<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">J.B. Hunt lowered its peak season surcharge because of disappointing volume on the West Coast.</div>

J.B. Hunt lowered its peak season surcharge because of disappointing volume on the West Coast.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">J.B. Hunt Transport Services said demand for its intermodal business remained soft in the third quarter, particularly on the West Coast, where transcontinental container loads fell 6% from a year earlier, as total rail shipments declined 1% overall. In describing the overall freight market, the company remarked that “it’s no secret, the market hasn’t returned yet,” which has now surpassed three years. The nation’s largest domestic intermodal provider rolled out an early peak-season surcharge in July of $1,500 per container in Los Angeles, but the company <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-reduces-peak-season-surcharge-on-southern-california-moves-6066323">later trimmed the fee to $800.</a> “We were disappointed in demand off the West Coast during the quarter and even adjusted our peak program in the middle of the quarter as an example,” said Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division. “Demand for our domestic intermodal service wasn’t all that strong.” Despite sluggish volume, executives said the peak season may not be finished because much of the cargo unloaded at West Coast ports this summer remains in local warehouses. “It is important to disconnect the timing of peak season on the water from peak season of the inland supply chain,” said Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing. “Our conversations indicate there is a large amount of freight that was imported early that hasn’t moved through the inland supply chain yet. No one has canceled Christmas.” There were some positive results despite the weaker third quarter in Southern California. Domestic intermodal operating income rose 12% year over year, contributing to an 8% increase in company-wide operating income. The company said aggressive cost controls shaved $20 million in costs during the quarter. <h3>East Coast intermodal doing better </h3>Local East Coast intermodal volume climbed 6% in the quarter, a signal that there is strength on containerized freight staying within the CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) networks. The carrier credited improved rail service for helping to shift more truckload freight to rail in the region. The Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Z-Score, a measurement of how a railroad performs against its own history on three key service metrics, showed CSX and NS operated at or above average through the second-to-last week of the quarter. The final week’s data is unavailable because the US Surface Transportation Board, which publishes the metrics, is affected by the federal government shutdown. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="128e25f2-064e-4956-afe3-0fe7d3c06552"></dynamic-object></div>Norfolk Southern CEO Mark George said Thursday at the Virginia Maritime Association conference that intermodal train speeds are up this year. “We’re delivering consistent service, trending about 90% on-time performance,” George said. “In fact, in September, we had a standout month, hitting 100% in intermodal plan compliance.” He added that international intermodal traffic has risen more than 3% year over year, while domestic volume has flatlined because of trade disruptions. The comments suggest either J.B. Hunt’s East Coast gains may be concentrated on the CSX network, or other NS domestic intermodal partners have struggled to sustain shipments. <h3>Not taking sides on UP-NS deal </h3>J.B. Hunt CEO Shelley Simpson addressed Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/major-rail-union-backs-up-ns-merger-after-job-protection-deal-6084510">proposed acquisition</a> of NS before US regulators, signaling that the company would neither endorse nor oppose the transaction. “Our decades of experience, including navigating seven prior Class I railroad mergers and our thoughtfully developed long-term agreements and strong relationships with NS, CSX, and BNSF should provide the basis for us to accept any changes in the industry,” she said Wednesday. J.B. Hunt’s Field pushed back on speculation that a merger would force J.B. Hunt to shift all East Coast traffic to CSX. The assumption stems from the carrier’s long-standing partnership with BNSF Railway under the “Quantum Agreement,” a revenue-sharing arrangement formed more than 35 years ago that gives J.B. Hunt a pricing edge over competitors. It also launched a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/j-b-hunt-bnsf-launch-new-intermodal-service-to-grab-time-sensitive-freight-5215574">Quantum service product</a> two years ago with a 95% on-time intermodal performance guarantee supported by J.B. Hunt staff embedded at BNSF’s headquarters in Texas. In recent months, BNSF and CSX have deepened their relationship, launching coast-to-coast intermodal routes linking Southern California <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bnsf-csx-unveil-new-joint-intermodal-lanes-in-aftermath-of-up-ns-merger-6067789">with Charlotte and Jacksonville</a>. Other coast-to-coast routes to the Northeast <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/csx-restarts-baltimore-tunnel-service-for-double-stack-in-2026-6087384">may be announced next year</a> after CSX begins double-stack intermodal service through Baltimore next spring. This budding partnership has fueled speculation that J.B. Hunt could edge closer to CSX along with BNSF. Many West Coast rail contracts include exclusivity clauses preventing companies such as Hub Group or Schneider National from using BNSF in markets where UP also runs. J.B. Hunt’s BNSF deals carry similar restrictions, making it unlikely the carrier would be permitted to shift volume onto a merged UP-NS network in BNSF-served territories. Even so, J.B. Hunt could continue using a combined UP-NS network for freight to stay east of the Mississippi, where BNSF has no presence. “Any future merger that would be approved for whatever reason has been perceived that J.B. Hunt would have to move our traffic to CSX and that’s not accurate at all,” Field said. “There’s nothing about a future state new railroad that would mean our current Norfolk Southern footprint that we have today would be required to change.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. Senior Editor Eric Johnson contributed to this report. </div>

