spring sale pop up.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Anonymous

Events

Gateway

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

Supply chain

Resources

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Special Reports

Press Releases

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

International rail

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Media Kit

Other

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Commentary

Podcasts

Webcasts

Videos

Annual Review and Outlook

Top Rankings

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Platts Containers Update

Top 100 US Exporters

Top 100 US Importers

Top 25 LTL Trucking Companies

Top 25 North American Ports

Top 25 Truckload Companies

Top 40 Container Carriers

Top 50 3PLs

Top 50 Global Container Ports

Top 50 Global Transportation Providers

Top 50 Trucking Companies

Editorial Calendar

Rail Directories

Custom Content

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Strength in the breakbulk and project cargo markets has encouraged a round of new ship orders. </div>

Strength in the breakbulk and project cargo markets has encouraged a round of new ship orders.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Breakbulk vessel operators show little sign of slowing their ordering spree for new ships with a raft of deals made with Chinese shipyards amid continued buoyancy in the multipurpose vessel (MPV) market despite uncertainty caused by the Middle East war. The latest orders build upon the momentum seen at the start of the year when carriers announced a slew of new vessel contracts. AAL Shipping leads the newest batch with a contract at CSSC Huangpu Wenchong Shipyard in Guangzhou, southern China, for two additional 32,000 deadweight metric ton (dwt) Super B-class vessels. The carrier announced the order ahead of the naming of AAL Shipping’s latest Super B-class vessel, AAL Newcastle, due to take place Tuesday. The newest ships, to be named AAL Tianjin and AAL Miami, will take the carrier’s Super B-class fleet to 10 ships when delivered in early 2028. AAL said the AAL Newcastle will be joined by AAL Mumbai in June. Both have been upgraded with higher specification cranes that increase individual lifting capacity to 400 metric tons from 350 metric tons “to increase lifting performance and cargo flexibility.” Other design refinements include a new 26-meter lifting beam, up from the 20 meters deployed on earlier vessels, enabling the handling of elongated structures with greater ease and precision. <h3>Scandinavian orders add to supply picture </h3>Copenhagen-headquartered DS Norden, meanwhile, is also further expanding its MPV fleet with an order for two 23,000-dwt ice-class ships at Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group in Wuhan, central China, with delivery expected in 2028. The ships will be equipped with two 80-metric ton cranes and will be able to operate on biofuel. The ships have been ordered against a long-term 10-year contract of affreightment with Swedish mining giant LKAB. The ships also mark Norden’s entry into the specialized ice-class segment and will expand “the solutions we can offer customers with transport needs in northern and ice-prone waters,” Norden CEO Jan Rindbo said in a statement announcing the deal Friday. They take Norden’s vessel order backlog to 28 ships after it agreed in January to charter up to eight 17,400-dwt MPVs from Singapore-headquartered Wealth Holdings Shipping, which contracted the ships from China’s Jiangsu Haitong Shipyard against the Norden charter.   <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="be82ad49-72b7-49f2-967f-0107567aab6f"></dynamic-object></div>Norway’s Halten Bulk has ordered four 7,100-dwt MPVs from China’s Jiangsu Soho Marine Heavy Industry in Yizheng, Jiangsu province, in a move that will almost double the carrier’s fleet from five to nine ships when delivered in 2028 and 2029. The battery-hybrid powered ships will be capable of carrying 400 TEUs. Fellow Scandinavian owner Godby Shipping has also confirmed a deal for up to four 6,200-dwt roll-on/roll-off ships at the Yantai CIMC Raffles Offshore shipyard in Shandong province, northern China. The contract comprises a firm order for two Stream Roro 1700-class ships for delivery in September 2028 and January 2029, with options for two similar ships. The carrier said the methanol-ready, battery-hybrid ships will have 1,700 linear meters of deck space capable of carrying trucks, cars, forestry products and other breakbulk and project cargoes. MPV/heavy-lift fleet growth is expected to average about 1.3% per year through 2030, according to Journal of Commerce estimates. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Breakbulk vessel operators show little sign of slowing their ordering spree for new ships with a raft of deals made with Chinese shipyards amid continued buoyancy in the multipurpose vessel (MPV) market despite uncertainty caused by the Middle East war. The latest orders build upon the momentum seen at the start of the year when carriers announced a slew of new vessel contracts. AAL Shipping leads the newest batch with a contract at CSSC Huangpu Wenchong Shipyard in Guangzhou, southern China, for two additional 32,000 deadweight metric ton (dwt) Super B-class vessels. The carrier announced the order ahead of the naming of AAL Shipping’s latest Super B-class vessel, AAL Newcastle, due to take place Tuesday. The newest ships, to be named AAL Tianjin and AAL Miami, will take the carrier’s Super B-class fleet to 10 ships when delivered in early 2028. AAL said the AAL Newcastle will be joined by AAL Mumbai in June. Both have been upgraded with higher specification cranes that increase individual lifting capacity to 400 metric tons from 350 metric tons “to increase lifting performance and cargo flexibility.” Other design refinements include a new 26-meter lifting beam, up from the 20 meters deployed on earlier vessels, enabling the handling of elongated structures with greater ease and precision. Scandinavian orders add to supply picture Copenhagen-headquartered DS Norden, meanwhile, is also further expanding its MPV fleet with an order for two 23,000-dwt ice-class ships at Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group in Wuhan, central China, with delivery expected in 2028. The ships will be equipped with two 80-metric ton cranes and will be able to operate on biofuel. The ships have been ordered against a long-term 10-year contract of affreightment with Swedish mining giant LKAB. The ships also mark Norden’s entry into the specialized ice-class segment and will expand “the solutions we can offer customers with transport needs in northern and ice-prone waters,” Norden CEO Jan Rindbo said in a statement announcing the deal Friday. They take Norden’s vessel order backlog to 28 ships after it agreed in January to charter up to eight 17,400-dwt MPVs from Singapore-headquartered Wealth Holdings Shipping, which contracted the ships from China’s Jiangsu Haitong Shipyard against the Norden charter.   Norway’s Halten Bulk has ordered four 7,100-dwt MPVs from China’s Jiangsu Soho Marine Heavy Industry in Yizheng, Jiangsu province, in a move that will almost double the carrier’s fleet from five to nine ships when delivered in 2028 and 2029. The battery-hybrid powered ships will be capable of carrying 400 TEUs. Fellow Scandinavian owner Godby Shipping has also confirmed a deal for up to four 6,200-dwt roll-on/roll-off ships at the Yantai CIMC Raffles Offshore shipyard in Shandong province, northern China. The contract comprises a firm order for two Stream Roro 1700-class ships for delivery in September 2028 and January 2029, with options for two similar ships. The carrier said the methanol-ready, battery-hybrid ships will have 1,700 linear meters of deck space capable of carrying trucks, cars, forestry products and other breakbulk and project cargoes. MPV/heavy-lift fleet growth is expected to average about 1.3% per year through 2030, according to Journal of Commerce estimates. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Multipurpose vessel ordering spree continues with raft of new deals

