<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Gold Star has a network of 20 China-centric liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa.</div>

Gold Star has a network of 20 China-centric liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd will likely use its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-deal-to-strengthen-hapag-lloyds-market-share-across-key-trade-lanes-6171044">$4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services</a> as the springboard for a significant expansion of its intra-Asia business through Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate Gold Star Line. Hapag’s existing intra-Asia coverage is limited to a series of slot charters with other shipping lines. It also utilizes intra-Asia services established by its Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk, which had several regional carriers including MCC and Sealand Asia before being consolidated within Maersk. By comparison, Gold Star has a network of 20 liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa. But they are also China-centric, linking ports such as Shanghai and Ningbo to specific Southeast Asia countries including Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand while also connecting China with India, Africa and the Middle East. There is no or very little coverage to markets such as Japan, Taiwan or within the Southeast Asia region. “I definitely see huge advantages for Hapag-Lloyd from Gold Star Line,” Capt. Igal Dafni told the Journal of Commerce. Dafni was managing director of Gold Star Line in the early 2000s before joining CNC Line and helping to drive CMA CGM’s purchase of the Taiwan-based intra-Asia carrier in 2007. Dafni is now president and CEO of IRIS Shipping Line, a domestic carrier in the Philippines. The gaps in Gold Star’s extended Asia and regional coverage give Hapag-Lloyd tremendous scope to expand its Asia network to those countries either through new services or adding ports on existing Gold Star services, Dafni said Friday. He said Gold Star’s network growth was restricted partly due to parent company Zim’s trade priorities and Israeli ownership. “There is very little activity in Japan or South Korea, for example, because those countries have never been a big market for Zim,” Dafni said. “There are also countries Gold Star definitely can’t call at such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.” Those restrictions will end under Hapag-Lloyd ownership. Alphaliner, in its newsletter this week, said Hapag-Lloyd’s takeover of Gold Star Line will help the German carrier to “enlarge its Asian footprint.” <h3>Improved connectivity, faster transits expected </h3>Aside from new services, Dafni said growth would probably also come from significant cost savings through the elimination of costly feeders and slot charters. Drawing a comparison with CMA CGM’s takeover of CNC Line, he pointed out that the French carrier’s intra-Asia network was similarly as insubstantial as Hapag-Lloyd’s is now. CNC’s total liftings were 400,000 TEUs a year at the time of the CMA CGM takeover, but that doubled to at least 1 million TEUs within a few years after CMA CGM expanded coverage and services. Dafni expected a similar level of growth for Hapag’s intra-Asia and wider regional volumes once Gold Star Line was under the carrier’s control. Gold Star’s extensive intra-Asia services will feed cargo into Hapag’s mainline hub-and-spoke Gemini Cooperation network with Maersk, offering Southeast Asia and regional exporters improved connectivity with more destinations and faster transit times. Similarly, import volumes via the Gemini network will increase volumes from the main Asia hubs to neighboring countries. “Feedering will shift from being a cost for Hapag-Lloyd to becoming a profit and revenue generator as third-party cargo shifts to its Asia services,” Dafni said. Hapag-Lloyd and Gold Star Line said it was premature to comment on what would happen to Gold Star under new ownership. The Zim deal “includes Gold Star Line, but no decision has yet been made about what will happen to the brand. It is simply too early to talk about it,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. A senior source close to Gold Star Line said it was “too early to evaluate the impact.” “We are still learning about the deal and waiting for the relevant approvals,” the source said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Hapag-Lloyd will likely use its $4.2 billion takeover of Zim Integrated Shipping Services as the springboard for a significant expansion of its intra-Asia business through Zim’s Hong Kong-headquartered affiliate Gold Star Line. Hapag’s existing intra-Asia coverage is limited to a series of slot charters with other shipping lines. It also utilizes intra-Asia services established by its Gemini Cooperation partner Maersk, which had several regional carriers including MCC and Sealand Asia before being consolidated within Maersk. By comparison, Gold Star has a network of 20 liner services operated by 40 owned and chartered ships totaling 100,000 TEUs serving Asia, India and South Africa. But they are also China-centric, linking ports such as Shanghai and Ningbo to specific Southeast Asia countries including Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand while also connecting China with India, Africa and the Middle East. There is no or very little coverage to markets such as Japan, Taiwan or within the Southeast Asia region. “I definitely see huge advantages for Hapag-Lloyd from Gold Star Line,” Capt. Igal Dafni told the Journal of Commerce. Dafni was managing director of Gold Star Line in the early 2000s before joining CNC Line and helping to drive CMA CGM’s purchase of the Taiwan-based intra-Asia carrier in 2007. Dafni is now president and CEO of IRIS Shipping Line, a domestic carrier in the Philippines. The gaps in Gold Star’s extended Asia and regional coverage give Hapag-Lloyd tremendous scope to expand its Asia network to those countries either through new services or adding ports on existing Gold Star services, Dafni said Friday. He said Gold Star’s network growth was restricted partly due to parent company Zim’s trade priorities and Israeli ownership. “There is very little activity in Japan or South Korea, for example, because those countries have never been a big market for Zim,” Dafni said. “There are also countries Gold Star definitely can’t call at such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.” Those restrictions will end under Hapag-Lloyd ownership. Alphaliner, in its newsletter this week, said Hapag-Lloyd’s takeover of Gold Star Line will help the German carrier to “enlarge its Asian footprint.” Improved connectivity, faster transits expected Aside from new services, Dafni said growth would probably also come from significant cost savings through the elimination of costly feeders and slot charters. Drawing a comparison with CMA CGM’s takeover of CNC Line, he pointed out that the French carrier’s intra-Asia network was similarly as insubstantial as Hapag-Lloyd’s is now. CNC’s total liftings were 400,000 TEUs a year at the time of the CMA CGM takeover, but that doubled to at least 1 million TEUs within a few years after CMA CGM expanded coverage and services. Dafni expected a similar level of growth for Hapag’s intra-Asia and wider regional volumes once Gold Star Line was under the carrier’s control. Gold Star’s extensive intra-Asia services will feed cargo into Hapag’s mainline hub-and-spoke Gemini Cooperation network with Maersk, offering Southeast Asia and regional exporters improved connectivity with more destinations and faster transit times. Similarly, import volumes via the Gemini network will increase volumes from the main Asia hubs to neighboring countries. “Feedering will shift from being a cost for Hapag-Lloyd to becoming a profit and revenue generator as third-party cargo shifts to its Asia services,” Dafni said. Hapag-Lloyd and Gold Star Line said it was premature to comment on what would happen to Gold Star under new ownership. The Zim deal “includes Gold Star Line, but no decision has yet been made about what will happen to the brand. It is simply too early to talk about it,” a Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. A senior source close to Gold Star Line said it was “too early to evaluate the impact.” “We are still learning about the deal and waiting for the relevant approvals,” the source said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Port News

Container lines

International ports

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Hapag-Lloyd set to grow its intra-Asia network through Zim's Gold Star Line

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026-27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend. </div>

Retailers are holding back on signing their 2026-27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, while carriers hold out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend.

<div class="phx-topic">Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026-27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The levels and direction of spot rates impact service contracting, as it’s a barometer of the degree to which carriers can effectively match supply to demand. Long-term contract rates generally allow shippers to lock in lower prices than they could find in the spot market, leading shippers to watch the latter closely ahead of and during service contract negotiations. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until (TPM26) to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, mid-size and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1-4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. <h3>Shippers’ market </h3>The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/soft-demand-in-eastbound-trans-pacific-overwhelms-carriers-gri-attempt-6109240">softer demand</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pre-lunar-new-year-demand-to-give-trans-pac-market-first-test-of-2026-6149869">falling spot rates</a>, no significant surge in imports is projected in March when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026-27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. ”That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the (big retailers).” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56cdc0fc-22a5-4ef9-9e3e-11f96f369c70"></dynamic-object></div>A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners, but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year on year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year on year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” <h3>Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand </h3>But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the mid-size and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e5c8a2a0-9aa5-4787-bbed-bf4b7a9f9677"></dynamic-object></div>A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Neither ocean carriers nor US importers are in a rush to sign contracts for the 2026-27 service year in a trans-Pacific market where spot rates to the West Coast have fallen more than 20% since early January and, many believe, have room to slide further. Multiple sources who spoke to the Journal of Commerce this week said carriers are in no hurry to ink deals with their customers, holding out hope market fundamentals will emerge to reverse the softening trend on the trans-Pacific. And shippers are biding their time, happy to watch rates continue to fall before they’ll put pen to paper on service contracts, most of which begin May 1. The levels and direction of spot rates impact service contracting, as it’s a barometer of the degree to which carriers can effectively match supply to demand. Long-term contract rates generally allow shippers to lock in lower prices than they could find in the spot market, leading shippers to watch the latter closely ahead of and during service contract negotiations. The Journal of Commerce spoke with three ocean carriers, three retailers, three forwarders, two consultants, and an industry analyst for this story. “No one will sign now,” one carrier executive said. “Most shippers will wait until (TPM26) to see if rates have dropped further.” In past years leading up to the Journal of Commerce’s Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference in Long Beach in the first week of March, at least one or two of the half-dozen largest retailers had already signed their service contracts. Those initial contracts then set the floor for contract rates, with the remaining large, mid-size and smaller importers signing for somewhat higher rates in March and through April. TPM26 will be held March 1-4. “No major big-box retailers have signed as of yet,” a source with a top 20 US retailer said. “We’re running two to three weeks late.” A second carrier executive said while a couple of carriers could be “close” to signing a big-box account, most customers are holding out to see how much further the market falls. Shippers’ market The signals, at least now, favor the importers. In addition to softer demand and falling spot rates , no significant surge in imports is projected in March when the factories in Asia that closed for the Lunar New Year holiday that began Feb. 17 return to full production. Indeed, retailers and direct importers are holding back on signing their 2026-27 service contracts because they anticipate spot rates may sink further in the next few weeks, forcing carriers to reduce their contract tenders, said Bob Fredman, principal at the consulting firm SF Global Logistics who formerly negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers. ”That’s what smart shippers should do,” Fredman said. “It doesn’t make much sense to get too far in front of the (big retailers).” A national furniture importer said he circulated his “boilerplate” tender to his core carrier partners, but is not pressuring them to finalize a contract because he anticipates rates will move lower in March. “As a mid-size importer, why not wait? I want to get more clarity as to where the market is,” the source said. As of Feb. 19, the market from Asia to the West Coast was at $1,600 per FEU, down 23% since early January and 42% lower year over year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The East Coast spot rate of $2,400 was down 21% so far this year and 39% lower year on year. According to online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, Asia-West Coast rates were at $1.356 per FEU as of Feb. 19, down from $2,289 per FEU on Jan. 4 and almost 60% lower year on year. A second top 20 retailer said carriers and their customers are holding back from signing service contracts to see what the negotiating environment looks like after TPM26 in terms of spot rates and forecasts for demand in the second quarter. “We are pretty much completed with our tenders. I suspect we will be completed within the next couple of weeks,” the source said. “Demand right now leading up to Q2 is soft. Carriers are holding back to see if demand picks up after Chinese New Year.” Carriers ‘failed’ to balance supply and demand But the slower-than-usual finalizing of contracts by the largest big-box retailers does not mean that medium to smaller retailers will sign later than usual, said Jason Cook, CEO of forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “After TPM there will be a rapid succession of completions for the big-box retailers,” Cook said. “Then the mid-size and smaller importers will get serious in round two...” Unlike in past years when importers were anxious to lock in volume allotments, known as minimum quantity commitments (MQCs), because vessel space was tight, capacity is readily available this year, and it is the carriers who are edgy. The second top 20 retailer source said her preliminary discussions with carriers have been “colorful.” A major reason why there was no capacity shortage in the trans-Pacific leading into the Lunar New Year was that carriers did not respond quickly enough to the market conditions by managing vessel space, said Destine Ozuygur, senior analyst for liner network performance at Xeneta. According to data from Xeneta’s eeSea, carriers had 1.19 million TEUs of actual capacity on the Asia-West Coast trade lane in January, with that expected to rise to 1.26 million TEUs in February and 1.4 million TEUs in March. “Given the current slump in rates on the trans-Pacific and the absence of a strong Lunar New Year surge, it appears the carriers failed to balance supply against demand,” Ozuygur said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Trans-Pacific carriers, importers slow-walking service contract negotiations