J.B. Hunt Transport Services said demand for its intermodal business remained soft in the third quarter, particularly on the West Coast, where transcontinental container loads fell 6% from a year earlier, as total rail shipments declined 1% overall. In describing the overall freight market, the company remarked that “it’s no secret, the market hasn’t returned yet,” which has now surpassed three years. The nation’s largest domestic intermodal provider rolled out an early peak-season surcharge in July of $1,500 per container in Los Angeles, but the company later trimmed the fee to $800. “We were disappointed in demand off the West Coast during the quarter and even adjusted our peak program in the middle of the quarter as an example,” said Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division. “Demand for our domestic intermodal service wasn’t all that strong.” Despite sluggish volume, executives said the peak season may not be finished because much of the cargo unloaded at West Coast ports this summer remains in local warehouses. “It is important to disconnect the timing of peak season on the water from peak season of the inland supply chain,” said Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing. “Our conversations indicate there is a large amount of freight that was imported early that hasn’t moved through the inland supply chain yet. No one has canceled Christmas.” There were some positive results despite the weaker third quarter in Southern California. Domestic intermodal operating income rose 12% year over year, contributing to an 8% increase in company-wide operating income. The company said aggressive cost controls shaved $20 million in costs during the quarter. East Coast intermodal doing better Local East Coast intermodal volume climbed 6% in the quarter, a signal that there is strength on containerized freight staying within the CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) networks. The carrier credited improved rail service for helping to shift more truckload freight to rail in the region. The Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Z-Score, a measurement of how a railroad performs against its own history on three key service metrics, showed CSX and NS operated at or above average through the second-to-last week of the quarter. The final week’s data is unavailable because the US Surface Transportation Board, which publishes the metrics, is affected by the federal government shutdown. Norfolk Southern CEO Mark George said Thursday at the Virginia Maritime Association conference that intermodal train speeds are up this year. “We’re delivering consistent service, trending about 90% on-time performance,” George said. “In fact, in September, we had a standout month, hitting 100% in intermodal plan compliance.” He added that international intermodal traffic has risen more than 3% year over year, while domestic volume has flatlined because of trade disruptions. The comments suggest either J.B. Hunt’s East Coast gains may be concentrated on the CSX network, or other NS domestic intermodal partners have struggled to sustain shipments. Not taking sides on UP-NS deal J.B. Hunt CEO Shelley Simpson addressed Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed acquisition of NS before US regulators, signaling that the company would neither endorse nor oppose the transaction. “Our decades of experience, including navigating seven prior Class I railroad mergers and our thoughtfully developed long-term agreements and strong relationships with NS, CSX, and BNSF should provide the basis for us to accept any changes in the industry,” she said Wednesday. J.B. Hunt’s Field pushed back on speculation that a merger would force J.B. Hunt to shift all East Coast traffic to CSX. The assumption stems from the carrier’s long-standing partnership with BNSF Railway under the “Quantum Agreement,” a revenue-sharing arrangement formed more than 35 years ago that gives J.B. Hunt a pricing edge over competitors. It also launched a Quantum service product two years ago with a 95% on-time intermodal performance guarantee supported by J.B. Hunt staff embedded at BNSF’s headquarters in Texas. In recent months, BNSF and CSX have deepened their relationship, launching coast-to-coast intermodal routes linking Southern California with Charlotte and Jacksonville . Other coast-to-coast routes to the Northeast may be announced next year after CSX begins double-stack intermodal service through Baltimore next spring. This budding partnership has fueled speculation that J.B. Hunt could edge closer to CSX along with BNSF. Many West Coast rail contracts include exclusivity clauses preventing companies such as Hub Group or Schneider National from using BNSF in markets where UP also runs. J.B. Hunt’s BNSF deals carry similar restrictions, making it unlikely the carrier would be permitted to shift volume onto a merged UP-NS network in BNSF-served territories. Even so, J.B. Hunt could continue using a combined UP-NS network for freight to stay east of the Mississippi, where BNSF has no presence. “Any future merger that would be approved for whatever reason has been perceived that J.B. Hunt would have to move our traffic to CSX and that’s not accurate at all,” Field said. “There’s nothing about a future state new railroad that would mean our current Norfolk Southern footprint that we have today would be required to change.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com . Senior Editor Eric Johnson contributed to this report.

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

J.B. Hunt: Intermodal volume retracts amid cost-cutting measures

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The investment in less carbon-intensive vessels is part of a $17 billion spending plan that also includes $3 billion on its logistics business and the acquisition of new container terminals by 2030.</div>

The investment in less carbon-intensive vessels is part of a $17 billion spending plan that also includes $3 billion on its logistics business and the acquisition of new container terminals by 2030.

<div class="phx-topic">HMM is pushing full steam ahead with alternative-fuel vessel plans with new orders for a dozen container ships that will be capable of running on LNG. The South Korea-based ocean carrier on Thursday confirmed orders for 12 dual-fuel 13,000-TEU container vessels from HD Hyundai Heavy and Hanhwa Ocean worth a total of $2.55 billion. The deals are the first to be announced since HMM outlined plans in September to spend $8 billion on eco-friendly ships by 2030 to boost its operational fleet to 130 container ships totaling 1.55 million TEUs. The investment is part of a $17 billion spending plan that also includes $3 billion on its logistics business with the acquisition of new container terminals and extending existing facilities by 2030. Given their size, the new ships are likely to be deployed on the trans-Pacific trade between Asia and North America when delivered starting in 2027. The carrier has said it aims to be carbon-neutral across all transport modes by 2045. “By adding these new LNG dual-fueled vessels to its existing portfolio, which already includes methanol-powered containerships and LNG-powered vessels, HMM continues to strengthen its position in sustainable shipping,” the carrier said in a statement. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="3ea23764-fec2-4391-b0e3-4c5cff1b6eee"></dynamic-object></div>Container lines have been laser focused on ordering alternative-fueled ships in recent years. More than three-quarters of the total 7.2 million TEUs of container ship capacity ordered since the beginning of 2024 will be capable of running on LNG, methanol or hydrogen, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce with S&amp;P Global. HMM alone ordered 41 LNG- and methanol-fueled ships between 2018 and 2023. These included nine 9,000-TEU methanol-powered vessels ordered in February 2023, the first of which, HMM Green, was delivered in March. The remaining eight will be delivered in 2026, the line said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

