<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would, writes John McCauley.</div>

If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would, writes John McCauley.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Let’s start with a basic premise first taught to me in the 1990s — logistics is waste. As a long-time logistician, this statement and realization was somewhat shocking. Yet, on deeper analysis, the truism is true. All along the supply chain, from raw material to finished product, any unnecessary actions — whether movement or storage or waiting — only add costs that a customer would not pay for if broken down. The Japanese auto industry understood this early on and created supplier hubs to minimize these non-value-added waste steps. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6081112_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Why does this matter in container shipping? Because container shipping, like all transport moves of any material or product in a supply chain, is waste. I’m not saying it doesn’t serve a purpose, but it is waste. If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would. How does this fit with the view that trade is essential and that, by design in most cases, container shipping is also essential and complementary to the needs of others? Again, let’s step back and remind ourselves of the evolution of trade. In its simplest form, trade was the means of transferring goods from places of surplus to places of deficit. Shipping helped that trade and allowed economies to expand. Most of the movement was, therefore, of bulk goods, wheat, corn, rice, coal, metals and so on. Thus grew the bulk shipping business. It thrived for centuries and is still today, and for the foreseeable future, a workhouse of primary goods trade. What has changed is comparative advantage. The greater the comparative advantage (assuming quality similarity) one producer had, the greater the likelihood that this trade flow became dominant. Meanwhile, smaller quantity items moved in bulk, in holds loaded and unloaded on slings. Container shipping consigned those days to history’s dustbin. Larger volumes could move at lower unit cost as post-war economies expanded, and demand/trade grew exponentially. As a result, the new technology of container shipping enabled trade growth with benefits in product security, safety and delivery lead time. The creation of consortia and the overall framework of container ship conferences enabled that latter point. These were meant to ensure reliability of supply to the market and enable price certainty for shippers and buyers. <h3>Container shipping as a ‘facilitator’ of expansion </h3>From the late 90s through the noughts, container trade boomed, which allowed container shipping companies to innovate with new and larger vessel sizes, terminals, cranes and infrastructure, also fueled by the outsourcing and offshoring of much of their production. However, they also served to stimulate demand. As companies looked to lower costs through outsourcing and offshoring, container shipping became a facilitator of this expansion. China’s joining the World Trade Organization and its dramatic rise in manufacturing quantity and quality meant that any company anywhere had a simple choice – maintain your production in your country of demand and risk competitors offshoring and being more cost competitive, or send some (or all) of your production offshore. Yet supply disruptions and service unreliability from container shipping and the undeniable fear of the economic power of China have started to lead to divestment away from China, with many companies favoring one of three main options: nearshoring (bringing production into a favored nation for assembly/finishing and using free trade agreements to allow low-cost inventory management); inshoring (bringing back of all facets of production to the primary country of demand); or a China-plus-one approach (adding another offshore country as a dual or multiple supply source). So where does that leave us at this point? Trade and container shipping have a strong interdependence. The primary difference is that trade defines demand while container shipping is a hostage to derived demand. In practical terms, this means that container shipping is highly relevant and important for demand signals for its upstream supply markets (terminals, cranes, ships, containers) and those industries look to container shipping for demand signals, many of which require significant long-term investment and capital. But container shipping is nothing without trade. Trade shifts are out of a carrier’s control, and they are stuck if they invest in, for instance, 20,000-TEU-capacity vessels, only to find that trade has declined and those vessels are useless to serve other trades. For their part, shippers need to critically review why they use container shipping as it has become the least reliable form of transportation mode available. The answer should be that, whenever possible, they must switch away or at least build more robust and resilient supply chains using container shipping. 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>

Let’s start with a basic premise first taught to me in the 1990s — logistics is waste. As a long-time logistician, this statement and realization was somewhat shocking. Yet, on deeper analysis, the truism is true. All along the supply chain, from raw material to finished product, any unnecessary actions — whether movement or storage or waiting — only add costs that a customer would not pay for if broken down. The Japanese auto industry understood this early on and created supplier hubs to minimize these non-value-added waste steps. Why does this matter in container shipping? Because container shipping, like all transport moves of any material or product in a supply chain, is waste. I’m not saying it doesn’t serve a purpose, but it is waste. If suppliers, producers and distributors could eliminate some or most transportation moves, including container shipping, they would. How does this fit with the view that trade is essential and that, by design in most cases, container shipping is also essential and complementary to the needs of others? Again, let’s step back and remind ourselves of the evolution of trade. In its simplest form, trade was the means of transferring goods from places of surplus to places of deficit. Shipping helped that trade and allowed economies to expand. Most of the movement was, therefore, of bulk goods, wheat, corn, rice, coal, metals and so on. Thus grew the bulk shipping business. It thrived for centuries and is still today, and for the foreseeable future, a workhouse of primary goods trade. What has changed is comparative advantage. The greater the comparative advantage (assuming quality similarity) one producer had, the greater the likelihood that this trade flow became dominant. Meanwhile, smaller quantity items moved in bulk, in holds loaded and unloaded on slings. Container shipping consigned those days to history’s dustbin. Larger volumes could move at lower unit cost as post-war economies expanded, and demand/trade grew exponentially. As a result, the new technology of container shipping enabled trade growth with benefits in product security, safety and delivery lead time. The creation of consortia and the overall framework of container ship conferences enabled that latter point. These were meant to ensure reliability of supply to the market and enable price certainty for shippers and buyers. Container shipping as a ‘facilitator’ of expansion From the late 90s through the noughts, container trade boomed, which allowed container shipping companies to innovate with new and larger vessel sizes, terminals, cranes and infrastructure, also fueled by the outsourcing and offshoring of much of their production. However, they also served to stimulate demand. As companies looked to lower costs through outsourcing and offshoring, container shipping became a facilitator of this expansion. China’s joining the World Trade Organization and its dramatic rise in manufacturing quantity and quality meant that any company anywhere had a simple choice – maintain your production in your country of demand and risk competitors offshoring and being more cost competitive, or send some (or all) of your production offshore. Yet supply disruptions and service unreliability from container shipping and the undeniable fear of the economic power of China have started to lead to divestment away from China, with many companies favoring one of three main options: nearshoring (bringing production into a favored nation for assembly/finishing and using free trade agreements to allow low-cost inventory management); inshoring (bringing back of all facets of production to the primary country of demand); or a China-plus-one approach (adding another offshore country as a dual or multiple supply source). So where does that leave us at this point? Trade and container shipping have a strong interdependence. The primary difference is that trade defines demand while container shipping is a hostage to derived demand. In practical terms, this means that container shipping is highly relevant and important for demand signals for its upstream supply markets (terminals, cranes, ships, containers) and those industries look to container shipping for demand signals, many of which require significant long-term investment and capital. But container shipping is nothing without trade. Trade shifts are out of a carrier’s control, and they are stuck if they invest in, for instance, 20,000-TEU-capacity vessels, only to find that trade has declined and those vessels are useless to serve other trades. For their part, shippers need to critically review why they use container shipping as it has become the least reliable form of transportation mode available. The answer should be that, whenever possible, they must switch away or at least build more robust and resilient supply chains using container shipping. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com.

Supply chain

Maritime

Moving beyond the ‘waste’ inherent in ‘essential’ container shipping

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Research reports published to coincide with London International Shipping Week say although progress is being made toward decarbonization in shipping, there are growing concerns the sector is falling behind in efforts to reduce its carbon footprint.</div>

Research reports published to coincide with London International Shipping Week say although progress is being made toward decarbonization in shipping, there are growing concerns the sector is falling behind in efforts to reduce its carbon footprint.

<div class="phx-topic">The shipping sector is not on course to meet its 2030 interim climate targets or 2050 net-zero ambitions because weak demand signals and stalled financing are delaying the transition to sustainable fuels and negatively affecting future supply, new decarbonization research reports say. The reports, published Tuesday to coincide with London International Shipping Week, noted that although progress is being made toward decarbonization in shipping, there are growing concerns the sector responsible for at least 3% of global emissions is falling behind in efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Domagoj Baresic, senior research fellow at the London-based UCL Energy Institute, said technology readiness was no longer a limiting factor with the expansion of fuel supply initiatives and pilot projects across multiple regions, but demand and finance have not kept pace. “Unless all these levers move together, the 2030 tipping point will remain out of reach and supply developments could also stall,” Baresic wrote in the Progress Towards Shipping’s 2030 breakthrough — 2025 edition report. The report is a joint effort by the UCL Energy Institute, the Global Maritime Forum’s Getting to Zero Coalition and the Race to Zero, a global non-governmental campaign led by the Climate High-Level Champions. “This underscores the importance of treating this transition as a systems challenge, not just a fuel challenge,” Baresic added. The report warned that demand was off track, with current estimates predicting a significant shortfall in vessels capable of sailing on scalable zero-emission fuels. Unless demand was significantly ramped up, the current order book would only deliver about 37% of the fuel demand needed to achieve the 2030 target. On the equally critical financial side, despite early progress in scalable zero-emission fuels investment, momentum has stalled, with funding continuing to flow disproportionately toward conventional fossil-fueled vessels. Stronger policy signals would be essential to unlocking more private capital, Baresic’s report stated. <h3>Lack of alternative fuel availability </h3>Dual-fuel ships capable of running on methanol or liquefied natural gas (LNG) comprised 70% of the total 1.7 million TEUs of vessel capacity ordered in 2024, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. But even among vessels designed for alternative fuels, the lack of availability means many still rely on conventional fossil fuels for a significant portion of their operations. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta and shipping analyst Marine Benchmark shows carrier emissions reached a record high in 2024, driven up by the vessel diversions around southern Africa. Global container emissions increased 14% last year to 240.6 million tons, surpassing the previous record of 218.5 million tons set in 2021. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="80e7aa34-41b8-4bd7-b5ac-58f5337eebb6"></dynamic-object></div>The rising emissions, combined with a lack of financial will among investors, was placing shipping under increasing pressure as it strives to meet the International Maritime Organization’s 2030 and 2050 emissions-cutting targets, according to a second report, this one from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Lloyd's Register Maritime Decarbonization Hub titled Navigating the Net-Zero Transition. “Without strong action, emissions from maritime shipping are projected to rise, putting the sector far off track to transition away from fossil fuels by 2050,” said Guillaume Morauw, sustainable finance senior policy analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the report. Despite a technological renaissance in the past decade that has enabled vessels to slash emissions and be powered by carbon-neutral fuels, the production of such fuels at scale and at affordable prices has yet to materialize, the Net-Zero report found. A third report from energy technology firm Accelleron was also published Tuesday, calling on shipping to join forces with other industries and pool demand for carbon-neutral fuels. <h3>Stakes high as carbon emissions rise </h3>Even though more than $100 billion has been invested in maritime decarbonization, carbon emissions have continued to rise, widening the gap to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) approaching targets. “The stakes are high as we strive to meet shipping’s 2030 emissions reduction target,” said Daniel Bischofberger, CEO at Accelleron, noting success hinges on the implementation of energy-saving technologies and improving fuel efficiency. That, however, was just the first step on the pathway to decarbonization, he added. “The bigger challenge is developing carbon-neutral fuels, which are critical not only for the decarbonization of maritime but for sectors contributing over 70% of global emissions,” Bischofberger said. “Solving this will require unprecedented cross-industry collaboration and a shared commitment to accelerating fuel development and adoption.” Achieving cross-nation collaboration is the immediate challenge facing the IMO as member states prepare for October’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London from Oct. 14–17, where the “Net-Zero Framework” for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping will be formally adopted. The primary item on the agenda is the adoption of amendments to Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention that includes the proposed net-zero framework, agreed in principle by a majority of IMO members in April in line with the 2023 GHG Strategy. There are two main parts to the framework: a global fuel standard requiring ships to gradually increase the proportion of zero-emission fuel used and a pricing mechanism for carbon emissions. But the moves to put a price on shipping emissions have faced <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-rejection-of-imo-net-zero-framework-wont-change-outcome-bimco-6062545">escalating pushback</a> from Washington, with the US delegation <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-pulls-out-of-imo-climate-talks-threatens-retaliation-for-emissions-fees-5980359">walking out of the MEPC meeting in April</a> in protest over the decarbonization talks. The Trump administration recently <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-steps-up-attempts-to-derail-imos-net-zero-ambitions-6076148">stepped up efforts to derail the IMO’s net-zero ambitions</a> with threats to impose port duties, tariffs and even visa refusals on IMO member states that voted in support of the proposal. Should the US be successful in preventing the rollout of the net-zero framework, it would leave the EU’s Emissions Trading System and FuelEU Maritime as the largest regional emissions-curbing regulations currently in effect. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com.</a></div>

