<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The conflict could also spur increased spending on ports and landside infrastructure in the Middle East as investors seek to develop alternative transport solutions to avoid areas that have been closed or heavily impacted by the hostilities, executives said Thursday on a pair of webinars.</div>

The conflict could also spur increased spending on ports and landside infrastructure in the Middle East as investors seek to develop alternative transport solutions to avoid areas that have been closed or heavily impacted by the hostilities, executives said Thursday on a pair of webinars.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Blank sailings, service cancellations and routing changes are among the likely impacts on container shipping in the coming months from the Middle East war, shipping executives and analysts said Thursday. Longer-term, potential oil shortages could significantly affect global manufacturing, curtailing container volumes, they said. The conflict could also spur increased spending on ports and landside infrastructure in the Middle East as investors seek to develop alternative transport solutions to avoid areas, including the Strait of Hormuz, that have been closed or heavily impacted by the hostilities. The potential consequences of the US and Israel war with Iran were outlined in separate webinars Thursday hosted by ocean carrier Hapag-Lloyd and maritime consultancy Drewry. To date, the Iran war has had a limited impact on global trade except for escalating oil prices, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said during the carrier-backed event. Jansen pointed out the carrier and shippers have come together to agree on alternative transport options, including road transport, for freight in the Gulf so that “92% of cargo that was stuck now has a clear delivery date.” A month ago, Habben Jansen said the war in the Middle East <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">had raised Hapag-Lloyd’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week</a>, a reality he said was “not something that you can sustain for very long.” The consequences of a protracted conflict are more severe with higher oil prices and oil shortages curtailing production of fertilizers, foodstuffs, plastics and manufactured goods such as shoes and electronics that use oil derivatives. Asia and the Indian sub-continent are especially susceptible to oil-related disruptions because of their heavy reliance on Middle East crude imports, shipments that have largely stopped following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Asia relies on the Middle East for about 60% of its total crude oil imports, while about 55% of India’s oil comes from the region. Björn Vang Jensen, a Dubai-based former executive vice president and global head of ocean at EasySpeed International Logistics, said the impact of the disruptions would be felt in the coming months. With the crop sowing season about to start across the Indian sub-continent, Asia fertilizer shortages will result in thinner crop yields and higher food prices, he told the Hapag webinar. Shortages are already being felt in Australia, where the federal government has recently secured an emergency supply of 250,000 metric tons of urea fertilizer from Indonesia. That came after Australia’s National Farmers Federation warned that fertilizer shortages and surging fuel costs would reduce the acreage planted, leading to higher food prices. <h3>Year will be a ‘mess’ </h3>Vang Jensen indicated oil shortages could hit manufacturing, especially in Asia, which would affect exports and container volumes. “There may be a peak season, but I doubt it. If there is, it’ll be muted,” he said. “There will be service cancellations, blank sailings, [and] routing changes if the conflict drags on ... the whole year is going to be a mess.” Simon Heaney, Drewry’s senior manager of container research, said the consultancy has now cut its growth forecast for global container port throughput to 1.8%, down from 2.2% in February. “Any further escalation [in the conflict] could force a bigger downgrade,” Heaney said on Drewry’s webinar. “Port throughput growth could sink to between 0.5% and 1.3%, which comes after two years of very strong growth of 6%.” With no sign the Middle East war will end quickly and ongoing uncertainty about the security situation, carriers are in no rush to return to the Red Sea/Suez Canal or the Arabian Sea, executives said. Lars Jensen, an industry analyst and CEO of Vespucci Maritime, told the Hapag-Lloyd webinar that Iran and its allies could easily threaten the Red Sea, especially since it has already closed Hormuz, and on Wednesday seized two container ships belonging to Mediterranean Shipping Co. Even if Iran was to reopen Hormuz, restoring access to the Persian Gulf and its ports, a quick return by ocean carriers was seen as unlikely. “Drewry’s view is that direct container ship sailings into Gulf ports will not happen until a substantive deal is reached and the risk of attack is very low,” Heaney told the Journal of Commerce. On the Drewry webinar, he said the longer-term consequences of the conflict would further entrench carriers to reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. Heaney also thought there would be greater interest in developing ports outside the Strait of Hormuz and upgrading inland infrastructure among the Gulf Cooperation Council, an intergovernmental political and economic union developing the 600-mile Saudi Arabia land bridge railway. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Blank sailings, service cancellations and routing changes are among the likely impacts on container shipping in the coming months from the Middle East war, shipping executives and analysts said Thursday. Longer-term, potential oil shortages could significantly affect global manufacturing, curtailing container volumes, they said. The conflict could also spur increased spending on ports and landside infrastructure in the Middle East as investors seek to develop alternative transport solutions to avoid areas, including the Strait of Hormuz, that have been closed or heavily impacted by the hostilities. The potential consequences of the US and Israel war with Iran were outlined in separate webinars Thursday hosted by ocean carrier Hapag-Lloyd and maritime consultancy Drewry. To date, the Iran war has had a limited impact on global trade except for escalating oil prices, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said during the carrier-backed event. Jansen pointed out the carrier and shippers have come together to agree on alternative transport options, including road transport, for freight in the Gulf so that “92% of cargo that was stuck now has a clear delivery date.” A month ago, Habben Jansen said the war in the Middle East had raised Hapag-Lloyd’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week , a reality he said was “not something that you can sustain for very long.” The consequences of a protracted conflict are more severe with higher oil prices and oil shortages curtailing production of fertilizers, foodstuffs, plastics and manufactured goods such as shoes and electronics that use oil derivatives. Asia and the Indian sub-continent are especially susceptible to oil-related disruptions because of their heavy reliance on Middle East crude imports, shipments that have largely stopped following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Asia relies on the Middle East for about 60% of its total crude oil imports, while about 55% of India’s oil comes from the region. Björn Vang Jensen, a Dubai-based former executive vice president and global head of ocean at EasySpeed International Logistics, said the impact of the disruptions would be felt in the coming months. With the crop sowing season about to start across the Indian sub-continent, Asia fertilizer shortages will result in thinner crop yields and higher food prices, he told the Hapag webinar. Shortages are already being felt in Australia, where the federal government has recently secured an emergency supply of 250,000 metric tons of urea fertilizer from Indonesia. That came after Australia’s National Farmers Federation warned that fertilizer shortages and surging fuel costs would reduce the acreage planted, leading to higher food prices. Year will be a ‘mess’ Vang Jensen indicated oil shortages could hit manufacturing, especially in Asia, which would affect exports and container volumes. “There may be a peak season, but I doubt it. If there is, it’ll be muted,” he said. “There will be service cancellations, blank sailings, [and] routing changes if the conflict drags on ... the whole year is going to be a mess.” Simon Heaney, Drewry’s senior manager of container research, said the consultancy has now cut its growth forecast for global container port throughput to 1.8%, down from 2.2% in February. “Any further escalation [in the conflict] could force a bigger downgrade,” Heaney said on Drewry’s webinar. “Port throughput growth could sink to between 0.5% and 1.3%, which comes after two years of very strong growth of 6%.” With no sign the Middle East war will end quickly and ongoing uncertainty about the security situation, carriers are in no rush to return to the Red Sea/Suez Canal or the Arabian Sea, executives said. Lars Jensen, an industry analyst and CEO of Vespucci Maritime, told the Hapag-Lloyd webinar that Iran and its allies could easily threaten the Red Sea, especially since it has already closed Hormuz, and on Wednesday seized two container ships belonging to Mediterranean Shipping Co. Even if Iran was to reopen Hormuz, restoring access to the Persian Gulf and its ports, a quick return by ocean carriers was seen as unlikely. “Drewry’s view is that direct container ship sailings into Gulf ports will not happen until a substantive deal is reached and the risk of attack is very low,” Heaney told the Journal of Commerce. On the Drewry webinar, he said the longer-term consequences of the conflict would further entrench carriers to reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. Heaney also thought there would be greater interest in developing ports outside the Strait of Hormuz and upgrading inland infrastructure among the Gulf Cooperation Council, an intergovernmental political and economic union developing the 600-mile Saudi Arabia land bridge railway. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines

Asia-Europe

International ports

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Container shipping faces blank sailings, falling demand from prolonged Iran war

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The jump in domestic intermodal volumes shows how quickly freight can move to rail when truckload pricing increases, but whether that shift sustains depends on how railroads handle the surge in cargo.</div>

The jump in domestic intermodal volumes shows how quickly freight can move to rail when truckload pricing increases, but whether that shift sustains depends on how railroads handle the surge in cargo.

<div class="phx-topic">North American railroads hauled more than 785,000 domestic containers in March, the third-highest monthly total on record and the strongest March ever, new data shows, as shippers shifted more freight from truckload to intermodal to offset rising highway transportation costs. The jump in domestic intermodal volumes shows how quickly freight can move to rail when truckload pricing increases. But the sustainability of that shift will depend on whether railroads can shed the stigma of service meltdowns that occurred five years ago during the pandemic-related freight surge. The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) reported March domestic volumes grew 9.5% year over year. That came as intermodal providers Knight-Swift Transportation and J.B. Hunt Transport Services reported more than 8% growth last month. IANA also reported that first-quarter domestic intermodal volumes rose 4% over the first quarter of 2025. “We are more optimistic today than we were in January in terms of truck conversion opportunities — primarily in our domestic intermodal business,” Maryclare Kenney, CSX Transportation’s executive vice president of sales, said on the railroad’s earnings call Wednesday. Union Pacific Railroad (UP) reported a first-quarter company record for domestic intermodal, while CSX said total intermodal volume, including international business, rose 6% year over year during the same period. Neither railroad breaks out intermodal volume by container size, but IANA said domestic intermodal traffic in the eastern US jumped nearly 10% year over year in Q1. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="3fd5fdb9-63a9-4a2b-95a1-9fb56e3d7e4b"></dynamic-object></div>Rail visibility provider RailState said UP’s domestic intermodal volume in Southern California climbed more than 20% year over year in the first quarter. CSX, J.B. Hunt, Knight-Swift and Union Pacific all expect domestic intermodal volumes to remain strong in the second quarter as truckload rates rise. The Journal of Commerce forecasts that domestic intermodal volumes will increase 3% to 4.5% year over year in the second quarter, based on an analysis of historical trends. The robust volume outlook comes as Knight-Swift said contract truckload rates could rise by as much as low-double-digit percentages this year, increasing the likelihood of further conversion to intermodal, if railroads can maintain reliable service. Trucking rates have climbed sharply since December due to a combination of severe winter weather, regulatory crackdowns that have canceled the licenses of certain immigrant truck drivers, enhanced enforcement of English language proficiency of all drivers, and surging fuel costs because of the war with Iran. <h3>Intermodal pricing will follow trucking, eventually </h3>Intermodal pricing has yet to respond as sharply as truckload rates, reflecting the usual lag between changes in highway and rail pricing. The Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index shows only modest growth in intermodal contract rates through March 31, not enough to match broader inflation in the US. “We are getting some improvement in rate — not near what you are getting on the truckload side — but some improvement,” Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said during an earnings call Wednesday. “We expect intermodal to be profitable and to see that improve as the cycle strengthens.” UP said raising intermodal rates depends first on service; railroads can charge shippers more if they deliver a product that provides clear advantages for shippers. “We sell to Denver, we sell Salt Lake City, we sell Santa Teresa [El Paso] and into Mexico,” UP CEO Jim Vena said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce on Thursday. “Price is not always the number that is most important for customers. Many look at it as a full supply chain solution.” Vena said maintaining service also includes constant communication with partners including Hub Group, Knight-Swift, Schneider National, STG Logistics, and other intermodal marketing companies and intermodal shippers. “Our operations department doesn’t make a change without having sales understanding the impact, and sales doesn’t talk about changing freight flows without operations tied into the process,” Vena said. “That’s how we communicate with our customers.” <h3>More growth comes with Howard Street Tunnel </h3>CSX also revealed that double-stack intermodal trains will begin moving through the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/csx-restarts-baltimore-tunnel-service-for-double-stack-in-2026-6087384">as soon as next week</a>, expanding service options on a key East Coast corridor. The railroad expects the change to cut a full day off transit times to New Jersey for freight originating in Chicago and for traffic handed off from BNSF Railway in the western US. The savings would come by routing Midwest cargo through Baltimore instead of sending trains through Buffalo and central New York before turning south to New Jersey. CSX’s Kenney said some intermodal growth could come quickly, particularly along the Interstate 95 corridor, but other freight will take longer to win because annual contracts, rather than operational readiness alone, determine cargo flows. “We have been talking to our channel partners and shippers for a while about [Howard Street]; they are very excited about it,” Kenney said. “We are coming to the tail end of this year’s bid season, but we are seeing some traction, and that will continue to build over the course of the next year or so.” Similar to UP, the test for CSX is whether it can maintain reliable service as volumes rise. The railroad has already absorbed a 15% increase in container lifts at its terminal in Fairburn, Georgia, outside Atlanta. Multiple intermodal marketing companies told the Journal of Commerce that truck turn times for retrieving containers at the terminal have ballooned since April 1 amid the higher volumes. “We are focused on continuous improvement and continue to invest in our intermodal facilities to ensure we have the capacity to support customer demand while maintaining service our customers can count on,” CSX said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

