Website_Early BF_640x340 Anon 1.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Anonymous

Supply chain

Events

Gateway

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Special Reports

Press Releases

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

Truckload

Truck brokers

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

Intermodal providers

Commentary

Podcasts

Webcasts

Videos

Annual Review and Outlook

Top Rankings

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Platts Containers Update

Custom Content

Resources

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Media Kit

Other

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

International rail

Top 100 US Exporters

Top 100 US Importers

Top 25 LTL Trucking Companies

Top 25 North American Ports

Top 25 Truckload Companies

Top 40 Container Carriers

Top 50 3PLs

Top 50 Global Container Ports

Top 50 Global Transportation Providers

Top 50 Trucking Companies

Editorial Calendar

Rail Directories

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">UP's changes will make things easier in Southern California but might make interchanges in Chicago more difficult for shippers. </div>

UP's changes will make things easier in Southern California but might make interchanges in Chicago more difficult for shippers.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific Railroad has made changes to how it will route domestic containers from Los Angeles to Cincinnati, moving the originating terminal closer to warehousing clusters in Southern California and offering additional trains. Effective Nov. 20, domestic containers destined for Cincinnati must originate at UP’s City of Industry or Inland Empire terminals rather than its Los Angeles Transportation Center in eastern Los Angeles. The change gives shippers two origin options closer to major warehousing and cross-dock clusters in San Bernardino County, reducing drayage distances and transportation costs for transloaded freight. “These changes are designed to streamline your shipping experience and expand your options for reaching Cincinnati via the Norfolk Southern,” UP said in a <a href="https://www.up.com/announcements/intermodal/PR2025-86">service advisory</a> on Tuesday. The move benefits beneficial cargo owners operating in the Inland Empire, who also use cross-docks in the area to transload cargo from international to domestic containers. But while the front end becomes more convenient, the middle mile may become more complicated in Chicago. <h3>Added transits and costs in Chicago </h3>Under the new plan, containers moving from UP to Norfolk Southern for final delivery into downtown Cincinnati will need to be “rubber-tired” between terminals in the Chicago area. That means trucking the boxes about 30 to 40 miles from UP’s intermodal facility to NS’s Calumet terminal, known as a “cross-town” dray, adding both time and cost. Previously, this traffic was “steel-wheeled” — i.e., transferred by rail between UP and NS terminals using switching service or short-line railroads. The change comes as Norfolk Southern reorganizes its Cincinnati-area intermodal operations, separating international and domestic containers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/norfolk-southern-tweaks-international-services-from-west-east-coasts-6094751">into two separate terminals</a>. NS believes the split improves terminal flow through Cincinnati, but dividing the flows makes it impractical for UP to send blocks of international and domestic containers to NS via rail in Chicago. “We prefer steel-wheel but strive to provide customers with the most optimal transit possible,” a UP spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. Although UP argued a cross-town dray will make it easier for NS to build trains to Cincinnati, it also conflicts with UP’s argument on why a merged railroad is beneficial. “When an intermodal train arrives in Chicago, we put it on a truck to move it to another railroad, and we have close to 1,000 trucks a day that go from railroad to railroad this way,” UP CEO Jim Vena said at a Nov. 12 company-sponsored media event. “Is it good for America that we put more trucks on the road in Chicago for no reason at all? No.” The costs stack up. An average cross-town dray in Chicago can cost a shipper more than $350 per load, including fuel, depending on the distance between terminals. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a></div>

Union Pacific Railroad has made changes to how it will route domestic containers from Los Angeles to Cincinnati, moving the originating terminal closer to warehousing clusters in Southern California and offering additional trains. Effective Nov. 20, domestic containers destined for Cincinnati must originate at UP’s City of Industry or Inland Empire terminals rather than its Los Angeles Transportation Center in eastern Los Angeles. The change gives shippers two origin options closer to major warehousing and cross-dock clusters in San Bernardino County, reducing drayage distances and transportation costs for transloaded freight. “These changes are designed to streamline your shipping experience and expand your options for reaching Cincinnati via the Norfolk Southern,” UP said in a service advisory on Tuesday. The move benefits beneficial cargo owners operating in the Inland Empire, who also use cross-docks in the area to transload cargo from international to domestic containers. But while the front end becomes more convenient, the middle mile may become more complicated in Chicago. Added transits and costs in Chicago Under the new plan, containers moving from UP to Norfolk Southern for final delivery into downtown Cincinnati will need to be “rubber-tired” between terminals in the Chicago area. That means trucking the boxes about 30 to 40 miles from UP’s intermodal facility to NS’s Calumet terminal, known as a “cross-town” dray, adding both time and cost. Previously, this traffic was “steel-wheeled” — i.e., transferred by rail between UP and NS terminals using switching service or short-line railroads. The change comes as Norfolk Southern reorganizes its Cincinnati-area intermodal operations, separating international and domestic containers into two separate terminals . NS believes the split improves terminal flow through Cincinnati, but dividing the flows makes it impractical for UP to send blocks of international and domestic containers to NS via rail in Chicago. “We prefer steel-wheel but strive to provide customers with the most optimal transit possible,” a UP spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. Although UP argued a cross-town dray will make it easier for NS to build trains to Cincinnati, it also conflicts with UP’s argument on why a merged railroad is beneficial. “When an intermodal train arrives in Chicago, we put it on a truck to move it to another railroad, and we have close to 1,000 trucks a day that go from railroad to railroad this way,” UP CEO Jim Vena said at a Nov. 12 company-sponsored media event. “Is it good for America that we put more trucks on the road in Chicago for no reason at all? No.” The costs stack up. An average cross-town dray in Chicago can cost a shipper more than $350 per load, including fuel, depending on the distance between terminals. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com

UP enhances intermodal between LA and Cincinnati

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The visibility software vendor earlier this year expanded into providing TMS, while also trimming headcount and cutting loose unprofitable customers. </div>

The visibility software vendor earlier this year expanded into providing TMS, while also trimming headcount and cutting loose unprofitable customers.

<div class="phx-topic">Technology provider project44 has reached a milestone that has eluded nearly all the larger venture capital-backed software companies in the logistics industry: cash flow-breakeven. In reporting this week that it reached that marker in the third quarter, visibility and transportation management software provider project44 has offered the industry a small foothold of stability given its reach among top global shippers, where it counts 500 of the top global 2,000 as customers. Its more than 900 total customers include Amazon, IKEA, Ford, Abercrombie &amp; Fitch, The Home Depot and Volkswagen. Getting to cash flow-breakeven is a huge progression from a stage when the company was, in the words of CEO Jett McCandless, burning eight figures of cash monthly. The turnaround, McCandless said in a Thursday interview with the Journal of Commerce, is attributable to two key factors: it has sliced its headcount by more than half and jettisoned a cadre of mostly midsized third-party logistics providers offering revenue but not profits. At its peak, project44 employed more than 1,200 employees. More broadly, the announcement comes amid a huge shift in the logistics technology environment over the past few years. Whereas growth and sky-high funding rounds were the mantra at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, investors’ message to companies shifted to one of “<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/a-decade-on-logistics-industry-still-awaits-proof-that-vc-is-a-welcomed-partner-5215307">a path to profitability</a>.” And now, the message is even clearer: get to cash flow-positive. For the market, the threshold project44 crossed this week signals that there is a way to take a company in the small cohort of what McCandless called “mega-fundraisers” in logistics technology and turn it into a profitable business. Among that cohort would logically be other bellwether startups founded on the back of venture capital over the past dozen years, a list that includes Flexport, the now-defunct Convoy, Forto, Freightos and project44’s main competitor, FourKites. <h3>Different paths, one goal </h3>The divergent business models of these companies don't make easy comparisons in terms of measuring profitability. Flexport, for example, had a profitable 2021 largely because of the unexpected spike in freight rates, not because it had geared its business to being profitable that year. Rather, the company was more focused on growth after having secured a $1 billion funding round in 2019. Freightos, meanwhile, has been <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/freightos-goes-public-on-nasdaq-in-first-measure-of-logistics-tech-value-5203019">publicly listed</a> since the start of 2023, but has yet to turn a profit. The company’s third-quarter financials showed losses before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $2.6 million on revenue of $7.7 million. For context, those losses are the lowest since the company went public, and its revenue is 25% higher over the last year. While <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/no-escaping-the-truckload-markets-inherent-fragmentation-for-convoy-5241498">Convoy succumbed</a> to the issue of having expenses that could not be supported by falling truckload freight rates in a down market, Forto has similarly not been able to break out despite having raised more than $600 million, the last of which was a tranche of $250 million invested in December, at a $2.1 billion valuation. FourKites, which earlier in 2025 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fourkites-exit-from-gartner-visibility-assessment-highlights-evolving-market-5958243">evolved its approach</a> from visibility provider to control tower vendor, reached cash flow-breakeven in December 2023 and is currently debt-free, founder Matt Elenjickal told the Journal of Commerce. The company has raised a total of $243 million, compared to more than $700 million in venture funding for project44 (including a 13-month stretch between late 2020 and early 2022, when it raised approximately $500 million over three rounds). project44's seemingly new direction into <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/project44-wades-into-tms-market-to-fill-modal-geographic-gaps-6065764">providing a transportation management system</a> (TMS) — a move the company says has driven 150 new customers, accounting for $30 million in annual recurring revenue — is actually just project44 piecing together functionality it has previously sold “a la carte,” McCandless said, to shippers looking for transportation visibility to drive better execution and payment. It’s important to note that all the companies in the mega-fundraiser cohort are still private, aside from Freightos, and thus have no obligation to release financials publicly. As such, many tend to talk publicly about their performance only when there is something positive to disclose. Still, that should not fully detract from the news this week. McCandless said project44 has been managing its financials using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) since it prepared itself to go public during the pandemic. That goal was waylaid by the industry coming off its COVID-induced sugar high when it came to investing in logistics technology. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Technology provider project44 has reached a milestone that has eluded nearly all the larger venture capital-backed software companies in the logistics industry: cash flow-breakeven. In reporting this week that it reached that marker in the third quarter, visibility and transportation management software provider project44 has offered the industry a small foothold of stability given its reach among top global shippers, where it counts 500 of the top global 2,000 as customers. Its more than 900 total customers include Amazon, IKEA, Ford, Abercrombie & Fitch, The Home Depot and Volkswagen. Getting to cash flow-breakeven is a huge progression from a stage when the company was, in the words of CEO Jett McCandless, burning eight figures of cash monthly. The turnaround, McCandless said in a Thursday interview with the Journal of Commerce, is attributable to two key factors: it has sliced its headcount by more than half and jettisoned a cadre of mostly midsized third-party logistics providers offering revenue but not profits. At its peak, project44 employed more than 1,200 employees. More broadly, the announcement comes amid a huge shift in the logistics technology environment over the past few years. Whereas growth and sky-high funding rounds were the mantra at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, investors’ message to companies shifted to one of “ a path to profitability .” And now, the message is even clearer: get to cash flow-positive. For the market, the threshold project44 crossed this week signals that there is a way to take a company in the small cohort of what McCandless called “mega-fundraisers” in logistics technology and turn it into a profitable business. Among that cohort would logically be other bellwether startups founded on the back of venture capital over the past dozen years, a list that includes Flexport, the now-defunct Convoy, Forto, Freightos and project44’s main competitor, FourKites. Different paths, one goal The divergent business models of these companies don't make easy comparisons in terms of measuring profitability. Flexport, for example, had a profitable 2021 largely because of the unexpected spike in freight rates, not because it had geared its business to being profitable that year. Rather, the company was more focused on growth after having secured a $1 billion funding round in 2019. Freightos, meanwhile, has been publicly listed since the start of 2023, but has yet to turn a profit. The company’s third-quarter financials showed losses before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $2.6 million on revenue of $7.7 million. For context, those losses are the lowest since the company went public, and its revenue is 25% higher over the last year. While Convoy succumbed to the issue of having expenses that could not be supported by falling truckload freight rates in a down market, Forto has similarly not been able to break out despite having raised more than $600 million, the last of which was a tranche of $250 million invested in December, at a $2.1 billion valuation. FourKites, which earlier in 2025 evolved its approach from visibility provider to control tower vendor, reached cash flow-breakeven in December 2023 and is currently debt-free, founder Matt Elenjickal told the Journal of Commerce. The company has raised a total of $243 million, compared to more than $700 million in venture funding for project44 (including a 13-month stretch between late 2020 and early 2022, when it raised approximately $500 million over three rounds). project44's seemingly new direction into providing a transportation management system (TMS) — a move the company says has driven 150 new customers, accounting for $30 million in annual recurring revenue — is actually just project44 piecing together functionality it has previously sold “a la carte,” McCandless said, to shippers looking for transportation visibility to drive better execution and payment. It’s important to note that all the companies in the mega-fundraiser cohort are still private, aside from Freightos, and thus have no obligation to release financials publicly. As such, many tend to talk publicly about their performance only when there is something positive to disclose. Still, that should not fully detract from the news this week. McCandless said project44 has been managing its financials using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) since it prepared itself to go public during the pandemic. That goal was waylaid by the industry coming off its COVID-induced sugar high when it came to investing in logistics technology. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

‘Breakeven’ moment for project44 shows path for VC-backed software

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The injection of vessels appears to have peaked, but capacity is overtaking market demand with little upward movement in rate levels on the westbound trade lane.</div>

The injection of vessels appears to have peaked, but capacity is overtaking market demand with little upward movement in rate levels on the westbound trade lane.

