Website_FS_640x340 FT.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Free/Free Trials

Supply chain

Events

Gateway

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

Truckload

Truck brokers

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

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

Custom Content

Resources

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

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

International rail

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the state will pass, for now, on any proposals being pushed by port stakeholders to raise the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, a move that would allow bigger vessels to call at three of the port’s terminals.</div>

But the state will pass, for now, on any proposals being pushed by port stakeholders to raise the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, a move that would allow bigger vessels to call at three of the port’s terminals.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The redecking of the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles harbor will start early next year as planned, while an effort by the port and terminal operators to raise the clearance of the span to facilitate the passage of super post-Panamax container ships is looking unlikely in the short term. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) told port stakeholders over the past two weeks it is paramount that redecking work begin soon on the 63-year-old bridge before any attempt is made to raise the height of the structure, according to Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). Jacob said PMSA, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators, is onboard with the agency in this matter. “The funding is there [for the redecking],” he said. “The engineering is done. It received environmental clearance.” CalSTA, the cabinet level agency that oversees transportation-related departments, said the state has access to hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to complete the necessary structural and safety repairs of the bridge. In a statement Tuesday to the Journal of Commerce regarding the possibility of raising the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, CalSTA said it “welcomes continued discussions to a path forward for that possibility while we work to make sure the bridge is structurally sound and safe for the motoring public in the meantime.” The Vincent Thomas Bridge, located at the entry to Los Angeles harbor, handles 53,000 vehicles a day, including about 3,400 heavy-duty trucks, according to Caltrans. Traffic disruptions are anticipated throughout the redecking project. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-port-wants-california-to-raise-bridge-to-accommodate-big-ships-6087396">said the current limit on vessels passing under the structure is 15,000 TEUs in capacity</a>. Increasing the clearance from 185 feet to 211 feet will allow up to 23,000-TEU vessels to reach the three terminals on the land side of the bridge: Yusen Terminals, TraPac and West Basin. There are six container terminals in total in Los Angeles. <h3>Caltrans attempting to minimize traffic disruptions </h3>The redecking project, scheduled to begin in January, will require one-directional bridge closures for nine months. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-port-stakeholders-warming-to-plan-to-mitigate-impact-of-bridge-project-6013847">Full closure of the bridge will occur from November 2026 to March 2028</a>, a Caltrans representative told a meeting of the Propeller Club of Los Angeles and Long Beach in May. Caltrans has identified an alternative network of surface streets that will allow truck and vehicular traffic to move into and out of the harbor area during the lengthy bridge closure. Street upgrades are underway, and Caltrans has set up a communications network for real-time traffic updates, the agency representative said. If the state adopted the port’s plan to raise the bridge clearance by 26 feet, the total cost of the project would increase from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion, and the bridge closure would increase from 16 months to 28 months. Seroka told the Journal of Commerce the port and terminal operators will maintain a dialogue with the state on eventually raising the height of the bridge. “While we were hopeful that we would be able to include a bridge raising component into Caltrans’ pending critical maintenance project, we’re encouraged by the strong support of the administration to quickly explore additional projects, which could include raising the bridge or building a new crossing,” Seroka said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The redecking of the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles harbor will start early next year as planned, while an effort by the port and terminal operators to raise the clearance of the span to facilitate the passage of super post-Panamax container ships is looking unlikely in the short term. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) told port stakeholders over the past two weeks it is paramount that redecking work begin soon on the 63-year-old bridge before any attempt is made to raise the height of the structure, according to Mike Jacob, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). Jacob said PMSA, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators, is onboard with the agency in this matter. “The funding is there [for the redecking],” he said. “The engineering is done. It received environmental clearance.” CalSTA, the cabinet level agency that oversees transportation-related departments, said the state has access to hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to complete the necessary structural and safety repairs of the bridge. In a statement Tuesday to the Journal of Commerce regarding the possibility of raising the height of the Vincent Thomas Bridge, CalSTA said it “welcomes continued discussions to a path forward for that possibility while we work to make sure the bridge is structurally sound and safe for the motoring public in the meantime.” The Vincent Thomas Bridge, located at the entry to Los Angeles harbor, handles 53,000 vehicles a day, including about 3,400 heavy-duty trucks, according to Caltrans. Traffic disruptions are anticipated throughout the redecking project. Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said the current limit on vessels passing under the structure is 15,000 TEUs in capacity . Increasing the clearance from 185 feet to 211 feet will allow up to 23,000-TEU vessels to reach the three terminals on the land side of the bridge: Yusen Terminals, TraPac and West Basin. There are six container terminals in total in Los Angeles. Caltrans attempting to minimize traffic disruptions The redecking project, scheduled to begin in January, will require one-directional bridge closures for nine months. Full closure of the bridge will occur from November 2026 to March 2028 , a Caltrans representative told a meeting of the Propeller Club of Los Angeles and Long Beach in May. Caltrans has identified an alternative network of surface streets that will allow truck and vehicular traffic to move into and out of the harbor area during the lengthy bridge closure. Street upgrades are underway, and Caltrans has set up a communications network for real-time traffic updates, the agency representative said. If the state adopted the port’s plan to raise the bridge clearance by 26 feet, the total cost of the project would increase from $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion, and the bridge closure would increase from 16 months to 28 months. Seroka told the Journal of Commerce the port and terminal operators will maintain a dialogue with the state on eventually raising the height of the bridge. “While we were hopeful that we would be able to include a bridge raising component into Caltrans’ pending critical maintenance project, we’re encouraged by the strong support of the administration to quickly explore additional projects, which could include raising the bridge or building a new crossing,” Seroka said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Redecking project on Los Angeles harbor bridge to begin in early 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">APM Terminals said the new $131 million berth would increase Mobile’s container capacity by 50%, with an eye on cargo owners that need to reach markets in the US Midwest and Southeast.</div>

APM Terminals said the new $131 million berth would increase Mobile’s container capacity by 50%, with an eye on cargo owners that need to reach markets in the US Midwest and Southeast.

<div class="phx-topic">APM Terminals and the Port of Mobile plan to build a third container berth for handling ultra-large container ships at the Alabama port, boosting its capacity by 50%. Plans for the new berth follow the completion of upgrades to Mobile’s container yard and a dredging project that made it the deepest port on the Gulf Coast. The Maersk subsidiary and the Alabama Port Authority said in a statement Tuesday they are jointly funding the $131 million project that would add a 1,300-foot berth along APM Mobile’s southern end. Construction of the new berth is expected to begin in early 2026 and take two years to complete. With the third berth, APM Mobile will have a nameplate capacity of 1.4 million TEUs, with seven super post-Panamax container cranes. As part of the project, APM agreed to a 20-year lease extension on its Mobile facility that will include higher lease payments to cover the port’s end of the deal. APM will now operate the Mobile terminal through 2058. APM said in the statement the new berth will allow ships to get in and out of the port faster by reducing instances of vessel anchoring and other delays. Plans for the new berth — Mobile’s fifth expansion — coincide with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/port-of-mobile-approves-apm-terminal-expansion-5206847">the near completion of a fourth expansion project that saw APM’s northern container yard footprint grow 28% to 147 acres</a>. APM is also completing upgrades to Mobile’s railyard, including a flyover bridge for bringing containers from the yard. Mobile and the US Army Corps of Engineers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/harbor-deepening-primes-mobile-for-bigger-ships-first-us-calls-6092987">earlier this month completed deepening the port’s harbor to 50 feet</a>. While typically a second call after the Port of Houston for Gulf Coast services, Mobile is looking to compete more with other Southeast and West Coast ports for discretionary intermodal cargo. Mobile is also seeing upgrades to its rail network through an inland port it is co-developing with CSX Transportation. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

APM Terminals and the Port of Mobile plan to build a third container berth for handling ultra-large container ships at the Alabama port, boosting its capacity by 50%. Plans for the new berth follow the completion of upgrades to Mobile’s container yard and a dredging project that made it the deepest port on the Gulf Coast. The Maersk subsidiary and the Alabama Port Authority said in a statement Tuesday they are jointly funding the $131 million project that would add a 1,300-foot berth along APM Mobile’s southern end. Construction of the new berth is expected to begin in early 2026 and take two years to complete. With the third berth, APM Mobile will have a nameplate capacity of 1.4 million TEUs, with seven super post-Panamax container cranes. As part of the project, APM agreed to a 20-year lease extension on its Mobile facility that will include higher lease payments to cover the port’s end of the deal. APM will now operate the Mobile terminal through 2058. APM said in the statement the new berth will allow ships to get in and out of the port faster by reducing instances of vessel anchoring and other delays. Plans for the new berth — Mobile’s fifth expansion — coincide with the near completion of a fourth expansion project that saw APM’s northern container yard footprint grow 28% to 147 acres . APM is also completing upgrades to Mobile’s railyard, including a flyover bridge for bringing containers from the yard. Mobile and the US Army Corps of Engineers earlier this month completed deepening the port’s harbor to 50 feet . While typically a second call after the Port of Houston for Gulf Coast services, Mobile is looking to compete more with other Southeast and West Coast ports for discretionary intermodal cargo. Mobile is also seeing upgrades to its rail network through an inland port it is co-developing with CSX Transportation. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

APM to move ahead with Mobile’s third berth after harbor deepening

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The largest US intermodal provider’s relationships with competing eastern railroads Norfolk Southern and CSX are shifting and will continue evolving through 2026 as the proposed merger between NS and UP winds its way through the regulatory process. </div>

The largest US intermodal provider’s relationships with competing eastern railroads Norfolk Southern and CSX are shifting and will continue evolving through 2026 as the proposed merger between NS and UP winds its way through the regulatory process.

