, which would have berths for three large vessels, is targeted for completion in 2032 at a cost of approximately $4.5 billion. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

GPA names next CEO as Savannah readies for new growth phase

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are more reliable under Gemini than in standalone services, while other alliances showed uneven performance among partners. </div>

Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are more reliable under Gemini than in standalone services, while other alliances showed uneven performance among partners.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd broke further away from other ocean carriers in on-time performance in 2025, although vessels under their new Gemini Cooperation alliance showed better reliability than their standalone services, data from Xeneta shows. Most other carriers saw performance remaining flat last year, with reliability varying among other alliances. Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed that Maersk saw 56% of all its ships arrive on time last year, with an average delay of two days. That is up from the 37% on-time performance and average two-and-half day delay reported at the end of 2024 by eeSea, which Xeneta acquired last August. Meanwhile, second-place Hapag-Lloyd also saw improvement in its 2025 overall reliability, Xeneta data showed, with 52% of all vessels arriving on time and an average delay of three days. At the end of 2024, Hapag-Lloyd saw only about a fifth of its ships arriving on time with an average delay of close to five days. The gain for each carrier stems from the jointly-operated services under the Gemini partnership, with vessels in the alliance hitting 81% schedule reliability. But Xeneta said the performance data shows “the reliability of their non-alliance partnerships generally falls short of Gemini’s optimized structure.”The average delay days for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are the lowest among the 12 global ocean carriers in Xeneta’s benchmark. Among that group, delays averaged about four-and-half days. Cosco Shipping and Wan Hai Lines saw average delays of just under three-and-half days, while HMM saw an average eight-and-half-day delay, the highest among the dozen carriers on Xeneta’s list. <h3>Alliance partners show mixed results</h3>Container alliances other than Gemini saw their overall performance in 2025 remain largely flat, Xeneta’s data showed. Individual ocean carrier performance within those alliances varied, which Xeneta said highlighted the need for shippers to know who is operating a particular service. Xeneta said Ocean Alliance had an overall on-time performance of 26% in 2025, which is a step up from the 20% reported for the alliance in 2024. The gain stems largely from improvements at CMA CGM, which saw on-time performance reach 33% in 2025 versus 27% in 2024, and Cosco Shipping, which reached 35% in 2025 compared with a 24% rate the year prior. Those gains appeared to offset performance from Ocean Alliance partner Evergreen Marine, which lagged with a 25% on-time performance last year. “This is valuable evidence for shippers to consider selecting CMA CGM or COSCO on their non-alliance offerings, or to potentially lean into Ocean Alliance services where they function as the primary vessel providers instead of [Evergreen],” Xeneta said.A similar dynamic played out with the Premier Alliance, which had an overall on-time performance of 26% last year. Partners Ocean Network Express and Yang Ming both saw individual on-time performance hit close to that mark, but HMM was only at a 15% on-time rate, according to Xeneta.Mediterranean Shipping Co. saw its on-time performance hit 25% last year with a nearly five-day average delay, “just a pace above the bottom of our rankings” Xeneta said. Zim Integrated Shipping Services, which has container space-sharing agreements with MSC on several lanes, saw last year’s on-time performance improve to 36%, up from 27% in 2024 and placing it in the top three for 2025. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd broke further away from other ocean carriers in on-time performance in 2025, although vessels under their new Gemini Cooperation alliance showed better reliability than their standalone services, data from Xeneta shows. Most other carriers saw performance remaining flat last year, with reliability varying among other alliances. Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed that Maersk saw 56% of all its ships arrive on time last year, with an average delay of two days. That is up from the 37% on-time performance and average two-and-half day delay reported at the end of 2024 by eeSea, which Xeneta acquired last August. Meanwhile, second-place Hapag-Lloyd also saw improvement in its 2025 overall reliability, Xeneta data showed, with 52% of all vessels arriving on time and an average delay of three days. At the end of 2024, Hapag-Lloyd saw only about a fifth of its ships arriving on time with an average delay of close to five days. The gain for each carrier stems from the jointly-operated services under the Gemini partnership, with vessels in the alliance hitting 81% schedule reliability. But Xeneta said the performance data shows “the reliability of their non-alliance partnerships generally falls short of Gemini’s optimized structure.” The average delay days for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are the lowest among the 12 global ocean carriers in Xeneta’s benchmark. Among that group, delays averaged about four-and-half days. Cosco Shipping and Wan Hai Lines saw average delays of just under three-and-half days, while HMM saw an average eight-and-half-day delay, the highest among the dozen carriers on Xeneta’s list. Alliance partners show mixed results Container alliances other than Gemini saw their overall performance in 2025 remain largely flat, Xeneta’s data showed. Individual ocean carrier performance within those alliances varied, which Xeneta said highlighted the need for shippers to know who is operating a particular service. Xeneta said Ocean Alliance had an overall on-time performance of 26% in 2025, which is a step up from the 20% reported for the alliance in 2024. The gain stems largely from improvements at CMA CGM, which saw on-time performance reach 33% in 2025 versus 27% in 2024, and Cosco Shipping, which reached 35% in 2025 compared with a 24% rate the year prior. Those gains appeared to offset performance from Ocean Alliance partner Evergreen Marine, which lagged with a 25% on-time performance last year. “This is valuable evidence for shippers to consider selecting CMA CGM or COSCO on their non-alliance offerings, or to potentially lean into Ocean Alliance services where they function as the primary vessel providers instead of [Evergreen],” Xeneta said. A similar dynamic played out with the Premier Alliance, which had an overall on-time performance of 26% last year. Partners Ocean Network Express and Yang Ming both saw individual on-time performance hit close to that mark, but HMM was only at a 15% on-time rate, according to Xeneta. Mediterranean Shipping Co. saw its on-time performance hit 25% last year with a nearly five-day average delay, “just a pace above the bottom of our rankings” Xeneta said. Zim Integrated Shipping Services, which has container space-sharing agreements with MSC on several lanes, saw last year’s on-time performance improve to 36%, up from 27% in 2024 and placing it in the top three for 2025. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Gemini schedule reliability shows sum greater than its parts: Xeneta  

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Overall, more than 90% of respondents participating in the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Scorecard were satisfied with domestic intermodal service between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2025. </div>

