spring sale pop up.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Anonymous

Events

Gateway

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

Supply chain

Resources

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Special Reports

Press Releases

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

International rail

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Media Kit

Other

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Commentary

Podcasts

Webcasts

Videos

Annual Review and Outlook

Top Rankings

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Platts Containers Update

Top 100 US Exporters

Top 100 US Importers

Top 25 LTL Trucking Companies

Top 25 North American Ports

Top 25 Truckload Companies

Top 40 Container Carriers

Top 50 3PLs

Top 50 Global Container Ports

Top 50 Global Transportation Providers

Top 50 Trucking Companies

Editorial Calendar

Rail Directories

Custom Content

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ocean carrier is acquiring a 30% stake in a Hutchison-owned terminal operator that runs four terminals at the port in Thailand. </div>

The ocean carrier is acquiring a 30% stake in a Hutchison-owned terminal operator that runs four terminals at the port in Thailand.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean Network Express (ONE) is buying a stake in Thailand’s largest marine terminal operator from Chinese port operator Hutchison Ports, continuing a spate of recent terminal investments the ocean carrier has made in Asia. ONE said in a statement Sunday it signed a purchase agreement for a 30% stake in Hutchison Laemchabang Terminal Limited (HLT) for an undisclosed sum. The ocean carrier said HLT is an integral part of Thailand’s long-term plans to develop a high-tech, manufacturing economy. ONE also said HLT has a commitment to “advanced port technology” as the terminal operator has invested in remotely operated ship-to-shore and yard stacking cranes. HLT runs Laem Chabang Port’s Terminal D, as well as terminals C1, C2 and A3. The port is about 80 miles south of Bangkok. “This acquisition secures long-term access to competitive terminal capacity, further strengthening our presence in ONE’s key strategic market,” the carrier said in its statement. Over the last 12 months, ONE has been one of the most frequent callers among major ocean carriers to HLT’s Terminal D, which handles super post-Panamax container ships. ONE has made 113 calls to Terminal D, with an average vessel size of 10,800 TEUs, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Mediterranean Shipping Co. just follows with 110 calls over the same period, according to Sea-web. ONE’s acquisition of the HLT stake comes one week after it made a similar deal for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/one-takes-stake-in-busans-dongwon-terminal-ahead-of-premier-network-shift-6192330">an undisclosed share in the Dongwon Global Terminal</a> in Busan, South Korea. Last year, ONE also purchased <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-one-expand-terminal-networks-with-deals-in-brazil-china-6139983">a stake in China’s Dalian Container Terminal</a>, which came after it acquired <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/one-adds-to-terminal-holdings-with-stake-in-indonesian-operator-5873398">a minority stake in Indonesia’s New Priok Container Terminal One</a> in 2024. More broadly, container lines, supported by recent record profits, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/apmt-takes-49-stake-in-haiphongs-hhit-terminal-in-northern-vietnam-6190288">are investing more in marine terminals</a> to gain better control of landside operations and mitigate port congestion. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean Network Express (ONE) is buying a stake in Thailand’s largest marine terminal operator from Chinese port operator Hutchison Ports, continuing a spate of recent terminal investments the ocean carrier has made in Asia. ONE said in a statement Sunday it signed a purchase agreement for a 30% stake in Hutchison Laemchabang Terminal Limited (HLT) for an undisclosed sum. The ocean carrier said HLT is an integral part of Thailand’s long-term plans to develop a high-tech, manufacturing economy. ONE also said HLT has a commitment to “advanced port technology” as the terminal operator has invested in remotely operated ship-to-shore and yard stacking cranes. HLT runs Laem Chabang Port’s Terminal D, as well as terminals C1, C2 and A3. The port is about 80 miles south of Bangkok. “This acquisition secures long-term access to competitive terminal capacity, further strengthening our presence in ONE’s key strategic market,” the carrier said in its statement. Over the last 12 months, ONE has been one of the most frequent callers among major ocean carriers to HLT’s Terminal D, which handles super post-Panamax container ships. ONE has made 113 calls to Terminal D, with an average vessel size of 10,800 TEUs, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Mediterranean Shipping Co. just follows with 110 calls over the same period, according to Sea-web. ONE’s acquisition of the HLT stake comes one week after it made a similar deal for an undisclosed share in the Dongwon Global Terminal in Busan, South Korea. Last year, ONE also purchased a stake in China’s Dalian Container Terminal , which came after it acquired a minority stake in Indonesia’s New Priok Container Terminal One in 2024. More broadly, container lines, supported by recent record profits, are investing more in marine terminals to gain better control of landside operations and mitigate port congestion. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

ONE adds to Asian terminal holdings with Laem Chabang deal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Forcing liners to wait for the 30-day notice period to end before implementing war-related surcharges reflects a multi-year ascendency of shipper influence in Washington and the corresponding decline in carrier heft, writes Peter Tirschwell.</div>

Forcing liners to wait for the 30-day notice period to end before implementing war-related surcharges reflects a multi-year ascendency of shipper influence in Washington and the corresponding decline in carrier heft, writes Peter Tirschwell.

<div class="phx-topic">The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">unanimous rejection by the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)</a> of ocean carriers’ desire to waive the 30-day notice period for imposing emergency surcharges due to the war in the Middle East is a reminder of how US shipping politics have turned hostile to carriers’ interests. Carriers were accused by FMC Chairperson Laura DiBella of lacking transparency in justifying the surcharges. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause,” DiBella said. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6195098_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Her comments gave voice to decades of shipper frustration with opaque carrier surcharges and suspicion that the fees are revenue generators meant to offset weak freight rates, rather than a tool to pass along costs. Whereas the FMC in an earlier era would most likely have sided with carriers, accepting the premise of higher costs that need to be offset, this time — reflecting a multi-year ascendency of shipper influence in Washington and the corresponding decline in carrier influence — there was little to lose by rejecting the waiver requests made by CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The action drew praise from agricultural exporters, whose Washington representative Peter Friedmann said he was “shocked by the manner in which these requests were drafted, the disrespect shown to carriers’ customers, and even to the [FMC].” Though the practical effect of the FMC’s move will end up being limited because the war-related surcharges will be allowed to take effect in early April, the reminder of how shipping politics have fundamentally shifted in Washington was stark. Lost in the dialogue around the requested surcharge waiver was the reality of increased fuel and other costs due to the war. The conflict has raised Hapag-Lloyd’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">CEO Rolf Habben-Jansen said last week</a>. “To counterbalance that, we have introduced a number of contingency and emergency fuel surcharges,” he said. “This is not to collect more than the extra costs, but an extra cost of $40 million or $50 million per week is not something that you can sustain for very long.” <h3>Little sympathy in US for carriers </h3>A lack of sympathy for carriers runs deep in the US. Few shed any tears, for example, for carriers incurring the world’s highest container handling costs, reflecting generous longshore labor contracts on both coasts, or the US being one of the only countries where carriers can’t recoup those costs through a terminal handing charge, or THC. Even the FMC <a href="https://www.fmc.gov/articles/commissioner-dye-releases-final-report-for-fact-finding-no-29/">concluding</a> in 2022 that the COVID-era rate increases resulted from port congestion and strong demand, not carrier collusion, failed to assuage many shippers who took financial hits due to shipping disruption, and blamed carriers as a result. The political shift behind the FMC’s rejection of the carriers’ waiver requests was years in the making. With the demise of US-flag carriers APL, Sea-Land Service Inc., United States Lines, and others that for decades anchored a strong carrier presence in Washington, carriers have been left essentially without friends in Washington. The 2022 Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA-22), the first shipping legislation signed into law in nearly a quarter century, was passed over the objections of the World Shipping Council (WSC), the carriers’ trade group, in contrast to earlier legislation in 1984 and 1998 that would not have passed without the carriers’ sign off. Even port authorities, for whom carriers are customers, supported the 2022 law. Carriers’ criticism that the 2022 law failed to address the root landside causes of the COVID disruption were all but ignored amid the focus on detention and demurrage — a longtime shipper grievance — and wave of anti-carrier sentiment during COVID, <a href="https://www.worldshipping.org/news/world-shipping-council-statement-on-congressional-passage-of-the-ocean-shipping-reform-act">leaving the WSC to say</a> “we are appalled by the continued mischaracterization of the industry.” In rejecting carriers’ surcharge waiver last week, moreover, the FMC incurred virtually no risk in potentially alienating carriers. <h3>‘Global’ carriers need US market </h3>Despite whatever hardships carriers face when operating in the US — including being harshly disparaged by US presidents, union officials and legislators, as well as being forced into accepting a whopping 62% wage increase for East Coast dockworkers in the fall of 2024 — major carriers are highly unlikely to walk away from the US. In other words, the risk remains minimal that the US controlling a mere half of 1 percent of global shipping, <a href="https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-merchant-marine">according to the Heritage Foundation</a>, would come back to haunt the country in the form of vital trade connections being severed by the loss of carrier services. Industry veterans can recall of no instance when an established east-west carrier withdrew from the US trades for reasons other than mergers, acquisition or bankruptcy. That dependence might explain the FMC’s longtime hesitation to go after carriers in ways that would truly hurt, like rejecting proposed alliances or mergers. Arguing against the possibility of carriers withdrawing US services, the major carriers are increasingly global — the top 10 control a record 85% of the global fleet, according to Alphaliner — a figure that will grow if Hapag-Lloyd succeeds in closing on its acquisition of Zim. As the world’s largest economy and consumer market, the US is core to carrier networks. “It’s hard to do global tenders if you don’t have a presence here,” said George Goldman, who led CMA CGM and Zim in the US following a lengthy career at APL. “You basically can’t call yourself a global carrier if you don’t operate in the US.” Another reason carriers would likely never walk away from the US is their substantial and growing landside investments, especially in terminals, with carriers only seeking further opportunities to expand their US terminal footprints. As Goldman said, the US is viewed by carriers as “the land of opportunity.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The unanimous rejection by the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) of ocean carriers’ desire to waive the 30-day notice period for imposing emergency surcharges due to the war in the Middle East is a reminder of how US shipping politics have turned hostile to carriers’ interests. Carriers were accused by FMC Chairperson Laura DiBella of lacking transparency in justifying the surcharges. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause,” DiBella said. Her comments gave voice to decades of shipper frustration with opaque carrier surcharges and suspicion that the fees are revenue generators meant to offset weak freight rates, rather than a tool to pass along costs. Whereas the FMC in an earlier era would most likely have sided with carriers, accepting the premise of higher costs that need to be offset, this time — reflecting a multi-year ascendency of shipper influence in Washington and the corresponding decline in carrier influence — there was little to lose by rejecting the waiver requests made by CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The action drew praise from agricultural exporters, whose Washington representative Peter Friedmann said he was “shocked by the manner in which these requests were drafted, the disrespect shown to carriers’ customers, and even to the [FMC].” Though the practical effect of the FMC’s move will end up being limited because the war-related surcharges will be allowed to take effect in early April, the reminder of how shipping politics have fundamentally shifted in Washington was stark. Lost in the dialogue around the requested surcharge waiver was the reality of increased fuel and other costs due to the war. The conflict has raised Hapag-Lloyd’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week, CEO Rolf Habben-Jansen said last week . “To counterbalance that, we have introduced a number of contingency and emergency fuel surcharges,” he said. “This is not to collect more than the extra costs, but an extra cost of $40 million or $50 million per week is not something that you can sustain for very long.” Little sympathy in US for carriers A lack of sympathy for carriers runs deep in the US. Few shed any tears, for example, for carriers incurring the world’s highest container handling costs, reflecting generous longshore labor contracts on both coasts, or the US being one of the only countries where carriers can’t recoup those costs through a terminal handing charge, or THC. Even the FMC concluding in 2022 that the COVID-era rate increases resulted from port congestion and strong demand, not carrier collusion, failed to assuage many shippers who took financial hits due to shipping disruption, and blamed carriers as a result. The political shift behind the FMC’s rejection of the carriers’ waiver requests was years in the making. With the demise of US-flag carriers APL, Sea-Land Service Inc., United States Lines, and others that for decades anchored a strong carrier presence in Washington, carriers have been left essentially without friends in Washington. The 2022 Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA-22), the first shipping legislation signed into law in nearly a quarter century, was passed over the objections of the World Shipping Council (WSC), the carriers’ trade group, in contrast to earlier legislation in 1984 and 1998 that would not have passed without the carriers’ sign off. Even port authorities, for whom carriers are customers, supported the 2022 law. Carriers’ criticism that the 2022 law failed to address the root landside causes of the COVID disruption were all but ignored amid the focus on detention and demurrage — a longtime shipper grievance — and wave of anti-carrier sentiment during COVID, leaving the WSC to say “we are appalled by the continued mischaracterization of the industry.” In rejecting carriers’ surcharge waiver last week, moreover, the FMC incurred virtually no risk in potentially alienating carriers. ‘Global’ carriers need US market Despite whatever hardships carriers face when operating in the US — including being harshly disparaged by US presidents, union officials and legislators, as well as being forced into accepting a whopping 62% wage increase for East Coast dockworkers in the fall of 2024 — major carriers are highly unlikely to walk away from the US. In other words, the risk remains minimal that the US controlling a mere half of 1 percent of global shipping, according to the Heritage Foundation , would come back to haunt the country in the form of vital trade connections being severed by the loss of carrier services. Industry veterans can recall of no instance when an established east-west carrier withdrew from the US trades for reasons other than mergers, acquisition or bankruptcy. That dependence might explain the FMC’s longtime hesitation to go after carriers in ways that would truly hurt, like rejecting proposed alliances or mergers. Arguing against the possibility of carriers withdrawing US services, the major carriers are increasingly global — the top 10 control a record 85% of the global fleet, according to Alphaliner — a figure that will grow if Hapag-Lloyd succeeds in closing on its acquisition of Zim. As the world’s largest economy and consumer market, the US is core to carrier networks. “It’s hard to do global tenders if you don’t have a presence here,” said George Goldman, who led CMA CGM and Zim in the US following a lengthy career at APL. “You basically can’t call yourself a global carrier if you don’t operate in the US.” Another reason carriers would likely never walk away from the US is their substantial and growing landside investments, especially in terminals, with carriers only seeking further opportunities to expand their US terminal footprints. As Goldman said, the US is viewed by carriers as “the land of opportunity.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