HMM is pushing full steam ahead with alternative-fuel vessel plans with new orders for a dozen container ships that will be capable of running on LNG. The South Korea-based ocean carrier on Thursday confirmed orders for 12 dual-fuel 13,000-TEU container vessels from HD Hyundai Heavy and Hanhwa Ocean worth a total of $2.55 billion. The deals are the first to be announced since HMM outlined plans in September to spend $8 billion on eco-friendly ships by 2030 to boost its operational fleet to 130 container ships totaling 1.55 million TEUs. The investment is part of a $17 billion spending plan that also includes $3 billion on its logistics business with the acquisition of new container terminals and extending existing facilities by 2030. Given their size, the new ships are likely to be deployed on the trans-Pacific trade between Asia and North America when delivered starting in 2027. The carrier has said it aims to be carbon-neutral across all transport modes by 2045. “By adding these new LNG dual-fueled vessels to its existing portfolio, which already includes methanol-powered containerships and LNG-powered vessels, HMM continues to strengthen its position in sustainable shipping,” the carrier said in a statement. Container lines have been laser focused on ordering alternative-fueled ships in recent years. More than three-quarters of the total 7.2 million TEUs of container ship capacity ordered since the beginning of 2024 will be capable of running on LNG, methanol or hydrogen, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce with S&P Global. HMM alone ordered 41 LNG- and methanol-fueled ships between 2018 and 2023. These included nine 9,000-TEU methanol-powered vessels ordered in February 2023, the first of which, HMM Green, was delivered in March. The remaining eight will be delivered in 2026, the line said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

Maritime

HMM inks $2.5 billion LNG container ship order

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The trade dispute has become multi-dimensional with many different elements all impacting shipping and the supply chain, writes maritime and Journal of Commerce analyst Lars Jensen. </div>

The trade dispute has become multi-dimensional with many different elements all impacting shipping and the supply chain, writes maritime and Journal of Commerce analyst Lars Jensen.

<div class="phx-topic">Seen from the container shipping sector, the US trade dispute has become multi-dimensional and global in nature. The complexities are likely to grow further with shipping as a centrally impacted industry. Initially, the trade conflict mainly focused on tariffs — which countries were being hit by which magnitude of tariffs and on which commodities. The so-called “Liberation Day,” where reciprocal tariffs on all countries in the world were announced, was the clear embodiment of this early phase. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6098416_0.1.png"></img></div>Had this been the only element to the trade dispute and had the first round of reciprocal tariffs simply been kept in place, container shipping would have adapted. Tariff wars are not new, and the impact of such actions is somewhat predictable. Sourcing will shift and adapt to the new landscape, and goods will be sourced where it is most advantageous given the new landscape. Ships will follow and trade lanes adapt accordingly. It could potentially result in an overall demand reduction, but swings in demand and supply are something shipping stakeholders have been handling literally for centuries. This is not to imply it would have been without cost for the shipping industry, but simply to point out that the situation would have been within the parameters of what has also previously been handled. But as the months have gone on, the trade dispute has become multi-dimensional, developing many different elements, all of which impact shipping and supply chains. <h3>Tariff changes speeding up </h3>A second front is that the speed of change in tariffs is accelerating. Deadlines for implementation of new tariffs, and details thereof, have become progressively faster, to the point where cargo already loaded on vessels would now be subject to tariffs with the importer having no recourse but to accept the sudden increase in cost for goods already purchased. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/importers-pump-brakes-as-they-tire-of-ever-changing-us-tariff-policy-analyst-6091571">Neither shippers nor carriers can physically adapt</a> to the supply chain at the speed of recent tariff changes. This creates an environment for shippers where planning a stable long-term supply chain is no longer a risk-mitigating activity but a source of risk. And in an environment for shipping lines where large-scale capacity reduction or capacity increases are necessary at extremely short notice — resulting in poor schedule adherence as well as erratic appearances of vessel capacity shortages (and excesses) — port congestion problems emerge at destination and at origin. <h3>A port fee standoff </h3>We arrive at the third dimension of the trade dispute: port fees based on nationality. At the headline level, this came with ample warning time from the US where Chinese shipping interests are targeted, albeit a range of details are still missing. Shipping lines planned and adapted accordingly by shuffling vessels in the network — a process taking place over a period of months. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinas-port-fees-forcing-gemini-to-shift-out-us-flag-ships-6097952">But then came the Chinese reaction</a> in the form of similar tit-for-tat rules directed against US shipping interests. There was almost no lead time for the shipping lines that are still processing what the precise impact will be and how they will once more reshuffle vessels to mitigate it. Regarding this aspect of the trade dispute, the impact is especially important for Cosco Shipping, OOCL, Hede Shipping, Matson and APL, highlighting the clear US-China conflict. What is unknown is whether the next steps in this aspect will be to escalate or de-escalate. <h3>The coming fronts </h3>The fourth dimension has been brewing for six months and came to the headlines early in October in the form of the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/white-house-sanctions-threat-ups-ante-ahead-of-pivotal-imo-meeting-6096646">US opposition to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) Net Zero Framework</a> (NZF). At the time of writing <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/high-stakes-imo-decarbonization-meeting-begins-in-london-6097313">it is not yet known whether the IMO will vote in favor</a>, whether they will reject it or whether there will be a stalling action that will push it six months to the next MEPC meeting. But the US made their position clear: if NZF is adopted, countries voting “yes” will be subject to US penalties. A range of possibilities were listed such as fees on vessels or entry bans to US ports. Should any of the proposed actions be implemented, this will clearly open a fourth front of the trade dispute and directly impact shipping. A fifth front looms on the horizon — the Federal Maritime Commission’s (FMC’s) investigation into unfair practices related to flag state competition, especially from flags of convenience. This is on hold as the FMC staff is sent home due to the government shutdown. Eventually, the study will be completed, and it is highly likely a conclusion will be made that points to examples of what, from a US perspective, would be seen as unfair competitive practices. Looking at the actions the US government took following the USTR investigation on Chinese shipping practices, it is very likely the FMC study will act as well and, just as with the USTR port fees, open yet another front in the trade war involving shipping directly. Finally, a sixth front has opened in US ports where cranes and chassis <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/freeport-pays-crane-tariffs-to-avoid-ustr-fee-risk-6087337">are now subject to 100% duties</a>, and port handling equipment now faces a proposed 150% duty level. All of this has emerged during 2025 alone and has pushed container shipping into the center of the US trade dispute. Contact Lars Jensen at <a href="mailto:lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com">lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com</a>. </div>