Overall, more than 90% of respondents participating in the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Scorecard were satisfied with domestic intermodal service between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2025.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and J.B. Hunt Transport Services were voted the top railroad and domestic intermodal provider, respectively, for the second half of 2025, according to the latest Journal of Commerce <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/domestic-intermodal-service-scorecard">Intermodal Service Scorecard</a> released Tuesday. Overall, more than 90% of respondents were satisfied with domestic intermodal service between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2025, according to the survey of more than 145 shippers and asset-based and non-asset-based intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). The ISS is published twice a year. Railroads saw the biggest improvement, with 91.3% of respondents satisfied with performance during last year’s peak season, up from 77.5% during the same period of 2024. Intermodal providers overall, whether asset- or non-asset-based, also received higher scores. Just under 94% of shippers were satisfied with IMC performance, up from 90.9% during the peak season of 2024. The survey included 100 respondents who were shippers. “In the last six months our volume has been slipping, but Hunt has always provided sufficient equipment,” one shipper wrote in the survey. “They have gone so far as offering to reduce accessorial charges when we run into problems receiving loads at destination, which is a sign that they value our business.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="3f877148-7417-4744-b3a5-e66d957f4430"></dynamic-object></div>J.B. Hunt received 55.9% when shippers were asked to name the best IMC in the second half of 2025. Asset-light and non-asset IMCs came in second with 29% of the vote. That category encompasses asset-light providers such as Alliance Shippers and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, who own some containers, and pure non-asset IMCs such as Mode Transportation and Uber Freight, among many others. Shippers were asked to grade their IMC partners on a five-point scale, with five being the highest. J.B. Hunt received at least 4 out of 5 points in all categories except for pricing, while the asset-light and non-asset IMCs received at least 4 out of 5 in all categories except technology. J.B. Hunt received an overall grade of 4.6 out of 5, while the asset-light and non-asset IMCs received a score of 4.5. “It’s pretty rare when you can pick up the phone and be able to speak with the president of any company, but this is commonplace with InTek Freight and Logistics,” another shipper wrote. “We value long-term relationships with our vendors, and with InTek, it goes beyond a partnership; we feel like they are an extension of our transportation department.” Schneider received the second-best overall score among large asset-owning intermodal providers at 3.7 out of 5; the category consists of providers with more than 10,000 privately-owned containers. <h3>UP wins again for best railroad </h3>Union Pacific edged out rival BNSF Railway for the top railroad for the second consecutive survey, although the two railroads traded first and second place in all the key performance indicators (KPIs). When choosing among all the Class I railroads, 36.3% of IMCs rated UP as the best railroad, while BNSF received 20.5% of the vote. However, when the KPIs are included, the results show that the two railroads are virtually tied with one another atop the list of all railroads, outperforming the two eastern US railroads and two Canadian railroads. It’s the second consecutive survey where UP has outpaced most of its competitors, a stark change from only three years ago under former CEO Lance Fritz, who handed the reins over to current CEO Jim Vena in August 2023. In the last pre-Vena survey, only 17.1% of IMCs were satisfied with UP’s performance. In the latest survey, 80% were satisfied, up from 53.7% during the same period of 2024. UP received an overall score of 4 out of 5 points in the latest survey. BNSF received a 4.1 out of 5, although the difference was less than a tenth of a point. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="6d0852c5-f4fb-408d-8368-5b064b1cbb8b"></dynamic-object></div>Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) struggled for the second consecutive survey, receiving an overall score of 2.7 out of 5 points, while 58.9% of respondents voted it the lowest-performing railroad. While IMCs generally praised CPKC on the high quality of its Mexico Midwest Express service between Mexico and Chicago, most respondents said the railroad struggled on other routes. Common complaints included the railroad providing good customer service for top partners such as Schneider in the US and Consolidated Fastfrate in Canada, but not paying enough attention to other IMCs. “CPKC is not customer-focused. Our marketing contact cannot help us with service issues,” one IMC wrote in the survey. “Working with the CPKC is very frustrating trying to get things done.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and J.B. Hunt Transport Services were voted the top railroad and domestic intermodal provider, respectively, for the second half of 2025, according to the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Scorecard released Tuesday. Overall, more than 90% of respondents were satisfied with domestic intermodal service between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2025, according to the survey of more than 145 shippers and asset-based and non-asset-based intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). The ISS is published twice a year. Railroads saw the biggest improvement, with 91.3% of respondents satisfied with performance during last year’s peak season, up from 77.5% during the same period of 2024. Intermodal providers overall, whether asset- or non-asset-based, also received higher scores. Just under 94% of shippers were satisfied with IMC performance, up from 90.9% during the peak season of 2024. The survey included 100 respondents who were shippers. “In the last six months our volume has been slipping, but Hunt has always provided sufficient equipment,” one shipper wrote in the survey. “They have gone so far as offering to reduce accessorial charges when we run into problems receiving loads at destination, which is a sign that they value our business.” J.B. Hunt received 55.9% when shippers were asked to name the best IMC in the second half of 2025. Asset-light and non-asset IMCs came in second with 29% of the vote. That category encompasses asset-light providers such as Alliance Shippers and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, who own some containers, and pure non-asset IMCs such as Mode Transportation and Uber Freight, among many others. Shippers were asked to grade their IMC partners on a five-point scale, with five being the highest. J.B. Hunt received at least 4 out of 5 points in all categories except for pricing, while the asset-light and non-asset IMCs received at least 4 out of 5 in all categories except technology. J.B. Hunt received an overall grade of 4.6 out of 5, while the asset-light and non-asset IMCs received a score of 4.5. “It’s pretty rare when you can pick up the phone and be able to speak with the president of any company, but this is commonplace with InTek Freight and Logistics,” another shipper wrote. “We value long-term relationships with our vendors, and with InTek, it goes beyond a partnership; we feel like they are an extension of our transportation department.” Schneider received the second-best overall score among large asset-owning intermodal providers at 3.7 out of 5; the category consists of providers with more than 10,000 privately-owned containers. UP wins again for best railroad Union Pacific edged out rival BNSF Railway for the top railroad for the second consecutive survey, although the two railroads traded first and second place in all the key performance indicators (KPIs). When choosing among all the Class I railroads, 36.3% of IMCs rated UP as the best railroad, while BNSF received 20.5% of the vote. However, when the KPIs are included, the results show that the two railroads are virtually tied with one another atop the list of all railroads, outperforming the two eastern US railroads and two Canadian railroads. It’s the second consecutive survey where UP has outpaced most of its competitors, a stark change from only three years ago under former CEO Lance Fritz, who handed the reins over to current CEO Jim Vena in August 2023. In the last pre-Vena survey, only 17.1% of IMCs were satisfied with UP’s performance. In the latest survey, 80% were satisfied, up from 53.7% during the same period of 2024. UP received an overall score of 4 out of 5 points in the latest survey. BNSF received a 4.1 out of 5, although the difference was less than a tenth of a point. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) struggled for the second consecutive survey, receiving an overall score of 2.7 out of 5 points, while 58.9% of respondents voted it the lowest-performing railroad. While IMCs generally praised CPKC on the high quality of its Mexico Midwest Express service between Mexico and Chicago, most respondents said the railroad struggled on other routes. Common complaints included the railroad providing good customer service for top partners such as Schneider in the US and Consolidated Fastfrate in Canada, but not paying enough attention to other IMCs. “CPKC is not customer-focused. Our marketing contact cannot help us with service issues,” one IMC wrote in the survey. “Working with the CPKC is very frustrating trying to get things done.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

UP, J.B. Hunt voted best intermodal providers in H2 ’25: JOC survey

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the recommendations will not include guidance on handling empty container returns, as port stakeholders see it as a separate issue.</div>

But the recommendations will not include guidance on handling empty container returns, as port stakeholders see it as a separate issue.