North American railroads hauled more than 785,000 domestic containers in March, the third-highest monthly total on record and the strongest March ever, new data shows, as shippers shifted more freight from truckload to intermodal to offset rising highway transportation costs. The jump in domestic intermodal volumes shows how quickly freight can move to rail when truckload pricing increases. But the sustainability of that shift will depend on whether railroads can shed the stigma of service meltdowns that occurred five years ago during the pandemic-related freight surge. The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) reported March domestic volumes grew 9.5% year over year. That came as intermodal providers Knight-Swift Transportation and J.B. Hunt Transport Services reported more than 8% growth last month. IANA also reported that first-quarter domestic intermodal volumes rose 4% over the first quarter of 2025. “We are more optimistic today than we were in January in terms of truck conversion opportunities — primarily in our domestic intermodal business,” Maryclare Kenney, CSX Transportation’s executive vice president of sales, said on the railroad’s earnings call Wednesday. Union Pacific Railroad (UP) reported a first-quarter company record for domestic intermodal, while CSX said total intermodal volume, including international business, rose 6% year over year during the same period. Neither railroad breaks out intermodal volume by container size, but IANA said domestic intermodal traffic in the eastern US jumped nearly 10% year over year in Q1. Rail visibility provider RailState said UP’s domestic intermodal volume in Southern California climbed more than 20% year over year in the first quarter. CSX, J.B. Hunt, Knight-Swift and Union Pacific all expect domestic intermodal volumes to remain strong in the second quarter as truckload rates rise. The Journal of Commerce forecasts that domestic intermodal volumes will increase 3% to 4.5% year over year in the second quarter, based on an analysis of historical trends. The robust volume outlook comes as Knight-Swift said contract truckload rates could rise by as much as low-double-digit percentages this year, increasing the likelihood of further conversion to intermodal, if railroads can maintain reliable service. Trucking rates have climbed sharply since December due to a combination of severe winter weather, regulatory crackdowns that have canceled the licenses of certain immigrant truck drivers, enhanced enforcement of English language proficiency of all drivers, and surging fuel costs because of the war with Iran. Intermodal pricing will follow trucking, eventually Intermodal pricing has yet to respond as sharply as truckload rates, reflecting the usual lag between changes in highway and rail pricing. The Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index shows only modest growth in intermodal contract rates through March 31, not enough to match broader inflation in the US. “We are getting some improvement in rate — not near what you are getting on the truckload side — but some improvement,” Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said during an earnings call Wednesday. “We expect intermodal to be profitable and to see that improve as the cycle strengthens.” UP said raising intermodal rates depends first on service; railroads can charge shippers more if they deliver a product that provides clear advantages for shippers. “We sell to Denver, we sell Salt Lake City, we sell Santa Teresa [El Paso] and into Mexico,” UP CEO Jim Vena said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce on Thursday. “Price is not always the number that is most important for customers. Many look at it as a full supply chain solution.” Vena said maintaining service also includes constant communication with partners including Hub Group, Knight-Swift, Schneider National, STG Logistics, and other intermodal marketing companies and intermodal shippers. “Our operations department doesn’t make a change without having sales understanding the impact, and sales doesn’t talk about changing freight flows without operations tied into the process,” Vena said. “That’s how we communicate with our customers.” More growth comes with Howard Street Tunnel CSX also revealed that double-stack intermodal trains will begin moving through the Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore as soon as next week , expanding service options on a key East Coast corridor. The railroad expects the change to cut a full day off transit times to New Jersey for freight originating in Chicago and for traffic handed off from BNSF Railway in the western US. The savings would come by routing Midwest cargo through Baltimore instead of sending trains through Buffalo and central New York before turning south to New Jersey. CSX’s Kenney said some intermodal growth could come quickly, particularly along the Interstate 95 corridor, but other freight will take longer to win because annual contracts, rather than operational readiness alone, determine cargo flows. “We have been talking to our channel partners and shippers for a while about [Howard Street]; they are very excited about it,” Kenney said. “We are coming to the tail end of this year’s bid season, but we are seeing some traction, and that will continue to build over the course of the next year or so.” Similar to UP, the test for CSX is whether it can maintain reliable service as volumes rise. The railroad has already absorbed a 15% increase in container lifts at its terminal in Fairburn, Georgia, outside Atlanta. Multiple intermodal marketing companies told the Journal of Commerce that truck turn times for retrieving containers at the terminal have ballooned since April 1 amid the higher volumes. “We are focused on continuous improvement and continue to invest in our intermodal facilities to ensure we have the capacity to support customer demand while maintaining service our customers can count on,” CSX said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

Soaring truck rates power major rebound in domestic intermodal volume

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ocean carriers are unable to evacuate the containers quickly due to operational restrictions and/or landside constraints at alternative ports of discharge in the United Arab Emirates and Oman.</div>

Ocean carriers are unable to evacuate the containers quickly due to operational restrictions and/or landside constraints at alternative ports of discharge in the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

<div class="phx-topic">Indian ports offering temporary shelter to stranded Middle East-bound containers are grappling with multiple operational challenges. Notably, the pileup of rerouted hazardous or dangerous cargo containers on dock, especially at Nhava Sheva (JNPA), has become a serious concern for Indian authorities, local sources say. That is because ocean carriers are unable to evacuate the containers quickly due to operational restrictions and/or landside constraints at alternative ports of discharge in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman. Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE and Sohar in Oman, which have become the supply chain lifeline for trades into the Persian Gulf during the war, are prioritizing general dry cargo handling. Additionally, vessels calling at Omani ports must pre-declare that they carry no dangerous goods. According to data from industry sources, a leading European liner alone is holding about 600 TEUs of rerouted hazardous loads at Nhava Sheva as part of recent trade diversions, exposing the dock to potential safety risks. Sources told the Journal of Commerce that the port authority there has sounded alarm bells through stakeholders about the urgency of clearing accumulated dangerous boxes, saying the cargo could become a ticking time bomb if it continues to be stacked up inside. Responding to that pressure, some carriers are now said to be exploring an alternative evacuation option via the Saudi Red Sea port of Jeddah. Adding to the alarm, the Nhava Sheva region reported multiple incidents of fires breaking out in off-site container storage depots over the past week, although the specifics of the cause were not immediately known. Nhava Sheva’s transshipment volumes in March swelled to 121,247 TEUs, up from 34,883 TEUs in February before the war began, data shows. JNPA was unavailable for comment. <h3>Hazmat exports a concern, too </h3>Mundra, Kandla and Pipavav are the other Indian ports holding Middle East-bound hazmat boxes, albeit fewer than Nhava Sheva, sources say. The predicament of carriers facing Middle East port woes extends to the storage of local/gateway hazmat bookings — mostly Indian chemical exports — already picked up for loading. Asian regional operators typically have a stronger appetite for hazmat handling, so they likely also have such volumes rerouted to India. One major factor driving that specialized shipping activity is the growing scale of lithium battery exports from China to the Middle East for renewable energy and electric vehicle needs, which have now accelerated due to the oil supply shock caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Indian ports offering temporary shelter to stranded Middle East-bound containers are grappling with multiple operational challenges. Notably, the pileup of rerouted hazardous or dangerous cargo containers on dock, especially at Nhava Sheva (JNPA), has become a serious concern for Indian authorities, local sources say. That is because ocean carriers are unable to evacuate the containers quickly due to operational restrictions and/or landside constraints at alternative ports of discharge in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman. Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE and Sohar in Oman, which have become the supply chain lifeline for trades into the Persian Gulf during the war, are prioritizing general dry cargo handling. Additionally, vessels calling at Omani ports must pre-declare that they carry no dangerous goods. According to data from industry sources, a leading European liner alone is holding about 600 TEUs of rerouted hazardous loads at Nhava Sheva as part of recent trade diversions, exposing the dock to potential safety risks. Sources told the Journal of Commerce that the port authority there has sounded alarm bells through stakeholders about the urgency of clearing accumulated dangerous boxes, saying the cargo could become a ticking time bomb if it continues to be stacked up inside. Responding to that pressure, some carriers are now said to be exploring an alternative evacuation option via the Saudi Red Sea port of Jeddah. Adding to the alarm, the Nhava Sheva region reported multiple incidents of fires breaking out in off-site container storage depots over the past week, although the specifics of the cause were not immediately known. Nhava Sheva’s transshipment volumes in March swelled to 121,247 TEUs, up from 34,883 TEUs in February before the war began, data shows. JNPA was unavailable for comment. Hazmat exports a concern, too Mundra, Kandla and Pipavav are the other Indian ports holding Middle East-bound hazmat boxes, albeit fewer than Nhava Sheva, sources say. The predicament of carriers facing Middle East port woes extends to the storage of local/gateway hazmat bookings — mostly Indian chemical exports — already picked up for loading. Asian regional operators typically have a stronger appetite for hazmat handling, so they likely also have such volumes rerouted to India. One major factor driving that specialized shipping activity is the growing scale of lithium battery exports from China to the Middle East for renewable energy and electric vehicle needs, which have now accelerated due to the oil supply shock caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Rerouted Middle East hazmat containers spark safety concerns at Indian ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the port still bested Rotterdam, normally Europe’s busiest box port, although neither gateway said it experienced much disruption in the quarter from the war in the Middle East.</div>

But the port still bested Rotterdam, normally Europe’s busiest box port, although neither gateway said it experienced much disruption in the quarter from the war in the Middle East.

<div class="phx-topic">Antwerp-Bruges, typically Europe’s second-busiest container port, nonetheless bested Rotterdam in the first quarter by recording volumes of 3.4 million TEUs, slightly higher than its competing gateway. The volume, though, was a 2.6% decline from the first quarter of 2025, which Antwerp-Bruges on Thursday attributed to bad weather and a four-day labor strike. In tonnage terms, container throughput at the port fell 5.5% to 36.3 million metric tons. “Overall, an estimated 100,000 TEUs [approximately 1.1 million tons] of container throughput was lost,” as some vessels diverted to other ports due to the weather and labor issues, the port said in a statement. “From mid‑February onwards, and particularly in March, volumes recovered, once again highlighting the need for additional container handling capacity,” the port said, as ships could only be partially unloaded due to a lack of spare terminal space. Separately, Ocean Network Express noted that berth congestion at Antwerp-Bruges caused two- and three-day delays to some Asia-Europe sailings in March that were already up to two weeks late. The port said imports from and exports to the Persian Gulf fell 12% and 49%, respectively, in the first quarter, but attributed that to weather‑related disruptions rather than the war in the Middle East. <h3>Rotterdam Q1 volumes flat </h3>Rotterdam, meanwhile, reported largely flat container volume growth in the first quarter. The Rotterdam Port Authority said in a statement Wednesday that first-quarter volumes were 0.3% higher at 3.37 million TEUs, up from 3.36 million TEUs a year earlier. In terms of tonnage, container volumes fell 3.2% to 31.2 million metric tons “due to the sharp 14% rise in exports of empty containers, particularly to Asia,” the port said. Inland container volumes “rose sharply by 11% ... driven primarily by Asia and North America, due to larger call sizes and an expanded range of services,” the port said without giving actual figures. Overall volumes at Rotterdam were lower than expected due to an update to the terminal operating system at the Hutchison Ports ECT Euromax terminal. Work on the system upgrade began in early January, but teething problems have negatively affected terminal productivity and handling capacity for both deep-sea and feeder vessels, Hutchison Ports said in a statement in mid-March. Landside operations have also been impacted with disruption to gate and terminal processes, which led to long waiting times for road transport, Hutchison said at the time. “It is expected that throughput volumes will only recover once the container terminal expansions have been completed,” the port said in its results statement. The port authority said there was limited impact from the war in Iran in the first quarter due to longer sailings made around southern Africa, but noted that could change as the war drags on. The conflict only began during the final month of the first quarter. “The closure of the Strait of Hormuz highlights just how vulnerable global energy flows are; the effects of this were only marginally apparent in the first quarter and may become more pronounced in the second quarter,” Boudewijn Siemons, Port of Rotterdam Authority CEO, said in the statement. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Antwerp-Bruges, typically Europe’s second-busiest container port, nonetheless bested Rotterdam in the first quarter by recording volumes of 3.4 million TEUs, slightly higher than its competing gateway. The volume, though, was a 2.6% decline from the first quarter of 2025, which Antwerp-Bruges on Thursday attributed to bad weather and a four-day labor strike. In tonnage terms, container throughput at the port fell 5.5% to 36.3 million metric tons. “Overall, an estimated 100,000 TEUs [approximately 1.1 million tons] of container throughput was lost,” as some vessels diverted to other ports due to the weather and labor issues, the port said in a statement. “From mid‑February onwards, and particularly in March, volumes recovered, once again highlighting the need for additional container handling capacity,” the port said, as ships could only be partially unloaded due to a lack of spare terminal space. Separately, Ocean Network Express noted that berth congestion at Antwerp-Bruges caused two- and three-day delays to some Asia-Europe sailings in March that were already up to two weeks late. The port said imports from and exports to the Persian Gulf fell 12% and 49%, respectively, in the first quarter, but attributed that to weather‑related disruptions rather than the war in the Middle East. Rotterdam Q1 volumes flat Rotterdam, meanwhile, reported largely flat container volume growth in the first quarter. The Rotterdam Port Authority said in a statement Wednesday that first-quarter volumes were 0.3% higher at 3.37 million TEUs, up from 3.36 million TEUs a year earlier. In terms of tonnage, container volumes fell 3.2% to 31.2 million metric tons “due to the sharp 14% rise in exports of empty containers, particularly to Asia,” the port said. Inland container volumes “rose sharply by 11% ... driven primarily by Asia and North America, due to larger call sizes and an expanded range of services,” the port said without giving actual figures. Overall volumes at Rotterdam were lower than expected due to an update to the terminal operating system at the Hutchison Ports ECT Euromax terminal. Work on the system upgrade began in early January, but teething problems have negatively affected terminal productivity and handling capacity for both deep-sea and feeder vessels, Hutchison Ports said in a statement in mid-March. Landside operations have also been impacted with disruption to gate and terminal processes, which led to long waiting times for road transport, Hutchison said at the time. “It is expected that throughput volumes will only recover once the container terminal expansions have been completed,” the port said in its results statement. The port authority said there was limited impact from the war in Iran in the first quarter due to longer sailings made around southern Africa, but noted that could change as the war drags on. The conflict only began during the final month of the first quarter. “The closure of the Strait of Hormuz highlights just how vulnerable global energy flows are; the effects of this were only marginally apparent in the first quarter and may become more pronounced in the second quarter,” Boudewijn Siemons, Port of Rotterdam Authority CEO, said in the statement. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