<div class="phx-topic">Offered weekly ocean capacity on the trans-Atlantic westbound trade lane reached a 28-month high this week but is set to reduce sharply over the next three months, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. The injection of capacity is overtaking market demand on North Europe to the US East Coast, where volumes have been slowing since June, although the supply-demand imbalance is not yet being seen in the spot market. Driving the volatility in capacity are nonalliance carriers and the Gemini Cooperation between Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, told the Journal of Commerce Friday. “Looking into the upcoming three months, offered capacity is peaking at 60,000 TEUs this week and heading for a 60-day steady decline to 45,000 TEUs per week,” Sand said. “After that, a bounce back is currently in the pro-forma schedules that will lead to another surge peaking around Feb 10.” Compared to October, the offered capacity is up 55.5% and is mainly from nonalliance capacity that is up 157.1% compared to last month and Gemini Alliance that is offering 42.3% more capacity compared to October, Sand noted. <h3>MSC move raises vessel sizes </h3>Data from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis shows that over the last 13 weeks, the average vessel size deployed on the trans-Atlantic has risen from 5,500 TEUs to nearly 6,200 TEUs, while the median vessel size has increased from 5,100 TEUs to roughly 5,300 TEUs. “The primary driver is MSC’s Dragon service, which operates vessels with an average size of roughly 13,000 TEUs and a median of roughly 14,500 TEUs,” said Sea-Intelligence CEO Alan Murphy in his Sunday Spotlight newsletter. For context, the largest vessel deployed on any other service on the Mediterranean-North America East Coast trade lane in the second half of 2025 was around 9,600 TEUs. “This single service has introduced a new, much larger class of vessel to the trade, which in turn pulls the overall average vessel size significantly higher than the median,” Murphy noted. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7dd20c33-2db1-4900-9556-ce85e1d5b298"></dynamic-object></div>In November, carriers on North Europe-US East Coast will deploy a total of 379,017 TEUs and blank 26,425 TEUs, according to Xeneta’s eeSea data. The planned capacity will increase significantly in December, to 421,154 TEUs with 32,000 TEUs blanked. Mediterranean-US East Coast carriers will deploy 213,268 TEUs in November and blank around 10,000 TEUs. In December, they will deploy 225,392 TEUs of capacity and blank 12,837 TEUs, eeSea data shows. A slowdown in import volumes from Europe has yet to be felt in the market. Short-term rates from North Europe to US East Coast ports are at $831 per FEU, according to Xeneta. The rate has been generally steady through November but is down 57% since January. From January through October, trans-Atlantic westbound volume of 1.88 million TEUs was a 14% year-over-year increase, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Most of that demand growth was recorded in the March through June period, with October showing a 1% year-over-year growth in volume, at 170,110 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Offered weekly ocean capacity on the trans-Atlantic westbound trade lane reached a 28-month high this week but is set to reduce sharply over the next three months, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. The injection of capacity is overtaking market demand on North Europe to the US East Coast, where volumes have been slowing since June, although the supply-demand imbalance is not yet being seen in the spot market. Driving the volatility in capacity are nonalliance carriers and the Gemini Cooperation between Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, told the Journal of Commerce Friday. “Looking into the upcoming three months, offered capacity is peaking at 60,000 TEUs this week and heading for a 60-day steady decline to 45,000 TEUs per week,” Sand said. “After that, a bounce back is currently in the pro-forma schedules that will lead to another surge peaking around Feb 10.” Compared to October, the offered capacity is up 55.5% and is mainly from nonalliance capacity that is up 157.1% compared to last month and Gemini Alliance that is offering 42.3% more capacity compared to October, Sand noted. MSC move raises vessel sizes Data from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis shows that over the last 13 weeks, the average vessel size deployed on the trans-Atlantic has risen from 5,500 TEUs to nearly 6,200 TEUs, while the median vessel size has increased from 5,100 TEUs to roughly 5,300 TEUs. “The primary driver is MSC’s Dragon service, which operates vessels with an average size of roughly 13,000 TEUs and a median of roughly 14,500 TEUs,” said Sea-Intelligence CEO Alan Murphy in his Sunday Spotlight newsletter. For context, the largest vessel deployed on any other service on the Mediterranean-North America East Coast trade lane in the second half of 2025 was around 9,600 TEUs. “This single service has introduced a new, much larger class of vessel to the trade, which in turn pulls the overall average vessel size significantly higher than the median,” Murphy noted. In November, carriers on North Europe-US East Coast will deploy a total of 379,017 TEUs and blank 26,425 TEUs, according to Xeneta’s eeSea data. The planned capacity will increase significantly in December, to 421,154 TEUs with 32,000 TEUs blanked. Mediterranean-US East Coast carriers will deploy 213,268 TEUs in November and blank around 10,000 TEUs. In December, they will deploy 225,392 TEUs of capacity and blank 12,837 TEUs, eeSea data shows. A slowdown in import volumes from Europe has yet to be felt in the market. Short-term rates from North Europe to US East Coast ports are at $831 per FEU, according to Xeneta. The rate has been generally steady through November but is down 57% since January. From January through October, trans-Atlantic westbound volume of 1.88 million TEUs was a 14% year-over-year increase, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Most of that demand growth was recorded in the March through June period, with October showing a 1% year-over-year growth in volume, at 170,110 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic ocean capacity hits 28-month high: Xeneta

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper"> Breakbulk and project cargo shippers are tapping FTZ and bonded warehouse storage to “tariff engineer.” </div>

Breakbulk and project cargo shippers are tapping FTZ and bonded warehouse storage to “tariff engineer.”

<div class="phx-topic">With importers looking to foreign trade zones (FTZs) as a tariff mitigation strategy, US port facilities are taking steps to expand FTZ programs and warehousing capacity to accommodate additional breakbulk and project cargo activity. However, some facilities that are in the early stages of this process could encounter delays in obtaining federal approvals following the recent US government shutdown. A foreign trade zone is a designated area near a port of entry that is considered legally outside of the authority of US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). As a result, cargoes placed at these sites are not subject to duties until they leave the facility and can remain in storage indefinitely. Shippers are also turning to US Customs bonded warehouses — federally operated sites where importers can store goods for up to five years before having to pay duties, which are assessed after the goods enter US commerce. Breakbulk and project cargo accounts for a significant segment of goods stored at FTZ and bonded warehouses. Hans Luetkemeier, president and CEO of New Orleans-based global logistics and storage provider The Dupuy Group, told the Journal of Commerce that most of the recent FTZ inquiries his company has received have included breakbulk commodities such as lumber, copper, machinery and solar panels, as well as project cargo. “Our utilization is certainly higher this year than last year, driven by demand from FTZ and bonded,” he said of the company’s three million square feet of FTZ and bonded warehouse storage across the US. Janine Mansour, director of trade development for the Port of New Orleans, told the Journal of Commerce that FTZ warehouses in the region have been relatively full, and that the port has fielded a significant spike in inquiries for FTZs and government-bonded warehouses since tariffs were first announced last spring. “We’ve definitely seen an increase in demand. The reason why is the flexibility aspect and importers seeking to reduce their exposure to tariffs,” Mansour said, adding that the Port of New Orleans administers the region’s FTZ processing and has 24 active foreign trade zone locations. In October, the Port of New Orleans received federal approval to expand its designated foreign trade zone, FTZ No. 2. The zone already covers Orleans, Jefferson and St. Bernard parishes; the expanded FTZ now includes St. Tammany Parish, about 50 miles north of the city. “St. Tammany Parish is where we really see a lot of the warehousing and distribution development, as well as future development opportunities,” Mansour said. Foreign trade zone expansion efforts are also under way at the Ports of Indiana, which appointed its first foreign trade and economic development director, global logistics industry veteran Dexter Salenda, in August. Ports of Indiana created the position to grow the ports’ foreign trade zone program and offer new services for companies “dealing with challenges related to international trade and tariffs,” according to a Ports of Indiana news release. For The Dupuy Group, Luetkemeier said plans to expand the company’s footprint have been in the works since before tariffs hit. “We have several warehouse expansion projects in the works that were not initially contemplated for FTZ, but with the uncertainty of tariffs we will be applying for FTZ status at those locations,” he said. Applicants who are filing for FTZ certification could face some setbacks, though. On Nov. 14, the US CPB issued a memo indicating that its review processes will be delayed by 47 days following the US government shutdown, which began Oct. 1 and ended Nov. 12. “It was impossible for Enforcement and Compliance to operate during the shutdown. It was also impossible for Enforcement and Compliance to accelerate its proceedings by the number of days on which the agency was closed — we simply lack the resources,” the memo read. <h3>Hurdles for ‘tariff engineering’ </h3>FTZs give importers of breakbulk and project cargo advantages such as duty deferral, flexible storage options and streamlined customs clearances. “A manufacturing facility, for example, that needs to maintain critical spare parts manufactured overseas could use FTZ status to import that material without having to pay the duty until that critical spare part is needed,” Luetkemeier said. Since duties are not paid until imports formally enter into US commerce, imported cargo stored in federal trade zones can delay tariffs until they leave the zone. Imports placed in an FTZ and then exported without entering the US market may be able to avoid tariffs completely. For project cargo especially, one of the long-standing advantages of foreign trade zones is that shippers could use FTZ sites to assemble imported products, such as modular components for construction projects. Tariffs would then be levied only on the finished product, rather than the imported materials. Some shippers have used this approach strategically in a practice known as “tariff engineering,” in which importers modify materials so they can be reclassified at a lower tariff rate. Those savings are no longer available following a Trump executive order issued in April, stating that any assembly or processing that takes place within an FTZ will not change the original tariff rate assessed on the imported cargo upon entry. Luetkemeier said importers can still take advantage of another significant FTZ cost-savings strategy — entry fee consolidation. Instead of having to pay a merchandise processing fee for each incoming shipment, importers can instead group multiple shipments into a single, weekly customs entry and pay one fee each week. “There are companies that are probably saving millions a year doing that,” he said. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