<div class="phx-topic">If federal regulators approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), J.B. Hunt Transport Services — the largest US intermodal provider — could be forced to rethink how it routes both coast-to-coast and East Coast freight. J.B. Hunt’s relationships with Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation are already shifting and will continue evolving through 2026. How much will change is unclear, however, as J.B. Hunt wants relationships with both eastern railroads, even if Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern become one. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6105166_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The stakes couldn’t be higher. J.B. Hunt handles more than two million intermodal loads a year and controls more than 125,000 containers, a fleet larger than the combined totals of competing intermodal providers C.H. Robinson, Hub Group, Schneider National, Swift Intermodal and several peers. On the West Coast, J.B. Hunt and BNSF Railway operate under the long-standing Quantum Agreement, a joint-service partnership created more than 35 years ago. In the East, J.B. relies primarily on Norfolk Southern, but has steadily expanded its CSX footprint in recent years. If UP acquired NS, some industry analysts have speculated J.B. Hunt would shift everything to CSX. The premise is based on the budding relationship between BNSF and CSX. “[It] has been perceived that J.B. Hunt would have to move our traffic to CSX. That’s not accurate at all,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on an Oct. 16 earnings call. “There’s nothing [about the merger] that would mean our current Norfolk Southern footprint we have today would be required to change.” In a sense, though, the relationship has already begun to change. J.B. Hunt uses the new BNSF-CSX service launched in September from Phoenix to Atlanta and Southern California to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bnsf-csx-unveil-new-joint-intermodal-lanes-in-aftermath-of-up-ns-merger-6067789">Charlotte and Jacksonville</a>. Other BNSF and CSX combinations could include J.B. Hunt along the way. NS referenced the J.B. Hunt volume loss in the Southeast during its most recent earnings call. “While not big in the third quarter, we started to see some of the revenue erosion from competitor reactions to the merger,” NS CEO Mark George said on the Oct. 24 call. “We expect the impact to grow in the fourth quarter and continue to be a challenge over the near and medium term.” BNSF, which has waged a campaign against the UP-NS merger, warns that 300 intermodal lanes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ceo-pushing-to-file-formal-ns-merger-application-by-dec-1-6102362">could vanish</a> if the deal is approved, including all BNSF-NS interchanges. Likewise, CSX has said publicly that collaboration, not consolidation, can address the reasons why shippers still choose trucks over rail. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to take sides to keep the peace with NS and CSX. “Our long-term agreements and strong relationships with NS, CSX and BNSF should provide the basis for us to adapt to any changes in the industry,” J.B. Hunt CEO Shelley Simpson said on the company’s Oct. 16 earnings call. Strong rail service is one reason why J.B. Hunt grew its local East Coast intermodal volume by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-intermodal-volume-retracts-amid-cost-cutting-measures-6098480">6% year over year</a> in the third quarter, while West Coast freight dropped 6% during the same period. <h3>Norfolk Southern remains crucial </h3>The gravitational pull to BNSF and CSX is expected to strengthen in 2026. One industry source, who asked not to be identified, told the Journal of Commerce that J.B. Hunt is involved in every BNSF-CSX discussion on joint services, providing volume commitments to bolster the products from the outset. Nevertheless, NS remains central to J.B. Hunt’s eastern network. More than half of J.B. Hunt’s business with NS remains in the eastern US, according to the railroad. NS provides J.B. Hunt with access to major distribution centers strewn across central Pennsylvania, including Allentown, Bethlehem and Harrisburg. CSX cannot replicate that opportunity. NS also provides a single-line service between Kansas City and the East Coast, while CSX doesn’t operate in Kansas City. And the separate Crescent Corridor serves as a competitive edge — a double-stack-cleared NS route from Memphis through Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte and Harrisburg to Newark — providing faster transits than CSX on high-volume routes. UP has also offered to honor the J.B. Hunt-Norfolk Southern partnership. “If J.B. Hunt wants to still do lanes within the East with Norfolk Southern like they do today, we’ll certainly let them do that,” UP CEO Jim Vena said at the Journal of Commerce’s Inland 2025 Distribution Conference on Oct. 1. The UP-J.B. Hunt relationship makes sense for both sides. UP retains access to a large number of intermodal shipments, while J.B. Hunt can continue to provide truck-competitive services to shippers. <h3>The CSX pull will only grow </h3>The pull toward CSX will intensify, however, as its partnership with BNSF expands. With Southeast service now live, BNSF and CSX are eyeing the Northeast. CSX’s double-stack clearance through Baltimore <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/csx-restarts-baltimore-tunnel-service-for-double-stack-in-2026-6087384">next spring</a> could unlock additional joint BNSF-CSX routes from Southern California to Philadelphia and Newark, covering nearly every major East Coast hub from Florida to New Jersey. Striking such a deal makes economic sense for all parties. Details of the BNSF-J.B. Hunt Quantum Agreement are limited, but it functions as a one-of-a-kind intermodal revenue-sharing model. The formula has never been disclosed, but Quantum links BNSF and J.B. Hunt’s profitability to the volume on their intermodal lanes. If BNSF secures favorable terms with CSX, then everyone stands to benefit. The pool of revenue split between BNSF and J.B. Hunt is higher, especially if CSX charges less than NS. If a deal includes a seamless interchange, such as the one in Birmingham, for example, then J.B. Hunt’s expenses are lower, also increasing the shared revenue pool. And CSX wins by taking market share away from NS, its chief rival. J.B. Hunt must tread carefully, deepening its CSX ties without severing them with Norfolk Southern. That two-way pressure could spur both eastern railroads to compete harder, ultimately benefiting shippers along the way. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

If federal regulators approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), J.B. Hunt Transport Services — the largest US intermodal provider — could be forced to rethink how it routes both coast-to-coast and East Coast freight. J.B. Hunt’s relationships with Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation are already shifting and will continue evolving through 2026. How much will change is unclear, however, as J.B. Hunt wants relationships with both eastern railroads, even if Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern become one. The stakes couldn’t be higher. J.B. Hunt handles more than two million intermodal loads a year and controls more than 125,000 containers, a fleet larger than the combined totals of competing intermodal providers C.H. Robinson, Hub Group, Schneider National, Swift Intermodal and several peers. On the West Coast, J.B. Hunt and BNSF Railway operate under the long-standing Quantum Agreement, a joint-service partnership created more than 35 years ago. In the East, J.B. relies primarily on Norfolk Southern, but has steadily expanded its CSX footprint in recent years. If UP acquired NS, some industry analysts have speculated J.B. Hunt would shift everything to CSX. The premise is based on the budding relationship between BNSF and CSX. “[It] has been perceived that J.B. Hunt would have to move our traffic to CSX. That’s not accurate at all,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on an Oct. 16 earnings call. “There’s nothing [about the merger] that would mean our current Norfolk Southern footprint we have today would be required to change.” In a sense, though, the relationship has already begun to change. J.B. Hunt uses the new BNSF-CSX service launched in September from Phoenix to Atlanta and Southern California to Charlotte and Jacksonville . Other BNSF and CSX combinations could include J.B. Hunt along the way. NS referenced the J.B. Hunt volume loss in the Southeast during its most recent earnings call. “While not big in the third quarter, we started to see some of the revenue erosion from competitor reactions to the merger,” NS CEO Mark George said on the Oct. 24 call. “We expect the impact to grow in the fourth quarter and continue to be a challenge over the near and medium term.” BNSF, which has waged a campaign against the UP-NS merger, warns that 300 intermodal lanes could vanish if the deal is approved, including all BNSF-NS interchanges. Likewise, CSX has said publicly that collaboration, not consolidation, can address the reasons why shippers still choose trucks over rail. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to take sides to keep the peace with NS and CSX. “Our long-term agreements and strong relationships with NS, CSX and BNSF should provide the basis for us to adapt to any changes in the industry,” J.B. Hunt CEO Shelley Simpson said on the company’s Oct. 16 earnings call. Strong rail service is one reason why J.B. Hunt grew its local East Coast intermodal volume by 6% year over year in the third quarter, while West Coast freight dropped 6% during the same period. Norfolk Southern remains crucial The gravitational pull to BNSF and CSX is expected to strengthen in 2026. One industry source, who asked not to be identified, told the Journal of Commerce that J.B. Hunt is involved in every BNSF-CSX discussion on joint services, providing volume commitments to bolster the products from the outset. Nevertheless, NS remains central to J.B. Hunt’s eastern network. More than half of J.B. Hunt’s business with NS remains in the eastern US, according to the railroad. NS provides J.B. Hunt with access to major distribution centers strewn across central Pennsylvania, including Allentown, Bethlehem and Harrisburg. CSX cannot replicate that opportunity. NS also provides a single-line service between Kansas City and the East Coast, while CSX doesn’t operate in Kansas City. And the separate Crescent Corridor serves as a competitive edge — a double-stack-cleared NS route from Memphis through Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte and Harrisburg to Newark — providing faster transits than CSX on high-volume routes. UP has also offered to honor the J.B. Hunt-Norfolk Southern partnership. “If J.B. Hunt wants to still do lanes within the East with Norfolk Southern like they do today, we’ll certainly let them do that,” UP CEO Jim Vena said at the Journal of Commerce’s Inland 2025 Distribution Conference on Oct. 1. The UP-J.B. Hunt relationship makes sense for both sides. UP retains access to a large number of intermodal shipments, while J.B. Hunt can continue to provide truck-competitive services to shippers. The CSX pull will only grow The pull toward CSX will intensify, however, as its partnership with BNSF expands. With Southeast service now live, BNSF and CSX are eyeing the Northeast. CSX’s double-stack clearance through Baltimore next spring could unlock additional joint BNSF-CSX routes from Southern California to Philadelphia and Newark, covering nearly every major East Coast hub from Florida to New Jersey. Striking such a deal makes economic sense for all parties. Details of the BNSF-J.B. Hunt Quantum Agreement are limited, but it functions as a one-of-a-kind intermodal revenue-sharing model. The formula has never been disclosed, but Quantum links BNSF and J.B. Hunt’s profitability to the volume on their intermodal lanes. If BNSF secures favorable terms with CSX, then everyone stands to benefit. The pool of revenue split between BNSF and J.B. Hunt is higher, especially if CSX charges less than NS. If a deal includes a seamless interchange, such as the one in Birmingham, for example, then J.B. Hunt’s expenses are lower, also increasing the shared revenue pool. And CSX wins by taking market share away from NS, its chief rival. J.B. Hunt must tread carefully, deepening its CSX ties without severing them with Norfolk Southern. That two-way pressure could spur both eastern railroads to compete harder, ultimately benefiting shippers along the way. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