The shipping sector is not on course to meet its 2030 interim climate targets or 2050 net-zero ambitions because weak demand signals and stalled financing are delaying the transition to sustainable fuels and negatively affecting future supply, new decarbonization research reports say. The reports, published Tuesday to coincide with London International Shipping Week, noted that although progress is being made toward decarbonization in shipping, there are growing concerns the sector responsible for at least 3% of global emissions is falling behind in efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Domagoj Baresic, senior research fellow at the London-based UCL Energy Institute, said technology readiness was no longer a limiting factor with the expansion of fuel supply initiatives and pilot projects across multiple regions, but demand and finance have not kept pace. “Unless all these levers move together, the 2030 tipping point will remain out of reach and supply developments could also stall,” Baresic wrote in the Progress Towards Shipping’s 2030 breakthrough — 2025 edition report. The report is a joint effort by the UCL Energy Institute, the Global Maritime Forum’s Getting to Zero Coalition and the Race to Zero, a global non-governmental campaign led by the Climate High-Level Champions. “This underscores the importance of treating this transition as a systems challenge, not just a fuel challenge,” Baresic added. The report warned that demand was off track, with current estimates predicting a significant shortfall in vessels capable of sailing on scalable zero-emission fuels. Unless demand was significantly ramped up, the current order book would only deliver about 37% of the fuel demand needed to achieve the 2030 target. On the equally critical financial side, despite early progress in scalable zero-emission fuels investment, momentum has stalled, with funding continuing to flow disproportionately toward conventional fossil-fueled vessels. Stronger policy signals would be essential to unlocking more private capital, Baresic’s report stated. Lack of alternative fuel availability Dual-fuel ships capable of running on methanol or liquefied natural gas (LNG) comprised 70% of the total 1.7 million TEUs of vessel capacity ordered in 2024, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. But even among vessels designed for alternative fuels, the lack of availability means many still rely on conventional fossil fuels for a significant portion of their operations. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta and shipping analyst Marine Benchmark shows carrier emissions reached a record high in 2024, driven up by the vessel diversions around southern Africa. Global container emissions increased 14% last year to 240.6 million tons, surpassing the previous record of 218.5 million tons set in 2021. The rising emissions, combined with a lack of financial will among investors, was placing shipping under increasing pressure as it strives to meet the International Maritime Organization’s 2030 and 2050 emissions-cutting targets, according to a second report, this one from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Lloyd's Register Maritime Decarbonization Hub titled Navigating the Net-Zero Transition. “Without strong action, emissions from maritime shipping are projected to rise, putting the sector far off track to transition away from fossil fuels by 2050,” said Guillaume Morauw, sustainable finance senior policy analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the report. Despite a technological renaissance in the past decade that has enabled vessels to slash emissions and be powered by carbon-neutral fuels, the production of such fuels at scale and at affordable prices has yet to materialize, the Net-Zero report found. A third report from energy technology firm Accelleron was also published Tuesday, calling on shipping to join forces with other industries and pool demand for carbon-neutral fuels. Stakes high as carbon emissions rise Even though more than $100 billion has been invested in maritime decarbonization, carbon emissions have continued to rise, widening the gap to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) approaching targets. “The stakes are high as we strive to meet shipping’s 2030 emissions reduction target,” said Daniel Bischofberger, CEO at Accelleron, noting success hinges on the implementation of energy-saving technologies and improving fuel efficiency. That, however, was just the first step on the pathway to decarbonization, he added. “The bigger challenge is developing carbon-neutral fuels, which are critical not only for the decarbonization of maritime but for sectors contributing over 70% of global emissions,” Bischofberger said. “Solving this will require unprecedented cross-industry collaboration and a shared commitment to accelerating fuel development and adoption.” Achieving cross-nation collaboration is the immediate challenge facing the IMO as member states prepare for October’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London from Oct. 14–17, where the “Net-Zero Framework” for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping will be formally adopted. The primary item on the agenda is the adoption of amendments to Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention that includes the proposed net-zero framework, agreed in principle by a majority of IMO members in April in line with the 2023 GHG Strategy. There are two main parts to the framework: a global fuel standard requiring ships to gradually increase the proportion of zero-emission fuel used and a pricing mechanism for carbon emissions. But the moves to put a price on shipping emissions have faced escalating pushback from Washington, with the US delegation walking out of the MEPC meeting in April in protest over the decarbonization talks. The Trump administration recently stepped up efforts to derail the IMO’s net-zero ambitions with threats to impose port duties, tariffs and even visa refusals on IMO member states that voted in support of the proposal. Should the US be successful in preventing the rollout of the net-zero framework, it would leave the EU’s Emissions Trading System and FuelEU Maritime as the largest regional emissions-curbing regulations currently in effect. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com.

Container Shipping News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Shipping decarbonization stalled by weak demand, investment shortfall: reports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The bump in spot rates that was driven by the Sept. 1 GRI and blanked sailings in the eastbound trans-Pacific appears to be over, with rates this week headed lower, according to forwarders.</div>

The bump in spot rates that was driven by the Sept. 1 GRI and blanked sailings in the eastbound trans-Pacific appears to be over, with rates this week headed lower, according to forwarders.

<div class="phx-topic">Container lines had stemmed a month-long decline in container spot rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific, but forecast volume declines and modest blanking announcements are testing the foundation of the new bottom. The bump in spot rates that was driven by the convergence of a Sept. 1 general rate increase (GRI) and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gemini-suspends-seasonal-trans-pacific-service-6078582">blanked sailings in the eastbound trans-Pacific</a> appears to be over, and rates this week are headed lower, according to forwarders. “The Sept. 1 GRI raised rates a few hundred dollars, but we can say now that rates are back to pre-Sept. 1 levels,” James Caradonna, executive vice president of the forwarder M&amp;R Spedag Group, told the Journal of Commerce Monday. That was echoed by Chris Sur, executive vice president for ocean freight contract logistics at forwarder Unique Logistics International. “The Sept. 1 GRI certainly was successful,” Sur said. “It increased rates for a couple of weeks, but now it’s kind of going back to pre-Sept. 1 levels.” Container spot rates have ticked up in recent weeks, as measured by Drewry, the Shanghai Shipping Exchange and Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister company within S&amp;P Global. The spot rate from Asia to the West Coast as of Monday was $2,500 per FEU, up $200 on the week, while the East Coast spot rate of $3,600 per FEU was up $300 week over week, according to Platts. An industry consultant who formerly managed logistics for two national retailers said bookings from Asia ticked up in early September in advance of the Oct. 1 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-market-in-trans-pacific-arrives-at-spot-pricing-tipping-point-6073669">Golden Week holidays in Asia</a>, which most carriers were able to leverage for rate increases of several hundred dollars. “But really, a lot of [the rate gain] was due to blank sailings,” the source said. Another factor, the consultant said, was that falling spot rates in August were approaching the long-term fixed rates customers had signed for in their 2025–26 service contracts, and carriers were determined to prevent further rate erosion. “[Carriers] don’t want spot rates to drop below contract rates,” the source said. A carrier executive said even though US import volumes leading up to Golden Week this year are lower than usual, carriers are achieving their objective of keeping spot/FAK rates from collapsing so October blankings can catch up to the market. “Even at $1,800-$1,900 [to the West Coast], this is certainly better than the $1,500-$1,600 in August,” the carrier source said. Because there is no backlog of cargo built up in Asia, rates this week are already falling lower — to $1,700-$1,800 per FEU to the West Coast and about $2,700 per FEU to the East Coast, another forwarder said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d0dc514b-60a6-4b10-862a-081c37b36db2"></dynamic-object></div>Most carriers also offer so-called bullet or voyage-specific rates that undercut their listed rates by about $200-$300 per FEU, said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder FreightRight Global Logistics. “All carriers have ships to fill,” he said. “They post a rate, but go to the market [with] a voyage-specific rate.” <h3>Managing capacity </h3>Meanwhile, carriers have been blanking sailings for weeks, and more cancellations are scheduled. Carriers are blanking 10% of capacity to the West Coast in September and are scheduled to blank 9.65% of capacity in October, according to the maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Liners blanked 12.8% of capacity to the East Coast in September and are scheduled to blank 19.9% of capacity in October, according to eeSea. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Container lines had stemmed a month-long decline in container spot rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific, but forecast volume declines and modest blanking announcements are testing the foundation of the new bottom. The bump in spot rates that was driven by the convergence of a Sept. 1 general rate increase (GRI) and blanked sailings in the eastbound trans-Pacific appears to be over, and rates this week are headed lower, according to forwarders. “The Sept. 1 GRI raised rates a few hundred dollars, but we can say now that rates are back to pre-Sept. 1 levels,” James Caradonna, executive vice president of the forwarder M&R Spedag Group, told the Journal of Commerce Monday. That was echoed by Chris Sur, executive vice president for ocean freight contract logistics at forwarder Unique Logistics International. “The Sept. 1 GRI certainly was successful,” Sur said. “It increased rates for a couple of weeks, but now it’s kind of going back to pre-Sept. 1 levels.” Container spot rates have ticked up in recent weeks, as measured by Drewry, the Shanghai Shipping Exchange and Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister company within S&P Global. The spot rate from Asia to the West Coast as of Monday was $2,500 per FEU, up $200 on the week, while the East Coast spot rate of $3,600 per FEU was up $300 week over week, according to Platts. An industry consultant who formerly managed logistics for two national retailers said bookings from Asia ticked up in early September in advance of the Oct. 1 Golden Week holidays in Asia , which most carriers were able to leverage for rate increases of several hundred dollars. “But really, a lot of [the rate gain] was due to blank sailings,” the source said. Another factor, the consultant said, was that falling spot rates in August were approaching the long-term fixed rates customers had signed for in their 2025–26 service contracts, and carriers were determined to prevent further rate erosion. “[Carriers] don’t want spot rates to drop below contract rates,” the source said. A carrier executive said even though US import volumes leading up to Golden Week this year are lower than usual, carriers are achieving their objective of keeping spot/FAK rates from collapsing so October blankings can catch up to the market. “Even at $1,800-$1,900 [to the West Coast], this is certainly better than the $1,500-$1,600 in August,” the carrier source said. Because there is no backlog of cargo built up in Asia, rates this week are already falling lower — to $1,700-$1,800 per FEU to the West Coast and about $2,700 per FEU to the East Coast, another forwarder said. Most carriers also offer so-called bullet or voyage-specific rates that undercut their listed rates by about $200-$300 per FEU, said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder FreightRight Global Logistics. “All carriers have ships to fill,” he said. “They post a rate, but go to the market [with] a voyage-specific rate.” Managing capacity Meanwhile, carriers have been blanking sailings for weeks, and more cancellations are scheduled. Carriers are blanking 10% of capacity to the West Coast in September and are scheduled to blank 9.65% of capacity in October, according to the maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Liners blanked 12.8% of capacity to the East Coast in September and are scheduled to blank 19.9% of capacity in October, according to eeSea. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Port News

Trans-Pacific

North American ports

Pre-Golden Week rate hike beginning to fade on trans-Pacific

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The potential merger partners plan to replace drayage trucking legs with direct rail service as Class I railroads join to redraw North America’s intermodal map. </div>