FMC rejection of carriers’ surcharge waiver shows shift in US shipping politics

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Omani port operated by APM Terminals is one of the alternative container drop-off points in the region being used by ocean carriers unable to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. </div>

The Omani port operated by APM Terminals is one of the alternative container drop-off points in the region being used by ocean carriers unable to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

<div class="phx-topic">A drone strike on Saturday closed the APM Terminals regional hub of Salalah in Oman, disrupting operations at one of the key access points for containers being offloaded and trucked overland to Persian Gulf markets that are otherwise inaccessible by ocean due to the war. One port worker was injured in the attack, and a container terminal crane was damaged. No one has claimed responsibility for the strike, although some media is reporting that the drones were fired by Houthi militants in neighboring Yemen. APMT owner Maersk said in a customer advisory Monday that Salalah will gradually resume operations beginning Tuesday, although operational constraints “might remain for some time.” “Additional precautionary security measures have been implemented at the port, and we remain in contact with the relevant authorities and port stakeholders,” the carrier said. Following the attack, Hapag-Lloyd announced that its vessel Lisbon Express has been moved out of the port “as a precautionary measure.” With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed to commercial shipping, ocean carriers are discharging containers in ports near the Persian Gulf, such as Salalah and Sohar in Oman and Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE. The cargo is then trucked vast distances inland to the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq. But customer advisories from forwarders and ocean carriers paint a picture of growing congestion across regional overland networks. Crane Worldwide Logistics said Khor Fakkan congestion was at 100% with wait times longer than 11 days and “vessel queues and dwell times unrelenting.” The region’s main port hub of Jebel Ali is experiencing systemic backlogs with DP World’s emergency land corridors to Dammam in Saudi Arabia and Sohar providing only marginal landside relief. Cross-border trucking capacity shortages persist in key corridors and are most acute in Oman, the UAE’s Fujairah, and Saudi Arabia, Crane noted. The landside disruption for cargo was exacerbated by the Eid holidays and flooding from a severe storm that lashed the UAE last week. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">told reporters during a briefing last week</a> that the carrier was trying to come up with overland solutions for customer cargo that is stranded short of its Persian Gulf destinations. ”But capacity there is limited, and that means it is possible for things that are urgent or critical, but it is not possible for the volume that normally would be carried via the water,” Habben Jansen said. “There is simply not enough inland infrastructure and there are not enough trucks to support that,” he added. <h3>Trucking costs rising </h3>It is not only inbound containers that are impacted by the ongoing conflict. The Journal of Commerce has been told that a shipper with containers that urgently need exporting from the Persian Gulf in the next two months is paying $15,000 per container to truck 140 boxes across Saudi Arabia to the port of Jeddah on the Red Sea. That figure was far above the current $2,000-$6,000 per container market price for a cross-desert truck journey from the UAE to Jeddah, according to the Middle East CEO for a global forwarder, who added the $15,000 per box was likely escalated by the urgent nature of the shipment. Still, the forwarder said trucking complications across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — extended well beyond high rates. ”For example, if you have a Saudi truck and want to drive to an Omani port, it’s not possible,” the source told the Journal of Commerce. “They are currently making some exceptions, but we have just learned that Oman will charge an entry fee per tire.” Another problem that has been escalated by the conflict, according to the executive, is the issuing of visas. “There is so much more cross-border trucking now and drivers need to queue for half a day and longer to get a visa,” he said. “That limits the number of journeys a trucker can make, it creates delays and traffic backlogs, and inflates the price.” <h3>Operational restrictions </h3>Crane Worldwide Logistics said a new operational restriction now in effect bars drivers of Syrian, Pakistani and Yemeni nationality from entering Qatar, directly impacting road-based freight operations in an out of the country. With ocean cargo handling suspended in the Qatari port of Doha, the Crane advisory said containers already discharged in the region were accruing storage charges daily and the driver nationality ban was limiting the ability of cargo owners to collect and move their boxes. Michael Aldwell, executive vice president of sea logistics at Kuehne + Nagel, acknowledged that trucking capacity was a challenge, but said the forwarder had a road network in place before the conflict that it was able to utilize. Priority was being given to transporting healthcare and perishable cargo into the Middle East. “To keep cargo moving, we are working on solutions to find alternative gateways and corridors with trucks into the Persian Gulf markets, such as cross-border trucking between Sohar or Khor Fakkan, and via Mersin (Turkey) or Aqaba (Jordan),” Aldwell told the Journal of Commerce. “We are also implementing air-road solutions via airports in Saudi Arabia (Jeddah) and Oman (Salalah) with cross-border trucking to the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A drone strike on Saturday closed the APM Terminals regional hub of Salalah in Oman, disrupting operations at one of the key access points for containers being offloaded and trucked overland to Persian Gulf markets that are otherwise inaccessible by ocean due to the war. One port worker was injured in the attack, and a container terminal crane was damaged. No one has claimed responsibility for the strike, although some media is reporting that the drones were fired by Houthi militants in neighboring Yemen. APMT owner Maersk said in a customer advisory Monday that Salalah will gradually resume operations beginning Tuesday, although operational constraints “might remain for some time.” “Additional precautionary security measures have been implemented at the port, and we remain in contact with the relevant authorities and port stakeholders,” the carrier said. Following the attack, Hapag-Lloyd announced that its vessel Lisbon Express has been moved out of the port “as a precautionary measure.” With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed to commercial shipping, ocean carriers are discharging containers in ports near the Persian Gulf, such as Salalah and Sohar in Oman and Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE. The cargo is then trucked vast distances inland to the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq. But customer advisories from forwarders and ocean carriers paint a picture of growing congestion across regional overland networks. Crane Worldwide Logistics said Khor Fakkan congestion was at 100% with wait times longer than 11 days and “vessel queues and dwell times unrelenting.” The region’s main port hub of Jebel Ali is experiencing systemic backlogs with DP World’s emergency land corridors to Dammam in Saudi Arabia and Sohar providing only marginal landside relief. Cross-border trucking capacity shortages persist in key corridors and are most acute in Oman, the UAE’s Fujairah, and Saudi Arabia, Crane noted. The landside disruption for cargo was exacerbated by the Eid holidays and flooding from a severe storm that lashed the UAE last week. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Hapag-Lloyd, told reporters during a briefing last week that the carrier was trying to come up with overland solutions for customer cargo that is stranded short of its Persian Gulf destinations. ”But capacity there is limited, and that means it is possible for things that are urgent or critical, but it is not possible for the volume that normally would be carried via the water,” Habben Jansen said. “There is simply not enough inland infrastructure and there are not enough trucks to support that,” he added. Trucking costs rising It is not only inbound containers that are impacted by the ongoing conflict. The Journal of Commerce has been told that a shipper with containers that urgently need exporting from the Persian Gulf in the next two months is paying $15,000 per container to truck 140 boxes across Saudi Arabia to the port of Jeddah on the Red Sea. That figure was far above the current $2,000-$6,000 per container market price for a cross-desert truck journey from the UAE to Jeddah, according to the Middle East CEO for a global forwarder, who added the $15,000 per box was likely escalated by the urgent nature of the shipment. Still, the forwarder said trucking complications across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — extended well beyond high rates. ”For example, if you have a Saudi truck and want to drive to an Omani port, it’s not possible,” the source told the Journal of Commerce. “They are currently making some exceptions, but we have just learned that Oman will charge an entry fee per tire.” Another problem that has been escalated by the conflict, according to the executive, is the issuing of visas. “There is so much more cross-border trucking now and drivers need to queue for half a day and longer to get a visa,” he said. “That limits the number of journeys a trucker can make, it creates delays and traffic backlogs, and inflates the price.” Operational restrictions Crane Worldwide Logistics said a new operational restriction now in effect bars drivers of Syrian, Pakistani and Yemeni nationality from entering Qatar, directly impacting road-based freight operations in an out of the country. With ocean cargo handling suspended in the Qatari port of Doha, the Crane advisory said containers already discharged in the region were accruing storage charges daily and the driver nationality ban was limiting the ability of cargo owners to collect and move their boxes. Michael Aldwell, executive vice president of sea logistics at Kuehne + Nagel, acknowledged that trucking capacity was a challenge, but said the forwarder had a road network in place before the conflict that it was able to utilize. Priority was being given to transporting healthcare and perishable cargo into the Middle East. “To keep cargo moving, we are working on solutions to find alternative gateways and corridors with trucks into the Persian Gulf markets, such as cross-border trucking between Sohar or Khor Fakkan, and via Mersin (Turkey) or Aqaba (Jordan),” Aldwell told the Journal of Commerce. “We are also implementing air-road solutions via airports in Saudi Arabia (Jeddah) and Oman (Salalah) with cross-border trucking to the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Drone strike closes key Middle East transit hub of Salalah