J.B. Hunt’s East Coast strategy is shifting as rail alliances realign

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A share in Eurogate’s CTH facility would give the carrier a firm foothold in Europe’s third-largest container port.</div>

A share in Eurogate’s CTH facility would give the carrier a firm foothold in Europe’s third-largest container port.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM will soon sign a deal to acquire a majority share in Eurogate’s Container Terminal Hamburg (CTH), according to Alphaliner. A deal would mean that talks had been revived on a terminal venture between the carrier and Eurogate that were thought to be underway late last year and give CMA CGM a greater foothold in Europe’s third-largest container port. It would also come as the carrier inked a deal Wednesday involving the Saudi port of Jeddah, one of a recent string of terminal agreements CMA CGM has pursued. Alphaliner reported in its latest weekly newsletter that Rodolphe Saadé, chairman and CEO of the CMA CGM Group, recently visited Hamburg and that an announcement of a deal between the carrier and Eurogate Group would come soon. The Journal of Commerce reached out to both CMA CGM and Eurogate, but neither provided comment on the Alphaliner report. “The exact scope of the upcoming deal is not known yet and several scenarios are possible,” the analyst noted. Alphaliner said CMA CGM might buy into CTH on a terminal level and become a partner of Eurogate, which was itself a joint venture between Hamburg’s privately owned Eurokai and Bremen’s public sector port company BLG. Another scenario, according to Alphaliner, could see CMA CGM invest in Eurogate itself or in Eurokai in a deal similar to one made by Mediterranean Shipping Co., which this year completed the acquisition of a large minority share — eventually up to 49.9% — in HHLA, Hamburg’s largest terminal operator and container logistics provider. CTH has a design capacity of about 4 million TEUs. Eurogate Group and the city-state of Hamburg recently agreed to expand the terminal, a project that, combined with other upgrades to which Eurogate has already committed, will increase its capacity to about 6 million TEUs. CMA CGM already uses CTH for several Hamburg calls, including the Asia-Europe FAL3 (NEU5) service that is part of the Ocean Alliance network. Alphaliner estimated that CMA CGM currently accounts for about one-third of the vessel traffic at the CTH terminal. A stake in CTH would also give the carrier access to one of the few container terminal developments in Europe that has full plan approval from regulators, Alphaliner said. <h3>Expanding terminal portfolio </h3>Should the Eurogate deal happen, it would add to a series of recent CMA CGM terminal investments that are expanding the carrier’s port-handling portfolio. The Red Sea Gateway Terminal in the Saudi Arabian port of Jeddah signed a $450 million agreement Wednesday with CMA CGM to develop and operate a fourth container terminal at Jeddah Islamic Port, according to the Saudi Ports Authority. Last Friday, CMA CGM subsidiary CMA Terminals signed a deal with Marsa Maroc to operate the West Container Terminal at the Port of Nador West Med, a strategic hub on Morocco’s Mediterranean coast. The joint venture, 51% owned by Marsa Maroc and 49% by CMA Terminals, subject to regulatory approval, will manage and develop the terminal. And a week ago, an automotive logistics services joint venture <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-inks-auto-logistics-joint-venture-with-slovenian-port-of-koper-6101113">was established between CMA CGM and the Slovenian Port of Koper</a>, expanding the carrier’s reach into Central Europe and upgrading an existing long-standing partnership. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM will soon sign a deal to acquire a majority share in Eurogate’s Container Terminal Hamburg (CTH), according to Alphaliner. A deal would mean that talks had been revived on a terminal venture between the carrier and Eurogate that were thought to be underway late last year and give CMA CGM a greater foothold in Europe’s third-largest container port. It would also come as the carrier inked a deal Wednesday involving the Saudi port of Jeddah, one of a recent string of terminal agreements CMA CGM has pursued. Alphaliner reported in its latest weekly newsletter that Rodolphe Saadé, chairman and CEO of the CMA CGM Group, recently visited Hamburg and that an announcement of a deal between the carrier and Eurogate Group would come soon. The Journal of Commerce reached out to both CMA CGM and Eurogate, but neither provided comment on the Alphaliner report. “The exact scope of the upcoming deal is not known yet and several scenarios are possible,” the analyst noted. Alphaliner said CMA CGM might buy into CTH on a terminal level and become a partner of Eurogate, which was itself a joint venture between Hamburg’s privately owned Eurokai and Bremen’s public sector port company BLG. Another scenario, according to Alphaliner, could see CMA CGM invest in Eurogate itself or in Eurokai in a deal similar to one made by Mediterranean Shipping Co., which this year completed the acquisition of a large minority share — eventually up to 49.9% — in HHLA, Hamburg’s largest terminal operator and container logistics provider. CTH has a design capacity of about 4 million TEUs. Eurogate Group and the city-state of Hamburg recently agreed to expand the terminal, a project that, combined with other upgrades to which Eurogate has already committed, will increase its capacity to about 6 million TEUs. CMA CGM already uses CTH for several Hamburg calls, including the Asia-Europe FAL3 (NEU5) service that is part of the Ocean Alliance network. Alphaliner estimated that CMA CGM currently accounts for about one-third of the vessel traffic at the CTH terminal. A stake in CTH would also give the carrier access to one of the few container terminal developments in Europe that has full plan approval from regulators, Alphaliner said. Expanding terminal portfolio Should the Eurogate deal happen, it would add to a series of recent CMA CGM terminal investments that are expanding the carrier’s port-handling portfolio. The Red Sea Gateway Terminal in the Saudi Arabian port of Jeddah signed a $450 million agreement Wednesday with CMA CGM to develop and operate a fourth container terminal at Jeddah Islamic Port, according to the Saudi Ports Authority. Last Friday, CMA CGM subsidiary CMA Terminals signed a deal with Marsa Maroc to operate the West Container Terminal at the Port of Nador West Med, a strategic hub on Morocco’s Mediterranean coast. The joint venture, 51% owned by Marsa Maroc and 49% by CMA Terminals, subject to regulatory approval, will manage and develop the terminal. And a week ago, an automotive logistics services joint venture was established between CMA CGM and the Slovenian Port of Koper , expanding the carrier’s reach into Central Europe and upgrading an existing long-standing partnership. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

CMA CGM revives talks for ownership stake in Hamburg terminal: Alphaliner

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The companies are exploring opportunities to tap into the rapidly growing data center market, which could result in more project cargo activity from the power generation projects needed to support the centers.</div>

The companies are exploring opportunities to tap into the rapidly growing data center market, which could result in more project cargo activity from the power generation projects needed to support the centers.