<div class="phx-topic">A stakeholder group looking at truck appointment systems at Port of New York and New Jersey marine terminals is expected to release its recommendations this month, which steer clear of how those systems address empty container returns. The management of empty returns has been critical for the port’s truckers, but something that other stakeholders said was outside of the group’s legal limits. Beth Rooney, port director for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said at a state of the port event last week that one of her priorities in 2026 is drafting a plan for “moving forward” on 11 final recommendations from the Appointment Systems Working Group (ASWG). “We’re going to step out with draft work plans for how we as a council and hopefully many of you would be willing to help advance those initiatives,” Rooney said to event attendees. ASWG was formed in June 2024 under the auspices of the Council for Port (CPP) Performance, the Port Authority-led discussion group established in 2014 to address stakeholder concerns about cargo operations. The AWSG was formed because “appointment challenges and system outages have presented elevated traffic issues,” the CPP said in July 2024 meeting minutes. One of the main problems the working group identified was the difficulty some truckers face when making a double-move appointment for an empty container return and an import retrieval. The problem was especially bad in the wake of the pandemic due to the high number of empty containers left at the port. Rooney said that even though AWSG sought to include empty container returns in its draft recommendations, the final set will not include any references to the issue. Instead, those will be addressed in a separate set of recommendations. The commercial terms governing empty container handling by truckers became the main hangup for others in the AWSG. Marine terminal operators and ocean carriers also warned the group’s draft recommendations veered into legal and anti-trust issues by requiring marine terminals to offer empty return appointments or that ocean carriers compensate truckers for off-dock empty container returns. Sustainable Terminal Services, a consortium of NY-NJ terminal operators, said in a December letter the AWSG’s draft recommendations “raised significant legal and federal regulatory concerns” by imposing “commercial and financial terms and requirements on particular parties on a collective basis.” The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) was also prepared to withhold support for the AWSG recommendations unless references to empty container returns were removed or a disclaimer was included to say the recommendations were not the CPP’s consensus view. “OCEMA remains committed to working with other stakeholders to find ways to create efficiencies and improve operations in the port,” OCEMA’s letter said. “If this is to be done successfully through the CPP, there needs to be clarity as to the scope of inquiry.” <h3>Off-dock empty returns </h3>The AWSG was formed in response to the growing pains stemming from the rollout of appointment systems, and especially how they impacted truckers during the pandemic. Port Liberty New Jersey rolled out a half-day appointment system in 2016, while APM Terminals started its full-day system in 2020. By November 2024, APM added the ability to make double-move appointments and reported gate processing improvements, CPP minutes show. By March 2025, APM reported truckers were using up to 80% of the available appointments for returning empty containers. APM’s ability to offer double-move appointments, though, depends on how much space it has for empty containers, which itself depends on how quickly they are removed by ocean carriers. To help manage its empty container inventories, APM also began directing some truckers to “off-dock empty storage” in February 2025, meeting minutes show. Truckers say directing empties to the site just outside the port district adds to traffic and makes it difficult to even meet single-move appointments. But Rooney said the recommendations can’t direct marine terminals on offer double-move appointments for all empties or require paying for an off-dock move. “The CPP has no authority to force anyone to do anything,” Rooney said. “That becomes a contractual issue that we can’t delve into.” Instead, the separate, sector-specific recommendations say ocean carriers should proactively and constantly manage their empty container inventory and regularly evacuate to ensure balance in the port area. Lisa Yakomin, president of the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers, which represents the port’s drayage carriers, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that her group’s members look to bring the issue of empty container management before the Federal Maritime Commission and will look to have the issue addressed in standardized container handling contracts administered by the Intermodal Association of North America. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A stakeholder group looking at truck appointment systems at Port of New York and New Jersey marine terminals is expected to release its recommendations this month, which steer clear of how those systems address empty container returns. The management of empty returns has been critical for the port’s truckers, but something that other stakeholders said was outside of the group’s legal limits. Beth Rooney, port director for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said at a state of the port event last week that one of her priorities in 2026 is drafting a plan for “moving forward” on 11 final recommendations from the Appointment Systems Working Group (ASWG). “We’re going to step out with draft work plans for how we as a council and hopefully many of you would be willing to help advance those initiatives,” Rooney said to event attendees. ASWG was formed in June 2024 under the auspices of the Council for Port (CPP) Performance, the Port Authority-led discussion group established in 2014 to address stakeholder concerns about cargo operations. The AWSG was formed because “appointment challenges and system outages have presented elevated traffic issues,” the CPP said in July 2024 meeting minutes. One of the main problems the working group identified was the difficulty some truckers face when making a double-move appointment for an empty container return and an import retrieval. The problem was especially bad in the wake of the pandemic due to the high number of empty containers left at the port. Rooney said that even though AWSG sought to include empty container returns in its draft recommendations, the final set will not include any references to the issue. Instead, those will be addressed in a separate set of recommendations. The commercial terms governing empty container handling by truckers became the main hangup for others in the AWSG. Marine terminal operators and ocean carriers also warned the group’s draft recommendations veered into legal and anti-trust issues by requiring marine terminals to offer empty return appointments or that ocean carriers compensate truckers for off-dock empty container returns. Sustainable Terminal Services, a consortium of NY-NJ terminal operators, said in a December letter the AWSG’s draft recommendations “raised significant legal and federal regulatory concerns” by imposing “commercial and financial terms and requirements on particular parties on a collective basis.” The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) was also prepared to withhold support for the AWSG recommendations unless references to empty container returns were removed or a disclaimer was included to say the recommendations were not the CPP’s consensus view. “OCEMA remains committed to working with other stakeholders to find ways to create efficiencies and improve operations in the port,” OCEMA’s letter said. “If this is to be done successfully through the CPP, there needs to be clarity as to the scope of inquiry.” Off-dock empty returns The AWSG was formed in response to the growing pains stemming from the rollout of appointment systems, and especially how they impacted truckers during the pandemic. Port Liberty New Jersey rolled out a half-day appointment system in 2016, while APM Terminals started its full-day system in 2020. By November 2024, APM added the ability to make double-move appointments and reported gate processing improvements, CPP minutes show. By March 2025, APM reported truckers were using up to 80% of the available appointments for returning empty containers. APM’s ability to offer double-move appointments, though, depends on how much space it has for empty containers, which itself depends on how quickly they are removed by ocean carriers. To help manage its empty container inventories, APM also began directing some truckers to “off-dock empty storage” in February 2025, meeting minutes show. Truckers say directing empties to the site just outside the port district adds to traffic and makes it difficult to even meet single-move appointments. But Rooney said the recommendations can’t direct marine terminals on offer double-move appointments for all empties or require paying for an off-dock move. “The CPP has no authority to force anyone to do anything,” Rooney said. “That becomes a contractual issue that we can’t delve into.” Instead, the separate, sector-specific recommendations say ocean carriers should proactively and constantly manage their empty container inventory and regularly evacuate to ensure balance in the port area. Lisa Yakomin, president of the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers, which represents the port’s drayage carriers, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that her group’s members look to bring the issue of empty container management before the Federal Maritime Commission and will look to have the issue addressed in standardized container handling contracts administered by the Intermodal Association of North America. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Drayage

NY-NJ port readying to guide terminals on truck appointment systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supply chain

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

Shanghai to Santos

{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
Y-o-Y: {percet_year_Santos.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 Santos container spot rates (SSE)

Shanghai to Santos Container Spot Rates (SCFI-Weekly) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier reported a steep drop in profitability as declining rates combined with higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network.</div>

The carrier reported a steep drop in profitability as declining rates combined with higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network.

<div class="phx-topic">A solid increase in Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation-driven volume last year and cost savings across the new network were not enough to offset a sharply correcting market in 2025, the carrier said Monday. Hapag-Lloyd reported a steep drop in profitability for the year as declining rates combined with the higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network to weigh on its 2025 results. Hapag-Lloyd launched the Gemini network with partner Maersk in February 2025. “Robust growth in global trade and the new Gemini network led to an 8% increase in the transport volume to 13.5 million TEUs,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a statement on its preliminary 2025 results. The carrier provided no after-tax figures; its full annual report with a 2026 outlook will be unveiled March 26. Even as demand rose, it was mirrored by a drop in average rates that were down 8% year over year at $1,376 per TEU. That led to full-year revenue falling 1.9% to $21.1 billion and earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) declining 28% to $3.6 billion. While earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were down 60% at $1.1 billion, they was at the higher end of the profitability forecast Hapag-Lloyd gave the market following the announcement of its nine-month results last November. <h3>Gemini savings kicking in </h3>The results showed that much of the 2025 financial damage occurred in the fourth quarter, similar to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gemini-benefits-face-looming-challenge-from-oversupplied-market-maersk-ceo-6164887">the full-year earnings of Maersk</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">the fiscal third-quarter results of Ocean Network Express</a>. Hapag-Lloyd’s fourth-quarter volume was up 6% year over year, but revenue fell 7.4% to $5 billion, EBITDA dropped 42% to $800 million and EBIT for the quarter was down 75% at $200 million. “On the other hand, Gemini-related cost savings started kicking in during the second half of 2025 and will be fully realized in 2026,” the carrier said. Hapag-Lloyd’s savings to be generated by Gemini are expected to be between $350 million and $400 million, which is approximately 40% of a total $1 billion in savings the carrier expects to have in place by the end of this year as part of an aggressive cost-savings program across its overall network. Hapag-Lloyd did not provide financials for its Hanseatic Global Terminals division, but it is a key part of the Gemini network. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd control most of their terminal network, which gives the carriers greater berth access and handling productivity than common user facilities, especially in the congested hubs of Europe. That access saw Maersk reporting a record performance in its terminals division in 2025. Maritime consultant Drewry has upgraded its financial year 2025 profit forecast from $20 billion to $32 billion following “better than expected” third-quarter results from carriers and raised the outlook for 2026 from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A solid increase in Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation-driven volume last year and cost savings across the new network were not enough to offset a sharply correcting market in 2025, the carrier said Monday. Hapag-Lloyd reported a steep drop in profitability for the year as declining rates combined with the higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network to weigh on its 2025 results. Hapag-Lloyd launched the Gemini network with partner Maersk in February 2025. “Robust growth in global trade and the new Gemini network led to an 8% increase in the transport volume to 13.5 million TEUs,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a statement on its preliminary 2025 results. The carrier provided no after-tax figures; its full annual report with a 2026 outlook will be unveiled March 26. Even as demand rose, it was mirrored by a drop in average rates that were down 8% year over year at $1,376 per TEU. That led to full-year revenue falling 1.9% to $21.1 billion and earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) declining 28% to $3.6 billion. While earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were down 60% at $1.1 billion, they was at the higher end of the profitability forecast Hapag-Lloyd gave the market following the announcement of its nine-month results last November. Gemini savings kicking in The results showed that much of the 2025 financial damage occurred in the fourth quarter, similar to the full-year earnings of Maersk and the fiscal third-quarter results of Ocean Network Express . Hapag-Lloyd’s fourth-quarter volume was up 6% year over year, but revenue fell 7.4% to $5 billion, EBITDA dropped 42% to $800 million and EBIT for the quarter was down 75% at $200 million. “On the other hand, Gemini-related cost savings started kicking in during the second half of 2025 and will be fully realized in 2026,” the carrier said. Hapag-Lloyd’s savings to be generated by Gemini are expected to be between $350 million and $400 million, which is approximately 40% of a total $1 billion in savings the carrier expects to have in place by the end of this year as part of an aggressive cost-savings program across its overall network. Hapag-Lloyd did not provide financials for its Hanseatic Global Terminals division, but it is a key part of the Gemini network. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd control most of their terminal network, which gives the carriers greater berth access and handling productivity than common user facilities, especially in the congested hubs of Europe. That access saw Maersk reporting a record performance in its terminals division in 2025. Maritime consultant Drewry has upgraded its financial year 2025 profit forecast from $20 billion to $32 billion following “better than expected” third-quarter results from carriers and raised the outlook for 2026 from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Fourth-quarter rate slump drags down Hapag-Lloyd’s 2025 financials

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The likely sale this year of the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal portends possible changes to how it will be operated in the long run. </div>

The likely sale this year of the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal portends possible changes to how it will be operated in the long run.

