<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A 25% state subsidy for the newbuild program approved by Indian policymakers after months of negotiations is believed to have pushed the deal through, thus neutralizing the cost gaps with rival yards in China and South Korea. </div>

A 25% state subsidy for the newbuild program approved by Indian policymakers after months of negotiations is believed to have pushed the deal through, thus neutralizing the cost gaps with rival yards in China and South Korea.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM has inked a roughly $350 million newbuild deal with Indian shipbuilding major Cochin Shipyard Ltd. (CSL) for six 1,700-TEU liquefied natural gas (LNG)-powered dual-fuel vessels. The deal confirms <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-eyes-shipbuilding-plans-for-india-in-trade-diversification-strategy-sources-6088185">earlier reporting</a> from the Journal of Commerce. The French shipping group, in a letter of intent signed with CSL on Tuesday, agreed to order the six vessels, the first attempt by a major mainliner in the Indian market. “India is a strategic country for CMA CGM, where we invest, train and innovate,” group Chairman and CEO Rodolphe Saadé said in a statement. “Beyond shipbuilding, we are strengthening our partnerships in logistics, maritime training and sustainable transport to support India’s growth and contribute to the decarbonization of global trade.” The deal is estimated to cost the carrier approximately $60 million per ship, according to CSL sources. Vessel deliveries are scheduled to take place between 2029 and 2031, with all ships to be India-flagged. A 25% state subsidy for the newbuild program approved by Indian policymakers after months of negotiations is believed to have finally pushed the deal through, thus neutralizing the cost gaps with rival yards in China and South Korea. Local container industry leaders greeted the shipbuilding news warmly. “India is embarking on shipbuilding/repairs/recycling verticals in a significant manner as the economy expands,” Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines Association (India), told the Journal of Commerce. “India’s serious entry into this sphere offers another (sourcing) option for the international carriers.” <h3>CMA CGM bolstering presence in India </h3>The contract seemingly is a win-win proposition for both parties, as CSL aims to push yard operations via a strategic alliance with HD Korea Shipbuilding &amp; Offshore Engineering and CMA CGM looks to raise the bar on its Indian presence beyond port-to-port shipping. The liner now has dedicated box terminals at Nhava Sheva and Mundra, the country’s top cargo handlers, gaining the flexibility to turn around vessels more seamlessly amid the lingering Red Sea-linked pressure on schedule reliability. A recent resetting of berthing windows around CMA CGM’s own Nhava Sheva terminal for the premier India-US East Coast “Indamex” and India-Europe “Epic” services underpins those considerations. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM has inked a roughly $350 million newbuild deal with Indian shipbuilding major Cochin Shipyard Ltd. (CSL) for six 1,700-TEU liquefied natural gas (LNG)-powered dual-fuel vessels. The deal confirms earlier reporting from the Journal of Commerce. The French shipping group, in a letter of intent signed with CSL on Tuesday, agreed to order the six vessels, the first attempt by a major mainliner in the Indian market. “India is a strategic country for CMA CGM, where we invest, train and innovate,” group Chairman and CEO Rodolphe Saadé said in a statement. “Beyond shipbuilding, we are strengthening our partnerships in logistics, maritime training and sustainable transport to support India’s growth and contribute to the decarbonization of global trade.” The deal is estimated to cost the carrier approximately $60 million per ship, according to CSL sources. Vessel deliveries are scheduled to take place between 2029 and 2031, with all ships to be India-flagged. A 25% state subsidy for the newbuild program approved by Indian policymakers after months of negotiations is believed to have finally pushed the deal through, thus neutralizing the cost gaps with rival yards in China and South Korea. Local container industry leaders greeted the shipbuilding news warmly. “India is embarking on shipbuilding/repairs/recycling verticals in a significant manner as the economy expands,” Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines Association (India), told the Journal of Commerce. “India’s serious entry into this sphere offers another (sourcing) option for the international carriers.” CMA CGM bolstering presence in India The contract seemingly is a win-win proposition for both parties, as CSL aims to push yard operations via a strategic alliance with HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering and CMA CGM looks to raise the bar on its Indian presence beyond port-to-port shipping. The liner now has dedicated box terminals at Nhava Sheva and Mundra, the country’s top cargo handlers, gaining the flexibility to turn around vessels more seamlessly amid the lingering Red Sea-linked pressure on schedule reliability. A recent resetting of berthing windows around CMA CGM’s own Nhava Sheva terminal for the premier India-US East Coast “Indamex” and India-Europe “Epic” services underpins those considerations. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Maritime

CMA CGM signs $350 million Indian shipbuilding order for six box ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ILWU is warning the state’s governor of political consequences, while maritime employers say the decision preserves the integrity of collective bargaining.</div>

The ILWU is warning the state’s governor of political consequences, while maritime employers say the decision preserves the integrity of collective bargaining.

<div class="phx-topic">California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s refusal to sign a bill that would have effectively banned automation at the state’s ports “will undoubtedly lead to a loss of jobs,” the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) said Tuesday. But maritime employers hailed Newsom’s decision, saying it “reinforces the integrity of collective bargaining” at West Coast ports. The bill, known as SB 34, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fate-of-future-automation-at-california-ports-in-governors-hands-6094241">would have banned automated or remotely operated cargo-handling equipment from plugging into the state’s power grid</a>. Newsom late Monday refused to sign the bill, in effect killing it. That means the collective bargaining process between the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) — and not legislative proposals outside of the coastwide contract — will continue to determine the role of marine terminal automation at California’s ports. Robert Olvera Jr., ILWU international president, said the West Coast dockworkers’ union supports California’s attempts to reduce port-related emissions, but not at the sacrifice of longshore jobs. Olvera pulled no punches in saying Newsom’s decision will have political repercussions. “Make no mistake. Your veto of SB 34 has severely damaged our confidence to work together to achieve these goals, and it will take more than rhetoric to rebuild a partnership in the future,” Olvera said in a letter to the governor. PMA President Stephen Hennessey said in a letter to Newsom that by threatening the efficiencies inherent in automated container terminals, SB 34 would have made California’s ports less competitive. PMA represents shipping lines and terminal operators in negotiating the coastwide labor contract with the ILWU. “[Newsom’s] decision sends an important message to consumers, workers, farmers, small business owners and many others that strong, competitive ports are essential to California’s economy and its role in global trade,” Hennessey said in the letter. <h3>Coastwide contract defines process for terminal automation </h3>The 2008 ILWU-PMA contract defined the process by which individual PMA terminal operators that choose to do so can automate their facilities. In return, PMA agreed to an increase in wages and retirement benefits for all ILWU members coastwide. Long Beach Container Terminal and TraPac in Los Angeles have fully automated terminals, while APM Terminal in Los Angeles has automated 100 acres of its 400-acre terminal. Since the 2008 contract, the ILWU on several occasions has promoted restrictions on automation before <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/commission-vote-allows-apms-electrification-of-automation-5244491">port commissions, city councils and the state legislature</a> through environmental legislation and work-related issues in an attempt to circumvent the language in the contract. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), which represents shipping lines and terminal operators on the West Coast on legislative and clean air initiatives, said that by using environmental issues as a vehicle for restricting automation, the ILWU’s actions actually threaten the effectiveness of the ports’ clean air efforts. PMSA President Mike Jacob noted that the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently reached an agreement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to work cooperatively to advance clean air initiatives that the AQMD had proposed in its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-lb-likely-to-work-with-regulator-on-emissions-cutting-plan-for-ports-6084550">port Indirect Source Rule.</a> While the ILWU says it supports environmental efforts at the port, Jacob said stifling automation was the union’s real intention in promoting and supporting SB 34. “This is ILWU’s priority bill,” he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s refusal to sign a bill that would have effectively banned automation at the state’s ports “will undoubtedly lead to a loss of jobs,” the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) said Tuesday. But maritime employers hailed Newsom’s decision, saying it “reinforces the integrity of collective bargaining” at West Coast ports. The bill, known as SB 34, would have banned automated or remotely operated cargo-handling equipment from plugging into the state’s power grid . Newsom late Monday refused to sign the bill, in effect killing it. That means the collective bargaining process between the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) — and not legislative proposals outside of the coastwide contract — will continue to determine the role of marine terminal automation at California’s ports. Robert Olvera Jr., ILWU international president, said the West Coast dockworkers’ union supports California’s attempts to reduce port-related emissions, but not at the sacrifice of longshore jobs. Olvera pulled no punches in saying Newsom’s decision will have political repercussions. “Make no mistake. Your veto of SB 34 has severely damaged our confidence to work together to achieve these goals, and it will take more than rhetoric to rebuild a partnership in the future,” Olvera said in a letter to the governor. PMA President Stephen Hennessey said in a letter to Newsom that by threatening the efficiencies inherent in automated container terminals, SB 34 would have made California’s ports less competitive. PMA represents shipping lines and terminal operators in negotiating the coastwide labor contract with the ILWU. “[Newsom’s] decision sends an important message to consumers, workers, farmers, small business owners and many others that strong, competitive ports are essential to California’s economy and its role in global trade,” Hennessey said in the letter. Coastwide contract defines process for terminal automation The 2008 ILWU-PMA contract defined the process by which individual PMA terminal operators that choose to do so can automate their facilities. In return, PMA agreed to an increase in wages and retirement benefits for all ILWU members coastwide. Long Beach Container Terminal and TraPac in Los Angeles have fully automated terminals, while APM Terminal in Los Angeles has automated 100 acres of its 400-acre terminal. Since the 2008 contract, the ILWU on several occasions has promoted restrictions on automation before port commissions, city councils and the state legislature through environmental legislation and work-related issues in an attempt to circumvent the language in the contract. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), which represents shipping lines and terminal operators on the West Coast on legislative and clean air initiatives, said that by using environmental issues as a vehicle for restricting automation, the ILWU’s actions actually threaten the effectiveness of the ports’ clean air efforts. PMSA President Mike Jacob noted that the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently reached an agreement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to work cooperatively to advance clean air initiatives that the AQMD had proposed in its port Indirect Source Rule. While the ILWU says it supports environmental efforts at the port, Jacob said stifling automation was the union’s real intention in promoting and supporting SB 34. “This is ILWU’s priority bill,” he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Port News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