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While Gemini Cooperation continues to top the industry’s schedule reliability, even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors last month, notably severe weather in the North Atlantic.</div>

While Gemini Cooperation continues to top the industry’s schedule reliability, even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors last month, notably severe weather in the North Atlantic.

<div class="phx-topic">Schedule reliability among ocean carriers fell sharply in the first month of the year as long wait times and congestion at Asian hubs combined with widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic to place intense strain on liner networks. The latest schedule reliability data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd continues to lead the industry’s on-time performance, and by some measure, but even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors. “All networks with the exception of non-alliance services declined at the outset of 2026, highlighting the operational headwinds we can expect to face in Q1 and Q2,” Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at Xeneta, wrote in an update accompanying the data. “Ocean Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and even Gemini all took considerable hits to their performance this past month, from five to seven percentage points of decline,” she added. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="34e4b5a5-cecc-482c-a37d-4885fe5a1a41"></dynamic-object></div>Gemini reported a 68% on-time performance in January, down from 75% in December. Ocean Alliance fell from 28% in December to 23% in January, MSC’s reliability dropped from 26% to 19%, and Premier Alliance only managed a 12% on-time performance, down from 21% in December. Non-alliance carriers reported a four percentage point drop to 28% schedule reliability. Ozuygur said while volatile reliability patterns were “fairly expected” for MSC, seeing Gemini lose some foothold lent a different weight to the severity of the localized issues. ”The dual pressure of prolonged wait times and congestion at Asian hubs throughout January, as well as widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic Ocean, created operational strain for the most resilient network,” she wrote. Ozuygur said while <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lofty-reliability-goals-for-gemini-alliance-hang-on-key-service-assumptions-5214653">Gemini’s promise of a 90% on-time arrival rate</a> across all corridors “has proven idealistic in this environment,” the hub-and-spoke strategy employed by partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has been resilient. She pointed to Gemini’s blanking of an absolute minimum of sailings. Just 18 blank sailings were announced by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in 2025, including only two on Asia-North America and nine on Asia-Europe that were exclusive to Chinese Golden Week. For comparison, Premier Alliance announced 84 blanks on Asia-North America and 181 globally. Xeneta’s global schedule reliability data showed a continuing decline through January, with only 29% of arrivals ticking the on-time box, down from 32% in December and a departure from the 34% to 37% monthly on-time arrivals seen in the second and third quarters of 2025. Compounding the decline in arrivals was the magnitude of delays at berth, which rose from 3.7 days in December to 4.2 days in January. <h3>Winter storms, congestion hammer schedules </h3>On a trade level, the trans-Atlantic westbound corridor from Europe to North America showed on-time arrivals down 10 percentage points in January at 32%, with Asia-North America down eight percentage points to 29%. Much of the latest troubles on the trans-Atlantic can be attributed to severe weather. A series of extreme winter storms have hammered Europe this year, bringing huge swells and gale force winds to the Western Mediterranean and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/severe-winter-storm-disrupts-north-europe-port-inland-operations-6148334">freezing temperatures that hampered terminal and yard operations</a> in North Europe ports. The disruption to services as ships were forced to wait out the storms created week-long delays on multiple vessels across 16 services calling at ports along the East Coast of North America. The trans-Pacific trade is currently seeing its worst reliability since January last year, equalling the 29% on-time performance reported a year ago. Ozuygur said although the drivers this year were less dependent on dramatic network overhauls, they were comparable in operational impact. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="c0cf790c-877b-46ec-8a01-15b3418a614a"></dynamic-object></div>“Paired with the seasonal spike in cancellation rates in February and March totaling 687,000 TEUs and 93 cancelled sailings, these delays indicate a rough start to 2026 for US shippers,” she said, adding that it was something shippers would be watching carefully over the next month. "With tender season practically upon us, this is a crucial window for shippers and forwarders to reexamine performance at a carrier level,” Ozuygur said. “Careful consideration of carrier-level performance balanced across transit times, on-time arrivals and cancellation rates should be incorporated before firming contracts.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-inks-order-for-six-dual-fuel-lng-ships-with-india-yard-6172333">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Schedule reliability among ocean carriers fell sharply in the first month of the year as long wait times and congestion at Asian hubs combined with widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic to place intense strain on liner networks. The latest schedule reliability data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd continues to lead the industry’s on-time performance, and by some measure, but even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors. “All networks with the exception of non-alliance services declined at the outset of 2026, highlighting the operational headwinds we can expect to face in Q1 and Q2,” Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at Xeneta, wrote in an update accompanying the data. “Ocean Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and even Gemini all took considerable hits to their performance this past month, from five to seven percentage points of decline,” she added. Gemini reported a 68% on-time performance in January, down from 75% in December. Ocean Alliance fell from 28% in December to 23% in January, MSC’s reliability dropped from 26% to 19%, and Premier Alliance only managed a 12% on-time performance, down from 21% in December. Non-alliance carriers reported a four percentage point drop to 28% schedule reliability. Ozuygur said while volatile reliability patterns were “fairly expected” for MSC, seeing Gemini lose some foothold lent a different weight to the severity of the localized issues. ”The dual pressure of prolonged wait times and congestion at Asian hubs throughout January, as well as widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic Ocean, created operational strain for the most resilient network,” she wrote. Ozuygur said while Gemini’s promise of a 90% on-time arrival rate across all corridors “has proven idealistic in this environment,” the hub-and-spoke strategy employed by partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has been resilient. She pointed to Gemini’s blanking of an absolute minimum of sailings. Just 18 blank sailings were announced by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in 2025, including only two on Asia-North America and nine on Asia-Europe that were exclusive to Chinese Golden Week. For comparison, Premier Alliance announced 84 blanks on Asia-North America and 181 globally. Xeneta’s global schedule reliability data showed a continuing decline through January, with only 29% of arrivals ticking the on-time box, down from 32% in December and a departure from the 34% to 37% monthly on-time arrivals seen in the second and third quarters of 2025. Compounding the decline in arrivals was the magnitude of delays at berth, which rose from 3.7 days in December to 4.2 days in January. Winter storms, congestion hammer schedules On a trade level, the trans-Atlantic westbound corridor from Europe to North America showed on-time arrivals down 10 percentage points in January at 32%, with Asia-North America down eight percentage points to 29%. Much of the latest troubles on the trans-Atlantic can be attributed to severe weather. A series of extreme winter storms have hammered Europe this year, bringing huge swells and gale force winds to the Western Mediterranean and freezing temperatures that hampered terminal and yard operations in North Europe ports. The disruption to services as ships were forced to wait out the storms created week-long delays on multiple vessels across 16 services calling at ports along the East Coast of North America. The trans-Pacific trade is currently seeing its worst reliability since January last year, equalling the 29% on-time performance reported a year ago. Ozuygur said although the drivers this year were less dependent on dramatic network overhauls, they were comparable in operational impact. “Paired with the seasonal spike in cancellation rates in February and March totaling 687,000 TEUs and 93 cancelled sailings, these delays indicate a rough start to 2026 for US shippers,” she said, adding that it was something shippers would be watching carefully over the next month. "With tender season practically upon us, this is a crucial window for shippers and forwarders to reexamine performance at a carrier level,” Ozuygur said. “Careful consideration of carrier-level performance balanced across transit times, on-time arrivals and cancellation rates should be incorporated before firming contracts.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Ocean carrier on-time arrivals tumbled in January: Xeneta