The potential merger partners plan to replace drayage trucking legs with direct rail service as Class I railroads join to redraw North America’s intermodal map.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS) said Monday they will launch a new domestic intermodal rail service linking Louisville, Kentucky — a major Midwest intermodal rail and parcel hub — with ports in Southern California, the Pacific Northwest and Gulf Coast. The joint service comes as railroads <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-and-faster-intermodal-services-put-bnsf-up-on-hunt-for-truck-freight-6059482">redraw intermodal maps</a> in response to UP’s proposed <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-looks-to-create-first-coast-to-coast-railroad-with-85-billion-ns-deal-6052288">$85 billion acquisition</a> of NS, which would create the first transcontinental US railroad. The combined railroads would have about 50,000 miles of track and access to 100 ports. The new UP-NS service, expected to begin in October, will connect Louisville with markets on the West and Gulf coasts by interchanging containers between UP and NS in Kansas City, where UP opened its new larger Kansas City Intermodal Terminal (KCIT) in August. The goal, as in other joint services, is to eliminate long drayage hauls at the end of a rail move. For instance, the service would circumvent the need to dray containers from Chicago, in the case of UP, or Cincinnati, for NS, to Louisville. Canadian National Railway and CSX Transportation last week said they are planning a new international intermodal service from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cn-csx-joint-service-to-connect-west-canada-and-nashville-6077903">Canada’s west coast into Nashville, Tennessee</a>, expanding shipper options outside of the US Southeast. In August, CSX announced plans to develop international intermodal routes with BNSF Railway from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bnsf-csx-unveil-new-joint-intermodal-lanes-in-aftermath-of-up-ns-merger-6067789">the West Coast to the Southeast</a>. That service would replace an approximately 200-mile truck trip for international containers from Memphis to Nashville. <h3>A new springboard </h3>The UP-NS service could be a major test for UP’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ups-kc-terminal-will-change-approach-on-ocean-cargo-6013727">Kansas City terminal</a>. If KCIT can handle the traffic, it could be the springboard for transcontinental services to central Pennsylvania and New York-New Jersey routed through Kansas City instead of Chicago. KCIT would serve as an important relief valve for Chicago, which has been at the epicenter of intermodal congestion for decades. KCIT would connect Louisville with Los Angeles; Lathrop, California; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City; and Houston. “This is a growth area for our customers, so we are stepping up with service to help them reach untapped markets with a more reliable, sustainable alternative to trucking,” Ed Elkins, chief commercial officer at NS, said in a statement. NS is modifying its terminal footprint in Louisville to expand truck parking and help the railroad track truck capacity at the terminal. The Louisville facility has been more focused on international containers than domestic intermodal service. The largest origin points for intermodal freight arriving in Louisville are the Port of Virginia, with about 35,000 loads per year, and Los Angeles-Long Beach, at 15,000 to 20,000 loads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the US Surface Transportation Board. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto://bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.Senior Editor Ari Ashe contributed to this report. </div>

Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS) said Monday they will launch a new domestic intermodal rail service linking Louisville, Kentucky — a major Midwest intermodal rail and parcel hub — with ports in Southern California, the Pacific Northwest and Gulf Coast. The joint service comes as railroads redraw intermodal maps in response to UP’s proposed $85 billion acquisition of NS, which would create the first transcontinental US railroad. The combined railroads would have about 50,000 miles of track and access to 100 ports. The new UP-NS service, expected to begin in October, will connect Louisville with markets on the West and Gulf coasts by interchanging containers between UP and NS in Kansas City, where UP opened its new larger Kansas City Intermodal Terminal (KCIT) in August. The goal, as in other joint services, is to eliminate long drayage hauls at the end of a rail move. For instance, the service would circumvent the need to dray containers from Chicago, in the case of UP, or Cincinnati, for NS, to Louisville. Canadian National Railway and CSX Transportation last week said they are planning a new international intermodal service from Canada’s west coast into Nashville, Tennessee , expanding shipper options outside of the US Southeast. In August, CSX announced plans to develop international intermodal routes with BNSF Railway from the West Coast to the Southeast . That service would replace an approximately 200-mile truck trip for international containers from Memphis to Nashville. A new springboard The UP-NS service could be a major test for UP’s Kansas City terminal . If KCIT can handle the traffic, it could be the springboard for transcontinental services to central Pennsylvania and New York-New Jersey routed through Kansas City instead of Chicago. KCIT would serve as an important relief valve for Chicago, which has been at the epicenter of intermodal congestion for decades. KCIT would connect Louisville with Los Angeles; Lathrop, California; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City; and Houston. “This is a growth area for our customers, so we are stepping up with service to help them reach untapped markets with a more reliable, sustainable alternative to trucking,” Ed Elkins, chief commercial officer at NS, said in a statement. NS is modifying its terminal footprint in Louisville to expand truck parking and help the railroad track truck capacity at the terminal. The Louisville facility has been more focused on international containers than domestic intermodal service. The largest origin points for intermodal freight arriving in Louisville are the Port of Virginia, with about 35,000 loads per year, and Los Angeles-Long Beach, at 15,000 to 20,000 loads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the US Surface Transportation Board. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .Senior Editor Ari Ashe contributed to this report.

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

UP-NS joint intermodal service to link West Coast with Louisville in Midwest

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cosco said the joint venture will be responsible for developing a multifunctional logistics park involving the construction of high-specification warehouses, cold chain storage, and consolidation and distribution facilities.</div>

Cosco said the joint venture will be responsible for developing a multifunctional logistics park involving the construction of high-specification warehouses, cold chain storage, and consolidation and distribution facilities.

<div class="phx-topic">Cosco Shipping and Shenzhen Port Group said Monday they have teamed up to develop a high-end logistics park in Shenzhen's Yantian port district as part of a wider plan to develop and expand Cosco's digital supply chain business. The move is the first time the two state-controlled companies have launched a joint development. It is also believed to be only the second time Cosco has linked with a state port company to develop logistics facilities after it signed a deal four years ago with Shanghai International Port Group, controlled by the Shanghai municipal government, to focus on terminal investment and operations. The latest development, announced by Cosco Shipping in a Hong Kong stock exchange filing, also marks a further step in the company’s diversifying away from being a pure container line and port company into an asset-heavy logistics operation. Under the plan, Cosco Shipping said it will form a joint venture known as Shenzhen Cosco Shipping Smart Supply Chain Company with Shenzhen Port Logistics Group, an affiliate of Shenzhen Port Group. Cosco will have a 67% stake in the venture. Cosco said the joint venture will be responsible for developing a multifunctional logistics park involving the construction of high-specification warehouses, cold chain storage, and consolidation and distribution facilities. No details of the size of the logistics park or the overall cost have been released, but Cosco said the joint venture will “serve as a collecting and distributing hub for cargo in Yantian Port and (the) surrounding area.” Cosco said the project will strengthen its “strategic presence in the Pearl River Delta region and serve as key infrastructure for scaling its digital supply chain business.” The focus on southern China comes as the company has previously concentrated on expanding its logistics operations in Southeast Asia. Cosco Shipping International (Singapore) started work last December on the six-acre second phase of its Jurong Island logistics hub in Singapore, containing 673,000 square feet of warehousing that will more than double the hub’s capacity. The same company has also acquired logistics companies in Malaysia. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Cosco Shipping and Shenzhen Port Group said Monday they have teamed up to develop a high-end logistics park in Shenzhen's Yantian port district as part of a wider plan to develop and expand Cosco's digital supply chain business. The move is the first time the two state-controlled companies have launched a joint development. It is also believed to be only the second time Cosco has linked with a state port company to develop logistics facilities after it signed a deal four years ago with Shanghai International Port Group, controlled by the Shanghai municipal government, to focus on terminal investment and operations. The latest development, announced by Cosco Shipping in a Hong Kong stock exchange filing, also marks a further step in the company’s diversifying away from being a pure container line and port company into an asset-heavy logistics operation. Under the plan, Cosco Shipping said it will form a joint venture known as Shenzhen Cosco Shipping Smart Supply Chain Company with Shenzhen Port Logistics Group, an affiliate of Shenzhen Port Group. Cosco will have a 67% stake in the venture. Cosco said the joint venture will be responsible for developing a multifunctional logistics park involving the construction of high-specification warehouses, cold chain storage, and consolidation and distribution facilities. No details of the size of the logistics park or the overall cost have been released, but Cosco said the joint venture will “serve as a collecting and distributing hub for cargo in Yantian Port and (the) surrounding area.” Cosco said the project will strengthen its “strategic presence in the Pearl River Delta region and serve as key infrastructure for scaling its digital supply chain business.” The focus on southern China comes as the company has previously concentrated on expanding its logistics operations in Southeast Asia. Cosco Shipping International (Singapore) started work last December on the six-acre second phase of its Jurong Island logistics hub in Singapore, containing 673,000 square feet of warehousing that will more than double the hub’s capacity. The same company has also acquired logistics companies in Malaysia. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

International ports

Port infrastructure

Cosco Shipping to develop high-end logistics hub in Yantian with Shenzhen Port

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The crane, which arrived in Gulfport last week, was the first Chinese STS crane imported into the US since the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Beijing in April.</div>

The crane, which arrived in Gulfport last week, was the first Chinese STS crane imported into the US since the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Beijing in April.

<div class="phx-topic">Ports America will pay a 30% duty on the first China-built ship-to-shore (STS) container crane to be imported into the US since the so-called “Liberation Day” tariff announcement April 2, a decision the terminal operator deemed preferable to reselling the unit or storing it in-bond in an idle state pending uncertain future changes in US tariffs on China. The crane was built by ZPMC, which controls more than 80% of the global market. It arrived at Gulfport, Mississippi, Sept. 11 aboard a ship carrying four additional cranes built by the company — two bound for Port Freeport, Texas, that will also be subject to the 30% duty and two headed to Kingston, Jamaica. The 30% duty, a combination of a 10% reciprocal tariff and 20% “fentanyl” tariff, “made this investment narrowly possible,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. The original price tag of $16 million rose to just under $21 million due to the tariffs. The terminal operator has no plans to implement a direct surcharge to customers to defray the tariff costs but rather will recoup the amount over a period of time, Leech said. The alternative would have been to unload and store the idle crane in-bond awaiting outcomes such as the US Supreme Court’s planned ruling on the legality of the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement tariffs or a negotiated deal that results in lower tariffs than those now in effect. <h3>Waiver attempts not successful </h3>Ports America, like other US ports with ship-to-shore cranes on order from China, has tried unsuccessfully to obtain waivers from the White House. In accepting delivery, Ports America took advantage of a window that allowed it to put the crane into use in advance of more unfavorable conditions down the road. The 30% tariffs on China were extended Aug. 12 for another 90 days, shifting the new expiration date to Nov. 10. US tariffs on China would have increased to 145% without the extension and could still rise to that level. “With the extension of the prior arrangement with China … we have a window to bring the crane in under a 30% duty,” Leech said. “While not ideal, this would be in line with a replacement crane from outside China, thus we have simply made a business decision to import the crane and recognize and pay the duty at 30%.” Without the extension, Ports America said it would have faced the prospect of reselling and re-exporting the crane or storing it indefinitely in-bond, “an outcome that would have squandered valuable resources and represented a major lost opportunity to deliver real economic benefits to the Gulf Coast region and beyond,” said Leech. “Instead, this crane will fulfill its intended purpose: to serve as a catalyst for growth, helping the Port of Gulfport realize its full potential as a strategic gateway for global trade,” he added. The Port of Houston proposed grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024, but there is no indication such waivers have been granted. For the moment at least, there will be no interruption to the normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 STS cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. Port Freeport did not respond to a request for comment on how it will handle the tariff implications on the cranes to be delivered there. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com.</a></div>

Ports America will pay a 30% duty on the first China-built ship-to-shore (STS) container crane to be imported into the US since the so-called “Liberation Day” tariff announcement April 2, a decision the terminal operator deemed preferable to reselling the unit or storing it in-bond in an idle state pending uncertain future changes in US tariffs on China. The crane was built by ZPMC, which controls more than 80% of the global market. It arrived at Gulfport, Mississippi, Sept. 11 aboard a ship carrying four additional cranes built by the company — two bound for Port Freeport, Texas, that will also be subject to the 30% duty and two headed to Kingston, Jamaica. The 30% duty, a combination of a 10% reciprocal tariff and 20% “fentanyl” tariff, “made this investment narrowly possible,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. The original price tag of $16 million rose to just under $21 million due to the tariffs. The terminal operator has no plans to implement a direct surcharge to customers to defray the tariff costs but rather will recoup the amount over a period of time, Leech said. The alternative would have been to unload and store the idle crane in-bond awaiting outcomes such as the US Supreme Court’s planned ruling on the legality of the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement tariffs or a negotiated deal that results in lower tariffs than those now in effect. Waiver attempts not successful Ports America, like other US ports with ship-to-shore cranes on order from China, has tried unsuccessfully to obtain waivers from the White House. In accepting delivery, Ports America took advantage of a window that allowed it to put the crane into use in advance of more unfavorable conditions down the road. The 30% tariffs on China were extended Aug. 12 for another 90 days, shifting the new expiration date to Nov. 10. US tariffs on China would have increased to 145% without the extension and could still rise to that level. “With the extension of the prior arrangement with China … we have a window to bring the crane in under a 30% duty,” Leech said. “While not ideal, this would be in line with a replacement crane from outside China, thus we have simply made a business decision to import the crane and recognize and pay the duty at 30%.” Without the extension, Ports America said it would have faced the prospect of reselling and re-exporting the crane or storing it indefinitely in-bond, “an outcome that would have squandered valuable resources and represented a major lost opportunity to deliver real economic benefits to the Gulf Coast region and beyond,” said Leech. “Instead, this crane will fulfill its intended purpose: to serve as a catalyst for growth, helping the Port of Gulfport realize its full potential as a strategic gateway for global trade,” he added. The Port of Houston proposed grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024, but there is no indication such waivers have been granted. For the moment at least, there will be no interruption to the normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 STS cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. Port Freeport did not respond to a request for comment on how it will handle the tariff implications on the cranes to be delivered there. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com.