North American ports

Marine terminals

Stakeholders differ on Newsom’s move to kill automation ban at California ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the move comes as China’s Transport Ministry launched an investigation into how the country’s maritime industry and supply chains will be impacted by the US Trade Representative’s Section 301 port charges and tariffs.</div>

But the move comes as China’s Transport Ministry launched an investigation into how the country’s maritime industry and supply chains will be impacted by the US Trade Representative’s Section 301 port charges and tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">China will exempt US-flag ships built in China from its new port fees that went into effect Tuesday, even as the first two Chinese-operated vessels were slapped with new fees in the US. The concession by Beijing will come as a relief to Matson and APL, both of which are US-flagged and operate China-built vessels. Maersk Line Ltd., the other major US-flag carrier, doesn’t regularly serve Chinese ports. The US port fees heavily target Cosco, its subsidiary OOCL and Hede Shipping, while also giving non-Chinese operators a way to mostly avoid the charges by substituting China-built ships on US services with vessels built in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. The change in China’s port fees comes as the country’s Transport Ministry on Tuesday launched an investigation into how its maritime industry and supply chains will be impacted by the US Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) Section 301 port charges and tariffs. Significantly, the probe will also investigate any organizations and individuals that assisted or supported USTR’s “discriminatory restrictive measures against our country in the shipping industry, shipbuilding industry and related industrial and supply chains,” the ministry said. Beijing announced its investigation of the USTR activities on the same day the US and China imposed reciprocal port call charges on each other’s vessels and owners. The US is charging Chinese-owned or -operated vessels $50 per net ton on each initial port call subject to a cap of five port calls a year. Foreign owners and operators of China-built vessels are being charged the higher of either $18 per net ton or $120 per discharged container. The rates will increase next April. China, in turn, is levying a fee of $56 per net ton on non-China-made vessels that are US-flagged or owned or controlled by US companies or companies where more than 25% shares are held by US interests. <h3>Two China-operated ships hit with US port fees </h3>Meanwhile, the first two Chinese-operated ships to be subjected to US fees called at US ports Tuesday. The OOCL Sunflower, a 16,828-TEU vessel, called Long Beach, while the 13,800-TEU Cosco Jasmine arrived in Savannah, according to Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The other 14 container ships to call US ports on the day the new fees went into effect were excluded because they were under 4,000 TEUs or were US-flagged. Steel unions that in March 2024 triggered the USTR investigation into China’s maritime industry celebrated the new US ports fees and urged the White House to provide more support to the industry. “Revitalizing shipbuilding and the supply chain will yield hundreds of thousands of jobs and strengthen our national defense and our industrial base,” the United Steelworkers and International Association of Machinists said in a statement. But a group of apparel shippers was less enthused, saying that while it supported US shipbuilding, the new fees could prompt ocean carriers to levy surcharges to recoup their costs. “Instead of imposing punitive port fees that create inefficiencies and divert business away from US ports, the focus should be on creating strong domestic incentives and providing sustained support to revitalize American shipbuilding,” Audrey Clark, trade and transportation specialist for the American Apparel &amp; Footwear Association, said in a statement. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

China will exempt US-flag ships built in China from its new port fees that went into effect Tuesday, even as the first two Chinese-operated vessels were slapped with new fees in the US. The concession by Beijing will come as a relief to Matson and APL, both of which are US-flagged and operate China-built vessels. Maersk Line Ltd., the other major US-flag carrier, doesn’t regularly serve Chinese ports. The US port fees heavily target Cosco, its subsidiary OOCL and Hede Shipping, while also giving non-Chinese operators a way to mostly avoid the charges by substituting China-built ships on US services with vessels built in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. The change in China’s port fees comes as the country’s Transport Ministry on Tuesday launched an investigation into how its maritime industry and supply chains will be impacted by the US Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) Section 301 port charges and tariffs. Significantly, the probe will also investigate any organizations and individuals that assisted or supported USTR’s “discriminatory restrictive measures against our country in the shipping industry, shipbuilding industry and related industrial and supply chains,” the ministry said. Beijing announced its investigation of the USTR activities on the same day the US and China imposed reciprocal port call charges on each other’s vessels and owners. The US is charging Chinese-owned or -operated vessels $50 per net ton on each initial port call subject to a cap of five port calls a year. Foreign owners and operators of China-built vessels are being charged the higher of either $18 per net ton or $120 per discharged container. The rates will increase next April. China, in turn, is levying a fee of $56 per net ton on non-China-made vessels that are US-flagged or owned or controlled by US companies or companies where more than 25% shares are held by US interests. Two China-operated ships hit with US port fees Meanwhile, the first two Chinese-operated ships to be subjected to US fees called at US ports Tuesday. The OOCL Sunflower, a 16,828-TEU vessel, called Long Beach, while the 13,800-TEU Cosco Jasmine arrived in Savannah, according to Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The other 14 container ships to call US ports on the day the new fees went into effect were excluded because they were under 4,000 TEUs or were US-flagged. Steel unions that in March 2024 triggered the USTR investigation into China’s maritime industry celebrated the new US ports fees and urged the White House to provide more support to the industry. “Revitalizing shipbuilding and the supply chain will yield hundreds of thousands of jobs and strengthen our national defense and our industrial base,” the United Steelworkers and International Association of Machinists said in a statement. But a group of apparel shippers was less enthused, saying that while it supported US shipbuilding, the new fees could prompt ocean carriers to levy surcharges to recoup their costs. “Instead of imposing punitive port fees that create inefficiencies and divert business away from US ports, the focus should be on creating strong domestic incentives and providing sustained support to revitalize American shipbuilding,” Audrey Clark, trade and transportation specialist for the American Apparel & Footwear Association, said in a statement. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Trans-Pacific

Beijing exempts US-flag vessels built in China from retaliatory port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But it will take several months of sustained peace before liners are confident enough of safe passage to redirect mainline services through the Suez Canal, according to an HSBC report.</div>

But it will take several months of sustained peace before liners are confident enough of safe passage to redirect mainline services through the Suez Canal, according to an HSBC report.

<div class="phx-topic">Two ocean carriers have expanded services in the Red Sea just days after a ceasefire was declared in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, but most liners will not be in a hurry to return to the at-times perilous route, according to one global bank. The expanded services of both CMA CGM and SeaLead pass through the narrow Bab al-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea that is controlled by Houthi militants who have been attacking commercial shipping in support of Palestinians in Gaza since late 2023. A new routing structure by SeaLead’s revamped Five Seas Express (5CX) service will be launched on Oct. 27 offering weekly sailings via the Suez Canal connecting China, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. The port rotation covers Qingdao, Shanghai, Ningbo, Nansha, Alexandria, Aliaga, Istanbul, Mersin, Jeddah and Port Klang before returning to Qingdao. “With weekly sailings and a time-saving route, the revamped service offers faster, more reliable, and efficient shipping solutions,” Kadir Oruc, regional managing director for Europe and the Mediterranean at SeaLead, said in a statement. CMA CGM told customers in an advisory Tuesday it was upgrading its REX2 service this month to offer expanded direct coverage between China and the Red Sea that would provide weekly sailings and faster transit times. New direct calls will be added at Qingdao and Aqaba in Jordan, with the double calls at Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea hub of Jeddah. The port rotation will be Qingdao, Shanghai, Ningbo, Shekou, Nansha, Singapore, Djibouti, Jeddah, Sokhna, Aqaba, Jeddah and Qingdao. The revamped service does not pass through the Suez. <h3>Carriers to practice caution </h3>The first phase of the Gaza truce took effect Oct. 9, and while a return to the Red Sea was expected at some point, carriers will remain cautious over whether the ceasefire will hold before they redirect mainline services through the Suez, HSBC said in a research report Monday. “In our view, liners will require a period of up to several months to feel confident that safe passage is fully restored before returning to the route,” HSBC said. “We think the ceasefire remains a key risk. A potential breakdown in the truce could lead to a resurgence of Red Sea attacks and further delay the return to the Red Sea.” The threat of attacks by the Houthis has forced carriers to divert around southern Africa since late 2023, adding significant time to journeys and pulling an estimated 7% of global capacity from the market. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Two ocean carriers have expanded services in the Red Sea just days after a ceasefire was declared in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, but most liners will not be in a hurry to return to the at-times perilous route, according to one global bank. The expanded services of both CMA CGM and SeaLead pass through the narrow Bab al-Mandab Strait at the southern end of the Red Sea that is controlled by Houthi militants who have been attacking commercial shipping in support of Palestinians in Gaza since late 2023. A new routing structure by SeaLead’s revamped Five Seas Express (5CX) service will be launched on Oct. 27 offering weekly sailings via the Suez Canal connecting China, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. The port rotation covers Qingdao, Shanghai, Ningbo, Nansha, Alexandria, Aliaga, Istanbul, Mersin, Jeddah and Port Klang before returning to Qingdao. “With weekly sailings and a time-saving route, the revamped service offers faster, more reliable, and efficient shipping solutions,” Kadir Oruc, regional managing director for Europe and the Mediterranean at SeaLead, said in a statement. CMA CGM told customers in an advisory Tuesday it was upgrading its REX2 service this month to offer expanded direct coverage between China and the Red Sea that would provide weekly sailings and faster transit times. New direct calls will be added at Qingdao and Aqaba in Jordan, with the double calls at Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea hub of Jeddah. The port rotation will be Qingdao, Shanghai, Ningbo, Shekou, Nansha, Singapore, Djibouti, Jeddah, Sokhna, Aqaba, Jeddah and Qingdao. The revamped service does not pass through the Suez. Carriers to practice caution The first phase of the Gaza truce took effect Oct. 9, and while a return to the Red Sea was expected at some point, carriers will remain cautious over whether the ceasefire will hold before they redirect mainline services through the Suez, HSBC said in a research report Monday. “In our view, liners will require a period of up to several months to feel confident that safe passage is fully restored before returning to the route,” HSBC said. “We think the ceasefire remains a key risk. A potential breakdown in the truce could lead to a resurgence of Red Sea attacks and further delay the return to the Red Sea.” The threat of attacks by the Houthis has forced carriers to divert around southern Africa since late 2023, adding significant time to journeys and pulling an estimated 7% of global capacity from the market. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