With importers looking to foreign trade zones (FTZs) as a tariff mitigation strategy, US port facilities are taking steps to expand FTZ programs and warehousing capacity to accommodate additional breakbulk and project cargo activity. However, some facilities that are in the early stages of this process could encounter delays in obtaining federal approvals following the recent US government shutdown. A foreign trade zone is a designated area near a port of entry that is considered legally outside of the authority of US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). As a result, cargoes placed at these sites are not subject to duties until they leave the facility and can remain in storage indefinitely. Shippers are also turning to US Customs bonded warehouses — federally operated sites where importers can store goods for up to five years before having to pay duties, which are assessed after the goods enter US commerce. Breakbulk and project cargo accounts for a significant segment of goods stored at FTZ and bonded warehouses. Hans Luetkemeier, president and CEO of New Orleans-based global logistics and storage provider The Dupuy Group, told the Journal of Commerce that most of the recent FTZ inquiries his company has received have included breakbulk commodities such as lumber, copper, machinery and solar panels, as well as project cargo. “Our utilization is certainly higher this year than last year, driven by demand from FTZ and bonded,” he said of the company’s three million square feet of FTZ and bonded warehouse storage across the US. Janine Mansour, director of trade development for the Port of New Orleans, told the Journal of Commerce that FTZ warehouses in the region have been relatively full, and that the port has fielded a significant spike in inquiries for FTZs and government-bonded warehouses since tariffs were first announced last spring. “We’ve definitely seen an increase in demand. The reason why is the flexibility aspect and importers seeking to reduce their exposure to tariffs,” Mansour said, adding that the Port of New Orleans administers the region’s FTZ processing and has 24 active foreign trade zone locations. In October, the Port of New Orleans received federal approval to expand its designated foreign trade zone, FTZ No. 2. The zone already covers Orleans, Jefferson and St. Bernard parishes; the expanded FTZ now includes St. Tammany Parish, about 50 miles north of the city. “St. Tammany Parish is where we really see a lot of the warehousing and distribution development, as well as future development opportunities,” Mansour said. Foreign trade zone expansion efforts are also under way at the Ports of Indiana, which appointed its first foreign trade and economic development director, global logistics industry veteran Dexter Salenda, in August. Ports of Indiana created the position to grow the ports’ foreign trade zone program and offer new services for companies “dealing with challenges related to international trade and tariffs,” according to a Ports of Indiana news release. For The Dupuy Group, Luetkemeier said plans to expand the company’s footprint have been in the works since before tariffs hit. “We have several warehouse expansion projects in the works that were not initially contemplated for FTZ, but with the uncertainty of tariffs we will be applying for FTZ status at those locations,” he said. Applicants who are filing for FTZ certification could face some setbacks, though. On Nov. 14, the US CPB issued a memo indicating that its review processes will be delayed by 47 days following the US government shutdown, which began Oct. 1 and ended Nov. 12. “It was impossible for Enforcement and Compliance to operate during the shutdown. It was also impossible for Enforcement and Compliance to accelerate its proceedings by the number of days on which the agency was closed — we simply lack the resources,” the memo read. Hurdles for ‘tariff engineering’ FTZs give importers of breakbulk and project cargo advantages such as duty deferral, flexible storage options and streamlined customs clearances. “A manufacturing facility, for example, that needs to maintain critical spare parts manufactured overseas could use FTZ status to import that material without having to pay the duty until that critical spare part is needed,” Luetkemeier said. Since duties are not paid until imports formally enter into US commerce, imported cargo stored in federal trade zones can delay tariffs until they leave the zone. Imports placed in an FTZ and then exported without entering the US market may be able to avoid tariffs completely. For project cargo especially, one of the long-standing advantages of foreign trade zones is that shippers could use FTZ sites to assemble imported products, such as modular components for construction projects. Tariffs would then be levied only on the finished product, rather than the imported materials. Some shippers have used this approach strategically in a practice known as “tariff engineering,” in which importers modify materials so they can be reclassified at a lower tariff rate. Those savings are no longer available following a Trump executive order issued in April, stating that any assembly or processing that takes place within an FTZ will not change the original tariff rate assessed on the imported cargo upon entry. Luetkemeier said importers can still take advantage of another significant FTZ cost-savings strategy — entry fee consolidation. Instead of having to pay a merchandise processing fee for each incoming shipment, importers can instead group multiple shipments into a single, weekly customs entry and pay one fee each week. “There are companies that are probably saving millions a year doing that,” he said. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

US ports seek to expand FTZs for breakbulk cargo

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Not enough terminal investment in Europe has left ports unable to handle the rising demand, and there is no quick fix, according to analysts and carriers.</div>

Not enough terminal investment in Europe has left ports unable to handle the rising demand, and there is no quick fix, according to analysts and carriers.

<div class="phx-topic">Europe’s ongoing port congestion is exposing the limited buffer capacity at both marine terminals and inland transport networks, raising the need not just for investment but also for more usage of smaller, less affected ports. While congestion has shown signs of easing in recent months, major European ports are challenged in their ability to work through the backlogs and the shifting shipping seasons, according to Chantal McRoberts, head of advisory at Drewry Supply Chain Advisors. McRoberts said the core underlying reason for the ongoing congestion was a lack of buffer capacity within the region’s port network that created regular “congestion cycles” that terminals battled to handle. “Ports in Europe have been around for a long time and landslide space is limited, so when there are multiple operational issues, the system quickly gets overwhelmed and congestion builds up,” McRoberts told a Journal of Commerce webcast on port congestion this week. It is a view shared by Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc, who told analysts during the carrier’s second-quarter earnings call that over the past 20 years, European terminal capacity has been added at a slower pace than the market has been growing. “There is a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/underinvestment-exposes-european-ports-to-systematic-bottlenecks-6062033">general undercapacity in ports in Europe</a> where we're starting to feel more points of congestion that are impeding the networks,” Clerc said in August. “Congestion in European ports is something that is likely to be with us in some shape or form for a few years.” S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence’s Global Port Congestion Analysis of the second quarter shows that half of Northern Europe’s ports reported year-over-year declines in port moves per hour from April through June. Vessel delays have also been erratic, as Portcast’s port harbor congestion index shows.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="2210adc9-96bd-4b4b-8aaf-d837826318df"></dynamic-object></div>To address the mismatch in port capacity versus demand, Maersk’s APM Terminals division is expanding its capacity in key locations such as Rotterdam and Croatia, but Clerc acknowledged that it would take time before the additional capacity came online. CMA CGM is also expanding its port infrastructure in Northern Europe through its port division, CMA Terminals. The carrier earlier this month acquired a 20% stake in the Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg, and is also investing in rail and river connectivity at the Lyon-Édouard Herriot Port in France. The Port of Antwerp-Bruges, Europe’s second-busiest container port, also highlighted the lack of space in its first-half results in July, noting that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strong-h1-volumes-space-crunch-keep-antwerp-terminals-under-pressure-6043917">marine terminals were under “heavy strain”</a> with landside space at critically low levels. <h3>Extending lead times the only effective measure </h3>While terminals and carriers can add capacity, there is very little shippers can do to avoid the congestion, according to McRoberts. “Disruption and congestion have been impossible to avoid the last five years, so shippers have become more used to dealing with it,” she said. “But shippers in our Drewry benchmarking club tell us the main tactic is simply to extend lead times. Other popular strategies are to use diverse provider portfolios based on different ports and use visibility tools and platforms to see the flow of cargo through ports.” Data from Drewry shows the regional average pre-berth waiting time was 1.7 days in week 45 beginning Nov. 3, with some ports around 10% longer. The current worst performer is Egypt’s Port Said at 3.7 days, but most European ports have shown improvement recently. Still, Europe’s three largest import gateways of Antwerp, Hamburg and Rotterdam are all currently assessed as having “heavily disrupted operations” by Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer visibility tool. The wave of congestion this year was triggered by the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/spot-rates-falling-as-new-ocean-networks-roll-out-sea-intelligence-5935891">restructuring of carrier alliances</a> in February and the emergence of Gemini Cooperation, which McRoberts said was accompanied by service changes and vessel redeployment. “Later in the year, this was compounded by the fluctuating Rhine River water levels, canceled sailings and various <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strike-action-piles-new-bottlenecks-on-europes-two-busiest-ports-6094023">labor disruptions across Europe</a>. All of this contributed to increasing port congestion across the region,” she said. Strikes in Rotterdam by container lashing companies and a go-slow by sea pilots in Antwerp created container bottlenecks in October, and labor disruptions are set to continue later this month in Belgium, Portugal and Italy. Belgium’s rail network will stop as workers walk out from Nov. 23 to Nov. 26; strike action by Portugal’s Port Authorities staff will impact all major Portuguese ports from Nov. 21 to Dec. 13, and a national strike will be held in Italy on Nov. 28 and 29. While strikes were major disruptors to European terminal handling operations, McRoberts highlighted structural issues that contributed to the ongoing congestion. “We have seen fewer port calls combined with an increase in average vessel sizes as alliances and services have consolidated in Europe,” she told the Journal of Commerce webcast. “We have also seen longer pre-berth waiting times, often paired with extended terminal stays and driven by larger vessels with higher load factors.” <h3>Seasonal patterns changing </h3>Shifting seasonal patterns are also not doing Europe’s container terminals any favors. “In 2025, peak seasons have been messed about all year,” McRoberts said. “The disruption caused by US tariff announcements [on European imports] created bubbles of volume and surges in demand, which in turn created congestion in peak seasons or periods where we wouldn't normally expect strong demand. If you overlay that with labor disputes and changing river levels, it's like a domino effect that causes pockets of congestion.” Looming over the Asia-Europe trade is the potential return of carriers to Red Sea and Suez Canal transits. The bunching of vessels as those taking the shorter route through the Suez catch up to vessels sailing around Africa is expected to create significant bottlenecks in Europe and Asia. But McRoberts said there would not be an overnight return to the Red Sea. “We will see a gradual phase-in period, so there will be an opportunity for shippers to think about how to plan their cargo needs with carriers and their inventory carrying costs and their networks,” she said. Analysts expect carriers to operate a dual-route strategy for some time once the Red Sea is deemed safe to transit, keeping both the around-Africa sailings and the Suez Canal route in their schedules. When it comes to finding solutions to Europe’s persistent port congestion, there are no short-term answers, according to McRoberts. She said increasing terminal capacity and expanding operations was one solution, but it was a long-term approach. “We know there is new capacity coming onstream in Rotterdam and some upgrades underway in Antwerp and Hamburg, but they will take time to implement and will not bring short-term relief,” she said. McRoberts said smaller-scale capacity gains were coming from investment in productivity improvements or in data sharing, but they were having a minimal impact and did not generate an incremental improvement in buffer capacity. “That doesn’t help when ports hit those periods of congestion, and that’s the fundamental problem with the European port network — it simply has insufficient buffer capacity,” McRoberts said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Europe’s ongoing port congestion is exposing the limited buffer capacity at both marine terminals and inland transport networks, raising the need not just for investment but also for more usage of smaller, less affected ports. While congestion has shown signs of easing in recent months, major European ports are challenged in their ability to work through the backlogs and the shifting shipping seasons, according to Chantal McRoberts, head of advisory at Drewry Supply Chain Advisors. McRoberts said the core underlying reason for the ongoing congestion was a lack of buffer capacity within the region’s port network that created regular “congestion cycles” that terminals battled to handle. “Ports in Europe have been around for a long time and landslide space is limited, so when there are multiple operational issues, the system quickly gets overwhelmed and congestion builds up,” McRoberts told a Journal of Commerce webcast on port congestion this week. It is a view shared by Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc, who told analysts during the carrier’s second-quarter earnings call that over the past 20 years, European terminal capacity has been added at a slower pace than the market has been growing. “There is a general undercapacity in ports in Europe where we're starting to feel more points of congestion that are impeding the networks,” Clerc said in August. “Congestion in European ports is something that is likely to be with us in some shape or form for a few years.” S&P Global Market Intelligence’s Global Port Congestion Analysis of the second quarter shows that half of Northern Europe’s ports reported year-over-year declines in port moves per hour from April through June. Vessel delays have also been erratic, as Portcast’s port harbor congestion index shows. To address the mismatch in port capacity versus demand, Maersk’s APM Terminals division is expanding its capacity in key locations such as Rotterdam and Croatia, but Clerc acknowledged that it would take time before the additional capacity came online. CMA CGM is also expanding its port infrastructure in Northern Europe through its port division, CMA Terminals. The carrier earlier this month acquired a 20% stake in the Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg, and is also investing in rail and river connectivity at the Lyon-Édouard Herriot Port in France. The Port of Antwerp-Bruges, Europe’s second-busiest container port, also highlighted the lack of space in its first-half results in July, noting that marine terminals were under “heavy strain” with landside space at critically low levels. Extending lead times the only effective measure While terminals and carriers can add capacity, there is very little shippers can do to avoid the congestion, according to McRoberts. “Disruption and congestion have been impossible to avoid the last five years, so shippers have become more used to dealing with it,” she said. “But shippers in our Drewry benchmarking club tell us the main tactic is simply to extend lead times. Other popular strategies are to use diverse provider portfolios based on different ports and use visibility tools and platforms to see the flow of cargo through ports.” Data from Drewry shows the regional average pre-berth waiting time was 1.7 days in week 45 beginning Nov. 3, with some ports around 10% longer. The current worst performer is Egypt’s Port Said at 3.7 days, but most European ports have shown improvement recently. Still, Europe’s three largest import gateways of Antwerp, Hamburg and Rotterdam are all currently assessed as having “heavily disrupted operations” by Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer visibility tool. The wave of congestion this year was triggered by the restructuring of carrier alliances in February and the emergence of Gemini Cooperation, which McRoberts said was accompanied by service changes and vessel redeployment. “Later in the year, this was compounded by the fluctuating Rhine River water levels, canceled sailings and various labor disruptions across Europe . All of this contributed to increasing port congestion across the region,” she said. Strikes in Rotterdam by container lashing companies and a go-slow by sea pilots in Antwerp created container bottlenecks in October, and labor disruptions are set to continue later this month in Belgium, Portugal and Italy. Belgium’s rail network will stop as workers walk out from Nov. 23 to Nov. 26; strike action by Portugal’s Port Authorities staff will impact all major Portuguese ports from Nov. 21 to Dec. 13, and a national strike will be held in Italy on Nov. 28 and 29. While strikes were major disruptors to European terminal handling operations, McRoberts highlighted structural issues that contributed to the ongoing congestion. “We have seen fewer port calls combined with an increase in average vessel sizes as alliances and services have consolidated in Europe,” she told the Journal of Commerce webcast. “We have also seen longer pre-berth waiting times, often paired with extended terminal stays and driven by larger vessels with higher load factors.” Seasonal patterns changing Shifting seasonal patterns are also not doing Europe’s container terminals any favors. “In 2025, peak seasons have been messed about all year,” McRoberts said. “The disruption caused by US tariff announcements [on European imports] created bubbles of volume and surges in demand, which in turn created congestion in peak seasons or periods where we wouldn't normally expect strong demand. If you overlay that with labor disputes and changing river levels, it's like a domino effect that causes pockets of congestion.” Looming over the Asia-Europe trade is the potential return of carriers to Red Sea and Suez Canal transits. The bunching of vessels as those taking the shorter route through the Suez catch up to vessels sailing around Africa is expected to create significant bottlenecks in Europe and Asia. But McRoberts said there would not be an overnight return to the Red Sea. “We will see a gradual phase-in period, so there will be an opportunity for shippers to think about how to plan their cargo needs with carriers and their inventory carrying costs and their networks,” she said. Analysts expect carriers to operate a dual-route strategy for some time once the Red Sea is deemed safe to transit, keeping both the around-Africa sailings and the Suez Canal route in their schedules. When it comes to finding solutions to Europe’s persistent port congestion, there are no short-term answers, according to McRoberts. She said increasing terminal capacity and expanding operations was one solution, but it was a long-term approach. “We know there is new capacity coming onstream in Rotterdam and some upgrades underway in Antwerp and Hamburg, but they will take time to implement and will not bring short-term relief,” she said. McRoberts said smaller-scale capacity gains were coming from investment in productivity improvements or in data sharing, but they were having a minimal impact and did not generate an incremental improvement in buffer capacity. “That doesn’t help when ports hit those periods of congestion, and that’s the fundamental problem with the European port network — it simply has insufficient buffer capacity,” McRoberts said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Europe ports lack buffer space to handle demand surges

