<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But other Class I railroads will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. </div>

But other Class I railroads will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific (UP) is in preliminary discussions to acquire Norfolk Southern (NS), according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/deals/railroad-operator-union-pacific-exploring-deal-for-norfolk-southern-1d06e822?mod=Searchresults_pos2&amp;page=1">The Wall Street Journal</a>, in what could become the largest freight rail merger in American history. If a deal happens, it would create the first coast-to-coast US rail network and mark a dramatic shift in the structure of US freight railroads. The transaction, which would create a mega-railroad valued at $200 billion, would far exceed the $31 billion merger between Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-regulators-approve-cp-kcs-merger-to-form-first-us-canada-mexico-rail-5192986">completed in 2023</a>. However, UP and NS bring different freight portfolios to the table, and any proposed deal is expected to draw intense scrutiny from regulators. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6046006_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Other Class I railroads BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. UP and NS share a common commitment to the principles of precision scheduled railroading (PSR), an operations philosophy that emphasizes efficiency, asset utilization and cost control. But some in the analyst community have speculated that CSX could be a potential target of UP. UP might also see more upside acquiring NS, which has underperformed CSX for several years financially and operationally. But from a freight mix perspective, UP more closely resembles CSX. Since 2018, non-intermodal cargo has accounted for 53.8% of CSX’s volume, nearly identical to Union Pacific’s 55%, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Non-intermodal accounts for just 43.4% of Norfolk Southern volume, with the majority being containerized freight. UP CEO Jim Vena has been critical of intermodal at times because it doesn’t generate the high margins of commodities such as agricultural products, petrochemicals, plastics and construction materials. “In the intermodal piece, I don’t know. I like the industrial and the bulk business,” Vena said last month at the Wells Fargo Industrials &amp; Materials Conference. “I think the railroads have made some real strategically impactful decisions on how they handle intermodal that are not helpful.” After a brief interjection from his chief financial officer, Vena added, “I didn’t say I didn’t love [intermodal customers].” UP’s CEO is a protégé of the late E. Hunter Harrison, the creator of precision scheduled railroading. PSR practitioners measure operating ratios — i.e. the percentage of revenue that is absorbed by expenses. Lower operating ratios mean more revenue flows to the bottom line, driving profits. “We have long believed that the larger carload footprint, better chemicals, autos, and export ag connectivity makes CSX a better target from a freight flow perspective,” David Vernon, an industry analyst with investment bank Bernstein Societe Generale, wrote in a note published Friday. “While the potential synergy value of a UP and CSX combination is slightly greater, it’s not that much greater.” <h3>Intermodal implications would be profound </h3>If it were approved, a transcontinental US freight railroad would cause a significant reshuffling of the domestic and international intermodal markets. Ocean carriers, for example, often sign long-term contracts for inland rail services. If a carrier currently uses BNSF on the West Coast and Norfolk Southern on the East Coast for international business, the fate of those contracts in a post-merger landscape would be uncertain. The implications for domestic intermodal would be even messier. Hub Group, Swift Intermodal and parcel giant UPS are already customers of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, but Schneider National and STG Logistics are locked into multi-year deals with CSX in the eastern US. The shakeup could be substantial for non-asset brokers, also known as intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). Union Pacific controls the EMP and UMAX 53-foot container pools, which are shared with CSX, NS, and Canadian National. A UP-NS merger could limit or eliminate CSX’s access to those pools, potentially impacting significant volumes of freight. “While intermodal channel partners would need to adapt, single line trans-con service would likely be more competitive to the highway and accelerate share shifts,” Bernstein’s Vernon noted. The largest unknown would involve J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US intermodal provider. J.B. Hunt exclusively partners with BNSF in the West and relies heavily on NS in the East, although it does put a portion of business on CSX. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to sever ties with BNSF because their relationship spans nearly four decades and includes joint Quantum service offerings in the US and Mexico. J.B. Hunt has also been critical of the PSR model employed by UP and CPKC. While J.B. Hunt could shift its East Coast operations to CSX, a combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern could wield unprecedented pricing power, potentially creating the first company with enough leverage to compete with J.B. Hunt on pricing negotiations with shippers. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific (UP) is in preliminary discussions to acquire Norfolk Southern (NS), according to The Wall Street Journal , in what could become the largest freight rail merger in American history. If a deal happens, it would create the first coast-to-coast US rail network and mark a dramatic shift in the structure of US freight railroads. The transaction, which would create a mega-railroad valued at $200 billion, would far exceed the $31 billion merger between Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern completed in 2023 . However, UP and NS bring different freight portfolios to the table, and any proposed deal is expected to draw intense scrutiny from regulators. Other Class I railroads BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. UP and NS share a common commitment to the principles of precision scheduled railroading (PSR), an operations philosophy that emphasizes efficiency, asset utilization and cost control. But some in the analyst community have speculated that CSX could be a potential target of UP. UP might also see more upside acquiring NS, which has underperformed CSX for several years financially and operationally. But from a freight mix perspective, UP more closely resembles CSX. Since 2018, non-intermodal cargo has accounted for 53.8% of CSX’s volume, nearly identical to Union Pacific’s 55%, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Non-intermodal accounts for just 43.4% of Norfolk Southern volume, with the majority being containerized freight. UP CEO Jim Vena has been critical of intermodal at times because it doesn’t generate the high margins of commodities such as agricultural products, petrochemicals, plastics and construction materials. “In the intermodal piece, I don’t know. I like the industrial and the bulk business,” Vena said last month at the Wells Fargo Industrials & Materials Conference. “I think the railroads have made some real strategically impactful decisions on how they handle intermodal that are not helpful.” After a brief interjection from his chief financial officer, Vena added, “I didn’t say I didn’t love [intermodal customers].” UP’s CEO is a protégé of the late E. Hunter Harrison, the creator of precision scheduled railroading. PSR practitioners measure operating ratios — i.e. the percentage of revenue that is absorbed by expenses. Lower operating ratios mean more revenue flows to the bottom line, driving profits. “We have long believed that the larger carload footprint, better chemicals, autos, and export ag connectivity makes CSX a better target from a freight flow perspective,” David Vernon, an industry analyst with investment bank Bernstein Societe Generale, wrote in a note published Friday. “While the potential synergy value of a UP and CSX combination is slightly greater, it’s not that much greater.” Intermodal implications would be profound If it were approved, a transcontinental US freight railroad would cause a significant reshuffling of the domestic and international intermodal markets. Ocean carriers, for example, often sign long-term contracts for inland rail services. If a carrier currently uses BNSF on the West Coast and Norfolk Southern on the East Coast for international business, the fate of those contracts in a post-merger landscape would be uncertain. The implications for domestic intermodal would be even messier. Hub Group, Swift Intermodal and parcel giant UPS are already customers of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, but Schneider National and STG Logistics are locked into multi-year deals with CSX in the eastern US. The shakeup could be substantial for non-asset brokers, also known as intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). Union Pacific controls the EMP and UMAX 53-foot container pools, which are shared with CSX, NS, and Canadian National. A UP-NS merger could limit or eliminate CSX’s access to those pools, potentially impacting significant volumes of freight. “While intermodal channel partners would need to adapt, single line trans-con service would likely be more competitive to the highway and accelerate share shifts,” Bernstein’s Vernon noted. The largest unknown would involve J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US intermodal provider. J.B. Hunt exclusively partners with BNSF in the West and relies heavily on NS in the East, although it does put a portion of business on CSX. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to sever ties with BNSF because their relationship spans nearly four decades and includes joint Quantum service offerings in the US and Mexico. J.B. Hunt has also been critical of the PSR model employed by UP and CPKC. While J.B. Hunt could shift its East Coast operations to CSX, a combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern could wield unprecedented pricing power, potentially creating the first company with enough leverage to compete with J.B. Hunt on pricing negotiations with shippers. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