CMA CGM, SeaLead revamp Red Sea sailings after Gaza truce

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">IMO member states should focus on the substance of the proposed net-zero framework and not on opposition to the measures, was Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez’s message as the four-day session got underway.</div>

IMO member states should focus on the substance of the proposed net-zero framework and not on opposition to the measures, was Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez’s message as the four-day session got underway.

<div class="phx-topic">Member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) gathered in London Tuesday to begin four days of meetings meant to finalize the adoption of far-reaching decarbonization plans that have sharply divided nations and sectors within the shipping industry. While Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez acknowledged the “high stakes” nature of this week’s session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), he refused to be drawn on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/white-house-sanctions-threat-ups-ante-ahead-of-pivotal-imo-meeting-6096646">Washington’s increasingly aggressive opposition to the “net-zero framework”</a> of measures that include a pricing mechanism and a fuel standard. “We are here to finalize the adoption of the net-zero framework,” Dominguez told reporters at IMO’s London headquarters. “Every country has the right to express their opinion, and the IMO will always engage with them.” Asked what the next step would be should the net-zero framework fail to be adopted this week, Dominguez declined to speculate, emphasizing the IMO’s commitment to engaging all 176 member states and organizations despite differing opinions. “The IMO is working on behalf of the member states to reach adoption,” he said. “We understand the magnitude of the work we are doing, but my message is that we have had these discussions for many years, and I would encourage member states to focus on what we have in front of us.” Among US threats made last week were the imposition of sanctions on officials “sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers.” The Trump administration has also threatened to impose visa restrictions and revise maritime crew visas quotas, and impose additional port fees on ships owned, operated or flagged by countries supporting the net-zero framework. The White House also said flag states supporting the IMO measures may have their registered vessels blocked from calling US ports, with the US also evaluating the imposition of financial penalties on the flag states. <h3>A path toward net-zero emissions </h3>The net-zero framework includes a package of technical and economic elements that puts the sector on a transition path to net-zero emissions by 2050. They include a global fuel standard that sets greenhouse gas intensity reduction targets for each year through 2035 and penalties for failing to meet them. It also establishes a credit trading scheme through which vessels with lower emissions can generate credits to sell to owners of higher-emissions vessels. Revenues generated by the penalties will fund a reward mechanism for zero- and near-zero emission fuels and support “a just and equitable transition.” IMO’s plenary session on Tuesday featured member states reiterating their positions, with support led by the European Union and Pacific Islands and opposition led by the US delegation that stated the net-zero framework was a thinly disguised carbon tax and an environmental “slush fund.” “There will be a lot of theatrics this week, but there is real optimism in the room that we will still be able to adopt the measures by the end of the week,” one delegate said. <h3>US threats are ‘unjust’ </h3>Not everyone shared the delegate’s sunny viewpoint. Rico Luman, senior economist for transport, logistics and automotive at global bank ING, said the US threat of retaliatory tariffs on countries supporting the IMO measure cast “significant uncertainty” over the outcome of the MEPC session. “The US is clearly pressuring other member states to reject the agreement and is threatening retaliatory tariffs,” Luman told the Journal of Commerce Tuesday. “This essentially amounts to coercing countries into aligning with its position, which is unjust.” Luman noted that in April there was a clear majority in favor of the net-zero framework among IMO member nations, as well as from container carriers, major ports and shipping associations such as BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC). “It would be a major setback if [US threats] derail the adoption and implementation of the new climate strategy, which was intended to be a global breakthrough and a replacement for fragmented regional initiatives,” he said. Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, questioned the wisdom behind the retaliatory measures outlined by Washington that he said would penalize US supply chains. “Similar to the continuing wrongful claim that foreign countries are paying [US] tariffs, the [threats] from the US State Department promote the view that these penalties on shipping will be paid by the countries voting ‘yes,’” Jensen <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/larsjensenvespuccimaritime/recent-activity/all/">wrote in a LinkedIn post</a>. “But imposing fees or restrictions on ships or shipping will merely increase the cost of shipping to and from the US and hence place the financial cost on the US exporters and importers,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) gathered in London Tuesday to begin four days of meetings meant to finalize the adoption of far-reaching decarbonization plans that have sharply divided nations and sectors within the shipping industry. While Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez acknowledged the “high stakes” nature of this week’s session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), he refused to be drawn on Washington’s increasingly aggressive opposition to the “net-zero framework” of measures that include a pricing mechanism and a fuel standard. “We are here to finalize the adoption of the net-zero framework,” Dominguez told reporters at IMO’s London headquarters. “Every country has the right to express their opinion, and the IMO will always engage with them.” Asked what the next step would be should the net-zero framework fail to be adopted this week, Dominguez declined to speculate, emphasizing the IMO’s commitment to engaging all 176 member states and organizations despite differing opinions. “The IMO is working on behalf of the member states to reach adoption,” he said. “We understand the magnitude of the work we are doing, but my message is that we have had these discussions for many years, and I would encourage member states to focus on what we have in front of us.” Among US threats made last week were the imposition of sanctions on officials “sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers.” The Trump administration has also threatened to impose visa restrictions and revise maritime crew visas quotas, and impose additional port fees on ships owned, operated or flagged by countries supporting the net-zero framework. The White House also said flag states supporting the IMO measures may have their registered vessels blocked from calling US ports, with the US also evaluating the imposition of financial penalties on the flag states. A path toward net-zero emissions The net-zero framework includes a package of technical and economic elements that puts the sector on a transition path to net-zero emissions by 2050. They include a global fuel standard that sets greenhouse gas intensity reduction targets for each year through 2035 and penalties for failing to meet them. It also establishes a credit trading scheme through which vessels with lower emissions can generate credits to sell to owners of higher-emissions vessels. Revenues generated by the penalties will fund a reward mechanism for zero- and near-zero emission fuels and support “a just and equitable transition.” IMO’s plenary session on Tuesday featured member states reiterating their positions, with support led by the European Union and Pacific Islands and opposition led by the US delegation that stated the net-zero framework was a thinly disguised carbon tax and an environmental “slush fund.” “There will be a lot of theatrics this week, but there is real optimism in the room that we will still be able to adopt the measures by the end of the week,” one delegate said. US threats are ‘unjust’ Not everyone shared the delegate’s sunny viewpoint. Rico Luman, senior economist for transport, logistics and automotive at global bank ING, said the US threat of retaliatory tariffs on countries supporting the IMO measure cast “significant uncertainty” over the outcome of the MEPC session. “The US is clearly pressuring other member states to reject the agreement and is threatening retaliatory tariffs,” Luman told the Journal of Commerce Tuesday. “This essentially amounts to coercing countries into aligning with its position, which is unjust.” Luman noted that in April there was a clear majority in favor of the net-zero framework among IMO member nations, as well as from container carriers, major ports and shipping associations such as BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC). “It would be a major setback if [US threats] derail the adoption and implementation of the new climate strategy, which was intended to be a global breakthrough and a replacement for fragmented regional initiatives,” he said. Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, questioned the wisdom behind the retaliatory measures outlined by Washington that he said would penalize US supply chains. “Similar to the continuing wrongful claim that foreign countries are paying [US] tariffs, the [threats] from the US State Department promote the view that these penalties on shipping will be paid by the countries voting ‘yes,’” Jensen wrote in a LinkedIn post . “But imposing fees or restrictions on ships or shipping will merely increase the cost of shipping to and from the US and hence place the financial cost on the US exporters and importers,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

‘High stakes’ IMO decarbonization meeting begins in London

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The persistent pressure on India-Europe rates comes despite sporadic capacity cuts implemented by major carriers. </div>