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Total transit collapse and escalating infrastructure threats are forcing project cargo shippers to step up their contingency planning. </div>

Total transit collapse and escalating infrastructure threats are forcing project cargo shippers to step up their contingency planning.

<div class="phx-topic">The near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the war in the Middle East will haunt global breakbulk and project markets long after the final missiles are fired, sector specialists say. Speaking during a March 26 Journal of Commerce webcast, José Enrique Sevilla-Macip, senior research analyst for Latin America Country Risk at S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, said there had been a 97% decrease in transits across the Strait of Hormuz over the past 25 days, noting that on March 25, for the first time since the conflict began, not a single vessel crossed the waterway. The paralysis is triggering a shift from initial price shocks to actual physical shortages of fuel and goods. On the ground, the logistics of moving breakbulk and project cargo goods has become a balancing act of cancellations and rerouting. Marc Cowie, CEO for North America at project cargo forwarder Trans Global Projects (TGP), said that many carriers are refusing to even quote for cargo entering the war region due to skyrocketing insurance premiums. The disruption is also creating a "lag impact" that will persist for months. "There will undoubtedly be ships out of position, cargo out of position, and there's going to be a knock-on effect," Cowie said on the webcast. "It's going to take some time to get back to normality.” For panelist Christian Ohlrich, global director for logistics at energy storage products manufacturer Fluence Energy, the crisis is manifesting most acutely in the energy sector. He described the "fuel shock" as a primary concern, with bunker supplies depleting rapidly, particularly in Asia. This has led to a chaotic environment for manufacturing and project execution. ”It’s creating quite some havoc,” Ohlrich said. “It’s crunching schedules. It’s increasing costs.” He noted that while larger projects can still attract the necessary multipurpose vessels, smaller, less “enticing” shipments are being delayed by weeks. That is not, however, stopping Fluence’s project operations. “We have plenty of buffers,” Ohlrich said. “I'm still making all my commitments. It's just changing the flow of project execution.” This includes changing internal team arrangements to meet the sequence of a project. “It's an inconvenience rather than a hindrance,” he said. <h3>Oil prices expected to remain elevated </h3>The bunker fuel shortage is unlikely to ease in the short term. Sevilla-Macip expects oil prices to remain above $100 per barrel for at least the next month, though he holds out hope they could return to $60 by year-end if hostilities cease soon. However, the path to peace is cluttered with "signposts" of further escalation, he said. These include potential Iranian attacks on US aircraft, the involvement of Tehran-backed Houthi militants in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, or the targeting of critical civilian infrastructure like desalination plants. In the face of this volatility, the advice from project shippers and forwarders is a mix of tactical flexibility and rigorous planning. TGP’s Cowie urged shippers to work in close partnership with forwarders to find alternative routes or modes, such as trucking cargo across the Arabian Peninsula to safer ports. ”We have to remain flexible, remain calm,” Cowie said. “Logistics is about challenges. It is about overcoming those challenges.” Ohlrich echoed that, stressing the need for better foresight. ”Tighten up your planning and forecasting as much as possible,” he advised the webcast. “The better you can plan ahead, especially in situations where you see these kinds of disruptions, the better.” Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the war in the Middle East will haunt global breakbulk and project markets long after the final missiles are fired, sector specialists say. Speaking during a March 26 Journal of Commerce webcast, José Enrique Sevilla-Macip, senior research analyst for Latin America Country Risk at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said there had been a 97% decrease in transits across the Strait of Hormuz over the past 25 days, noting that on March 25, for the first time since the conflict began, not a single vessel crossed the waterway. The paralysis is triggering a shift from initial price shocks to actual physical shortages of fuel and goods. On the ground, the logistics of moving breakbulk and project cargo goods has become a balancing act of cancellations and rerouting. Marc Cowie, CEO for North America at project cargo forwarder Trans Global Projects (TGP), said that many carriers are refusing to even quote for cargo entering the war region due to skyrocketing insurance premiums. The disruption is also creating a "lag impact" that will persist for months. "There will undoubtedly be ships out of position, cargo out of position, and there's going to be a knock-on effect," Cowie said on the webcast. "It's going to take some time to get back to normality.” For panelist Christian Ohlrich, global director for logistics at energy storage products manufacturer Fluence Energy, the crisis is manifesting most acutely in the energy sector. He described the "fuel shock" as a primary concern, with bunker supplies depleting rapidly, particularly in Asia. This has led to a chaotic environment for manufacturing and project execution. ”It’s creating quite some havoc,” Ohlrich said. “It’s crunching schedules. It’s increasing costs.” He noted that while larger projects can still attract the necessary multipurpose vessels, smaller, less “enticing” shipments are being delayed by weeks. That is not, however, stopping Fluence’s project operations. “We have plenty of buffers,” Ohlrich said. “I'm still making all my commitments. It's just changing the flow of project execution.” This includes changing internal team arrangements to meet the sequence of a project. “It's an inconvenience rather than a hindrance,” he said. Oil prices expected to remain elevated The bunker fuel shortage is unlikely to ease in the short term. Sevilla-Macip expects oil prices to remain above $100 per barrel for at least the next month, though he holds out hope they could return to $60 by year-end if hostilities cease soon. However, the path to peace is cluttered with "signposts" of further escalation, he said. These include potential Iranian attacks on US aircraft, the involvement of Tehran-backed Houthi militants in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, or the targeting of critical civilian infrastructure like desalination plants. In the face of this volatility, the advice from project shippers and forwarders is a mix of tactical flexibility and rigorous planning. TGP’s Cowie urged shippers to work in close partnership with forwarders to find alternative routes or modes, such as trucking cargo across the Arabian Peninsula to safer ports. ”We have to remain flexible, remain calm,” Cowie said. “Logistics is about challenges. It is about overcoming those challenges.” Ohlrich echoed that, stressing the need for better foresight. ”Tighten up your planning and forecasting as much as possible,” he advised the webcast. “The better you can plan ahead, especially in situations where you see these kinds of disruptions, the better.” Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Hormuz closure triggers ‘havoc’ for project logistics supply chain

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Agency Chairman Laura DiBella said the “intensified inspections” of the vessels appear to be retaliation for Panama canceling the port concessions held at Balboa and Cristóbal by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Hutchison. </div>

Agency Chairman Laura DiBella said the “intensified inspections” of the vessels appear to be retaliation for Panama canceling the port concessions held at Balboa and Cristóbal by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Hutchison.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is “closely monitoring” an apparent “surge” in detentions of Panama-flag ships by Chinese port authorities and the effect it could have on US container trade, according to the agency’s chairman. Laura DiBella says the moves appear to be retaliation <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-court-voids-ck-hutchison-canal-terminal-leases-6161145">for the Panamanian Supreme Court recently nullifying</a> the operating concessions at Panama’s Balboa and Cristóbal ports that were held for 28 years by Panama Ports Company (PPC), which is 90% owned by Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. DiBella, in a statement Thursday she said represented her views and not the FMC’s, said the detentions of Panama-flag ships in Chinese ports far exceed “historical norms.” “These intensified inspections were carried out under informal directives and appear intended to punish Panama after the transfer of Hutchison’s port assets,” she said. “Given that Panama‑flagged ships carry a meaningful share of US containerized trade, these actions could result in significant commercial and strategic consequences to US shipping.” DiBella did not say the FMC was doing anything other than monitoring the situation, but noted the agency’s laws give it authority to investigate “whether regulations or practices of foreign governments result in conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade of the United States.” With PPC removed from its operatorship, Maersk’s APM Terminals <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-msc-units-begin-interim-management-of-panama-canal-terminals-6175167">was given a transitory concession contract</a> for the Balboa terminal on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal by the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA), while MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited was given the same for Cristóbal on the Atlantic coast. Both contracts are for 18 months. Hutchison has responded by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hutchison-seeks-2-billion-in-damages-from-panama-after-terminal-deal-canceled-6183273">filing an international arbitration claim</a> against the Panamanian government and PMA in which it seeks more than $2 billion in damages. China’s Cosco Shipping Lines earlier this month <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-halts-balboa-calls-in-latest-twist-over-panama-port-row-6185309">halted calls at Balboa</a> and instead is redirecting its services to Manzanillo on the Atlantic side of the canal. Contact Kevin Saville at <a href="mailto:kevin.saville2@spglobal.com">kevin.saville2@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is “closely monitoring” an apparent “surge” in detentions of Panama-flag ships by Chinese port authorities and the effect it could have on US container trade, according to the agency’s chairman. Laura DiBella says the moves appear to be retaliation for the Panamanian Supreme Court recently nullifying the operating concessions at Panama’s Balboa and Cristóbal ports that were held for 28 years by Panama Ports Company (PPC), which is 90% owned by Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings. DiBella, in a statement Thursday she said represented her views and not the FMC’s, said the detentions of Panama-flag ships in Chinese ports far exceed “historical norms.” “These intensified inspections were carried out under informal directives and appear intended to punish Panama after the transfer of Hutchison’s port assets,” she said. “Given that Panama‑flagged ships carry a meaningful share of US containerized trade, these actions could result in significant commercial and strategic consequences to US shipping.” DiBella did not say the FMC was doing anything other than monitoring the situation, but noted the agency’s laws give it authority to investigate “whether regulations or practices of foreign governments result in conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade of the United States.” With PPC removed from its operatorship, Maersk’s APM Terminals was given a transitory concession contract for the Balboa terminal on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal by the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA), while MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited was given the same for Cristóbal on the Atlantic coast. Both contracts are for 18 months. Hutchison has responded by filing an international arbitration claim against the Panamanian government and PMA in which it seeks more than $2 billion in damages. China’s Cosco Shipping Lines earlier this month halted calls at Balboa and instead is redirecting its services to Manzanillo on the Atlantic side of the canal. Contact Kevin Saville at kevin.saville2@spglobal.com .