Marine terminals

Ports America to pay 30% tariff on China-made ship-to-shore crane

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There are measures carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply — and thus price — collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution, writes Jeremy Masters. </div>

There are measures carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply — and thus price — collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">The laws of supply and demand dictate that prices will move in accordance with the relativity of the two. Container carriers can marginally move the dial between what is containerized and what is bulk or breakbulk by offering very attractive (low contribution) rates. An innovative product — for example, Gemini Cooperation’s high reliability network or an express service — might lure some air freight to sea freight. For the most part, however, carriers have very little control over demand. The key price lever that carriers have is slot supply, and current fundamentals point to heavy surplus, even as diversions around southern Africa continue. Are the carriers, then, sprinting to the edge of the cliff with newbuild deliveries, fresh orders, second-hand buying and chartering of what little spare capacity is left, followed by a freefall? Or do they at least have a parachute to slow down their momentum? There are some things they can do to help themselves in trades with overcapacity. <h3>Pushing pause </h3>The most obvious and dramatic way would be to park ships. To be impactful, that would mean collectively taking out multiple strings rather than tinkering with single strings or blank sailings. Understandably, there is a mental block in the big east-west trades when it comes to parking high-capacity, high-value, newer ships. But if the carriers get supply even minimally below demand, the economics are massively in their favor. Let's assume that, in the Asia-to-Europe trade, each consortium (for these purposes, Mediterranean Shipping Co. would be considered a consortium) ties up one string of ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) that was forecasted to make a minimal contribution to fixed cost because of declining rates. If, because of removing these strings, freight rates were a very conservative $500 per TEU higher on average on the headhaul than they would have been, based on 20,000 TEU per week and 50 weeks, all consortiums would accumulate an additional $500,000 million per annum on all remaining loops. There would be, of course, some incremental lay-up costs, but other costs would remain similar. Parking some $3 billion worth of assets per consortium is easier in theory than in practice, especially for those carriers who need to justify some heavy investments to their boards. If the carriers accept that drastic action is required, however, and there is enough collective action — not orchestrated action, of course, in contravention of competition rules — then the results will be dramatically better, and the ships will be readily available for an upturn. <h3>Beyond parking </h3>Are there less capacity-eating measures that carriers could undertake? The catalyst for a major dive in multi-trade rates would be a return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for Asia-to-Europe strings, but it's unlikely that we will go overnight from high-risk Red Sea transits to totally safe ones. Given the disruption and risk — for carriers and their clients — of moving all strings back to the Red Sea only to find that further issues arise, it would be entirely justifiable to keep some strings moving around the Cape of Good Hope. Big beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders/non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) have — forcefully — adjusted to the Cape routing. And while there is higher on-the-water inventory cost, the weekly pipeline of arrivals are established. They would naturally lean towards the faster Red Sea routing, but at the same time, would want to strenuously avoid a situation where production lines are stopped or shelves empty because they have put all their eggs in the Red Sea basket that has turned bad again. This may be counterintuitive, given more expensive ship systems around the Cape, but carriers could also implement two-tier pricing to re-enforce this prudence — essentially, a premium for Red Sea risk or a deficit for longer transits, whichever you prefer. Slow-steaming is another area of capacity control where a systematic approach could eat up more capacity. This means not just applying it in over-tonnaged trades, but in all trades. Tonnage can then be moved from trades where there is oversupply to those that are short because of slow-steaming. Finally, there is the scrapping of older vessels. If we look at carriers' desire to hold onto bigger, newer assets and their purchase of relatively old smaller tonnage to run regional and feeder networks, this does not look to be a particularly encouraging area for capacity shedding. There are measures the carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply – and thus price – collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

The laws of supply and demand dictate that prices will move in accordance with the relativity of the two. Container carriers can marginally move the dial between what is containerized and what is bulk or breakbulk by offering very attractive (low contribution) rates. An innovative product — for example, Gemini Cooperation’s high reliability network or an express service — might lure some air freight to sea freight. For the most part, however, carriers have very little control over demand. The key price lever that carriers have is slot supply, and current fundamentals point to heavy surplus, even as diversions around southern Africa continue. Are the carriers, then, sprinting to the edge of the cliff with newbuild deliveries, fresh orders, second-hand buying and chartering of what little spare capacity is left, followed by a freefall? Or do they at least have a parachute to slow down their momentum? There are some things they can do to help themselves in trades with overcapacity. Pushing pause The most obvious and dramatic way would be to park ships. To be impactful, that would mean collectively taking out multiple strings rather than tinkering with single strings or blank sailings. Understandably, there is a mental block in the big east-west trades when it comes to parking high-capacity, high-value, newer ships. But if the carriers get supply even minimally below demand, the economics are massively in their favor. Let's assume that, in the Asia-to-Europe trade, each consortium (for these purposes, Mediterranean Shipping Co. would be considered a consortium) ties up one string of ultra-large container vessels (ULCVs) that was forecasted to make a minimal contribution to fixed cost because of declining rates. If, because of removing these strings, freight rates were a very conservative $500 per TEU higher on average on the headhaul than they would have been, based on 20,000 TEU per week and 50 weeks, all consortiums would accumulate an additional $500,000 million per annum on all remaining loops. There would be, of course, some incremental lay-up costs, but other costs would remain similar. Parking some $3 billion worth of assets per consortium is easier in theory than in practice, especially for those carriers who need to justify some heavy investments to their boards. If the carriers accept that drastic action is required, however, and there is enough collective action — not orchestrated action, of course, in contravention of competition rules — then the results will be dramatically better, and the ships will be readily available for an upturn. Beyond parking Are there less capacity-eating measures that carriers could undertake? The catalyst for a major dive in multi-trade rates would be a return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal for Asia-to-Europe strings, but it's unlikely that we will go overnight from high-risk Red Sea transits to totally safe ones. Given the disruption and risk — for carriers and their clients — of moving all strings back to the Red Sea only to find that further issues arise, it would be entirely justifiable to keep some strings moving around the Cape of Good Hope. Big beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders/non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) have — forcefully — adjusted to the Cape routing. And while there is higher on-the-water inventory cost, the weekly pipeline of arrivals are established. They would naturally lean towards the faster Red Sea routing, but at the same time, would want to strenuously avoid a situation where production lines are stopped or shelves empty because they have put all their eggs in the Red Sea basket that has turned bad again. This may be counterintuitive, given more expensive ship systems around the Cape, but carriers could also implement two-tier pricing to re-enforce this prudence — essentially, a premium for Red Sea risk or a deficit for longer transits, whichever you prefer. Slow-steaming is another area of capacity control where a systematic approach could eat up more capacity. This means not just applying it in over-tonnaged trades, but in all trades. Tonnage can then be moved from trades where there is oversupply to those that are short because of slow-steaming. Finally, there is the scrapping of older vessels. If we look at carriers' desire to hold onto bigger, newer assets and their purchase of relatively old smaller tonnage to run regional and feeder networks, this does not look to be a particularly encouraging area for capacity shedding. There are measures the carriers can take around the edges, but if they really want to take control of supply – and thus price – collectively sidelining some high-caliber tonnage is the standout solution. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base.</div>

The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base.

<div class="phx-topic">For decades, international containerized freight from Michigan and the broader Midwest has been routed through distant US coastal gateways such as New York, Norfolk and Savannah, or Canadian ports such as Halifax and Montreal. Export-side users have included automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel and chemical producers and agricultural shippers, while imports have consisted of tier 1 suppliers, machinery and equipment distributors and retail or e-commerce consolidators. These routes were not chosen for efficiency or cost. They were imposed by federal restrictions that have for decades prevented containerized freight from entering or exiting the Great Lakes by vessel. US Customs today does not permit such movements through Michigan because no facility in the state meets the required federal standards for security and processing. That is about to change. In 2026, the Port of Monroe will activate the first SAFE Port Act-compliant international container terminal in the Great Lakes, along with a new roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) platform that complements existing vessel berths, dual Class I rail access and proximity to interstate highways and Midwest manufacturing. Together, these assets position Monroe as a fully integrated inland gateway for containerized trade and high-value industrial logistics. Conservatively, 1 million to 2 million TEUs of oceangoing cargo are generated annually from the Great Lakes’ industrial core, according to port estimates. This includes high-value shipments from sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and electronics. Rather than projecting future throughput volumes, the Port of Monroe is focused on establishing a lawful and functioning corridor, allowing the market to respond. The goal is to restore balance, provide carriers with a practical entry point and give shippers a logistics option that should have existed decades ago. The terminal at Monroe will be available to operators who recognize the value of establishing service in an underserved but strategically positioned market. The automotive industry, in particular, stands to benefit. With production concentrated in the Midwest and export demand on the rise, direct vessel service from Monroe reduces complexity and supports just-in-time inventory models. Monroe offers a new point of connection between Midwest production and global markets, serving as a strategic outlet for general containerized freight and, more uniquely, for the direct shipment of new vehicles via ro/ro or in containers. Resilience has become a defining priority for today’s logistics networks. The March 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, a critical ro/ro and vehicle export hub, exposed the system’s fragility. Overnight, cargo flows were disrupted, schedules were delayed and shippers were forced to reroute at significant cost. Inland ports such as the Port of Monroe offer a hedge against that kind of single-point failure. <h3>‘Manageable’ constraints </h3>Do the Great Lakes have constraints? Yes, but they are manageable. The annual three-month winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is predictable and published well in advance, allowing cargo owners and carriers to plan accordingly. Intra-lake shipping continues throughout the winter, particularly with ice-class vessels. Recent climate trends indicate shorter freeze periods and milder conditions, which are gradually increasing intralake shipping capacity during the winter months. Other northern regions facing even harsher winter conditions have demonstrated what is possible. The Baltic Sea offers a relevant example. Despite a smaller economic footprint and more severe ice conditions, Baltic ports remain active year-round through the use of ice-capable vessels and integrated multimodal infrastructure. There is no reason the Great Lakes, now that the regulatory path has been cleared, should not do the same and make a comparable contribution to North American trade resilience. Unlike coastal gateways, which face sudden disruptions from hurricanes, labor action and infrastructure failures, the risks on the Great Lakes are stable and foreseeable. That reliability offers a competitive advantage for shippers navigating global volatility. But infrastructure alone is not enough. What is required is a shift in mindset. Federal freight policy must treat the Great Lakes as a fully integrated corridor. Carriers need to revisit assumptions about vessel size and routing patterns. Shippers will now be able to prioritize proximity, reliability and carbon performance rather than adhering to legacy paths shaped by outdated restrictions. The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base. Supporting inland container movement by vessel can drive demand for US-built ships, sustain skilled shipyard jobs, and expand the national maritime workforce. This is not just a logistics upgrade. It is a long-term investment in national capacity, employment, and competitiveness. This is a practical opportunity to enhance the national freight system using inland infrastructure that is efficient, cost-effective and underutilized. Monroe stands ready to serve shippers, carriers and policymakers seeking flexible, durable solutions. The Great Lakes have always had the potential to support containerized trade. Now that the path is open, the Port of Monroe is prepared to deliver. Capt. Paul C. LaMarre III is also director of the Port of Monroe in Michigan. Contact him at <a href="mailto:plamarre@portofmonroe.com">plamarre@portofmonroe.com</a>. </div>