Antwerp-Bruges Q1 container volumes dip on poor weather, labor unrest

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is revising the excess empty container fee in place since 2023 as off-dock depots become the focal point of trucker ire.</div>

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is revising the excess empty container fee in place since 2023 as off-dock depots become the focal point of trucker ire.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of New York and New Jersey is expanding the fee it charges ocean carriers for long-dwelling empty containers to include off-dock depots outside of the port, a move that comes as port truckers face increasingly long and frequent delays when returning empties. But trucking interests question whether the now three-year-old fee will ever effectively address the port’s bouts of empties congestion, which impacts shippers downstream through delayed container returns and detention costs. In an April 1 email, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) notified ocean carriers and other stakeholders about the revised marine tariff that will go into effect May 1. One of biggest changes to the tariff is in the “container imbalance fee,” which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ny-nj-readies-revised-fee-plan-for-long-dwelling-empties-5194202">the port first instituted in 2023</a> to incentivize ocean carriers to remove <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-need-to-sweep-up-ny-nj-empties-fmcs-maffei-5204204">the pandemic-era backlog of empty containers</a> at NY-NJ. Along with new language that says ocean carriers must “proactively and regularly manage” their empty container inventories, the revised tariff also references empties lingering at “nearby depots” along with marine terminals on PANYNJ property. The PANYNJ said the container imbalance fee always considered empty containers at off-port depots, even if not explicitly stated in the original tariff. Port Director Bethann Rooney said in a statement the revised tariff reinforces the imbalance fee program, which also has a new formula for calculating the excess empties that face the $100-per-container fee. “The container imbalance fee is a key tool, helping reduce congestion caused by excess empty containers,” Rooney said. “This ... update strengthens the programs with clearer terms and greater accountability, ensuring our port remains one of the most reliable and fluid gateways in the country.” <h3>Hundreds of trucks turned away </h3>The trouble for truckers, though, is reliability and fluidity just outside of the port. APM Terminals contracted with one off-dock facility, Port Newark Depot (PND), in February 2025 to handle the empties from Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd as they started services under the Gemini Cooperation alliance. APM said in a statement the off-dock empty yard “helps preserve on-terminal space for full cargo moves and reduces gate congestion ... while giving truckers the flexibility to pick up empties for export and return them off-terminal when appointments are constrained.” However, Port Newark Depot also faces bouts of congestion and delays that have been frustrating truckers. “The on-street backups waiting to enter the depot have remained significant,” the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers said in its April newsletter, “Desperate truckers often line up several hours before the depot opens, contributing to the backups and causing traffic delays.” While sporadic, Bi-State President Lisa Yakomin said motor carriers have reported that drivers face four- and five-hour wait times to get into Port Newark Depot, putting truckers at risk of running out of service hours. Yakomin said Port Newark Depot is trying to manage the truck queues with a few relief measures, including signs showing the waiting times, adding another container handling machine, and providing return instructions to drivers the day prior. But the sheer volume of empties can still overwhelm the 12-acre facility. Yakomin said a three-mile-long line of approximately 500 trucks was turned away from returning empties on April 10 because Port Newark Depot was full by late afternoon. “APM chronically runs out of appointments for returning empties, so PND is taking the overflow,” Yakomin said. “But if the marine terminal can’t handle it, how can a single depot? Expecting one depot to absorb the empties is unrealistic.” To address the overflow, APM said in a notice last week to truckers that an additional PND lot will be open for receiving Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd empties. The additional four-acre site can handle between 1,600 and 2,000 empty containers. Port truckers have also been directed to a recently opened 35-acre site, World Wide Depot, for returning empty containers belonging to Zim Integrated Shipping Services. That site is on the same plot of land as PND. But Yakomin said more off-dock space for empties will just mean more off-dock congestion. The issue is being exacerbated by instances of truckers receiving conflicting empty return information from an ocean carrier and a marine terminal, she said, adding to motor carrier costs by sending truckers on dry runs. “The more room you give the ocean carriers to dump their empties and let them languish, they will use it,” Yakomin said. <h3>Next step could be FMC </h3>The PANYNJ said in its statement that “while [the current imbalance fee] has been largely effective, some congestion has taken place if and when ocean carriers allow containers to accumulate to a critical point.” To avoid that, the PANYNJ said the new tariff shortens the evaluation period for determining excess empties from one year to six months. However, Yakomin said it is not clear if that represents any improvement, given the previous tariff referenced a quarterly period for assessing excess empties. Despite the previous tariff being in effect since 2023, the port still has bouts of empty congestion, Yakomin said. “The ocean carriers need to be held accountable for not removing their empties in a timely manner,” she said. As for updating the imbalance fee program, “that’s a little too late.” Yakomin said the next recourse is through the US Federal Maritime Commission, which might have leverage into the issue due to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stakeholders-sorting-out-per-diem-bills-under-new-fmc-rules-5192186">the billing questions raised by empty returns</a>. She said it is not clear whether ocean carriers are charging shippers detention on an empty container that had a return location but was full. Inconsistent empty return instructions would also appear to violate FMC rules on providing accurate billing information. Moreover, motor carriers still face being shut out of marine terminals for unpaid detention bills, Yakomin added, a further violation of FMC billing rules. “We would like the FMC to take a look at incorrect billing, but also more clearly define accessibility for an empty return location,” she said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of New York and New Jersey is expanding the fee it charges ocean carriers for long-dwelling empty containers to include off-dock depots outside of the port, a move that comes as port truckers face increasingly long and frequent delays when returning empties. But trucking interests question whether the now three-year-old fee will ever effectively address the port’s bouts of empties congestion, which impacts shippers downstream through delayed container returns and detention costs. In an April 1 email, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) notified ocean carriers and other stakeholders about the revised marine tariff that will go into effect May 1. One of biggest changes to the tariff is in the “container imbalance fee,” which the port first instituted in 2023 to incentivize ocean carriers to remove the pandemic-era backlog of empty containers at NY-NJ. Along with new language that says ocean carriers must “proactively and regularly manage” their empty container inventories, the revised tariff also references empties lingering at “nearby depots” along with marine terminals on PANYNJ property. The PANYNJ said the container imbalance fee always considered empty containers at off-port depots, even if not explicitly stated in the original tariff. Port Director Bethann Rooney said in a statement the revised tariff reinforces the imbalance fee program, which also has a new formula for calculating the excess empties that face the $100-per-container fee. “The container imbalance fee is a key tool, helping reduce congestion caused by excess empty containers,” Rooney said. “This ... update strengthens the programs with clearer terms and greater accountability, ensuring our port remains one of the most reliable and fluid gateways in the country.” Hundreds of trucks turned away The trouble for truckers, though, is reliability and fluidity just outside of the port. APM Terminals contracted with one off-dock facility, Port Newark Depot (PND), in February 2025 to handle the empties from Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd as they started services under the Gemini Cooperation alliance. APM said in a statement the off-dock empty yard “helps preserve on-terminal space for full cargo moves and reduces gate congestion ... while giving truckers the flexibility to pick up empties for export and return them off-terminal when appointments are constrained.” However, Port Newark Depot also faces bouts of congestion and delays that have been frustrating truckers. “The on-street backups waiting to enter the depot have remained significant,” the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers said in its April newsletter, “Desperate truckers often line up several hours before the depot opens, contributing to the backups and causing traffic delays.” While sporadic, Bi-State President Lisa Yakomin said motor carriers have reported that drivers face four- and five-hour wait times to get into Port Newark Depot, putting truckers at risk of running out of service hours. Yakomin said Port Newark Depot is trying to manage the truck queues with a few relief measures, including signs showing the waiting times, adding another container handling machine, and providing return instructions to drivers the day prior. But the sheer volume of empties can still overwhelm the 12-acre facility. Yakomin said a three-mile-long line of approximately 500 trucks was turned away from returning empties on April 10 because Port Newark Depot was full by late afternoon. “APM chronically runs out of appointments for returning empties, so PND is taking the overflow,” Yakomin said. “But if the marine terminal can’t handle it, how can a single depot? Expecting one depot to absorb the empties is unrealistic.” To address the overflow, APM said in a notice last week to truckers that an additional PND lot will be open for receiving Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd empties. The additional four-acre site can handle between 1,600 and 2,000 empty containers. Port truckers have also been directed to a recently opened 35-acre site, World Wide Depot, for returning empty containers belonging to Zim Integrated Shipping Services. That site is on the same plot of land as PND. But Yakomin said more off-dock space for empties will just mean more off-dock congestion. The issue is being exacerbated by instances of truckers receiving conflicting empty return information from an ocean carrier and a marine terminal, she said, adding to motor carrier costs by sending truckers on dry runs. “The more room you give the ocean carriers to dump their empties and let them languish, they will use it,” Yakomin said. Next step could be FMC The PANYNJ said in its statement that “while [the current imbalance fee] has been largely effective, some congestion has taken place if and when ocean carriers allow containers to accumulate to a critical point.” To avoid that, the PANYNJ said the new tariff shortens the evaluation period for determining excess empties from one year to six months. However, Yakomin said it is not clear if that represents any improvement, given the previous tariff referenced a quarterly period for assessing excess empties. Despite the previous tariff being in effect since 2023, the port still has bouts of empty congestion, Yakomin said. “The ocean carriers need to be held accountable for not removing their empties in a timely manner,” she said. As for updating the imbalance fee program, “that’s a little too late.” Yakomin said the next recourse is through the US Federal Maritime Commission, which might have leverage into the issue due to the billing questions raised by empty returns . She said it is not clear whether ocean carriers are charging shippers detention on an empty container that had a return location but was full. Inconsistent empty return instructions would also appear to violate FMC rules on providing accurate billing information. Moreover, motor carriers still face being shut out of marine terminals for unpaid detention bills, Yakomin added, a further violation of FMC billing rules. “We would like the FMC to take a look at incorrect billing, but also more clearly define accessibility for an empty return location,” she said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

North American ports

Marine terminals

NY-NJ updating port tariff to combat rising backlog of empty boxes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">From tariffs to weather to labor shortages, the breakbulk industry has been forced to navigate a series of hurdles of late.</div>

From tariffs to weather to labor shortages, the breakbulk industry has been forced to navigate a series of hurdles of late.