Potential UP-NS tie-up would cause major shift in US intermodal market

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">MSC’s orders at two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships. </div>

MSC’s orders at two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships.

<div class="phx-topic">Three container lines, including Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Taiwan’s Yang Ming, are spending close to $4 billion on a raft of new ships to be built by Chinese and South Korean shipyards, carriers and shipyards have confirmed. The largest deals, which shipbrokers estimate at more than $1.7 billion combined, have been awarded by MSC for six 22,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered vessels. Four will be built by Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding (SWS) and two by Hengli Heavy Industry in Dalian, China. The world’s largest container line has also upsized six LNG-fueled container ships ordered from SWS last year from 19,000 TEUs to 22,000 TEUs, the shipyard said. MSC’s orders at the two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/revised-china-tonnage-tax-less-disruptive-still-costly-6005402">by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships</a>. They also take to about 30 the number of ships ordered by MSC at Chinese yards in the past year and increase MSC’s order backlog to 135 vessels totaling more than 2.3 million TEUs, according to the latest Alphaliner figures. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e01ed4f0-6075-42bf-a2f7-a63be815f7e0"></dynamic-object></div>Meanwhile, Yang Ming said it ordered seven 15,000-TEU dual-fuel container ships at a cost of up to $1.5 billion from South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean as part of its fleet renewal and expansion plan. The latest ships “will replace aging vessels and advance Yang Ming’s strategic development” when they are delivered in 2028 and 2029, the carrier said in a statement Thursday. The cost of each ship is between $194.8 million and $218.7 million, Yang Ming said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange. The vessels will be deployed on east-west routes alongside five LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered earlier and due for delivery beginning next year, the carrier said in its statement. Yang Ming said the LNG-fueled ships will achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional fuel. Continuing the ordering spree, South Korean intra-Asia operator Sinokor Merchant Marine has contracted Hyundai Heavy Industries to build four 13,000-TEU scrubber-fitted container ships at a total cost of $610 million for delivery between January and June 2028. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Three container lines, including Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Taiwan’s Yang Ming, are spending close to $4 billion on a raft of new ships to be built by Chinese and South Korean shipyards, carriers and shipyards have confirmed. The largest deals, which shipbrokers estimate at more than $1.7 billion combined, have been awarded by MSC for six 22,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered vessels. Four will be built by Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding (SWS) and two by Hengli Heavy Industry in Dalian, China. The world’s largest container line has also upsized six LNG-fueled container ships ordered from SWS last year from 19,000 TEUs to 22,000 TEUs, the shipyard said. MSC’s orders at the two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships . They also take to about 30 the number of ships ordered by MSC at Chinese yards in the past year and increase MSC’s order backlog to 135 vessels totaling more than 2.3 million TEUs, according to the latest Alphaliner figures. Meanwhile, Yang Ming said it ordered seven 15,000-TEU dual-fuel container ships at a cost of up to $1.5 billion from South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean as part of its fleet renewal and expansion plan. The latest ships “will replace aging vessels and advance Yang Ming’s strategic development” when they are delivered in 2028 and 2029, the carrier said in a statement Thursday. The cost of each ship is between $194.8 million and $218.7 million, Yang Ming said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange. The vessels will be deployed on east-west routes alongside five LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered earlier and due for delivery beginning next year, the carrier said in its statement. Yang Ming said the LNG-fueled ships will achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional fuel. Continuing the ordering spree, South Korean intra-Asia operator Sinokor Merchant Marine has contracted Hyundai Heavy Industries to build four 13,000-TEU scrubber-fitted container ships at a total cost of $610 million for delivery between January and June 2028. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Maritime

MSC, Yang Ming lead nearly $4 billion ordering spree for new vessels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US drayage truckers say costs and competition have been on the rise since the pandemic, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. </div>

US drayage truckers say costs and competition have been on the rise since the pandemic, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure.