<div class="phx-topic">The potential sale of Maher Terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey will require a buyer to navigate stricter lease terms, billions in new costs, and decisions on how to grow capacity and service its customers, all portending further changes in container handling at the port. A source told the Journal of Commerce that marine terminal operators including DP World, PSA International, SSA Marine, and Terminal Investment Limited have inquired about a potential acquisition of Maher from private equity firm Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. Maher, the largest container terminal at NY-NJ, could fetch $3 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. The sale of Maher, which could be announced later this year, comes after the Macquarie fund that owns Maher negotiated <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/macquarie-seals-deal-for-new-maher-lease-at-nynj-through-2063-6137751">a new 33-year lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that starts in 2030</a>. The potential buyers have also contacted the Port Authority, the source said, because the agency would have to sign off on any deal. The new lease means Maher’s buyer faces a variable monthly rent that is based solely on container volume, the source said, rather than the previous lease’s largely fixed-cost base rent. In addition, the new operator will have to share with the Port Authority a greater portion of its “excess revenue,” which generally comes from the demurrage it charges on containers. Outside of the direct rental costs, Maher’s buyer could face at least $3 billion in capital and maintenance costs under the new lease, the source said. <h3>Capacity upgrades</h3>A big chunk of that will be the cost of berth maintenance and repairs that the Port Authority has begun shifting over to tenants under the new leases. Maher, with four berths capable of handling super-post-Panamax ships, faces an estimated $2 billion in such repairs.The new lease also requires Maher to add “demand-induced” capacity as part of the port’s overall plan to double capacity by 2050, Port Director Beth Rooney said after the lease’s December signing. Maher, which can currently handle just over 3 million TEUs, could double its capacity through densification, she said. Densification, though, will require the buyer to rethink signature features of the terminal that have made it preferred among ocean carriers, shippers and motor carriers. The densification process could cost another $1 billion. Maher currently uses a fleet of over 200 straddle carriers to sort containers and bring them to trucks waiting at a parking spot, what the facility bills as a “concierge service,” according to shippers. Maher has won multiple awards from local motor carriers and ocean carriers for its service levels. Densifying the facility would mean gradually rolling out a smaller fleet of gantry cranes, either on rubber tires or rail mounted, for handling higher and wider container stacks. The process would require that yard space within Maher be closed on a rotating basis while the underlying concrete is reinforced and container stacks are remade for the larger machines. It’s not clear how the switch to gantry crane operations will affect service times for trucks, although it would likely mean fewer loading spaces. An equipment change at the terminal will also trigger a clause in the contract with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) over implementing new technology, requiring negotiations with the union. Along with larger yard equipment, a new buyer for Maher will face decisions on how it optimizes space. Maher has a massive truck gate with some 30 inbound lanes and 20 outbound lanes. The large gate complex allows Maher to handle trucks without requiring appointments, a free-flow operation that allows truckers to quickly enter the facility. But the gate complex also occupies about a quarter of its land, making it a potential target for reclamation to container yard space. A smaller gate, though, might require Maher to rethink the free-flow model. Maher will also have to share more of its daily operational data under the new lease terms, which require the terminal to provide data about key metrics and other measures. The data sharing will “enable the Port Authority and its terminal operators to better collaborate on port efficiency initiatives,” the agency said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce.Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The potential sale of Maher Terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey will require a buyer to navigate stricter lease terms, billions in new costs, and decisions on how to grow capacity and service its customers, all portending further changes in container handling at the port. A source told the Journal of Commerce that marine terminal operators including DP World, PSA International, SSA Marine, and Terminal Investment Limited have inquired about a potential acquisition of Maher from private equity firm Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. Maher, the largest container terminal at NY-NJ, could fetch $3 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. The sale of Maher, which could be announced later this year, comes after the Macquarie fund that owns Maher negotiated a new 33-year lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that starts in 2030 . The potential buyers have also contacted the Port Authority, the source said, because the agency would have to sign off on any deal. The new lease means Maher’s buyer faces a variable monthly rent that is based solely on container volume, the source said, rather than the previous lease’s largely fixed-cost base rent. In addition, the new operator will have to share with the Port Authority a greater portion of its “excess revenue,” which generally comes from the demurrage it charges on containers. Outside of the direct rental costs, Maher’s buyer could face at least $3 billion in capital and maintenance costs under the new lease, the source said. Capacity upgrades A big chunk of that will be the cost of berth maintenance and repairs that the Port Authority has begun shifting over to tenants under the new leases. Maher, with four berths capable of handling super-post-Panamax ships, faces an estimated $2 billion in such repairs. The new lease also requires Maher to add “demand-induced” capacity as part of the port’s overall plan to double capacity by 2050, Port Director Beth Rooney said after the lease’s December signing. Maher, which can currently handle just over 3 million TEUs, could double its capacity through densification, she said. Densification, though, will require the buyer to rethink signature features of the terminal that have made it preferred among ocean carriers, shippers and motor carriers. The densification process could cost another $1 billion. Maher currently uses a fleet of over 200 straddle carriers to sort containers and bring them to trucks waiting at a parking spot, what the facility bills as a “concierge service,” according to shippers. Maher has won multiple awards from local motor carriers and ocean carriers for its service levels. Densifying the facility would mean gradually rolling out a smaller fleet of gantry cranes, either on rubber tires or rail mounted, for handling higher and wider container stacks. The process would require that yard space within Maher be closed on a rotating basis while the underlying concrete is reinforced and container stacks are remade for the larger machines. It’s not clear how the switch to gantry crane operations will affect service times for trucks, although it would likely mean fewer loading spaces. An equipment change at the terminal will also trigger a clause in the contract with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) over implementing new technology, requiring negotiations with the union. Along with larger yard equipment, a new buyer for Maher will face decisions on how it optimizes space. Maher has a massive truck gate with some 30 inbound lanes and 20 outbound lanes. The large gate complex allows Maher to handle trucks without requiring appointments, a free-flow operation that allows truckers to quickly enter the facility. But the gate complex also occupies about a quarter of its land, making it a potential target for reclamation to container yard space. A smaller gate, though, might require Maher to rethink the free-flow model. Maher will also have to share more of its daily operational data under the new lease terms, which require the terminal to provide data about key metrics and other measures. The data sharing will “enable the Port Authority and its terminal operators to better collaborate on port efficiency initiatives,” the agency said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce.Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Longshore labor

Maher’s next buyer faces billions in upgrades, decisions on capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While linehaul performance has largely returned to normal for US Class I railroads, delays and bottlenecks triggered by the severe winter storm two weeks ago have now moved downstream to terminals in Chicago, Cincinnati and Memphis.</div>

While linehaul performance has largely returned to normal for US Class I railroads, delays and bottlenecks triggered by the severe winter storm two weeks ago have now moved downstream to terminals in Chicago, Cincinnati and Memphis.