<div class="phx-topic">New Orleans — With breakbulk demands and trade lanes shifting rapidly amid geopolitical events and trade volatility, coping with those challenges will call for communication, partnerships and planning among forwarders, carriers, shippers, and ports, attendees were told Wednesday at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026. “The biggest challenge that we’ve had in the last three months is making sure I have enough tonnage to take the volume increases that we are seeing out of Asia coming into the North America market,” said Brian Odell, lead ocean/barge/port mode specialist for power generation technology manufacturer GE Power, referencing cargo volumes shifting as a result of the conflict in the Middle East. Alain Akavi, managing director for COLI Group, said alongside a significant increase in traffic from Southeast Asia to the US and Europe, a lack of cargo in Europe has presented the biggest problem for the German global logistics provider, particularly when scheduling cargoes in advance. “You want to bring the vessel back in good time,” Akavi said. “But in some regions, you have a lack of cargoes, and then you need to parcel. And every time you parcel, you add more ports to the schedule.” Alex Strogen, chief commercial officer for the Port of Vancouver USA in Washington State, said that on a larger scale, US policy changes have resulted in unforeseen new challenges for the port. “We’re seeing our business impacted by policy in ways that I could not have even imagined in the past,” he said. Strogen cited wind energy cargo that previously had been moving through the port and is now routing through Canada instead. “That’s as a result of some of the shifting federal policies as it relates to wind energy here in the United States,” he said. Strogen also pointed to the effects of tariffs on aluminum imports the port traditionally handled. “Most of our aluminum came from the UAE. That’s a problem,” he said. As a result, Vancouver has focused on diversification as a long-range strategy, moving cargo in more lines of business than competing ports. “When you’ve got a broad base of different products and commodities that you’re handling, we have the luxury to try and shift and pivot,” Strogen said. <h3>‘Big influence’ from weather </h3>More so than geopolitical circumstances, weather is posing a growing challenge for moving cargo and is making it more difficult to ensure fixed-date shipping schedules, said Pieter Flohil, director with Dutch multipurpose/heavy-lift operator Spliethoff. “We’ve had an extreme number of delays this year,” he said. “Even if some people would like to deny it, weather is having a big influence on what we do.” Flohil also cited the industry’s labor shortages as a significant challenge, with fewer young professionals willing to learn the skills and work the hours necessary for a career in the trade. “That’s where we try to work closely with our partners in the port to ensure that they have invested in labor,” he said. “That’s vital for our existence in the future.” A willingness by carriers to listen to and communicate with logistics providers when there are challenges and delays goes a long way to making cargo transport easier, Akavi said. “When we have issues, it’s not on purpose. It happens,” he said. “And understanding is the easiest part.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

New Orleans — With breakbulk demands and trade lanes shifting rapidly amid geopolitical events and trade volatility, coping with those challenges will call for communication, partnerships and planning among forwarders, carriers, shippers, and ports, attendees were told Wednesday at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026. “The biggest challenge that we’ve had in the last three months is making sure I have enough tonnage to take the volume increases that we are seeing out of Asia coming into the North America market,” said Brian Odell, lead ocean/barge/port mode specialist for power generation technology manufacturer GE Power, referencing cargo volumes shifting as a result of the conflict in the Middle East. Alain Akavi, managing director for COLI Group, said alongside a significant increase in traffic from Southeast Asia to the US and Europe, a lack of cargo in Europe has presented the biggest problem for the German global logistics provider, particularly when scheduling cargoes in advance. “You want to bring the vessel back in good time,” Akavi said. “But in some regions, you have a lack of cargoes, and then you need to parcel. And every time you parcel, you add more ports to the schedule.” Alex Strogen, chief commercial officer for the Port of Vancouver USA in Washington State, said that on a larger scale, US policy changes have resulted in unforeseen new challenges for the port. “We’re seeing our business impacted by policy in ways that I could not have even imagined in the past,” he said. Strogen cited wind energy cargo that previously had been moving through the port and is now routing through Canada instead. “That’s as a result of some of the shifting federal policies as it relates to wind energy here in the United States,” he said. Strogen also pointed to the effects of tariffs on aluminum imports the port traditionally handled. “Most of our aluminum came from the UAE. That’s a problem,” he said. As a result, Vancouver has focused on diversification as a long-range strategy, moving cargo in more lines of business than competing ports. “When you’ve got a broad base of different products and commodities that you’re handling, we have the luxury to try and shift and pivot,” Strogen said. ‘Big influence’ from weather More so than geopolitical circumstances, weather is posing a growing challenge for moving cargo and is making it more difficult to ensure fixed-date shipping schedules, said Pieter Flohil, director with Dutch multipurpose/heavy-lift operator Spliethoff. “We’ve had an extreme number of delays this year,” he said. “Even if some people would like to deny it, weather is having a big influence on what we do.” Flohil also cited the industry’s labor shortages as a significant challenge, with fewer young professionals willing to learn the skills and work the hours necessary for a career in the trade. “That’s where we try to work closely with our partners in the port to ensure that they have invested in labor,” he said. “That’s vital for our existence in the future.” A willingness by carriers to listen to and communicate with logistics providers when there are challenges and delays goes a long way to making cargo transport easier, Akavi said. “When we have issues, it’s not on purpose. It happens,” he said. “And understanding is the easiest part.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Breakbulk ports

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk26: Trade lane shifts, policy changes among evolving challenges for breakbulk cargo

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">After more than two decades of inconsistent federal enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving, raising hopes for a safer trucking industry and the general public it serves. </div>

After more than two decades of inconsistent federal enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving, raising hopes for a safer trucking industry and the general public it serves.

<div class="phx-topic">I’ve watched the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) struggle to fulfill its most critical responsibility: ensuring safer roads. This is not a casual observation; it is a conclusion drawn from over 20 years of experience with the data, policies and the consequences that arise from them. The April 12 60 Minutes segment on trucking fraud is a direct consequence of the FMCSA’s failure to listen, engage, or understand the safety risks associated with the industry it is supposed to regulate. This is just one of many examples that underscores its shortcomings. In 2004, the FMCSA announced its flagship safety initiative, CSA 2010. The premise was straightforward: Use data to identify unsafe carriers and reduce crashes. It did not achieve its intended goals. And its failure was not quiet. It was public, repeated and consequential. More than two decades later, the industry still lacks a reliable, trusted framework to identify and avoid unsafe motor carriers. That outcome is extraordinary given the time, funding and regulatory focus dedicated to the effort. CSA is the most visible example, but not the only one. The program relied on data that could not reliably predict crash risk, yet it was promoted as though it could. Investigations by the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office confirmed that key elements were not statistically valid for their intended use, prompting Congressional intervention. This is not refinement, but systemic failure. More broadly, it reflects a pattern: initiatives launched with hope, but without a solid grounding in how safety actually operates in the real world. <h3>A disconnect from the real world </h3>As a member of the FMCSA’s Carrier Safety and Accountability Subcommittee, I saw firsthand how far decision-making had drifted from operational reality. Too often, the FMCSA treated the industry as an adversary rather than a partner. The people responsible for selecting carriers, managing risk and ensuring safe freight movement every day were not meaningfully included. At one point, I renamed my working folder for the CSA Subcommittee meetings to “FMCSA Lies.” This name reflected my frustration with senior-level FMCSA staff who defended positions that contradicted data, real-world situations, and basic common sense. They also seemed unwilling to listen to reason. Meanwhile, the private sector adapted. In 2007, I founded QualifiedCarriers.com to provide actionable safety intelligence to the shipping community on motor carriers. It was later acquired by Highway. The market built what it needed because the FMCSA would not. The problem has been compounded by a focus on issues with little direct impact on safety outcomes. Examining the economics of broker-carrier relationships — such as pricing structures — does not prevent accidents, remove unsafe drivers, or improve training and enforcement. Safety is operational. It comes down to who is behind the wheel, how they were trained, and whether standards are enforced consistently across jurisdictions. Anything else is a distraction. <h3>A turning point </h3>For the first time in 22 years, there are signs that the FMCSA is refocusing on what matters. Under Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs, the agency has begun taking steps that directly affect safety outcomes. In a short period, the FMCSA has shut down deficient commercial drivers’ license (CDL) schools, eliminating pipelines of underqualified drivers; actively enforced English language proficiency rules; begun cooperating with federal law enforcement on fraud, including risks tied to foreign-controlled dispatch operations; and started evaluating prior CDL issuances from substandard programs. The agency is also engaging directly with industry at major events, including the Mid-America Trucking Show and the Truckload Carriers Association annual meeting. At the Truckload Carriers Association meeting in March, Barrs received a standing ovation — not because enforcement is easier, but because it is finally becoming more meaningful. He may be the first FMCSA leader since Annette Sandberg to fully grasp that safety is an operational discipline grounded in qualification, enforcement and measurable outcomes. To the professionals inside the FMCSA: you now have leadership aligned with real-world safety. Support it, build on it and do not revert to frameworks that have already failed. To industry leaders — carriers, brokers, shippers and associations: engage constructively. Demand rigor, share data and hold the agency accountable while reinforcing what works. The path forward is not complicated. Put qualified drivers on the road, remove unqualified ones, enforce standards consistently, and use data that reflects reality. Do that, and safety improves. But we should be clear-eyed about the cost of delay. After more than two decades of inconsistent enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving all at once — tightening standards, removing capacity and straining the system. Had these steps been taken steadily over time, the disruption would be far less — and lives would almost certainly have been saved. For 22 years, the FMCSA drifted. Now it has a chance to lead and an obligation not to waste it again.Jeff Tucker is chairman of the National Industrial Transportation League’s Highway Committee. Contact him at <a href="mailto:jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com">jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com</a>. </div>

I’ve watched the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) struggle to fulfill its most critical responsibility: ensuring safer roads. This is not a casual observation; it is a conclusion drawn from over 20 years of experience with the data, policies and the consequences that arise from them. The April 12 60 Minutes segment on trucking fraud is a direct consequence of the FMCSA’s failure to listen, engage, or understand the safety risks associated with the industry it is supposed to regulate. This is just one of many examples that underscores its shortcomings. In 2004, the FMCSA announced its flagship safety initiative, CSA 2010. The premise was straightforward: Use data to identify unsafe carriers and reduce crashes. It did not achieve its intended goals. And its failure was not quiet. It was public, repeated and consequential. More than two decades later, the industry still lacks a reliable, trusted framework to identify and avoid unsafe motor carriers. That outcome is extraordinary given the time, funding and regulatory focus dedicated to the effort. CSA is the most visible example, but not the only one. The program relied on data that could not reliably predict crash risk, yet it was promoted as though it could. Investigations by the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office confirmed that key elements were not statistically valid for their intended use, prompting Congressional intervention. This is not refinement, but systemic failure. More broadly, it reflects a pattern: initiatives launched with hope, but without a solid grounding in how safety actually operates in the real world. A disconnect from the real world As a member of the FMCSA’s Carrier Safety and Accountability Subcommittee, I saw firsthand how far decision-making had drifted from operational reality. Too often, the FMCSA treated the industry as an adversary rather than a partner. The people responsible for selecting carriers, managing risk and ensuring safe freight movement every day were not meaningfully included. At one point, I renamed my working folder for the CSA Subcommittee meetings to “FMCSA Lies.” This name reflected my frustration with senior-level FMCSA staff who defended positions that contradicted data, real-world situations, and basic common sense. They also seemed unwilling to listen to reason. Meanwhile, the private sector adapted. In 2007, I founded QualifiedCarriers.com to provide actionable safety intelligence to the shipping community on motor carriers. It was later acquired by Highway. The market built what it needed because the FMCSA would not. The problem has been compounded by a focus on issues with little direct impact on safety outcomes. Examining the economics of broker-carrier relationships — such as pricing structures — does not prevent accidents, remove unsafe drivers, or improve training and enforcement. Safety is operational. It comes down to who is behind the wheel, how they were trained, and whether standards are enforced consistently across jurisdictions. Anything else is a distraction. A turning point For the first time in 22 years, there are signs that the FMCSA is refocusing on what matters. Under Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs, the agency has begun taking steps that directly affect safety outcomes. In a short period, the FMCSA has shut down deficient commercial drivers’ license (CDL) schools, eliminating pipelines of underqualified drivers; actively enforced English language proficiency rules; begun cooperating with federal law enforcement on fraud, including risks tied to foreign-controlled dispatch operations; and started evaluating prior CDL issuances from substandard programs. The agency is also engaging directly with industry at major events, including the Mid-America Trucking Show and the Truckload Carriers Association annual meeting. At the Truckload Carriers Association meeting in March, Barrs received a standing ovation — not because enforcement is easier, but because it is finally becoming more meaningful. He may be the first FMCSA leader since Annette Sandberg to fully grasp that safety is an operational discipline grounded in qualification, enforcement and measurable outcomes. To the professionals inside the FMCSA: you now have leadership aligned with real-world safety. Support it, build on it and do not revert to frameworks that have already failed. To industry leaders — carriers, brokers, shippers and associations: engage constructively. Demand rigor, share data and hold the agency accountable while reinforcing what works. The path forward is not complicated. Put qualified drivers on the road, remove unqualified ones, enforce standards consistently, and use data that reflects reality. Do that, and safety improves. But we should be clear-eyed about the cost of delay. After more than two decades of inconsistent enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving all at once — tightening standards, removing capacity and straining the system. Had these steps been taken steadily over time, the disruption would be far less — and lives would almost certainly have been saved. For 22 years, the FMCSA drifted. Now it has a chance to lead and an obligation not to waste it again. Jeff Tucker is chairman of the National Industrial Transportation League’s Highway Committee. Contact him at jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com .

Truckload

Trucking labor

How FMCSA missed the mark on safety — and how it can get it right

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">GLP-1 weight loss drugs are the most visible example of a force reshaping freight that supply chains weren’t built to detect, writes Paul Tonsager. </div>

GLP-1 weight loss drugs are the most visible example of a force reshaping freight that supply chains weren’t built to detect, writes Paul Tonsager.