The persistent pressure on India-Europe rates comes despite sporadic capacity cuts implemented by major carriers.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean freight yields are rapidly eroding for container lines working on the India-Europe trade lane due to volatile market conditions, industry sources say, with freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates nearly halving since early September. Local freight forwarder sources who spoke with the Journal of Commerce put average FAK quotes from major carriers for bookings from Nhava Sheva to Felixstowe/Rotterdam at $900 to $1,000 per TEU and $1,000 to $1,100 per FEU. That’s down from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/india-europe-liners-lower-rates-as-capacity-normalizes-amid-little-peak-demand-signs-6076154">$1,600 to $1,800 per TEU/FEU six weeks ago</a>. Sources also said carriers are constantly adjusting spot booking rates to push cargo lifts as close as possible to their westbound space allocations. “Cargo bookings are tight, so pricing has become a sales tool for carriers,” said an executive at a Mumbai forwarding house who didn’t want to be identified. “Asian carriers, such as Cosco Shipping and Ocean Network Express (ONE), have been even more aggressive in attempting to fill their slot space.” <h3>Capacity overhang worsens </h3>The persistent pressure on India-Europe rates comes despite sporadic capacity cuts implemented by major carriers. A week 41 West India call voided by CMA CGM’s “Epic” service was one recent example. Still, the capacity overhang plaguing the market seems to have worsened in October with fewer sailing disruptions reported relative to the past months, on top of extra space positioned by some India-US East Coast networks via transshipment. In addition to CMA CGM expanding its “Indamex” rotation with a stop at Tangier in Morocco for such cargo relays, Mediterranean Shipping Co. has also been using its India-USEC sailings to connect shipments destined for the Europe/Mediterranean region via ad hoc calls at Lome in Togo. MSC has developed the West African hub on the back of container terminal rights held there by its Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) subsidiary. “The last Indamex voyage [the Belita] lifted about 1,300 TEUs of cargo for North Europe,” a terminal executive in Nhava Sheva told the Journal of Commerce. “This US tariff-linked strategy is also weighing on the market.” Forwarders generally do not expect any sort of volume gains on the India-Europe/Mediterranean trades in the near term for carriers to prop up rates. “Indian exporters have almost finished holiday season shipments, so the westbound trade is moving into the traditional slack period,” a second forwarder source said. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Ocean freight yields are rapidly eroding for container lines working on the India-Europe trade lane due to volatile market conditions, industry sources say, with freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates nearly halving since early September. Local freight forwarder sources who spoke with the Journal of Commerce put average FAK quotes from major carriers for bookings from Nhava Sheva to Felixstowe/Rotterdam at $900 to $1,000 per TEU and $1,000 to $1,100 per FEU. That’s down from $1,600 to $1,800 per TEU/FEU six weeks ago . Sources also said carriers are constantly adjusting spot booking rates to push cargo lifts as close as possible to their westbound space allocations. “Cargo bookings are tight, so pricing has become a sales tool for carriers,” said an executive at a Mumbai forwarding house who didn’t want to be identified. “Asian carriers, such as Cosco Shipping and Ocean Network Express (ONE), have been even more aggressive in attempting to fill their slot space.” Capacity overhang worsens The persistent pressure on India-Europe rates comes despite sporadic capacity cuts implemented by major carriers. A week 41 West India call voided by CMA CGM’s “Epic” service was one recent example. Still, the capacity overhang plaguing the market seems to have worsened in October with fewer sailing disruptions reported relative to the past months, on top of extra space positioned by some India-US East Coast networks via transshipment. In addition to CMA CGM expanding its “Indamex” rotation with a stop at Tangier in Morocco for such cargo relays, Mediterranean Shipping Co. has also been using its India-USEC sailings to connect shipments destined for the Europe/Mediterranean region via ad hoc calls at Lome in Togo. MSC has developed the West African hub on the back of container terminal rights held there by its Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) subsidiary. “The last Indamex voyage [the Belita] lifted about 1,300 TEUs of cargo for North Europe,” a terminal executive in Nhava Sheva told the Journal of Commerce. “This US tariff-linked strategy is also weighing on the market.” Forwarders generally do not expect any sort of volume gains on the India-Europe/Mediterranean trades in the near term for carriers to prop up rates. “Indian exporters have almost finished holiday season shipments, so the westbound trade is moving into the traditional slack period,” a second forwarder source said. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Downward shift in India-Europe ocean rates intensifies amid market volatility

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

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

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

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

Trucking News

Surface

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

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

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

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

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

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Asia to North Europe

Asia to Mediterranean

eeSea collects and centralizes liner network data from dozens of public sources including carriers’ vessel tracking portals, long-term schedules, customer advisories, port and terminal operator schedules, and pilot schedules. These disparate datasets are continually inspected, cleaned, and carefully structured. eeSea synthesizes this refined public data with AIS positions from a third-party provider and its datasets spanning schedule reliability, transit times, trade capacity evolution, and 60-day vessel forecasts. Ships are deemed late if they are one calendar day or late than scheduled. [eeSea](https://www.eesea.com)

Asia to North Europe and Mediterranean ocean reliability (eeSea)

On-Time Performance Asia to Northern Europe and Mediterranean (eeSea) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">On the eve of IMO’s London gathering this week, Washington has pledged to retaliate against nations supporting what it says is a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations.” </div>

On the eve of IMO’s London gathering this week, Washington has pledged to retaliate against nations supporting what it says is a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations.”

<div class="phx-topic">US opposition to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) shipping decarbonization plans has escalated dramatically, with the White House now threatening sanctions on countries who vote in favor of measures to cut shipping’s carbon emissions. Washington’s threats of retaliation against the IMO come as its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/deep-divisions-linger-as-imo-gathers-for-pivotal-decarbonization-talks-6094699">readies to meet Oct. 14–17 in London</a> to vote on the decarbonization regulations, including the proposed net-zero framework that was agreed in principle by a majority of IMO members in April. A joint statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Friday called the greenhouse gas-cutting measures a global carbon tax on American consumers that would not be tolerated. “The NZF [net-zero framework] proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all IMO member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided,” the statement said. If the net-zero framework is adopted, all large ships operating globally, including cruise ships, will be required to slash emissions by 17% by 2028, with steadily increasing emission reduction targets after that, or pay a fee. Shipping currently accounts for 3% of global carbon emissions. The US has long opposed measures aimed at placing a price on carbon emissions, and on the eve of the pivotal IMO meeting, its threats of retaliation against member states backing the net-zero framework were spelled out in the statement. “The United States will be moving to levy these remedies against nations that sponsor this European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations,” the US statement said. “We will fight hard to protect our economic interests by imposing costs on countries if they support the NZF. Our fellow IMO members should be on notice.” The US actions would include sanctions on officials “sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers,” imposing visa restrictions and revising quotas of maritime crew visas, and imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated or flagged by countries supporting the net-zero framework. Flag states supporting the IMO measures may have their registered vessels blocked from calling at US ports, with the US also evaluating the imposition of financial penalties on the flag states. <h3>Leveling the global playing field </h3>The targeting of vessel flag states is an indication that the US is targeting Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands that are home to almost half of the world’s registered gross tonnage, which could play a crucial role during this week’s MEPC meeting. While much has been made about the need for a two-thirds majority vote in favor of the framework for it to pass, those voting yes will also need to control at least 50% of the world’s gross tonnage. Vessels flagged in Marshall Islands, Liberia and Panama constitute more than 45% of global tonnage. In a brief statement responding to the US threats, the European Commission said it supported the IMO’s “ambitious global measures to decarbonize the shipping sector and ensure a global level playing field.” “The EU views the net-zero framework as a significant milestone and calls for its adoption at the IMO,” the European Commission said. It has taken several years for the IMO to get to this point, but the heavily compromised net-zero framework agreement has polarized the shipping industry. Last week, seven shipowner associations <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/deep-divisions-linger-as-imo-gathers-for-pivotal-decarbonization-talks-6094699">urged member states “to make history” by approving the net-zero framework</a> that includes the world’s first industrywide carbon pricing measure. Besides the US, opposing the adoption of the framework in its current form are Greek shipowners representing mostly the tanker and gas carrier fleet and classification societies the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and DNV. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US opposition to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) shipping decarbonization plans has escalated dramatically, with the White House now threatening sanctions on countries who vote in favor of measures to cut shipping’s carbon emissions. Washington’s threats of retaliation against the IMO come as its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) readies to meet Oct. 14–17 in London to vote on the decarbonization regulations, including the proposed net-zero framework that was agreed in principle by a majority of IMO members in April. A joint statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Friday called the greenhouse gas-cutting measures a global carbon tax on American consumers that would not be tolerated. “The NZF [net-zero framework] proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all IMO member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided,” the statement said. If the net-zero framework is adopted, all large ships operating globally, including cruise ships, will be required to slash emissions by 17% by 2028, with steadily increasing emission reduction targets after that, or pay a fee. Shipping currently accounts for 3% of global carbon emissions. The US has long opposed measures aimed at placing a price on carbon emissions, and on the eve of the pivotal IMO meeting, its threats of retaliation against member states backing the net-zero framework were spelled out in the statement. “The United States will be moving to levy these remedies against nations that sponsor this European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations,” the US statement said. “We will fight hard to protect our economic interests by imposing costs on countries if they support the NZF. Our fellow IMO members should be on notice.” The US actions would include sanctions on officials “sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers,” imposing visa restrictions and revising quotas of maritime crew visas, and imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated or flagged by countries supporting the net-zero framework. Flag states supporting the IMO measures may have their registered vessels blocked from calling at US ports, with the US also evaluating the imposition of financial penalties on the flag states. Leveling the global playing field The targeting of vessel flag states is an indication that the US is targeting Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands that are home to almost half of the world’s registered gross tonnage, which could play a crucial role during this week’s MEPC meeting. While much has been made about the need for a two-thirds majority vote in favor of the framework for it to pass, those voting yes will also need to control at least 50% of the world’s gross tonnage. Vessels flagged in Marshall Islands, Liberia and Panama constitute more than 45% of global tonnage. In a brief statement responding to the US threats, the European Commission said it supported the IMO’s “ambitious global measures to decarbonize the shipping sector and ensure a global level playing field.” “The EU views the net-zero framework as a significant milestone and calls for its adoption at the IMO,” the European Commission said. It has taken several years for the IMO to get to this point, but the heavily compromised net-zero framework agreement has polarized the shipping industry. Last week, seven shipowner associations urged member states “to make history” by approving the net-zero framework that includes the world’s first industrywide carbon pricing measure. Besides the US, opposing the adoption of the framework in its current form are Greek shipowners representing mostly the tanker and gas carrier fleet and classification societies the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and DNV. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

White House sanctions threat ups ante ahead of pivotal IMO meeting

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The move would substantially increase costs and reduce capacity for vehicle and equipment makers such as Ford and Caterpillar who rely on vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels to export their products, stakeholders say.   </div>

The move would substantially increase costs and reduce capacity for vehicle and equipment makers such as Ford and Caterpillar who rely on vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels to export their products, stakeholders say.  