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.</div>

The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf">did not have the authority</a> under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners, upending the cornerstone of his administration’s economic policy. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. Trump, during a press briefing at the White House after the ruling, said he was “ashamed” of the justices who voted to kill the tariffs, but vowed he would pursue new options to put them in place. ”Other alternatives will be used to replace the ones the Court incorrectly suspended,” he said. That includes the immediate implementation of a 10% “global” tariff under so-called Section 122 action, presumably levied against all US trading partners. ”We’ll go in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice,” Trump said. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, though most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper <a href="https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/">published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve</a> found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. <h3>What’s next? </h3>The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. The calls for refunds are coming fast. The National Retail Federation praised the Supreme Court’s decision and urged lower courts to “ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers.” “(The Court’s decision) provides much-needed certainty for US businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity,” David French, the NRF’s executive vice president of government relations, said in a statement. Analysts at Global Trade Alert estimate that the trade-weighted average tariff will fall from 15.4% to 8.3% on US imports, notwithstanding the imminent imposition of 10% tariffs under the Section 122 provision. <h3>Other tariff mechanisms available </h3>In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include the aforementioned Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared to other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com.</a></div>

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners, upending the cornerstone of his administration’s economic policy. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. Trump, during a press briefing at the White House after the ruling, said he was “ashamed” of the justices who voted to kill the tariffs, but vowed he would pursue new options to put them in place. ”Other alternatives will be used to replace the ones the Court incorrectly suspended,” he said. That includes the immediate implementation of a 10% “global” tariff under so-called Section 122 action, presumably levied against all US trading partners. ”We’ll go in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice,” Trump said. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, though most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. What’s next? The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. The calls for refunds are coming fast. The National Retail Federation praised the Supreme Court’s decision and urged lower courts to “ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers.” “(The Court’s decision) provides much-needed certainty for US businesses and manufacturers, enabling global supply chains to operate without ambiguity,” David French, the NRF’s executive vice president of government relations, said in a statement. Analysts at Global Trade Alert estimate that the trade-weighted average tariff will fall from 15.4% to 8.3% on US imports, notwithstanding the imminent imposition of 10% tariffs under the Section 122 provision. Other tariff mechanisms available In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include the aforementioned Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared to other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com.

Supply chain

US Supreme Court rules against Trump in critical IEEPA tariff case

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Dray Dog is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals.</div>

Dray Dog is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals.

<div class="phx-topic">CargoSprint, a payment technology provider that works with US container terminals, on Friday said it has acquired a Southern California-based software vendor that helps drayage companies coordinate appointments at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The acquired company, Dray Dog, is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals that require appointments to pick up or drop off containers. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. “Dray Dog has become a hidden gem for large dray carriers in San Pedro,” CargoSprint CEO Caro Krissman told the Journal of Commerce. “It enables a material cost reduction (associated with planning and scheduling appointments).” The acquisition is CargoSprint’s first since <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-payment-provider-acquires-advent-emodal-5905331">buying Advent eModal in December 2024</a>, a deal that expanded CargoSprint’s scope as a predominantly air cargo-focused payment technology provider serving airport ground handlers into one serving marine terminal operators (MTOs) at the US’ largest port complexes. Krissman said Dray Dog fills a niche for dray carriers in Southern California by being “focused on a subset of problems for dray carriers, not the entire [transportation management system] stack.” The acquisition not only helps CargoSprint tie together appointment systems operated by its MTO customers with tools used by the dray carriers that interact with those MTOs, but it also helps CargoSprint invest in the driver experience, an area on which it had never previously focused. “We needed to invest in the carrier experience,” Krissman said. “Dray carriers don’t pay us; the terminal is our customer and carriers are our users. For a while, we thought Dray Dog was this big thorn in our side. But we realized how coveted this solution was to carriers.” <h3>System handles ‘double moves’ </h3>Krissman said Dray Dog has helped carriers in the region evolve from manually scouring disparate appointments systems across Los Angeles and Long Beach to being able to proactively orchestrate those appointments. “This system helps them with double moves and accounts for their preferred pickup times and preferences,” he said, referring to when a carrier drops off an empty container and picks up a loaded import box in the same turn. “Before Dray Dog, the carrier would do it themselves and it was brutal, then they would get to scale and get an (outsourced provider) to do it. Then Dray Dog came along and solved that problem.” CargoSprint provides the appointment scheduling platform for six of the 11 terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach that require appointments. Matson, the 12th terminal in the port complex, doesn’t require appointments. Krissman added that CargoSprint is looking at other, potentially larger acquisition opportunities later in the year. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com.</a></div>

CargoSprint, a payment technology provider that works with US container terminals, on Friday said it has acquired a Southern California-based software vendor that helps drayage companies coordinate appointments at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The acquired company, Dray Dog, is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals that require appointments to pick up or drop off containers. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. “Dray Dog has become a hidden gem for large dray carriers in San Pedro,” CargoSprint CEO Caro Krissman told the Journal of Commerce. “It enables a material cost reduction (associated with planning and scheduling appointments).” The acquisition is CargoSprint’s first since buying Advent eModal in December 2024 , a deal that expanded CargoSprint’s scope as a predominantly air cargo-focused payment technology provider serving airport ground handlers into one serving marine terminal operators (MTOs) at the US’ largest port complexes. Krissman said Dray Dog fills a niche for dray carriers in Southern California by being “focused on a subset of problems for dray carriers, not the entire [transportation management system] stack.” The acquisition not only helps CargoSprint tie together appointment systems operated by its MTO customers with tools used by the dray carriers that interact with those MTOs, but it also helps CargoSprint invest in the driver experience, an area on which it had never previously focused. “We needed to invest in the carrier experience,” Krissman said. “Dray carriers don’t pay us; the terminal is our customer and carriers are our users. For a while, we thought Dray Dog was this big thorn in our side. But we realized how coveted this solution was to carriers.” System handles ‘double moves’ Krissman said Dray Dog has helped carriers in the region evolve from manually scouring disparate appointments systems across Los Angeles and Long Beach to being able to proactively orchestrate those appointments. “This system helps them with double moves and accounts for their preferred pickup times and preferences,” he said, referring to when a carrier drops off an empty container and picks up a loaded import box in the same turn. “Before Dray Dog, the carrier would do it themselves and it was brutal, then they would get to scale and get an (outsourced provider) to do it. Then Dray Dog came along and solved that problem.” CargoSprint provides the appointment scheduling platform for six of the 11 terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach that require appointments. Matson, the 12th terminal in the port complex, doesn’t require appointments. Krissman added that CargoSprint is looking at other, potentially larger acquisition opportunities later in the year. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com.

Logistics Technology News

Drayage

North American ports

Marine terminals

CargoSprint acquires key appointment scheduling tool for LA-LB dray carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Asset-based carriers offer a layer of security for shippers concerned with the English language proficiency of drivers and non-domiciled CDL regulatory compliance, but it doesn’t eliminate the risk fully.</div>

Asset-based carriers offer a layer of security for shippers concerned with the English language proficiency of drivers and non-domiciled CDL regulatory compliance, but it doesn’t eliminate the risk fully.