Seen from the container shipping sector, the US trade dispute has become multi-dimensional and global in nature. The complexities are likely to grow further with shipping as a centrally impacted industry. Initially, the trade conflict mainly focused on tariffs — which countries were being hit by which magnitude of tariffs and on which commodities. The so-called “Liberation Day,” where reciprocal tariffs on all countries in the world were announced, was the clear embodiment of this early phase. Had this been the only element to the trade dispute and had the first round of reciprocal tariffs simply been kept in place, container shipping would have adapted. Tariff wars are not new, and the impact of such actions is somewhat predictable. Sourcing will shift and adapt to the new landscape, and goods will be sourced where it is most advantageous given the new landscape. Ships will follow and trade lanes adapt accordingly. It could potentially result in an overall demand reduction, but swings in demand and supply are something shipping stakeholders have been handling literally for centuries. This is not to imply it would have been without cost for the shipping industry, but simply to point out that the situation would have been within the parameters of what has also previously been handled. But as the months have gone on, the trade dispute has become multi-dimensional, developing many different elements, all of which impact shipping and supply chains. Tariff changes speeding up A second front is that the speed of change in tariffs is accelerating. Deadlines for implementation of new tariffs, and details thereof, have become progressively faster, to the point where cargo already loaded on vessels would now be subject to tariffs with the importer having no recourse but to accept the sudden increase in cost for goods already purchased. Neither shippers nor carriers can physically adapt to the supply chain at the speed of recent tariff changes. This creates an environment for shippers where planning a stable long-term supply chain is no longer a risk-mitigating activity but a source of risk. And in an environment for shipping lines where large-scale capacity reduction or capacity increases are necessary at extremely short notice — resulting in poor schedule adherence as well as erratic appearances of vessel capacity shortages (and excesses) — port congestion problems emerge at destination and at origin. A port fee standoff We arrive at the third dimension of the trade dispute: port fees based on nationality. At the headline level, this came with ample warning time from the US where Chinese shipping interests are targeted, albeit a range of details are still missing. Shipping lines planned and adapted accordingly by shuffling vessels in the network — a process taking place over a period of months. But then came the Chinese reaction in the form of similar tit-for-tat rules directed against US shipping interests. There was almost no lead time for the shipping lines that are still processing what the precise impact will be and how they will once more reshuffle vessels to mitigate it. Regarding this aspect of the trade dispute, the impact is especially important for Cosco Shipping, OOCL, Hede Shipping, Matson and APL, highlighting the clear US-China conflict. What is unknown is whether the next steps in this aspect will be to escalate or de-escalate. The coming fronts The fourth dimension has been brewing for six months and came to the headlines early in October in the form of the US opposition to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) Net Zero Framework (NZF). At the time of writing it is not yet known whether the IMO will vote in favor , whether they will reject it or whether there will be a stalling action that will push it six months to the next MEPC meeting. But the US made their position clear: if NZF is adopted, countries voting “yes” will be subject to US penalties. A range of possibilities were listed such as fees on vessels or entry bans to US ports. Should any of the proposed actions be implemented, this will clearly open a fourth front of the trade dispute and directly impact shipping. A fifth front looms on the horizon — the Federal Maritime Commission’s (FMC’s) investigation into unfair practices related to flag state competition, especially from flags of convenience. This is on hold as the FMC staff is sent home due to the government shutdown. Eventually, the study will be completed, and it is highly likely a conclusion will be made that points to examples of what, from a US perspective, would be seen as unfair competitive practices. Looking at the actions the US government took following the USTR investigation on Chinese shipping practices, it is very likely the FMC study will act as well and, just as with the USTR port fees, open yet another front in the trade war involving shipping directly. Finally, a sixth front has opened in US ports where cranes and chassis are now subject to 100% duties , and port handling equipment now faces a proposed 150% duty level. All of this has emerged during 2025 alone and has pushed container shipping into the center of the US trade dispute. Contact Lars Jensen at lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

US trade dispute has multiple fronts to disrupt shipping: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Industrial action by auxiliary workers in Rotterdam and Antwerp-Bruges is heavily disrupting operations in the region’s two busiest container ports.</div>

Industrial action by auxiliary workers in Rotterdam and Antwerp-Bruges is heavily disrupting operations in the region’s two busiest container ports.