<div class="phx-topic">The Big Three oilfield services companies are looking ahead to a surge in power generation projects for US data centers as they work to offset sluggish oil prices while US tariffs continue to eat away at profits. In the latest earnings period, lower oil and gas prices held back the performance of Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and SLB, formerly Schlumberger Ltd., but the companies say they are exploring opportunities to tap into the rapidly growing data center market. That could result in more project cargo activity from the power generation projects needed to support data centers. As the world’s largest providers of oilfield services and equipment, the three Houston-based companies are major drivers of breakbulk steel and industrial project cargo. Baker Hughes is riding the momentum of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and power generation projects amid softening demand for oilfield services and equipment. Third-quarter orders grew 44% to $4.1 billion in the company’s industrial and energy business, which includes LNG and power generation, while generating a record backlog of $32.1 billion in the segment. “This is the age of gas, and Baker Hughes is well-positioned to benefit,” CEO Lorenzo Simonelli said during the company’s Oct. 24 earnings call. Simonelli said the company is projecting a 20% increase in demand for natural gas by 2040, with global LNG demand increasing by at least 75%. Baker Hughes secured $800 million in orders for LNG equipment for the quarter. In the US, the company received equipment orders for NextDecade Corp.’s Rio Grande LNG facility at the Port of Brownsville in Texas, and for Sempra Infrastructure’s Port Arthur project in the state’s Jefferson County. In the power generation market, Simonelli said Baker Hughes is on track to achieve its target of $1.5 billion in data center orders ahead of its original three-year timeline. Year to date, the company has booked $700 million in power generation equipment orders for data center applications. Globally, consultant McKinsey projects over $1.5 trillion in data center infrastructure investments by 2030, which is “a major opportunity for Baker Hughes,” Simonelli said. <h3>Halliburton enters power deal </h3>Halliburton is also taking steps to supply power to data centers worldwide, announcing Oct. 14 that it now owns 20% of Texas-based gas power solutions provider VoltaGrid. The companies signed an agreement for Halliburton to be VoltaGrid’s international partner for delivering distributed power solutions for data centers outside of North America. VoltaGrid also announced an agreement to deploy 2.3 gigawatts (GW) of power generation capacity to support Oracle’s next-generation artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. “We invested early and increased our ownership over time because distributed power is a critical enabler for electrified oilfield service and a growing opportunity set beyond the oilfield,” Halliburton CEO Jeffrey Miller said during the company’s Oct. 21 third-quarter earnings call. Amid volatile oil and gas prices, Halliburton is forecasting a 12% to 13% decline in North American revenues in the fourth quarter, even though the region’s revenues exceeded the company’s expectations and rose 5% to $2.4 billion in the third quarter. “We fully expect the recovery will come quickly in North America,” Miller said. Halliburton is forecasting it will take a $60 million hit from US tariffs in the fourth quarter — nearly doubling the previous quarter’s tariff costs. <h3>Data centers drive SLB revenues </h3>The third quarter marked the first time SLB has disclosed its data center revenue, which shot up 140% to $331 million for the first nine months of 2025 compared with the same period a year earlier, according to the company’s Oct. 17 earnings report. SLB’s data center business designs and manufactures critical infrastructure components including modular data center enclosures, cooling systems and other hardware. SLB’s overall revenues for the third quarter fell 3% to $8.9 billion amid commodity price setbacks in the company’s core market, while North American revenues rose 14% to $1.9 billion. SLB’s $7.8 billion acquisition of Texas-based oil and gas technology company ChampionX Corp. helped push up North American revenues while offsetting declines in oil and gas activity on US land. SLB CEO Olivier Le Peuch said he does not anticipate a significant recovery for North American drilling activity as operators continue to prioritize production maintenance amid market volatility. “Considering current industry dynamics and [the] commodity price environment, we believe the conditions are set — when the supply-demand rebalances — for the international markets to lead the future activity rebound,” Le Peuch said during in the company’s earnings call. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

The Big Three oilfield services companies are looking ahead to a surge in power generation projects for US data centers as they work to offset sluggish oil prices while US tariffs continue to eat away at profits. In the latest earnings period, lower oil and gas prices held back the performance of Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and SLB, formerly Schlumberger Ltd., but the companies say they are exploring opportunities to tap into the rapidly growing data center market. That could result in more project cargo activity from the power generation projects needed to support data centers. As the world’s largest providers of oilfield services and equipment, the three Houston-based companies are major drivers of breakbulk steel and industrial project cargo. Baker Hughes is riding the momentum of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and power generation projects amid softening demand for oilfield services and equipment. Third-quarter orders grew 44% to $4.1 billion in the company’s industrial and energy business, which includes LNG and power generation, while generating a record backlog of $32.1 billion in the segment. “This is the age of gas, and Baker Hughes is well-positioned to benefit,” CEO Lorenzo Simonelli said during the company’s Oct. 24 earnings call. Simonelli said the company is projecting a 20% increase in demand for natural gas by 2040, with global LNG demand increasing by at least 75%. Baker Hughes secured $800 million in orders for LNG equipment for the quarter. In the US, the company received equipment orders for NextDecade Corp.’s Rio Grande LNG facility at the Port of Brownsville in Texas, and for Sempra Infrastructure’s Port Arthur project in the state’s Jefferson County. In the power generation market, Simonelli said Baker Hughes is on track to achieve its target of $1.5 billion in data center orders ahead of its original three-year timeline. Year to date, the company has booked $700 million in power generation equipment orders for data center applications. Globally, consultant McKinsey projects over $1.5 trillion in data center infrastructure investments by 2030, which is “a major opportunity for Baker Hughes,” Simonelli said. Halliburton enters power deal Halliburton is also taking steps to supply power to data centers worldwide, announcing Oct. 14 that it now owns 20% of Texas-based gas power solutions provider VoltaGrid. The companies signed an agreement for Halliburton to be VoltaGrid’s international partner for delivering distributed power solutions for data centers outside of North America. VoltaGrid also announced an agreement to deploy 2.3 gigawatts (GW) of power generation capacity to support Oracle’s next-generation artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. “We invested early and increased our ownership over time because distributed power is a critical enabler for electrified oilfield service and a growing opportunity set beyond the oilfield,” Halliburton CEO Jeffrey Miller said during the company’s Oct. 21 third-quarter earnings call. Amid volatile oil and gas prices, Halliburton is forecasting a 12% to 13% decline in North American revenues in the fourth quarter, even though the region’s revenues exceeded the company’s expectations and rose 5% to $2.4 billion in the third quarter. “We fully expect the recovery will come quickly in North America,” Miller said. Halliburton is forecasting it will take a $60 million hit from US tariffs in the fourth quarter — nearly doubling the previous quarter’s tariff costs. Data centers drive SLB revenues The third quarter marked the first time SLB has disclosed its data center revenue, which shot up 140% to $331 million for the first nine months of 2025 compared with the same period a year earlier, according to the company’s Oct. 17 earnings report. SLB’s data center business designs and manufactures critical infrastructure components including modular data center enclosures, cooling systems and other hardware. SLB’s overall revenues for the third quarter fell 3% to $8.9 billion amid commodity price setbacks in the company’s core market, while North American revenues rose 14% to $1.9 billion. SLB’s $7.8 billion acquisition of Texas-based oil and gas technology company ChampionX Corp. helped push up North American revenues while offsetting declines in oil and gas activity on US land. SLB CEO Olivier Le Peuch said he does not anticipate a significant recovery for North American drilling activity as operators continue to prioritize production maintenance amid market volatility. “Considering current industry dynamics and [the] commodity price environment, we believe the conditions are set — when the supply-demand rebalances — for the international markets to lead the future activity rebound,” Le Peuch said during in the company’s earnings call. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Oilfield service giants banking on windfall from data center power projects

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Europe’s busiest container port has maintained its growth so far this year despite persistent congestion, intermittent strikes and growing geopolitical tensions.</div>

Europe’s busiest container port has maintained its growth so far this year despite persistent congestion, intermittent strikes and growing geopolitical tensions.