<div class="phx-topic">US shippers negotiating truckload contracts in 2026 are weighing the implications of the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-releases-interim-final-rule-on-non-domiciled-cdl-holders-6169023">federal crackdown</a> on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and the English language proficiency of drivers, exploring how to best mitigate their exposure. Coupled with the rise in strategic cargo theft in recent years, risk mitigation is increasingly becoming part of contract negotiations between shippers and truckload carriers. As a hedge, some shippers have chosen to use fewer non-asset brokers and tender more freight to asset-owning carriers, according to comments by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings on its fourth-quarter earnings call last month. But not every shipper views the risk-generating issues as urgent. Companies shipping big, bulky freight and carrying ample safety stock tend to express less concern than those moving electronics, food and beverage, and other just-in-time freight that must be delivered on time and in full. Marc Blubaugh, an attorney with transportation law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Colan &amp; Aronoff, said his clients fall into two categories: shippers who engage in conversations with their carriers and shippers who want to write language into their contracts. “There’s an over-drafting camp that says, ‘Hey, we’re going to specifically call out these two issues and maybe some others in our compliance section of the contract,’” Blubaugh told the Journal of Commerce. “There’s another camp that does not believe additional language is necessary, only a conversation, because brokers and carriers already agree to comply with all US laws and regulations in the standard contract.” At the center of the debate is a structural question: How much incremental risk exists when a third-party carrier hauls a load compared with a company driver employed by large truckload carriers such as Knight-Swift, Schneider National and Werner Enterprises? Some shippers argue the risk gap is wider today than it was five years ago, before strategic cargo theft and regulatory scrutiny of non-domiciled CDLs and English proficiency moved to the forefront. <h3>Asset-based carriers have their own exposure, too </h3>The conversation is complicated by the fact that most large asset-based carriers operate “hybrid” models. Company drivers haul some freight, while other loads may be brokered to third parties through “power-only” arrangements. Power-only models offer operational benefits. They allow drop-and-hook operations in which third-party drivers can grab the larger carrier trailer and immediately get back on the road. They also provide flexible capacity during cargo surges, preventing freight from sitting on docks or forcing shippers to pay to reposition company drivers from other markets. Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said the company employs extensive vetting for third-party carriers who haul their company-branded trailers. “We have probably the most robust security team, an industry-leading security team vetting our third-party carriers,” Miller said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. “We vet to the greatest ability on who is going to be hauling that load. We do things internally to reduce that risk, but we can’t necessarily eliminate it.” That acknowledgment underscores the operational distinction. Asset-based carriers directly hire, vet, and oversee their company drivers. When freight moves to a third party, the carrier may vet against the contracted motor carrier, but not necessarily the individual driver behind the wheel. A logistics executive at another large carrier who did not want to be identified said brand exposure creates a different incentive structure. When a company’s name is emblazoned on the trailer, the reputational consequences of a serious roadside incident are immediate and visible, creating strong motivation to scrutinize third-party capacity. Craig Ingram, owner of Asset-Based Intermodal in Dallas, said the issue is not whether vetting occurs, but what level of vetting occurs. He described a case in which freight he previously hauled was shifted to a lower-cost carrier operating under an agency structure. Ingram said some of the Somali drivers involved had previously worked for him and that he terminated them after discovering they weren’t “legal citizens.” “Are they vetting the driver showing up, or are they vetting the agent who gives it to the driver, that’s the key question,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Ingram argues that when freight is routed through layered structures, safety ratings and insurance may be assessed at the entity level, potentially obscuring who is behind the wheel. <h3>What can a shipper do </h3>Executives across the trucking and logistics spectrum encourage shippers to ask detailed questions about how carriers and brokers vet third-party capacity. Werner Enterprises, for example, uses multi-factor authentication through an app called Okta Verify before releasing load details to third parties. Such measures are primarily designed to address cargo theft rather than regulatory compliance issues tied to non-domiciled CDLs or English language proficiency. A shipper who did not want to be identified said peers should memorialize expectations in service level agreements (SLAs) or standard operating procedures. “If you want to move loads with only company drivers, you should have structures that require the carrier to report when they’re using third parties, and clearly define your expectations,” the shipper told the Journal of Commerce. “The SLA is basically saying the carrier will perform to this level, this way, or else. The ‘or else’ might be penalties or reminding the carrier your commitment to the carrier is not guaranteed; that I won’t continue to honor my minimum quantity commitments.” Miller said Knight-Swift can accommodate shipper preferences, but cautioned that restricting freight to company drivers comes with operational and cost implications. “If a customer says, ‘I want you to only use company drivers,’ we can do that,” he said. But doing so may mean a load sits on the dock longer or requires repositioning a company driver from another market, something charged as an accessorial fee. The risk calculus, trucking executives say, ultimately depends on cargo sensitivity, tolerance for disruption, and how much flexibility and cost the shipper would be willing to trade for control. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US shippers negotiating truckload contracts in 2026 are weighing the implications of the federal crackdown on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and the English language proficiency of drivers, exploring how to best mitigate their exposure. Coupled with the rise in strategic cargo theft in recent years, risk mitigation is increasingly becoming part of contract negotiations between shippers and truckload carriers. As a hedge, some shippers have chosen to use fewer non-asset brokers and tender more freight to asset-owning carriers, according to comments by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings on its fourth-quarter earnings call last month. But not every shipper views the risk-generating issues as urgent. Companies shipping big, bulky freight and carrying ample safety stock tend to express less concern than those moving electronics, food and beverage, and other just-in-time freight that must be delivered on time and in full. Marc Blubaugh, an attorney with transportation law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Colan & Aronoff, said his clients fall into two categories: shippers who engage in conversations with their carriers and shippers who want to write language into their contracts. “There’s an over-drafting camp that says, ‘Hey, we’re going to specifically call out these two issues and maybe some others in our compliance section of the contract,’” Blubaugh told the Journal of Commerce. “There’s another camp that does not believe additional language is necessary, only a conversation, because brokers and carriers already agree to comply with all US laws and regulations in the standard contract.” At the center of the debate is a structural question: How much incremental risk exists when a third-party carrier hauls a load compared with a company driver employed by large truckload carriers such as Knight-Swift, Schneider National and Werner Enterprises? Some shippers argue the risk gap is wider today than it was five years ago, before strategic cargo theft and regulatory scrutiny of non-domiciled CDLs and English proficiency moved to the forefront. Asset-based carriers have their own exposure, too The conversation is complicated by the fact that most large asset-based carriers operate “hybrid” models. Company drivers haul some freight, while other loads may be brokered to third parties through “power-only” arrangements. Power-only models offer operational benefits. They allow drop-and-hook operations in which third-party drivers can grab the larger carrier trailer and immediately get back on the road. They also provide flexible capacity during cargo surges, preventing freight from sitting on docks or forcing shippers to pay to reposition company drivers from other markets. Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said the company employs extensive vetting for third-party carriers who haul their company-branded trailers. “We have probably the most robust security team, an industry-leading security team vetting our third-party carriers,” Miller said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. “We vet to the greatest ability on who is going to be hauling that load. We do things internally to reduce that risk, but we can’t necessarily eliminate it.” That acknowledgment underscores the operational distinction. Asset-based carriers directly hire, vet, and oversee their company drivers. When freight moves to a third party, the carrier may vet against the contracted motor carrier, but not necessarily the individual driver behind the wheel. A logistics executive at another large carrier who did not want to be identified said brand exposure creates a different incentive structure. When a company’s name is emblazoned on the trailer, the reputational consequences of a serious roadside incident are immediate and visible, creating strong motivation to scrutinize third-party capacity. Craig Ingram, owner of Asset-Based Intermodal in Dallas, said the issue is not whether vetting occurs, but what level of vetting occurs. He described a case in which freight he previously hauled was shifted to a lower-cost carrier operating under an agency structure. Ingram said some of the Somali drivers involved had previously worked for him and that he terminated them after discovering they weren’t “legal citizens.” “Are they vetting the driver showing up, or are they vetting the agent who gives it to the driver, that’s the key question,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Ingram argues that when freight is routed through layered structures, safety ratings and insurance may be assessed at the entity level, potentially obscuring who is behind the wheel. What can a shipper do Executives across the trucking and logistics spectrum encourage shippers to ask detailed questions about how carriers and brokers vet third-party capacity. Werner Enterprises, for example, uses multi-factor authentication through an app called Okta Verify before releasing load details to third parties. Such measures are primarily designed to address cargo theft rather than regulatory compliance issues tied to non-domiciled CDLs or English language proficiency. A shipper who did not want to be identified said peers should memorialize expectations in service level agreements (SLAs) or standard operating procedures. “If you want to move loads with only company drivers, you should have structures that require the carrier to report when they’re using third parties, and clearly define your expectations,” the shipper told the Journal of Commerce. “The SLA is basically saying the carrier will perform to this level, this way, or else. The ‘or else’ might be penalties or reminding the carrier your commitment to the carrier is not guaranteed; that I won’t continue to honor my minimum quantity commitments.” Miller said Knight-Swift can accommodate shipper preferences, but cautioned that restricting freight to company drivers comes with operational and cost implications. “If a customer says, ‘I want you to only use company drivers,’ we can do that,” he said. But doing so may mean a load sits on the dock longer or requires repositioning a company driver from another market, something charged as an accessorial fee. The risk calculus, trucking executives say, ultimately depends on cargo sensitivity, tolerance for disruption, and how much flexibility and cost the shipper would be willing to trade for control. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Trucking labor

Surface

Truckload shippers look to minimize growing regulatory risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

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

China to US

{date.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY.formatNumber('###.##')} 
 w-o-w change:  {week_over_week.formatNumber("##.#%")} 
 y-o-y change: {year_over_year_percent.formatNumber("##.#%")}

The Freightos Air Index (FAX) is based on all-in spot rates for general cargo in US$ for weight category of 100 to 3,000 kilograms. The rates include the air freight fee, fuel, and security and seasonal surcharges. The per kg rate is calculated based on the standard chargeable weight (the greater of the actual gross weight and 166kgs, multiplied by the volume in cubic meters). [Freightos Air Index](https://www.freightos.com/enterprise/terminal/fax-global-freightos-air-index/?utm_source=terminal_embed&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=fax)

China to US air freight rates (Freightos)

China to US Air Freight Price Index by Weight Break 100–3000 kg (Freightos) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If trucking rates remain elevated into the spring, carriers will likely move to push prices higher on new and existing contracts in the second half of the year.</div>

If trucking rates remain elevated into the spring, carriers will likely move to push prices higher on new and existing contracts in the second half of the year.

<div class="phx-topic">US trucking executives are beginning to feel better about the state of the freight economy, hoping tighter capacity will lead to higher rates and, ultimately, an end to the long freight recession. The increasingly upbeat mood comes as spot dry-van rates, as compiled by DAT Freight and Analytics, remain elevated compared with a year ago, even after the disruptive winter weather of January subsided. The average rate, excluding fuel, on DAT’s top 50 US lanes has hovered near $2.30 per mile this month, up 18% to 20% compared with the same period a year ago. Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation, told the Journal of Commerce that the market is balanced between carriers and shippers. He noted that the reaction to the winter storms and frigid temperatures last month were in stark contrast to January 2025, when a similar snowstorm had zero impact on spot market rates. “It kind of feels like a little bit of Goldilocks right now,” Miller said. “Inflation seems to be under control. I think it’s positioning for demand to see some life because it’s been relatively muted. While capacity continues to exit, I think that puts the supply-demand relationship in a much better position [for trucking companies].” The snow and ice from the heavy winter storm that blanketed a large portion of the US in late January are melting, and trucks that were sidelined are now back in business. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="f7dc31b8-1e1c-4a59-907f-2391c69d4e9f"></dynamic-object></div>Trucking executives say there is a feeling that the next two or three weeks will indicate whether this is really the beginning of the end of the three-year freight recession, something that could determine if trucking companies can push contract rate increases on shippers in the coming months. “The farther we can get from storms, if we continue to see that strength, then it’s going to feel a little bit different this year than the last few years,” Brad Hicks, president of Dedicated Contract Services at J.B. Hunt, said Tuesday at Barclays’ Annual Industrial Select Conference in Miami. “We have had a lot of disruptions from winter weather. We’ve had a lot of customer meetings over the last several weeks, and I would say it should be no surprise that no customer is raising their hands saying, ‘can’t wait to pay you more.’” <h3>Gain in Cass Index for January </h3>The Cass Freight Index suggests the changes taking place in the truckload market might be more than a weather disruption. The Cass Truckload Linehaul Index, a measurement of rates, rose 3.2% year over year in January. “This index is mostly comprised of contract rates, and anecdotally we hear about more shippers initiating one-year bids, suggesting movement in the cycle beyond just weather effects,” Tim Denoyer, author of the Cass Freight Index, wrote Tuesday. The 3.2% hike is consistent with what carrier Werner Enterprises is seeing. “Low to mid-single digits on our contract renewals would be really the starting point there,” Chris Neal, Werner’s senior vice president of pricing, said at the Citi Global Industrial Tech &amp; Mobility Conference Tuesday. "We’ve had some good success already early in the year with some of those renewals.” Werner CEO Derek Leathers admitted while the winter weather played a role, the recovery is also supply-driven <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-releases-interim-final-rule-on-non-domiciled-cdl-holders-6169023">as the federal government cracks down on non-domiciled commercial drivers’ licenses</a> and English language proficiency of truckers in the US. “You’re finally starting to see a cleansing of some of the capacity out there that needed to be addressed,” Leathers said at the Citi Global conference. “It’s been mostly supply-driven up until now, and with some signs now of a little bit of demand spark coupled with that, it puts us in a pretty optimistic position.” Contact Dan Ronan at <a href="mailto:contactdanronan@gmail.com">contactdanronan@gmail.com</a>.</div>