<div class="phx-topic">Vehicle carrier operators and trade groups are condemning moves by the US Trade Representative (USTR) to more than triple port call fees for all foreign-built vessels calling at US ports starting Oct. 14. The move would substantially increase costs and reduce capacity for vehicle and equipment makers such as Ford and Caterpillar who rely on vehicle carriers and roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels to export their products, stakeholders said.   “USTR drops the bomb at the last minute, not realizing how badly this will hurt US exporters,” Andrew Abbott, CEO of Atlantic Container Line, the US affiliate of Italy’s Grimaldi Group, told the Journal of Commerce. In a 32-page docket published Friday, the USTR said the port levy would increase to $46 per net ton compared with the $14 per net ton set in June when the USTR switched its fee assessment to a tonnage tax from a cargo tax. This means an average-sized vehicle carrier or ro/ro vessel will face a bill of about $1.2 million when it makes its first call at a US port. USTR will cap the fee at five calls per year for the same vessel. Justifying the three-fold increase in port fees, USTR general counsel Jennifer Thornton said in Friday’s announcement that “a number of comments made in the consultation period raised concerns that the proposed service fee rate of $14 per net ton is too low.” But most of the 69 submissions listed on the USTR website during the June–July industry comment period either wanted the port fee scrapped or levied only on Chinese-built vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels. <h3>Customers to take the hit </h3>Vessel operators including Wallenius Wilhelmsen, the world’s largest car carrier operator, and Höegh Autoliners said the fees would likely be passed on to customers where feasible. The revised charges will increase Wilhelmsen’s annual port fee bill to about $1 billion, assuming 300 to 350 voyages to the US per year, while Höegh Autoliners will likely face a $225 million hit. Senior executives from the two Norwegian companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce. Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association, to which the two companies belong, told the Journal of Commerce the group was “closely monitoring the situation and currently reviewing the latest developments.” Mitsui OSK Lines’ Frontier Ace and Glorious Ace, with calls scheduled for Oct.14 at Brunswick’s Colonel’s Island terminal in Georgia, will be among the first vehicles subject to the port call tax. Abbott warned previously that Grimaldi would likely cut its services and US port calls because even with the original fee of $14 per net ton, the cost would be unsustainable. “These fees will harm US automobile and tractor manufacturers who rely on vehicle carriers for both imports to support their American manufacturing operations, as well as some $20 billion in exports,” Joe Kramek, president and CEO of the Washington, DC-based World Shipping Council (WSC), told the Journal of Commerce Saturday. <h3>‘Collapse’ of US short-sea shipping </h3>Florida-headquartered Accordia Shipping, which operates ro/ro services between the US and the Caribbean, said the new fees could cause the collapse of short-sea services from the US, hurting exports and likely costing jobs. In written comments on the changes submitted to the USTR Friday, Farid Escobar, Accordia Shipping’s legal affairs liaison, said the company’s 3,829 net ton ro/ro Minchah will have to pay $176,134 per US port call under the revised $46 per net ton fee. The increase from the earlier $14-per-net-ton proposal “would render short-sea, export-based ro/ro operations economically untenable, dismantling trade lanes that sustain US manufacturing exports, regional supply-chain resilience, and maritime employment,” Escobar said in the filing. “Our operations consist of over 99% outbound US exports — US-manufactured and US-origin vehicles, construction equipment, and heavy rolling machinery — destined for neighboring Caribbean nations,” he added. Tiffany Smith, vice president for global trade policy at the National Foreign Trade Council, said the inclusion of all non-US-built car carriers “is a massive divergence from the objective of the [Section] 301 investigation.” “Imposing broad-based penalties on all operators, including US allies, would do nothing to constrain China’s dominance of the maritime sector and would have harmful effects on US industries that rely on ro/ro vessels,” Smith said. Other changes in Friday’s announcement include the possibility of levying port fees on vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels below 10,000 deadweight metric tons. USTR has opened a public consultation on the proposal, which closes Nov. 10. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Vehicle carrier operators and trade groups are condemning moves by the US Trade Representative (USTR) to more than triple port call fees for all foreign-built vessels calling at US ports starting Oct. 14. The move would substantially increase costs and reduce capacity for vehicle and equipment makers such as Ford and Caterpillar who rely on vehicle carriers and roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) vessels to export their products, stakeholders said.   “USTR drops the bomb at the last minute, not realizing how badly this will hurt US exporters,” Andrew Abbott, CEO of Atlantic Container Line, the US affiliate of Italy’s Grimaldi Group, told the Journal of Commerce. In a 32-page docket published Friday, the USTR said the port levy would increase to $46 per net ton compared with the $14 per net ton set in June when the USTR switched its fee assessment to a tonnage tax from a cargo tax. This means an average-sized vehicle carrier or ro/ro vessel will face a bill of about $1.2 million when it makes its first call at a US port. USTR will cap the fee at five calls per year for the same vessel. Justifying the three-fold increase in port fees, USTR general counsel Jennifer Thornton said in Friday’s announcement that “a number of comments made in the consultation period raised concerns that the proposed service fee rate of $14 per net ton is too low.” But most of the 69 submissions listed on the USTR website during the June–July industry comment period either wanted the port fee scrapped or levied only on Chinese-built vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels. Customers to take the hit Vessel operators including Wallenius Wilhelmsen, the world’s largest car carrier operator, and Höegh Autoliners said the fees would likely be passed on to customers where feasible. The revised charges will increase Wilhelmsen’s annual port fee bill to about $1 billion, assuming 300 to 350 voyages to the US per year, while Höegh Autoliners will likely face a $225 million hit. Senior executives from the two Norwegian companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce. Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association, to which the two companies belong, told the Journal of Commerce the group was “closely monitoring the situation and currently reviewing the latest developments.” Mitsui OSK Lines’ Frontier Ace and Glorious Ace, with calls scheduled for Oct.14 at Brunswick’s Colonel’s Island terminal in Georgia, will be among the first vehicles subject to the port call tax. Abbott warned previously that Grimaldi would likely cut its services and US port calls because even with the original fee of $14 per net ton, the cost would be unsustainable. “These fees will harm US automobile and tractor manufacturers who rely on vehicle carriers for both imports to support their American manufacturing operations, as well as some $20 billion in exports,” Joe Kramek, president and CEO of the Washington, DC-based World Shipping Council (WSC), told the Journal of Commerce Saturday. ‘Collapse’ of US short-sea shipping Florida-headquartered Accordia Shipping, which operates ro/ro services between the US and the Caribbean, said the new fees could cause the collapse of short-sea services from the US, hurting exports and likely costing jobs. In written comments on the changes submitted to the USTR Friday, Farid Escobar, Accordia Shipping’s legal affairs liaison, said the company’s 3,829 net ton ro/ro Minchah will have to pay $176,134 per US port call under the revised $46 per net ton fee. The increase from the earlier $14-per-net-ton proposal “would render short-sea, export-based ro/ro operations economically untenable, dismantling trade lanes that sustain US manufacturing exports, regional supply-chain resilience, and maritime employment,” Escobar said in the filing. “Our operations consist of over 99% outbound US exports — US-manufactured and US-origin vehicles, construction equipment, and heavy rolling machinery — destined for neighboring Caribbean nations,” he added. Tiffany Smith, vice president for global trade policy at the National Foreign Trade Council, said the inclusion of all non-US-built car carriers “is a massive divergence from the objective of the [Section] 301 investigation.” “Imposing broad-based penalties on all operators, including US allies, would do nothing to constrain China’s dominance of the maritime sector and would have harmful effects on US industries that rely on ro/ro vessels,” Smith said. Other changes in Friday’s announcement include the possibility of levying port fees on vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels below 10,000 deadweight metric tons. USTR has opened a public consultation on the proposal, which closes Nov. 10. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Breakbulk News

Car carrier sector slams USTR’s decision for threefold increase in port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Fewer trucks arriving with imports in Las Vegas, Chicago and other inland hubs means tighter capacity and higher transactional costs for outbound shipments. </div>

Fewer trucks arriving with imports in Las Vegas, Chicago and other inland hubs means tighter capacity and higher transactional costs for outbound shipments.