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Months of frontloading explain the harsher-than-usual import slowdown in the final months of this year, but uncertain consumer sentiment and ever-changing US tariff policy are keeping retail inventories running lean. </div>

Months of frontloading explain the harsher-than-usual import slowdown in the final months of this year, but uncertain consumer sentiment and ever-changing US tariff policy are keeping retail inventories running lean.

<div class="phx-topic">The end of year in ocean shipping in the US is generally lackluster given that most retailers have already brought their goods into the country and still have a month or two early in the new year to restock. But this end to 2025 and start of 2026 is looking more than just lackluster; it’s a deepening slowdown with no end in sight. The weaker inbound volumes are being felt by transport providers from drayage operators to ocean carriers trying to keep a floor on subdued container spot rates. For at least a year, US importers have been frontloading imports out of fear of higher tariffs, and as American consumers become more cautious, they’re replenishing judiciously. US retailers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-throttle-back-on-imports-amid-uncertain-consumer-sentiment-6111471">are forecasting double-digit percentage declines</a> in November and December, and monthly volumes are not expected to exceed 2 million TEUs through March, according to the latest Global Port Tracker (GPT), produced by Hackett Associates and the National Retail Federation (NRF). Months of frontloading explain the harsher-than-usual import slowdown in the final months of this year, but uncertain consumer sentiment and ever-changing US tariff policy are keeping retail inventories running lean. “These conditions make market forecasting highly uncertain,” said Ben Hackett, the consultancy’s founder. “Our trade outlook is for a small decline in imports this year compared with 2024 and a further, larger decline in the first quarter of 2026.” US container volumes in 2026 will be flat to down 2% year over year, according to Moody’s Ratings. Comparably, volumes are to end this year in the range of no growth to an up to 1% retraction compared with 2024, the ratings agency stated in a research note released Tuesday. Winter holiday sales are anticipated to grow 3.2% this year, a notably slower pace than the 4.8% expansion recorded last year, according to S&amp;P Global. That slowdown comes as consumer prices rise and job gains slow, with unemployment rising from 4.3% in August to 4.4% in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the US economy keeps expanding, with manufacturing activity growing in October to a reading of 52.2 from 52.5 in the prior month as assessed by S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence’s US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e303e2ee-5389-46af-85b9-111d4f8c34b5"></dynamic-object></div>“Critically, this downshift in [retail] growth is an untimely reminder of consumers’ precarious position; they have managed to continue spending despite the ebb and flow of prices in recent years, but each time their steps have been more measured,” said Michael Zdinak, who leads US consumer markets services at S&amp;P Global. The US consumer price index (CPI) in September expanded 0.3% on a seasonally adjusted basis, with annual inflation at 3%, reflecting “modest price pressures continuing to affect household budget,” according to the CPI report. The 43-day US federal government shutdown delayed the October release of the US CPI and contributed to the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index falling for the second straight month — and to its lowest reading since May — in November. Retailers have noted the change in consumers. Home Depot, for example, cited concerns over affordability and jobs, lowering its outlook for the rest of its fiscal 2025 year, which ends in January. “The economic uncertainty continues, largely now due to living costs,” Ted Decker, the chair, president and CEO of the home improvement retailer, said during a Nov. 18 third-quarter earnings call. “Affordability is a word that’s being used a lot. Layoffs, increased job concerns, etc. So that’s why we don’t see an uptick in that underlying storm-adjusted demand in the business.” It’s not surprising then that retailers are making sure they have just enough product on hand. US inventory-to-retail sales ratios for retailers have hovered between 1.28 and 1.32, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, suggesting that despite the frontloading of imports in the first half of the year, stocks remain lean. Retailers appear to be extending that strategy into the new year; the GPT report forecasts imports will fall 12.2% year over year to 5.62 million TEUs in the first quarter of 2026. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="0302a4da-1012-4174-970d-3888b1ecc536"></dynamic-object></div><h3>‘A bit of a freefall’ </h3>Laden US imports this year peaked in July at 2.6 million TEUs, before sliding 4.6% year over year between August and October, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. But it’s volumes from Asia that have seen the worst of the drop-off, with inbound shipments, including those from India, falling 5.6% in August–October, according to PIERS. Facing a US tariff rate of approximately 47%, laden imports from China plunged 16.7% year over year in the same three-month period.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b2c4ed98-5885-4436-931d-5f035f537df1"></dynamic-object></div>The weakening Asia trade as of mid-November had dragged so-called bullet rates — prices quoted for specific voyages — from Asia to the US West Coast to below $1,400 per FEU. Spot rates to the West Coast, as measured by various indexes, are down 30% to 60% year over year, depending on the index and trade lane. Ocean carriers’ biweekly attempts to impose general rate increases have failed, lifting pricing for a just few days before they continue their descent. In 10 of 12 weeks from the end of July through mid-October, trans-Pacific spot rates even fell below the average long-term service contract rate of approximately $1,600 per FEU, according to rate benchmarking firm Xeneta.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="cb72bd0b-98b7-487c-8228-ec175a90826b"></dynamic-object></div>“Prices, again, are just in a bit of a freefall,” Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. Ocean carriers “have done what they can,” using blank sailings and shifting vessels between trades to try to match demand, “but it’s too little, too late.” Yet, there hasn’t been a notable scramble among cargo owners to reopen service contracts, which typically expire at the end of April. Forwarders have also been increasingly blending spot and contract rates for cargo owners to find a better medium for the market to offer customers. “We’ve not seen any big movements on contracts being open now, since the contracts have been trending down during Q3, and it was not very timely for people to do when they know they have the negotiation coming soon and as long as things are moving their way,” Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said during the company’s third-quarter earnings call Nov. 6, adding that customers have generally been meeting their allocated contract volumes. Despite the lower spot rates and weaker outlook, container lines haven’t pulled out services and have blanked capacity at levels similar to past years. In fact, ocean carriers plan to add more capacity from Asia to the US in December, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea.Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. Associate Editor Laura Robb contributed to this report. </div>

The end of year in ocean shipping in the US is generally lackluster given that most retailers have already brought their goods into the country and still have a month or two early in the new year to restock. But this end to 2025 and start of 2026 is looking more than just lackluster; it’s a deepening slowdown with no end in sight. The weaker inbound volumes are being felt by transport providers from drayage operators to ocean carriers trying to keep a floor on subdued container spot rates. For at least a year, US importers have been frontloading imports out of fear of higher tariffs, and as American consumers become more cautious, they’re replenishing judiciously. US retailers are forecasting double-digit percentage declines in November and December, and monthly volumes are not expected to exceed 2 million TEUs through March, according to the latest Global Port Tracker (GPT), produced by Hackett Associates and the National Retail Federation (NRF). Months of frontloading explain the harsher-than-usual import slowdown in the final months of this year, but uncertain consumer sentiment and ever-changing US tariff policy are keeping retail inventories running lean. “These conditions make market forecasting highly uncertain,” said Ben Hackett, the consultancy’s founder. “Our trade outlook is for a small decline in imports this year compared with 2024 and a further, larger decline in the first quarter of 2026.” US container volumes in 2026 will be flat to down 2% year over year, according to Moody’s Ratings. Comparably, volumes are to end this year in the range of no growth to an up to 1% retraction compared with 2024, the ratings agency stated in a research note released Tuesday. Winter holiday sales are anticipated to grow 3.2% this year, a notably slower pace than the 4.8% expansion recorded last year, according to S&P Global. That slowdown comes as consumer prices rise and job gains slow, with unemployment rising from 4.3% in August to 4.4% in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the US economy keeps expanding, with manufacturing activity growing in October to a reading of 52.2 from 52.5 in the prior month as assessed by S&P Global Market Intelligence’s US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index. “Critically, this downshift in [retail] growth is an untimely reminder of consumers’ precarious position; they have managed to continue spending despite the ebb and flow of prices in recent years, but each time their steps have been more measured,” said Michael Zdinak, who leads US consumer markets services at S&P Global. The US consumer price index (CPI) in September expanded 0.3% on a seasonally adjusted basis, with annual inflation at 3%, reflecting “modest price pressures continuing to affect household budget,” according to the CPI report. The 43-day US federal government shutdown delayed the October release of the US CPI and contributed to the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index falling for the second straight month — and to its lowest reading since May — in November. Retailers have noted the change in consumers. Home Depot, for example, cited concerns over affordability and jobs, lowering its outlook for the rest of its fiscal 2025 year, which ends in January. “The economic uncertainty continues, largely now due to living costs,” Ted Decker, the chair, president and CEO of the home improvement retailer, said during a Nov. 18 third-quarter earnings call. “Affordability is a word that’s being used a lot. Layoffs, increased job concerns, etc. So that’s why we don’t see an uptick in that underlying storm-adjusted demand in the business.” It’s not surprising then that retailers are making sure they have just enough product on hand. US inventory-to-retail sales ratios for retailers have hovered between 1.28 and 1.32, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, suggesting that despite the frontloading of imports in the first half of the year, stocks remain lean. Retailers appear to be extending that strategy into the new year; the GPT report forecasts imports will fall 12.2% year over year to 5.62 million TEUs in the first quarter of 2026. ‘A bit of a freefall’ Laden US imports this year peaked in July at 2.6 million TEUs, before sliding 4.6% year over year between August and October, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. But it’s volumes from Asia that have seen the worst of the drop-off, with inbound shipments, including those from India, falling 5.6% in August–October, according to PIERS. Facing a US tariff rate of approximately 47%, laden imports from China plunged 16.7% year over year in the same three-month period. The weakening Asia trade as of mid-November had dragged so-called bullet rates — prices quoted for specific voyages — from Asia to the US West Coast to below $1,400 per FEU. Spot rates to the West Coast, as measured by various indexes, are down 30% to 60% year over year, depending on the index and trade lane. Ocean carriers’ biweekly attempts to impose general rate increases have failed, lifting pricing for a just few days before they continue their descent. In 10 of 12 weeks from the end of July through mid-October, trans-Pacific spot rates even fell below the average long-term service contract rate of approximately $1,600 per FEU, according to rate benchmarking firm Xeneta. “Prices, again, are just in a bit of a freefall,” Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. Ocean carriers “have done what they can,” using blank sailings and shifting vessels between trades to try to match demand, “but it’s too little, too late.” Yet, there hasn’t been a notable scramble among cargo owners to reopen service contracts, which typically expire at the end of April. Forwarders have also been increasingly blending spot and contract rates for cargo owners to find a better medium for the market to offer customers. “We’ve not seen any big movements on contracts being open now, since the contracts have been trending down during Q3, and it was not very timely for people to do when they know they have the negotiation coming soon and as long as things are moving their way,” Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said during the company’s third-quarter earnings call Nov. 6, adding that customers have generally been meeting their allocated contract volumes. Despite the lower spot rates and weaker outlook, container lines haven’t pulled out services and have blanked capacity at levels similar to past years. In fact, ocean carriers plan to add more capacity from Asia to the US in December, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com . Associate Editor Laura Robb contributed to this report.