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

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

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

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

ONE adds to Asian terminal holdings with Laem Chabang deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drone strike closes key Middle East transit hub of Salalah

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

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

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

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

Hormuz closure triggers ‘havoc’ for project logistics supply chain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dry Van

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

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

Refrigerated

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

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

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

US Truckload spot rates weekly (DAT) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters that most of the new costs were coming from rising bunker fuel prices, with other areas such as insurance, container storage and inland transportation adding millions of dollars to weekly expenses. </div>

Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters that most of the new costs were coming from rising bunker fuel prices, with other areas such as insurance, container storage and inland transportation adding millions of dollars to weekly expenses.

<div class="phx-topic">The war in the Middle East has raised Hapag-Lloyd’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week, a reality that “is not something that you can sustain for very long,” the carrier’s CEO said Thursday. Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters during a briefing that most of the new costs were coming from rising bunker fuel prices, with other areas such as insurance, container storage and inland transportation adding millions of dollars to weekly expenses. “To counterbalance that, we have introduced a number of contingency and emergency fuel surcharges,” he said. “This is not to collect more than the extra costs, but an extra cost of $40 million or $50 million per week is not something that you can sustain for very long.” While the disruption caused by the war has spilled over to ports outside the Persian Gulf, unlike the COVID-19 pandemic, the conflict is affecting only 3% of global container traffic, according to Hapag-Lloyd. But from a cost perspective, the impact is immense and growing. Emergency fuel surcharges <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-reignites-tussle-between-ocean-carriers-cargo-owners-over-fuel-surcharges-6188632">have been rolled out by several carriers</a> on top of quarterly bunker adjustment factors that were no match for fuel prices that have doubled since the conflict started on Feb. 28. Still, the practice drew swift condemnation from Global Shippers’ Council director James Hookham. “Sure, shipping lines need to watch their costs just like the rest of us but it’s not as if they don’t have working capital reserves of their own,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “The speed with which these charges are being imposed makes it nigh impossible for shippers to recover them from their own customers or suppliers.” On Monday, the US Federal Maritime Commission <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers</a> to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. <h3>Ships trapped in the Gulf </h3>Hapag-Lloyd, meanwhile, has six fully crewed vessels that remain trapped in the Persian Gulf that the carrier is urgently trying to move out of harm’s way. There are unconfirmed reports that Iran is asking carriers to pay a “toll fee” of $1 million or $2 million per ship to guarantee safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz; Habben Jansen was asked whether Hapag-Lloyd would pay Tehran to secure its six ships. “We are pursuing every avenue that we can to try to get the ships and the crews safely out, and I would not rule out anything at this point,” he said. Habben Jansen declined to speculate on what a worst-case scenario around bunker fuel shortages would look like should Hormuz remain effectively closed, but he acknowledged that the longer the conflict continued, the greater the impact on the industry. “What we see is a lot of extra costs that we have to absorb for now, and in the short term that has a negative impact,” he said. “Longer term, it’s still difficult to judge, but we assume that we will be able to recover that extra cost and that’s why we are sticking with our annual forecast.” Hapag-Lloyd has left its 2026 profitability forecast unchanged, but left a wide gap between the high and low ends of the financial guidance. It expects group earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization to be between $1.1 billion and $3.1 billion, and earnings before interest and taxes to be between a $1.5 billion loss and a $500 million profit. The carrier has forecast that global volumes in 2026 will grow 3% year over year against market capacity growth of 4%. Hapag-Lloyd is trying to ringfence the Middle East conflict from an operational perspective to allow the rest of its network to run as normal, but it is being done in an environment of significant uncertainty, Habben Jansen acknowledged. “There are many things that could happen as a consequence of this conflict and it depends on how long it takes, because it could also have a negative effect on global demand or it could have a positive effect if it ends soon,” he said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The war in the Middle East has raised Hapag-Lloyd’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week, a reality that “is not something that you can sustain for very long,” the carrier’s CEO said Thursday. Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters during a briefing that most of the new costs were coming from rising bunker fuel prices, with other areas such as insurance, container storage and inland transportation adding millions of dollars to weekly expenses. “To counterbalance that, we have introduced a number of contingency and emergency fuel surcharges,” he said. “This is not to collect more than the extra costs, but an extra cost of $40 million or $50 million per week is not something that you can sustain for very long.” While the disruption caused by the war has spilled over to ports outside the Persian Gulf, unlike the COVID-19 pandemic, the conflict is affecting only 3% of global container traffic, according to Hapag-Lloyd. But from a cost perspective, the impact is immense and growing. Emergency fuel surcharges have been rolled out by several carriers on top of quarterly bunker adjustment factors that were no match for fuel prices that have doubled since the conflict started on Feb. 28. Still, the practice drew swift condemnation from Global Shippers’ Council director James Hookham. “Sure, shipping lines need to watch their costs just like the rest of us but it’s not as if they don’t have working capital reserves of their own,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “The speed with which these charges are being imposed makes it nigh impossible for shippers to recover them from their own customers or suppliers.” On Monday, the US Federal Maritime Commission unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. Ships trapped in the Gulf Hapag-Lloyd, meanwhile, has six fully crewed vessels that remain trapped in the Persian Gulf that the carrier is urgently trying to move out of harm’s way. There are unconfirmed reports that Iran is asking carriers to pay a “toll fee” of $1 million or $2 million per ship to guarantee safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz; Habben Jansen was asked whether Hapag-Lloyd would pay Tehran to secure its six ships. “We are pursuing every avenue that we can to try to get the ships and the crews safely out, and I would not rule out anything at this point,” he said. Habben Jansen declined to speculate on what a worst-case scenario around bunker fuel shortages would look like should Hormuz remain effectively closed, but he acknowledged that the longer the conflict continued, the greater the impact on the industry. “What we see is a lot of extra costs that we have to absorb for now, and in the short term that has a negative impact,” he said. “Longer term, it’s still difficult to judge, but we assume that we will be able to recover that extra cost and that’s why we are sticking with our annual forecast.” Hapag-Lloyd has left its 2026 profitability forecast unchanged, but left a wide gap between the high and low ends of the financial guidance. It expects group earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization to be between $1.1 billion and $3.1 billion, and earnings before interest and taxes to be between a $1.5 billion loss and a $500 million profit. The carrier has forecast that global volumes in 2026 will grow 3% year over year against market capacity growth of 4%. Hapag-Lloyd is trying to ringfence the Middle East conflict from an operational perspective to allow the rest of its network to run as normal, but it is being done in an environment of significant uncertainty, Habben Jansen acknowledged. “There are many things that could happen as a consequence of this conflict and it depends on how long it takes, because it could also have a negative effect on global demand or it could have a positive effect if it ends soon,” he said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