<div class="phx-topic">Rotterdam reported a 3% increase in container throughput for the first nine months of the year as solid Asia-Europe imports drove total volumes to 10.7 million TEUs. Third-quarter volumes increased almost 4% at Europe’s largest container port, with throughput from Asia rising 8.8% in the period. The gains came despite persistent congestion that has created bottlenecks and delays at Rotterdam for much of the year. Intermittent strikes and growing geopolitical tensions have added to the challenges. Boudewijn Siemons, CEO of Port of Rotterdam Authority, said the strength in container volume coming as European industry was “under enormous pressure” confirmed the “resilience and strategic value of the port.” Strong import demand of 5.6 million TEUs was recorded in the first nine months, up 3.4% year over year, the port said in a statement Tuesday. The robust Asian import numbers are supported by Container Trades Statistics (CTS), whose latest data for August shows that volumes on Asia-North Europe were up 9% during the first eight months of the year at 12.9 million TEUs. Persistent congestion that has plagued Europe’s northern range ports, including Rotterdam, appeared to have no negative impact on the gateway port’s volume. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e74f9a77-dd33-49ff-89bc-48dbd71051e3"></dynamic-object></div>Another major contributor to Rotterdam’s volume this year was the US, with trans-Atlantic throughput up 14.6% in the first nine months compared with last year. New sailing schedules introduced at the beginning of this year from the reshuffled carrier alliances included more services from Rotterdam to North America. Data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows North Europe to North America volume in the first nine months increased 3% year over year to 1.71 million TEUs. Europe’s second- and third-biggest container gateway ports — Antwerp-Bruges and Hamburg — have not yet released their nine-month operating figures. However, one of Hamburg’s largest terminal operators, HHLA, adjusted its annual outlook this week and is expecting “a significant increase in container throughput.” The positive outlook was made despite HHLA’s contention that tariff-driven US trade policy was making its business environment “less robust than originally assumed.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Rotterdam reported a 3% increase in container throughput for the first nine months of the year as solid Asia-Europe imports drove total volumes to 10.7 million TEUs. Third-quarter volumes increased almost 4% at Europe’s largest container port, with throughput from Asia rising 8.8% in the period. The gains came despite persistent congestion that has created bottlenecks and delays at Rotterdam for much of the year. Intermittent strikes and growing geopolitical tensions have added to the challenges. Boudewijn Siemons, CEO of Port of Rotterdam Authority, said the strength in container volume coming as European industry was “under enormous pressure” confirmed the “resilience and strategic value of the port.” Strong import demand of 5.6 million TEUs was recorded in the first nine months, up 3.4% year over year, the port said in a statement Tuesday. The robust Asian import numbers are supported by Container Trades Statistics (CTS), whose latest data for August shows that volumes on Asia-North Europe were up 9% during the first eight months of the year at 12.9 million TEUs. Persistent congestion that has plagued Europe’s northern range ports, including Rotterdam, appeared to have no negative impact on the gateway port’s volume. Another major contributor to Rotterdam’s volume this year was the US, with trans-Atlantic throughput up 14.6% in the first nine months compared with last year. New sailing schedules introduced at the beginning of this year from the reshuffled carrier alliances included more services from Rotterdam to North America. Data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows North Europe to North America volume in the first nine months increased 3% year over year to 1.71 million TEUs. Europe’s second- and third-biggest container gateway ports — Antwerp-Bruges and Hamburg — have not yet released their nine-month operating figures. However, one of Hamburg’s largest terminal operators, HHLA, adjusted its annual outlook this week and is expecting “a significant increase in container throughput.” The positive outlook was made despite HHLA’s contention that tariff-driven US trade policy was making its business environment “less robust than originally assumed.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe ocean imports drive up Rotterdam’s nine-month volume

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility. </div>

The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility.

<div class="phx-topic">The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. <h3>Technology can ease challenges </h3>The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at <a href="mailto:northw@shiplify.com">northw@shiplify.com</a>. Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at <a href="mailto:bart@bartdemuynck.com">bart@bartdemuynck.com</a>. </div>

The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. Technology can ease challenges The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at northw@shiplify.com . Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at bart@bartdemuynck.com .

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

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

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

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

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

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

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">The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on the two carriers, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the fee structure.</div>

The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on the two carriers, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the fee structure.

<div class="phx-topic">New US port fees targeting China’s maritime industry cost Cosco Shipping and its OOCL subsidiary just over $42 million in the first week the fees were in place, according to vessel-tracking data detailing their US calls. Outside of those two carriers, the fees have largely on three Chinese-built container ships, with those costs likely totaling a few million dollars. The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on Cosco and OOCL, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the US fee structure. Vessel tracking data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows that eight Cosco-operated container ships and seven operated by OOCL made a US port call in Oct. 14–20. Oct. 14 was the first day that ocean carriers would be subject to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) penalties targeting China’s maritime industry</a>. The fees, which were the result of a USTR investigation started in 2024 and concluded earlier this year, are $50 per net ton for the first US port call of a Chinese-operated ship in the first year of implementation, with the levy escalating annually through 2028. Chinese-built ships operated by other carriers face the higher of either $18 per ton or $120 per container discharged. The 15 ships operated by Cosco and OOCL during the first week of the fees, most of which are post-Panamax size, had net tonnage of 855,718, Sea-web data shows. Based on the USTR fee schedule, that would equate to $42.8 million in fees for the ships on their initial port call. The size of each fee paid varied widely. The 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Jasmine, which called Savannah on Oct. 14, would have incurred a $4.2 million fee based on its net tonnage. The 4,253-TEU Felixstowe, also operated by Cosco, faced a $1.2 million fee due to its smaller size. Nine of the Cosco and OOCL ships were built in South Korea, while four were built in China and one in Japan. At the first week’s run rate, Cosco and OOCL could incur $2.2 billion in US port fees during the first year. That aligns with a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-exceed-2b-for-cosco-oocl-hsbc-6077305">September estimate from investment bank HSBC</a>, which said the fees represent between 5% to 7% of the two carriers’ annual combined revenue. Cosco and the USTR did not respond to requests for comment. Cosco, which is the majority owner of OOCL, decried the USTR fees as a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-slams-us-port-fees-as-other-carriers-reckon-with-potential-costs-5989606">“discriminatory decision”</a> when they were first unveiled in April. However, one month ahead of the Oct. 14 start date, Cosco said it remained committed to the US market, with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-says-no-changes-to-us-services-as-new-port-fees-approach-6082151">no plans to charge shippers for the fee</a>. HSBC estimated the US port fee would translate to a cost for Chinese carriers of about $600 per container, while an April report from consultancy BluSpark said the fee could be $550 per container. Assuming the 15 ships that called in Oct. 14–20 were at fully loaded capacity, the fee translates to about $657 per container. <h3>Zim also faces fees </h3>Out of 160 container ships over 4,000-TEU that called the US between Oct. 14 and Oct. 20, only three not operated by Cosco or OOCL were built in China and likely subject to the fees, according to Sea-web, showing the extent to which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-tonnage-moving-out-of-us-container-trade-ahead-of-new-fees-xeneta-6081320">other ocean carriers redeployed Chinese tonnage to avoid the fees</a>. The figure does not include two Chinese-built ships operated by CMA CGM’s US-flag subsidiary APL because <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinas-port-fees-forcing-gemini-to-shift-out-us-flag-ships-6097952">the USTR has exempted those ships</a>. It also does not include container/roll-on/roll-off vessels such as those operated by Atlantic Container Line, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/acl-weighs-options-after-facing-annual-35-million-ustr-port-bill-6102368">itself facing $1.4 million in costs for each port call due to the USTR’s designation of the carrier’s vessels</a>. Zim operated all three of the Chinese-built ships calling the US, all between 5,315 and 7,000 TEU in nominal capacity. Based on the net tonnage of the three ships, Zim likely incurred fees between $450,000 and $700,000 for the first US call. While it’s unclear how many containers the ships discharged, the cost would translate to approximately $270 per loaded container. A week prior to the fees going into effect, Zim said in a customer advisory that it would not charge shippers for the fees, but it “reserves the right to reassess this position should additional cost implications or regulation evolve.” Zim did not return a request for comment. Zim operated a fourth Chinese-built ship, the 4,249-TEU Spyros V, but it’s below the 55,000 deadweight tons threshold for the USTR fees. Similarly, the China-built, 4,250-TEU Vancouver Star, operated by Hapag-Lloyd, is also below the size threshold. This article has been updated to reflect that the Spyros V and Vancouver Star are not subject to the USTR’s port fees due to their size. The SM Tianjin, is also not subject to the fees because it is operated by South Korea’s SM Lines, not China United Lines.Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a></div>