<div class="phx-topic">Plus-size apparel is contracting. The numbers are in the earnings calls — store closures accelerating, revenues declining, and CEOs attributing the cause directly to GLP-1 weight loss medications. Approximately 25% of customers at major plus-size retailers are actively losing weight and deferring purchases until they reach their goal size. For freight operators, the translation is straightforward: fewer container bookings out of Bangladesh, softening elastane import volumes from South Korea and China, rising return flows through apparel distribution centers, and athleisure volume shifting to different origins, different factories, different lanes. That’s the GLP-1 story in freight terms. But the more important question isn’t what GLP-1 does to one commodity flow. It’s what GLP-1 represents — and whether the industry is paying attention to the category it belongs to. <h3>A different kind of demand shift </h3>Supply chains are inference machines. They watch what moved last season and build a model of what will move next. Carrier contracts, network design, capacity commitments, inventory positioning — all of them are calibrated to demand cycles that move in human decision-time. A trend emerges. Shippers respond. Freight adjusts. That’s the model. GLP-1 doesn’t fit the model. The consumer isn’t choosing differently based on preference. Their body is changing on a pharmaceutical timeline with no seasonal pattern and no historical precedent in any demand planning system. The signal isn’t coming from the market. It’s coming from a lab. That’s the category: structural demand shifts originating outside the market. And GLP-1 is not the only one in play. <h3>The pattern repeating </h3>The electric vehicle transition is doing to auto parts freight what GLP-1 is doing to apparel — but slower and at far larger scale. An internal combustion vehicle contains approximately 30,000 parts. An EV eliminates approximately 10,000 of them. Transmissions, exhaust systems, fuel injectors — the freight lanes serving these components are in structural decline. The lanes serving battery materials — lithium, cobalt, copper — are being built in real time, often on entirely different corridors with different modal requirements. Carriers and third-party logistics providers (3PLs) who built capacity around internal combustion engine component flows are holding assets against a demand base that is shrinking by design. Food and beverage may be the next GLP-1 impact larger than apparel. If 23% of US households are on these medications — up four points in a single year, according to Circana — and consuming meaningfully fewer calories, the freight infrastructure built around the old consumption baseline is exposed. Bulk grain movements, refrigerated less-than-truckload networks, warehouse footprint, replenishment frequency — all sized to a caloric demand curve that is quietly bending downward. The volume impact hasn’t fully materialized. It will. Remote work ran the same playbook earlier this decade. Office-bound freight flows — commercial furniture, facilities supplies, workplace technology, food service — didn’t disappear. They redistributed to suburbs and residential addresses in patterns that no demand planning model had anticipated. Last-mile density assumptions broke. The signal came from a public health event, not a consumer preference survey. <h3>What the industry is missing </h3>The common thread isn’t the specific force — pharmaceutical, technological, epidemiological. It’s the origin. These signals don’t come from the market. They come from labs, legislatures and external shocks. Freight networks optimized to read market signals — booking velocity, tender acceptance, seasonal lift — are structurally late to detect them. GLP-1 is the most legible example yet because it has a drug name, a measurable penetration curve, and identifiable freight consequences already showing up in origin mix and return volumes. That clarity is unusual. Most structural demand shifts are harder to see until capacity is misaligned, contracts don’t match the freight, and the repositioning cost is already real. The operators who outperform in the next decade won’t necessarily be the ones who move the most freight. They’ll be the ones who developed the capability to read demand signals that don’t originate in the market — and built network flexibility before the curve arrived. GLP-1 is the canary. The question is whether the industry treats it as a one-time anomaly or as a preview of the operating environment it now lives in. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals &amp; Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

Plus-size apparel is contracting. The numbers are in the earnings calls — store closures accelerating, revenues declining, and CEOs attributing the cause directly to GLP-1 weight loss medications. Approximately 25% of customers at major plus-size retailers are actively losing weight and deferring purchases until they reach their goal size. For freight operators, the translation is straightforward: fewer container bookings out of Bangladesh, softening elastane import volumes from South Korea and China, rising return flows through apparel distribution centers, and athleisure volume shifting to different origins, different factories, different lanes. That’s the GLP-1 story in freight terms. But the more important question isn’t what GLP-1 does to one commodity flow. It’s what GLP-1 represents — and whether the industry is paying attention to the category it belongs to. A different kind of demand shift Supply chains are inference machines. They watch what moved last season and build a model of what will move next. Carrier contracts, network design, capacity commitments, inventory positioning — all of them are calibrated to demand cycles that move in human decision-time. A trend emerges. Shippers respond. Freight adjusts. That’s the model. GLP-1 doesn’t fit the model. The consumer isn’t choosing differently based on preference. Their body is changing on a pharmaceutical timeline with no seasonal pattern and no historical precedent in any demand planning system. The signal isn’t coming from the market. It’s coming from a lab. That’s the category: structural demand shifts originating outside the market. And GLP-1 is not the only one in play. The pattern repeating The electric vehicle transition is doing to auto parts freight what GLP-1 is doing to apparel — but slower and at far larger scale. An internal combustion vehicle contains approximately 30,000 parts. An EV eliminates approximately 10,000 of them. Transmissions, exhaust systems, fuel injectors — the freight lanes serving these components are in structural decline. The lanes serving battery materials — lithium, cobalt, copper — are being built in real time, often on entirely different corridors with different modal requirements. Carriers and third-party logistics providers (3PLs) who built capacity around internal combustion engine component flows are holding assets against a demand base that is shrinking by design. Food and beverage may be the next GLP-1 impact larger than apparel. If 23% of US households are on these medications — up four points in a single year, according to Circana — and consuming meaningfully fewer calories, the freight infrastructure built around the old consumption baseline is exposed. Bulk grain movements, refrigerated less-than-truckload networks, warehouse footprint, replenishment frequency — all sized to a caloric demand curve that is quietly bending downward. The volume impact hasn’t fully materialized. It will. Remote work ran the same playbook earlier this decade. Office-bound freight flows — commercial furniture, facilities supplies, workplace technology, food service — didn’t disappear. They redistributed to suburbs and residential addresses in patterns that no demand planning model had anticipated. Last-mile density assumptions broke. The signal came from a public health event, not a consumer preference survey. What the industry is missing The common thread isn’t the specific force — pharmaceutical, technological, epidemiological. It’s the origin. These signals don’t come from the market. They come from labs, legislatures and external shocks. Freight networks optimized to read market signals — booking velocity, tender acceptance, seasonal lift — are structurally late to detect them. GLP-1 is the most legible example yet because it has a drug name, a measurable penetration curve, and identifiable freight consequences already showing up in origin mix and return volumes. That clarity is unusual. Most structural demand shifts are harder to see until capacity is misaligned, contracts don’t match the freight, and the repositioning cost is already real. The operators who outperform in the next decade won’t necessarily be the ones who move the most freight. They’ll be the ones who developed the capability to read demand signals that don’t originate in the market — and built network flexibility before the curve arrived. GLP-1 is the canary. The question is whether the industry treats it as a one-time anomaly or as a preview of the operating environment it now lives in. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals & Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

Trans-Pacific

Supply chain

When the demand signal comes from outside the market

TL PPI

{valueY} 
Y-o-Y: {bls_tl_ppi_year_over_year_change.formatNumber('#.0%')}

Producer Price Indices (PPIs) measure the average change over time in selling prices, including surcharges and other costs, that domestic producers — in this case, truckload carriers — receive for their output — i.e., transportation services. The truckload PPI reflects the dominant role that contract carriage plays in the truckload market, as opposed to transactional rates, which makes up a small portion of industry pricing and PPI data. [BLS](https://www.bls.gov/)

US long-haul truckload producer price index (BLS)

US BLS Long-haul truckload producer price index (PPI) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The varied strategies employed by ocean carriers to manage war-driven volatility in bunker fuel prices are delaying the completion of some 2026–27 service contract negotiations as the key May 1 date looms.</div>

The varied strategies employed by ocean carriers to manage war-driven volatility in bunker fuel prices are delaying the completion of some 2026–27 service contract negotiations as the key May 1 date looms.