US trucking executives are beginning to feel better about the state of the freight economy, hoping tighter capacity will lead to higher rates and, ultimately, an end to the long freight recession. The increasingly upbeat mood comes as spot dry-van rates, as compiled by DAT Freight and Analytics, remain elevated compared with a year ago, even after the disruptive winter weather of January subsided. The average rate, excluding fuel, on DAT’s top 50 US lanes has hovered near $2.30 per mile this month, up 18% to 20% compared with the same period a year ago. Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation, told the Journal of Commerce that the market is balanced between carriers and shippers. He noted that the reaction to the winter storms and frigid temperatures last month were in stark contrast to January 2025, when a similar snowstorm had zero impact on spot market rates. “It kind of feels like a little bit of Goldilocks right now,” Miller said. “Inflation seems to be under control. I think it’s positioning for demand to see some life because it’s been relatively muted. While capacity continues to exit, I think that puts the supply-demand relationship in a much better position [for trucking companies].” The snow and ice from the heavy winter storm that blanketed a large portion of the US in late January are melting, and trucks that were sidelined are now back in business. Trucking executives say there is a feeling that the next two or three weeks will indicate whether this is really the beginning of the end of the three-year freight recession, something that could determine if trucking companies can push contract rate increases on shippers in the coming months. “The farther we can get from storms, if we continue to see that strength, then it’s going to feel a little bit different this year than the last few years,” Brad Hicks, president of Dedicated Contract Services at J.B. Hunt, said Tuesday at Barclays’ Annual Industrial Select Conference in Miami. “We have had a lot of disruptions from winter weather. We’ve had a lot of customer meetings over the last several weeks, and I would say it should be no surprise that no customer is raising their hands saying, ‘can’t wait to pay you more.’” Gain in Cass Index for January The Cass Freight Index suggests the changes taking place in the truckload market might be more than a weather disruption. The Cass Truckload Linehaul Index, a measurement of rates, rose 3.2% year over year in January. “This index is mostly comprised of contract rates, and anecdotally we hear about more shippers initiating one-year bids, suggesting movement in the cycle beyond just weather effects,” Tim Denoyer, author of the Cass Freight Index, wrote Tuesday. The 3.2% hike is consistent with what carrier Werner Enterprises is seeing. “Low to mid-single digits on our contract renewals would be really the starting point there,” Chris Neal, Werner’s senior vice president of pricing, said at the Citi Global Industrial Tech & Mobility Conference Tuesday. "We’ve had some good success already early in the year with some of those renewals.” Werner CEO Derek Leathers admitted while the winter weather played a role, the recovery is also supply-driven as the federal government cracks down on non-domiciled commercial drivers’ licenses and English language proficiency of truckers in the US. “You’re finally starting to see a cleansing of some of the capacity out there that needed to be addressed,” Leathers said at the Citi Global conference. “It’s been mostly supply-driven up until now, and with some signs now of a little bit of demand spark coupled with that, it puts us in a pretty optimistic position.” Contact Dan Ronan at contactdanronan@gmail.com .

Trucking executives buoyed by market signals as winter exit nears

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The success of container lines in keeping vessel utilization high by removing functional capacity weakens the network and ups volatility in ocean reliability.</div>

The success of container lines in keeping vessel utilization high by removing functional capacity weakens the network and ups volatility in ocean reliability.

<div class="phx-topic">The high level of port-to-port ocean reliability the Gemini Cooperation has delivered since its launch a year ago is pressuring other carriers and alliances to up their game. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6172263_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Yet the obstacles for ocean carriers to remain profitable are only expanding as liners cycle deeper into overcapacity in the coming years. To protect their profitability, container lines have become better at managing short-term demand and supply and removing functional capacity. Their success in keeping utilization high, paradoxically, weakens the network, said Trine Nielsen, vice president of ocean/global at forwarder Flexport.“As ‘micro-events’ [e.g., localized port congestion, labor strikes] are expected to increase due to shifting trade patterns and introducing more mega-ships, we expect network instability to rise,” she said. “In fact, as more capacity enters the market, we anticipate even further instability because we should expect more aggressive capacity management actions by carriers to protect their profitability.” Facing congestion at Asia load centers such as Shanghai or Ningbo, ocean carriers may have the vessel omit the port entirely to not throw off the rest of their schedule. In some cases, vessels “swap” calls with one vessel covering Shanghai rather than Ningbo, and vice versa, Nielsen said. “While this maximizes asset utilization and prevents a vessel backlog, it triggers blank sailings and forces customers to deal with rolled cargo and unpredictable transit times,” she said. <h3>Obstacles to reliability ratchet up </h3>Port productivity globally is worsening, with S&amp;P Global’s Container Port Performance Index falling from a reading of 38 in 2020 to zero in 2024. The number of tropical storms has increased in recent years, and the intensity and unpredictability of cyclones has increased in the last decade, said Craig West, CEO/Europe at forecasting company Weathernews. “Volatility is not confined to extreme events. Conditions in the Central Atlantic have recently been practically impassable, with persistent weather patterns across the Bay of Biscay and English Channel leaving vessels drifting for multiple days,” West told the Journal of Commerce. “There is no headline-grabbing storm in these situations, yet the commercial damage to uptime and schedule reliability is significant.” Optimistically, the volatility from an overall shambolic network offers increased incentives for ocean carriers to improve their reliability, allowing them to stand out more in a volatile, oft-commoditized market and gain higher and more stable pricing in return. After launching in February 2025, Gemini members Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are making the case that their joint network’s better than 90% reliability is giving customers enough certainty to reduce their inventories by two weeks. Vessels operated within the alliance hit 81% reliability in 2025, according to online benchmarking platform Xeneta’s eeSea data. Global ocean reliability for the entire industry has been falling since July, notching a reading of 25.4% thus far in February, according to eeSea. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="4abe02d4-ed18-461a-ac0b-87ef52e3192b"></dynamic-object></div>“Shippers are also telling us that one of their priorities for 2026 is service reliability,” said Kelly Buckley, deputy director of ocean procurement at Drewry Supply Chain advisors. “Gemini has really raised the profile of that topic, and we can expect shippers to assess much more carefully on-time performance and lead times as part of their [trans-Pacific service contracting] tender process this year.” <h3>Finding reliability in service contracts </h3>The last few years of shipping disruptions due to the pandemic, Suez Canal diversions, and then tariffs left small and medium-size shippers with little time to focus on reliability as they tried to keep their business afloat, Buckley said. Mounting overcapacity gives these shippers more leverage in service contract negotiations and allows them, she said, to “actually start to take a step back and ask questions without fear of the fact that your cargo then may not make it on the vessel the next week.” Transparency on schedule changes remains an issue, Buckley said. Shippers still struggle to keep up with nearly last-minute blank notice announcements, and she said some Drewry customers learned after that fact that their cargo was routed through the Suez Canal via the perilous waters of the Red Sea. Meanwhile, although transit time reliability is critical for Sanmar’s new product launches and deliveries from new vendors, it’s only one element of service, said John Janson, global logistics director at the apparel shipper. “Normally, transit reliability is not as important to us if it is within a reasonable timeframe,” he said. “Having the equipment and space is more critical as our origins are counting on being able to load as most do not have storage.” Janson noted that ocean carriers allowed Sanmar — the US’ 79th-largest importer, according to the Journal of Commerce’s 2024 rankings — to exceed forecast volumes for emergencies and guaranteed that shipments would beat tariffs deadlines, saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. “No surprise, the folks that stepped up were the ones where we have made the most serious investment in relationships,” he said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The high level of port-to-port ocean reliability the Gemini Cooperation has delivered since its launch a year ago is pressuring other carriers and alliances to up their game. Yet the obstacles for ocean carriers to remain profitable are only expanding as liners cycle deeper into overcapacity in the coming years. To protect their profitability, container lines have become better at managing short-term demand and supply and removing functional capacity. Their success in keeping utilization high, paradoxically, weakens the network, said Trine Nielsen, vice president of ocean/global at forwarder Flexport. “As ‘micro-events’ [e.g., localized port congestion, labor strikes] are expected to increase due to shifting trade patterns and introducing more mega-ships, we expect network instability to rise,” she said. “In fact, as more capacity enters the market, we anticipate even further instability because we should expect more aggressive capacity management actions by carriers to protect their profitability.” Facing congestion at Asia load centers such as Shanghai or Ningbo, ocean carriers may have the vessel omit the port entirely to not throw off the rest of their schedule. In some cases, vessels “swap” calls with one vessel covering Shanghai rather than Ningbo, and vice versa, Nielsen said. “While this maximizes asset utilization and prevents a vessel backlog, it triggers blank sailings and forces customers to deal with rolled cargo and unpredictable transit times,” she said. Obstacles to reliability ratchet up Port productivity globally is worsening, with S&P Global’s Container Port Performance Index falling from a reading of 38 in 2020 to zero in 2024. The number of tropical storms has increased in recent years, and the intensity and unpredictability of cyclones has increased in the last decade, said Craig West, CEO/Europe at forecasting company Weathernews. “Volatility is not confined to extreme events. Conditions in the Central Atlantic have recently been practically impassable, with persistent weather patterns across the Bay of Biscay and English Channel leaving vessels drifting for multiple days,” West told the Journal of Commerce. “There is no headline-grabbing storm in these situations, yet the commercial damage to uptime and schedule reliability is significant.” Optimistically, the volatility from an overall shambolic network offers increased incentives for ocean carriers to improve their reliability, allowing them to stand out more in a volatile, oft-commoditized market and gain higher and more stable pricing in return. After launching in February 2025, Gemini members Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are making the case that their joint network’s better than 90% reliability is giving customers enough certainty to reduce their inventories by two weeks. Vessels operated within the alliance hit 81% reliability in 2025, according to online benchmarking platform Xeneta’s eeSea data. Global ocean reliability for the entire industry has been falling since July, notching a reading of 25.4% thus far in February, according to eeSea. “Shippers are also telling us that one of their priorities for 2026 is service reliability,” said Kelly Buckley, deputy director of ocean procurement at Drewry Supply Chain advisors. “Gemini has really raised the profile of that topic, and we can expect shippers to assess much more carefully on-time performance and lead times as part of their [trans-Pacific service contracting] tender process this year.” Finding reliability in service contracts The last few years of shipping disruptions due to the pandemic, Suez Canal diversions, and then tariffs left small and medium-size shippers with little time to focus on reliability as they tried to keep their business afloat, Buckley said. Mounting overcapacity gives these shippers more leverage in service contract negotiations and allows them, she said, to “actually start to take a step back and ask questions without fear of the fact that your cargo then may not make it on the vessel the next week.” Transparency on schedule changes remains an issue, Buckley said. Shippers still struggle to keep up with nearly last-minute blank notice announcements, and she said some Drewry customers learned after that fact that their cargo was routed through the Suez Canal via the perilous waters of the Red Sea. Meanwhile, although transit time reliability is critical for Sanmar’s new product launches and deliveries from new vendors, it’s only one element of service, said John Janson, global logistics director at the apparel shipper. “Normally, transit reliability is not as important to us if it is within a reasonable timeframe,” he said. “Having the equipment and space is more critical as our origins are counting on being able to load as most do not have storage.” Janson noted that ocean carriers allowed Sanmar — the US’ 79th-largest importer, according to the Journal of Commerce’s 2024 rankings — to exceed forecast volumes for emergencies and guaranteed that shipments would beat tariffs deadlines, saving the company hundreds of thousands of dollars. “No surprise, the folks that stepped up were the ones where we have made the most serious investment in relationships,” he said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