<div class="phx-topic">Strike action continues to disrupt operations at Europe’s two busiest container hubs, Rotterdam and Antwerp-Bruges, resulting in reduced handling capacity and backlogs that could take weeks to clear. If container lashing companies and FNV Havens union in Rotterdam fail to reach an agreement over working conditions and wages by Friday morning, workers critical to handling operations will resume strike action that has been suspended since the weekend following a court ruling. The 48-hour strike by 700 lashers last week has left Rotterdam already facing a backlog of 19 vessels, 11 of them deep-sea ships, that a spokesperson for the port said would take “several weeks” to clear even without further strike action. “Tonight, we will know if the lashers have reached an agreement with their employers. If not, the strike will resume tomorrow [Friday] at 7 a.m.,” the spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. A broad delegation from the logistics sector asked a Dutch court last Saturday to prohibit or limit the strike by the lashers because of “major social consequences.” It was agreed that the lashers would return to work on Monday, but strikes would resume Friday if no agreement was reached between the lashing workers and their employers. While Rotterdam noted in a statement following the court ruling that although the four-day solution was “not ideal,” it would allow essential goods to enter the Netherlands. “The aim was and is to protect the interests of the logistics sector and society from the far-reaching consequences of the strike,” the port statement noted. “We remain of the opinion that the action is currently causing disproportionate damage and putting serious pressure on security of supply.” The dispute has impacted all of the major container terminals in Rotterdam: APM Terminals Maasvlakte II, Hutchinson Ports Delta II, ECT Delta and Rotterdam World Gateway. <h3>Pilots in ‘maximum rest’ action </h3>In Antwerp, a “maximum rest” slowdown by sea pilots in the BVL union has left the logistics chain to and from the port operating at 70% of normal capacity, officials said in a “crisis” update Thursday. Flemish pilots have been protesting federal pension reforms since Oct. 5, with the port disruption exacerbated by a national general workers strike in Belgium on Tuesday this week. The industrial action has caused significant congestion on the Scheldt River that provides deep-sea access to Antwerp’s container terminals, affecting 60 outbound and 128 inbound vessels, according to the port. “The [strike] actions are expected to continue until Sunday ... clearing the backlog caused by the various actions will take several more days,” Antwerp-Bruges said in its latest update. A spokesperson for Hapag-Lloyd said the carrier was “closely monitoring the evolving strike actions” at both ports. “In Rotterdam, lashing operations remain unstable and further industrial action is anticipated should negotiations fail by Friday, Oct. 17,” the spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “In Belgium, the consequences of the general strike and ongoing pilot actions continue to impact vessel movements and port accessibility. At the moment, we are seeing delays of some hours to three days of our services across affected terminals.” Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer visibility platform has described operations at both Rotterdam and Antwerp-Bruges as “heavily disrupted.” The strike action is doing nothing positive for overall Asia-Europe schedule reliability that continues to present shippers with the worst on-time performance among the major ocean corridors. In September, on-time vessel performance of 23% was a slight improvement on the 17% recorded in August, according to industry analyst Xeneta. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Strike action continues to disrupt operations at Europe’s two busiest container hubs, Rotterdam and Antwerp-Bruges, resulting in reduced handling capacity and backlogs that could take weeks to clear. If container lashing companies and FNV Havens union in Rotterdam fail to reach an agreement over working conditions and wages by Friday morning, workers critical to handling operations will resume strike action that has been suspended since the weekend following a court ruling. The 48-hour strike by 700 lashers last week has left Rotterdam already facing a backlog of 19 vessels, 11 of them deep-sea ships, that a spokesperson for the port said would take “several weeks” to clear even without further strike action. “Tonight, we will know if the lashers have reached an agreement with their employers. If not, the strike will resume tomorrow [Friday] at 7 a.m.,” the spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. A broad delegation from the logistics sector asked a Dutch court last Saturday to prohibit or limit the strike by the lashers because of “major social consequences.” It was agreed that the lashers would return to work on Monday, but strikes would resume Friday if no agreement was reached between the lashing workers and their employers. While Rotterdam noted in a statement following the court ruling that although the four-day solution was “not ideal,” it would allow essential goods to enter the Netherlands. “The aim was and is to protect the interests of the logistics sector and society from the far-reaching consequences of the strike,” the port statement noted. “We remain of the opinion that the action is currently causing disproportionate damage and putting serious pressure on security of supply.” The dispute has impacted all of the major container terminals in Rotterdam: APM Terminals Maasvlakte II, Hutchinson Ports Delta II, ECT Delta and Rotterdam World Gateway. Pilots in ‘maximum rest’ action In Antwerp, a “maximum rest” slowdown by sea pilots in the BVL union has left the logistics chain to and from the port operating at 70% of normal capacity, officials said in a “crisis” update Thursday. Flemish pilots have been protesting federal pension reforms since Oct. 5, with the port disruption exacerbated by a national general workers strike in Belgium on Tuesday this week. The industrial action has caused significant congestion on the Scheldt River that provides deep-sea access to Antwerp’s container terminals, affecting 60 outbound and 128 inbound vessels, according to the port. “The [strike] actions are expected to continue until Sunday ... clearing the backlog caused by the various actions will take several more days,” Antwerp-Bruges said in its latest update. A spokesperson for Hapag-Lloyd said the carrier was “closely monitoring the evolving strike actions” at both ports. “In Rotterdam, lashing operations remain unstable and further industrial action is anticipated should negotiations fail by Friday, Oct. 17,” the spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. “In Belgium, the consequences of the general strike and ongoing pilot actions continue to impact vessel movements and port accessibility. At the moment, we are seeing delays of some hours to three days of our services across affected terminals.” Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer visibility platform has described operations at both Rotterdam and Antwerp-Bruges as “heavily disrupted.” The strike action is doing nothing positive for overall Asia-Europe schedule reliability that continues to present shippers with the worst on-time performance among the major ocean corridors. In September, on-time vessel performance of 23% was a slight improvement on the 17% recorded in August, according to industry analyst Xeneta. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Port News