<div class="phx-topic">Outbound spot truckload capacity is tightening in several inland US markets, partly because of falling US imports, adding momentum to a seasonal increase in transactional truck rates as trucking's fall peak shipping period gets underway. Tighter capacity may be short-lived, but spot rates could run higher than expected in the fourth quarter, especially if consumer demand strengthens over the holidays. The average US dry-van truckload spot rate rose 3 cents in the week ended Oct. 4 to $1.70 per mile, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. That rate was 5 cents higher year over year. In 13 Midwest states representing 46% of national load volume, spot rates were up 5 cents per mile on average. Carriers in those states earned an average of $1.92 per mile, which remained 22 cents above the national seven-day rolling average, DAT said. Rates shot even higher in specific markets and port-dependent lanes, including some routes connecting Chicago, Las Vegas and Stockton, Calif., to major US seaports, as fewer trucks dropped off imports and searched for return loads, according to DAT. Plenty of capacity was available in July to handle a 25.7% spike in US laden container imports from Asia as tariffs pushed importers to move peak season and holiday goods <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-upgrade-import-forecast-but-still-expect-q4-decline-6077875">earlier than usual</a>, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&amp;P Global. But fewer imports now mean fewer trucks looking for return loads to ports. While this may not be a major disruption, it is the first capacity dislocation of its type that shippers have seen since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. <h3>Capacity dislocated </h3>Excess truck capacity isn’t necessarily exiting the market; it’s being diverted. This situation is forcing shippers in certain inland markets to push more freight to spot load boards. Last week, the number of spot loads moved from Los Angeles to Las Vegas fell 11%, leading to a shortage of dry vans in Las Vegas, said DAT principal analyst Dean Croke. “We’re seeing an imbalance in all those markets that need to get freight back to Los Angeles,” Croke told the Journal of Commerce. “This is due to the falloff of imports in LA.” That imbalance led to a 45% surge in outbound load posts from Las Vegas as shippers scrambled to find capacity, Croke said. As of Thursday, the average broker rate from Las Vegas to Los Angeles jumped to $2.15 per mile, up from $1.96 per mile last month. The impact was even starker in the high-volume lane connecting Los Angeles and Stockton. The average DAT spot rate from Stockton to Los Angeles rose to $2.45 per mile in the first three days of this week, up from $1.74 per mile for the month of September. That increase marks a 33% leap from the average rate a year earlier, according to DAT’s data. As of Thursday, the average rate from Los Angeles to Stockton had climbed 7 cents from $2.99 per mile in September to $3.06 per mile in the last three days. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="244aa4d3-6440-4ac1-b876-a4f8341dad3c"></dynamic-object></div>In Chicago, overall spot loads jumped 20% last week, Croke said. Outbound rates from Chicago rose 8 cents on average to $2.20 per mile last week, excluding fuel surcharges, 50 cents higher than the national average, according to DAT. “Normally, markets tend to equalize, but I don’t know how long this will take before it balances out,” said Croke, adding that the freight fluctuations brought on by changing US tariffs “is unprecedented.” US imports should be below 2 million TEUs for at least <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tariff-uncertainty-to-keep-lid-on-us-import-growth-until-spring-retailers-6094200">the next five months</a>, according to the latest Global Port Tracker forecast from the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates. That situation gives truck capacity at inland hubs months to find a new level. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Outbound spot truckload capacity is tightening in several inland US markets, partly because of falling US imports, adding momentum to a seasonal increase in transactional truck rates as trucking's fall peak shipping period gets underway. Tighter capacity may be short-lived, but spot rates could run higher than expected in the fourth quarter, especially if consumer demand strengthens over the holidays. The average US dry-van truckload spot rate rose 3 cents in the week ended Oct. 4 to $1.70 per mile, according to DAT Freight & Analytics. That rate was 5 cents higher year over year. In 13 Midwest states representing 46% of national load volume, spot rates were up 5 cents per mile on average. Carriers in those states earned an average of $1.92 per mile, which remained 22 cents above the national seven-day rolling average, DAT said. Rates shot even higher in specific markets and port-dependent lanes, including some routes connecting Chicago, Las Vegas and Stockton, Calif., to major US seaports, as fewer trucks dropped off imports and searched for return loads, according to DAT. Plenty of capacity was available in July to handle a 25.7% spike in US laden container imports from Asia as tariffs pushed importers to move peak season and holiday goods earlier than usual , according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&P Global. But fewer imports now mean fewer trucks looking for return loads to ports. While this may not be a major disruption, it is the first capacity dislocation of its type that shippers have seen since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Capacity dislocated Excess truck capacity isn’t necessarily exiting the market; it’s being diverted. This situation is forcing shippers in certain inland markets to push more freight to spot load boards. Last week, the number of spot loads moved from Los Angeles to Las Vegas fell 11%, leading to a shortage of dry vans in Las Vegas, said DAT principal analyst Dean Croke. “We’re seeing an imbalance in all those markets that need to get freight back to Los Angeles,” Croke told the Journal of Commerce. “This is due to the falloff of imports in LA.” That imbalance led to a 45% surge in outbound load posts from Las Vegas as shippers scrambled to find capacity, Croke said. As of Thursday, the average broker rate from Las Vegas to Los Angeles jumped to $2.15 per mile, up from $1.96 per mile last month. The impact was even starker in the high-volume lane connecting Los Angeles and Stockton. The average DAT spot rate from Stockton to Los Angeles rose to $2.45 per mile in the first three days of this week, up from $1.74 per mile for the month of September. That increase marks a 33% leap from the average rate a year earlier, according to DAT’s data. As of Thursday, the average rate from Los Angeles to Stockton had climbed 7 cents from $2.99 per mile in September to $3.06 per mile in the last three days. In Chicago, overall spot loads jumped 20% last week, Croke said. Outbound rates from Chicago rose 8 cents on average to $2.20 per mile last week, excluding fuel surcharges, 50 cents higher than the national average, according to DAT. “Normally, markets tend to equalize, but I don’t know how long this will take before it balances out,” said Croke, adding that the freight fluctuations brought on by changing US tariffs “is unprecedented.” US imports should be below 2 million TEUs for at least the next five months , according to the latest Global Port Tracker forecast from the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates. That situation gives truck capacity at inland hubs months to find a new level. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Truckload

Lower US imports tightening truck capacity at key inland hubs

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY AND SAVE!

Upgrade to Gold using code TPMGW595 to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD: Upgrade to Gold using code TPMGW595 to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD: Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The onus of calculating new US port fees that kick in next week falls on ocean carriers. </div>

The onus of calculating new US port fees that kick in next week falls on ocean carriers.

<div class="phx-topic">The United States is moving forward with a plan to collect port fees, putting the onus on ocean carriers to calculate and setting the stage for a showdown with China, which is teeing up its own retaliatory actions. The US Customs and Border Protection in a notice issued Friday, directed ocean carriers to determine any China-built tonnage calling US ports and pay new fees starting Oct. 14. China-based operators face harsher fees than their counterparts, spurring Beijing last week to prepare its own retaliatory “special fees” for ships that are tied to actors hurting Chinese interests. The vagueness of the criteria China could use to determine ties to the United States has expanded the risk of other ocean carriers getting caught in the crossfire beyond the obvious targets: US-flag vessel operators. A change to Chinese shipping law that took effect Sept. 29 allows China to go as far as blocking vessels from its ports. The US Maritime Administration has been in a long-running disagreement with China’s Ministry of Transport, accusing Chinese ports of giving unfavorable treatment to US-owned vessels. Both countries agreed to a level playing field through the US-China Bilateral Maritime Agreement, which took effect in 1998. The US federal register notice doesn’t detail how US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would enforce the new port fee. The shipping industry largely failed to convince the USTR to again water down the Section 301 tariffs underpinning the port fees, although LNG-vessel shipowners and operators were exempted. The shipping industry successfully lobbied to ease the planned USTR port fee, with the agency releasing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">a less-severe plan in mid-April</a>. Container lines <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-tonnage-moving-out-of-us-container-trade-ahead-of-new-fees-xeneta-6081320">have made moves to avoid the new fees</a>. A week prior to Oct. 14, there were 647,000 TEUs of China-built capacity, equating to 13% of the tonnage on the trade between Asia and North America, according to rate benchmarking provider Xeneta. On the trans-Atlantic, which includes some Canada-only calls, there were 81,000 TEUs of capacity or 8.6% of deployed capacity. There’s more than 118,00 TEUs of China-built tonnage from vessels that are smaller than 4,000 TEUs and deployed on US services but are excluded from the new port fee. But Cosco Shipping, its subsidiary OOCL, and Hede can’t avoid them and are the primary targets of the US response to what it sees as unfair subsidies to Chinese shipbuilding. Cosco and OOCL, which handle most US laden imports from China, have pledged to continue operating in the US trades. China has stayed largely silent on the planned US port fees since they were proposed in late February, acting by changing its shipping law just two weeks before planned implementation. Chinese shipowners were quick last week to back the change to the Regulations of the People’s Republic on International Ocean Shipping, which China modeled on the US Shipping Act approximately 20 years ago. “This is of great significance for promoting the establishment of a fair and equal international maritime transportation governance system, facilitating the smooth flow of global trade, and safeguarding the security and resilience of industrial and supply chains,” the China Shipowners’ Association said in a Sept. 30 statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The United States is moving forward with a plan to collect port fees, putting the onus on ocean carriers to calculate and setting the stage for a showdown with China, which is teeing up its own retaliatory actions. The US Customs and Border Protection in a notice issued Friday, directed ocean carriers to determine any China-built tonnage calling US ports and pay new fees starting Oct. 14. China-based operators face harsher fees than their counterparts, spurring Beijing last week to prepare its own retaliatory “special fees” for ships that are tied to actors hurting Chinese interests. The vagueness of the criteria China could use to determine ties to the United States has expanded the risk of other ocean carriers getting caught in the crossfire beyond the obvious targets: US-flag vessel operators. A change to Chinese shipping law that took effect Sept. 29 allows China to go as far as blocking vessels from its ports. The US Maritime Administration has been in a long-running disagreement with China’s Ministry of Transport, accusing Chinese ports of giving unfavorable treatment to US-owned vessels. Both countries agreed to a level playing field through the US-China Bilateral Maritime Agreement, which took effect in 1998. The US federal register notice doesn’t detail how US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would enforce the new port fee. The shipping industry largely failed to convince the USTR to again water down the Section 301 tariffs underpinning the port fees, although LNG-vessel shipowners and operators were exempted. The shipping industry successfully lobbied to ease the planned USTR port fee, with the agency releasing a less-severe plan in mid-April . Container lines have made moves to avoid the new fees . A week prior to Oct. 14, there were 647,000 TEUs of China-built capacity, equating to 13% of the tonnage on the trade between Asia and North America, according to rate benchmarking provider Xeneta. On the trans-Atlantic, which includes some Canada-only calls, there were 81,000 TEUs of capacity or 8.6% of deployed capacity. There’s more than 118,00 TEUs of China-built tonnage from vessels that are smaller than 4,000 TEUs and deployed on US services but are excluded from the new port fee. But Cosco Shipping, its subsidiary OOCL, and Hede can’t avoid them and are the primary targets of the US response to what it sees as unfair subsidies to Chinese shipbuilding. Cosco and OOCL, which handle most US laden imports from China, have pledged to continue operating in the US trades. China has stayed largely silent on the planned US port fees since they were proposed in late February, acting by changing its shipping law just two weeks before planned implementation. Chinese shipowners were quick last week to back the change to the Regulations of the People’s Republic on International Ocean Shipping, which China modeled on the US Shipping Act approximately 20 years ago. “This is of great significance for promoting the establishment of a fair and equal international maritime transportation governance system, facilitating the smooth flow of global trade, and safeguarding the security and resilience of industrial and supply chains,” the China Shipowners’ Association said in a Sept. 30 statement. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