<div class="phx-topic">Small to midsize customers say ocean carriers’ handling of bunker fuel surcharges is complicating the timely completion of their 2026–27 trans-Pacific service contracts due to difficulty in comparing how the liners approach the surcharges. While most annual service contracts on the eastbound trans-Pacific typically start May 1, the carrier customers say any delay could force them to ship under costlier spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates until the annual service agreements are signed. Customers, both beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders, say that some carriers want them to agree to open-ended emergency bunker surcharges with no exit clause stipulating when the surcharges will end. “There is no real indicator as to when this is going to go away and how it is going to go away,” a forwarder who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. Bunker surcharges have become a hot-button issue since the war in the Middle East sent oil prices soaring in early March. The traditional bunker adjustment factor (BAF) found in most service contracts is being changed by some carriers from a quarterly to a monthly reset. More recently, some carriers are also levying emergency fuel surcharges on top of the BAFs. A carrier executive said that while some customers may feel carriers are attempting to force them to accept emergency surcharges or are unilaterally changing the BAF to a monthly reset, he believes there is a growing willingness by liners and their customers to reach a mutually acceptable remedy. “There is a mounting effort by most parties to meet in the middle on the level of surcharges,” the executive said. <h3>Emergency bunker surcharges could increase </h3>In his April newsletter, Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said emergency bunker surcharges (EBS) are likely to remain a key wildcard in the trans-Pac for months to come, and they could add significantly to shippers’ costs. “EBS levels are expected to fluctuate significantly,” Monroe said. “In the near term, the EBS could range from $200 to $600 per FEU, with the potential for spikes beyond that if fuel prices surge further. As a result, total landed freight costs may be far less predictable than the base contract rates suggest.” Bunker fuel prices essentially doubled in key global hubs at the start of the war, and although prices have eased a bit in some locations, they are still well above where they were before the conflict. And with no end in sight to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that has effectively blocked the daily transit of 20% of the world’s oil supplies, the specter of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bunker-fuel-shortages-loom-after-us-counter-blocks-strait-of-hormuz-6204678">bunker fuel shortages loom</a>, something that would add further upward pressure on prices. When bunker fuel prices are stable, the traditional BAF quarterly reset works fine for both carriers and their customers, said Rachel Shames, vice president of pricing and procurement at the forwarder CV International. But with some carriers now adjusting bunker prices monthly while adding seemingly open-ended emergency bunker surcharges to the equation, importers and forwarders are at an obvious disadvantage, Shames said “If the surcharge goes up, it should be able to come down when bunkers come down. It’s gotten very confusing,” she said. The more frequent changes in BAFs and EBSs now make it more difficult for forwarders to price their services to their clients in a timely manner, said Ben Coleman, president of forwarder Teampower Logistics. “You just have to accept that [carriers] will adjust their rates downward if bunker costs come down,” Coleman said. “Our main concern is that we want to remain competitive.” In the past, there was always a way to navigate through surcharges, said John Pace, senior manager for global logistics at Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear. “You would circumvent those carriers that were penalizing you with higher costs,” Pace said. “But in this particular case, it seems to be widespread among most carriers. There doesn’t seem to be a strategy that allows you to navigate through this.” <h3>Different carriers, different approaches </h3>A trade director at a consumer products company that imports about 6,000 containers per year said his service contract talks are bogged down by the different approaches carriers are taking to surcharges and how they impact base rates. For example, the source said one major carrier is asking for a $300 emergency fuel surcharge on top of the regular BAF that applies on base rates. But the carrier has not made clear under what circumstances it will remove the fuel surcharge or how it was calculated, he said. Meanwhile, a second major liner is passing along fuel expenses on its carrier haulage moves through an “inland fuel surcharge,” the source said. The carrier provides a formula, albeit one he says is complicated, about how it is calculating the new fee. The second carrier is also presenting shippers with a choice on how their BAF will be calculated, either on a trailing three-month or one-month basis. So, shippers themselves can take the bet on whether they want to ride out fuel volatility for a longer period or benefit from a quick dip in oil prices. “It’s gotten really complicated with all these extra fuel costs,” the trade director said. “We were in line to get a good base rate reduction, but now that’s all hidden by the surcharges.” A national importer of home furnishings who is in his third round of service contract negotiations said importers must be diligent and persistent in talks with carriers to protect against unwanted surcharges. “We pushed back on the emergency bunker surcharges, and we did so successfully,” the source said. <h3>Contract extensions possible </h3>With less than two weeks left before most 2025–26 service contracts end and most 2026–27 contracts take effect, some importers are asking carriers to extend their current contracts at least until mid-May while negotiations on new deals continue. But that’s something that must be done on a carrier-by-carrier basis because not all liners are willing to extend the existing contracts, forwarders say. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56cdc0fc-22a5-4ef9-9e3e-11f96f369c70"></dynamic-object></div>If a carrier refuses to extend the existing contract temporarily, importers will have to pay the current spot rate, which was $2,700 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,700 per FEU as of April 21, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Most midsize importers are currently paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 to the West Coast per their 2025–26 service contracts. “[Some] carriers are extending [existing contract] rates until mid-May,” Monroe said. An industry consultant who formerly served in logistics roles at big-box retailers said most of the larger retailers have finalized their 2026–27 service contracts or are ready to do so. However, smaller importers say they are meeting resistance from some carriers for escape clauses from emergency fuel surcharges. “The smaller ones, they don’t have any leverage,” the consultant said. “They’re at the mercy of the carriers.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com ">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.  Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Small to midsize customers say ocean carriers’ handling of bunker fuel surcharges is complicating the timely completion of their 2026–27 trans-Pacific service contracts due to difficulty in comparing how the liners approach the surcharges. While most annual service contracts on the eastbound trans-Pacific typically start May 1, the carrier customers say any delay could force them to ship under costlier spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates until the annual service agreements are signed. Customers, both beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders, say that some carriers want them to agree to open-ended emergency bunker surcharges with no exit clause stipulating when the surcharges will end. “There is no real indicator as to when this is going to go away and how it is going to go away,” a forwarder who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. Bunker surcharges have become a hot-button issue since the war in the Middle East sent oil prices soaring in early March. The traditional bunker adjustment factor (BAF) found in most service contracts is being changed by some carriers from a quarterly to a monthly reset. More recently, some carriers are also levying emergency fuel surcharges on top of the BAFs. A carrier executive said that while some customers may feel carriers are attempting to force them to accept emergency surcharges or are unilaterally changing the BAF to a monthly reset, he believes there is a growing willingness by liners and their customers to reach a mutually acceptable remedy. “There is a mounting effort by most parties to meet in the middle on the level of surcharges,” the executive said. Emergency bunker surcharges could increase In his April newsletter, Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said emergency bunker surcharges (EBS) are likely to remain a key wildcard in the trans-Pac for months to come, and they could add significantly to shippers’ costs. “EBS levels are expected to fluctuate significantly,” Monroe said. “In the near term, the EBS could range from $200 to $600 per FEU, with the potential for spikes beyond that if fuel prices surge further. As a result, total landed freight costs may be far less predictable than the base contract rates suggest.” Bunker fuel prices essentially doubled in key global hubs at the start of the war, and although prices have eased a bit in some locations, they are still well above where they were before the conflict. And with no end in sight to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that has effectively blocked the daily transit of 20% of the world’s oil supplies, the specter of bunker fuel shortages loom , something that would add further upward pressure on prices. When bunker fuel prices are stable, the traditional BAF quarterly reset works fine for both carriers and their customers, said Rachel Shames, vice president of pricing and procurement at the forwarder CV International. But with some carriers now adjusting bunker prices monthly while adding seemingly open-ended emergency bunker surcharges to the equation, importers and forwarders are at an obvious disadvantage, Shames said “If the surcharge goes up, it should be able to come down when bunkers come down. It’s gotten very confusing,” she said. The more frequent changes in BAFs and EBSs now make it more difficult for forwarders to price their services to their clients in a timely manner, said Ben Coleman, president of forwarder Teampower Logistics. “You just have to accept that [carriers] will adjust their rates downward if bunker costs come down,” Coleman said. “Our main concern is that we want to remain competitive.” In the past, there was always a way to navigate through surcharges, said John Pace, senior manager for global logistics at Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear. “You would circumvent those carriers that were penalizing you with higher costs,” Pace said. “But in this particular case, it seems to be widespread among most carriers. There doesn’t seem to be a strategy that allows you to navigate through this.” Different carriers, different approaches A trade director at a consumer products company that imports about 6,000 containers per year said his service contract talks are bogged down by the different approaches carriers are taking to surcharges and how they impact base rates. For example, the source said one major carrier is asking for a $300 emergency fuel surcharge on top of the regular BAF that applies on base rates. But the carrier has not made clear under what circumstances it will remove the fuel surcharge or how it was calculated, he said. Meanwhile, a second major liner is passing along fuel expenses on its carrier haulage moves through an “inland fuel surcharge,” the source said. The carrier provides a formula, albeit one he says is complicated, about how it is calculating the new fee. The second carrier is also presenting shippers with a choice on how their BAF will be calculated, either on a trailing three-month or one-month basis. So, shippers themselves can take the bet on whether they want to ride out fuel volatility for a longer period or benefit from a quick dip in oil prices. “It’s gotten really complicated with all these extra fuel costs,” the trade director said. “We were in line to get a good base rate reduction, but now that’s all hidden by the surcharges.” A national importer of home furnishings who is in his third round of service contract negotiations said importers must be diligent and persistent in talks with carriers to protect against unwanted surcharges. “We pushed back on the emergency bunker surcharges, and we did so successfully,” the source said. Contract extensions possible With less than two weeks left before most 2025–26 service contracts end and most 2026–27 contracts take effect, some importers are asking carriers to extend their current contracts at least until mid-May while negotiations on new deals continue. But that’s something that must be done on a carrier-by-carrier basis because not all liners are willing to extend the existing contracts, forwarders say. If a carrier refuses to extend the existing contract temporarily, importers will have to pay the current spot rate, which was $2,700 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,700 per FEU as of April 21, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Most midsize importers are currently paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 to the West Coast per their 2025–26 service contracts. “[Some] carriers are extending [existing contract] rates until mid-May,” Monroe said. An industry consultant who formerly served in logistics roles at big-box retailers said most of the larger retailers have finalized their 2026–27 service contracts or are ready to do so. However, smaller importers say they are meeting resistance from some carriers for escape clauses from emergency fuel surcharges. “The smaller ones, they don’t have any leverage,” the consultant said. “They’re at the mercy of the carriers.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .  Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Carriers’ handling of fuel surcharges agitates small, midsize trans-Pac shippers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The terminal operator and port authority will enter a one-year exclusivity period to explore jointly developing and operating the proposed mega terminal that would increase Vancouver’s capacity by 50%. </div>

The terminal operator and port authority will enter a one-year exclusivity period to explore jointly developing and operating the proposed mega terminal that would increase Vancouver’s capacity by 50%.

<div class="phx-topic">Global Container Terminals (GCT) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) will explore the possibility of jointly developing and operating the port’s proposed mega terminal, they announced Tuesday. GCT will also pull its request to develop a new berth at its main Vancouver terminal. GCT and the VFPA said in a joint statement they’ve signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for studying the development of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The MOU will allow the parties to work exclusively over a one-year period “to share information and negotiate in good faith” toward a final development agreement, they said. First scoped out in 2013, Roberts Bank 2 would provide an additional 2.4 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver, which, by some estimates, would near full capacity by the 2030s. Vancouver has nominal capacity of 5 million TEUs currently. The project, for which the VFPA would fund the below-water work, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/planned-vancouver-mega-container-terminal-wins-environmental-clearance-5217090">received environmental approval back in 2023 after a lengthy review</a>. The MOU also marks the official end of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/vancouver-capacity-needs-spark-conflict-among-port-tenant-5223507">GCT’s own plan to expand Vancouver’s capacity</a> by adding a fourth berth to its Deltaport terminal. GCT had pitched the fourth berth that would add 2 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver as a faster option than building a new terminal. However, GCT said that as part of the Roberts Bank MOU with the port authority, it has permanently withdrawn its application for developing the berth. “Increasing container capacity is essential to meeting future demand, improving supply chain resilience, and maintaining Canada’s global competitiveness,” the joint statement said. “The MOU reflects a shared commitment to strengthen Canada’s trade infrastructure by exploring opportunities for partnership to deliver RBT2 in a coordinated, efficient, and commercially viable manner.” The move by GCT and the VFPA to advance the terminal project comes amid Canada’s broader push to diversify its trade away from the US. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/canada-looks-for-new-container-gateways-for-decoupling-from-us-6122714">Canada’s government has pledged that billions in funds</a> will be made available to trade-related infrastructure projects over the coming years. In the country’s east, the Port of Montreal has started land grading and below-water work on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-world-to-build-big-ship-container-terminal-in-montreal-6077326">its planned Contrecoeur container terminal</a>, which DP World is slated to co-develop and operate. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Global Container Terminals (GCT) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) will explore the possibility of jointly developing and operating the port’s proposed mega terminal, they announced Tuesday. GCT will also pull its request to develop a new berth at its main Vancouver terminal. GCT and the VFPA said in a joint statement they’ve signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for studying the development of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The MOU will allow the parties to work exclusively over a one-year period “to share information and negotiate in good faith” toward a final development agreement, they said. First scoped out in 2013, Roberts Bank 2 would provide an additional 2.4 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver, which, by some estimates, would near full capacity by the 2030s. Vancouver has nominal capacity of 5 million TEUs currently. The project, for which the VFPA would fund the below-water work, received environmental approval back in 2023 after a lengthy review . The MOU also marks the official end of GCT’s own plan to expand Vancouver’s capacity by adding a fourth berth to its Deltaport terminal. GCT had pitched the fourth berth that would add 2 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver as a faster option than building a new terminal. However, GCT said that as part of the Roberts Bank MOU with the port authority, it has permanently withdrawn its application for developing the berth. “Increasing container capacity is essential to meeting future demand, improving supply chain resilience, and maintaining Canada’s global competitiveness,” the joint statement said. “The MOU reflects a shared commitment to strengthen Canada’s trade infrastructure by exploring opportunities for partnership to deliver RBT2 in a coordinated, efficient, and commercially viable manner.” The move by GCT and the VFPA to advance the terminal project comes amid Canada’s broader push to diversify its trade away from the US. Canada’s government has pledged that billions in funds will be made available to trade-related infrastructure projects over the coming years. In the country’s east, the Port of Montreal has started land grading and below-water work on its planned Contrecoeur container terminal , which DP World is slated to co-develop and operate. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

GCT, Vancouver port to jointly study Roberts Bank terminal project

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The possibility can’t be ruled out that carrier-controlled port operations will commence in the next few years at Charleston and Savannah, where the state-operated model has prevailed for decades.</div>

The possibility can’t be ruled out that carrier-controlled port operations will commence in the next few years at Charleston and Savannah, where the state-operated model has prevailed for decades.