For decades, international containerized freight from Michigan and the broader Midwest has been routed through distant US coastal gateways such as New York, Norfolk and Savannah, or Canadian ports such as Halifax and Montreal. Export-side users have included automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel and chemical producers and agricultural shippers, while imports have consisted of tier 1 suppliers, machinery and equipment distributors and retail or e-commerce consolidators. These routes were not chosen for efficiency or cost. They were imposed by federal restrictions that have for decades prevented containerized freight from entering or exiting the Great Lakes by vessel. US Customs today does not permit such movements through Michigan because no facility in the state meets the required federal standards for security and processing. That is about to change. In 2026, the Port of Monroe will activate the first SAFE Port Act-compliant international container terminal in the Great Lakes, along with a new roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) platform that complements existing vessel berths, dual Class I rail access and proximity to interstate highways and Midwest manufacturing. Together, these assets position Monroe as a fully integrated inland gateway for containerized trade and high-value industrial logistics. Conservatively, 1 million to 2 million TEUs of oceangoing cargo are generated annually from the Great Lakes’ industrial core, according to port estimates. This includes high-value shipments from sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and electronics. Rather than projecting future throughput volumes, the Port of Monroe is focused on establishing a lawful and functioning corridor, allowing the market to respond. The goal is to restore balance, provide carriers with a practical entry point and give shippers a logistics option that should have existed decades ago. The terminal at Monroe will be available to operators who recognize the value of establishing service in an underserved but strategically positioned market. The automotive industry, in particular, stands to benefit. With production concentrated in the Midwest and export demand on the rise, direct vessel service from Monroe reduces complexity and supports just-in-time inventory models. Monroe offers a new point of connection between Midwest production and global markets, serving as a strategic outlet for general containerized freight and, more uniquely, for the direct shipment of new vehicles via ro/ro or in containers. Resilience has become a defining priority for today’s logistics networks. The March 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, a critical ro/ro and vehicle export hub, exposed the system’s fragility. Overnight, cargo flows were disrupted, schedules were delayed and shippers were forced to reroute at significant cost. Inland ports such as the Port of Monroe offer a hedge against that kind of single-point failure. ‘Manageable’ constraints Do the Great Lakes have constraints? Yes, but they are manageable. The annual three-month winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is predictable and published well in advance, allowing cargo owners and carriers to plan accordingly. Intra-lake shipping continues throughout the winter, particularly with ice-class vessels. Recent climate trends indicate shorter freeze periods and milder conditions, which are gradually increasing intralake shipping capacity during the winter months. Other northern regions facing even harsher winter conditions have demonstrated what is possible. The Baltic Sea offers a relevant example. Despite a smaller economic footprint and more severe ice conditions, Baltic ports remain active year-round through the use of ice-capable vessels and integrated multimodal infrastructure. There is no reason the Great Lakes, now that the regulatory path has been cleared, should not do the same and make a comparable contribution to North American trade resilience. Unlike coastal gateways, which face sudden disruptions from hurricanes, labor action and infrastructure failures, the risks on the Great Lakes are stable and foreseeable. That reliability offers a competitive advantage for shippers navigating global volatility. But infrastructure alone is not enough. What is required is a shift in mindset. Federal freight policy must treat the Great Lakes as a fully integrated corridor. Carriers need to revisit assumptions about vessel size and routing patterns. Shippers will now be able to prioritize proximity, reliability and carbon performance rather than adhering to legacy paths shaped by outdated restrictions. The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base. Supporting inland container movement by vessel can drive demand for US-built ships, sustain skilled shipyard jobs, and expand the national maritime workforce. This is not just a logistics upgrade. It is a long-term investment in national capacity, employment, and competitiveness. This is a practical opportunity to enhance the national freight system using inland infrastructure that is efficient, cost-effective and underutilized. Monroe stands ready to serve shippers, carriers and policymakers seeking flexible, durable solutions. The Great Lakes have always had the potential to support containerized trade. Now that the path is open, the Port of Monroe is prepared to deliver. Capt. Paul C. LaMarre III is also director of the Port of Monroe in Michigan. Contact him at plamarre@portofmonroe.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

 Actual capacity

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

Planned capacity

Blanked capacity

eeSea collects and centralizes liner network data from dozens of public sources including carriers’ vessel tracking portals, long-term schedules, customer advisories, port and terminal operator schedules, and pilot schedules. These disparate datasets are continually inspected, cleaned, and carefully structured. eeSea synthesizes this refined public data with AIS positions from a third-party provider and its datasets spanning schedule reliability, transit times, trade capacity evolution, and 60-day vessel forecasts. Capacity is measured based on the last load port in Asia [eeSea](https://www.eesea.com)

Asia to US West Coast container capacity (eeSea)

Asia to US West Coast container capacity(eeSea)

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The world’s largest container ship operator “proactively restructured” its US service network to mitigate any impact from the Trump administration’s new levies on Chinese ships, according to MSC CEO Soren Toft.</div>

The world’s largest container ship operator “proactively restructured” its US service network to mitigate any impact from the Trump administration’s new levies on Chinese ships, according to MSC CEO Soren Toft.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is the latest carrier to change vessel deployments for its US network ahead of new port fees on Chinese-built ships, signaling to its shippers that the carrier will absorb, if not entirely avoid, the cost of the new fees.In a customer advisory sent Thursday, CEO Soren Toft said MSC “proactively restructured its global vessel network” in response to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s fees on Chinese-built or -operated ships calling US ports</a>. The fees, scheduled to start Oct. 14 and based on the higher of either gross tonnage or container volume, amount to an extra $300 to $600 per container by various estimates.“This internal adjustment ensures full alignment with applicable US trade regulations while maintaining the reliability and efficiency of MSC’s service offerings,” Toft said in the notice. MSC’s announcement comes after CMA CGM said Wednesday that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-reroutes-china-built-ships-to-avoid-us-port-fees-6078488">it doesn’t plan to charge customers</a> shipping to the US to cover the cost of the new fees after removing Chinese-built ships from its US service networks. China’s Cosco Shipping, which will not be able to avoid the fee due its ownership, also does not plan to levy a surcharge, according to a carrier executive and Cosco customer familiar with the carrier’s plan.Thirty-five of the 266 individual ships operated by MSC that called the US during the last six months were built in China, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global.While many of those were likely ad hoc calls, some of MSC’s Chinese fleet that was in regular rotation to the US now appear to be deployed to non-US trades, Sea-web and vessel schedules show. The 9,411-TEU MSC Jeongmin, which has made 154 calls to the US over the last five years, the last of which was to Los Angeles in August as part of the carrier’s California Express service from Europe, is now part of the Levante Express service between the Mediterranean and northern Europe. The 8,496-TEU MSC Ivory Coast, which made 13 US calls over the last five years, is now listed in the rotation for the carrier’s West Mediterranean-Red Sea service.MSC’s fleet composition offers versatility in its deployments. According to Sea-web data, about half of MSC’s active container fleet is from South Korean shipbuilders, while Chinese vessels make up about a quarter of its fleet. However, MSC has an additional 106 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of 1.9 million TEUs, on order or under construction at Chinese shipyards, with no known orders from South Korean yards on its books, Sea-web data shows. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) is the latest carrier to change vessel deployments for its US network ahead of new port fees on Chinese-built ships, signaling to its shippers that the carrier will absorb, if not entirely avoid, the cost of the new fees. In a customer advisory sent Thursday, CEO Soren Toft said MSC “proactively restructured its global vessel network” in response to the US Trade Representative’s fees on Chinese-built or -operated ships calling US ports . The fees, scheduled to start Oct. 14 and based on the higher of either gross tonnage or container volume, amount to an extra $300 to $600 per container by various estimates. “This internal adjustment ensures full alignment with applicable US trade regulations while maintaining the reliability and efficiency of MSC’s service offerings,” Toft said in the notice. MSC’s announcement comes after CMA CGM said Wednesday that it doesn’t plan to charge customers shipping to the US to cover the cost of the new fees after removing Chinese-built ships from its US service networks. China’s Cosco Shipping, which will not be able to avoid the fee due its ownership, also does not plan to levy a surcharge, according to a carrier executive and Cosco customer familiar with the carrier’s plan. Thirty-five of the 266 individual ships operated by MSC that called the US during the last six months were built in China, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. While many of those were likely ad hoc calls, some of MSC’s Chinese fleet that was in regular rotation to the US now appear to be deployed to non-US trades, Sea-web and vessel schedules show. The 9,411-TEU MSC Jeongmin, which has made 154 calls to the US over the last five years, the last of which was to Los Angeles in August as part of the carrier’s California Express service from Europe, is now part of the Levante Express service between the Mediterranean and northern Europe. The 8,496-TEU MSC Ivory Coast, which made 13 US calls over the last five years, is now listed in the rotation for the carrier’s West Mediterranean-Red Sea service. MSC’s fleet composition offers versatility in its deployments. According to Sea-web data, about half of MSC’s active container fleet is from South Korean shipbuilders, while Chinese vessels make up about a quarter of its fleet. However, MSC has an additional 106 vessels, with an aggregate capacity of 1.9 million TEUs, on order or under construction at Chinese shipyards, with no known orders from South Korean yards on its books, Sea-web data shows. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

MSC ready for US port fees after network changes: CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Equipment manufacturers and industry associations urged the US Department of Commerce to take a measured approach to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic wind industry.</div>

Equipment manufacturers and industry associations urged the US Department of Commerce to take a measured approach to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic wind industry.