New US port fees targeting China’s maritime industry cost Cosco Shipping and its OOCL subsidiary just over $42 million in the first week the fees were in place, according to vessel-tracking data detailing their US calls. Outside of those two carriers, the fees have largely on three Chinese-built container ships, with those costs likely totaling a few million dollars. The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on Cosco and OOCL, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the US fee structure. Vessel tracking data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows that eight Cosco-operated container ships and seven operated by OOCL made a US port call in Oct. 14–20. Oct. 14 was the first day that ocean carriers would be subject to the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) penalties targeting China’s maritime industry . The fees, which were the result of a USTR investigation started in 2024 and concluded earlier this year, are $50 per net ton for the first US port call of a Chinese-operated ship in the first year of implementation, with the levy escalating annually through 2028. Chinese-built ships operated by other carriers face the higher of either $18 per ton or $120 per container discharged. The 15 ships operated by Cosco and OOCL during the first week of the fees, most of which are post-Panamax size, had net tonnage of 855,718, Sea-web data shows. Based on the USTR fee schedule, that would equate to $42.8 million in fees for the ships on their initial port call. The size of each fee paid varied widely. The 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Jasmine, which called Savannah on Oct. 14, would have incurred a $4.2 million fee based on its net tonnage. The 4,253-TEU Felixstowe, also operated by Cosco, faced a $1.2 million fee due to its smaller size. Nine of the Cosco and OOCL ships were built in South Korea, while four were built in China and one in Japan. At the first week’s run rate, Cosco and OOCL could incur $2.2 billion in US port fees during the first year. That aligns with a September estimate from investment bank HSBC , which said the fees represent between 5% to 7% of the two carriers’ annual combined revenue. Cosco and the USTR did not respond to requests for comment. Cosco, which is the majority owner of OOCL, decried the USTR fees as a “discriminatory decision” when they were first unveiled in April. However, one month ahead of the Oct. 14 start date, Cosco said it remained committed to the US market, with no plans to charge shippers for the fee . HSBC estimated the US port fee would translate to a cost for Chinese carriers of about $600 per container, while an April report from consultancy BluSpark said the fee could be $550 per container. Assuming the 15 ships that called in Oct. 14–20 were at fully loaded capacity, the fee translates to about $657 per container. Zim also faces fees Out of 160 container ships over 4,000-TEU that called the US between Oct. 14 and Oct. 20, only three not operated by Cosco or OOCL were built in China and likely subject to the fees, according to Sea-web, showing the extent to which other ocean carriers redeployed Chinese tonnage to avoid the fees . The figure does not include two Chinese-built ships operated by CMA CGM’s US-flag subsidiary APL because the USTR has exempted those ships . It also does not include container/roll-on/roll-off vessels such as those operated by Atlantic Container Line, itself facing $1.4 million in costs for each port call due to the USTR’s designation of the carrier’s vessels . Zim operated all three of the Chinese-built ships calling the US, all between 5,315 and 7,000 TEU in nominal capacity. Based on the net tonnage of the three ships, Zim likely incurred fees between $450,000 and $700,000 for the first US call. While it’s unclear how many containers the ships discharged, the cost would translate to approximately $270 per loaded container. A week prior to the fees going into effect, Zim said in a customer advisory that it would not charge shippers for the fees, but it “reserves the right to reassess this position should additional cost implications or regulation evolve.” Zim did not return a request for comment. Zim operated a fourth Chinese-built ship, the 4,249-TEU Spyros V, but it’s below the 55,000 deadweight tons threshold for the USTR fees. Similarly, the China-built, 4,250-TEU Vancouver Star, operated by Hapag-Lloyd, is also below the size threshold. This article has been updated to reflect that the Spyros V and Vancouver Star are not subject to the USTR’s port fees due to their size. The SM Tianjin, is also not subject to the fees because it is operated by South Korea’s SM Lines, not China United Lines. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

Cosco, OOCL incurred over $40 million in initial US port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Slowing demand from sluggish European economies and excess ocean capacity on the Asia-Europe trade lane are frustrating liners’ attempts to raise rates.</div>

Slowing demand from sluggish European economies and excess ocean capacity on the Asia-Europe trade lane are frustrating liners’ attempts to raise rates.

<div class="phx-topic">Spot rates from Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean remain below long-term rates despite ocean carriers withdrawing significant amounts of capacity and pushing up prices ahead of the end-of-year tender season. Carriers have stepped up efforts to stem the steadily falling spot market by blanking 213,724 TEUs of capacity on Asia-North Europe routes in October, the most withdrawn since March last year, according to eeSea. Drewry reports that carriers announced 90 blanked sailings globally this month, with 43% of those on the Asia-North Europe and Mediterranean trades. Michael Ebbe, CFO of forwarder DSV, said he expected demand to flatten out or go into “slightly negative territory” on Asia-Europe through the fourth quarter and in the run-up to the Lunar New Year holiday in February. “If you look at the latest statistics, it shows that the market is under pressure on this trade lane, and some shippers have maybe pre-loaded some cargo this year,” Ebbe told the Journal of Commerce. While cutting sailings, carriers have also raised freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates. On Oct. 15, an FAK increase added around $300 on the day, but the rate has since given back some of the gains and remains below the contract rate. Another rate increase is planned for Nov. 1, and there are indications that a mid-November increase is also in the cards. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="6e51a3c0-5772-45a7-9cf0-5d566cc75495"></dynamic-object></div>Rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the average spot rate for Asia-North Europe is currently at $1,978 per FEU, down 40% since Aug. 1. Average long-term rates signed in the past three months are currently at $2,168 per FEU, with Xeneta data showing the contract rate has been above the spot market since Sept. 10. “The spot-rate spike in mid-October on European-bound front hauls should be good news for carriers, but they won’t be celebrating too much because it is not enough to bring it above the long-term rates,” said Peter Sand, Xeneta’s chief analyst. “This plays into the hands of shippers, who must be considering pushing contract negotiations back into Q1 next year,” he added. “A long-term market higher than a short-term market is an extremely powerful negotiating position for shippers, so why would they lock into a new 12-month contract at those levels?” <h3>Time is on the side of shippers </h3>Sand said shippers with cargo on front hauls could benefit from signing contracts later than normal, as time would work in their favor. “Overcapacity grows bigger every day, the first quarter is [historically] low on volumes, rerouting to avoid the Houthis and the Red Sea is well-established, and the around-Africa premium is still higher than what costs can verify,” he noted. “If shippers can extend existing contracts, that could buy themselves some time, so signing in Q1 instead of December 2025 seems like a fine strategy,” Sand added. Demand this year through August has been robust, with the latest data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) showing volume on Asia-Europe was up 7.3% in the first eight months of the year. While data for September is not yet available, forwarders have highlighted slowing demand in the fourth quarter from sluggish European economies and excess capacity on Asia-Europe. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8ec7edc-c832-4205-a8ed-f653d0f915a5"></dynamic-object></div>“There's a lot of capacity coming in with many newbuildings, and that, in combination with the lower demand, is putting pressure on the rates,” said DSV’s Ebbe. “The carriers have become more disciplined as demand slows, but if you look at the order book, they are still ordering vessels.” The order book has reached 30% of the global in-service fleet at 9.7 million TEUs, with 1.16 million TEUs of capacity comprising ships of 14,500 TEUs and above delivered so far this year, destined mostly for Asia-Europe, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Spot rates from Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean remain below long-term rates despite ocean carriers withdrawing significant amounts of capacity and pushing up prices ahead of the end-of-year tender season. Carriers have stepped up efforts to stem the steadily falling spot market by blanking 213,724 TEUs of capacity on Asia-North Europe routes in October, the most withdrawn since March last year, according to eeSea. Drewry reports that carriers announced 90 blanked sailings globally this month, with 43% of those on the Asia-North Europe and Mediterranean trades. Michael Ebbe, CFO of forwarder DSV, said he expected demand to flatten out or go into “slightly negative territory” on Asia-Europe through the fourth quarter and in the run-up to the Lunar New Year holiday in February. “If you look at the latest statistics, it shows that the market is under pressure on this trade lane, and some shippers have maybe pre-loaded some cargo this year,” Ebbe told the Journal of Commerce. While cutting sailings, carriers have also raised freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates. On Oct. 15, an FAK increase added around $300 on the day, but the rate has since given back some of the gains and remains below the contract rate. Another rate increase is planned for Nov. 1, and there are indications that a mid-November increase is also in the cards. Rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the average spot rate for Asia-North Europe is currently at $1,978 per FEU, down 40% since Aug. 1. Average long-term rates signed in the past three months are currently at $2,168 per FEU, with Xeneta data showing the contract rate has been above the spot market since Sept. 10. “The spot-rate spike in mid-October on European-bound front hauls should be good news for carriers, but they won’t be celebrating too much because it is not enough to bring it above the long-term rates,” said Peter Sand, Xeneta’s chief analyst. “This plays into the hands of shippers, who must be considering pushing contract negotiations back into Q1 next year,” he added. “A long-term market higher than a short-term market is an extremely powerful negotiating position for shippers, so why would they lock into a new 12-month contract at those levels?” Time is on the side of shippers Sand said shippers with cargo on front hauls could benefit from signing contracts later than normal, as time would work in their favor. “Overcapacity grows bigger every day, the first quarter is [historically] low on volumes, rerouting to avoid the Houthis and the Red Sea is well-established, and the around-Africa premium is still higher than what costs can verify,” he noted. “If shippers can extend existing contracts, that could buy themselves some time, so signing in Q1 instead of December 2025 seems like a fine strategy,” Sand added. Demand this year through August has been robust, with the latest data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) showing volume on Asia-Europe was up 7.3% in the first eight months of the year. While data for September is not yet available, forwarders have highlighted slowing demand in the fourth quarter from sluggish European economies and excess capacity on Asia-Europe. “There's a lot of capacity coming in with many newbuildings, and that, in combination with the lower demand, is putting pressure on the rates,” said DSV’s Ebbe. “The carriers have become more disciplined as demand slows, but if you look at the order book, they are still ordering vessels.” The order book has reached 30% of the global in-service fleet at 9.7 million TEUs, with 1.16 million TEUs of capacity comprising ships of 14,500 TEUs and above delivered so far this year, destined mostly for Asia-Europe, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe spot rates defy carrier efforts to lift prices above contract levels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With other low-emissions bunkers such as methanol still in short supply, vessel operators are turning to dual-fuel LNG container ships as a transitional step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050. </div>

With other low-emissions bunkers such as methanol still in short supply, vessel operators are turning to dual-fuel LNG container ships as a transitional step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050.