<div class="phx-topic">Cargo routed through East Coast ports, including in the Southeast, will likely move increasingly through carrier-controlled terminals, the result of a long-term transformation of the regional port industry now in full swing. The possibility can’t be ruled out, for example, that carrier-controlled port operations will commence in the next few years at Charleston and Savannah, where the state-operated model has prevailed for decades. Meanwhile, Maher Terminals, the largest terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mahers-next-buyer-faces-billions-in-upgrades-decisions-on-capacity-6165792">is being prepped for sale</a> by Macquarie Infrastructure Partners with a possible price tag of $4 billion to $5 billion, according to one source, a sum within reach for terminal-hungry carriers flush with cash after a six-year run of profitability since the pandemic. A more favorable climate for expansion of carrier-controlled terminals along the East Coast stems from three main changes: deep-pocketed carriers aggressively pursuing terminal deals; favorable lease terms achieved by the Port of New York and New Jersey at multiple terminals, which is inspiring other East Coast ports to consider similar deals; and clarity around the dockworker union gaining jobs at new terminals once they are opened. That means the Savannah Container Terminal being developed across the river from the Georgia Ports Authority’s (GPA’s) sprawling Garden City Terminal as a newly opened facility is guaranteed to be manned by workers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) under the current collective bargaining agreement. Because the state cannot, by law, employ unionized dockworkers directly, the facility may be leased out to a third-party operator, possibly one aligned to an ocean carrier. It also means the Hugh Leatherman terminal at Charleston, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/sc-ports-strikes-deal-with-ila-to-fully-open-leatherman-marine-terminal-5192280">where the port waged an unsuccessful legal battle to keep the ILA out</a>, could fall into the hands of a carrier under a lease process being considered by the port. In Baltimore, Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) is a partner in a project to develop Sparrows Point, a former industrial site, into a 165-acre terminal. <h3>Terminals mean stable, profitable assets </h3>Ultimately, carrier investment in East Coast terminals will expand capacity in a region that has seen little of it while providing shippers in certain cases with the potential for improved service stemming from carriers’ direct control over their facilities. For carriers, controlling terminals means investing in typically stable and profitable assets made more attractive by their own volumes, as well as priority berthing and cargo handling rates. Carriers directing ships and volumes to their own facilities put the ports where they are located at an advantage versus those ports where carriers are just customers. The natural strategic alignment between carriers and terminals is why carrier-controlled facilities go back years. At New York-New Jersey, such operations go back to the origins of container shipping in the late 1950s. Maersk has been a terminal operator at the port since the 1970s, while OOCL controlled Howland Hook on Staten Island from 1995 to 2006. In pursuing terminal deals, carriers are hardly dissuaded by a 62% pay increase achieved by dockworkers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-ratifies-new-six-year-deal-with-higher-entry-pay-automation-protection-5951338">in the last contract ratified in early 2025</a>, nor their inability in the US market to collect terminal handling charges to offset what many carriers say are the highest longshore costs in the world. <h3>Southeast ports noticing recent NY-NJ success </h3>Recent deals at NY-NJ that have been favorable to the port have caught the attention of ports in the Southeast. The 2023 sale of Global Container Terminals’ <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-closes-deal-for-two-new-york-new-jersey-marine-terminals-5226315">Bayonne and Howland Hook terminals to CMA CGM</a>, which outbid other carriers including Hapag-Lloyd, was noteworthy because it committed the world’s third-largest carrier to infrastructure improvements, normally the responsibility of the port, while CMA CGM also agreed to share detention and demurrage revenues with the port authority. Macquarie in December of last year <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/macquarie-seals-deal-for-new-maher-lease-at-nynj-through-2063-6137751">renewed its lease for Maher terminals through 2063</a>, agreeing to terms that include responsibility for upkeep of its wharves and berths, while committing to increase capacity at the largest East Coast port by volume. That lease renewal will set the stage for a formal sale process now getting underway, according to multiple sources. While NY-NJ is in a strong negotiating position due to the lack of efficient alternatives to serve the large and wealthy New York metropolitan region, how much leverage other ports will have is an open question. For example, allowing an independent or carrier-controlled terminal operator free reign to compete for cargo could undermine states’ common user ports, yet curtailing their activities within lease terms could make those leases less attractive, sources tell JOC.com. For NY-NJ, the lease terms demanded in return for approving the CMA-CGM purchase stem from the 2000 effort by what was then called Maersk Sealand to bid out its East Coast hub operations, which ultimately secured a favorable lease at New York-New Jersey. According to one source, the controversial move by the carrier led to below-market lease rates that the port was determined to reverse in recent lease negotiations and sale approvals. Such insistence by the port <a href="https://www.stattimes.com/news/apm-terminals-to-retain-full-ownership-of-port-elizabeth-facility">led to the 2014 collapse of a deal by APM Terminals</a> to sell a stake in its Elizabeth terminal to Brookfield, an infrastructure investor. At Savannah, GPA President and CEO Griff Lynch said in an interview that the port authority is hoping to secure a permit for Savannah Container Terminal this year, with construction slated to begin a few years later in advance of the facility going online sometime in the early 2030s, depending on an assessment of demand. Lynch said the port is exploring a “partnership” approach whereby the GPA becomes a landlord, leasing the terminal to a third-party terminal operator, not an operator closely aligned to the port similar to the approach at the Port of Virginia, where the port owns the terminal operator, Virginia International Terminals. There would be less concern about the possibility of a third-party operator aggressively competing with Garden City, he said, if the overall result is more cargo, jobs and economic development opportunity for the state of Georgia. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Cargo routed through East Coast ports, including in the Southeast, will likely move increasingly through carrier-controlled terminals, the result of a long-term transformation of the regional port industry now in full swing. The possibility can’t be ruled out, for example, that carrier-controlled port operations will commence in the next few years at Charleston and Savannah, where the state-operated model has prevailed for decades. Meanwhile, Maher Terminals, the largest terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, is being prepped for sale by Macquarie Infrastructure Partners with a possible price tag of $4 billion to $5 billion, according to one source, a sum within reach for terminal-hungry carriers flush with cash after a six-year run of profitability since the pandemic. A more favorable climate for expansion of carrier-controlled terminals along the East Coast stems from three main changes: deep-pocketed carriers aggressively pursuing terminal deals; favorable lease terms achieved by the Port of New York and New Jersey at multiple terminals, which is inspiring other East Coast ports to consider similar deals; and clarity around the dockworker union gaining jobs at new terminals once they are opened. That means the Savannah Container Terminal being developed across the river from the Georgia Ports Authority’s (GPA’s) sprawling Garden City Terminal as a newly opened facility is guaranteed to be manned by workers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) under the current collective bargaining agreement. Because the state cannot, by law, employ unionized dockworkers directly, the facility may be leased out to a third-party operator, possibly one aligned to an ocean carrier. It also means the Hugh Leatherman terminal at Charleston, where the port waged an unsuccessful legal battle to keep the ILA out , could fall into the hands of a carrier under a lease process being considered by the port. In Baltimore, Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) is a partner in a project to develop Sparrows Point, a former industrial site, into a 165-acre terminal. Terminals mean stable, profitable assets Ultimately, carrier investment in East Coast terminals will expand capacity in a region that has seen little of it while providing shippers in certain cases with the potential for improved service stemming from carriers’ direct control over their facilities. For carriers, controlling terminals means investing in typically stable and profitable assets made more attractive by their own volumes, as well as priority berthing and cargo handling rates. Carriers directing ships and volumes to their own facilities put the ports where they are located at an advantage versus those ports where carriers are just customers. The natural strategic alignment between carriers and terminals is why carrier-controlled facilities go back years. At New York-New Jersey, such operations go back to the origins of container shipping in the late 1950s. Maersk has been a terminal operator at the port since the 1970s, while OOCL controlled Howland Hook on Staten Island from 1995 to 2006. In pursuing terminal deals, carriers are hardly dissuaded by a 62% pay increase achieved by dockworkers in the last contract ratified in early 2025 , nor their inability in the US market to collect terminal handling charges to offset what many carriers say are the highest longshore costs in the world. Southeast ports noticing recent NY-NJ success Recent deals at NY-NJ that have been favorable to the port have caught the attention of ports in the Southeast. The 2023 sale of Global Container Terminals’ Bayonne and Howland Hook terminals to CMA CGM , which outbid other carriers including Hapag-Lloyd, was noteworthy because it committed the world’s third-largest carrier to infrastructure improvements, normally the responsibility of the port, while CMA CGM also agreed to share detention and demurrage revenues with the port authority. Macquarie in December of last year renewed its lease for Maher terminals through 2063 , agreeing to terms that include responsibility for upkeep of its wharves and berths, while committing to increase capacity at the largest East Coast port by volume. That lease renewal will set the stage for a formal sale process now getting underway, according to multiple sources. While NY-NJ is in a strong negotiating position due to the lack of efficient alternatives to serve the large and wealthy New York metropolitan region, how much leverage other ports will have is an open question. For example, allowing an independent or carrier-controlled terminal operator free reign to compete for cargo could undermine states’ common user ports, yet curtailing their activities within lease terms could make those leases less attractive, sources tell JOC.com. For NY-NJ, the lease terms demanded in return for approving the CMA-CGM purchase stem from the 2000 effort by what was then called Maersk Sealand to bid out its East Coast hub operations, which ultimately secured a favorable lease at New York-New Jersey. According to one source, the controversial move by the carrier led to below-market lease rates that the port was determined to reverse in recent lease negotiations and sale approvals. Such insistence by the port led to the 2014 collapse of a deal by APM Terminals to sell a stake in its Elizabeth terminal to Brookfield, an infrastructure investor. At Savannah, GPA President and CEO Griff Lynch said in an interview that the port authority is hoping to secure a permit for Savannah Container Terminal this year, with construction slated to begin a few years later in advance of the facility going online sometime in the early 2030s, depending on an assessment of demand. Lynch said the port is exploring a “partnership” approach whereby the GPA becomes a landlord, leasing the terminal to a third-party terminal operator, not an operator closely aligned to the port similar to the approach at the Port of Virginia, where the port owns the terminal operator, Virginia International Terminals. There would be less concern about the possibility of a third-party operator aggressively competing with Garden City, he said, if the overall result is more cargo, jobs and economic development opportunity for the state of Georgia. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

More carrier-controlled terminal operations could be coming to the East Coast

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ocean carrier said switching up Asia and US East Coast rotations on three trans-Pacific services will provide more reliability and consistency. </div>

The ocean carrier said switching up Asia and US East Coast rotations on three trans-Pacific services will provide more reliability and consistency.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. is reworking its trans-Pacific network starting next month to offer more reliable, direct China services into US Northeast and Southeast ports, while providing coastwide direct service from Southeast Asia. MSC said in a Thursday customer advisory that it is changing some port calls on its three main East Coast services to “enhance service reliability and schedule stability.” The new networks consolidate some China calls and will change some calls to Florida ports. MSC’s Empire Service will drop a Qingdao call, with the service now only calling Shanghai, Ningbo and Busan on the front haul. Empire’s US rotation will drop the ports of Jacksonville and Miami in favor of calls to Norfolk and Port Everglades on the backhaul. The service’s new rotation will commence with the scheduled May 27 departure of the 6,178-TEU MSC Leo VI from Shanghai. The carrier said Empire would be “less exposed to port congestion risks” due to the rotation change. Qingdao will be added to MSC’s Amberjack service into the US Southeast. However, MSC will no longer provide direct service from Yantian and Xiamen but instead focus the service on northeast Asia ports. The service will also replace a call to Norfolk with a call to Jacksonville. MSC said the Amberjack changes would improve transit times and network stability. The new rotation goes into effect with the service’s estimated May 20 departure from Qingdao. MSC also said it would rework its Emerald service from Southeast Asia to drop a call to Taiwan’s Kaohsiung in favor of Xiamen, providing a direct service from that port into the largest US East Coast ports. The new rotation is expected to take effect with the May 18 departure from Singapore of the 7,000-TEU Zim Topaz. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. is reworking its trans-Pacific network starting next month to offer more reliable, direct China services into US Northeast and Southeast ports, while providing coastwide direct service from Southeast Asia. MSC said in a Thursday customer advisory that it is changing some port calls on its three main East Coast services to “enhance service reliability and schedule stability.” The new networks consolidate some China calls and will change some calls to Florida ports. MSC’s Empire Service will drop a Qingdao call, with the service now only calling Shanghai, Ningbo and Busan on the front haul. Empire’s US rotation will drop the ports of Jacksonville and Miami in favor of calls to Norfolk and Port Everglades on the backhaul. The service’s new rotation will commence with the scheduled May 27 departure of the 6,178-TEU MSC Leo VI from Shanghai. The carrier said Empire would be “less exposed to port congestion risks” due to the rotation change. Qingdao will be added to MSC’s Amberjack service into the US Southeast. However, MSC will no longer provide direct service from Yantian and Xiamen but instead focus the service on northeast Asia ports. The service will also replace a call to Norfolk with a call to Jacksonville. MSC said the Amberjack changes would improve transit times and network stability. The new rotation goes into effect with the service’s estimated May 20 departure from Qingdao. MSC also said it would rework its Emerald service from Southeast Asia to drop a call to Taiwan’s Kaohsiung in favor of Xiamen, providing a direct service from that port into the largest US East Coast ports. The new rotation is expected to take effect with the May 18 departure from Singapore of the 7,000-TEU Zim Topaz. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

MSC revamps Asia-USEC network

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The less-than-truckload market is stabilizing, with opportunities for higher prices and profits in the second quarter, but the long-term outlook is still clouded by tariffs and geopolitical conflict.</div>

The less-than-truckload market is stabilizing, with opportunities for higher prices and profits in the second quarter, but the long-term outlook is still clouded by tariffs and geopolitical conflict.