<div class="phx-topic">US wind energy shippers are voicing concerns about potential tariffs and subsequent supply chain disruptions and delays to clean energy development that could result from a Department of Commerce investigation into imports of wind turbines and their components. In <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/25/2025-16191/notice-of-request-for-public-comments-on-section-232-national-security-investigation-of-imports-of">public comments on the Section 232 national security investigation</a>, US equipment manufacturers and industry associations advocated for a measured approach to any potential remedies to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic industry. “If the administration decides to put additional tariffs on these wind components and parts in addition to those already being paid by the industry, the industry should be given time to adjust supply chains accordingly,” wrote Vanessa Sciarra, vice president for trade and international competitiveness at the American Clean Power Association. “[C]utting off access to affordable inputs before viable domestic or allied alternatives are available risks hurting US manufacturing efforts.” Henry Kelley, president of Blue Wind Technology, a US-based manufacturer of nacelles and other wind energy components, highlighted the dual challenge of protecting domestic industry while not stifling growth. “Wind is among the fastest-growing sectors in US energy security,” Kelley said. “Broad tariffs risk raising costs for manufacturers like Blue Wind without effectively targeting unfair trade practices.” Kelley painted a sobering picture of the current supply chain landscape, stating that “presently, there are no domestic suppliers ready to fully meet demand for many nacelle and turbine components.” He called for a “grace period” to allow US suppliers to scale up production and to prevent policy measures from “unintentionally derail[ing] clean energy progress.” Roger Martella, chief corporate officer and executive vice president of GE Vernova, emphasized the wind equipment manufacturer’s strong domestic footprint, noting that its “US supply chain consists of over 300 manufacturing and services suppliers representing over 50,000 total jobs, of which nearly 36,000 are manufacturing.” Martella also pointed to GE Vernova’s own technological innovations as a way to address cost concerns, stating that its new technology will “reduce manufacturing costs of casted components and provide a drastic financial advantage when compared to including costs of importation logistics and tariffs from China or the European Union.” Comments from the government of the People’s Republic of China, however, presented a starkly different perspective, calling the Section 232 measures a form of “bullying, unilateralism and protectionism under the pretext of national security.” The comments warned that “constraints on parts and components supply and higher turbine costs would discourage new construction and expansion of existing projects and reduce employment opportunities across the wind power sector in the United States.” Furthermore, the Chinese government argued that the US wind industry’s difficulties are rooted in internal structural issues, such as a lack of specialized installation vessels, limited port capacity and transportation pressures associated with larger turbines. “Before these internal structural issues are effectively resolved, attributing the US industry’s difficulties to imports will neither improve the resilience of the US domestic supply chain nor address the deeper challenges that the US wind power industry is facing,” it wrote. Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US wind energy shippers are voicing concerns about potential tariffs and subsequent supply chain disruptions and delays to clean energy development that could result from a Department of Commerce investigation into imports of wind turbines and their components. In public comments on the Section 232 national security investigation , US equipment manufacturers and industry associations advocated for a measured approach to any potential remedies to avoid unintentionally harming the domestic industry. “If the administration decides to put additional tariffs on these wind components and parts in addition to those already being paid by the industry, the industry should be given time to adjust supply chains accordingly,” wrote Vanessa Sciarra, vice president for trade and international competitiveness at the American Clean Power Association. “[C]utting off access to affordable inputs before viable domestic or allied alternatives are available risks hurting US manufacturing efforts.” Henry Kelley, president of Blue Wind Technology, a US-based manufacturer of nacelles and other wind energy components, highlighted the dual challenge of protecting domestic industry while not stifling growth. “Wind is among the fastest-growing sectors in US energy security,” Kelley said. “Broad tariffs risk raising costs for manufacturers like Blue Wind without effectively targeting unfair trade practices.” Kelley painted a sobering picture of the current supply chain landscape, stating that “presently, there are no domestic suppliers ready to fully meet demand for many nacelle and turbine components.” He called for a “grace period” to allow US suppliers to scale up production and to prevent policy measures from “unintentionally derail[ing] clean energy progress.” Roger Martella, chief corporate officer and executive vice president of GE Vernova, emphasized the wind equipment manufacturer’s strong domestic footprint, noting that its “US supply chain consists of over 300 manufacturing and services suppliers representing over 50,000 total jobs, of which nearly 36,000 are manufacturing.” Martella also pointed to GE Vernova’s own technological innovations as a way to address cost concerns, stating that its new technology will “reduce manufacturing costs of casted components and provide a drastic financial advantage when compared to including costs of importation logistics and tariffs from China or the European Union.” Comments from the government of the People’s Republic of China, however, presented a starkly different perspective, calling the Section 232 measures a form of “bullying, unilateralism and protectionism under the pretext of national security.” The comments warned that “constraints on parts and components supply and higher turbine costs would discourage new construction and expansion of existing projects and reduce employment opportunities across the wind power sector in the United States.” Furthermore, the Chinese government argued that the US wind industry’s difficulties are rooted in internal structural issues, such as a lack of specialized installation vessels, limited port capacity and transportation pressures associated with larger turbines. “Before these internal structural issues are effectively resolved, attributing the US industry’s difficulties to imports will neither improve the resilience of the US domestic supply chain nor address the deeper challenges that the US wind power industry is facing,” it wrote. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk carriers

Project cargo

Energy projects

US wind sector warns against further increase in import tariffs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The suspension of the TP9/WC6 service from Xiamen and Busan is the latest effort by carriers to stem declining container spot rates and adjusting capacity to softening demand.</div>

The suspension of the TP9/WC6 service from Xiamen and Busan is the latest effort by carriers to stem declining container spot rates and adjusting capacity to softening demand.

<div class="phx-topic">Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to the TP9/WC6 as a standalone Maersk service. The Gemini Cooperation is suspending a relatively new trans-Pacific service, the latest effort by ocean carriers to adjust capacity to meet falling demand and put a floor on US inbound container spot rates, Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd said Wednesday. The suspension of the T9/WC6 service, which Gemini introduced to take advantage of a tariff-induced volume surge, comes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/premier-alliance-service-halt-latest-sign-of-trans-pacific-demand-downturn-6076326">after Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd warned customers of three blank sailings next month</a>, reflecting a fast-shifting market. The last sailing of the TP9, which connected Xiamen, Busan and Long Beach, will depart Busan Sept. 23. “This service was introduced over the summer to provide more capacity in those traditional peak-volume months, with a port coverage that duplicates what we have on the standing network,” a Maersk spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. The suspension followed a similar announcement that the Premier Alliance of Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM and Yang Ming would <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/premier-alliance-service-halt-latest-sign-of-trans-pacific-demand-downturn-6076326">suspend its Pacific South 5 express service</a>. US retailers forecast import volumes will <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-upgrade-import-forecast-but-still-expect-q4-decline-6077875">fall sharply in the fourth quarter</a> and into January, putting pressure on carriers to remove functional capacity. Carriers are also leaning on blank sailings to manage trans-Pacific capacity, blanking about 10% of deployed tonnage to the US West Coast in September and October, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Almost 18% of deployed capacity from Asia to the East and Gulf coasts will be blanked, up from 12.8% in September. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="81917b3f-7cba-4731-a290-03737b85adbe"></dynamic-object></div>Even so, container lines plan to deploy a total of 2.1 million TEUs of capacity from Asia to the US this month after accounting for blank sailings, up from 1.9 million TEUs in September 2024, according to eeSea. The next significant wave of capacity adjustments will come during the first half of October, when carriers will blank at least 18 sailings on Asia–North America routes. Container spot rates, as tracked by various indices, have been declining since early June. Average pricing from Asia to the West Coast reached $2,100 per FEU on Sept. 9, down 66% from $6,040 per FEU in the week of June 6, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com.</a></div>

Clarification: A previous version of this story referred to the TP9/WC6 as a standalone Maersk service. The Gemini Cooperation is suspending a relatively new trans-Pacific service, the latest effort by ocean carriers to adjust capacity to meet falling demand and put a floor on US inbound container spot rates, Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd said Wednesday. The suspension of the T9/WC6 service, which Gemini introduced to take advantage of a tariff-induced volume surge, comes after Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd warned customers of three blank sailings next month , reflecting a fast-shifting market. The last sailing of the TP9, which connected Xiamen, Busan and Long Beach, will depart Busan Sept. 23. “This service was introduced over the summer to provide more capacity in those traditional peak-volume months, with a port coverage that duplicates what we have on the standing network,” a Maersk spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. The suspension followed a similar announcement that the Premier Alliance of Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM and Yang Ming would suspend its Pacific South 5 express service . US retailers forecast import volumes will fall sharply in the fourth quarter and into January, putting pressure on carriers to remove functional capacity. Carriers are also leaning on blank sailings to manage trans-Pacific capacity, blanking about 10% of deployed tonnage to the US West Coast in September and October, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Almost 18% of deployed capacity from Asia to the East and Gulf coasts will be blanked, up from 12.8% in September. Even so, container lines plan to deploy a total of 2.1 million TEUs of capacity from Asia to the US this month after accounting for blank sailings, up from 1.9 million TEUs in September 2024, according to eeSea. The next significant wave of capacity adjustments will come during the first half of October, when carriers will blank at least 18 sailings on Asia–North America routes. Container spot rates, as tracked by various indices, have been declining since early June. Average pricing from Asia to the West Coast reached $2,100 per FEU on Sept. 9, down 66% from $6,040 per FEU in the week of June 6, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com.

Gemini suspends seasonal trans-Pacific service

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 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 ESSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code ESSGW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

In today’s competitive logistical landscape, efficiency is an absolute necessity for smooth operations. Yet, in the barge sector, many operators still rely on fragmented systems, delayed updates, and manual tracking methods that slow decision-making and increase operational risk. OpenTug’s new eBook, How Enhanced Visibility Transforms Barge Operations, reveals how unified, real-time data can become your competitive advantage leading to improved voyage management and more actionable insights. Drawing on industry best practices and real-world examples, it explores how operational transparency empowers teams to: ●	Reduce delays with accurate ETAs and proactive scheduling decisions ●	Improve asset utilization by identifying underused equipment and optimizing cargos ●	Strengthen safety and compliance through consistent, accessible documentation and reporting ●	Boost customer satisfaction with transparent status updates and faster response time You’ll learn how visibility can connect every part of your operation into a single, actionable view. The ability to see and act on real-time information transforms the way you plan, execute, and deliver. From managing a small regional fleet to running a large, national operation, this eBook will help you understand the measurable benefits of enhanced visibility and how technology like BargeOS is transforming the way barge logistics is managed. Get your copy today and see how clear insights lead to stronger performance, smarter decisions, and more profitable operations. <a href="https://9315820.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/9315820/eBook/Nav-theFuture-AJW-08.19.25.pdf" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">Click here</a><span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1756152344211_Opentug%20logo.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Opentug11.png

Transform Barge Operations with Total Visibility

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: <a href="https://www.ssamarine.mx/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">https://www.ssamarine.mx/</a>

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

The world of LTL is slow to embrace change. Business anachronisms permeate current supply chain processes. These vestiges of the way things used to work define the LTL freight transportation procurement process of many modern shippers.David Knuth, logistics specialist at IEWC, a global supplier of cable and wire based in Wisconsin, is happy to have modernized the RFP process, automating the entire LTL bidding procedure with Bid$ense, SMC³’s automated truckload and LTL freight transportation sourcing solution. But when prompted, he can still recall what once was.In his previous job, a large part of his duties were consumed by creating an intermodal bid package for carriers. In a spreadsheet, Knuth detailed the company’s volumes lane by lane, taking care to delete any errant keystrokes or misleading data. He would then email out the information to each carrier, taking time to respond to detailed technical questions about the spreadsheet data. Finally, he had to compile all the results, create an algorithm that would compare the carriers on each lane, and award the business.“It was a huge undertaking. It took about four months to do,” Knuth said of the old process. “It was almost a full-time job for that part of the year, every year.”In his new job at IEWC, he sat down with Bid$ense on day one and was amazed at the capabilities. Knuth had never before used a bid tool. SMC³’s latest versions of Bid$ense automate the process even further, taking truckload and LTL RFPs entirely online. The tool draws on RFP best-practices protocols to streamline the bidding communication process, enabling bidding carriers to respond accurately and promptly to shipper requests. The solution also does all the distribution work automatically, electronically submitting shipper bid data to carriers based on their actual service capabilities and performance records. Carriers are alerted with timely prompts for RFP deliverables, so shippers aren’t waiting by the phone for responses.Another benefit of automating the process is the data-cleansing assistance. When Knuth sent spreadsheets to carriers, data errors might cloud the bidding process; he might have to resend data or simply accept a price that did not truly reflect the costs of doing business. Data cleansing is incredibly beneficial, he said.The spreadsheet technique also made bidding analysis an onerous task. Since Bid$ense automates and streamlines the entire RFP process, intensive examination is now simple. SMC³ knows that each bid has more than one best outcome. With uniform responses from each carrier, shippers can quickly rank results and create an unlimited quantity of what-if scenarios to make the optimal procurement decision.Jesse Burnett of Central Garden &amp; Pet experiences many of the same benefits. Founded in 1980, Central Garden &amp; Pet has spent the last three decades growing from a small garden supply company to a provider of a range of products from dog chews and bird seed to soil supplements and natural insecticides. For much of its life, the company shipped these disparate goods via LTL and truckload carriers to retailers throughout the country, relying on each business unit to negotiate directly with their freight transportation providers. This arrangement worked fairly well for a small company, but as Central Garden &amp; Pet expanded, leadership decided to consolidate decision making.Burnett helped centralize the transportation decision making in 2015 with SMC³’s Bid$ense. Before Bid$ense, every business unit operated independently as far as negotiating with carriers.“There were a lot of different things just floating around,” he said. “We didn’t have master agreements in place; no national pricing at all. The pricing from carriers was just all over the place, depending on where you were.”The transformations he saw with Bid$ense were immediate. Burnett has been using the tool about every other year since its implementation at the company. Central Garden and Pet’s $19.6 million 2019 LTL bid saved the company just more than 9 percent when compared to its historical average. For Burnett, though, bid automation extends far beyond savings.“We knew that we weren’t getting the best pricing offer from our carriers just because nothing was centralized,” he continued. “We knew that if we combined everything from all these business units and paired it with one corporate offering, then it would drive some cost benefit with it.”When the company initially decided to centralize bid procurement, executives researched a number of different methodologies and technologies. In the end, though, Burnett found that Bid$ense was both widespread and well known, and that his carrier partners already knew how to use the application. Burnett also highlighted the data-cleansing process as a major benefit, saying the rigorous process ensures that carriers always return the best price.“It definitely has helped drive savings,” he said. “Any time you go out there and you drive that competitiveness with the carriers and they know they’re in a bid environment, it seems to sharpen their pencils.”Transportation procurement is an integral part of the modern supply chain. With Bid$ense, shippers can develop a strategic implementation plan that saves them time and money, but also helps them create strong relationships with their carrier partners. These carriers appreciate the solution’s data-cleansing process; when carriers receive a complete shipment history and future volume forecast, they don’t have to guess on pricing. Carriers that receive more data from shippers get a complete picture of that shipper’s freight, allowing them to accurately plan instead of simply preparing for the worst-case scenario. Clean data presented through an automated system can lead to both bigger shipment savings and a lasting partnership between carrier and customer.Whether customers are looking to streamline over-the-road transportation bidding by automating the RFP process or create an entirely new, centralized sourcing process, Bid$ense has the analytical horsepower to get the job done.SMC³ 2020 Customer Case Study