<div class="phx-topic">Rail terminals at key inland hubs have become congested with containers two weeks after a severe winter storm slammed a large portion of the US, slowing both the handoff of import boxes to trucks and the start of export moves. While port-to-rail service and linehaul performance have largely returned to normal for US Class I railroads, the delays and bottlenecks triggered by the storm have now moved downstream to terminals in Chicago, Cincinnati and Memphis. “We’ve had drivers spending up to five hours just in line, consistently missing deliveries and having containers going into [demurrage],” said one Chicago-based trucker who asked not to be identified. “The customers refuse to pay and are getting frustrated. Drivers are getting frustrated.” Truckers say the terminal delays are eroding productivity and adding costs, particularly as railroads assess fees during extended container dwell times. For drayage providers, profitability depends on delivering cargo, making hours-long delays inside terminals costly. Frustration has been directed at BNSF Railway, Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP). Slowdowns are common during frigid temperatures because heavy equipment such as overhead cranes and hostler vehicles can malfunction. Outdoor terminal crews also must battle the harsh conditions. In Memphis, drivers have raised concerns after UP began stacking ocean containers inside the terminal on Feb. 4 because of a chassis shortage, according to a UP advisory circulated to drivers and shared with the Journal of Commerce. A UP spokesperson declined to confirm the advisory’s authenticity, although two independent sources provided copies to the Journal of Commerce. “Union Pacific does not own chassis and works closely with customers and their carriers to ensure availability,” the UP spokesperson said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “Following the unprecedented storm, Union Pacific recovered exceptionally well and maintained a fluid rail network.” Truckers object to UP’s decision, prompted by the post-storm conditions, to charge a fee to lift containers out of stacks. The so-called “flip fee” traditionally applies when transferring a container from a perfectly usable pool chassis to a trucker’s privately owned chassis. Other North American Class I railroads do not assess a fee in similar circumstances, and major US ports similarly do not charge simply to lift a container from a stack onto a truck. Cargo owners are not covering the cost, so UP’s decision is a financial hit for truckers, provoking angry e-mails from truckers that were shared with the Journal of Commerce. Data from technology provider E-Dray shows that the average time to unload an ocean container and make it available at UP’s Memphis terminal has increased from less than one (0.7) day before the storm to 2.9 days as of this week. <h3>Frustrations with BNSF, Norfolk Southern </h3>Drivers report similar frustrations at BNSF’s Memphis and Logistics Park Chicago terminals, where E-Dray data shows container availability times have doubled from approximately one day to two days in both locations. The delays are not driven by chassis shortages, but by extended waits for crane availability. “Turn times at both facilities are about 30%, or 20 minutes longer,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, told the Journal of Commerce. “We expect that turn times [will] return back to normal at both facilities next week, likely Memphis a little sooner.” In Chicago, drivers have also voiced concerns about Norfolk Southern terminals, although E-Dray data shows no material deterioration in terminal efficiency metrics there. Norfolk Southern, however, acknowledged congestion in Cincinnati. “We are taking proactive steps to improve the driver experience, reduce dwell, and maintain service reliability,” NS wrote in a Feb. 3 advisory posted online. “Our focus is on restoring smooth terminal flow and improving the driver experience as quickly as possible.” Congestion also remains elevated in Louisville, where a disruption that began more than a month ago persists. <h3>Linehaul performance rebounds </h3>Moving containers into major inland hubs is no longer an issue for the railroads. BNSF’s transit times between Floyd, Mississippi, and Plaines, Illinois, nearly doubled to 19 hours in the immediate aftermath of the storm, but had fallen back to about 10 hours as of Feb. 5, according to rail visibility provider RailState. UP’s transit times between Edwardsville, Kansas, and Mazonia, Illinois, spiked to nearly 80 hours after the storm before declining to approximately 35 hours this week, RailState data showed. NS’ transit times between Mishawaka, Indiana, and East Palestine, Ohio, jumped about 50% during the storm but have since returned to historical norms. (The RailState data used in this report was the 75th percentile of transit times, as calculated by RailState, to better capture “outlier” instances created by the storm.) Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Rail terminals at key inland hubs have become congested with containers two weeks after a severe winter storm slammed a large portion of the US, slowing both the handoff of import boxes to trucks and the start of export moves. While port-to-rail service and linehaul performance have largely returned to normal for US Class I railroads, the delays and bottlenecks triggered by the storm have now moved downstream to terminals in Chicago, Cincinnati and Memphis. “We’ve had drivers spending up to five hours just in line, consistently missing deliveries and having containers going into [demurrage],” said one Chicago-based trucker who asked not to be identified. “The customers refuse to pay and are getting frustrated. Drivers are getting frustrated.” Truckers say the terminal delays are eroding productivity and adding costs, particularly as railroads assess fees during extended container dwell times. For drayage providers, profitability depends on delivering cargo, making hours-long delays inside terminals costly. Frustration has been directed at BNSF Railway, Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP). Slowdowns are common during frigid temperatures because heavy equipment such as overhead cranes and hostler vehicles can malfunction. Outdoor terminal crews also must battle the harsh conditions. In Memphis, drivers have raised concerns after UP began stacking ocean containers inside the terminal on Feb. 4 because of a chassis shortage, according to a UP advisory circulated to drivers and shared with the Journal of Commerce. A UP spokesperson declined to confirm the advisory’s authenticity, although two independent sources provided copies to the Journal of Commerce. “Union Pacific does not own chassis and works closely with customers and their carriers to ensure availability,” the UP spokesperson said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. “Following the unprecedented storm, Union Pacific recovered exceptionally well and maintained a fluid rail network.” Truckers object to UP’s decision, prompted by the post-storm conditions, to charge a fee to lift containers out of stacks. The so-called “flip fee” traditionally applies when transferring a container from a perfectly usable pool chassis to a trucker’s privately owned chassis. Other North American Class I railroads do not assess a fee in similar circumstances, and major US ports similarly do not charge simply to lift a container from a stack onto a truck. Cargo owners are not covering the cost, so UP’s decision is a financial hit for truckers, provoking angry e-mails from truckers that were shared with the Journal of Commerce. Data from technology provider E-Dray shows that the average time to unload an ocean container and make it available at UP’s Memphis terminal has increased from less than one (0.7) day before the storm to 2.9 days as of this week. Frustrations with BNSF, Norfolk Southern Drivers report similar frustrations at BNSF’s Memphis and Logistics Park Chicago terminals, where E-Dray data shows container availability times have doubled from approximately one day to two days in both locations. The delays are not driven by chassis shortages, but by extended waits for crane availability. “Turn times at both facilities are about 30%, or 20 minutes longer,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, told the Journal of Commerce. “We expect that turn times [will] return back to normal at both facilities next week, likely Memphis a little sooner.” In Chicago, drivers have also voiced concerns about Norfolk Southern terminals, although E-Dray data shows no material deterioration in terminal efficiency metrics there. Norfolk Southern, however, acknowledged congestion in Cincinnati. “We are taking proactive steps to improve the driver experience, reduce dwell, and maintain service reliability,” NS wrote in a Feb. 3 advisory posted online. “Our focus is on restoring smooth terminal flow and improving the driver experience as quickly as possible.” Congestion also remains elevated in Louisville, where a disruption that began more than a month ago persists. Linehaul performance rebounds Moving containers into major inland hubs is no longer an issue for the railroads. BNSF’s transit times between Floyd, Mississippi, and Plaines, Illinois, nearly doubled to 19 hours in the immediate aftermath of the storm, but had fallen back to about 10 hours as of Feb. 5, according to rail visibility provider RailState. UP’s transit times between Edwardsville, Kansas, and Mazonia, Illinois, spiked to nearly 80 hours after the storm before declining to approximately 35 hours this week, RailState data showed. NS’ transit times between Mishawaka, Indiana, and East Palestine, Ohio, jumped about 50% during the storm but have since returned to historical norms. (The RailState data used in this report was the 75th percentile of transit times, as calculated by RailState, to better capture “outlier” instances created by the storm.) Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Key inland rail terminals battle post-storm congestion, driver complaints

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 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 premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Sources say sustained weak market fundamentals have caused this year to be atypical in terms of demand in the immediate run-up to Lunar New Year, which begins Feb. 17.</div>

Sources say sustained weak market fundamentals have caused this year to be atypical in terms of demand in the immediate run-up to Lunar New Year, which begins Feb. 17.