FMC ‘monitoring’ recent detention of Panama-flag ships at Chinese ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Wary of potential US actions to undermine the agreement, EU lawmakers inserted three clauses into the deal that provide “strong and clear safeguards.”</div>

Wary of potential US actions to undermine the agreement, EU lawmakers inserted three clauses into the deal that provide “strong and clear safeguards.”

<div class="phx-topic">The European Union has approved a trade deal with the US that was agreed to last year, but set conditions aimed at protecting the European Commission from the frequent and unpredictable adjustments of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) on Thursday <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260323IPR38830/eu-us-trade-deal-meps-set-conditions-for-lowering-tariffs-on-us-products">approved the EU-US Turnberry</a> trade deal that was struck in July last year but delayed as tensions between the two parties rose over Trump’s musings about a proposed US takeover of Greenland. Wary of potential US action to undermine the agreement, the EU lawmakers inserted three clauses into the deal — the “suspension clause,” “sunrise clause,” and “sunset clause” — that German MEP Bernd Lange said would be “firmly” defended. “MEPs will only be able to sign up to the trade terms of the deal if the regulation contains very strong and clear safeguards, and only after the US has fully respected the terms of the deal,” Lange said in a statement. “They include a sunrise clause requiring full US compliance before the regulation can take effect, and a sunset clause ensuring full parliamentary oversight of any extension of the concessions, all the while remaining World Trade Organization-compliant,” he added. Lange warned that any further tariff threats from the US, or failure of the deal to deliver for EU producers and consumers, would lead to the expiry of the legislation. “I intend to defend this mandate firmly in the negotiations,” he said. The trade deal now requires agreement from member states, and if passed as is, will set tariffs at 15% for most EU goods, down from the threatened 30%, in exchange for European investment in the US and the removal of EU import duties on US industrial goods. It will also give preferential European market access for a wide range of US seafood and agricultural goods. In a “safeguard mechanism,” the European Commission will be tasked with monitoring the impact of the new rules and will be able to suspend the new tariffs temporarily “should US imports reach a level that could cause serious harm to EU industry, for instance in the event of a 10% increase in imports of a particular group of products,” the statement said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The European Union has approved a trade deal with the US that was agreed to last year, but set conditions aimed at protecting the European Commission from the frequent and unpredictable adjustments of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) on Thursday approved the EU-US Turnberry trade deal that was struck in July last year but delayed as tensions between the two parties rose over Trump’s musings about a proposed US takeover of Greenland. Wary of potential US action to undermine the agreement, the EU lawmakers inserted three clauses into the deal — the “suspension clause,” “sunrise clause,” and “sunset clause” — that German MEP Bernd Lange said would be “firmly” defended. “MEPs will only be able to sign up to the trade terms of the deal if the regulation contains very strong and clear safeguards, and only after the US has fully respected the terms of the deal,” Lange said in a statement. “They include a sunrise clause requiring full US compliance before the regulation can take effect, and a sunset clause ensuring full parliamentary oversight of any extension of the concessions, all the while remaining World Trade Organization-compliant,” he added. Lange warned that any further tariff threats from the US, or failure of the deal to deliver for EU producers and consumers, would lead to the expiry of the legislation. “I intend to defend this mandate firmly in the negotiations,” he said. The trade deal now requires agreement from member states, and if passed as is, will set tariffs at 15% for most EU goods, down from the threatened 30%, in exchange for European investment in the US and the removal of EU import duties on US industrial goods. It will also give preferential European market access for a wide range of US seafood and agricultural goods. In a “safeguard mechanism,” the European Commission will be tasked with monitoring the impact of the new rules and will be able to suspend the new tariffs temporarily “should US imports reach a level that could cause serious harm to EU industry, for instance in the event of a 10% increase in imports of a particular group of products,” the statement said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Europe Union approves US trade deal, but sets firm conditions

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

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

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

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

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves have combined to create a rare window in which transformative deals among ocean carriers are both feasible and strategically rational.</div>

Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves have combined to create a rare window in which transformative deals among ocean carriers are both feasible and strategically rational.

<div class="phx-topic">Debate over consolidation in the container shipping industry has persisted for decades. Advocates argue that the sector has long been fragmented, and that further consolidation is essential to improve financial resilience, operational efficiency, and long-term sustainability. Critics counter that consolidation concentrates pricing power in the hands of a few large players, potentially leading to higher freight rates and reduced competition. In my personal experience, the industry’s structural cyclicality has changed little over time. Freight rate movements in recent months suggest that competitive pressure remains intense, both within alliances and between independent carriers. Indeed, competition is likely to increase over the next three to five years as new vessel capacity enters the market. However, the competitive landscape itself has shifted dramatically. The global container ship order book currently stands at more than 35% of the existing fleet — an unprecedented level. At the same time, the four largest carriers — Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Maersk and Cosco — have taken decisive steps to widen the gap between themselves and the rest of the industry. Meanwhile, Hapag-Lloyd has strengthened its position as a clear number five, extending its lead over mid-tier competitors such as Ocean Network Express, Evergreen, HMM and PIL. (Industry data sources include Drewry and Clarksons Research.) Shipping is a low-margin, capital-intensive business where scale matters enormously. Larger fleets enable lower unit costs, stronger purchasing power, and more efficient network deployment, yet there are limits to what alliances alone can deliver. Alliances primarily provide network coordination and slot sharing; they do not generate the full cost synergies available through unified ownership structures. True economies of scale typically come from either expanding fleets organically or pursuing mergers and acquisitions. Of the two, M&amp;A offers the additional advantage of organizational synergies — streamlined management, consolidated procurement, integrated IT platforms, and rationalized overhead — that alliances cannot replicate. This raises an important question: Why is consolidation particularly relevant now? In cyclical industries such as container shipping, mergers rarely occur at market peaks. When profits are strong, shareholder expectations rise, valuations expand and forward multiples make transactions difficult to justify. Conversely, consolidation tends to occur during downturns or when markets are transitioning toward weaker conditions. That transition phase appears to be underway today. <h3>COVID-era profits provide ‘window of opportunity’ for carriers </h3>Many carriers still retain significant liquidity accumulated during the extraordinary profitability of the COVID-19 era boom. These financial reserves provide a unique window of opportunity. Companies can invest in strategic partnerships or acquisitions while still maintaining operational stability and customer confidence. They also have the resources needed to execute careful integrations that are critical to preserving service quality and avoiding customer disruption. If carriers wait several years, those reserves may be eroded by weaker freight markets, rising costs, or capital expenditures tied to fleet renewal and decarbonization requirements. The mid-tier segment of the industry presents multiple potential merger candidates. Historically, national interests have complicated cross-border consolidation, as governments often view shipping lines as strategic assets tied to trade security and economic policy. Yet recent developments suggest that such barriers are not insurmountable. Hapag-Lloyd’s proposed acquisition of Zim demonstrates that creative structures can address national security concerns while still enabling industrial consolidation. The ability to design tailored governance or ownership arrangements may unlock additional transactions that once seemed politically impossible. Customers, too, have a stake in consolidation, perhaps more than is commonly recognized. Over time, a more consolidated industry can produce greater stability. Previous downturns, including those in 2001, 2009 and 2016, revealed how financially distressed carriers can disrupt supply chains. When shipping lines suffer sustained losses, they often resort to abrupt service cancellations, capacity withdrawals, and large-scale blank sailings. These measures create uncertainty for shippers, ports, logistics providers, and equipment lessors. Most of us vividly remember the collapse of Hanjin Shipping. Its bankruptcy triggered widespread cargo disruptions, stranded containers, port congestion and financial losses across the logistics ecosystem. Such systemic shocks underscore the broader economic value of financially stronger carriers. Consolidation, if executed in a timely manner, can reduce the likelihood of extreme distress events by improving cost structures and balance sheet resilience. <h3>‘Pivotal moment’ </h3>To reassure the skeptics, we can rest assured that competition authorities will continue to monitor market concentration carefully, and customers will demand tangible service improvements rather than promises of efficiency. Nevertheless, the strategic logic is compelling. The container shipping industry stands at a pivotal moment. Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves combine to create a rare window in which transformative deals are both feasible and strategically rational. Delaying action could mean missing that window, as market conditions tighten and financial flexibility declines. For carriers, investors and customers alike, timely consolidation offers the prospect of a more stable and sustainable industry. In a sector long defined by volatility, that outcome should be in everyone’s interest. Robbert van Trooijen, founder and president of Inception Partners and a McKinsey consultant, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&amp;O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at <a href="mailto:robbert@inceptionpartners.org">robbert@inceptionpartners.org</a>. </div>