<div class="phx-topic">With the global shipping decarbonization agenda brought to an abrupt halt at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in mid-October, an emerging reality is taking hold: LNG is becoming the go-to alternative fuel of choice for container lines. Increasingly, carriers are committing to LNG-fueled container ships over other alternative fuels such as methanol, seeing LNG as a viable and easily malleable step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050, as enshrined in current IMO policy. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6104141_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The number of LNG-fueled container ships on order has grown from 194 in late 2023 to 362 as of mid-October, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. What’s more, the percentage of vessels on order capable of running on LNG has grown to 40% from 23% during the same period, while the percentage of methanol-powered ships was unchanged at 15%. The 218 LNG container ships currently in operation represent 3.5% of the global container ship fleet. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. A senior carrier executive who asked not to be identified noted that even before the IMO <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/delay-in-imo-decarbonization-plans-robs-green-fuel-investors-of-certainty-6101250">punted on its net-zero framework</a>, LNG had already become the “mainstream marine fuel” for new vessel orders. “We could see [LNG] becoming even more significant in the current environment, because well-to-tank data is improving, methane slip will be dealt with and we see fossil but also bio and synthetic as pathways for LNG,” the executive added. Using LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it pivoted from methanol to LNG for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. And crucially, all LNG container ships in operation and on order have dual-fuel engines, meaning they can burn either LNG or traditional bunkers. That gives carriers a high degree of flexibility in terms of which fuel a ship actually uses at any given time. Depending on price and availability, carriers can operate using LNG or traditional bunkers or a combination, something vessel operations executives say is already happening. Estimates of the amount of LNG used vary widely; some sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce said LNG-capable ships only burn LNG 5% to 10% of the time, while others say it's closer to 50%. In other words, not only is LNG itself a transitional fuel, but LNG ships are being used as a transitional solution. Being the most consumer-facing maritime sector, container lines have long felt a need to be at the forefront of decarbonization. Through the World Shipping Council (WSC), they supported the IMO <a href="https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/faqs-the-imo-net-zero-framework.aspx">Net-Zero Framework</a> that was postponed for at least a year following strident opposition from the US. Patrick Verhoven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors, described the delay as a “major setback for the maritime industry.” Dual-fuel container ship and vehicle carrier orders account for 79% of the current order book, compared with 14% for the rest of the fleet, including tankers and bulk carriers, according to the WSC. With the order book dominated by the major carriers, given actual environmental regulation — in the case of the EU — and possible future requirements from the IMO, their effort to secure LNG tonnage at scale raises the bar for new entrants and smaller carriers looking to scale. LNG is more widely available than other alternative fuels such as methanol and, at least currently, is about 25% more expensive than very low-sulfur fuel oil. That, plus the ability to limit use of LNG, means carriers aren’t forced to charge customers a premium, which would undermine their competitiveness. In addition, solutions are being developed to mitigate methane emissions, which are 80 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, from LNG power plants. For example, a consortium including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines last year said it achieved a 93.8% reduction of methane slip from LNG-fueled vessels through catalyst and engine improvements. Still, LNG ships come with their own operational issues. The LNG tank must be cooled to -162 degrees C (-260 degrees F), and a minimum quantity must always be kept inside; otherwise, the fuel can’t be bunkered until re-cooled. Re-cooling, in turn, requires the ship to be idled for three days, with costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Nils Roche, CEO of Solvens Advisory and former deputy general manager for operations at PIL. As a result, ship operators frequently use traditional bunkers as their primary fuel and LNG only at selected times. If the LNG is not used for propulsion, it’s used to run auxiliary engines that create power for electricity and air conditioning onboard the ship. Roche said restrictive contracts with LNG suppliers also complicated matters. Fuel suppliers require one month’s notice to bunker a ship with LNG, compared with just two days’ notice for conventional marine fuel, cancellation fees can run into the millions, and ships typically only have a two-to-three-day window for bunkering. “If you are not available at that point, they will go to someone else,” he said. “And you just pray that somebody else in another couple of days will not make it, and you can take their slot.” Price is naturally a big consideration. Carriers will sometimes avoid LNG bunkering to the extent possible during December, January and February, due to higher winter prices. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

With the global shipping decarbonization agenda brought to an abrupt halt at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in mid-October, an emerging reality is taking hold: LNG is becoming the go-to alternative fuel of choice for container lines. Increasingly, carriers are committing to LNG-fueled container ships over other alternative fuels such as methanol, seeing LNG as a viable and easily malleable step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050, as enshrined in current IMO policy. The number of LNG-fueled container ships on order has grown from 194 in late 2023 to 362 as of mid-October, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. What’s more, the percentage of vessels on order capable of running on LNG has grown to 40% from 23% during the same period, while the percentage of methanol-powered ships was unchanged at 15%. The 218 LNG container ships currently in operation represent 3.5% of the global container ship fleet. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. A senior carrier executive who asked not to be identified noted that even before the IMO punted on its net-zero framework , LNG had already become the “mainstream marine fuel” for new vessel orders. “We could see [LNG] becoming even more significant in the current environment, because well-to-tank data is improving, methane slip will be dealt with and we see fossil but also bio and synthetic as pathways for LNG,” the executive added. Using LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it pivoted from methanol to LNG for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. And crucially, all LNG container ships in operation and on order have dual-fuel engines, meaning they can burn either LNG or traditional bunkers. That gives carriers a high degree of flexibility in terms of which fuel a ship actually uses at any given time. Depending on price and availability, carriers can operate using LNG or traditional bunkers or a combination, something vessel operations executives say is already happening. Estimates of the amount of LNG used vary widely; some sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce said LNG-capable ships only burn LNG 5% to 10% of the time, while others say it's closer to 50%. In other words, not only is LNG itself a transitional fuel, but LNG ships are being used as a transitional solution. Being the most consumer-facing maritime sector, container lines have long felt a need to be at the forefront of decarbonization. Through the World Shipping Council (WSC), they supported the IMO Net-Zero Framework that was postponed for at least a year following strident opposition from the US. Patrick Verhoven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors, described the delay as a “major setback for the maritime industry.” Dual-fuel container ship and vehicle carrier orders account for 79% of the current order book, compared with 14% for the rest of the fleet, including tankers and bulk carriers, according to the WSC. With the order book dominated by the major carriers, given actual environmental regulation — in the case of the EU — and possible future requirements from the IMO, their effort to secure LNG tonnage at scale raises the bar for new entrants and smaller carriers looking to scale. LNG is more widely available than other alternative fuels such as methanol and, at least currently, is about 25% more expensive than very low-sulfur fuel oil. That, plus the ability to limit use of LNG, means carriers aren’t forced to charge customers a premium, which would undermine their competitiveness. In addition, solutions are being developed to mitigate methane emissions, which are 80 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, from LNG power plants. For example, a consortium including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines last year said it achieved a 93.8% reduction of methane slip from LNG-fueled vessels through catalyst and engine improvements. Still, LNG ships come with their own operational issues. The LNG tank must be cooled to -162 degrees C (-260 degrees F), and a minimum quantity must always be kept inside; otherwise, the fuel can’t be bunkered until re-cooled. Re-cooling, in turn, requires the ship to be idled for three days, with costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Nils Roche, CEO of Solvens Advisory and former deputy general manager for operations at PIL. As a result, ship operators frequently use traditional bunkers as their primary fuel and LNG only at selected times. If the LNG is not used for propulsion, it’s used to run auxiliary engines that create power for electricity and air conditioning onboard the ship. Roche said restrictive contracts with LNG suppliers also complicated matters. Fuel suppliers require one month’s notice to bunker a ship with LNG, compared with just two days’ notice for conventional marine fuel, cancellation fees can run into the millions, and ships typically only have a two-to-three-day window for bunkering. “If you are not available at that point, they will go to someone else,” he said. “And you just pray that somebody else in another couple of days will not make it, and you can take their slot.” Price is naturally a big consideration. Carriers will sometimes avoid LNG bunkering to the extent possible during December, January and February, due to higher winter prices. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

LNG increasingly alternative fuel of choice for container lines

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code FSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

FALL SALE

Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code FSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

FALL SALE: Use code FSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

FALL SALE: Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE: Use codeFSW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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 premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Tender season is a time when shippers traditionally look to switch forwarders, so signing them to new contracts will be the real test of the DSV-DB Schenker integration, DSV CFO Michael Ebbe says.</div>

Tender season is a time when shippers traditionally look to switch forwarders, so signing them to new contracts will be the real test of the DSV-DB Schenker integration, DSV CFO Michael Ebbe says.