War adding $40-$50 million per week to Hapag-Lloyd's costs: CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Stocks that were already in the fuel supply chain and en route to refueling hubs when the Middle East conflict started have now been delivered, and those ports are running down their inventories.</div>

Stocks that were already in the fuel supply chain and en route to refueling hubs when the Middle East conflict started have now been delivered, and those ports are running down their inventories.

<div class="phx-topic">The availability of bunker fuel in Asia for ocean carriers is manageable for now but beginning to tighten, and global suppliers warn that shortages will be felt around the world should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed to ship traffic for much longer. Meanwhile, carriers are deploying a range of strategic operational and financial measures to mitigate the potential fuel shortages and the rising prices that will result. These include slow steaming to conserve fuel, filling ships in the US and Europe and transferring bunkers to Asia, and levying emergency fuel surcharges to recover rising costs. The implications of widening fuel shortages on container shipping operations could be profound, according to Erik Deventak, chief technology and data officer at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “In a worst-case scenario, any bunker shortage will hit supply because a carrier cannot run as many ships,” he said. “There’s no way around it and carriers will eventually need to reduce supply, likely through blank sailings.” While Deventak added a caveat — “realistically, no one is fully aware of what the scale of the bunker shortages could be” — he said the carriers would need to be selective on which services they were prepared to operate and which would be suspended. Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson Tim Seifert said the impact on the carrier’s operations so far was “limited and manageable,” but that Hapag was taking contingency measures to mitigate potential shortfalls. “We are taking on more fuel in ports where we would normally buy less to keep stock levels high,” he said. “As a fallback, we are considering bunker-only calls, but this has not been necessary so far.” About one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and refined products — 20 million barrels per day — is exported via the Strait of Hormuz, but that slowed to a trickle after the US and Israel began air strikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Export volumes of crude and refined products exiting the strait are currently at less than 10% of pre-war levels, forcing fuel suppliers across the region to reduce or shut down production. Bunker stocks that were already in the fuel supply chain and en route to refueling hubs when the war started have now been delivered, and those ports are running down their inventories. With Hormuz essentially unavailable to commercial shipping, there is no replenishment inbound. “If the Strait of Hormuz were to remain inaccessible, we would expect the market to tighten further — not only across Asia, but also into Europe and potentially parts of Africa,” Mikkel Kannegaard, head of global supply at Bunker Holding Group, the world’s largest bunker fuel supplier and trader, told the Journal of Commerce. “In Asia, availability remains acceptable so far, although supply uncertainty and backwardation are pushing up the delivery premiums,” he added. “At this stage, supply in Singapore and China appears to be holding up and looks manageable into April.” Backwardation is a market structure in which the spot price of a commodity is higher than its futures price, which can be a sign of supply disruptions. <h3>Emergency reserves inbound </h3>To address disruptions to oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East, the 32 member countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA) on March 11 agreed to make 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves available to the market. While the market has welcomed the measure, the fuel-strapped markets in Asia will not see the emergency reserves for at least two months, according to Sebastiaan Kosman, founder of bunker fuel analytics firm Spotbarge. “Even if you ship the oil now from the Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp area [known as ARA] to Asia, it will take two months to get the product loaded, shipped and refined,” Kosman said. Container shipping uses a range of different fuels, predominantly very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO), high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) and low-sulfur marine gasoil (MGO). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) demand is increasing as more dual-fuel ships hit the water, but its usage depends on its price differential compared with conventional fuels, particularly MGO. Bunker fuel prices soared when the war began but have fallen over the past few days. The March 24 prices from Singapore assessed by industry platform Ship &amp; Bunker show VLSFO up 71% since late February at $894 per metric ton but down 10% since the start of the week. MGO is up 151% at $1,784/metric ton but has fallen 8% this week. The largest pricing decline was from HSFO. After rising 146% since the end of February to a high of $1,073/mt on March 9, the heavy fuel dropped steadily to $712/mt by March 24. Rotterdam fuel prices have also fallen this week and are substantially lower than Singapore. As of March 24, VLSFO was at $757/mt, up 54% compared with Feb. 27; MGO at $1,334/mt was almost double the pre-conflict level, and HSFO was up 63% at $714/mt, according to Ship &amp; Bunker. Kosman said Singapore’s crude oil comes from the Middle East and the supply chain disruption was widening the bunker fuel price differential between Singapore and Rotterdam. “That already gives you indication that Singapore is really tight,” he noted. “If Hormuz remains closed in the long term, bunkers in Singapore, Korea or Japan will be empty way earlier than terminals in Antwerp and Rotterdam.” <h3>Offsetting fuel price impact </h3>To recover bunker costs that comprise half their operating expenses, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-reignites-tussle-between-ocean-carriers-cargo-owners-over-fuel-surcharges-6188632">carriers have rolled out emergency fuel surcharges</a> on top of the quarterly bunker adjustment factors (BAFs) that were no match for fuel prices that doubled in two weeks. Analysts at investment bank Jefferies said in a note to customers this week that rates would need to strengthen by 15% to fully offset the impact of rising fuel prices, which would be challenging given the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scrapping-strategy-looms-large-in-2026-as-carriers-manage-growing-oversupply-6168918">excess capacity in the market.</a>On Monday, the US Federal Maritime Commission <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rejects-requests-by-carriers-to-waive-waiting-period-for-middle-east-surcharges-6191881">unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers</a> to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ef167537-108b-4e1b-ac11-43e99f815839"></dynamic-object></div>Meanwhile, spot rates on the Asia outbound trade lanes rose through March but have softened on Asia-Europe and flattened or even fallen on some trans-Pacific routes, according to the various pricing indexes tracked by the Journal of Commerce. Asia-North Europe rates this week are 41% above their pre-war levels at $2,800 per FEU, while Asia-Mediterranean rates are up 34% at $3,800/FEU, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. However, prices on both trade lanes softened in the past week. Although rates from Asia to the US West and East coasts rose in the first week of the war, they have since fallen below Feb. 28 levels. Deventak said although the rising price of fuel will drive up the price of shipping in the short term, he noted that the underlying market fundamentals remained in place — an oversupply of vessel capacity and demand that has been softened by a weak global economy. “We have seen the initial shock to container shipping, but the ultimate supply and demand structure has not massively changed since the conflict escalated, and it is this supply-demand balance that carries most weight in driving freight rates rather than carriers’ costs,” he said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The availability of bunker fuel in Asia for ocean carriers is manageable for now but beginning to tighten, and global suppliers warn that shortages will be felt around the world should the Strait of Hormuz remain closed to ship traffic for much longer. Meanwhile, carriers are deploying a range of strategic operational and financial measures to mitigate the potential fuel shortages and the rising prices that will result. These include slow steaming to conserve fuel, filling ships in the US and Europe and transferring bunkers to Asia, and levying emergency fuel surcharges to recover rising costs. The implications of widening fuel shortages on container shipping operations could be profound, according to Erik Deventak, chief technology and data officer at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “In a worst-case scenario, any bunker shortage will hit supply because a carrier cannot run as many ships,” he said. “There’s no way around it and carriers will eventually need to reduce supply, likely through blank sailings.” While Deventak added a caveat — “realistically, no one is fully aware of what the scale of the bunker shortages could be” — he said the carriers would need to be selective on which services they were prepared to operate and which would be suspended. Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson Tim Seifert said the impact on the carrier’s operations so far was “limited and manageable,” but that Hapag was taking contingency measures to mitigate potential shortfalls. “We are taking on more fuel in ports where we would normally buy less to keep stock levels high,” he said. “As a fallback, we are considering bunker-only calls, but this has not been necessary so far.” About one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and refined products — 20 million barrels per day — is exported via the Strait of Hormuz, but that slowed to a trickle after the US and Israel began air strikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Export volumes of crude and refined products exiting the strait are currently at less than 10% of pre-war levels, forcing fuel suppliers