Slump of US imports from Asia deepening

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger, the US rail industry finds itself facing a new future but the same historical set of challenges.</div>

With the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger, the US rail industry finds itself facing a new future but the same historical set of challenges.

<div class="phx-topic">Oct. 14 marked the 45th anniversary of President Jimmy Carter signing The Harley O. Staggers Rail Act of 1980, named for the chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (today the Committee on Energy and Commerce). However, the real “heavy lifting” to get the bill passed was by Rep. Jim Florio, the New Jersey Democrat who chaired the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) frequently points out how, by 1980, the railroad industry was on the brink of collapse until Congress passed bipartisan legislation to partially deregulate the industry, thereby allowing market-driven pricing, customer-specific contracts and the ability to shed unprofitable routes. However, this neglects the tortured decade of the 1970s when Congress was repeatedly drawn into legislating railroad matters. It started with The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, creating Amtrak. This relieved private railroads from their losses operating passenger service. But it was not enough to save Penn Central, so Congress passed the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (the “3R Act”) to salvage viable freight operations from Penn Central and other failing rail lines in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest. It created the United States Railway Association (USRA) to develop a “Final System Plan” for the reorganization into a single entity — Conrail. Finally, The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (The “4R Act”) approved the Final System Plan, enabling Conrail to start operations on April 1, 1976. It provided what it thought was sufficient funding — an initial federal “investment” of $2.026 billion for Conrail to acquire the assets of bankrupt Northeast and Midwest railroads and get its operations started. This funding turned out to be insufficient. Conrail subsequently sought and received an additional $3 billion. However, by 1979, it had almost exhausted that amount. Under the leadership of a new CEO, L. Stanley Crane, Conrail claimed that it could succeed as a private entity if the rail marketplace was deregulated. <h3>Regulation intended to perpetuate monopolies </h3>Railroads had been operating under a regulated system since the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. This legislation was an early initiative of the Progressive era and preceded other efforts at regulation, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act three years later. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) became the model for rate-of-return regulation of public utilities. The microeconomic theory is that a monopoly business can be regulated by having the government control the prices charged by the market to a level equal to the efficient costs of production, plus a government-permitted rate of return on capital. This model became the norm for oversight of many asset-based, network-operating businesses such as communications, utilities, and other transportation modes. What is overlooked by many is that — by design — regulation was intended to perpetuate monopolies because it ensured that excess capacity would be available in the event of war or other national emergencies. The monopoly license was maintained through a series of operating authorities that determined which providers could serve which markets. Consumers paid more — but hopefully not too much more. This legislation was passed when railroads were the primary means of freight and passenger transportation. However, the subsequent development of the Interstate Highway System and air traffic changed that dominant position. Meanwhile, the onset of persistent stagflation during the 1970s encouraged deregulatory efforts in many regulated industries. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was a predecessor. However, the Interstate Commerce Commission, under Chairman Dan O’Neal, had already taken initiatives, permitted by the 4R Act, to deregulate certain rail sectors, such as intermodal. <h3>Key components of Staggers Act </h3>The Staggers Act had three key components: Railroads were able to negotiate contracts with a customer at market-based rates; reduced regulatory oversight over mergers and abandonments was enacted; and a regulatory backstop was established to protect shippers lacking effective competition. These legislative efforts completely inverted the commercial process. Regulation was cost-based pricing. Shippers were price takers. Deregulation begat price-based costing. The market determined the competitive price, and the carrier needed to find a way to produce the service so as to be profitable. This was accomplished in numerous ways: Railroad mergers enabled increased economies of scale and reduced overhead; technology supported cost reductions (e.g., end of train devices replacing the caboose); significant amounts of the networks were spun off to short line operations; and a reduction in train crew size from five to two and extending crew districts reduced costs significantly. The final step of this reduction required Congressional help in 1991, with the imposition of Presidential Emergency Board 219. But downsizing could only do so much. Topline growth was necessary. Into this opportunity stepped intermodal. As international traffic grew with globalization, a large part of the volume growth came from ocean carriers. Traditional domestic customers increased their volume, and major new customers, such as J.B. Hunt, entered as well. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Railroads filled excess capacity, and intermodal customers enjoyed reliable and cost-effective service. Everything went well until the summer of 1993. The weather that summer caused terrible service problems. As an industry, we missed the wakeup call. We were too eager to attribute the problems to a fluke weather condition, not recognizing that capacity utilization was nearing maximum. Since then, the industry has been dealing with the challenge of increasing the top and bottom lines simultaneously. This has frequently proven elusive. The advent of activist investors has only raised the stakes. With the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger, the industry finds itself facing a new future but the same historical set of challenges. In retrospect, it is clear to see how we got here, but it is less clear where we are going. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>.</div>

Oct. 14 marked the 45th anniversary of President Jimmy Carter signing The Harley O. Staggers Rail Act of 1980, named for the chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (today the Committee on Energy and Commerce). However, the real “heavy lifting” to get the bill passed was by Rep. Jim Florio, the New Jersey Democrat who chaired the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) frequently points out how, by 1980, the railroad industry was on the brink of collapse until Congress passed bipartisan legislation to partially deregulate the industry, thereby allowing market-driven pricing, customer-specific contracts and the ability to shed unprofitable routes. However, this neglects the tortured decade of the 1970s when Congress was repeatedly drawn into legislating railroad matters. It started with The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, creating Amtrak. This relieved private railroads from their losses operating passenger service. But it was not enough to save Penn Central, so Congress passed the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (the “3R Act”) to salvage viable freight operations from Penn Central and other failing rail lines in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest. It created the United States Railway Association (USRA) to develop a “Final System Plan” for the reorganization into a single entity — Conrail. Finally, The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (The “4R Act”) approved the Final System Plan, enabling Conrail to start operations on April 1, 1976. It provided what it thought was sufficient funding — an initial federal “investment” of $2.026 billion for Conrail to acquire the assets of bankrupt Northeast and Midwest railroads and get its operations started. This funding turned out to be insufficient. Conrail subsequently sought and received an additional $3 billion. However, by 1979, it had almost exhausted that amount. Under the leadership of a new CEO, L. Stanley Crane, Conrail claimed that it could succeed as a private entity if the rail marketplace was deregulated. Regulation intended to perpetuate monopolies Railroads had been operating under a regulated system since the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. This legislation was an early initiative of the Progressive era and preceded other efforts at regulation, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act three years later. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) became the model for rate-of-return regulation of public utilities. The microeconomic theory is that a monopoly business can be regulated by having the government control the prices charged by the market to a level equal to the efficient costs of production, plus a government-permitted rate of return on capital. This model became the norm for oversight of many asset-based, network-operating businesses such as communications, utilities, and other transportation modes. What is overlooked by many is that — by design — regulation was intended to perpetuate monopolies because it ensured that excess capacity would be available in the event of war or other national emergencies. The monopoly license was maintained through a series of operating authorities that determined which providers could serve which markets. Consumers paid more — but hopefully not too much more. This legislation was passed when railroads were the primary means of freight and passenger transportation. However, the subsequent development of the Interstate Highway System and air traffic changed that dominant position. Meanwhile, the onset of persistent stagflation during the 1970s encouraged deregulatory efforts in many regulated industries. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was a predecessor. However, the Interstate Commerce Commission, under Chairman Dan O’Neal, had already taken initiatives, permitted by the 4R Act, to deregulate certain rail sectors, such as intermodal. Key components of Staggers Act The Staggers Act had three key components: Railroads were able to negotiate contracts with a customer at market-based rates; reduced regulatory oversight over mergers and abandonments was enacted; and a regulatory backstop was established to protect shippers lacking effective competition. These legislative efforts completely inverted the commercial process. Regulation was cost-based pricing. Shippers were price takers. Deregulation begat price-based costing. The market determined the competitive price, and the carrier needed to find a way to produce the service so as to be profitable. This was accomplished in numerous ways: Railroad mergers enabled increased economies of scale and reduced overhead; technology supported cost reductions (e.g., end of train devices replacing the caboose); significant amounts of the networks were spun off to short line operations; and a reduction in train crew size from five to two and extending crew districts reduced costs significantly. The final step of this reduction required Congressional help in 1991, with the imposition of Presidential Emergency Board 219. But downsizing could only do so much. Topline growth was necessary. Into this opportunity stepped intermodal. As international traffic grew with globalization, a large part of the volume growth came from ocean carriers. Traditional domestic customers increased their volume, and major new customers, such as J.B. Hunt, entered as well. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Railroads filled excess capacity, and intermodal customers enjoyed reliable and cost-effective service. Everything went well until the summer of 1993. The weather that summer caused terrible service problems. As an industry, we missed the wakeup call. We were too eager to attribute the problems to a fluke weather condition, not recognizing that capacity utilization was nearing maximum. Since then, the industry has been dealing with the challenge of increasing the top and bottom lines simultaneously. This has frequently proven elusive. The advent of activist investors has only raised the stakes. With the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger, the industry finds itself facing a new future but the same historical set of challenges. In retrospect, it is clear to see how we got here, but it is less clear where we are going. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

A look back at the ‘Staggers Act’ and where the US rail industry is today

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger proceeds, the balance of power inside a little-known cooperative that serves as the industry’s shared equipment pool could shift dramatically.</div>

If the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger proceeds, the balance of power inside a little-known cooperative that serves as the industry’s shared equipment pool could shift dramatically.

<div class="phx-topic">When your railroad says “no cars available,” the problem usually isn’t a shortage. It’s a cooperative most shippers have never heard of — one that controls nearly every intermodal container, autorack and flatcar in North America. And if the proposed Union Pacific (UP)–Norfolk Southern (NS) merger proceeds, the balance of power inside that cooperative could shift dramatically. That cooperative is TTX Company. While shippers and unions debate potential service disruptions and job losses from the $85 billion merger announced in July, a more fundamental question has gone unasked: What happens when one railroad becomes the dominant voice in the industry’s shared equipment pool? <h3>The system you didn’t know existed </h3>TTX manages approximately 177,000 well cars, flats, autoracks and boxcars, representing about $17 billion in assets. It’s a neutral pool owned collectively by the Class I railroads, operating under Surface Transportation Board (STB) oversight since 1974. The concept is simple: Competing railroads share rolling stock rather than hoarding it. When a car finishes one move, it can be loaded again immediately, regardless of whose track it’s on next. This model has saved the industry billions in duplicate investment and given shippers a measure of reliability in an otherwise fragmented system. Cars flow to demand, not ownership. Repairs are standardized. Procurement is centralized. Until now, no single railroad has had enough control to tilt the playing field. <h3>Why the merger changes everything </h3>The combined Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern network would span nearly 60% of US rail route miles across 43 states, likely making them TTX’s largest shareholder by a significant margin. On paper, neutrality is guaranteed through the STB’s pooling agreement. In practice, concentration of influence can change incentives subtly, but powerfully. Who prioritizes which lanes for car replacement? Who decides where limited heavy-duty flats or autoracks are deployed first? When I was at Maersk negotiating large-scale rail contracts, we constantly ran into a black hole of visibility. Equipment was technically available, but no one could pinpoint where it was or who controlled the next move. The pooling model made coordination possible, but it also made accountability diffuse. Now imagine that opacity combined with ownership concentration. A railroad controlling the largest stake in TTX doesn’t need to explicitly starve competitors of equipment. It just needs to optimize for its own network first. Repairs get prioritized in its lanes. New equipment gets spec’d for its corridors. Allocation algorithms favor its terminals. The result isn’t dramatic — it’s death by a thousand micro-decisions that tilt velocity in one direction. <h3>What gravity looks like </h3>Every time a major shipper changes carriers, the math inside the TTX pool shifts. Steel doesn’t teleport. Cars must physically migrate through the network, a process that can take weeks. Shortages often follow commercial wins because the new carrier gains the freight before it gains the equipment. Even in a neutral pool, gravity takes time to reset. Post-merger, that shock absorption could become selective. If car allocation subtly favors the combined UP-NS lanes, competitors lose not just freight; they lose the equipment velocity needed to compete for the next contract. <h3>What the STB should do </h3>The STB received formal notice of the merger on July 30, 2025. The railroads plan to file their full application by Jan. 29, 2026, triggering a 16-month statutory review. The STB has broad authority to preserve equilibrium through independent TTX governance, fleet-allocation audits and service-performance metrics tied to pooling access. Whether those powers are used will determine if TTX remains the stabilizer it was built to be, or becomes another lever of competitive advantage hidden inside consolidation. The 1996 Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger produced what the head of the nation’s largest rail union called a “massive meltdown.” Service disruptions lasted months. The STB should apply those lessons to equipment pooling now, before approval — not after the damage is done. <h3>What shippers should ask now </h3>Most customers never deal directly with TTX, but they feel its influence in every service metric. Don’t wait until after the merger is approved. Start asking pointed questions now: How do you measure car velocity in my lanes? Who controls the pool cars that serve my freight? What protections ensure neutrality if ownership concentration shifts? If your railroad can’t answer clearly, you’re not buying transportation, you’re buying uncertainty. <h3>The bottom line </h3>TTX doesn’t appear in marketing campaigns, but its model — shared steel, shared access — keeps the industry balanced. The merger debate has focused on jobs, rates and service promises. But the real test will be whether a system designed for competition can survive when one player holds the dominant stake. Because when the pool tips, everyone feels it. And once gravity shifts, it doesn’t shift back. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals &amp; Switches. Contact him at  <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