Debate over consolidation in the container shipping industry has persisted for decades. Advocates argue that the sector has long been fragmented, and that further consolidation is essential to improve financial resilience, operational efficiency, and long-term sustainability. Critics counter that consolidation concentrates pricing power in the hands of a few large players, potentially leading to higher freight rates and reduced competition. In my personal experience, the industry’s structural cyclicality has changed little over time. Freight rate movements in recent months suggest that competitive pressure remains intense, both within alliances and between independent carriers. Indeed, competition is likely to increase over the next three to five years as new vessel capacity enters the market. However, the competitive landscape itself has shifted dramatically. The global container ship order book currently stands at more than 35% of the existing fleet — an unprecedented level. At the same time, the four largest carriers — Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Maersk and Cosco — have taken decisive steps to widen the gap between themselves and the rest of the industry. Meanwhile, Hapag-Lloyd has strengthened its position as a clear number five, extending its lead over mid-tier competitors such as Ocean Network Express, Evergreen, HMM and PIL. (Industry data sources include Drewry and Clarksons Research.) Shipping is a low-margin, capital-intensive business where scale matters enormously. Larger fleets enable lower unit costs, stronger purchasing power, and more efficient network deployment, yet there are limits to what alliances alone can deliver. Alliances primarily provide network coordination and slot sharing; they do not generate the full cost synergies available through unified ownership structures. True economies of scale typically come from either expanding fleets organically or pursuing mergers and acquisitions. Of the two, M&A offers the additional advantage of organizational synergies — streamlined management, consolidated procurement, integrated IT platforms, and rationalized overhead — that alliances cannot replicate. This raises an important question: Why is consolidation particularly relevant now? In cyclical industries such as container shipping, mergers rarely occur at market peaks. When profits are strong, shareholder expectations rise, valuations expand and forward multiples make transactions difficult to justify. Conversely, consolidation tends to occur during downturns or when markets are transitioning toward weaker conditions. That transition phase appears to be underway today. COVID-era profits provide ‘window of opportunity’ for carriers Many carriers still retain significant liquidity accumulated during the extraordinary profitability of the COVID-19 era boom. These financial reserves provide a unique window of opportunity. Companies can invest in strategic partnerships or acquisitions while still maintaining operational stability and customer confidence. They also have the resources needed to execute careful integrations that are critical to preserving service quality and avoiding customer disruption. If carriers wait several years, those reserves may be eroded by weaker freight markets, rising costs, or capital expenditures tied to fleet renewal and decarbonization requirements. The mid-tier segment of the industry presents multiple potential merger candidates. Historically, national interests have complicated cross-border consolidation, as governments often view shipping lines as strategic assets tied to trade security and economic policy. Yet recent developments suggest that such barriers are not insurmountable. Hapag-Lloyd’s proposed acquisition of Zim demonstrates that creative structures can address national security concerns while still enabling industrial consolidation. The ability to design tailored governance or ownership arrangements may unlock additional transactions that once seemed politically impossible. Customers, too, have a stake in consolidation, perhaps more than is commonly recognized. Over time, a more consolidated industry can produce greater stability. Previous downturns, including those in 2001, 2009 and 2016, revealed how financially distressed carriers can disrupt supply chains. When shipping lines suffer sustained losses, they often resort to abrupt service cancellations, capacity withdrawals, and large-scale blank sailings. These measures create uncertainty for shippers, ports, logistics providers, and equipment lessors. Most of us vividly remember the collapse of Hanjin Shipping. Its bankruptcy triggered widespread cargo disruptions, stranded containers, port congestion and financial losses across the logistics ecosystem. Such systemic shocks underscore the broader economic value of financially stronger carriers. Consolidation, if executed in a timely manner, can reduce the likelihood of extreme distress events by improving cost structures and balance sheet resilience. ‘Pivotal moment’ To reassure the skeptics, we can rest assured that competition authorities will continue to monitor market concentration carefully, and customers will demand tangible service improvements rather than promises of efficiency. Nevertheless, the strategic logic is compelling. The container shipping industry stands at a pivotal moment. Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves combine to create a rare window in which transformative deals are both feasible and strategically rational. Delaying action could mean missing that window, as market conditions tighten and financial flexibility declines. For carriers, investors and customers alike, timely consolidation offers the prospect of a more stable and sustainable industry. In a sector long defined by volatility, that outcome should be in everyone’s interest. Robbert van Trooijen, founder and president of Inception Partners and a McKinsey consultant, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at robbert@inceptionpartners.org .

In wake of Zim deal, the time for industry consolidation is now

Dry Van

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {van_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {flatbed_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Refrigerated

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
 Weekly % change: {reefer_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

DAT Freight & Analytics is an independent source of truckload pricing and business intelligence. Using an automated daily process, DAT collects invoices from nearly 1,200 transportation companies totaling more than $137 billion in freight spend annually. It verifies and updates data daily; each market rate reported in RateView Analytics requires a minimum number of submissions, so prices cannot be manipulated; and the algorithms account for outliers. [DAT](https://dat.com)

US dry-van, flatbed and refrigerated truckload spot rates (DAT)

US Truckload spot rates weekly (DAT) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Containers that were inbound when the war started have been plugged into reefer slots in terminals outside the Gulf, accruing mounting storage charges as cargo owners either wait for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen or start looking for new markets</div>

Containers that were inbound when the war started have been plugged into reefer slots in terminals outside the Gulf, accruing mounting storage charges as cargo owners either wait for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen or start looking for new markets

<div class="phx-topic">Düsseldorf — Cold chain shippers with containers destined for the Middle East are in a state of suspended animation with reefer boxes offloaded early at other ports in the region and no timeline on when their voyages will be able to resume through the war zone. Ocean carriers have suspended the acceptance of reefer, dangerous goods and special cargo in and out of the UAE, Oman, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia until further notice. Reefer containers that were inbound when the war started on Feb. 28 have been dropped off and plugged into reefer slots in terminals outside the Persian Gulf, accruing mounting storage charges and leaving cargo owners waiting until shipping can again pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Alternatively, cargo owners will need to start looking for new markets. One such shipper with reefers out of position is Tyson Foods. The Middle East is a major market for the global protein producer that brings in halal chicken from Brazil, but Gulf-bound reefer containers were offloaded before reaching their destination, according to Juliana Violato, Tyson’s senior manager of procurement in Europe. “In Brazil we have slowed down production because all containers that were on the water are now sitting in ports near the Gulf or in India or Singapore,” Violato told the Journal of Commerce at the Global Cold Chain Association (GCCA) Europe conference in Dusseldorf this week. “They will be there until they find a new trade lane that could be through Oman or Saudi Arabia, but we don’t know how or when because of the war,” she added. “What we do know is that the market is still there.” Thomas Eskesen, founder of cold chain industry consultants Eskesen Advisory, said the fate of frozen food shipments and perishables with a limited shelf life has been the number one issue for the global cold chain since the Middle East war began. “This has a massive cascading effect with equipment tied up and booking stops affecting carriers individually,” Eskesen told the Journal of Commerce. “Lots of cargo is being diverted via the Jeddah back door [in Saudi Arabia], but it is more difficult if dumped in India and Sri Lanka.” <h3>Land-based options under pressure </h3>The land options via Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE, Sohar in Oman and Jeddah that are being offered by ocean carriers and forwarders <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rising-road-volume-puts-middle-east-land-based-options-under-pressure-6187755">are creaking under the heavy demand</a>. Port delays are growing fast, as are trucking bottlenecks, with one forwarder reporting a 20-mile line of trucks waiting to get into Dubai’s Jebel Ali container port. Violato said the clock was ticking as reefers could not wait forever and new markets will need to be found if Hormuz remains unpassable “in the coming weeks,” a move that would bring its own set of problems. “There will be a decision to bring back the containers [to origin] or to sell the products in different markets,” she said. “If it’s chicken breast it can be sold in Europe, and if it’s dark meat it can be sold in Africa, but if the war continues, they will need to find another destination.” Kevin Marchetti, co-founder of Lineage Logistics, said although he had no customers with reefers stuck in the region, those shippers are in a difficult position as there will need to be a different solution depending on the customer, the product and the destination. “Some of the products are pre-approved for certain markets where some traders have licenses and some don’t, so it is a really complicated issue,” Marchetti said on the sidelines of the GCCA conference. “The bigger question is that you produce goods thinking you have the end markets open and the goods will just flow, but now reefers are backing up,” he added. “There is also a limited amount of equipment and although we don’t have shortages yet, people have started to talk about it.” <h3>Holding back shipments from Europe </h3>Andrew Mates, managing director of Europe for temperature-controlled warehousing and food logistics specialist Americold, said shipments from Europe to the Middle East have been held back because of the war. “Our Dubai joint venture has reported the UAE government is being very active in redirecting cargo coming in from ports in Oman and Saudi Arabia and arranging land-based routes to keep the supply chain moving,” Mates said. “But there are trucking constraints where all of a sudden containers need to go thousands of kilometers,” he added. “The UAE government realizes that if the situation stays as it is for a few more weeks, they will simply have to get products in somehow.” While exceptions are being made for critical foodstuffs, pharma and other essential goods, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-forced-to-ship-fuel-from-us-europe-as-asia-bunkers-start-to-run-dry-6184651">in a recent interview with the Journal of Commerce</a>, Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said that at some point “all cargo becomes urgent,” including aluminum, petrochemicals and polyethylene that are all raw materials for plastics production. Persian Gulf states import more than 90% of their goods, and while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has long been factored into their scenario planning, a long-term closure will start to hit the shelves. Another fast-developing problem is outward-bound cargo, particularly fertilizer from the Middle East that comprises about 30% of the global market and is crucial for food production, according to Violato. “If the war takes longer, we will not have fertilizer for planting and grain production will drop,” she said. “When we impact grain, we impact animal feed and protein becomes more expensive and inflation is impossible to avoid. But again, everything depends on how long the war goes on for.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Düsseldorf — Cold chain shippers with containers destined for the Middle East are in a state of suspended animation with reefer boxes offloaded early at other ports in the region and no timeline on when their voyages will be able to resume through the war zone. Ocean carriers have suspended the acceptance of reefer, dangerous goods and special cargo in and out of the UAE, Oman, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia until further notice. Reefer containers that were inbound when the war started on Feb. 28 have been dropped off and plugged into reefer slots in terminals outside the Persian Gulf, accruing mounting storage charges and leaving cargo owners waiting until shipping can again pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Alternatively, cargo owners will need to start looking for new markets. One such shipper with reefers out of position is Tyson Foods. The Middle East is a major market for the global protein producer that brings in halal chicken from Brazil, but Gulf-bound reefer containers were offloaded before reaching their destination, according to Juliana Violato, Tyson’s senior manager of procurement in Europe. “In Brazil we have slowed down production because all containers that were on the water are now sitting in ports near the Gulf or in India or Singapore,” Violato told the Journal of Commerce at the Global Cold Chain Association (GCCA) Europe conference in Dusseldorf this week. “They will be there until they find a new trade lane that could be through Oman or Saudi Arabia, but we don’t know how or when because of the war,” she added. “What we do know is that the market is still there.” Thomas Eskesen, founder of cold chain industry consultants Eskesen Advisory, said the fate of frozen food shipments and perishables with a limited shelf life has been the number one issue for the global cold chain since the Middle East war began. “This has a massive cascading effect with equipment tied up and booking stops affecting carriers individually,” Eskesen told the Journal of Commerce. “Lots of cargo is being diverted via the Jeddah back door [in Saudi Arabia], but it is more difficult if dumped in India and Sri Lanka.” Land-based options under pressure The land options via Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE, Sohar in Oman and Jeddah that are being offered by ocean carriers and forwarders are creaking under the heavy demand . Port delays are growing fast, as are trucking bottlenecks, with one forwarder reporting a 20-mile line of trucks waiting to get into Dubai’s Jebel Ali container port. Violato said the clock was ticking as reefers could not wait forever and new markets will need to be found if Hormuz remains unpassable “in the coming weeks,” a move that would bring its own set of problems. “There will be a decision to bring back the containers [to origin] or to sell the products in different markets,” she said. “If it’s chicken breast it can be sold in Europe, and if it’s dark meat it can be sold in Africa, but if the war continues, they will need to find another destination.” Kevin Marchetti, co-founder of Lineage Logistics, said although he had no customers with reefers stuck in the region, those shippers are in a difficult position as there will need to be a different solution depending on the customer, the product and the destination. “Some of the products are pre-approved for certain markets where some traders have licenses and some don’t, so it is a really complicated issue,” Marchetti said on the sidelines of the GCCA conference. “The bigger question is that you produce goods thinking you have the end markets open and the goods will just flow, but now reefers are backing up,” he added. “There is also a limited amount of equipment and although we don’t have shortages yet, people have started to talk about it.” Holding back shipments from Europe Andrew Mates, managing director of Europe for temperature-controlled warehousing and food logistics specialist Americold, said shipments from Europe to the Middle East have been held back because of the war. “Our Dubai joint venture has reported the UAE government is being very active in redirecting cargo coming in from ports in Oman and Saudi Arabia and arranging land-based routes to keep the supply chain moving,” Mates said. “But there are trucking constraints where all of a sudden containers need to go thousands of kilometers,” he added. “The UAE government realizes that if the situation stays as it is for a few more weeks, they will simply have to get products in somehow.” While exceptions are being made for critical foodstuffs, pharma and other essential goods, in a recent interview with the Journal of Commerce, Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said that at some point “all cargo becomes urgent,” including aluminum, petrochemicals and polyethylene that are all raw materials for plastics production. Persian Gulf states import more than 90% of their goods, and while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has long been factored into their scenario planning, a long-term closure will start to hit the shelves. Another fast-developing problem is outward-bound cargo, particularly fertilizer from the Middle East that comprises about 30% of the global market and is crucial for food production, according to Violato. “If the war takes longer, we will not have fertilizer for planting and grain production will drop,” she said. “When we impact grain, we impact animal feed and protein becomes more expensive and inflation is impossible to avoid. But again, everything depends on how long the war goes on for.” Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com . 