across the region to reduce or shut down production. Bunker stocks that were already in the fuel supply chain and en route to refueling hubs when the war started have now been delivered, and those ports are running down their inventories. With Hormuz essentially unavailable to commercial shipping, there is no replenishment inbound. “If the Strait of Hormuz were to remain inaccessible, we would expect the market to tighten further — not only across Asia, but also into Europe and potentially parts of Africa,” Mikkel Kannegaard, head of global supply at Bunker Holding Group, the world’s largest bunker fuel supplier and trader, told the Journal of Commerce. “In Asia, availability remains acceptable so far, although supply uncertainty and backwardation are pushing up the delivery premiums,” he added. “At this stage, supply in Singapore and China appears to be holding up and looks manageable into April.” Backwardation is a market structure in which the spot price of a commodity is higher than its futures price, which can be a sign of supply disruptions. Emergency reserves inbound To address disruptions to oil markets stemming from the war in the Middle East, the 32 member countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA) on March 11 agreed to make 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves available to the market. While the market has welcomed the measure, the fuel-strapped markets in Asia will not see the emergency reserves for at least two months, according to Sebastiaan Kosman, founder of bunker fuel analytics firm Spotbarge. “Even if you ship the oil now from the Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp area [known as ARA] to Asia, it will take two months to get the product loaded, shipped and refined,” Kosman said. Container shipping uses a range of different fuels, predominantly very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO), high sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) and low-sulfur marine gasoil (MGO). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) demand is increasing as more dual-fuel ships hit the water, but its usage depends on its price differential compared with conventional fuels, particularly MGO. Bunker fuel prices soared when the war began but have fallen over the past few days. The March 24 prices from Singapore assessed by industry platform Ship & Bunker show VLSFO up 71% since late February at $894 per metric ton but down 10% since the start of the week. MGO is up 151% at $1,784/metric ton but has fallen 8% this week. The largest pricing decline was from HSFO. After rising 146% since the end of February to a high of $1,073/mt on March 9, the heavy fuel dropped steadily to $712/mt by March 24. Rotterdam fuel prices have also fallen this week and are substantially lower than Singapore. As of March 24, VLSFO was at $757/mt, up 54% compared with Feb. 27; MGO at $1,334/mt was almost double the pre-conflict level, and HSFO was up 63% at $714/mt, according to Ship & Bunker. Kosman said Singapore’s crude oil comes from the Middle East and the supply chain disruption was widening the bunker fuel price differential between Singapore and Rotterdam. “That already gives you indication that Singapore is really tight,” he noted. “If Hormuz remains closed in the long term, bunkers in Singapore, Korea or Japan will be empty way earlier than terminals in Antwerp and Rotterdam.” Offsetting fuel price impact To recover bunker costs that comprise half their operating expenses, carriers have rolled out emergency fuel surcharges on top of the quarterly bunker adjustment factors (BAFs) that were no match for fuel prices that doubled in two weeks. Analysts at investment bank Jefferies said in a note to customers this week that rates would need to strengthen by 15% to fully offset the impact of rising fuel prices, which would be challenging given the excess capacity in the market. On Monday, the US Federal Maritime Commission unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. Meanwhile, spot rates on the Asia outbound trade lanes rose through March but have softened on Asia-Europe and flattened or even fallen on some trans-Pacific routes, according to the various pricing indexes tracked by the Journal of Commerce. Asia-North Europe rates this week are 41% above their pre-war levels at $2,800 per FEU, while Asia-Mediterranean rates are up 34% at $3,800/FEU, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. However, prices on both trade lanes softened in the past week. Although rates from Asia to the US West and East coasts rose in the first week of the war, they have since fallen below Feb. 28 levels. Deventak said although the rising price of fuel will drive up the price of shipping in the short term, he noted that the underlying market fundamentals remained in place — an oversupply of vessel capacity and demand that has been softened by a weak global economy. “We have seen the initial shock to container shipping, but the ultimate supply and demand structure has not massively changed since the conflict escalated, and it is this supply-demand balance that carries most weight in driving freight rates rather than carriers’ costs,” he said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Bunker fuel shortages in Asia at tipping point as war disruption continues