<div class="phx-topic">DSV said Thursday it is stepping up efforts to retain its customer base amid the integration of DB Schenker into its global network as ocean tender season approaches and rival Kuehne + Nagel begins to circle. Cargo owners will soon begin to negotiate Asia–Europe contracts for next year, with the annual service contract talks on the trans-Pacific heating up in March. It is a time when shippers traditionally switch forwarders, so signing them to new contracts will be the real test of the DSV-DB Schenker integration, according to DSV CFO Michael Ebbe. “All the competition is focusing on us right now, but we are the market leaders, and we also did that when we were chasing,” Ebbe told analysts during a third-quarter earnings call. “We'd see quite some attrition by now in a normal integration, which we're not seeing, but the tender season will be the test.” At $16.25 billion, DB Schenker is Denmark-based DSV’s largest acquisition by a huge margin, after having previously taken over <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/size-equals-value-in-fragmented-market-dsvs-andersen-5248808">Agility’s Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) in 2021 for $4.2 billion</a>, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/newly-combined-dsv-panalpina-targets-trans-pacific-trade-5226703">Panalpina in 2019 for $4.6 billion</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dsv-buys-uti-for-135-billion-5205537">UTi in 2015 for $1.35 billion</a>. While exact figures are not available, DSV has previously acknowledged that following the Panalpina and GIL acquisitions, there were some large customer losses to rivals. “Of the customers that we have longer-term agreements with, it's going to come when we have the freight negotiations, basically for the renewal of the contracts, and that's typically happening into the new year,” Ebbe said. “We must make it through the tender season, and then we can really start to focus on the growth.” But also waiting for ocean tender season is rival Kuehne + Nagel, and the Swiss-based forwarder claimed during its own Q3 call Thursday to have already made inroads into DSV’s air freight customer base. “I can confirm we have taken advantage of that merger in air freight, and it has benefited us,” K + N CEO Stefan Paul told analysts. Paul said ocean freight came with two cargo request-for-quotation (RFQ) cycles while air freight shippers decided on a monthly or quarterly basis. “The share of wallet has moved much quicker on the air freight business where the purchasing guidance is more obvious than in sea freight, but that should come in the next RFQ cycle,” he said. <h3>Global headwinds hit forwarder results </h3>Both DSV and Kuehne + Nagel in their Q3 results highlighted significant global headwinds fanned by US tariffs and geopolitics. Boosted by the DB Schenker business, DSV’s Q3 revenue reached $11.7 billion, up 63% year over year, while gross profit increased 76% to $3 billion. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were up 23% at $842 million, while net profit of $335 million was down 24% year over year. Volume became increasingly volatile during the third quarter, particularly in ocean freight. Although overall volume was up 52% at just over 1 million TEUs, 404,000 TEUs of that was contributed by DB Schenker. Organic volume that excluded Schenker was down 5% year over year. In air freight, the volume grew 64% in the third quarter to 579,000 metric tons, with DB Schenker contributing 232,000 metric tons. Organic volume was flat. DSV reiterated that expected synergies from DB Schenker would be about $1.4 billion by the end of 2028, with an expected financial cost of about $124 million for the full-year 2025 based on the assumption that 30% of the integration will be completed by year-end. DSV has lowered the top range of its full-year profit expectation from $3.34 billion to $3.19 billion but maintained its lower EBIT level at $3.05 billion. <h3>K + N to slash jobs as yield pressure grows </h3>Kuehne + Nagel also lowered its EBIT forecast, and now expects profit of $1.6 billion in 2025, down from the previous expectation of just over $2 billion. The forwarder said overcapacity in the ocean trade, negative currency effects and a drop in volume in the third quarter were placing heavy pressure on air and ocean yields. Third-quarter revenue of $7.6 billion was down 7% year over year, EBIT of $358 million declined 37% and net profit was down 36% at $259 million. K + N handled 1.1 million TEUs in the third quarter, flat compared with the same period last year. But the excess ocean capacity dragged down gross profit per TEU by 15% to $688. In air freight, the forwarder handled 564,000 metric tons, up 7% year over year, although gross profit per 100 kilograms fell 13% to $90. Kuehne + Nagel aims to mitigate its declining profitability through cost cuts of $251 million that will see between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs lost as the forwarder increases automation and digitalization across its global network. “Challenging external factors are forcing us to sustainably and permanently improve our efficiency and performance culture,” Paul noted. “With the launch of group-wide cost reduction measures, we are now taking action to safeguard our cost base.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

DSV said Thursday it is stepping up efforts to retain its customer base amid the integration of DB Schenker into its global network as ocean tender season approaches and rival Kuehne + Nagel begins to circle. Cargo owners will soon begin to negotiate Asia–Europe contracts for next year, with the annual service contract talks on the trans-Pacific heating up in March. It is a time when shippers traditionally switch forwarders, so signing them to new contracts will be the real test of the DSV-DB Schenker integration, according to DSV CFO Michael Ebbe. “All the competition is focusing on us right now, but we are the market leaders, and we also did that when we were chasing,” Ebbe told analysts during a third-quarter earnings call. “We'd see quite some attrition by now in a normal integration, which we're not seeing, but the tender season will be the test.” At $16.25 billion, DB Schenker is Denmark-based DSV’s largest acquisition by a huge margin, after having previously taken over Agility’s Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) in 2021 for $4.2 billion , Panalpina in 2019 for $4.6 billion and UTi in 2015 for $1.35 billion . While exact figures are not available, DSV has previously acknowledged that following the Panalpina and GIL acquisitions, there were some large customer losses to rivals. “Of the customers that we have longer-term agreements with, it's going to come when we have the freight negotiations, basically for the renewal of the contracts, and that's typically happening into the new year,” Ebbe said. “We must make it through the tender season, and then we can really start to focus on the growth.” But also waiting for ocean tender season is rival Kuehne + Nagel, and the Swiss-based forwarder claimed during its own Q3 call Thursday to have already made inroads into DSV’s air freight customer base. “I can confirm we have taken advantage of that merger in air freight, and it has benefited us,” K + N CEO Stefan Paul told analysts. Paul said ocean freight came with two cargo request-for-quotation (RFQ) cycles while air freight shippers decided on a monthly or quarterly basis. “The share of wallet has moved much quicker on the air freight business where the purchasing guidance is more obvious than in sea freight, but that should come in the next RFQ cycle,” he said. Global headwinds hit forwarder results Both DSV and Kuehne + Nagel in their Q3 results highlighted significant global headwinds fanned by US tariffs and geopolitics. Boosted by the DB Schenker business, DSV’s Q3 revenue reached $11.7 billion, up 63% year over year, while gross profit increased 76% to $3 billion. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were up 23% at $842 million, while net profit of $335 million was down 24% year over year. Volume became increasingly volatile during the third quarter, particularly in ocean freight. Although overall volume was up 52% at just over 1 million TEUs, 404,000 TEUs of that was contributed by DB Schenker. Organic volume that excluded Schenker was down 5% year over year. In air freight, the volume grew 64% in the third quarter to 579,000 metric tons, with DB Schenker contributing 232,000 metric tons. Organic volume was flat. DSV reiterated that expected synergies from DB Schenker would be about $1.4 billion by the end of 2028, with an expected financial cost of about $124 million for the full-year 2025 based on the assumption that 30% of the integration will be completed by year-end. DSV has lowered the top range of its full-year profit expectation from $3.34 billion to $3.19 billion but maintained its lower EBIT level at $3.05 billion. K + N to slash jobs as yield pressure grows Kuehne + Nagel also lowered its EBIT forecast, and now expects profit of $1.6 billion in 2025, down from the previous expectation of just over $2 billion. The forwarder said overcapacity in the ocean trade, negative currency effects and a drop in volume in the third quarter were placing heavy pressure on air and ocean yields. Third-quarter revenue of $7.6 billion was down 7% year over year, EBIT of $358 million declined 37% and net profit was down 36% at $259 million. K + N handled 1.1 million TEUs in the third quarter, flat compared with the same period last year. But the excess ocean capacity dragged down gross profit per TEU by 15% to $688. In air freight, the forwarder handled 564,000 metric tons, up 7% year over year, although gross profit per 100 kilograms fell 13% to $90. Kuehne + Nagel aims to mitigate its declining profitability through cost cuts of $251 million that will see between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs lost as the forwarder increases automation and digitalization across its global network. “Challenging external factors are forcing us to sustainably and permanently improve our efficiency and performance culture,” Paul noted. “With the launch of group-wide cost reduction measures, we are now taking action to safeguard our cost base.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Redecking project on Los Angeles harbor bridge to begin in early 2026

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Cosco, OOCL incurred over $40 million in initial US port fees

Asia-Europe spot rates defy carrier efforts to lift prices above contract levels

LNG increasingly alternative fuel of choice for container lines

Recent Commentary

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Top 5 Most Read Stories