International ports

Growing box backlogs at Europe’s strike-hit hubs could take weeks to clear

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Seasonal demand is believed to fuel most of the moderate pricing gains, with the impact of a driver licensing crackdown perhaps affecting outbound lanes from Southern California.</div>

Seasonal demand is believed to fuel most of the moderate pricing gains, with the impact of a driver licensing crackdown perhaps affecting outbound lanes from Southern California.

<div class="phx-topic">Freight imbalances and changes in capacity in certain lanes are tightening US truckload capacity, but not by much. Lower import volumes and a crackdown on illegal drivers have combined with seasonal peak demand to push spot pricing higher in some lanes, but most measures of dry-van truckload spot pricing have changed little since August. Transactional truckload pricing is rising but “it’s not a paradigm shift by any means,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain for ITS Logistics. “It’s still a soft market, but we’ve seen cancellations increase and rates per mile nudge up,” Brashier said. “Is this something that changes the market post-peak? That’s still to be determined.” Over the course of 2025, several events, including the Fourth of July holiday and nationwide roadside truck and driver inspections, have led to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ltl-truckload-pricing-rising-despite-soft-demand-6079263">short-term surges</a> in spot truckload pricing, but rates <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-truckload-market-mired-in-malaise-as-import-surge-wanes-6075566">have fallen back</a> after those events. There’s no clear evidence of either a demand catalyst or a supply chokepoint that would change that pattern. Truckload rates typically increase during the fourth-quarter peak. Last year, the US average dry-van rate from DAT Freight &amp; Analytics rose from $1.61 per mile on Sept. 15 to $1.84 per mile on Jan. 5, 2025, before dropping back to $1.60 per mile by April 13. Indications are that spot rates are on a similar seasonal trajectory at the start of the fourth quarter. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="140c93da-33a2-4f0a-8ecf-304f1b6fd739"></dynamic-object></div>The US average dry-van linehaul rate for the week ended Oct. 11 was $1.70 per mile, flat with the previous week and up 6 cents from a year ago, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. Dry-van rates at Truckstop.com were more volatile, with the US average falling more than 4 cents to $1.93 per mile after rising nearly 7 cents the previous week. <h3>Other factors moving market </h3>Truckload rates are inching upward despite weak demand, which suggests other factors are inflating rates, DAT Chief of Analytics Ken Adamo said in a statement. “Freight imbalances and changes in available capacity drove rates higher in certain markets, as opposed to volumes,” Adamo said. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lower-us-imports-tightening-truck-capacity-at-key-inland-hubs-6094920">Lower import volumes</a> may be part of the mix. The Cass Truckload Linehaul Index, a measure of pricing, rose 1.7% in September from August and was up 2.6% from a year ago. The index is down 1% from two years ago, however. The US long-distance truckload producer price index in August was nearly flat year over year. The September report has been delayed by the US government shutdown. Shippers contacted by the Journal of Commerce expect contract rates for 2025 to range from flat to higher by low single-digit percentages year over year. Like most analysts, they see little that would shift freight demand and truckload pricing into higher gear. Within trucking, there's continuous debate over what might be the next supply shock. Predictions that the exit of thousands of small trucking firms would tighten capacity and flip the market have fallen flat. In 2025, more transportation analysts and trucking executives have talked about a developing “equilibrium” in the truckload market, a balance between supply and demand that could be upset by relatively small changes. “We’re setting up for increased vulnerability in the market next year,” David Spencer, vice president of market intelligence for Arrive Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s really next year when we start to see other forces (beyond seasonality) begin to have an impact,” he added, referring in part to a crackdown on drivers in the US illegally. <h3>ELP impact </h3>That crackdown on non-English-speaking truck drivers and those working in the US illegally with non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) is highlighted by nearly every analyst or executive speaking on the outlook for the trucking market. However, the impact of that crackdown, which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-dot-presses-states-to-enforce-english-language-trucking-rules-6069884">began in June</a>, on the overall market has been negligible. As of Sept. 26, out-of-service (OOS) orders had been issued for 5,006 out of 12,055 violations issued to drivers year-to-date for failing to meet English-language proficiency (ELP) standards, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). In comparison, about 31,000 OOS orders were issued for driving without a valid CDL. The total number of OOS orders issued during roadside inspections for all types of driver violations to date in 2025 is 202,257. State officials have issued 873,977 violations. Since June, the FMCSA has viewed an ELP violation as an out-of-service violation, except for drivers operating within the commercial zone along the US-Mexico border. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has been investigating state issuance of non-domiciled CDLs and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-cracks-down-on-non-domiciled-cdls-targets-california-6087419">intensified a crackdown</a> on those licenses in September. Although estimates of the number of drivers who could be disqualified by the crackdown on licensing and English-language skills range as high as 200,000 or more, exact numbers for unqualified, illegal or non-English-speaking drivers are, not surprisingly, hard to come by. Enforcement to date has not had a direct impact on the overall market. The crackdown may be having an impact in specific lanes, notably outbound lanes from Southern California and westbound lanes from crossing points along the US-Mexico border. “You might be seeing an impact in some of the markets that have a higher propensity for non-domiciled drivers,” ITS’s Brashier said, noting California in particular. Brashier said ITS has seen capacity tighten in long-haul lanes – those more than 500 miles – while short-haul capacity has been more readily available. “We’re having no problem (finding capacity) in intra-Texas lanes,” he said. But that could reflect existing trends toward more regional freight, rather than a loss of non-domiciled CDL drivers. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto://bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a></div>