<div class="phx-topic">Softer spot rates, weak volume forecasts and poor consumer sentiment spell one thing in the tariff-weary trans-Pacific container market: The traditional pre-Lunar New Year rush of cargo is not happening in 2026. Sources say sustained weak market fundamentals have caused this year to be atypical in terms of demand in the immediate run-up to Lunar New Year, which begins Feb. 17. Factories in China will close for at least a week for the holiday, which normally causes a freight surge of some magnitude before the doors shut. But not this year. “I would say demand is muted. There’s still uncertainty among retailers about tariffs,” an ocean carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce. “There has already been frontloading of spring merchandise.” To the extent there was any so-called rush at all, even in January, it is “clearly behind us,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst for the rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “[This year] is another year where supply growth exceeds demand growth,” Sand said. Downward movement in spot rates before the Lunar New Year factory closures is largely the result of the weak demand from retailers and other importers. North Asia to US West Coast spot rates that started January at $2,075 per FEU were at $1,900 as of Tuesday, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Drewry had Shanghai-to-Los Angeles rates at $3,132 per FEU on Jan. 8, but those had fallen to $2,442 by month’s end. Shanghai-West Coast rates of $1,867 per FEU from the Shanghai Shipping Exchange as of Jan. 30 were down from $2,188 at the start of the month. According to all the indexes, current spot rates are about 50% lower than they were a year ago. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7f641553-97ec-4014-8e54-fef6408538d9"></dynamic-object></div>A forwarder who spoke with the Journal of Commerce noted that the lower listed spot rates this week are only part of the story. Carriers are continuing to offer discount rates, known as bullet or voyage-specific rates, that are as much as several hundred dollars lower than the posted spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates. For example, some lines are offering bullet rates of $1,750 per FEU to the West Coast and $2,500 per FEU to the East Coast, and they are readily available to shippers. “It’s the bullet rates that are moving cargo,” the source said. That pricing structure would seem to indicate that retailers and other importers will have leverage entering annual service contract negotiations that are already underway and will pick up in intensity in early March following the Journal of Commerce’s TPM26 conference in Long Beach. <h3>Blank sailings accelerating </h3>Meanwhile, blank sailings, another demand barometer, are accelerating in February. Data from eeSea shows that carriers intend thus far to blank 206,835 TEUs of capacity this month on the Asia-to-West Coast trade, up from 107,318 TEUs in January. From Asia to the East and Gulf coasts, the blanks so far in February are at 96,881 TEUs, according to eeSea, up from 77,339 TEUs in January. “Carriers are blanking extensively in the weeks commencing Feb. 23 and March 2 in classic response to the lower exports out of China as a result of the CNY festive days,” Xeneta’s Sand said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e5c8a2a0-9aa5-4787-bbed-bf4b7a9f9677"></dynamic-object></div>US retailers have already forecast weaker cargo volumes over the next three months. Global Port Tracker, published monthly by the National Retail Federation (NRF), forecasts that US imports in February will be down 4.6% from the same month a year earlier, with March imports down 12.6% and April down 8.1% from the year-earlier months. US import volumes are also impacted by the confidence of consumers to spend. According to the Conference Board, a think tank, the consumer confidence index fell to 84.5 in January, well below market expectations and the lowest reading since May 2014. “Confidence collapsed in January as consumer concerns about both the present situation and expectations for the future deepened,” said Dana Peterson, chief economist at the Conference Board. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Softer spot rates, weak volume forecasts and poor consumer sentiment spell one thing in the tariff-weary trans-Pacific container market: The traditional pre-Lunar New Year rush of cargo is not happening in 2026. Sources say sustained weak market fundamentals have caused this year to be atypical in terms of demand in the immediate run-up to Lunar New Year, which begins Feb. 17. Factories in China will close for at least a week for the holiday, which normally causes a freight surge of some magnitude before the doors shut. But not this year. “I would say demand is muted. There’s still uncertainty among retailers about tariffs,” an ocean carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce. “There has already been frontloading of spring merchandise.” To the extent there was any so-called rush at all, even in January, it is “clearly behind us,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst for the rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “[This year] is another year where supply growth exceeds demand growth,” Sand said. Downward movement in spot rates before the Lunar New Year factory closures is largely the result of the weak demand from retailers and other importers. North Asia to US West Coast spot rates that started January at $2,075 per FEU were at $1,900 as of Tuesday, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Drewry had Shanghai-to-Los Angeles rates at $3,132 per FEU on Jan. 8, but those had fallen to $2,442 by month’s end. Shanghai-West Coast rates of $1,867 per FEU from the Shanghai Shipping Exchange as of Jan. 30 were down from $2,188 at the start of the month. According to all the indexes, current spot rates are about 50% lower than they were a year ago. A forwarder who spoke with the Journal of Commerce noted that the lower listed spot rates this week are only part of the story. Carriers are continuing to offer discount rates, known as bullet or voyage-specific rates, that are as much as several hundred dollars lower than the posted spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates. For example, some lines are offering bullet rates of $1,750 per FEU to the West Coast and $2,500 per FEU to the East Coast, and they are readily available to shippers. “It’s the bullet rates that are moving cargo,” the source said. That pricing structure would seem to indicate that retailers and other importers will have leverage entering annual service contract negotiations that are already underway and will pick up in intensity in early March following the Journal of Commerce’s TPM26 conference in Long Beach. Blank sailings accelerating Meanwhile, blank sailings, another demand barometer, are accelerating in February. Data from eeSea shows that carriers intend thus far to blank 206,835 TEUs of capacity this month on the Asia-to-West Coast trade, up from 107,318 TEUs in January. From Asia to the East and Gulf coasts, the blanks so far in February are at 96,881 TEUs, according to eeSea, up from 77,339 TEUs in January. “Carriers are blanking extensively in the weeks commencing Feb. 23 and March 2 in classic response to the lower exports out of China as a result of the CNY festive days,” Xeneta’s Sand said. US retailers have already forecast weaker cargo volumes over the next three months. Global Port Tracker, published monthly by the National Retail Federation (NRF), forecasts that US imports in February will be down 4.6% from the same month a year earlier, with March imports down 12.6% and April down 8.1% from the year-earlier months. US import volumes are also impacted by the confidence of consumers to spend. According to the Conference Board, a think tank, the consumer confidence index fell to 84.5 in January, well below market expectations and the lowest reading since May 2014. “Confidence collapsed in January as consumer concerns about both the present situation and expectations for the future deepened,” said Dana Peterson, chief economist at the Conference Board. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Tariffs claim another victim on the trans-Pacific: the pre-LNY cargo surge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Marine terminals are using the new longshore contract to tackle one of the port’s recurring problems, with the union’s support, as they look to boost efficiency at the biggest port along the US East Coast. </div>

Marine terminals are using the new longshore contract to tackle one of the port’s recurring problems, with the union’s support, as they look to boost efficiency at the biggest port along the US East Coast.