Reefer shippers play waiting game with boxes stuck outside Persian Gulf

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Changing market dynamics offer an opportunity for motor carriers to raise rates, but also for intermodal providers to win business from cost-conscious shippers looking to shift modes.</div>

Changing market dynamics offer an opportunity for motor carriers to raise rates, but also for intermodal providers to win business from cost-conscious shippers looking to shift modes.

<div class="phx-topic">The tightening of truckload capacity and a sharp rise in diesel prices are beginning to reset surface transportation rates in the US, giving carriers renewed leverage while opening a potential growth opportunity for intermodal rail. Crackdowns on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/impact-of-non-domiciled-cdl-enforcement-splits-us-trucking-sector-6135184">non-domiciled commercial drivers</a> and stricter English-language enforcement are constraining truckload capacity after a four-year freight recession. Meanwhile, diesel prices have surged to their highest level since late 2022 amid the war with Iran, lifting transportation costs for all and forcing shippers to reassess their budgets. It has started a cascading effect across domestic US transportation. Brokers and asset-based truckload carriers are rejecting freight and insisting on renegotiating contract rates, while shippers facing blown transportation budgets consider cheaper options such as intermodal rail. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="f7dc31b8-1e1c-4a59-907f-2391c69d4e9f"></dynamic-object></div>Early signs of that repricing are already evident. Spot truckload rates are up between 15% and 20% from a year ago, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics, even as freight demand remains muted amid elevated interest rates, a lackluster housing market, and mixed signals from the US industrial sector. “Not only are you seeing elevated rates across other modalities such as flatbed, but in the overall dry-van market, you’re seeing 14%, 15% tender rejections coming out of the slowest freight month of the year,” said Jared Weisfeld, chief strategy officer for RXO, a non-asset broker, speaking at the J.P. Morgan Industrials Conference on Tuesday. As recently as last year, tender rejections were at or less than 5%, according to Weisfeld. <h3>Regulatory tightening reinforces supply constraint </h3>The supply side could tighten further as new federal regulations take hold. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FCMSA) enacted a rule earlier this week restricting non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), a move the agency estimates could remove up to 194,000 drivers over five years. On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives advanced “Delilah’s Law,” which would accelerate enforcement over non-domiciled CDLs by retroactively invalidating certain licenses, rather than waiting for a non-domiciled CDL holder to interact with state licensing agencies. Despite higher rates, fleets have been cautious about adding capacity, even though stricter emissions regulations in 2027 will increase the purchase price of a new truck. “Our customers are more middle- to smaller-sized [carriers], and I think there’s still a lot of hesitation on that side to make the decisions,” said Cristina Gallo-Aquino, CFO of Ryder Systems, speaking at the J.P. Morgan event. “We are pointing it all out to them to show them how much of a price increase could be coming ... but we haven’t really seen the shift to make a decision and preorder.” <h3>Fuel surge amplifies pricing pressure </h3>Diesel prices averaged $5.07 per gallon last week, according to the US Energy Information Administration, the highest since November 2022 and adding another layer of cost pressure across the truckload market. On the spot market, where rates are often negotiated on an all-in basis, the increase is squeezing owner-operators and smaller carriers that cannot pass through fuel costs. That dynamic may cause more capacity to exit the truckload sector. In the contract market, larger asset-based carriers pass through higher fuel costs via surcharges. Since March 1, the average surcharge has risen nearly 20 cents per mile, although methodologies vary. For shippers, the result is sticker shock on invoices and a renewed focus on lower-cost alternatives such as rail. “For the intermodal space, it starts to put pressure on truck rates, which is a pretty good thing for us,” Mark George, CEO of Norfolk Southern, said at the J.P. Morgan event. “We’ve been pretty depressed [price-wise] for a while. We’d love to see some evacuation of capacity in trucking.” Intermodal providers are already prepared for that shift. Darren Field, president of intermodal at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said the company is actively engaging with shippers looking to manage rising transportation costs. “How can we convert business from the highway back to intermodal, or to intermodal for the first time to hopefully save you a little money and prepare your budget for a year where truckload capacity and prices could get difficult for you,” Field said at the J.P. Morgan conference. “How can you hedge against the potential for a cost increase coming at your budget as a shipper by utilizing more intermodal?” But capturing that opportunity will depend on execution. Railroads must maintain service reliability even as volumes rise, a lesson of the pandemic when congestion and labor shortages left intermodal with a lingering stigma among some shippers. Service metrics suggest the industry has made progress. In a Journal of Commerce survey conducted late last year, 91.3% of respondents said they were satisfied with domestic intermodal service, up from 45.3% in the spring of 2023. Whether that improvement holds under renewed demand may determine how much freight ultimately shifts modes. Shippers, having experienced pandemic-era disruptions, are unlikely to tolerate a repeat. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The tightening of truckload capacity and a sharp rise in diesel prices are beginning to reset surface transportation rates in the US, giving carriers renewed leverage while opening a potential growth opportunity for intermodal rail. Crackdowns on non-domiciled commercial drivers and stricter English-language enforcement are constraining truckload capacity after a four-year freight recession. Meanwhile, diesel prices have surged to their highest level since late 2022 amid the war with Iran, lifting transportation costs for all and forcing shippers to reassess their budgets. It has started a cascading effect across domestic US transportation. Brokers and asset-based truckload carriers are rejecting freight and insisting on renegotiating contract rates, while shippers facing blown transportation budgets consider cheaper options such as intermodal rail. Early signs of that repricing are already evident. Spot truckload rates are up between 15% and 20% from a year ago, according to DAT Freight & Analytics, even as freight demand remains muted amid elevated interest rates, a lackluster housing market, and mixed signals from the US industrial sector. “Not only are you seeing elevated rates across other modalities such as flatbed, but in the overall dry-van market, you’re seeing 14%, 15% tender rejections coming out of the slowest freight month of the year,” said Jared Weisfeld, chief strategy officer for RXO, a non-asset broker, speaking at the J.P. Morgan Industrials Conference on Tuesday. As recently as last year, tender rejections were at or less than 5%, according to Weisfeld. Regulatory tightening reinforces supply constraint The supply side could tighten further as new federal regulations take hold. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FCMSA) enacted a rule earlier this week restricting non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), a move the agency estimates could remove up to 194,000 drivers over five years. On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives advanced “Delilah’s Law,” which would accelerate enforcement over non-domiciled CDLs by retroactively invalidating certain licenses, rather than waiting for a non-domiciled CDL holder to interact with state licensing agencies. Despite higher rates, fleets have been cautious about adding capacity, even though stricter emissions regulations in 2027 will increase the purchase price of a new truck. “Our customers are more middle- to smaller-sized [carriers], and I think there’s still a lot of hesitation on that side to make the decisions,” said Cristina Gallo-Aquino, CFO of Ryder Systems, speaking at the J.P. Morgan event. “We are pointing it all out to them to show them how much of a price increase could be coming ... but we haven’t really seen the shift to make a decision and preorder.” Fuel surge amplifies pricing pressure Diesel prices averaged $5.07 per gallon last week, according to the US Energy Information Administration, the highest since November 2022 and adding another layer of cost pressure across the truckload market. On the spot market, where rates are often negotiated on an all-in basis, the increase is squeezing owner-operators and smaller carriers that cannot pass through fuel costs. That dynamic may cause more capacity to exit the truckload sector. In the contract market, larger asset-based carriers pass through higher fuel costs via surcharges. Since March 1, the average surcharge has risen nearly 20 cents per mile, although methodologies vary. For shippers, the result is sticker shock on invoices and a renewed focus on lower-cost alternatives such as rail. “For the intermodal space, it starts to put pressure on truck rates, which is a pretty good thing for us,” Mark George, CEO of Norfolk Southern, said at the J.P. Morgan event. “We’ve been pretty depressed [price-wise] for a while. We’d love to see some evacuation of capacity in trucking.” Intermodal providers are already prepared for that shift. Darren Field, president of intermodal at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said the company is actively engaging with shippers looking to manage rising transportation costs. “How can we convert business from the highway back to intermodal, or to intermodal for the first time to hopefully save you a little money and prepare your budget for a year where truckload capacity and prices could get difficult for you,” Field said at the J.P. Morgan conference. “How can you hedge against the potential for a cost increase coming at your budget as a shipper by utilizing more intermodal?” But capturing that opportunity will depend on execution. Railroads must maintain service reliability even as volumes rise, a lesson of the pandemic when congestion and labor shortages left intermodal with a lingering stigma among some shippers. Service metrics suggest the industry has made progress. In a Journal of Commerce survey conducted late last year, 91.3% of respondents said they were satisfied with domestic intermodal service, up from 45.3% in the spring of 2023. Whether that improvement holds under renewed demand may determine how much freight ultimately shifts modes. Shippers, having experienced pandemic-era disruptions, are unlikely to tolerate a repeat. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Capacity cuts, fuel shocks provide openings for trucking and rail