Freight imbalances and changes in capacity in certain lanes are tightening US truckload capacity, but not by much. Lower import volumes and a crackdown on illegal drivers have combined with seasonal peak demand to push spot pricing higher in some lanes, but most measures of dry-van truckload spot pricing have changed little since August. Transactional truckload pricing is rising but “it’s not a paradigm shift by any means,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain for ITS Logistics. “It’s still a soft market, but we’ve seen cancellations increase and rates per mile nudge up,” Brashier said. “Is this something that changes the market post-peak? That’s still to be determined.” Over the course of 2025, several events, including the Fourth of July holiday and nationwide roadside truck and driver inspections, have led to short-term surges in spot truckload pricing, but rates have fallen back after those events. There’s no clear evidence of either a demand catalyst or a supply chokepoint that would change that pattern. Truckload rates typically increase during the fourth-quarter peak. Last year, the US average dry-van rate from DAT Freight & Analytics rose from $1.61 per mile on Sept. 15 to $1.84 per mile on Jan. 5, 2025, before dropping back to $1.60 per mile by April 13. Indications are that spot rates are on a similar seasonal trajectory at the start of the fourth quarter. The US average dry-van linehaul rate for the week ended Oct. 11 was $1.70 per mile, flat with the previous week and up 6 cents from a year ago, according to DAT Freight & Analytics. Dry-van rates at Truckstop.com were more volatile, with the US average falling more than 4 cents to $1.93 per mile after rising nearly 7 cents the previous week. Other factors moving market Truckload rates are inching upward despite weak demand, which suggests other factors are inflating rates, DAT Chief of Analytics Ken Adamo said in a statement. “Freight imbalances and changes in available capacity drove rates higher in certain markets, as opposed to volumes,” Adamo said. Lower import volumes may be part of the mix. The Cass Truckload Linehaul Index, a measure of pricing, rose 1.7% in September from August and was up 2.6% from a year ago. The index is down 1% from two years ago, however. The US long-distance truckload producer price index in August was nearly flat year over year. The September report has been delayed by the US government shutdown. Shippers contacted by the Journal of Commerce expect contract rates for 2025 to range from flat to higher by low single-digit percentages year over year. Like most analysts, they see little that would shift freight demand and truckload pricing into higher gear. Within trucking, there's continuous debate over what might be the next supply shock. Predictions that the exit of thousands of small trucking firms would tighten capacity and flip the market have fallen flat. In 2025, more transportation analysts and trucking executives have talked about a developing “equilibrium” in the truckload market, a balance between supply and demand that could be upset by relatively small changes. “We’re setting up for increased vulnerability in the market next year,” David Spencer, vice president of market intelligence for Arrive Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s really next year when we start to see other forces (beyond seasonality) begin to have an impact,” he added, referring in part to a crackdown on drivers in the US illegally. ELP impact That crackdown on non-English-speaking truck drivers and those working in the US illegally with non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) is highlighted by nearly every analyst or executive speaking on the outlook for the trucking market. However, the impact of that crackdown, which began in June , on the overall market has been negligible. As of Sept. 26, out-of-service (OOS) orders had been issued for 5,006 out of 12,055 violations issued to drivers year-to-date for failing to meet English-language proficiency (ELP) standards, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). In comparison, about 31,000 OOS orders were issued for driving without a valid CDL. The total number of OOS orders issued during roadside inspections for all types of driver violations to date in 2025 is 202,257. State officials have issued 873,977 violations. Since June, the FMCSA has viewed an ELP violation as an out-of-service violation, except for drivers operating within the commercial zone along the US-Mexico border. The Department of Transportation (DOT) has been investigating state issuance of non-domiciled CDLs and intensified a crackdown on those licenses in September. Although estimates of the number of drivers who could be disqualified by the crackdown on licensing and English-language skills range as high as 200,000 or more, exact numbers for unqualified, illegal or non-English-speaking drivers are, not surprisingly, hard to come by. Enforcement to date has not had a direct impact on the overall market. The crackdown may be having an impact in specific lanes, notably outbound lanes from Southern California and westbound lanes from crossing points along the US-Mexico border. “You might be seeing an impact in some of the markets that have a higher propensity for non-domiciled drivers,” ITS’s Brashier said, noting California in particular. Brashier said ITS has seen capacity tighten in long-haul lanes – those more than 500 miles – while short-haul capacity has been more readily available. “We’re having no problem (finding capacity) in intra-Texas lanes,” he said. But that could reflect existing trends toward more regional freight, rather than a loss of non-domiciled CDL drivers. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com

Trucking News

Truckload

Surface

US truckload pricing inches higher as trucking’s peak beckons

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But forwarders say the effort by liners to end a four-month decline in rates may lose steam after a week or so given generally weak market fundamentals. </div>

But forwarders say the effort by liners to end a four-month decline in rates may lose steam after a week or so given generally weak market fundamentals.