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

If there’s one immutable truth in the world of logistics, it’s this: LTL is an inherently complex form of transportation. Tariffs, rates, DIM weights, transit times — it’s enough to confuse even seasoned logistics professionals. The solution to this knowledge gap has historically been on-the-job training or university supply chain education, but for a variety of reasons there is now a pressing need for third-party, remote LTL training that prepares logistics workers for transportation success. Global Scope Can Overlook Local Intricacies In the past, professionals looking to move into a supply chain career learned about the basics of supply chain from universities. However, many of these college supply chain programs are now global in scope, focusing on worldwide supply chain management instead of the intricacies of specialized domestic transportation. And even these programs, which used to be widespread, are becoming less common. LTL is not an industry of broad-brush strokes; supply chain professionals really need a pointillistic understanding of the logistics of LTL in order to excel in the industry. Accelerating Need for Dedicated LTL Education This lack of specified training put the onus on employers to prepare new hires with the LTL knowledge needed to do their jobs. Dedicated LTL study is a necessity, not a luxury. At the same time, changes in LTL and the broader supply chain world are accelerating. The reliance on e-commerce has ballooned since the start of the pandemic, and last-mile LTL shipments and related e-commerce strains on the supply chain won’t diminish once social distancing abates. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. So supply chain employers need logistics workers that are fully versed in all aspects of the industry, ready to solve unique shipping and delivery problems based on their extensive supply chain knowledge But why care about LTL? It’s been reported that some shippers in today’s world are no longer concerned with what mode is used to ship their goods. A Multimodal Approach Ensures On-Time Delivery This mode agnosticism means supply chain stakeholders have to be well versed in all modes of transportation. As unforeseen weather events and other disruptions, such as protests, become more common, savvy logistics employees will need to be armed with familiarity of all modes, not just the most popular, to ensure that freight is delivered on time, without damage, and in the most financially expedient way possible. Offerings like SMC³’s LTL online education courses cover a wide range of topics from LTL basics and operations to more advanced concepts like pricing analytics and transportation law. The company also has plans to continually refresh content, adding new expert presenters and taking the feedback of students to make the courses even better as time goes on. Learn more about&nbsp;<a href="https://logisticstrainingcenter.com/smc3-courses/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">SMC³’s LTL Online Education program</a>&nbsp;and view the 2021 hybrid schedule, featuring live industry experts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.smc3.com/onlinelearning2021/" rel="noreferrer" class="joc_admin__link">here.</a>

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous 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

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code ESSW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier said that network adjustments that began in April will allow it to eliminate the impact of new US port fees for ships built in China on its shipper customers while maintaining US port coverage.</div>

The carrier said that network adjustments that began in April will allow it to eliminate the impact of new US port fees for ships built in China on its shipper customers while maintaining US port coverage.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM does not plan to charge shippers for the port fees it may face next month for using Chinese-built container ships in service on US trades, nor will it reduce US port coverage on those routes. The container carrier said Wednesday that it has made “fleet and operational adjustments” ahead of the Oct. 14 start date for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) new fees on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports</a>. As such, CMA CGM “is not considering implementation of a surcharge on cargo shipped to or from the US at this time,” the company said. The fees, which could amount to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">anywhere from $1 million to $3 million for the first US port call</a> and will escalate through 2028, resulted from federal investigations into Chinese dominance of the maritime industry that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">spanned the administrations of presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump</a>. “During the 180-day grace period following the April 17 USTR announcement, CMA CGM has taken the necessary steps to implement a robust and adaptive contingency plan,” the carrier said. “We currently expect to both maintain our service coverage to all scheduled US ports and minimize any impacts of the upcoming USTR fees.” Over the last six months, 141 different ships operated by CMA CGM called US ports, 22 of which were built in China, according to data from Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. While some of those ships appear to be extra-loaders or making ad-hoc calls, a few ships that regularly called US ports appear to have been redeployed to serve non-US ports. In particular, CMA CGM removed larger post-Panamax ships that would be subject to higher fees due to their capacity. For example, the CMA CGM Hermes, a 15,000-TEU ship built in Shanghai, has made 44 calls to the US over the last five years, but its last arrival at a US port was on March 31, according to Sea-Web. Since then, the ship has operated on CMA CGM’s Phoenician Express service between Asia and the Middle East. Sister ship CMA CGM Osiris, which last called Oakland in April, is likewise now serving the Middle East. The 15,000-TEU CMA CGM Zephyr, which made 33 port calls to the US over the last five years, is now dispatched to the carrier’s West Africa Express service. <h3>New orders skew toward China </h3>CMA CGM’s active global container fleet has slightly more tonnage built in South Korea, while its order book of new ships has more capacity slated for construction at shipyards in China. According to Sea-Web, CMA CGM currently operates 274 container ships built in South Korea with a combined capacity of 2.18 million TEUs, 253 vessels (1.4 million TEUs) from yards in mainland China, and 125 ships built in Japan, Taiwan or Europe. The carrier has an additional 59 ships on order from China and 29 from South Korea. That sourcing diversification should allow CMA CGM to mitigate the new fees, CFO Ramon Fernandez said during <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgms-q2-earnings-slide-as-geopolitics-tariffs-hit-shipping-business-6052414">a July interview with the Journal of Commerce</a>, adding that the carrier wants to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-to-invest-20-billion-in-us-shipping-ports-and-logistics-5957748">support the Trump administration’s bid to restore the US shipbuilding industry</a>. “Part of our fleet is being built in in China, part of our fleet is being built in Korea, and so we will be able to manage whatever kind of regulation imposed on us,” Fernandez said. “We are also planning and working on building some vessels in the US, and we are currently discussing with different stakeholders in order to make sure that we can have competitive prices when we consider building ships in the US.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.Senior Editor Greg Knowler contributed to this article. </div>

CMA CGM does not plan to charge shippers for the port fees it may face next month for using Chinese-built container ships in service on US trades, nor will it reduce US port coverage on those routes. The container carrier said Wednesday that it has made “fleet and operational adjustments” ahead of the Oct. 14 start date for the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) new fees on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports . As such, CMA CGM “is not considering implementation of a surcharge on cargo shipped to or from the US at this time,” the company said. The fees, which could amount to anywhere from $1 million to $3 million for the first US port call and will escalate through 2028, resulted from federal investigations into Chinese dominance of the maritime industry that spanned the administrations of presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump . “During the 180-day grace period following the April 17 USTR announcement, CMA CGM has taken the necessary steps to implement a robust and adaptive contingency plan,” the carrier said. “We currently expect to both maintain our service coverage to all scheduled US ports and minimize any impacts of the upcoming USTR fees.” Over the last six months, 141 different ships operated by CMA CGM called US ports, 22 of which were built in China, according to data from Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. While some of those ships appear to be extra-loaders or making ad-hoc calls, a few ships that regularly called US ports appear to have been redeployed to serve non-US ports. In particular, CMA CGM removed larger post-Panamax ships that would be subject to higher fees due to their capacity. For example, the CMA CGM Hermes, a 15,000-TEU ship built in Shanghai, has made 44 calls to the US over the last five years, but its last arrival at a US port was on March 31, according to Sea-Web. Since then, the ship has operated on CMA CGM’s Phoenician Express service between Asia and the Middle East. Sister ship CMA CGM Osiris, which last called Oakland in April, is likewise now serving the Middle East. The 15,000-TEU CMA CGM Zephyr, which made 33 port calls to the US over the last five years, is now dispatched to the carrier’s West Africa Express service. New orders skew toward China CMA CGM’s active global container fleet has slightly more tonnage built in South Korea, while its order book of new ships has more capacity slated for construction at shipyards in China. According to Sea-Web, CMA CGM currently operates 274 container ships built in South Korea with a combined capacity of 2.18 million TEUs, 253 vessels (1.4 million TEUs) from yards in mainland China, and 125 ships built in Japan, Taiwan or Europe. The carrier has an additional 59 ships on order from China and 29 from South Korea. That sourcing diversification should allow CMA CGM to mitigate the new fees, CFO Ramon Fernandez said during a July interview with the Journal of Commerce, adding that the carrier wants to support the Trump administration’s bid to restore the US shipbuilding industry . “Part of our fleet is being built in in China, part of our fleet is being built in Korea, and so we will be able to manage whatever kind of regulation imposed on us,” Fernandez said. “We are also planning and working on building some vessels in the US, and we are currently discussing with different stakeholders in order to make sure that we can have competitive prices when we consider building ships in the US.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com . Senior Editor Greg Knowler contributed to this article.

CMA CGM reroutes China-built ships to avoid US port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The trucking shutdown adds to existing pressure at India’s busiest container gateway after a buildup of import boxes caused severe rail slowdowns last month.</div>

The trucking shutdown adds to existing pressure at India’s busiest container gateway after a buildup of import boxes caused severe rail slowdowns last month.