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The announced cuts come one month after WiseTech Global said it would be laying off 30% of its workforce over the next two years, also in an AI-related move. </div>

The announced cuts come one month after WiseTech Global said it would be laying off 30% of its workforce over the next two years, also in an AI-related move.

<div class="phx-topic">Freightos on Thursday announced it is reducing its workforce by up to 15% in the near future as part of an effort to adapt to the fast-moving impact artificial intelligence is having on software development. The company, which provides global freight pricing, booking and procurement products to forwarders and shippers, said the cuts will affect about 55 positions in a mix of layoffs and cancellation of planned backfills. “With what’s happening with software and data in the industry around AI, we felt we needed to be set up for scalability long-term,” Freightos Chief Strategy Officer Ian Arroyo told the Journal of Commerce. “And to make sure our teams are structured in a more efficient and effective way going forward.” The announced cuts come one month after WiseTech Global, the largest provider of software to global logistics providers, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/wisetech-says-to-cut-nearly-30-of-workforce-as-it-preps-for-ai-era-6175881">said it would be laying off 30% of its workforce</a> over the next two years, also in an AI-related move. Arroyo said publicly-traded Freightos had signaled in its fourth-quarter 2025 earnings call in February, its first since founder Zvi Schreiber stepped down as CEO Jan. 31, that the company was shifting from a transactions-focused approach to a solutions-focused approach. Freightos, founded in 2012, had built its presence in ocean freight through a transactions-oriented marketplace before acquiring WebCargo, a pricing solutions provider in the air freight industry, in 2016. “The strategy going forward is we’re going to be solutions focused first, with transactions to come later as a result of that,” Arroyo said. “Our commitment is to be ready for profitability [by the end of 2026]. We’re supporting thousands of forwarders, including all of the top 20, and we needed to make some changes to the organization.” More broadly, a number of technology companies, from Oracle to Amazon to fintech solutions provider Block, have announced layoffs in light of the oncoming march of AI. In particular, the companies have cited AI agents as being able to replace roles in programming, product development and customer service. Traditionally, layoffs at publicly traded companies have been seen as a negative, but more recently, markets have viewed such actions positively, as a sign of companies adapting to the realities of accommodating more digital workers. Arroyo agreed that was a factor in Freightos’ decision-making. “100 percent,” he said. “This is about rightsizing teams in light of the AI revolution. How we support and build and go to market, all of that has to adjust.” <h3>‘Difficult but ... necessary’ decision </h3>Arroyo said that while it might be prudent for software users to be conservative about investment in AI given how fast the environment is moving, software vendors don’t have that luxury. “Maybe the head of global logistics can sit on the sidelines and wait right now,” he said. “But those of us actually building the software, we better be in a position that we can enable the shifts [customers] need or want to make, while ensuring the continuity of the backbones of what they run their businesses on.” Newly appointed Freightos CEO Pablo Pinillos emphasized that the layoffs will help the company reach its goal of being profitable by the end of the year. “These types of decisions are very difficult, but this is a necessary step to ensure Freightos is positioned for long-term, sustainable growth in a dynamic market,” Pinillos said in a statement Thursday. Freightos estimates it will incur approximately $1.3 million in one-time restructuring charges, primarily related to severance and employee benefits, over the first nine months of 2026. But it expects the restructuring to generate annualized cost savings of approximately $4.5 million starting in the fourth quarter of this year. The company had revenue of $29.5 million in 2025, a 24% increase year over year, while it posted an earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization loss of $11.2 million, compared with a $12.6 million loss in 2024. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Freightos on Thursday announced it is reducing its workforce by up to 15% in the near future as part of an effort to adapt to the fast-moving impact artificial intelligence is having on software development. The company, which provides global freight pricing, booking and procurement products to forwarders and shippers, said the cuts will affect about 55 positions in a mix of layoffs and cancellation of planned backfills. “With what’s happening with software and data in the industry around AI, we felt we needed to be set up for scalability long-term,” Freightos Chief Strategy Officer Ian Arroyo told the Journal of Commerce. “And to make sure our teams are structured in a more efficient and effective way going forward.” The announced cuts come one month after WiseTech Global, the largest provider of software to global logistics providers, said it would be laying off 30% of its workforce over the next two years, also in an AI-related move. Arroyo said publicly-traded Freightos had signaled in its fourth-quarter 2025 earnings call in February, its first since founder Zvi Schreiber stepped down as CEO Jan. 31, that the company was shifting from a transactions-focused approach to a solutions-focused approach. Freightos, founded in 2012, had built its presence in ocean freight through a transactions-oriented marketplace before acquiring WebCargo, a pricing solutions provider in the air freight industry, in 2016. “The strategy going forward is we’re going to be solutions focused first, with transactions to come later as a result of that,” Arroyo said. “Our commitment is to be ready for profitability [by the end of 2026]. We’re supporting thousands of forwarders, including all of the top 20, and we needed to make some changes to the organization.” More broadly, a number of technology companies, from Oracle to Amazon to fintech solutions provider Block, have announced layoffs in light of the oncoming march of AI. In particular, the companies have cited AI agents as being able to replace roles in programming, product development and customer service. Traditionally, layoffs at publicly traded companies have been seen as a negative, but more recently, markets have viewed such actions positively, as a sign of companies adapting to the realities of accommodating more digital workers. Arroyo agreed that was a factor in Freightos’ decision-making. “100 percent,” he said. “This is about rightsizing teams in light of the AI revolution. How we support and build and go to market, all of that has to adjust.” ‘Difficult but ... necessary’ decision Arroyo said that while it might be prudent for software users to be conservative about investment in AI given how fast the environment is moving, software vendors don’t have that luxury. “Maybe the head of global logistics can sit on the sidelines and wait right now,” he said. “But those of us actually building the software, we better be in a position that we can enable the shifts [customers] need or want to make, while ensuring the continuity of the backbones of what they run their businesses on.” Newly appointed Freightos CEO Pablo Pinillos emphasized that the layoffs will help the company reach its goal of being profitable by the end of the year. “These types of decisions are very difficult, but this is a necessary step to ensure Freightos is positioned for long-term, sustainable growth in a dynamic market,” Pinillos said in a statement Thursday. Freightos estimates it will incur approximately $1.3 million in one-time restructuring charges, primarily related to severance and employee benefits, over the first nine months of 2026. But it expects the restructuring to generate annualized cost savings of approximately $4.5 million starting in the fourth quarter of this year. The company had revenue of $29.5 million in 2025, a 24% increase year over year, while it posted an earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization loss of $11.2 million, compared with a $12.6 million loss in 2024. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Freightos to trim up to 15% of headcount amid AI adaptation process

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

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

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

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

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

Multipurpose vessel ordering spree continues with raft of new deals

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

War adding $40-$50 million per week to Hapag-Lloyd's costs: CEO

Bunker fuel shortages in Asia at tipping point as war disruption continues

Freightos to trim up to 15% of headcount amid AI adaptation process

Recent Commentary

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

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

Top 5 Most Read Stories