<div class="phx-topic">Marine terminals at the Port of New York and New Jersey have made the first — albeit very small — cuts of chronically absent employees under terms outlined in the new local longshore contract, one of the main concessions employers won under the deal to boost productivity at the port. John Nardi, president of the Shipping Association of New York and New Jersey, which represents maritime employers at the port, said this week five local longshore workers were fired in January under the new unexcused absentee policy his group negotiated in the local contract with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA). The cuts are miniscule in relation to the port’s 4,400 ILA workers. But Nardi said the new policy’s message has had an impact by cutting absenteeism at the port in half since the new contract, something that employers have “fought for years to improve.” “We worked very closely with the ILA to fix some longstanding challenges,” Nardi said. “We had the full support of the ILA at the highest level. We’re not fooling around on this.” The ILA did not respond to a request for comment from the Journal of Commerce. The local contract was officially ratified last year as part of the master contract between the ILA and the United States Maritime Alliance, with the union securing a 62% increase in its top wage tier through 2030. The first year of that wage increase, along with a higher entry-level wage and manning changes, have resulted in a nearly 20% increase in labor costs for marine terminals since March 2025, according to a source familiar with the deal’s economics. <h3>Monday popular for absenteeism </h3>The master contract required all East and Gulf coast ports to draw up absentee policies. But absenteeism is a particular problem for the NY-NJ port relative to other East Coast ports, where longshore workers use hiring halls or telephonic dispatch to take any daily jobs listed as available at any of a port’s various facilities. NY-NJ maritime employers rely on specific longshore workers due to the different layout and equipment at each of its six container terminals. Marine terminals put out orders the day prior for how many longshore workers they need. ILA members at those terminals can then accept the day’s work, or it gets offered to someone else. Absenteeism can be particularly acute on Mondays. An ILA member may have worked at a time-and-half wage rate on the weekend but not show up for a shift at a regular time wage rate on Monday, despite having committed to that day’s work. “You can take a couple of days off for unanticipated reasons, but if you leave yourself in the system and accept a job, you need to take that job,” Nardi said. “You can’t just not show up without repercussions.” Under the new policy, longshore workers are allowed three days of unexcused absences each month. But unexcused absences following a weekend or a holiday count as one-and-half of those days, as do consecutive days of unexcused absences. The disciplinary escalation to firing is shortened under the new contract from seven unexcused absences to four. While longshore workers had a pass until the second unexcused absence for a warning letter, the first unexcused absence now results in a warning letter. Under the old contract, longshore workers were relegated to lower-paying, dispatched jobs at the cruise and roll-on/roll-off terminals for several periods of time before a possible termination. But the new contract only offers one relegation period, followed by a two-week suspension and then firing. The new contract also has a stricter policy around longshore employees who unexpectedly leave work during their shift. <h3>Container move clause </h3>The new, local NY-NJ contract also has requirements that each longshore gang improve productivity by one container move each year, otherwise they lose seniority to another more productive gang. The number of longshore workers hired as standby relief went up under the new contract from three workers for every two jobs to two workers for every one job. However, Nardi said the additional relief has to be cost-neutral for employers and is contingent on productivity goals. Close to a year under the new contract, Nardi said the new absenteeism policy, along with the productivity measures, have resulted in a 7% increase in productivity at the port’s biggest terminals. He added that improved labor productivity aligns with the ILA’s goal of halting port automation. During contract negotiations, ILA President Harold Daggett also <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-usmx-remain-at-odds-over-dockworker-wage-increases-daggett-5215515">appealed to the union’s rank-and-file</a> to improve their productivity due to the potential for job loss from automation. “If [the ILA is] focused on stemming the tide of automation, then people need to show up,” Nardi said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Marine terminals at the Port of New York and New Jersey have made the first — albeit very small — cuts of chronically absent employees under terms outlined in the new local longshore contract, one of the main concessions employers won under the deal to boost productivity at the port. John Nardi, president of the Shipping Association of New York and New Jersey, which represents maritime employers at the port, said this week five local longshore workers were fired in January under the new unexcused absentee policy his group negotiated in the local contract with the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA). The cuts are miniscule in relation to the port’s 4,400 ILA workers. But Nardi said the new policy’s message has had an impact by cutting absenteeism at the port in half since the new contract, something that employers have “fought for years to improve.” “We worked very closely with the ILA to fix some longstanding challenges,” Nardi said. “We had the full support of the ILA at the highest level. We’re not fooling around on this.” The ILA did not respond to a request for comment from the Journal of Commerce. The local contract was officially ratified last year as part of the master contract between the ILA and the United States Maritime Alliance, with the union securing a 62% increase in its top wage tier through 2030. The first year of that wage increase, along with a higher entry-level wage and manning changes, have resulted in a nearly 20% increase in labor costs for marine terminals since March 2025, according to a source familiar with the deal’s economics. Monday popular for absenteeism The master contract required all East and Gulf coast ports to draw up absentee policies. But absenteeism is a particular problem for the NY-NJ port relative to other East Coast ports, where longshore workers use hiring halls or telephonic dispatch to take any daily jobs listed as available at any of a port’s various facilities. NY-NJ maritime employers rely on specific longshore workers due to the different layout and equipment at each of its six container terminals. Marine terminals put out orders the day prior for how many longshore workers they need. ILA members at those terminals can then accept the day’s work, or it gets offered to someone else. Absenteeism can be particularly acute on Mondays. An ILA member may have worked at a time-and-half wage rate on the weekend but not show up for a shift at a regular time wage rate on Monday, despite having committed to that day’s work. “You can take a couple of days off for unanticipated reasons, but if you leave yourself in the system and accept a job, you need to take that job,” Nardi said. “You can’t just not show up without repercussions.” Under the new policy, longshore workers are allowed three days of unexcused absences each month. But unexcused absences following a weekend or a holiday count as one-and-half of those days, as do consecutive days of unexcused absences. The disciplinary escalation to firing is shortened under the new contract from seven unexcused absences to four. While longshore workers had a pass until the second unexcused absence for a warning letter, the first unexcused absence now results in a warning letter. Under the old contract, longshore workers were relegated to lower-paying, dispatched jobs at the cruise and roll-on/roll-off terminals for several periods of time before a possible termination. But the new contract only offers one relegation period, followed by a two-week suspension and then firing. The new contract also has a stricter policy around longshore employees who unexpectedly leave work during their shift. Container move clause The new, local NY-NJ contract also has requirements that each longshore gang improve productivity by one container move each year, otherwise they lose seniority to another more productive gang. The number of longshore workers hired as standby relief went up under the new contract from three workers for every two jobs to two workers for every one job. However, Nardi said the additional relief has to be cost-neutral for employers and is contingent on productivity goals. Close to a year under the new contract, Nardi said the new absenteeism policy, along with the productivity measures, have resulted in a 7% increase in productivity at the port’s biggest terminals. He added that improved labor productivity aligns with the ILA’s goal of halting port automation. During contract negotiations, ILA President Harold Daggett also appealed to the union’s rank-and-file to improve their productivity due to the potential for job loss from automation. “If [the ILA is] focused on stemming the tide of automation, then people need to show up,” Nardi said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

NY-NJ port’s stricter absentee policy results in first longshore cuts 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier’s solid interim earnings through 2025 ensured a positive full-year result, but red ink made its first appearance in two years on the company’s quarterly balance sheet. </div>

The carrier’s solid interim earnings through 2025 ensured a positive full-year result, but red ink made its first appearance in two years on the company’s quarterly balance sheet.

<div class="phx-topic">The positive impact of the Gemini Cooperation network with partner Hapag-Lloyd that has carried through into 2026 will run into growing overcapacity exacerbated by a return to Suez Canal transits, Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. While Gemini’s rollout one year ago drove up Maersk’s annual volume, delivered significant cost savings across the network, and generated a record 2025 performance in its terminals division, Clerc warned the industry was heading into a downturn driven by excess capacity. “Whether it is through new ships that are coming in or through the return to Suez, we’re going to have an overcapacity of anywhere from 4% to 8% in 2026,” the CEO said during an earnings call that followed the release of Maersk’s fourth-quarter and 2025 financial results. “If we return fast and full to Suez, we will see more pressure on the freight rate because there is a bigger gap that we need to close at once,” Clerc added. “If we have an orderly, slow, gradual return, we might be able to manage it better.” While Maersk’s solid interim earnings through 2025 ensured a positive full-year result, red ink made its first appearance in two years on the carrier’s quarterly balance sheet. The company also announced it will cut 1,000 jobs this year. Maersk for the fourth quarter reported a $153 million loss in its container shipping segment as average rates fell 23% year over year to $2,046 per FEU, offsetting an 8% gain in volume to 3.4 million FEUs. Revenue in the fourth quarter of $13.3 billion was down 8.7% year over year, and earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) fell 49% to $1.8 billion. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were down 94% at $100 million, while the carrier recorded zero net profit in the fourth quarter. For the full year, revenue dropped 2.7% year over year to $54 billion, EBITDA was down 21% at $9.5 billion, EBIT of $3.5 billion fell 46%, and net profit of $2.9 billion was down 53% compared with 2024. <h3>Potential loss flagged for 2026 </h3>The severe impact of overcapacity on the market was illustrated in Maersk’s 2026 profitability forecast. Faced with a return to the Suez and new ship deliveries adding to industry overcapacity, the carrier has flagged a potential $1.5 billion loss in its full-year EBIT earnings for 2026. It would be the first operating loss Maersk has booked in 10 years. The top end of the profit guidance was set at $1 billion, $2.5 billion less than last year’s result. With profitability falling and huge pressure on cost savings, the significant cost benefits achieved by Gemini in 2025 will be welcome. “We have generated over $300 million in benefits in the fourth quarter, and we are now targeting $820 [million] to $1.1 billion in annual benefits,” Clerc told analysts. He said network savings are generated by more efficient use of vessels by sailing at slower speeds over shorter distances between hub ports, transporting more volume with the same capacity, and having shorter dwell times at berth. The lower bunker consumption from these measures translated to a cost saving of $150 million in the fourth quarter alone. Gemini’s increased volume also had a highly positive impact on Maersk’s APM Terminals division, with fourth-quarter revenue of $1.4 billion that was up 13% year over year and volume increasing 8.4%, mainly on the Europe, North America and Latin America trade lanes. <h3>Strong global container demand </h3>The industry might be facing a growing overcapacity problem, but demand in 2026 is expected to grow between 2% and 4%; Maersk expects to grow its volume in line with the market. “As we look ahead to 2026, we see a continuation of strong global container demand translating into a volume growth that we expect to land between 2% and 4% based on various scenarios,” Clerc said. Maersk’s executives are also confident they have the tools in place to handle the imbalance in supply and demand. “We have a strong balance sheet to weather the downturn in ocean, [but] the unknown is how deep and how long will it last,” Maersk CFO Patrick Jany said on the call, highlighting the significant number of old vessels that were not economically viable at current rate levels. Jany said at some point, the unviable capacity would be scrapped, returned to charterers or idled. “I would expect this to happen this year, particularly in scenarios where the Red Sea reopens fully and fast, that will trigger every reaction,” he said. “Our view is not that we’ll have three years of pain, but more that you will have one or two years of pain, and then the capacity will be taken out.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The positive impact of the Gemini Cooperation network with partner Hapag-Lloyd that has carried through into 2026 will run into growing overcapacity exacerbated by a return to Suez Canal transits, Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. While Gemini’s rollout one year ago drove up Maersk’s annual volume, delivered significant cost savings across the network, and generated a record 2025 performance in its terminals division, Clerc warned the industry was heading into a downturn driven by excess capacity. “Whether it is through new ships that are coming in or through the return to Suez, we’re going to have an overcapacity of anywhere from 4% to 8% in 2026,” the CEO said during an earnings call that followed the release of Maersk’s fourth-quarter and 2025 financial results. “If we return fast and full to Suez, we will see more pressure on the freight rate because there is a bigger gap that we need to close at once,” Clerc added. “If we have an orderly, slow, gradual return, we might be able to manage it better.” While Maersk’s solid interim earnings through 2025 ensured a positive full-year result, red ink made its first appearance in two years on the carrier’s quarterly balance sheet. The company also announced it will cut 1,000 jobs this year. Maersk for the fourth quarter reported a $153 million loss in its container shipping segment as average rates fell 23% year over year to $2,046 per FEU, offsetting an 8% gain in volume to 3.4 million FEUs. Revenue in the fourth quarter of $13.3 billion was down 8.7% year over year, and earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) fell 49% to $1.8 billion. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were down 94% at $100 million, while the carrier recorded zero net profit in the fourth quarter. For the full year, revenue dropped 2.7% year over year to $54 billion, EBITDA was down 21% at $9.5 billion, EBIT of $3.5 billion fell 46%, and net profit of $2.9 billion was down 53% compared with 2024. Potential loss flagged for 2026 The severe impact of overcapacity on the market was illustrated in Maersk’s 2026 profitability forecast. Faced with a return to the Suez and new ship deliveries adding to industry overcapacity, the carrier has flagged a potential $1.5 billion loss in its full-year EBIT earnings for 2026. It would be the first operating loss Maersk has booked in 10 years. The top end of the profit guidance was set at $1 billion, $2.5 billion less than last year’s result. With profitability falling and huge pressure on cost savings, the significant cost benefits achieved by Gemini in 2025 will be welcome. “We have generated over $300 million in benefits in the fourth quarter, and we are now targeting $820 [million] to $1.1 billion in annual benefits,” Clerc told analysts. He said network savings are generated by more efficient use of vessels by sailing at slower speeds over shorter distances between hub ports, transporting more volume with the same capacity, and having shorter dwell times at berth. The lower bunker consumption from these measures translated to a cost saving of $150 million in the fourth quarter alone. Gemini’s increased volume also had a highly positive impact on Maersk’s APM Terminals division, with fourth-quarter revenue of $1.4 billion that was up 13% year over year and volume increasing 8.4%, mainly on the Europe, North America and Latin America trade lanes. Strong global container demand The industry might be facing a growing overcapacity problem, but demand in 2026 is expected to grow between 2% and 4%; Maersk expects to grow its volume in line with the market. “As we look ahead to 2026, we see a continuation of strong global container demand translating into a volume growth that we expect to land between 2% and 4% based on various scenarios,” Clerc said. Maersk’s executives are also confident they have the tools in place to handle the imbalance in supply and demand. “We have a strong balance sheet to weather the downturn in ocean, [but] the unknown is how deep and how long will it last,” Maersk CFO Patrick Jany said on the call, highlighting the significant number of old vessels that were not economically viable at current rate levels. Jany said at some point, the unviable capacity would be scrapped, returned to charterers or idled. “I would expect this to happen this year, particularly in scenarios where the Red Sea reopens fully and fast, that will trigger every reaction,” he said. “Our view is not that we’ll have three years of pain, but more that you will have one or two years of pain, and then the capacity will be taken out.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Gemini benefits face looming challenge from oversupplied market: Maersk CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision by the Panama Supreme Court has provoked angry responses from both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments, with Beijing warning that Panama would “pay a heavy price both politically and economically.”</div>