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The most disruptive energy shock in modern history has reawakened the debate over whether emergency fuel surcharges are a fair way for ocean carriers to recoup unexpected costs or blatant “double-dipping” that angers shippers.</div>

The most disruptive energy shock in modern history has reawakened the debate over whether emergency fuel surcharges are a fair way for ocean carriers to recoup unexpected costs or blatant “double-dipping” that angers shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">The speed and severity of the jump in global oil prices amid the war in the Middle East have reignited long-standing suspicions by cargo owners that fuel surcharges levied by ocean carriers are used as a revenue stream rather than a cost recovery mechanism. Container lines defend the fees, ranging from $30 to $300 per TEU depending on the trade lane, arguing that what is widely seen as the most significant energy shock in history has forced them to recoup costs with fees beyond the lagging quarterly bunker adjustment factor (BAF). Bunker fuel prices contribute approximately 15% to 30% of operating costs, depending on the year, according to various container line financial reports.And while the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, according to a Vizion analysis, shippers nonetheless are retaining a cynical view of the emergency fuel surcharges. “Shipping lines always seem to manage to turn a crisis into a cash-grab,” was the blunt message from James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum. “This apparent ‘double-dipping’ brings the whole sordid practice of surcharging into further disrepute.” Emergency bunker adjustment factors (EBAFs) on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense were acceptable for the current contract period ending March 26, said Antonios Rigalos, managing partner of shipper network ShiftX. But going forward, increased bunker costs should be recovered by the quarterly BAF review, he noted.“The BAF reviews executed for Q3 will reflect the higher bunker costs for the previous quarter [March/April/May], and an EBAF plus BAF review would create a double charging of customers,” Rigalos said. “While we understand the situation of carriers and that increased bunker costs have a big impact that somehow needs to be recovered, it needs to be carried out in a fair way and not by double charging BCOs [beneficial cargo owners] and clients.” Several carriers have announced emergency bunker fuel surcharges on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense, but the moves have sparked growing concern from shippers. An Asia-Europe shipper based in Hong Kong said he negotiated contracts based on the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) that covers both BAF and EBAF surcharges. “We adjust the bunker fuel surcharge bi-monthly and as far as we are concerned, we will fight any additional emergency fuel surcharge from the carriers,” the source said. <h3>Long hauls hit with surcharges </h3>CMA CGM this week announced an upward review of its “emergency fuel surcharge” imposed on March 16 that will increase from $150 per TEU to $265/TEU on all long-haul trade lanes. OOCL said it will impose a temporary emergency bunker surcharge (EBS) from March 23 to manage global challenges to fuel availability because the increased costs are “beyond the scope of existing fuel cost recovery and low sulfur adjustment mechanisms.” Cosco Shipping has also announced emergency bunker surcharges on various trades between Europe, South America and Africa, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. introduced a temporary emergency bunker surcharge on March 16 that varies from $30/TEU to $300/TEU depending on the trade lane. Maersk on March 10 announced it would implement an emergency bunker surcharge of $200/TEU on all long hauls “to safeguard cargo integrity and maintain the stability of our network.” “This surcharge covers the impact of fuel availability, cost and mix outside of what is covered in our fossil fuel fee [FFF],” the carrier said in a statement. “This means we are better positioned to have the necessary access to fuel and the ability to move it to necessary locations.” Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said the carrier was being forced to take the unprecedented step of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-forced-to-ship-fuel-from-us-europe-as-asia-bunkers-start-to-run-dry-6184651">filling ships with fuel in the US and Europe and transferring the bunkers to vessels in Asia as supplies at bunkering hubs dried up</a>. Most of the emergency fuel surcharges will be reviewed by carriers every two weeks, but with the Strait of Hormuz — through which about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies move each day — out of bounds to commercial shipping, there is little chance the EBAF will be dropped anytime soon. The speed with which the fuel surcharges were imposed by carriers made it “nigh on impossible” for shippers to recover costs from their own customers or suppliers, Hookham told the Journal of Commerce. “For smaller businesses, that cash flow hit can be fatal when payments are likely to be late due to late or non-delivery of cargo,” he said, noting that the number of surcharges being introduced made it difficult for shippers to track which ones applied to their shipments. “The US got it right when the [Federal Maritime Commission] <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-says-closely-monitoring-carrier-rate-moves-tied-to-middle-east-war-6184781">required 30-day notice periods</a> before surcharges could take effect on US services,” Hookham said. “The current surcharging behavior will only hasten demands for similar notice periods to become mandatory worldwide.” <h3>Fractured fuel links </h3>While carriers roll out their fuel surcharges to try to recover rising costs, freight tracking platform Vizion believes the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In a recent review of bunker surcharges, Vizion noted that average very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) prices of $535 per metric ton in 2025 were down 14.4% year over year, the lowest since 2020, with BAF contributing just 10% to 20% to total freight costs. The launch of US and Israeli strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 triggered a 73% fuel price spike to $939/metric ton in under two weeks, and carriers within days responded with emergency surcharges of $60/TEU to $190/TEU, far faster than standard quarterly BAF adjustments. That shows the traditional BAF fuel-price correlation has weakened as carriers shift to emergency mechanisms to manage extreme volatility, according to Vizion. But Vizion said a deeper trend was emerging with a market fracture in progress as carriers divided into two camps: immediate risk transfer versus contract stability. Carriers such as Maersk initially absorbed the volatility to protect long-term contract relationships, although the carrier has subsequently announced an emergency fuel surcharge. A more aggressive strategy was taken by MSC and CMA CGM, with both adopting a rapid pass-through of fuel spikes to protect their margins immediately. Shippers with locked-in rates will enjoy a short-term cost advantage, but it will be a temporary relief before fuel adjustments hit. Vizion warned that over the next three to six months, shippers can expect aggressive second-quarter BAF corrections to capture the remaining fuel cost delta. Chantal McRoberts, director and head of advisory at Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, said shippers understand they will pay an increased fuel cost in the third quarter as that is part of the BAF policy that enables carriers to recover fuel costs over time. “The concern around the introduction of EBAF is the potential for double recovery,” McRoberts told the Journal of Commerce. “In practice, a shipper may pay an EBAF during Q2 to reflect higher fuel prices and then see its underlying BAF increase in Q3 as the formula catches up with those same Q2 fuel costs. At that point, the EBAF risks becoming revenue‑generating rather than purely cost‑recovering. “This is the dilemma currently facing shippers,” she added. “As a result, those operating under transparent, formula‑based BAF mechanisms are, in many cases, pushing back on EBAF charges.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The speed and severity of the jump in global oil prices amid the war in the Middle East have reignited long-standing suspicions by cargo owners that fuel surcharges levied by ocean carriers are used as a revenue stream rather than a cost recovery mechanism. Container lines defend the fees, ranging from $30 to $300 per TEU depending on the trade lane, arguing that what is widely seen as the most significant energy shock in history has forced them to recoup costs with fees beyond the lagging quarterly bunker adjustment factor (BAF). Bunker fuel prices contribute approximately 15% to 30% of operating costs, depending on the year, according to various container line financial reports. And while the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, according to a Vizion analysis, shippers nonetheless are retaining a cynical view of the emergency fuel surcharges. “Shipping lines always seem to manage to turn a crisis into a cash-grab,” was the blunt message from James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum. “This apparent ‘double-dipping’ brings the whole sordid practice of surcharging into further disrepute.” Emergency bunker adjustment factors (EBAFs) on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense were acceptable for the current contract period ending March 26, said Antonios Rigalos, managing partner of shipper network ShiftX. But going forward, increased bunker costs should be recovered by the quarterly BAF review, he noted. “The BAF reviews executed for Q3 will reflect the higher bunker costs for the previous quarter [March/April/May], and an EBAF plus BAF review would create a double charging of customers,” Rigalos said. “While we understand the situation of carriers and that increased bunker costs have a big impact that somehow needs to be recovered, it needs to be carried out in a fair way and not by double charging BCOs [beneficial cargo owners] and clients.” Several carriers have announced emergency bunker fuel surcharges on top of quarterly fuel price adjustments to recover costs in what is a core operational expense, but the moves have sparked growing concern from shippers. An Asia-Europe shipper based in Hong Kong said he negotiated contracts based on the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) that covers both BAF and EBAF surcharges. “We adjust the bunker fuel surcharge bi-monthly and as far as we are concerned, we will fight any additional emergency fuel surcharge from the carriers,” the source said. Long hauls hit with surcharges CMA CGM this week announced an upward review of its “emergency fuel surcharge” imposed on March 16 that will increase from $150 per TEU to $265/TEU on all long-haul trade lanes. OOCL said it will impose a temporary emergency bunker surcharge (EBS) from March 23 to manage global challenges to fuel availability because the increased costs are “beyond the scope of existing fuel cost recovery and low sulfur adjustment mechanisms.” Cosco Shipping has also announced emergency bunker surcharges on various trades between Europe, South America and Africa, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. introduced a temporary emergency bunker surcharge on March 16 that varies from $30/TEU to $300/TEU depending on the trade lane. Maersk on March 10 announced it would implement an emergency bunker surcharge of $200/TEU on all long hauls “to safeguard cargo integrity and maintain the stability of our network.” “This surcharge covers the impact of fuel availability, cost and mix outside of what is covered in our fossil fuel fee [FFF],” the carrier said in a statement. “This means we are better positioned to have the necessary access to fuel and the ability to move it to necessary locations.” Maersk CCO Karsten Kildahl said the carrier was being forced to take the unprecedented step of filling ships with fuel in the US and Europe and transferring the bunkers to vessels in Asia as supplies at bunkering hubs dried up . Most of the emergency fuel surcharges will be reviewed by carriers every two weeks, but with the Strait of Hormuz — through which about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies move each day — out of bounds to commercial shipping, there is little chance the EBAF will be dropped anytime soon. The speed with which the fuel surcharges were imposed by carriers made it “nigh on impossible” for shippers to recover costs from their own customers or suppliers, Hookham told the Journal of Commerce. “For smaller businesses, that cash flow hit can be fatal when payments are likely to be late due to late or non-delivery of cargo,” he said, noting that the number of surcharges being introduced made it difficult for shippers to track which ones applied to their shipments. “The US got it right when the [Federal Maritime Commission] required 30-day notice periods before surcharges could take effect on US services,” Hookham said. “The current surcharging behavior will only hasten demands for similar notice periods to become mandatory worldwide.” Fractured fuel links While carriers roll out their fuel surcharges to try to recover rising costs, freight tracking platform Vizion believes the traditional linkage between fuel costs and BAFs has fractured due to the rapid escalation of the war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In a recent review of bunker surcharges, Vizion noted that average very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) prices of $535 per metric ton in 2025 were down 14.4% year over year, the lowest since 2020, with BAF contributing just 10% to 20% to total freight costs. The launch of US and Israeli strikes on Iran on Feb. 28 triggered a 73% fuel price spike to $939/metric ton in under two weeks, and carriers within days responded with emergency surcharges of $60/TEU to $190/TEU, far faster than standard quarterly BAF adjustments. That shows the traditional BAF fuel-price correlation has weakened as carriers shift to emergency mechanisms to manage extreme volatility, according to Vizion. But Vizion said a deeper trend was emerging with a market fracture in progress as carriers divided into two camps: immediate risk transfer versus contract stability. Carriers such as Maersk initially absorbed the volatility to protect long-term contract relationships, although the carrier has subsequently announced an emergency fuel surcharge. A more aggressive strategy was taken by MSC and CMA CGM, with both adopting a rapid pass-through of fuel spikes to protect their margins immediately. Shippers with locked-in rates will enjoy a short-term cost advantage, but it will be a temporary relief before fuel adjustments hit. Vizion warned that over the next three to six months, shippers can expect aggressive second-quarter BAF corrections to capture the remaining fuel cost delta. Chantal McRoberts, director and head of advisory at Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, said shippers understand they will pay an increased fuel cost in the third quarter as that is part of the BAF policy that enables carriers to recover fuel costs over time. “The concern around the introduction of EBAF is the potential for double recovery,” McRoberts told the Journal of Commerce. “In practice, a shipper may pay an EBAF during Q2 to reflect higher fuel prices and then see its underlying BAF increase in Q3 as the formula catches up with those same Q2 fuel costs. At that point, the EBAF risks becoming revenue‑generating rather than purely cost‑recovering. “This is the dilemma currently facing shippers,” she added. “As a result, those operating under transparent, formula‑based BAF mechanisms are, in many cases, pushing back on EBAF charges.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