International ports

US presses forward on port fees despite China’s warning

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">At first blush, the fees targeting US entities would affect Matson, Maersk Line and APL, part of the CMA CGM group.</div>

At first blush, the fees targeting US entities would affect Matson, Maersk Line and APL, part of the CMA CGM group.

<div class="phx-topic">(Updated to add comment from Matson). China on Friday outlined new port fees targeting ships operated or owned by US companies. The plan mirrors the one the White House is set to implement Tuesday that targets Chinese tonnage. In a statement urging the US government to change course, China’s Ministry of Transport said starting Oct. 14 — the same day the US port fees go into effect — it would begin charging US-operated ships or those where US shareholders control more than a 25% stake. China’s retaliatory fees, which start in the first year at 400 renminbi ($56) per net ton, would hit the likes of US-owned Matson harder than US fees would hit Cosco Shipping. The measures, which mirror those imposed on Chinese-owned or -built ships calling at US ports, were announced by the Transport Ministry in a two-page statement. The fees also apply to US-flagged ships and US-built vessels. The ministry said the fees are being introduced in direct retaliation to the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) moves to impose port fees on Chinese-owned, -controlled or -built ships, adding the US fees “seriously violate the relevant principles of international trade and the Sino-US maritime agreement and causes serious damage to maritime trade between China and the United States.” “We urge the United States to immediately correct its wrong practices and stop its unreasonable suppression of China’s maritime industry,” a ministry spokesperson said. Under China’s plan, the targeted US ships will be charged $56 per net ton from next week, increasing to $90 per net ton from April 17, 2026; $123 from April 17, 2027; and $157 from April 17, 2028. “If a ship calls at multiple Chinese ports on the same voyage, the special port fee for the ship shall be paid only at the first port of call, and the subsequent port of call shall not be charged,” the Transport Ministry said. “The same ship shall be charged no more than five voyages within a year.” By comparison, the USTR fee schedule will charge the targeted Chinese vessels $50 per net ton and the higher of $18 per net ton or $120 per container discharged. <h3>Maersk, Matson and APL under the gun </h3>At first blush, the fees targeting US entities would affect Matson, Maersk Line and APL, part of the CMA CGM group. “Furthermore, this could also apply to vessels owned by Seaspan,” Lars Jensen, a maritime analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor, said in a LinkedIn post Friday. “Seaspan’s ultimate owner is Poseidon, where it seems that just over 25% of the ownership is US-based. “This could be quite an impact as it means that the more than 100 vessels owned by Seaspan, and chartered by a variety of major container lines, would now be subject to fees in China in addition to the fees in the US for their Chinese-built vessels,” Jensen added. Matson told customers in an advisory Friday it had no plans to change its service schedule and would not pass on the cost of China’s new port fees to customers via a surcharge. “We remain fully committed to providing...service offerings from China and the trans-Pacific market to the US,” the carrier said. The China port fees would apparently not apply to Israel’s Zim Integrated Shipping Services because, while there is a substantial US shareholding, the almost 19% would not cross the required threshold. The Transport Ministry said the fees will be collected by the maritime administration agency responsible for the port that is the ship’s first call. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

(Updated to add comment from Matson). China on Friday outlined new port fees targeting ships operated or owned by US companies. The plan mirrors the one the White House is set to implement Tuesday that targets Chinese tonnage. In a statement urging the US government to change course, China’s Ministry of Transport said starting Oct. 14 — the same day the US port fees go into effect — it would begin charging US-operated ships or those where US shareholders control more than a 25% stake. China’s retaliatory fees, which start in the first year at 400 renminbi ($56) per net ton, would hit the likes of US-owned Matson harder than US fees would hit Cosco Shipping. The measures, which mirror those imposed on Chinese-owned or -built ships calling at US ports, were announced by the Transport Ministry in a two-page statement. The fees also apply to US-flagged ships and US-built vessels. The ministry said the fees are being introduced in direct retaliation to the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) moves to impose port fees on Chinese-owned, -controlled or -built ships, adding the US fees “seriously violate the relevant principles of international trade and the Sino-US maritime agreement and causes serious damage to maritime trade between China and the United States.” “We urge the United States to immediately correct its wrong practices and stop its unreasonable suppression of China’s maritime industry,” a ministry spokesperson said. Under China’s plan, the targeted US ships will be charged $56 per net ton from next week, increasing to $90 per net ton from April 17, 2026; $123 from April 17, 2027; and $157 from April 17, 2028. “If a ship calls at multiple Chinese ports on the same voyage, the special port fee for the ship shall be paid only at the first port of call, and the subsequent port of call shall not be charged,” the Transport Ministry said. “The same ship shall be charged no more than five voyages within a year.” By comparison, the USTR fee schedule will charge the targeted Chinese vessels $50 per net ton and the higher of $18 per net ton or $120 per container discharged. Maersk, Matson and APL under the gun At first blush, the fees targeting US entities would affect Matson, Maersk Line and APL, part of the CMA CGM group. “Furthermore, this could also apply to vessels owned by Seaspan,” Lars Jensen, a maritime analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor, said in a LinkedIn post Friday. “Seaspan’s ultimate owner is Poseidon, where it seems that just over 25% of the ownership is US-based. “This could be quite an impact as it means that the more than 100 vessels owned by Seaspan, and chartered by a variety of major container lines, would now be subject to fees in China in addition to the fees in the US for their Chinese-built vessels,” Jensen added. Matson told customers in an advisory Friday it had no plans to change its service schedule and would not pass on the cost of China’s new port fees to customers via a surcharge. “We remain fully committed to providing...service offerings from China and the trans-Pacific market to the US,” the carrier said. The China port fees would apparently not apply to Israel’s Zim Integrated Shipping Services because, while there is a substantial US shareholding, the almost 19% would not cross the required threshold. The Transport Ministry said the fees will be collected by the maritime administration agency responsible for the port that is the ship’s first call. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

China returns fire with retaliatory port fees targeting US-affiliated ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The overhaul marks the latest in a series of network shakeups among North American railroads competing for international intermodal freight. </div>

The overhaul marks the latest in a series of network shakeups among North American railroads competing for international intermodal freight.