Greater capacity control needs hinder ocean reliability efforts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The increase in volume that would result across the trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific corridors was particularly welcome, according to Hapag-Lloyd’s CEO.</div>

The increase in volume that would result across the trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific corridors was particularly welcome, according to Hapag-Lloyd’s CEO.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd’s $4.2 billion acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services that was announced Monday will significantly improve the Hamburg-based carrier’s position on several major trade lanes. While cementing the buyer’s position <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyds-plan-to-acquire-zim-would-deepen-shipping-oligopoly-6170073">as the world’s fifth-largest container shipping company</a>, the takeover will grow Hapag-Lloyd’s volume share on the trans-Atlantic from 24% to 27%, on the trans-Pacific from 7% to 12%, in Asia from 9% to 11%, on Asia-Latin America from 11% to 14%, and from 2% to 7% on the intra-Europe trade, according to data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) cited by Hapag-Lloyd. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen highlighted as particularly welcome the increase in volume that would result across the trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific corridors. “When we look for a minute at the trade portfolios on the Atlantic and trans-Pacific, if we joined forces we would really get into very strong position,” he told reporters during an online briefing Monday shortly after signing the Zim deal in Tel Aviv. A 27% market share on the trans-Atlantic would put Hapag-Lloyd in second place behind Mediterranean Shipping Co. at 29%, according to the CTS figures cited by Hapag-Lloyd. According to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, Hapag-Lloyd had a market share of 19.6% on the trans-Atlantic in January, behind MSC’s 22.6%. But Hapag-Lloyd held the top position throughout the fourth quarter of 2025 with a share that exceeded 25% in October and December. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ce24ca8a-5149-4e8e-a00a-5743e4d2abba"></dynamic-object></div>On the trans-Pacific, the addition of Zim would put Hapag-Lloyd level with Ocean Network Express in third position behind MSC at 13%, according to CTS. Habben Jansen said the Asia-Latin America trade has long been a corridor he has wanted to expand. In 2023, Hapag-Lloyd strengthened its position with the acquisition of SM SAAM terminal business while growing dedicated service networks on the trade lane. “Zim has done really well on Asia-Latin America in the last couple of years and this would allow us to get closer to the 15%, 16% [volume share] that we’ve always aspired to,” Habben Jansen told reporters. MSC holds the largest market share on the trade at 21%. <h3>Intra-Europe share ‘too small’ </h3>The Zim volume added on the intra-Europe trade would put Hapag-Lloyd level with Cosco Shipping at 7%, although considering it is a home market for the Hamburg-based carrier, Habben Jansen indicated there is still room to grow. “Intra-Europe for Hapag-Lloyd is too small in my view,” he said. “We would like to get to a market share of around 10%, and this would help us make a good step in that direction.” The Zim deal is expected to be completed by the end of the year, subject to approval of the Israeli carrier’s shareholders and regulatory approval in several jurisdictions. The acquisition comes as container shipping moves into a supply-driven downcycle, with the declining market sharply illustrated in Hapag-Lloyd’s preliminary results for 2025 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fourth-quarter-rate-slump-drags-down-hapag-lloyds-2025-financials-6166755">that included a steep drop in profitability</a>. Zim’s earnings have yet to be announced. Hapag-Lloyd’s estimated 2025 revenue for the combined entity would be $28 billion, a $1.1 billion drop from 2024. In earnings before interest and taxes, the $5.3 billion reported in 2024 by both carriers is expected to plummet to $2 billion should Zim hit the higher end of its 2025 forecast. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd’s $4.2 billion acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services that was announced Monday will significantly improve the Hamburg-based carrier’s position on several major trade lanes. While cementing the buyer’s position as the world’s fifth-largest container shipping company , the takeover will grow Hapag-Lloyd’s volume share on the trans-Atlantic from 24% to 27%, on the trans-Pacific from 7% to 12%, in Asia from 9% to 11%, on Asia-Latin America from 11% to 14%, and from 2% to 7% on the intra-Europe trade, according to data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) cited by Hapag-Lloyd. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen highlighted as particularly welcome the increase in volume that would result across the trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific corridors. “When we look for a minute at the trade portfolios on the Atlantic and trans-Pacific, if we joined forces we would really get into very strong position,” he told reporters during an online briefing Monday shortly after signing the Zim deal in Tel Aviv. A 27% market share on the trans-Atlantic would put Hapag-Lloyd in second place behind Mediterranean Shipping Co. at 29%, according to the CTS figures cited by Hapag-Lloyd. According to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, Hapag-Lloyd had a market share of 19.6% on the trans-Atlantic in January, behind MSC’s 22.6%. But Hapag-Lloyd held the top position throughout the fourth quarter of 2025 with a share that exceeded 25% in October and December. On the trans-Pacific, the addition of Zim would put Hapag-Lloyd level with Ocean Network Express in third position behind MSC at 13%, according to CTS. Habben Jansen said the Asia-Latin America trade has long been a corridor he has wanted to expand. In 2023, Hapag-Lloyd strengthened its position with the acquisition of SM SAAM terminal business while growing dedicated service networks on the trade lane. “Zim has done really well on Asia-Latin America in the last couple of years and this would allow us to get closer to the 15%, 16% [volume share] that we’ve always aspired to,” Habben Jansen told reporters. MSC holds the largest market share on the trade at 21%. Intra-Europe share ‘too small’ The Zim volume added on the intra-Europe trade would put Hapag-Lloyd level with Cosco Shipping at 7%, although considering it is a home market for the Hamburg-based carrier, Habben Jansen indicated there is still room to grow. “Intra-Europe for Hapag-Lloyd is too small in my view,” he said. “We would like to get to a market share of around 10%, and this would help us make a good step in that direction.” The Zim deal is expected to be completed by the end of the year, subject to approval of the Israeli carrier’s shareholders and regulatory approval in several jurisdictions. The acquisition comes as container shipping moves into a supply-driven downcycle, with the declining market sharply illustrated in Hapag-Lloyd’s preliminary results for 2025 that included a steep drop in profitability . Zim’s earnings have yet to be announced. Hapag-Lloyd’s estimated 2025 revenue for the combined entity would be $28 billion, a $1.1 billion drop from 2024. In earnings before interest and taxes, the $5.3 billion reported in 2024 by both carriers is expected to plummet to $2 billion should Zim hit the higher end of its 2025 forecast. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Zim deal to strengthen Hapag-Lloyd’s market share across key trade lanes

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The wide-ranging plan includes proposals to tax foreign-built ships calling US ports, rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity, and eliminate “burdensome regulations” through a series of deregulatory measures. </div>

The wide-ranging plan includes proposals to tax foreign-built ships calling US ports, rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity, and eliminate “burdensome regulations” through a series of deregulatory measures.