<div class="phx-topic">Landside cargo flow in and out of the ports of Mundra and Kandla has effectively been shut down after drayage operators serving the western Indian ports walked out Friday, bringing over-the-road cargo traffic in the region to a standstill, industry sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The shutdown adds to existing pressure at Adani Ports-operated Mundra, which only recently recovered from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congestion-choking-mundra-port-threatens-north-india-cargo-flow-6074653">severe rail congestion</a>. Approximately 70% of containerized cargo landing at Mundra, the busiest container gateway in India, moves inland by truck. The strike action, reportedly involving about 35,000 freight vehicles, revolves around long-standing demands, with highway infrastructure improvements at the top of that list. “Movement of import and export cargo through Mundra, Kandla and CFS [container freight station] facilities, [container] empty depots and associated industrial units will remain suspended until further notice,” the striking truckers said in a joint statement. “This collective action is intended to ensure long-term solutions that will ultimately benefit the entire trade and industry ecosystem connected with Mundra and Kandla.” Carrier sources in Mundra have voiced concerns over the drayage halt as cargo lifts remain under growing pressure due to a US tariff-linked downturn in westbound volumes and no immediate sign that the strike will result in fresh negotiations. “Anticipating truck service disruptions, we have managed to pre-gate additional containers into the terminal for our week-end US East Coast sailing,” said an operations executive at a European carrier who asked not to be identified. “But the impact for early next week vessels will be heavy if the strike is not lifted by then.” A truck owner with major hauling stakes in Mundra said drayage carriers will not budge on their demands for better highway conditions amid constantly rising toll rates. “We are fighting a well-coordinated ‘no road, no toll’ battle,” the source said. “We had issued strike notices in advance to help all trade stakeholders plan their critical or urgent shipments ahead of the strike.” The shutdown comes amid an easing of severe rail delays at Mundra that were triggered by a buildup of import containers. “The rail system is now largely back to normal, though there might still be some minor delays in transfer of containers at the port upon arrival due to yard lingering space problems,” a freight forwarder familiar with the port’s operations told the Journal of Commerce. Container volumes through Mundra rose 4% year over year to 5.6 million TEUs in the first eight months of 2025, according to data obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Landside cargo flow in and out of the ports of Mundra and Kandla has effectively been shut down after drayage operators serving the western Indian ports walked out Friday, bringing over-the-road cargo traffic in the region to a standstill, industry sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The shutdown adds to existing pressure at Adani Ports-operated Mundra, which only recently recovered from severe rail congestion . Approximately 70% of containerized cargo landing at Mundra, the busiest container gateway in India, moves inland by truck. The strike action, reportedly involving about 35,000 freight vehicles, revolves around long-standing demands, with highway infrastructure improvements at the top of that list. “Movement of import and export cargo through Mundra, Kandla and CFS [container freight station] facilities, [container] empty depots and associated industrial units will remain suspended until further notice,” the striking truckers said in a joint statement. “This collective action is intended to ensure long-term solutions that will ultimately benefit the entire trade and industry ecosystem connected with Mundra and Kandla.” Carrier sources in Mundra have voiced concerns over the drayage halt as cargo lifts remain under growing pressure due to a US tariff-linked downturn in westbound volumes and no immediate sign that the strike will result in fresh negotiations. “Anticipating truck service disruptions, we have managed to pre-gate additional containers into the terminal for our week-end US East Coast sailing,” said an operations executive at a European carrier who asked not to be identified. “But the impact for early next week vessels will be heavy if the strike is not lifted by then.” A truck owner with major hauling stakes in Mundra said drayage carriers will not budge on their demands for better highway conditions amid constantly rising toll rates. “We are fighting a well-coordinated ‘no road, no toll’ battle,” the source said. “We had issued strike notices in advance to help all trade stakeholders plan their critical or urgent shipments ahead of the strike.” The shutdown comes amid an easing of severe rail delays at Mundra that were triggered by a buildup of import containers. “The rail system is now largely back to normal, though there might still be some minor delays in transfer of containers at the port upon arrival due to yard lingering space problems,” a freight forwarder familiar with the port’s operations told the Journal of Commerce. Container volumes through Mundra rose 4% year over year to 5.6 million TEUs in the first eight months of 2025, according to data obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Drayage

Drayage strike shuts inland flow from Mundra, Kandla ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">COFC Logistics joins a growing list of intermodal providers that see Mexico–US cross-border freight as a major growth engine going forward.</div>

COFC Logistics joins a growing list of intermodal providers that see Mexico–US cross-border freight as a major growth engine going forward.

<div class="phx-topic">COFC Logistics, a partner to hundreds of US intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), is expanding to enter cross-border intermodal service, forging a partnership with BNSF Railway and Grupo México’s Ferromex (GMXT) The Ohio-based company is a wholesaler that provides domestic containers and slots on BNSF trains, often used by IMCs to offer their shippers options to use both western US railroads. The COFC service will offer originations in Monterrey and Silao to seven US destinations in the BNSF network, but the majority of the freight will terminate in Chicago or Dallas. “We are excited to expand the reach and capacity of our industry-leading intermodal network to the IMC community, through these key additions to COFC Logistics’ service offering,” said Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, in a statement. For shippers that rely on non-asset IMCs, the new BNSF service offers another option for cross-border freight. Rival Union Pacific Railroad has served Mexico for decades, most recently teaming up with GMXT on the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/service-levels-to-determine-success-in-reshaped-mexico-us-intermodal-market-5192946">Falcon and Eagle Premium services</a>, but diversifying rail partners can help mitigate service disruptions. COFC, which made a similar — but unsuccessful — entry into the Mexico market more than a decade ago, believes this time will be different. “We’ve done our homework and retooled our approach in Mexico, bringing a renewed strategy and sharper execution compared with the past,” Jonathan Mulch, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Journal of Commerce. “This expansion gives us nationwide reach with our domestic product and reestablishes our presence in Mexico, a market that is growing fast but is highly competitive.” Although the long-term potential is strong — shippers moved $74.4 billion worth of freight between the US and Mexico in July, up 5.2% year over year, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics — intermodal volumes on the GMXT have faltered this year. Through the first week of September, the Mexican railroad has hauled 622,151 intermodal loads, down 1.9% year over year, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). CPKC offers two cross-border intermodal services, the Mexico Midwest Express to Chicago and the Southeast Mexico Express to Atlanta, but demand is more difficult to gauge because the railroad does not separate Mexican and non-Mexican volumes in the data reported to AAR. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

COFC Logistics, a partner to hundreds of US intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), is expanding to enter cross-border intermodal service, forging a partnership with BNSF Railway and Grupo México’s Ferromex (GMXT) The Ohio-based company is a wholesaler that provides domestic containers and slots on BNSF trains, often used by IMCs to offer their shippers options to use both western US railroads. The COFC service will offer originations in Monterrey and Silao to seven US destinations in the BNSF network, but the majority of the freight will terminate in Chicago or Dallas. “We are excited to expand the reach and capacity of our industry-leading intermodal network to the IMC community, through these key additions to COFC Logistics’ service offering,” said Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, in a statement. For shippers that rely on non-asset IMCs, the new BNSF service offers another option for cross-border freight. Rival Union Pacific Railroad has served Mexico for decades, most recently teaming up with GMXT on the Falcon and Eagle Premium services , but diversifying rail partners can help mitigate service disruptions. COFC, which made a similar — but unsuccessful — entry into the Mexico market more than a decade ago, believes this time will be different. “We’ve done our homework and retooled our approach in Mexico, bringing a renewed strategy and sharper execution compared with the past,” Jonathan Mulch, vice president of sales and marketing, told the Journal of Commerce. “This expansion gives us nationwide reach with our domestic product and reestablishes our presence in Mexico, a market that is growing fast but is highly competitive.” Although the long-term potential is strong — shippers moved $74.4 billion worth of freight between the US and Mexico in July, up 5.2% year over year, according to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics — intermodal volumes on the GMXT have faltered this year. Through the first week of September, the Mexican railroad has hauled 622,151 intermodal loads, down 1.9% year over year, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). CPKC offers two cross-border intermodal services, the Mexico Midwest Express to Chicago and the Southeast Mexico Express to Atlanta, but demand is more difficult to gauge because the railroad does not separate Mexican and non-Mexican volumes in the data reported to AAR. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

BNSF intermodal partner returning to Mexico

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US retailers increased September and October import volume expectations significantly, but it will not be enough to meet 2024 levels. </div>

US retailers increased September and October import volume expectations significantly, but it will not be enough to meet 2024 levels.

<div class="phx-topic">US retailers on Tuesday said they are bringing in more imports than they projected a month ago but are still on track to ship less in the fourth quarter than they did in the same period last year. According to the latest Global Port Tracker (GPT) from Hackett Associates on behalf of the National Retail Federation (NRF), inbound container volumes will fall 6.8% year over year in September, a sharp upward revision from the 19.4% drop <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-project-big-year-over-year-import-declines-to-close-out-2025-6060323">forecast a month ago</a>. That upward revision will equate to about 300,000 TEUs of additional imports compared with the previous projection. The improved-but-still-<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carrier-profit-margins-earnings-outlook-for-2025-trimmed-further-6074809">downbeat outlook</a> for import volumes for the rest of the year comes after US importers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/premier-alliance-service-halt-latest-sign-of-trans-pacific-demand-downturn-6076326">frontloaded imports for months</a> to avoid higher US tariffs and as retail sales slow. The year-over-year declines are also steeper because cargo owners front-loaded cargo last fall to avoid US East and Gulf Coast labor strikes. “Tariffs have had a significant impact on trade,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the latest GPT. “The trade outlook for the final months of the year is not optimistic.” Despite slower job growth and higher consumer inflation, US retail sales remain solid. US retail sales in July and June rose 0.5% year over year thanks in part to people buying vehicles to avoid higher prices resulting from new steel tariffs. US importers plan to bring about 290,000 TEUs less cargo in October, 420,000 TEUs less in November and 430,000 TEUs less in December than in the same months in 2024. Actual US laden container imports from Asia spiked 25.7% year over year in July as tariffs pushed importers to move peak season and holiday goods earlier than usual, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="70970c23-b1c8-4e32-a007-d4c69ada36f8"></dynamic-object></div>“Retailers have stocked up as much as they can ahead of tariff increases,” Jonathan Gold, vice president for supply chain and customs policy at the NRF, said in the latest GPT report. “But the uncertainty of US trade policy is making it impossible to make the long-term plans that are critical to future business success.” US retailers are keeping just enough stock in hand, holding about 1.3 months of inventory from January through June, according to the latest data from the US Census Bureau. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d1f4c911-fe90-4716-8dd0-46a2d22dbd8b"></dynamic-object></div>Importers “are very cautious about holding on to inventory because of the tariffs,” a consultant who formerly held top logistics positions at two national retailers told the Journal of Commerce. “In certain sectors, demand is soft,” the consultant added. In addition, a number of businesses are reducing the inventory they carry because the tariff situation is so chaotic, a forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. The less inventory they carry, the less potential there is to be impacted by the tariff volatility, the forwarder said. Because Lunar New Year falls on Feb. 17 in 2026, rather than in January, there is less of an impetus for retailers to begin restocking in December. Even so, US retailers plan to import 19.1% less in January 2026 than a year prior, according to the GPT report. US retail sales in November and December will rise 4% year over year, compared to a 10-year compound annual growth rate of 5.2%, according to consultancy Bain &amp; Co. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US retailers on Tuesday said they are bringing in more imports than they projected a month ago but are still on track to ship less in the fourth quarter than they did in the same period last year. According to the latest Global Port Tracker (GPT) from Hackett Associates on behalf of the National Retail Federation (NRF), inbound container volumes will fall 6.8% year over year in September, a sharp upward revision from the 19.4% drop forecast a month ago . That upward revision will equate to about 300,000 TEUs of additional imports compared with the previous projection. The improved-but-still- downbeat outlook for import volumes for the rest of the year comes after US importers frontloaded imports for months to avoid higher US tariffs and as retail sales slow. The year-over-year declines are also steeper because cargo owners front-loaded cargo last fall to avoid US East and Gulf Coast labor strikes. “Tariffs have had a significant impact on trade,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the latest GPT. “The trade outlook for the final months of the year is not optimistic.” Despite slower job growth and higher consumer inflation, US retail sales remain solid. US retail sales in July and June rose 0.5% year over year thanks in part to people buying vehicles to avoid higher prices resulting from new steel tariffs. US importers plan to bring about 290,000 TEUs less cargo in October, 420,000 TEUs less in November and 430,000 TEUs less in December than in the same months in 2024. Actual US laden container imports from Asia spiked 25.7% year over year in July as tariffs pushed importers to move peak season and holiday goods earlier than usual, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&P Global. “Retailers have stocked up as much as they can ahead of tariff increases,” Jonathan Gold, vice president for supply chain and customs policy at the NRF, said in the latest GPT report. “But the uncertainty of US trade policy is making it impossible to make the long-term plans that are critical to future business success.” US retailers are keeping just enough stock in hand, holding about 1.3 months of inventory from January through June, according to the latest data from the US Census Bureau. Importers “are very cautious about holding on to inventory because of the tariffs,” a consultant who formerly held top logistics positions at two national retailers told the Journal of Commerce. “In certain sectors, demand is soft,” the consultant added. In addition, a number of businesses are reducing the inventory they carry because the tariff situation is so chaotic, a forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. The less inventory they carry, the less potential there is to be impacted by the tariff volatility, the forwarder said. Because Lunar New Year falls on Feb. 17 in 2026, rather than in January, there is less of an impetus for retailers to begin restocking in December. Even so, US retailers plan to import 19.1% less in January 2026 than a year prior, according to the GPT report. US retail sales in November and December will rise 4% year over year, compared to a 10-year compound annual growth rate of 5.2%, according to consultancy Bain & Co. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .  Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Moving beyond the ‘waste’ inherent in ‘essential’ container shipping

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

MSC ready for US port fees after network changes: CEO

US wind sector warns against further increase in import tariffs

Gemini suspends seasonal trans-Pacific service

Recent Commentary

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Top 5 Most Read Stories