<div class="phx-topic">Fast-rising fuel costs and a long-awaited uptick in demand are pushing less-than-truckload (LTL) pricing toward record highs, adding to shipper supply chain costs. Even if fuel costs drop in coming weeks, shippers shouldn’t expect LTL rates to follow. Both the TD Cowen/AFS LTL Freight Index and the US long-haul LTL producer price index (PPI) last week jumped to record highs, with no sign of decline ahead. Anecdotal reports show daily shipment counts turning north after a long decline in 2024 and 2025. The LTL PPI rose 1.8% in March from February after climbing 0.8% month over month in February and 1.3% in January. On an annualized basis, the PPI rose 7.2% in March, compared with 5.3% and 5.2% year-over-year gains in February and January, respectively. The PPI is a measure of all-inclusive “selling prices,” and fuel surcharges certainly contributed to March’s gain. But LTL costs and rates have remained elevated since 2022, with carrier yield management balancing reduced volumes, according to AFS Logistics.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="8afcfdff-15ff-4ec3-8c50-af1aba47062e"></dynamic-object></div>Although the TD Cowen/AFS LTL Freight Index dropped slightly from the fourth quarter to the first quarter, the index rose year over year and is expected to climb to a new four-year high of 68.4% in the second quarter. “The LTL carriers are in a very unique position — their buckets are being filled from both ends,” said Andy Dyer, CEO of AFS, a third-party freight management company. Those “ends” are the truckload and parcel markets, both of which have seen substantial rate hikes, Dyer said. That’s pushing more freight to the LTL sector. Shippers are “managing the freight, not just paying the freight,” he said. That means they’re more willing to deconsolidate truckload shipments and consolidate parcel moves, and LTL rates that looked high last year now seem more reasonable. <h3>Persistent uncertainty </h3>It’s not clear if the increase in LTL demand will be long-lasting or short-term, or whether it signals a stronger industrial revival or tariff-related inventory reshuffling. For now, the LTL outlook — for providers — is brighter. At regional carrier Pitt Ohio, “bill count is picking up and now revenue is, too,” said Geoff Muessig, the company’s chief marketing officer. In the Northeast, the year got off to an “uneven start,” as successive winter storms swept the region, he said. In February, the Pittsburgh-based carrier saw better results, and demand got stronger in March through the start of the second quarter, Muessig said. “April’s bill count is solid,” he said. “Our same-store sales [shipments with existing customers] are rising. It’s a pleasant place to be.” The change is not a return to the heady years of 2021 through 2023, when post-COVID-19 demand and disruption from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ongoing-yellow-terminal-auction-seen-reshaping-a-smaller-us-ltl-sector-5200878">the failure of LTL provider Yellow</a> sent pricing up by double-digit percentages. But it’s a respite from the freight doldrums of 2023 to 2025. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="92fdaed8-3fc0-4c2e-930f-c63d25bb8976"></dynamic-object></div>An industrial uptick benefiting Pitt Ohio shows in Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Indexes (PMIs) from the Institute of Supply Management (ISM) and S&amp;P Global. The ISM PMI rose 0.3 percentage point to 52.7% in March, the third month for the PMI above the 50% no-change mark. ISM’s new order index remained positive but dropped from 55.8% in February to 53.5% last month. ISM’s production index was 55.1%. The S&amp;P Global US Manufacturing PMI has been above 50% since last August, and higher output and new orders pushed it up 0.7 percentage point to 52.3% in March. That gradual industrial expansion is putting more freight in LTL trailers. XPO and Saia, the US’ fourth- and sixth-largest LTL providers, respectively, both reported an annualized gain in daily shipments in February. Full first-quarter data will be available later this month. Daily shipment counts at FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider in terms of revenue, have fallen 14% since 2023 and dropped 5.7% year over year in the quarter that ended Feb. 28. But the company expects volume to grow again in the midterm. “There are absolutely GDP [gross domestic product] and PMI correlations, and as the market goes, we’ll feel that impact,” CFO Marshall W. Witt said during an <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fedex-freight-plans-diversification-as-spin-off-date-approaches-6201281">April 8 investor day presentation</a> to Wall Street analysts. Carriers are vying more for profit than revenue or pure market share. “Profitable growth is now our North Star,” Witt said. “It aligns our decision-making in our organization around profitability rather than just revenue in isolation.” But they’re also looking for new sources of freight, beyond traditional industrial LTL shippers. LTL providers such as FedEx Freight are adjusting their freight mix, said AFS’ Dyer. “We’re seeing some mix changes in the stuff we’re handing to the LTLs,” he said. <h3>‘Not time to add capacity’ </h3>How long current volume trends will continue is an open question. The LTL market has improved, “but it’s a combination of truckload capacity coming out plus the fuel prices,” said Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group. “LTL carriers should be looking at this as a perfect time to ask how they can use the various forms of technology available right now, including AI [artificial intelligence], to handle more freight with the same physical network,” Jindel said. “It’s not a time to add capacity.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="16105334-c54a-4d51-9403-6d5bac8369c4"></dynamic-object></div>There are signs that higher LTL volume comes from inventory rebalancing, not new demand, said Keith Prather, managing director of Armada Corporate Intelligence. The US-Israel conflict with Iran may squeeze already lean inventories, putting pressure on supply chains and inbound freight, both globally and domestically, Prather said. “I’m not calling for a global supply chain crisis, but I do think stock-outs and some scrambling will take place over the next few quarters,” he said. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz “killed everything way upstream,” Prather said. “All of a sudden, you get inventories that are too lean.” That could spur demand but also crimp production and shipments. “Q2 has the potential to be robust, but do we pay for it in Q3?” he said. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Fast-rising fuel costs and a long-awaited uptick in demand are pushing less-than-truckload (LTL) pricing toward record highs, adding to shipper supply chain costs. Even if fuel costs drop in coming weeks, shippers shouldn’t expect LTL rates to follow. Both the TD Cowen/AFS LTL Freight Index and the US long-haul LTL producer price index (PPI) last week jumped to record highs, with no sign of decline ahead. Anecdotal reports show daily shipment counts turning north after a long decline in 2024 and 2025. The LTL PPI rose 1.8% in March from February after climbing 0.8% month over month in February and 1.3% in January. On an annualized basis, the PPI rose 7.2% in March, compared with 5.3% and 5.2% year-over-year gains in February and January, respectively. The PPI is a measure of all-inclusive “selling prices,” and fuel surcharges certainly contributed to March’s gain. But LTL costs and rates have remained elevated since 2022, with carrier yield management balancing reduced volumes, according to AFS Logistics. Although the TD Cowen/AFS LTL Freight Index dropped slightly from the fourth quarter to the first quarter, the index rose year over year and is expected to climb to a new four-year high of 68.4% in the second quarter. “The LTL carriers are in a very unique position — their buckets are being filled from both ends,” said Andy Dyer, CEO of AFS, a third-party freight management company. Those “ends” are the truckload and parcel markets, both of which have seen substantial rate hikes, Dyer said. That’s pushing more freight to the LTL sector. Shippers are “managing the freight, not just paying the freight,” he said. That means they’re more willing to deconsolidate truckload shipments and consolidate parcel moves, and LTL rates that looked high last year now seem more reasonable. Persistent uncertainty It’s not clear if the increase in LTL demand will be long-lasting or short-term, or whether it signals a stronger industrial revival or tariff-related inventory reshuffling. For now, the LTL outlook — for providers — is brighter. At regional carrier Pitt Ohio, “bill count is picking up and now revenue is, too,” said Geoff Muessig, the company’s chief marketing officer. In the Northeast, the year got off to an “uneven start,” as successive winter storms swept the region, he said. In February, the Pittsburgh-based carrier saw better results, and demand got stronger in March through the start of the second quarter, Muessig said. “April’s bill count is solid,” he said. “Our same-store sales [shipments with existing customers] are rising. It’s a pleasant place to be.” The change is not a return to the heady years of 2021 through 2023, when post-COVID-19 demand and disruption from the failure of LTL provider Yellow sent pricing up by double-digit percentages. But it’s a respite from the freight doldrums of 2023 to 2025. An industrial uptick benefiting Pitt Ohio shows in Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Indexes (PMIs) from the Institute of Supply Management (ISM) and S&P Global. The ISM PMI rose 0.3 percentage point to 52.7% in March, the third month for the PMI above the 50% no-change mark. ISM’s new order index remained positive but dropped from 55.8% in February to 53.5% last month. ISM’s production index was 55.1%. The S&P Global US Manufacturing PMI has been above 50% since last August, and higher output and new orders pushed it up 0.7 percentage point to 52.3% in March. That gradual industrial expansion is putting more freight in LTL trailers. XPO and Saia, the US’ fourth- and sixth-largest LTL providers, respectively, both reported an annualized gain in daily shipments in February. Full first-quarter data will be available later this month. Daily shipment counts at FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider in terms of revenue, have fallen 14% since 2023 and dropped 5.7% year over year in the quarter that ended Feb. 28. But the company expects volume to grow again in the midterm. “There are absolutely GDP [gross domestic product] and PMI correlations, and as the market goes, we’ll feel that impact,” CFO Marshall W. Witt said during an April 8 investor day presentation to Wall Street analysts. Carriers are vying more for profit than revenue or pure market share. “Profitable growth is now our North Star,” Witt said. “It aligns our decision-making in our organization around profitability rather than just revenue in isolation.” But they’re also looking for new sources of freight, beyond traditional industrial LTL shippers. LTL providers such as FedEx Freight are adjusting their freight mix, said AFS’ Dyer. “We’re seeing some mix changes in the stuff we’re handing to the LTLs,” he said. ‘Not time to add capacity’ How long current volume trends will continue is an open question. The LTL market has improved, “but it’s a combination of truckload capacity coming out plus the fuel prices,” said Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group. “LTL carriers should be looking at this as a perfect time to ask how they can use the various forms of technology available right now, including AI [artificial intelligence], to handle more freight with the same physical network,” Jindel said. “It’s not a time to add capacity.” There are signs that higher LTL volume comes from inventory rebalancing, not new demand, said Keith Prather, managing director of Armada Corporate Intelligence. The US-Israel conflict with Iran may squeeze already lean inventories, putting pressure on supply chains and inbound freight, both globally and domestically, Prather said. “I’m not calling for a global supply chain crisis, but I do think stock-outs and some scrambling will take place over the next few quarters,” he said. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz “killed everything way upstream,” Prather said. “All of a sudden, you get inventories that are too lean.” That could spur demand but also crimp production and shipments. “Q2 has the potential to be robust, but do we pay for it in Q3?” he said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Truck brokers

Freight returning to US LTL market as pricing, fuel costs climb higher

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Port of Khor Fakkan “offers a relatively stable operating environment and will serve as the primary discharge hub operations,” Premier Alliance member Yang Ming said in an advisory.</div>

The Port of Khor Fakkan “offers a relatively stable operating environment and will serve as the primary discharge hub operations,” Premier Alliance member Yang Ming said in an advisory.

<div class="phx-topic">The Premier Alliance has tapped Khor Fakkan on the eastern side of the United Arab Emirates as its interim transshipment port for Middle East and Indian cargo on its Middle East-Asia-US West Coast GS2 service. The group, whose members comprise Yang Ming Marine Transport, Ocean Network Express and HMM, suspended calls at Arabian Gulf ports on the GS2 service in March following missile and drone attacks and Iran’s subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Khor Fakkan “offers a relatively stable operating environment and will serve as the primary discharge hub operations” for vessels originally scheduled to call Middle East ports, Yang Ming said in a Thursday customer advisory. “For cargo with final destinations within the Arabian Gulf region, onward transportation will be arranged via feeder vessels or alternative transshipment solutions to the respective final ports of discharge,” it added. The shift to Khor Fakkan comes as Iran’s foreign ministry Friday announced the Strait of Hormuz is now “completely open” to commercial shipping for the duration of the Iran-US ceasefire, although the situation remains murky. “We are currently verifying the recent announcement related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, in terms of its compliance with freedom of navigation for all merchant vessels and secure passage using the IMO established traffic separation scheme,” International Maritime Organization secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said Friday on social media platform X. The Premier Alliance will begin calling at Khor Fakkan next week, with the first ship, the 16,000-TEU HMM Mir, due to berth Sunday and two other ships due to arrive by the end of the month, according to carrier vessel sailing schedules. The alliance has been holding cargo onboard ships for the past month while it decided what to do with Arabian Gulf cargo after attacks made ports such as Saudi Arabia’s Damman and Dubai’s Jebel Ali too risky to use. These ships are thought to include the 13,253-TEU HMM Peridot, which has been in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea since the end of March and is now due to call at Khor Fakkan early next week, according to vessel sailing data Friday. The 13,000-TEU HMM Garnet will be the third ship to call Khor Fakkan, with a scheduled arrival around April 26. The Premier Alliance had also curtailed some sailings to Gulf ports, opting instead to route some eastbound services to the US West Coast from Singapore. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

The Premier Alliance has tapped Khor Fakkan on the eastern side of the United Arab Emirates as its interim transshipment port for Middle East and Indian cargo on its Middle East-Asia-US West Coast GS2 service. The group, whose members comprise Yang Ming Marine Transport, Ocean Network Express and HMM, suspended calls at Arabian Gulf ports on the GS2 service in March following missile and drone attacks and Iran’s subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Khor Fakkan “offers a relatively stable operating environment and will serve as the primary discharge hub operations” for vessels originally scheduled to call Middle East ports, Yang Ming said in a Thursday customer advisory. “For cargo with final destinations within the Arabian Gulf region, onward transportation will be arranged via feeder vessels or alternative transshipment solutions to the respective final ports of discharge,” it added. The shift to Khor Fakkan comes as Iran’s foreign ministry Friday announced the Strait of Hormuz is now “completely open” to commercial shipping for the duration of the Iran-US ceasefire, although the situation remains murky. “We are currently verifying the recent announcement related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, in terms of its compliance with freedom of navigation for all merchant vessels and secure passage using the IMO established traffic separation scheme,” International Maritime Organization secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said Friday on social media platform X. The Premier Alliance will begin calling at Khor Fakkan next week, with the first ship, the 16,000-TEU HMM Mir, due to berth Sunday and two other ships due to arrive by the end of the month, according to carrier vessel sailing schedules. The alliance has been holding cargo onboard ships for the past month while it decided what to do with Arabian Gulf cargo after attacks made ports such as Saudi Arabia’s Damman and Dubai’s Jebel Ali too risky to use. These ships are thought to include the 13,253-TEU HMM Peridot, which has been in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea since the end of March and is now due to call at Khor Fakkan early next week, according to vessel sailing data Friday. The 13,000-TEU HMM Garnet will be the third ship to call Khor Fakkan, with a scheduled arrival around April 26. The Premier Alliance had also curtailed some sailings to Gulf ports, opting instead to route some eastbound services to the US West Coast from Singapore. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container shipping faces blank sailings, falling demand from prolonged Iran war

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Carriers’ handling of fuel surcharges agitates small, midsize trans-Pac shippers

GCT, Vancouver port to jointly study Roberts Bank terminal project

More carrier-controlled terminal operations could be coming to the East Coast

Recent Commentary

How FMCSA missed the mark on safety — and how it can get it right

When the demand signal comes from outside the market

Top 5 Most Read Stories