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration Friday unveiled a wide-ranging blueprint for revitalizing the US maritime sector, the financial cornerstone of which would be a Maritime Security Trust Fund (MSTF) that would be fed in large part by taxing foreign-owned vessels calling US ports. “America’s Maritime Action Plan” includes a “universal infrastructure or security fee” that would be imposed on all foreign-built commercial vessels. The fee would be assessed based on the weight of the imported tonnage carried on the vessel. The action plan also includes a separate fee on imports arriving via land. While no specific figures were proposed, the plan to tax cargo tonnage imported by foreign-built ships did offer two scenarios: A fee of 1 cent per kilogram would generate about $66 billion over 10 years, while a fee of 25 cents per kg would yield close to $1.5 trillion. It’s unclear how the estimates were calculated. “As foreign-built vessels benefit from US market access, this policy ensures they contribute to the long-term revitalization of America’s maritime capabilities,” the plan said. The proposal echoes the tit-for-tat tariffs the US and China intended to impose on each other’s tonnage <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/year-long-pause-on-us-port-fees-targeting-china-vessels-to-start-nov-10-6108431">until a one-year suspension was enacted last November</a> as part of a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trade-deal-could-boost-short-term-china-imports-but-uncertainty-lingers-6106809">broader trade deal between Washington and Beijing</a>. The action plan also includes proposals to rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity, strengthen the maritime industrial base, increase the fleet of US-built and -flagged commercial vessels working international trades, and eliminate “burdensome regulations” through a series of deregulatory measures. “For decades, the nation’s strategic position and shipbuilding industrial capacity have weakened due to a lack of strategic focus, cumbersome government procurement processes and a lack of strategic support for construction of commercial vessels in domestic shipyards,” the plan’s introduction stated. The action plan is an extension of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last April calling for the restoration of American maritime dominance. The 40-page plan offers several concrete proposals, including the creation of the MSTF that would be fed by new revenue streams. “By securing stable, long-term funding, the MSTF would ensure consistent support for investments in shipbuilding, fleet expansion, industrial base resilience, and maritime workforce development,” the plan said. “Authorized expenditures would include programs identified as helpful for the promotion, growth and strengthening of the domestic maritime sector.” The MSTF would help fund the revitalization of US shipbuilding capacity, which is “the cornerstone of the administration’s strategy to restore America’s maritime strength and self-sufficiency,” according to the plan, which noted only eight shipyards exist in the country that can build vessels greater than 400 feet in length. The plan calls for investment that would fund upgrades to commercial shipyards in order to add and modernize drydocks, heavy-lift and gantry cranes, panel lines, and automated handling systems “to support higher‑rate production and large hull handling.” <h3>Land port tax </h3>A separate proposed funding mechanism, the Land Port Maintenance Tax, would be an equivalent to the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax for marine ports. The plan proposes a “modest tax” on merchandise entering the US via land of 0.125% of the value of the goods. “Funds collected under this tax will be deposited into the newly established Land Port Maintenance Trust Fund (LPMTF), which will support the planning, design, construction, maintenance and improvement of land port infrastructure,” according to the plan. The action plan also proposes the creation of a Strategic Commercial Fleet (SCF) that would consist of US-built vessels working international trades. The SCF would “provide the depth and redundancy required to sustain military logistics around the globe and ensure the continuous flow of goods to the US economy,” the plan said. “Vessels in the SCF would receive financial support for both construction and operation, leveling the playing field between the US and subsidized foreign competition.” Many of the proposals included in the maritime action plan require Congressional approval, so the Trump administration said it is compiling a legislative package that will be sent to Congress after the publication of Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Presidents typically send annual budget requests to Congress in February, although the timeline can be delayed. “The Trump administration urges Congress to enact this package in tandem with existing legislative vehicles, ensuring the US maritime industry is equipped to meet the demands of global competition, national defense and economic growth,” the plan said. Contact Kevin Saville at <a href="mailto:kevin.saville2@spglobal.com">kevin.saville2@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Trump administration Friday unveiled a wide-ranging blueprint for revitalizing the US maritime sector, the financial cornerstone of which would be a Maritime Security Trust Fund (MSTF) that would be fed in large part by taxing foreign-owned vessels calling US ports. “America’s Maritime Action Plan” includes a “universal infrastructure or security fee” that would be imposed on all foreign-built commercial vessels. The fee would be assessed based on the weight of the imported tonnage carried on the vessel. The action plan also includes a separate fee on imports arriving via land. While no specific figures were proposed, the plan to tax cargo tonnage imported by foreign-built ships did offer two scenarios: A fee of 1 cent per kilogram would generate about $66 billion over 10 years, while a fee of 25 cents per kg would yield close to $1.5 trillion. It’s unclear how the estimates were calculated.  “As foreign-built vessels benefit from US market access, this policy ensures they contribute to the long-term revitalization of America’s maritime capabilities,” the plan said. The proposal echoes the tit-for-tat tariffs the US and China intended to impose on each other’s tonnage until a one-year suspension was enacted last November as part of a broader trade deal between Washington and Beijing . The action plan also includes proposals to rebuild domestic shipbuilding capacity, strengthen the maritime industrial base, increase the fleet of US-built and -flagged commercial vessels working international trades, and eliminate “burdensome regulations” through a series of deregulatory measures. “For decades, the nation’s strategic position and shipbuilding industrial capacity have weakened due to a lack of strategic focus, cumbersome government procurement processes and a lack of strategic support for construction of commercial vessels in domestic shipyards,” the plan’s introduction stated. The action plan is an extension of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump last April calling for the restoration of American maritime dominance. The 40-page plan offers several concrete proposals, including the creation of the MSTF that would be fed by new revenue streams. “By securing stable, long-term funding, the MSTF would ensure consistent support for investments in shipbuilding, fleet expansion, industrial base resilience, and maritime workforce development,” the plan said. “Authorized expenditures would include programs identified as helpful for the promotion, growth and strengthening of the domestic maritime sector.” The MSTF would help fund the revitalization of US shipbuilding capacity, which is “the cornerstone of the administration’s strategy to restore America’s maritime strength and self-sufficiency,” according to the plan, which noted only eight shipyards exist in the country that can build vessels greater than 400 feet in length. The plan calls for investment that would fund upgrades to commercial shipyards in order to add and modernize drydocks, heavy-lift and gantry cranes, panel lines, and automated handling systems “to support higher‑rate production and large hull handling.” Land port tax A separate proposed funding mechanism, the Land Port Maintenance Tax, would be an equivalent to the existing Harbor Maintenance Tax for marine ports. The plan proposes a “modest tax” on merchandise entering the US via land of 0.125% of the value of the goods. “Funds collected under this tax will be deposited into the newly established Land Port Maintenance Trust Fund (LPMTF), which will support the planning, design, construction, maintenance and improvement of land port infrastructure,” according to the plan. The action plan also proposes the creation of a Strategic Commercial Fleet (SCF) that would consist of US-built vessels working international trades. The SCF would “provide the depth and redundancy required to sustain military logistics around the globe and ensure the continuous flow of goods to the US economy,” the plan said. “Vessels in the SCF would receive financial support for both construction and operation, leveling the playing field between the US and subsidized foreign competition.” Many of the proposals included in the maritime action plan require Congressional approval, so the Trump administration said it is compiling a legislative package that will be sent to Congress after the publication of Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Presidents typically send annual budget requests to Congress in February, although the timeline can be delayed. “The Trump administration urges Congress to enact this package in tandem with existing legislative vehicles, ensuring the US maritime industry is equipped to meet the demands of global competition, national defense and economic growth,” the plan said. Contact Kevin Saville at kevin.saville2@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Port infrastructure

Trump administration unveils US maritime revitalization ‘action plan’

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The acquisition, if approved, would solidify the Hamburg-based ocean carrier among the five largest container lines by capacity.</div>

The acquisition, if approved, would solidify the Hamburg-based ocean carrier among the five largest container lines by capacity.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd’s plan to acquire Zim Integrated Shipping Services for more than $3.5 billion, pending regulatory approval, will solidify the Hamburg-based carrier among the five largest container lines by capacity, deepening the industry oligopoly. The negotiations, as reported by Israeli media and confirmed by Hapag-Lloyd, would retain Jersualem’s golden share by allowing Hapag-Lloyd to take over international operations, but leaving control of domestic operation to Israel-based private equity group FIMI. The acquisition would boost Hapag-Lloyd’s existing fleet, including chartered ships, by 704,000 TEUs, bringing its total fleet capacity to more than 3 million TEUs, according to maritime analyst Alphaliner. Aside from the tonnage an acquisition of the 10th largest ocean carrier would bring, Hapag-Lloyd’s focus on container shipping versus end-to-end logistics mirrors that of Zim, which prides itself in its agility compared to larger carriers. Hapag-Lloyd on Sunday said its board “was in advance negotiations regarding a potential acquisition of all shares in its Israeli competitor Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.” The deal, which <a href="https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/synasqadwg">has been in the works for six months</a>, according to the Israel financial newspaper Calcalist, resolves government constraints on foreign ownership requiring a set amount of ships to be Israel-owned. <h3>Fewer options for east-west services</h3>The deal would further advance consolidation in an industry that has gone from more than 20 major east-west ocean carriers over 25 years ago to just 10. The top five carriers control 64.5% of global capacity while the top 10 control 84.1%, according to Alphaliner. As recently as 2013, the top 10 lines controlled just over 60% while in 1996 the top 10 carriers controlled 48%, analyst Lars Jensen wrote in “Liner Shipping 2025.”“The liner shipping industry has seen a persistent drive towards consolidation for more than 30 years,” Jensen wrote.The deal also underscores the obstacles to expansion in the current era. Shipyards are full, charter rates remain high, and the top carriers control a greater share of the second-hand market, limiting carriers’ ability to expand organically. Carriers remain flush with cash following a string of profitable years that began with the pandemic, meaning the financial duress that triggered many prior mergers is not present currently. Yet the advantages stemming from scale are undeniable. Despite the potential for three to four years of overcapacity that took a noticeable toll on freight rates and carrier profits in the second half of 2025, the ability of carriers to influence capacity and benefit from external capacity shocks, many believe, leaves them in a more favorable long-term position compared to the 30 years pre-COVID. “A key lesson learned over the last five years is that disruption can be highly profitable for carriers,” <a href="From Tailwind to Headwind: The Changing Dynamics of Maritime Shipping | The Supply Chain Xchange">analyst John McCown wrote in January</a>. Hapag-Lloyd has long been a big part of the consolidation trend in the industry. In 2005, it acquired Canadian carrier CP Ships which itself had absorbed Mexican carrier TMM. In 2014, Hapag-Lloyd acquired Chilean carrier CSAV, and in 2017 it acquired United Arab Shipping Company. Hapag-Lloyd acquired Africa carrier NileDutch and Deutsche Afrika-Linien (DAL) in 2021 and in 2022, respectively.In structuring the Zim sale to satisfy Israel government security concerns, the deal harkens back to the late 1990s sale of APL to Singapore-based Neptune Orient Lines, under which the US government required APL’s US-flag ships to be operated by an American vessel operations entity.Contact Mark Szakonyi <a href="at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Hapag-Lloyd’s plan to acquire Zim Integrated Shipping Services for more than $3.5 billion, pending regulatory approval, will solidify the Hamburg-based carrier among the five largest container lines by capacity, deepening the industry oligopoly. The negotiations, as reported by Israeli media and confirmed by Hapag-Lloyd, would retain Jersualem’s golden share by allowing Hapag-Lloyd to take over international operations, but leaving control of domestic operation to Israel-based private equity group FIMI. The acquisition would boost Hapag-Lloyd’s existing fleet, including chartered ships, by 704,000 TEUs, bringing its total fleet capacity to more than 3 million TEUs, according to maritime analyst Alphaliner. Aside from the tonnage an acquisition of the 10th largest ocean carrier would bring, Hapag-Lloyd’s focus on container shipping versus end-to-end logistics mirrors that of Zim, which prides itself in its agility compared to larger carriers. Hapag-Lloyd on Sunday said its board “was in advance negotiations regarding a potential acquisition of all shares in its Israeli competitor Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.” The deal, which has been in the works for six months , according to the Israel financial newspaper Calcalist, resolves government constraints on foreign ownership requiring a set amount of ships to be Israel-owned. Fewer options for east-west services The deal would further advance consolidation in an industry that has gone from more than 20 major east-west ocean carriers over 25 years ago to just 10. The top five carriers control 64.5% of global capacity while the top 10 control 84.1%, according to Alphaliner. As recently as 2013, the top 10 lines controlled just over 60% while in 1996 the top 10 carriers controlled 48%, analyst Lars Jensen wrote in “Liner Shipping 2025.” “The liner shipping industry has seen a persistent drive towards consolidation for more than 30 years,” Jensen wrote. The deal also underscores the obstacles to expansion in the current era. Shipyards are full, charter rates remain high, and the top carriers control a greater share of the second-hand market, limiting carriers’ ability to expand organically. Carriers remain flush with cash following a string of profitable years that began with the pandemic, meaning the financial duress that triggered many prior mergers is not present currently. Yet the advantages stemming from scale are undeniable. Despite the potential for three to four years of overcapacity that took a noticeable toll on freight rates and carrier profits in the second half of 2025, the ability of carriers to influence capacity and benefit from external capacity shocks, many believe, leaves them in a more favorable long-term position compared to the 30 years pre-COVID. “A key lesson learned over the last five years is that disruption can be highly profitable for carriers,” analyst John McCown wrote in January . Hapag-Lloyd has long been a big part of the consolidation trend in the industry. In 2005, it acquired Canadian carrier CP Ships which itself had absorbed Mexican carrier TMM. In 2014, Hapag-Lloyd acquired Chilean carrier CSAV, and in 2017 it acquired United Arab Shipping Company. Hapag-Lloyd acquired Africa carrier NileDutch and Deutsche Afrika-Linien (DAL) in 2021 and in 2022, respectively. In structuring the Zim sale to satisfy Israel government security concerns, the deal harkens back to the late 1990s sale of APL to Singapore-based Neptune Orient Lines, under which the US government required APL’s US-flag ships to be operated by an American vessel operations entity. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Hapag-Lloyd’s plan to acquire Zim would deepen shipping oligopoly