<div class="phx-topic">Spot rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific have jumped by about $700 to the US West Coast this week with retailers stepping up their purchase orders for the fourth quarter now that factories in Asia have reopened following the Golden Week and Autumn festivals, market sources say. But forwarders say the effort to end a four-month decline in container spot rates may stumble, and carriers have few other options. The gains came via a general rate increase (GRI) carriers implemented Wednesday, with prices rising to about $2,000 per FEU for West Coast business from $1,300 per FEU last week. Multiple forwarders and a carrier source told the Journal of Commerce that carriers are getting the higher rates from customers. “Bookings are stronger than anticipated after the Autumn Festival,” one forwarder said. “In general, the market is showing some resilience.” Business to the US East Coast was pegged at $3,050 to $3,100 per FEU, up from $2,300. Still, carriers and forwarders expect this week’s GRIs, such as the price hike made on Sept. 1, to deteriorate after a week to 10 days, likely to be followed by additional GRI attempts on Nov. 1 and Nov. 15. “This could be deja vu from Sept. 1,” said Chris Sur, vice president/ocean of freight contract logistics at the forwarder Unique Logistics International. Helping to support the trans-Pacific market at the moment is the fact that vessel capacity has been reduced amid multiple blank sailings and some suspended weekly services due to weakened import demand in August and September. Yet another factor influencing retailers’ ordering behavior this fall has been tariff uncertainties amid the Trump administration’s shifting trade policies for individual countries. This will play out for the remainder of the fourth quarter, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders. “Nobody knows what to expect from Trump,” he said. “Everyone is rushing now to get their orders out by the end of the year.” <h3>Inventory restocking, spring imports coming next </h3>Retailers, especially the big box stores, are beginning to focus now on re-stocking their inventories and placing their spring orders, said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder FreightRight Global Logistics. “We could see increased orders in November and December,” he said. The traditional peak season shipping patterns this year were disrupted by the constantly changing US tariff announcements. July was the peak month for US imports from Asia; normally, imports of holiday merchandise remain strong from August through October. US imports from Asia in July totaled 1.81 million TEUs, dropping to 1.75 million TEUs in August and 1.58 million TEUs in September, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&amp;P Global. Carriers have already filed their 30-day notice in advance of proposed GRIs for Nov. 1 and Nov. 15, so further rate hikes, albeit short-lived, can be expected as liners attempt to set a floor under spot rates, a carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce. “Rates had gotten too low. This behavior is nothing new,” the source said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Spot rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific have jumped by about $700 to the US West Coast this week with retailers stepping up their purchase orders for the fourth quarter now that factories in Asia have reopened following the Golden Week and Autumn festivals, market sources say. But forwarders say the effort to end a four-month decline in container spot rates may stumble, and carriers have few other options. The gains came via a general rate increase (GRI) carriers implemented Wednesday, with prices rising to about $2,000 per FEU for West Coast business from $1,300 per FEU last week. Multiple forwarders and a carrier source told the Journal of Commerce that carriers are getting the higher rates from customers. “Bookings are stronger than anticipated after the Autumn Festival,” one forwarder said. “In general, the market is showing some resilience.” Business to the US East Coast was pegged at $3,050 to $3,100 per FEU, up from $2,300. Still, carriers and forwarders expect this week’s GRIs, such as the price hike made on Sept. 1, to deteriorate after a week to 10 days, likely to be followed by additional GRI attempts on Nov. 1 and Nov. 15. “This could be deja vu from Sept. 1,” said Chris Sur, vice president/ocean of freight contract logistics at the forwarder Unique Logistics International. Helping to support the trans-Pacific market at the moment is the fact that vessel capacity has been reduced amid multiple blank sailings and some suspended weekly services due to weakened import demand in August and September. Yet another factor influencing retailers’ ordering behavior this fall has been tariff uncertainties amid the Trump administration’s shifting trade policies for individual countries. This will play out for the remainder of the fourth quarter, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders. “Nobody knows what to expect from Trump,” he said. “Everyone is rushing now to get their orders out by the end of the year.” Inventory restocking, spring imports coming next Retailers, especially the big box stores, are beginning to focus now on re-stocking their inventories and placing their spring orders, said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder FreightRight Global Logistics. “We could see increased orders in November and December,” he said. The traditional peak season shipping patterns this year were disrupted by the constantly changing US tariff announcements. July was the peak month for US imports from Asia; normally, imports of holiday merchandise remain strong from August through October. US imports from Asia in July totaled 1.81 million TEUs, dropping to 1.75 million TEUs in August and 1.58 million TEUs in September, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&P Global. Carriers have already filed their 30-day notice in advance of proposed GRIs for Nov. 1 and Nov. 15, so further rate hikes, albeit short-lived, can be expected as liners attempt to set a floor under spot rates, a carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce. “Rates had gotten too low. This behavior is nothing new,” the source said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Spot rates in eastbound trans-Pacific pop after carriers set new GRIs

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

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

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

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

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

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

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

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

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

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Asia to North Europe

Asia to Mediterranean

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

Asia to North Europe and Mediterranean ocean reliability (eeSea)

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

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

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

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

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

White House sanctions threat ups ante ahead of pivotal IMO meeting

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

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

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

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

Ro/ro cargo

Breakbulk News

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

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

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

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

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

Asia-Europe

CMA CGM, SeaLead revamp Red Sea sailings after Gaza truce

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY AND SAVE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rail News

Norfolk Southern tweaks international services from West, East coasts

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

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

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

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

US presses forward on port fees despite China’s warning

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

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

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

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

Lower US imports tightening truck capacity at key inland hubs

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

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

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

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

J.B. Hunt: Intermodal volume retracts amid cost-cutting measures

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

White House sanctions threat ups ante ahead of pivotal IMO meeting

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

CMA CGM, SeaLead revamp Red Sea sailings after Gaza truce

Recent Commentary

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Top 5 Most Read Stories