When your railroad says “no cars available,” the problem usually isn’t a shortage. It’s a cooperative most shippers have never heard of — one that controls nearly every intermodal container, autorack and flatcar in North America. And if the proposed Union Pacific (UP)–Norfolk Southern (NS) merger proceeds, the balance of power inside that cooperative could shift dramatically. That cooperative is TTX Company. While shippers and unions debate potential service disruptions and job losses from the $85 billion merger announced in July, a more fundamental question has gone unasked: What happens when one railroad becomes the dominant voice in the industry’s shared equipment pool? The system you didn’t know existed TTX manages approximately 177,000 well cars, flats, autoracks and boxcars, representing about $17 billion in assets. It’s a neutral pool owned collectively by the Class I railroads, operating under Surface Transportation Board (STB) oversight since 1974. The concept is simple: Competing railroads share rolling stock rather than hoarding it. When a car finishes one move, it can be loaded again immediately, regardless of whose track it’s on next. This model has saved the industry billions in duplicate investment and given shippers a measure of reliability in an otherwise fragmented system. Cars flow to demand, not ownership. Repairs are standardized. Procurement is centralized. Until now, no single railroad has had enough control to tilt the playing field. Why the merger changes everything The combined Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern network would span nearly 60% of US rail route miles across 43 states, likely making them TTX’s largest shareholder by a significant margin. On paper, neutrality is guaranteed through the STB’s pooling agreement. In practice, concentration of influence can change incentives subtly, but powerfully. Who prioritizes which lanes for car replacement? Who decides where limited heavy-duty flats or autoracks are deployed first? When I was at Maersk negotiating large-scale rail contracts, we constantly ran into a black hole of visibility. Equipment was technically available, but no one could pinpoint where it was or who controlled the next move. The pooling model made coordination possible, but it also made accountability diffuse. Now imagine that opacity combined with ownership concentration. A railroad controlling the largest stake in TTX doesn’t need to explicitly starve competitors of equipment. It just needs to optimize for its own network first. Repairs get prioritized in its lanes. New equipment gets spec’d for its corridors. Allocation algorithms favor its terminals. The result isn’t dramatic — it’s death by a thousand micro-decisions that tilt velocity in one direction. What gravity looks like Every time a major shipper changes carriers, the math inside the TTX pool shifts. Steel doesn’t teleport. Cars must physically migrate through the network, a process that can take weeks. Shortages often follow commercial wins because the new carrier gains the freight before it gains the equipment. Even in a neutral pool, gravity takes time to reset. Post-merger, that shock absorption could become selective. If car allocation subtly favors the combined UP-NS lanes, competitors lose not just freight; they lose the equipment velocity needed to compete for the next contract. What the STB should do The STB received formal notice of the merger on July 30, 2025. The railroads plan to file their full application by Jan. 29, 2026, triggering a 16-month statutory review. The STB has broad authority to preserve equilibrium through independent TTX governance, fleet-allocation audits and service-performance metrics tied to pooling access. Whether those powers are used will determine if TTX remains the stabilizer it was built to be, or becomes another lever of competitive advantage hidden inside consolidation. The 1996 Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger produced what the head of the nation’s largest rail union called a “massive meltdown.” Service disruptions lasted months. The STB should apply those lessons to equipment pooling now, before approval — not after the damage is done. What shippers should ask now Most customers never deal directly with TTX, but they feel its influence in every service metric. Don’t wait until after the merger is approved. Start asking pointed questions now: How do you measure car velocity in my lanes? Who controls the pool cars that serve my freight? What protections ensure neutrality if ownership concentration shifts? If your railroad can’t answer clearly, you’re not buying transportation, you’re buying uncertainty. The bottom line TTX doesn’t appear in marketing campaigns, but its model — shared steel, shared access — keeps the industry balanced. The merger debate has focused on jobs, rates and service promises. But the real test will be whether a system designed for competition can survive when one player holds the dominant stake. Because when the pool tips, everyone feels it. And once gravity shifts, it doesn’t shift back. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals & Switches. Contact him at   paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

UP-NS merger could mean new dominant voice inside rail industry cooperative

Index

{name}: {categoryY.formatNumber('#.0%')} 

The *Journal of Commerce* Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) measures truck capacity at large, publicly traded trucking companies using end-of-quarter truck counts reported in their quarterly earnings statements. The index covers a group of full truckload carriers with combined annual revenue of more than $10 billion, using the group’s average truck count in the fourth quarter of 2006, prior to the Great Recession of 2007–09, as its base (Q4 2006 = 100). Large truckload carriers represent a core sector of capacity for high-volume shippers.

US truckload capacity index (JOC)

JOC Truckload Capacity Index Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier’s CEO also confirmed Gemini is mulling a price premium, which he forecast would be a “small three-digit number per TEU” to reflect the inventory cost savings customers achieve through the alliance’s consistent on-time delivery.</div>

The carrier’s CEO also confirmed Gemini is mulling a price premium, which he forecast would be a “small three-digit number per TEU” to reflect the inventory cost savings customers achieve through the alliance’s consistent on-time delivery.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd is refining the Gemini Cooperation hub-and-spoke network with partner Maersk that will likely see some extra port calls and others removed from Gemini services, CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said Thursday. The review is considering “what worked well and what could be improved,” Habben Jansen said during the carrier’s third-quarter results briefing. “We’ll wrap up the review, then ... inform the market, but don’t expect anything revolutionary,” he said. The changes will “strengthen reliability and unlock cost efficiencies, with full cost savings run rate expected by 2026,” Hapag-Lloyd said. Habben Jansen also confirmed <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/value-unlocked-by-gemini-will-clear-path-for-premium-charge-maersk-ceo-6111339">Gemini is mulling a price premium</a>, which he forecast would be a “small three-digit number per TEU” to reflect the inventory cost savings customers achieve through Gemini’s consistent on-time delivery. The CEO gave no further details of the changes, but said Gemini has consistently delivered monthly schedule reliability of 89% to 95% since its launch in February, citing data from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. That is significantly better than its closest competitors, who had schedule reliability ranging between 70% and 80% from February through September. “We are very happy with [Gemini],” Habben Jansen said. “We hit 90% schedule reliability almost from Day 1.” <h3>Possible expansion of hub-and-spoke model </h3>That reliability helped drive an above-market increase in container volumes for Hapag-Lloyd, growing 9% to 10.2 million TEUs in the first nine months of the year. Most of the increase was on trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe trades, while volumes on the trans-Atlantic, Africa and inter-regional trades were stable. Highlighting the gains, the carrier said trans-Pacific volumes rose to 3 million TEUs this year through September, from 2.5 million TEUs in the same period last year, while Asia-Europe liftings climbed to 3 million TEUs from 2.7 million TEUs. Habben Jansen said while the focus over the next 12 to 18 months is to improve reliability of the current Gemini network schedule, there is potential to adopt Gemini’s hub-and-spoke model in other trades. He said if Hapag-Lloyd did decide to expand the concept, it would have to assess how and where it could be done and “with whom.” Habben Jansen also confirmed the carrier is in talks to add 22 ships to its fleet that would be a mix of newbuildings ordered direct from shipyards and vessels taken on long-term charter. “Final negotiations are going on” with details likely confirmed “in the next 30 days,” he said. The new ships would vary between 1,800 TEUs, 3,000 TEUs and 4,500 TEUs and replace older, less fuel-efficient vessels in the carrier’s 305-strong fleet. “We have a fair number of ships that are reaching 25 years,” Habben Jansen said. The carrier is also planning to continue expanding its terminals business “through acquisitions and synergies with our liner business,” although Habben Jansen said there were no further details to give at this stage. The CEO forecast full-year 2025 revenues at $23 billion. “Rates came back from early October,” he said. “In the last couple of weeks, bookings have been really strong.” Habben Jansen, meanwhile, said the carrier had no immediate plans to return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal region following the latest Houthi ceasefire. “We always said we’d like to see some stability,” he said, pointing out that previous ceasefires were later broken. Hapag-Lloyd saw group net profit fall 86% to $161 million in the third quarter, down from $1.1 billion in the prior year. Revenue fell 11% to $5.4 billion in the third quarter, with liner shipping contributing $5.3 billion and terminals $130 million. The carrier’s average freight rate in the quarter slipped to $1,391 per TEU from $1,612/TEU. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd is refining the Gemini Cooperation hub-and-spoke network with partner Maersk that will likely see some extra port calls and others removed from Gemini services, CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said Thursday. The review is considering “what worked well and what could be improved,” Habben Jansen said during the carrier’s third-quarter results briefing. “We’ll wrap up the review, then ... inform the market, but don’t expect anything revolutionary,” he said. The changes will “strengthen reliability and unlock cost efficiencies, with full cost savings run rate expected by 2026,” Hapag-Lloyd said. Habben Jansen also confirmed Gemini is mulling a price premium , which he forecast would be a “small three-digit number per TEU” to reflect the inventory cost savings customers achieve through Gemini’s consistent on-time delivery. The CEO gave no further details of the changes, but said Gemini has consistently delivered monthly schedule reliability of 89% to 95% since its launch in February, citing data from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. That is significantly better than its closest competitors, who had schedule reliability ranging between 70% and 80% from February through September. “We are very happy with [Gemini],” Habben Jansen said. “We hit 90% schedule reliability almost from Day 1.” Possible expansion of hub-and-spoke model That reliability helped drive an above-market increase in container volumes for Hapag-Lloyd, growing 9% to 10.2 million TEUs in the first nine months of the year. Most of the increase was on trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe trades, while volumes on the trans-Atlantic, Africa and inter-regional trades were stable. Highlighting the gains, the carrier said trans-Pacific volumes rose to 3 million TEUs this year through September, from 2.5 million TEUs in the same period last year, while Asia-Europe liftings climbed to 3 million TEUs from 2.7 million TEUs. Habben Jansen said while the focus over the next 12 to 18 months is to improve reliability of the current Gemini network schedule, there is potential to adopt Gemini’s hub-and-spoke model in other trades. He said if Hapag-Lloyd did decide to expand the concept, it would have to assess how and where it could be done and “with whom.” Habben Jansen also confirmed the carrier is in talks to add 22 ships to its fleet that would be a mix of newbuildings ordered direct from shipyards and vessels taken on long-term charter. “Final negotiations are going on” with details likely confirmed “in the next 30 days,” he said. The new ships would vary between 1,800 TEUs, 3,000 TEUs and 4,500 TEUs and replace older, less fuel-efficient vessels in the carrier’s 305-strong fleet. “We have a fair number of ships that are reaching 25 years,” Habben Jansen said. The carrier is also planning to continue expanding its terminals business “through acquisitions and synergies with our liner business,” although Habben Jansen said there were no further details to give at this stage. The CEO forecast full-year 2025 revenues at $23 billion. “Rates came back from early October,” he said. “In the last couple of weeks, bookings have been really strong.” Habben Jansen, meanwhile, said the carrier had no immediate plans to return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal region following the latest Houthi ceasefire. “We always said we’d like to see some stability,” he said, pointing out that previous ceasefires were later broken. Hapag-Lloyd saw group net profit fall 86% to $161 million in the third quarter, down from $1.1 billion in the prior year. Revenue fell 11% to $5.4 billion in the third quarter, with liner shipping contributing $5.3 billion and terminals $130 million. The carrier’s average freight rate in the quarter slipped to $1,391 per TEU from $1,612/TEU. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Hapag-Lloyd refining Gemini network to improve efficiencies: Habben Jansen

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With 196,000 TEUs of new capacity added to its fleet, the latest orders mean Evergreen will leapfrog both Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express in global capacity to become the fifth-largest container line.</div>

With 196,000 TEUs of new capacity added to its fleet, the latest orders mean Evergreen will leapfrog both Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express in global capacity to become the fifth-largest container line.