<div class="phx-topic">Editor’s Note: The story has been updated to clarify that Norfolk Southern service will only impact service from certain West Coast marine terminals to Cleveland and Detroit, while others will not be impacted later this month. Norfolk Southern Railway is reshaping its international intermodal network, consolidating some services between the US West Coast and Midwest markets while expanding train capacity from East Coast ports into the Midwest. The most significant changes affect Ohio and the Upper Midwest, where the railroad will consolidate all international Cincinnati-area traffic into a single large terminal in Sharonville, just north of the city. Under the new plan, international trains will interchange in Chicago and terminate in Cincinnati. The changes take effect Oct. 20. The decision was made to consolidate into a single terminal in Cincinnati to put ocean containers into stacks, following similar NS projects in Atlanta, Memphis and Chicago in the last two years. In the long-term, ground stacking will allow Norfolk Southern to be better equipped for import surges. Domestic intermodal traffic will remain at the Gest Street terminal, which is closer to downtown Cincinnati. Meanwhile, the railroad’s decision to cancel international trains will impact only West Coast marine terminals handling very little volume to Cleveland or Detroit. NS will maintain international service from other West Coast terminals with greater demand. The overhaul by NS marks the latest in a series of network shakeups among North American railroads competing for international intermodal freight. In April, BNSF Railway introduced a joint service with Norfolk Southern to move import containers from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bnsfs-new-seattle-to-ohio-service-avoids-chicago-dray-5203416">Seattle and Tacoma to the Ohio Valley</a> with a quick crew change in Chicago, eliminating the need to truck cargo across the city. BNSF added another inland service in July, linking Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bnsf-to-use-southern-route-to-salt-lake-city-under-up-intermodal-deal-6045357">Salt Lake City</a>. In July, Union Pacific Railroad also opened a new terminal in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ups-kc-terminal-will-change-approach-on-ocean-cargo-6013727">Kansas City</a> and reconfigured its intermodal network to accelerate domestic and international trains from Southern California in a bid to better compete against BNSF. In September, Canadian National Railway and CSX Transportation unveiled a joint service to move containers from Western Canada <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cn-csx-joint-service-to-connect-west-canada-and-nashville-6077903">directly to Nashville</a>, rather than depositing the cargo in Memphis and trucking it across Tennessee. <h3>Adjustment for NS shippers </h3>Cargo owners in Cleveland and Detroit will lose access to some West Coast marine terminals unless they are willing to truck containers to Chicago or Cincinnati, but alternative options are available. The easiest would be for cargo owners to re-route cargo into terminals such as Long Beach Container Terminal or APM’s Pier 400 in Los Angeles, which will continue to service Cleveland and Detroit via NS. Detroit shippers can also redirect international volumes to the East Coast ports of New York–New Jersey and Virginia, where CSX and Norfolk Southern already operate frequent service. They can also route freight through Vancouver, using Canadian National Railway, which maintains a large terminal in Detroit. Norfolk Southern, meanwhile, will replace West Coast options for those in Cleveland with new departures from the Port of New York and New Jersey. A new thrice weekly train from Port Liberty Bayonne will launch Oct. 21, the railroad announced, supplementing its existing daily train from APM’s Elizabeth Marine Terminal. Shippers in Kansas City will also see adjustments on Oct. 21. The current daily train from Elizabeth Marine Terminal will be replaced by a three-day per week schedule, but originate from Elizabeth, Port Liberty Bayonne, and Port Liberty New York on Staten Island, offering service from more terminals despite fewer weekly departures. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Editor’s Note: The story has been updated to clarify that Norfolk Southern service will only impact service from certain West Coast marine terminals to Cleveland and Detroit, while others will not be impacted later this month. Norfolk Southern Railway is reshaping its international intermodal network, consolidating some services between the US West Coast and Midwest markets while expanding train capacity from East Coast ports into the Midwest. The most significant changes affect Ohio and the Upper Midwest, where the railroad will consolidate all international Cincinnati-area traffic into a single large terminal in Sharonville, just north of the city. Under the new plan, international trains will interchange in Chicago and terminate in Cincinnati. The changes take effect Oct. 20. The decision was made to consolidate into a single terminal in Cincinnati to put ocean containers into stacks, following similar NS projects in Atlanta, Memphis and Chicago in the last two years. In the long-term, ground stacking will allow Norfolk Southern to be better equipped for import surges. Domestic intermodal traffic will remain at the Gest Street terminal, which is closer to downtown Cincinnati. Meanwhile, the railroad’s decision to cancel international trains will impact only West Coast marine terminals handling very little volume to Cleveland or Detroit. NS will maintain international service from other West Coast terminals with greater demand. The overhaul by NS marks the latest in a series of network shakeups among North American railroads competing for international intermodal freight. In April, BNSF Railway introduced a joint service with Norfolk Southern to move import containers from Seattle and Tacoma to the Ohio Valley with a quick crew change in Chicago, eliminating the need to truck cargo across the city. BNSF added another inland service in July, linking Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland with Salt Lake City . In July, Union Pacific Railroad also opened a new terminal in Kansas City and reconfigured its intermodal network to accelerate domestic and international trains from Southern California in a bid to better compete against BNSF. In September, Canadian National Railway and CSX Transportation unveiled a joint service to move containers from Western Canada directly to Nashville , rather than depositing the cargo in Memphis and trucking it across Tennessee. Adjustment for NS shippers Cargo owners in Cleveland and Detroit will lose access to some West Coast marine terminals unless they are willing to truck containers to Chicago or Cincinnati, but alternative options are available. The easiest would be for cargo owners to re-route cargo into terminals such as Long Beach Container Terminal or APM’s Pier 400 in Los Angeles, which will continue to service Cleveland and Detroit via NS. Detroit shippers can also redirect international volumes to the East Coast ports of New York–New Jersey and Virginia, where CSX and Norfolk Southern already operate frequent service. They can also route freight through Vancouver, using Canadian National Railway, which maintains a large terminal in Detroit. Norfolk Southern, meanwhile, will replace West Coast options for those in Cleveland with new departures from the Port of New York and New Jersey. A new thrice weekly train from Port Liberty Bayonne will launch Oct. 21, the railroad announced, supplementing its existing daily train from APM’s Elizabeth Marine Terminal. Shippers in Kansas City will also see adjustments on Oct. 21. The current daily train from Elizabeth Marine Terminal will be replaced by a three-day per week schedule, but originate from Elizabeth, Port Liberty Bayonne, and Port Liberty New York on Staten Island, offering service from more terminals despite fewer weekly departures. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Norfolk Southern tweaks international services from West, East coasts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The LTL carrier has used technology to drive its financial turnaround, with the latest example being a system that has slashed the number of missed pickups for shippers. </div>

The LTL carrier has used technology to drive its financial turnaround, with the latest example being a system that has slashed the number of missed pickups for shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">US less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier Roadrunner has developed a new set of pickup and delivery tools for customers to track their shipments and set up appointment times, part of a broader effort to use technology to decrease missed pickups. “The investment stems from a strategic decision in 2023 to reinvent last-mile efficiency through a hybrid approach, building proprietary tools in-house while integrating best-in-class external components,” Nathalie de Champlain, chief transformation officer at Roadrunner, told the Journal of Commerce. “The result is a seamless experience for Roadrunner’s nationwide owner-operator network and customers.” The company said in a statement this week it has driven down missed pickups from nearly 30% in the early 2020s to 0.5% today, service improvements that have coincided with a rebound in the company’s financial fortunes in an LTL market that has retained pricing power despite muted demand in 2025. De Champlain said the new platform dynamically routes drivers using real-time data, including traffic, availability, distance and location constraints, so that customers get a “ride share-like visibility experience” from pickup to delivery. She said Roadrunner eventually plans to extend automation across dynamic pricing, self-service application programming interfaces (APIs) and robotic process automation for customers. Tomasz Jamroz, Roadrunner’s president and chief operating officer, said in a statement that the company’s investments and subsequent tools will enable the carrier’s owner-operator driver partners to make more money in less time with lower fuel costs. “Our customers should now expect real-time heads-up notifications and precise timing of pending pick-ups further augmented by track-and-trace capabilities that consumers have come to expect from leading e-commerce and home-delivery marketplaces,” he said. <h3>LTL carriers turn to tech </h3>While Roadrunner has used technology to power its turnaround, it’s far from the only LTL carrier focused on technology. Mario Harik, CEO of competitor XPO, told the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference last week that investment in technology has been key in helping it overperform on service metrics such as on-time delivery and lowering the percentage of shipments that are damaged. Relevant to Roadrunner’s new pickup and delivery capabilities, Harik said XPO has automated its entire line-haul model around handling exceptions. “So if freight comes in early or freight comes in late in our network, we can actually route it in more effective ways,” he said. “In our [pickup and delivery] and our route optimization, we use AI to optimize the routes to get the most amount of density and the best service product for the customer.” More broadly, the industry has been embracing technology to improve customer responsiveness, whether through shipper-direct white-labeled transportation management platforms such as MyCarrier that is used by a majority of the top 15 carriers, or through pricing efficiency tools such as rateHERO. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier Roadrunner has developed a new set of pickup and delivery tools for customers to track their shipments and set up appointment times, part of a broader effort to use technology to decrease missed pickups. “The investment stems from a strategic decision in 2023 to reinvent last-mile efficiency through a hybrid approach, building proprietary tools in-house while integrating best-in-class external components,” Nathalie de Champlain, chief transformation officer at Roadrunner, told the Journal of Commerce. “The result is a seamless experience for Roadrunner’s nationwide owner-operator network and customers.” The company said in a statement this week it has driven down missed pickups from nearly 30% in the early 2020s to 0.5% today, service improvements that have coincided with a rebound in the company’s financial fortunes in an LTL market that has retained pricing power despite muted demand in 2025. De Champlain said the new platform dynamically routes drivers using real-time data, including traffic, availability, distance and location constraints, so that customers get a “ride share-like visibility experience” from pickup to delivery. She said Roadrunner eventually plans to extend automation across dynamic pricing, self-service application programming interfaces (APIs) and robotic process automation for customers. Tomasz Jamroz, Roadrunner’s president and chief operating officer, said in a statement that the company’s investments and subsequent tools will enable the carrier’s owner-operator driver partners to make more money in less time with lower fuel costs. “Our customers should now expect real-time heads-up notifications and precise timing of pending pick-ups further augmented by track-and-trace capabilities that consumers have come to expect from leading e-commerce and home-delivery marketplaces,” he said. LTL carriers turn to tech While Roadrunner has used technology to power its turnaround, it’s far from the only LTL carrier focused on technology. Mario Harik, CEO of competitor XPO, told the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference last week that investment in technology has been key in helping it overperform on service metrics such as on-time delivery and lowering the percentage of shipments that are damaged. Relevant to Roadrunner’s new pickup and delivery capabilities, Harik said XPO has automated its entire line-haul model around handling exceptions. “So if freight comes in early or freight comes in late in our network, we can actually route it in more effective ways,” he said. “In our [pickup and delivery] and our route optimization, we use AI to optimize the routes to get the most amount of density and the best service product for the customer.” More broadly, the industry has been embracing technology to improve customer responsiveness, whether through shipper-direct white-labeled transportation management platforms such as MyCarrier that is used by a majority of the top 15 carriers, or through pricing efficiency tools such as rateHERO. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

CMA CGM signs $350 million Indian shipbuilding order for six box ships

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

White House sanctions threat ups ante ahead of pivotal IMO meeting

Car carrier sector slams USTR’s decision for threefold increase in port fees

Lower US imports tightening truck capacity at key inland hubs

Recent Commentary

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Top 5 Most Read Stories