The decision by the Panama Supreme Court has provoked angry responses from both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments, with Beijing warning that Panama would “pay a heavy price both politically and economically.”

<div class="phx-topic">Panama Ports Company (PPC) is seeking “extensive damages” after launching arbitration proceedings against the government of Panama following the decision of the country’s Supreme Court last week to void the company’s concessions to operate the Cristobal and Balboa ports. PPC had held the concessions for 28 years. The port company, 90% controlled by Hutchison Port Holdings, a subsidiary of Hong Kong-listed conglomerate CK Hutchison, said Wednesday the Panamanian government has already started to take control of the terminals that bookend the Panama Canal even though the court decision has yet to be published and finalized. “The steps taken by the state have included unexpected site visits and instructions that PPC provide unrestricted access to physical, commercial, and intellectual property and information, as well as to employees, on the basis that the state is systematizing and executing a port transition plan through coordinated actions of state authorities,” PPC said in a statement. APM Terminals (AMPT), which was appointed by the Panama Maritime Authority <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/apmt-to-run-hutchisons-panama-terminals-on-interim-basis-after-court-ruling-6161534">as interim administrator of the two terminals a day after the court’s decision</a>, would not comment on whether it had taken part in the site visits or other actions following the court ruling. “At this moment, we have no further comments to share other than what we have released on our website,” an APMT spokesperson said. “For any next steps we refer to the relevant authorities in Panama.” CK Hutchison on Wednesday said it “continues to consult with its legal counsel and reserves all rights, including recourse to additional national and international legal proceedings.” <h3>Beijing says Panama will ‘pay a heavy price’ </h3>The Supreme Court decision can only be delayed, not overturned, and legal proceedings such as those launched by PPC can linger for years and often go nowhere. The move appears to be more of an effort by Hutchison to show investors that it is exhausting all options even if there is no path forward. The decision by the Panamanian court has provoked an angry response from both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments, with Beijing’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office warning Panama would “pay a heavy price both politically and economically.” The Hong Kong government said the Panama government “should respect the spirit of contracts and provide a fair and just business environment for companies operating legally there, ensuring that the legitimate rights of enterprises are free from any interference.” Interestingly, in a separate case, a ruling three years ago by Panama’s Supreme Court resulted in the closure of a major copper mine in the country, although there seems to be <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msn.com%2Fen-us%2Fmoney%2Fother%2Fpanama-and-canada-are-caught-in-a-dispute-over-a-copper-mine%2Far-AA1UL4T1%3Focid%3DBingNewsSerp&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ckevin.saville2%40spglobal.com%7C4a5fd62251cd4285f25808de63f3221d%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C639058093052350394%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=8gpwQrSg12fJdYx5%2FwrCwv4DiH9wtV%2B7213f6JROaOE%3D&amp;reserved=0">developments underway that could result in the mine’s reopening</a>. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Panama Ports Company (PPC) is seeking “extensive damages” after launching arbitration proceedings against the government of Panama following the decision of the country’s Supreme Court last week to void the company’s concessions to operate the Cristobal and Balboa ports. PPC had held the concessions for 28 years. The port company, 90% controlled by Hutchison Port Holdings, a subsidiary of Hong Kong-listed conglomerate CK Hutchison, said Wednesday the Panamanian government has already started to take control of the terminals that bookend the Panama Canal even though the court decision has yet to be published and finalized. “The steps taken by the state have included unexpected site visits and instructions that PPC provide unrestricted access to physical, commercial, and intellectual property and information, as well as to employees, on the basis that the state is systematizing and executing a port transition plan through coordinated actions of state authorities,” PPC said in a statement. APM Terminals (AMPT), which was appointed by the Panama Maritime Authority as interim administrator of the two terminals a day after the court’s decision , would not comment on whether it had taken part in the site visits or other actions following the court ruling. “At this moment, we have no further comments to share other than what we have released on our website,” an APMT spokesperson said. “For any next steps we refer to the relevant authorities in Panama.” CK Hutchison on Wednesday said it “continues to consult with its legal counsel and reserves all rights, including recourse to additional national and international legal proceedings.” Beijing says Panama will ‘pay a heavy price’ The Supreme Court decision can only be delayed, not overturned, and legal proceedings such as those launched by PPC can linger for years and often go nowhere. The move appears to be more of an effort by Hutchison to show investors that it is exhausting all options even if there is no path forward. The decision by the Panamanian court has provoked an angry response from both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments, with Beijing’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office warning Panama would “pay a heavy price both politically and economically.” The Hong Kong government said the Panama government “should respect the spirit of contracts and provide a fair and just business environment for companies operating legally there, ensuring that the legitimate rights of enterprises are free from any interference.” Interestingly, in a separate case, a ruling three years ago by Panama’s Supreme Court resulted in the closure of a major copper mine in the country, although there seems to be developments underway that could result in the mine’s reopening . Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Colombo expands box capacity as regional hub competition intensifies

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Fourth-quarter rate slump drags down Hapag-Lloyd’s 2025 financials

Maher’s next buyer faces billions in upgrades, decisions on capacity

Key inland rail terminals battle post-storm congestion, driver complaints

Recent Commentary

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

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

Top 5 Most Read Stories