<div class="phx-topic">Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine on Wednesday confirmed an order for 14 14,000-TEU liquefied natural gas (LNG)-fueled ships that could cost almost $3 billion, with the vessels split between South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries and China’s Guangzhou Shipyard International. Evergreen said each ship would cost between $175 million and $205 million, taking the total cost to between $2.45 billion and $2.9 million. The two shipbuilders will construct seven vessels each. The deals were approved at an Evergreen Marine (Asia) board of directors meeting Wednesday, the carrier said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange, ending recent speculation by shipbrokers that Evergreen was readying a massive order. With 196,000 TEUs of new capacity added to its fleet, the latest orders mean Evergreen will leapfrog both Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express in global capacity to become the fifth-largest container line, up from seventh place. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="82b6ff12-d7ca-420a-abbe-7b9998b29e56"></dynamic-object></div>Fleet data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows the latest deals boost Evergreen’s total capacity to 2,747,549 TEUs, against 2,606,972 TEUs for ONE and 2,360,562 TEUs for Hapag-Lloyd. The orders also reinforce LNG as the next generation fuel of choice for carriers, increasing the total number of LNG-fueled container ships on order to about 380, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. <h3>Q3 financials up from Q2, but down from year-ago period </h3>The green light for the new ships came as Evergreen, together with Taiwan’s two other top carriers — Yang Ming Marine Transport and Wan Hai Lines — announced a rebound in third-quarter net profits compared with the second quarter, buoyed by a recovery in freight rates in July as shippers frontloaded cargo to beat US tariffs. But third-quarter financials were lower across the board compared with the 2024 third quarter. Evergreen led the pack with net profit of $700 million, the carrier said in a separate exchange filing Wednesday, up from $403 million in the second quarter but down 63% compared with $1.9 billion in the third quarter last year. Operating revenues fell 34% to $3.1 billion in the third quarter from $4.7 billion a year earlier, the filing showed. Yang Ming Marine saw third-quarter net profit climb to $194 million, the carrier said Wednesday, up from $31 million in the second quarter but down from $890 million in the third quarter last year. Third-quarter operating revenues of almost $1.4 billion were similar to the previous two quarters, although down 39% from $2.3 billion in the prior year. “Compared with the same period in 2024, weaker freight rates resulted in softer profitability,” Yang Ming said in a statement. Yang Ming, the only one of the three carriers to comment on the market, said it was hopeful that the temporary pause in US-China tariff tensions “may help stimulate pre-Lunar New Year shipment demand on trans-Pacific routes.” The carrier said the intra-Asia and Middle East markets were “expected to remain steady, supported by stable demand.” “Despite persistent global trade policy uncertainty and elevated geopolitical risks, Yang Ming has continued to maintain schedule reliability and enhance operational efficiency, supporting steady business performance,” it said. Meanwhile, intra-Asia-focused Wan Hai Lines saw third-quarter net profit climb to $363 million, up from $41 million in the second quarter but almost half the $600 million reported in the third quarter last year. Operating revenues in the third quarter were $1.1 billion, in line with the previous two quarters but down 35% from $1.7 billion a year earlier. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine on Wednesday confirmed an order for 14 14,000-TEU liquefied natural gas (LNG)-fueled ships that could cost almost $3 billion, with the vessels split between South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries and China’s Guangzhou Shipyard International. Evergreen said each ship would cost between $175 million and $205 million, taking the total cost to between $2.45 billion and $2.9 million. The two shipbuilders will construct seven vessels each. The deals were approved at an Evergreen Marine (Asia) board of directors meeting Wednesday, the carrier said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange, ending recent speculation by shipbrokers that Evergreen was readying a massive order. With 196,000 TEUs of new capacity added to its fleet, the latest orders mean Evergreen will leapfrog both Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express in global capacity to become the fifth-largest container line, up from seventh place. Fleet data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows the latest deals boost Evergreen’s total capacity to 2,747,549 TEUs, against 2,606,972 TEUs for ONE and 2,360,562 TEUs for Hapag-Lloyd. The orders also reinforce LNG as the next generation fuel of choice for carriers, increasing the total number of LNG-fueled container ships on order to about 380, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Q3 financials up from Q2, but down from year-ago period The green light for the new ships came as Evergreen, together with Taiwan’s two other top carriers — Yang Ming Marine Transport and Wan Hai Lines — announced a rebound in third-quarter net profits compared with the second quarter, buoyed by a recovery in freight rates in July as shippers frontloaded cargo to beat US tariffs. But third-quarter financials were lower across the board compared with the 2024 third quarter. Evergreen led the pack with net profit of $700 million, the carrier said in a separate exchange filing Wednesday, up from $403 million in the second quarter but down 63% compared with $1.9 billion in the third quarter last year. Operating revenues fell 34% to $3.1 billion in the third quarter from $4.7 billion a year earlier, the filing showed. Yang Ming Marine saw third-quarter net profit climb to $194 million, the carrier said Wednesday, up from $31 million in the second quarter but down from $890 million in the third quarter last year. Third-quarter operating revenues of almost $1.4 billion were similar to the previous two quarters, although down 39% from $2.3 billion in the prior year. “Compared with the same period in 2024, weaker freight rates resulted in softer profitability,” Yang Ming said in a statement. Yang Ming, the only one of the three carriers to comment on the market, said it was hopeful that the temporary pause in US-China tariff tensions “may help stimulate pre-Lunar New Year shipment demand on trans-Pacific routes.” The carrier said the intra-Asia and Middle East markets were “expected to remain steady, supported by stable demand.” “Despite persistent global trade policy uncertainty and elevated geopolitical risks, Yang Ming has continued to maintain schedule reliability and enhance operational efficiency, supporting steady business performance,” it said. Meanwhile, intra-Asia-focused Wan Hai Lines saw third-quarter net profit climb to $363 million, up from $41 million in the second quarter but almost half the $600 million reported in the third quarter last year. Operating revenues in the third quarter were $1.1 billion, in line with the previous two quarters but down 35% from $1.7 billion a year earlier. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Evergreen says will spend almost $3 billion on 14 new LNG-fueled ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While premium pricing has long been elusive for ocean carriers, the cost benefits from the Maersk-Hapag Lloyd alliance may prove to be enough to justify overhauling the network.</div>

While premium pricing has long been elusive for ocean carriers, the cost benefits from the Maersk-Hapag Lloyd alliance may prove to be enough to justify overhauling the network.

<div class="phx-topic">More than nine months into the Gemini Cooperation’s journey — possibly the most radical reinvention ever attempted in container shipping — two things are becoming clear: stated schedule reliability that is well above industry averages has largely been achieved and doubts about its sustainability are fading. A hub-and-spoke network able to keep feeder ships filled is lowering costs, mimicking the common-feeder model in place for decades in Asia and other regions. The one big unanswered question that remains is whether, or to what extent, premium revenue can be extracted from shippers by Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd. Maersk, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/value-unlocked-by-gemini-will-clear-path-for-premium-charge-maersk-ceo-6111339">during its third-quarter earnings release last week</a>, provided the clearest picture to date on that very question. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6113169_0.1.jpg"></img></div>CEO Vincent Clerc said he believed premium pricing is coming, but that trust in Gemini’s reliability needed to be more firmly entrenched beyond the standards established thus far. “We need to be certain that we have a long enough track record that it unlocks value for them [shippers], that we can then capture some of that value for us,” Clerc told analysts. But a tantalizing possibility may be emerging: It might not actually matter. The reason is that while premium pricing has long been elusive for ocean carriers, the cost benefits from Gemini may themselves prove to be enough to justify overhauling the network. Maersk cited annualized cost savings of $720 million to $950 million through the implementation of the Gemini network as a result of lower bunker costs and greater asset utilization. This is coming from higher utilization of ships and shorter sailing distances, which resulted in 6% higher capacity but 3% lower total fuel consumption. Running ships at a higher utilization in the network, Clerc said, allows the carrier to transport more volumes at the same capacity. Carriers such as Singapore-based X-Press Feeders and Bengal Tiger Line handle large carriers’ feeder volumes by keeping costs lower through higher utilization than the carriers have been able to achieve on their own. On the cost structure, “we are opening up a gap now with Gemini that is going to be ... quite handy, especially in the current rate environment,” Clerc said. “It’s a pretty significant lever that we have unlocked here,” stemming in part from using “fit-for-purpose shuttles rather than underutilized mainliners,” he added. The revenue side is less clear. It is unclear how much of a premium revenue opportunity exists by offering high schedule reliability. In prior eras, carriers invested significant sums in fuel to stay on schedule only for a weak market to undercut their argument for premium rates. Indeed, whether investing more in fuel to keep ships on schedule, deploying 53-foot ocean containers to allow customs to load more cargo or departing every day on time as was envisioned in Daily Maersk, there has been little in terms of premium pricing over a period of decades to show for it. <h3>Premium appetites? </h3>A market exists; the question is how big. The existence of high-reliability, premium-priced services offered by Matson, UWL, Zim Integrated Shipping Services and Tailwind on the Asia-Europe trade point to a segment of the shipper market able to capture supply chain value from reliable schedules. Also, in limited cases, some large shippers have shown themselves willing to pay a premium for preferential stowage, leading to expedited movement of containers off the ship and through the terminal, including for so-called peel-off stacks. The Gemini partners, however, believe a fundamental value proposition continues to exist by enabling customers to slash costs by reducing inventory. “I am optimistic that if someone can remove $10 million a day and [they can] save two weeks in that, that I can get a premium,” Stuart Sandlin, Hapag-Lloyd’s regional president for the Americas, told the South Carolina International Trade Conference on Oct. 29. “I candidly think [Gemini is] a premium product and should command some sort of premium price.” As Clerc put it on the earnings call: “Today, every customer has a buffer stock and that reliability needs to unlock a reduction of that buffer stock. They need to trust that [Gemini] has weathered sufficient ups and downs and is steady [so] that they can take out some of that buffer stock. And if they do, they pocket that savings and then we can capture some of it in form of a premium.” For both Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, the Gemini network fits respective strategies and approaches to the market. It harks back to hub-and-spoke networks of an earlier day and is true to Maersk’s historic DNA of running on time, a source of tension within the former 2M alliance with Mediterranean Shipping Co. For Hapag-Lloyd, it can’t promote itself as the best major carrier in terms of service quality, its stated objective, and not run on time. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

More than nine months into the Gemini Cooperation’s journey — possibly the most radical reinvention ever attempted in container shipping — two things are becoming clear: stated schedule reliability that is well above industry averages has largely been achieved and doubts about its sustainability are fading. A hub-and-spoke network able to keep feeder ships filled is lowering costs, mimicking the common-feeder model in place for decades in Asia and other regions. The one big unanswered question that remains is whether, or to what extent, premium revenue can be extracted from shippers by Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd. Maersk, during its third-quarter earnings release last week , provided the clearest picture to date on that very question. CEO Vincent Clerc said he believed premium pricing is coming, but that trust in Gemini’s reliability needed to be more firmly entrenched beyond the standards established thus far. “We need to be certain that we have a long enough track record that it unlocks value for them [shippers], that we can then capture some of that value for us,” Clerc told analysts. But a tantalizing possibility may be emerging: It might not actually matter. The reason is that while premium pricing has long been elusive for ocean carriers, the cost benefits from Gemini may themselves prove to be enough to justify overhauling the network. Maersk cited annualized cost savings of $720 million to $950 million through the implementation of the Gemini network as a result of lower bunker costs and greater asset utilization. This is coming from higher utilization of ships and shorter sailing distances, which resulted in 6% higher capacity but 3% lower total fuel consumption. Running ships at a higher utilization in the network, Clerc said, allows the carrier to transport more volumes at the same capacity. Carriers such as Singapore-based X-Press Feeders and Bengal Tiger Line handle large carriers’ feeder volumes by keeping costs lower through higher utilization than the carriers have been able to achieve on their own. On the cost structure, “we are opening up a gap now with Gemini that is going to be ... quite handy, especially in the current rate environment,” Clerc said. “It’s a pretty significant lever that we have unlocked here,” stemming in part from using “fit-for-purpose shuttles rather than underutilized mainliners,” he added. The revenue side is less clear. It is unclear how much of a premium revenue opportunity exists by offering high schedule reliability. In prior eras, carriers invested significant sums in fuel to stay on schedule only for a weak market to undercut their argument for premium rates. Indeed, whether investing more in fuel to keep ships on schedule, deploying 53-foot ocean containers to allow customs to load more cargo or departing every day on time as was envisioned in Daily Maersk, there has been little in terms of premium pricing over a period of decades to show for it. Premium appetites? A market exists; the question is how big. The existence of high-reliability, premium-priced services offered by Matson, UWL, Zim Integrated Shipping Services and Tailwind on the Asia-Europe trade point to a segment of the shipper market able to capture supply chain value from reliable schedules. Also, in limited cases, some large shippers have shown themselves willing to pay a premium for preferential stowage, leading to expedited movement of containers off the ship and through the terminal, including for so-called peel-off stacks. The Gemini partners, however, believe a fundamental value proposition continues to exist by enabling customers to slash costs by reducing inventory. “I am optimistic that if someone can remove $10 million a day and [they can] save two weeks in that, that I can get a premium,” Stuart Sandlin, Hapag-Lloyd’s regional president for the Americas, told the South Carolina International Trade Conference on Oct. 29. “I candidly think [Gemini is] a premium product and should command some sort of premium price.” As Clerc put it on the earnings call: “Today, every customer has a buffer stock and that reliability needs to unlock a reduction of that buffer stock. They need to trust that [Gemini] has weathered sufficient ups and downs and is steady [so] that they can take out some of that buffer stock. And if they do, they pocket that savings and then we can capture some of it in form of a premium.” For both Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, the Gemini network fits respective strategies and approaches to the market. It harks back to hub-and-spoke networks of an earlier day and is true to Maersk’s historic DNA of running on time, a source of tension within the former 2M alliance with Mediterranean Shipping Co. For Hapag-Lloyd, it can’t promote itself as the best major carrier in terms of service quality, its stated objective, and not run on time. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Gemini delivers cost savings as it marks a path to premium pricing

Subscribe today using code BFW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

BLACK FRIDAY SALE!

Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code BFW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

In 1995, we began operations with a clear vision: to grow alongside Mexico and connect the world through our terminals. Our priority has always been to deliver excellence in service, foster economic development, and strengthen our communities. We firmly believe that progress is not only measured in tons of cargo moved, but in the opportunities we create. _______________________________________________________________ This year marks a significant milestone: SSA Marine Mexico celebrates 30 years of presence in the country, having established itself from day one as the leading port operator nationwide. Over the past three decades, we have built a legacy of reliability, innovation, and commitment to Mexico’s growth. Our journey has been defined by continuous evolution and a steadfast dedication to our mission. SSA Marine México currently operates in six of the country’s most important ports: Cozumel, Lazaro Cardenas, Manzanillo, Progreso, Tuxpan, and Veracruz. Additionally, we have signed a concession to operate a new multipurpose terminal in Guaymas, Sonora, expanding our footprint to the north of the country. We serve a wide range of segments including containers, general cargo, automobiles, cruise ships, hydrocarbons, and asphalt. As part of this ongoing commitment, SSA Marine Mexico continues to strengthen its infrastructure and capabilities. International trade remains a key driver of global economic growth, and we are proud to support this momentum. Through our continuous improvement strategy, we invest in cutting-edge technology and equipment to deliver more efficient and competitive services, contributing to the success of Mexican businesses. •	Manzanillo, Colima- Specialized Container Terminal I: On October 13, we celebrated the arrival of two new STS (Ship To Shore) Super Post Panamax dockside cranes. This $21.2 million USD investment significantly boosts our operational capacity, streamlining cargo reception and delivery processes. In line with our modernization efforts, we will also retire four of our oldest cranes, paving the way for a more sustainable and technologically advanced fleet that meets the evolving demands of international trade. With these upgrades, SSA Marine México now operates a total of 16 cranes along our 1,350-meter dock, reaffirming our position as a national benchmark in port <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-4_3 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-large" data-figure-size="large" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="4:3"><img src="/content-assets/1760982635607_Manzanillo.jpg" alt="Image provided by SSA Marine" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> •	As for the Multipurpose Terminal and Specialized Facility, also in Manzanillo, Colima, improvement and conditioning works are planned, along with the acquisition of four E-RTG (Electric Rubber-Tyred Gantry) cranes to enhance operational efficiency and sustainability. •	At our Automobile and General Cargo Terminal in the port of Veracruz, we continue to lead with specialized value-added services that support our clients’ growth. Recent investments include a new washing cabin and a general cargo warehouse, increasing indoor storage capacity by 67%. •	Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan – Specialized Automobile Terminal: we are working on the development of an additional 4-hectare storage space within our bonded area and a 10-hectare Vehicle Distribution Center (VDC). These enhancements, along with ongoing personnel and system improvements, will reinforce our leadership in automotive handling across the Mexican Pacific coast.<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-4_3 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-large" data-figure-size="large" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="4:3"><img src="/content-assets/1760982742240_Lazaro.jpg" alt="Image provided by SSA Marine" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> Through these strategic investments, SSA Marine Mexico reaffirms its commitment to the sustained growth of Mexico’s foreign trade. By expanding capacity, modernizing infrastructure, and diversifying services, we continue to strengthen the country’s competitiveness in global logistics. Today, we celebrate three decades of dedication, innovation, and leadership, with deep gratitude to our employees, clients, and partners for being part of this incredible journey. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1760982787360_SSA%20Marine%20Mexico%20logo%20150pxW.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Manzanillo.jpg

SSA Marine Mexico: 30 years growing together.

BLACK FRIDAY SALE: Subscribe today using code BFW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

BLACK FRIDAY SALE: Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code BFW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Beijing is expected to soon announce the start date of its own 12-month pause on reciprocal port fees on US ships, a deal that was agreed to last week as part of a broad trade framework hammered out by the two superpowers.</div>

Beijing is expected to soon announce the start date of its own 12-month pause on reciprocal port fees on US ships, a deal that was agreed to last week as part of a broad trade framework hammered out by the two superpowers.

<div class="phx-topic">The year-long pause on US port fees for Chinese-operated or -built ships, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-china-suspend-reciprocal-port-fees-as-part-of-wider-trade-deal-6105849">agreed to last week between US and Chinese officials</a>, will start on Nov. 10, the White House announced Saturday. The move will pave the way for China to lift its retaliatory port fees on US-owned and -controlled vessels, although there was no immediate response from Beijing whether its suspension of port charges will occur on the same day as the US action. But one Hong Kong-based analyst expected China to end its charges on Nov. 10 or shortly after, repeating what happened when China followed the US in imposing reciprocal port call charges on Oct. 14. During the 12-month pause in port fees, “the US will negotiate with China” over Beijing’s alleged dominance in the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors, the White House statement said, without giving further details. Those talks would take place while the US continued “its historic cooperation with the Republic of Korea and Japan on revitalizing American shipbuilding,” the statement added. The Nov. 10 date was announced in a statement that also gave further details of the trade concessions agreed to by both sides during talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Oct. 26 and confirmed by presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping at their meeting in South Korea last Thursday. The broad agreement will see China purchase at least 12 million metric tons of US soybeans during the last two months of this year and buy at least 25 million metric tons a year in 2026, 2027 and 2028. Additionally, China will resume purchases of US sorghum and hardwood logs. China will also suspend all the retaliatory tariffs announced since March 4, including levies “on a vast swath of US agricultural products including chicken, wheat, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, aquatic products, fruits, vegetables and dairy products,” the White House statement said. China will suspend or remove all retaliatory non-tariff countermeasures taken against the US since March, the statement added. “China will further extend the expiration of its market-based tariff exclusion process for imports from the United States and exclusions will remain valid until Dec. 31, 2026,” the White House said. “China will terminate its various investigations targeting US companies in the semiconductor supply chain, including its antitrust, anti-monopoly, and anti-dumping investigations." The White House did not give any timeframe for China’s implementation of the trade concessions. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="a08410a8-0b00-4c48-9ef6-78b6354f0678"></dynamic-object></div>For its part, the US will end the 10% so-called “fentanyl tariffs” on Nov. 10 and maintain its suspension of heightened reciprocal tariffs on Chinese imports until Nov. 10, 2026. The current 10% reciprocal tariff will remain in effect during the suspension period, the statement said. US imports from China have fallen sharply since mid-year amid the trade dispute. Imports hit 984,280 TEUs in July, the second-highest mark in 2025, then fell in August and September, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <h3>Questions remain </h3>Despite the US-China deal on port fees, Brian Maloney, a partner at New York-based law firm Seward &amp; Kissel’s maritime and transportation group, said there are still many questions to be answered. “Will this apply to foreign-built vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels or will the pause apply only to the fees for Chinese-owned, -operated or -built vessels?,” Maloney said. “When will the Chinese response pause kick in, which could matter for vessels actively trading? And will either country extend retroactive relief to Oct. 14?” Lars Jensen, CEO of consultant Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, said the lower tariffs open a window of opportunity for US shippers. “The question is whether it will prompt a boost in shipments — effectively pulling the seasonal boost from Chinese New Year forward by more than a month,” Jensen said <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7391046713332875264/">in a LinkedIn post Monday</a>. “The coming weeks will show whether this is going to happen, or whether US importers see the upside of lower tariffs more than counteracted by a risk of consumer spending slowdown in the US.” Jensen pointed out that shippers will have to go through the details of how the deal impacts them specifically. “But it is important to note here that almost all US actions are temporary in the sense that actions are merely paused until Nov. 10, 2026,” he wrote. “This means that more trade talks will have to happen prior to that date, and with this comes the risk of more changes [positive or negative]." Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

The year-long pause on US port fees for Chinese-operated or -built ships, agreed to last week between US and Chinese officials , will start on Nov. 10, the White House announced Saturday. The move will pave the way for China to lift its retaliatory port fees on US-owned and -controlled vessels, although there was no immediate response from Beijing whether its suspension of port charges will occur on the same day as the US action. But one Hong Kong-based analyst expected China to end its charges on Nov. 10 or shortly after, repeating what happened when China followed the US in imposing reciprocal port call charges on Oct. 14. During the 12-month pause in port fees, “the US will negotiate with China” over Beijing’s alleged dominance in the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors, the White House statement said, without giving further details. Those talks would take place while the US continued “its historic cooperation with the Republic of Korea and Japan on revitalizing American shipbuilding,” the statement added. The Nov. 10 date was announced in a statement that also gave further details of the trade concessions agreed to by both sides during talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Oct. 26 and confirmed by presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping at their meeting in South Korea last Thursday. The broad agreement will see China purchase at least 12 million metric tons of US soybeans during the last two months of this year and buy at least 25 million metric tons a year in 2026, 2027 and 2028. Additionally, China will resume purchases of US sorghum and hardwood logs. China will also suspend all the retaliatory tariffs announced since March 4, including levies “on a vast swath of US agricultural products including chicken, wheat, corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, pork, beef, aquatic products, fruits, vegetables and dairy products,” the White House statement said. China will suspend or remove all retaliatory non-tariff countermeasures taken against the US since March, the statement added. “China will further extend the expiration of its market-based tariff exclusion process for imports from the United States and exclusions will remain valid until Dec. 31, 2026,” the White House said. “China will terminate its various investigations targeting US companies in the semiconductor supply chain, including its antitrust, anti-monopoly, and anti-dumping investigations." The White House did not give any timeframe for China’s implementation of the trade concessions. For its part, the US will end the 10% so-called “fentanyl tariffs” on Nov. 10 and maintain its suspension of heightened reciprocal tariffs on Chinese imports until Nov. 10, 2026. The current 10% reciprocal tariff will remain in effect during the suspension period, the statement said. US imports from China have fallen sharply since mid-year amid the trade dispute. Imports hit 984,280 TEUs in July, the second-highest mark in 2025, then fell in August and September, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Questions remain Despite the US-China deal on port fees, Brian Maloney, a partner at New York-based law firm Seward & Kissel’s maritime and transportation group, said there are still many questions to be answered. “Will this apply to foreign-built vehicle carriers and ro/ro vessels or will the pause apply only to the fees for Chinese-owned, -operated or -built vessels?,” Maloney said. “When will the Chinese response pause kick in, which could matter for vessels actively trading? And will either country extend retroactive relief to Oct. 14?” Lars Jensen, CEO of consultant Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, said the lower tariffs open a window of opportunity for US shippers. “The question is whether it will prompt a boost in shipments — effectively pulling the seasonal boost from Chinese New Year forward by more than a month,” Jensen said in a LinkedIn post Monday . “The coming weeks will show whether this is going to happen, or whether US importers see the upside of lower tariffs more than counteracted by a risk of consumer spending slowdown in the US.” Jensen pointed out that shippers will have to go through the details of how the deal impacts them specifically. “But it is important to note here that almost all US actions are temporary in the sense that actions are merely paused until Nov. 10, 2026,” he wrote. “This means that more trade talks will have to happen prior to that date, and with this comes the risk of more changes [positive or negative]." Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

UP enhances intermodal between LA and Cincinnati

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Hapag-Lloyd refining Gemini network to improve efficiencies: Habben Jansen

Evergreen says will spend almost $3 billion on 14 new LNG-fueled ships

Gemini delivers cost savings as it marks a path to premium pricing

Recent Commentary

A look back at the ‘Staggers Act’ and where the US rail industry is today

UP-NS merger could mean new dominant voice inside rail industry cooperative

Top 5 Most Read Stories