War reignites tussle between ocean carriers, cargo owners over fuel surcharges

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

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

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim will be forced to wait until early April before implementing surcharges designed to recoup higher operating costs associated with the war in the Middle East. </div>

The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim will be forced to wait until early April before implementing surcharges designed to recoup higher operating costs associated with the war in the Middle East.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Monday unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, as required by US shipping law, filed 30-day notices with the FMC in early March informing the agency of their intent to implement special surcharges on customers in order to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-reignites-tussle-between-ocean-carriers-cargo-owners-over-fuel-surcharges-6188632">recoup the higher operating costs</a> tied to spiking fuel prices and the disruption to ships and equipment after the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Along with the notices came requests by the carriers to waive the 30-day waiting period, which would have allowed the liners to implement the new charges immediately. Zim’s surcharge applies to all US trades, while the charges for the other three carriers apply only to their US-Middle East trade. “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge,” FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said in a statement. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.” DiBella recommended that carriers provide data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” <h3>Seeking to recoup higher costs </h3>The surcharge notices filed with the FMC are just one of the ways container lines are trying to recoup the higher costs. Cargo contracted on a long-term basis rather than via freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates are subject to bunker adjustment factors reset quarterly and floating fuel surcharges that can be reset as frequently as monthly. Ocean carriers began assessing war-related surcharges for any shipments to and from the Persian Gulf states on March 2. The FMC must grant special permission for any such charges to be implemented on US trades prior to the end of a 30-day review period. The surcharges filed with the FMC by Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk pertain only to shipments between the US and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Maersk’s surcharge specifically noted eastern Saudi Arabia. Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot unit; and $3,800 for refrigerated and special containers. Hapag-Lloyd plans to levy $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 for reefer containers. CMA CGM said it would implement an emergency conflict surcharge on exports and imports from the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU and $4,000 for reefer and special containers. Zim plans to seek a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. Zim said the war has increased the cost of running its network and operations at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel. “These increased costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums and tighter P&amp;I coverage terms; the need to delay, speed up, and/or re-route vessels and cargo; increased equipment positioning/repositioning costs resulting from changes in vessel schedules; and a loss of productivity as the result of employees having to take refuge in bomb shelters throughout the day and night, among others,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing three of the carriers, wrote to the FMC. While the carriers filed their surcharge notices separately, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim are represented by Cozen O’Conner. The carriers each told the FMC that unless the 30-day notice period for the surcharges was waived, they would be unable to begin recovering the increased costs they are experiencing for almost a full month. <h3>Waiver requests filed in early March </h3>The various requests were filed by the carriers between March 2 and March 5, following the beginning of the war on Feb. 28. The four requests are the only ones that have been processed by the agency so far, an FMC spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce on Monday. The FMC in mid-March told shippers to check their ocean freight bills for any surcharges related to the war in the Middle East that have not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the agency said it was “closely monitoring the impact the current conflict in the Middle East is having on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz” and any rate adjustments ocean carriers are making in response. The FMC in early 2024 came under fire from shippers, including the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, after waiving for one ocean carrier the 30-day notice period for surcharges tied to vessel diversions away from the Suez Canal due to attacks by Houthi militants on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. A subsequent economic analysis questioned whether the surcharge was warranted, given the carrier was also avoiding Suez Canal tolls by diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. AgTC Executive Director Peter Friedmann praised the FMC for rejecting the carriers’ requests to waive the 30-day waiting period and criticized the lack of explanation from the liners on how the surcharges were calculated. He noted in a statement Monday that none of the requests from the carriers specified the actual costs they were accruing from the Middle East disruption. While recognizing that container lines have made efforts to understand and support US agriculture exporters, Friedmann nonetheless said AgTC was “shocked by the manner in which these requests were drafted, the disrespect shown to carriers’ customers and even to the [FMC].” Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Monday unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, as required by US shipping law, filed 30-day notices with the FMC in early March informing the agency of their intent to implement special surcharges on customers in order to recoup the higher operating costs tied to spiking fuel prices and the disruption to ships and equipment after the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Along with the notices came requests by the carriers to waive the 30-day waiting period, which would have allowed the liners to implement the new charges immediately. Zim’s surcharge applies to all US trades, while the charges for the other three carriers apply only to their US-Middle East trade. “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge,” FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said in a statement. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.” DiBella recommended that carriers provide data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” Seeking to recoup higher costs The surcharge notices filed with the FMC are just one of the ways container lines are trying to recoup the higher costs. Cargo contracted on a long-term basis rather than via freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates are subject to bunker adjustment factors reset quarterly and floating fuel surcharges that can be reset as frequently as monthly. Ocean carriers began assessing war-related surcharges for any shipments to and from the Persian Gulf states on March 2. The FMC must grant special permission for any such charges to be implemented on US trades prior to the end of a 30-day review period. The surcharges filed with the FMC by Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk pertain only to shipments between the US and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Maersk’s surcharge specifically noted eastern Saudi Arabia. Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot unit; and $3,800 for refrigerated and special containers. Hapag-Lloyd plans to levy $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 for reefer containers. CMA CGM said it would implement an emergency conflict surcharge on exports and imports from the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU, $3,000 per FEU and $4,000 for reefer and special containers. Zim plans to seek a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. Zim said the war has increased the cost of running its network and operations at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel. “These increased costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums and tighter P&I coverage terms; the need to delay, speed up, and/or re-route vessels and cargo; increased equipment positioning/repositioning costs resulting from changes in vessel schedules; and a loss of productivity as the result of employees having to take refuge in bomb shelters throughout the day and night, among others,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing three of the carriers, wrote to the FMC. While the carriers filed their surcharge notices separately, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim are represented by Cozen O’Conner. The carriers each told the FMC that unless the 30-day notice period for the surcharges was waived, they would be unable to begin recovering the increased costs they are experiencing for almost a full month. Waiver requests filed in early March The various requests were filed by the carriers between March 2 and March 5, following the beginning of the war on Feb. 28. The four requests are the only ones that have been processed by the agency so far, an FMC spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce on Monday. The FMC in mid-March told shippers to check their ocean freight bills for any surcharges related to the war in the Middle East that have not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the agency said it was “closely monitoring the impact the current conflict in the Middle East is having on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz” and any rate adjustments ocean carriers are making in response. The FMC in early 2024 came under fire from shippers, including the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, after waiving for one ocean carrier the 30-day notice period for surcharges tied to vessel diversions away from the Suez Canal due to attacks by Houthi militants on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. A subsequent economic analysis questioned whether the surcharge was warranted, given the carrier was also avoiding Suez Canal tolls by diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. AgTC Executive Director Peter Friedmann praised the FMC for rejecting the carriers’ requests to waive the 30-day waiting period and criticized the lack of explanation from the liners on how the surcharges were calculated. He noted in a statement Monday that none of the requests from the carriers specified the actual costs they were accruing from the Middle East disruption. While recognizing that container lines have made efforts to understand and support US agriculture exporters, Friedmann nonetheless said AgTC was “shocked by the manner in which these requests were drafted, the disrespect shown to carriers’ customers and even to the [FMC].” Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

ONE adds to Asian terminal holdings with Laem Chabang deal

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Reefer shippers play waiting game with boxes stuck outside Persian Gulf

Capacity cuts, fuel shocks provide openings for trucking and rail

War reignites tussle between ocean carriers, cargo owners over fuel surcharges

Recent Commentary

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

In wake of Zim deal, the time for industry consolidation is now

Top 5 Most Read Stories