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The acquisition is expected to be completed this year, and will strengthen the combined network on the trans-Pacific, intra-Asia, the Atlantic, Latin America, and East Mediterranean while bringing up to $500 million in synergies, Hapag-Lloyd's CEO said. </div>

The acquisition is expected to be completed this year, and will strengthen the combined network on the trans-Pacific, intra-Asia, the Atlantic, Latin America, and East Mediterranean while bringing up to $500 million in synergies, Hapag-Lloyd's CEO said.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd inked a $4.2 billion deal Monday to acquire 100% of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, cementing the buyer’s position <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyds-plan-to-acquire-zim-would-deepen-shipping-oligopoly-6170073">as the world’s fifth-largest container shipping company</a> with a fleet of over 400 vessels, a slot capacity of over 3 million TEUs, and an annual transport volume of more than 18 million TEUs. Financing the transaction from cash reserves and a $2.5 billion bridging fund, Hapag-Lloyd will take over the international operations of Zim but leave control of domestic operations to Israel-based private equity group FIMI Opportunity Funds. The deal is expected to be completed by the end of the year, subject to approval of Zim shareholders and regulatory approval in several jurisdictions. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said the acquisition of the 10th largest ocean carrier would strengthen the combined network on the trans-Pacific, intra-Asia, the Atlantic, Latin America, and East Mediterranean while generating significant synergies. “We expect to see about $300 million to $500 million in synergies, mainly in network and procurement,” Habben Jansen told reporters during an online briefing shortly after signing the deal in Tel Aviv, noting that the synergies would bring down slot costs by an estimated $25 per TEU. “We know how to create those synergies, as we have done so in previous transactions,” he added. Zim will be the sixth carrier Hapag-Lloyd has taken over following previous deals for cpships (2005), CSAV (2014), UASC (2017), NileDutch (2021), and DAL (2022). <h3>‘A fair price’ </h3>Asked whether the $4.2 billion acquisition cost was too high, Habben Jansen said he believed it was “a fair price.” ”It was certainly not a low price that we paid, but we believe that it’s an excellent asset, and as such, I think the premium is justified,” he said. Analysts at investment bank J.P. Morgan were not convinced by the takeover premium, calling the price offered “a significant premium to forward expectations.” An analyst note said this was likely a reflection of the competitive nature of the tender and efforts by strategic players to increase market share in a highly competitive market dynamic where players without a large order book were disadvantaged. J.P. Morgan expects Zim’s earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) margin for 2025 to be 30%, compared to 20% in 2023 and 11% in 2019, leaving “material downside potential as the container shipping cycle turns.” “This we expect will likely limit the value creation potential for Hapag-Lloyd in the coming years,” the bank said, although it noted that Hapag-Lloyd appeared less concerned over near-term dynamics, “despite a more challenging multi-year period ahead.” The international element of Zim’s capacity that Hapag-Lloyd will acquire is chartered, thus increasing the chartered portion of Hapag-Lloyd's fleet from its current 39% to 52%. Habben Jansen said there were benefits to holding chartered tonnage in a down cycle, but conceded that the level would be too high. “Dependent on how good or not so good the market is, you have a lot more flexibility in adjusting your cost base than if you do not have a large chunk of chartered tonnage,” he told reporters. “Having said that, I think if this transaction is completed, then the percentage of chartered tonnage that we would have is probably a bit on the high side,” he added. “So over time, one should expect that we then bring that down.” Only Ocean Network Express and Yang Ming have charter ratios above 50%, with other top 10 carriers below 40%. In the case of Evergreen and HMM, it is as low as 30% and 18%, respectively, Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, noted in a LinkedIn post. “This can prove to be a competitive advantage as the market is heading towards a cyclical downturn where the ability to tactically reduce the size of the operated fleet by redelivering charter vessels can be an important element of maintaining a high utilization and low unit cost,” Jensen wrote Monday. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com.</a></div>

Hapag-Lloyd inked a $4.2 billion deal Monday to acquire 100% of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, cementing the buyer’s position as the world’s fifth-largest container shipping company with a fleet of over 400 vessels, a slot capacity of over 3 million TEUs, and an annual transport volume of more than 18 million TEUs. Financing the transaction from cash reserves and a $2.5 billion bridging fund, Hapag-Lloyd will take over the international operations of Zim but leave control of domestic operations to Israel-based private equity group FIMI Opportunity Funds. The deal is expected to be completed by the end of the year, subject to approval of Zim shareholders and regulatory approval in several jurisdictions. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said the acquisition of the 10th largest ocean carrier would strengthen the combined network on the trans-Pacific, intra-Asia, the Atlantic, Latin America, and East Mediterranean while generating significant synergies. “We expect to see about $300 million to $500 million in synergies, mainly in network and procurement,” Habben Jansen told reporters during an online briefing shortly after signing the deal in Tel Aviv, noting that the synergies would bring down slot costs by an estimated $25 per TEU. “We know how to create those synergies, as we have done so in previous transactions,” he added. Zim will be the sixth carrier Hapag-Lloyd has taken over following previous deals for cpships (2005), CSAV (2014), UASC (2017), NileDutch (2021), and DAL (2022). ‘A fair price’ Asked whether the $4.2 billion acquisition cost was too high, Habben Jansen said he believed it was “a fair price.” ”It was certainly not a low price that we paid, but we believe that it’s an excellent asset, and as such, I think the premium is justified,” he said. Analysts at investment bank J.P. Morgan were not convinced by the takeover premium, calling the price offered “a significant premium to forward expectations.” An analyst note said this was likely a reflection of the competitive nature of the tender and efforts by strategic players to increase market share in a highly competitive market dynamic where players without a large order book were disadvantaged. J.P. Morgan expects Zim’s earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) margin for 2025 to be 30%, compared to 20% in 2023 and 11% in 2019, leaving “material downside potential as the container shipping cycle turns.” “This we expect will likely limit the value creation potential for Hapag-Lloyd in the coming years,” the bank said, although it noted that Hapag-Lloyd appeared less concerned over near-term dynamics, “despite a more challenging multi-year period ahead.” The international element of Zim’s capacity that Hapag-Lloyd will acquire is chartered, thus increasing the chartered portion of Hapag-Lloyd's fleet from its current 39% to 52%. Habben Jansen said there were benefits to holding chartered tonnage in a down cycle, but conceded that the level would be too high. “Dependent on how good or not so good the market is, you have a lot more flexibility in adjusting your cost base than if you do not have a large chunk of chartered tonnage,” he told reporters. “Having said that, I think if this transaction is completed, then the percentage of chartered tonnage that we would have is probably a bit on the high side,” he added. “So over time, one should expect that we then bring that down.” Only Ocean Network Express and Yang Ming have charter ratios above 50%, with other top 10 carriers below 40%. In the case of Evergreen and HMM, it is as low as 30% and 18%, respectively, Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, noted in a LinkedIn post. “This can prove to be a competitive advantage as the market is heading towards a cyclical downturn where the ability to tactically reduce the size of the operated fleet by redelivering charter vessels can be an important element of maintaining a high utilization and low unit cost,” Jensen wrote Monday. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com.

US Supreme Court rules against Trump in critical IEEPA tariff case

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Trucking executives buoyed by market signals as winter exit nears

Greater capacity control needs hinder ocean reliability efforts

Zim deal to strengthen Hapag-Lloyd’s market share across key trade lanes

Recent Commentary

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

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

Top 5 Most Read Stories