<div class="phx-topic">Drayage providers across the US say their survival is under increasing threat amid rising cost pressures driven by new competition, including technology-enabled platforms. To stay in business, operators are more often turning to mergers or acquisitions to bolster their companies in a bid to hold off competitors, market players told the Journal of Commerce. Drayage truckers say their costs have been rising since COVID-19, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. “We are in a situation where new entrants, brokers and AI [artificial intelligence] are in competition with us,” said Matt Schrap, CEO of the West Coast-based Harbor Trucking Association (HTA). “The lowest price wins.” Ken Kellaway, cofounder, chairman and president of RoadOne IntermodaLogistics, which has drayage operations across the country, said a price difference of as little as $50 among competitors will win the business. “The cost pressures are the largest I have seen in my career,” Kellaway said. Last week’s announcement <a href="https://www.ajot.com/insights/full/ai-gsc-shutdown-shocks-port-of-oakland-maritime-community">by Oakland-based drayage provider GSC Enterprises that it was shutting down its operations</a> has traditional operators wondering who is next. “It’s surprising that others haven’t fallen yet,” said Robert Loya, chief operating officer at TGS Logistics. <h3>Technology threat </h3>Traditional drayage companies in Los Angeles and Long Beach, many of whom have been operating for decades in the largest US port complex, are seeing market share erode as their contract-based customers seek lower prices from brokers, some of whom use tech-enabled platforms that allow freight interests to book freight directly with their competitors, Schrap said. RoadOne, based in the Northeast, sees the technology marketplace as the latest threat because it allows brokers to increase market share without investing in trucks, facilities or equipment. “Technology platforms position themselves as tech providers, but they’re really just brokers,” he said. “They’re taking market share as fast as they can. This is not sustainable [for traditional drayage providers].” But Michael Kroul, CEO of the truck broker KTI, said technology platforms are useful in that they help brokers see where the pricing market is in each region and where the freight opportunities are. He emphasized, though, that most brokers do not use the platforms as a tool to force rates lower at the expense of traditional drayage operators. “It’s not brokers who are causing rates to go down,” he said. “We’re not the lowest rate out there.” Kroul said the pricing pressure is due to the excess capacity that came into the drayage market during the post- COVID-19 boom when cargo volumes surged. “Everyone came into the market with COVID and many of them did not leave,” he said. Because drayage capacity exceeds demand, prices continue to trend lower while operating costs over the past three years have risen. “We see what costs operators are operating at, and it’s a tragedy,” Kroul said. Operating costs in California are rising faster than in many regions due to environmental rules that require the use of cleaner fuels, with the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-clean-truck-rule-puts-california-dray-capacity-on-chopping-block-5221564">ultimate goal being to phase out the sale of diesel trucks by 2035</a>. New truck sales by then must be zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. Drayage operators are also affected by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-lb-port-interests-spar-with-agency-over-emissions-rule-under-development-5223229">“indirect source rules”</a> under which drayage operators serving the ports and warehouses must contribute to overall reductions in emissions at those locations. “California’s drayage truckers continue to be subject to the most stringent environmental rules of any state in the country,” the California Trucking Association said in a statement. “A prolonged, challenging rate downturn combined with a crushing, unpredictable regulatory environment is endangering our members’ ability to keep cargo flowing at some of the nation’s largest and most important port complexes.” <h3>Smaller companies in danger </h3>In today’s drayage environment, both in California and nationally, smaller drayage companies are being bought out by operators with “larger bankrolls,” TGS Logistics’ Loya said. “The bigger ones are going to get bigger and the smaller ones are going to go away,” he said. “Those companies with fewer than 50 trucks are struggling.” Kellaway said brutal price competition in the industry is the root problem in drayage, and, unfortunately, bankruptcies may be the result. “If bankruptcies accelerate, then maybe customers will start to take note,” he said. Added HTA’s Schrap: “This race to the [pricing] bottom has to end.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Drayage providers across the US say their survival is under increasing threat amid rising cost pressures driven by new competition, including technology-enabled platforms. To stay in business, operators are more often turning to mergers or acquisitions to bolster their companies in a bid to hold off competitors, market players told the Journal of Commerce. Drayage truckers say their costs have been rising since COVID-19, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. “We are in a situation where new entrants, brokers and AI [artificial intelligence] are in competition with us,” said Matt Schrap, CEO of the West Coast-based Harbor Trucking Association (HTA). “The lowest price wins.” Ken Kellaway, cofounder, chairman and president of RoadOne IntermodaLogistics, which has drayage operations across the country, said a price difference of as little as $50 among competitors will win the business. “The cost pressures are the largest I have seen in my career,” Kellaway said. Last week’s announcement by Oakland-based drayage provider GSC Enterprises that it was shutting down its operations has traditional operators wondering who is next. “It’s surprising that others haven’t fallen yet,” said Robert Loya, chief operating officer at TGS Logistics. Technology threat Traditional drayage companies in Los Angeles and Long Beach, many of whom have been operating for decades in the largest US port complex, are seeing market share erode as their contract-based customers seek lower prices from brokers, some of whom use tech-enabled platforms that allow freight interests to book freight directly with their competitors, Schrap said. RoadOne, based in the Northeast, sees the technology marketplace as the latest threat because it allows brokers to increase market share without investing in trucks, facilities or equipment. “Technology platforms position themselves as tech providers, but they’re really just brokers,” he said. “They’re taking market share as fast as they can. This is not sustainable [for traditional drayage providers].” But Michael Kroul, CEO of the truck broker KTI, said technology platforms are useful in that they help brokers see where the pricing market is in each region and where the freight opportunities are. He emphasized, though, that most brokers do not use the platforms as a tool to force rates lower at the expense of traditional drayage operators. “It’s not brokers who are causing rates to go down,” he said. “We’re not the lowest rate out there.” Kroul said the pricing pressure is due to the excess capacity that came into the drayage market during the post- COVID-19 boom when cargo volumes surged. “Everyone came into the market with COVID and many of them did not leave,” he said. Because drayage capacity exceeds demand, prices continue to trend lower while operating costs over the past three years have risen. “We see what costs operators are operating at, and it’s a tragedy,” Kroul said. Operating costs in California are rising faster than in many regions due to environmental rules that require the use of cleaner fuels, with the ultimate goal being to phase out the sale of diesel trucks by 2035 . New truck sales by then must be zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. Drayage operators are also affected by “indirect source rules” under which drayage operators serving the ports and warehouses must contribute to overall reductions in emissions at those locations. “California’s drayage truckers continue to be subject to the most stringent environmental rules of any state in the country,” the California Trucking Association said in a statement. “A prolonged, challenging rate downturn combined with a crushing, unpredictable regulatory environment is endangering our members’ ability to keep cargo flowing at some of the nation’s largest and most important port complexes.” Smaller companies in danger In today’s drayage environment, both in California and nationally, smaller drayage companies are being bought out by operators with “larger bankrolls,” TGS Logistics’ Loya said. “The bigger ones are going to get bigger and the smaller ones are going to go away,” he said. “Those companies with fewer than 50 trucks are struggling.” Kellaway said brutal price competition in the industry is the root problem in drayage, and, unfortunately, bankruptcies may be the result. “If bankruptcies accelerate, then maybe customers will start to take note,” he said. Added HTA’s Schrap: “This race to the [pricing] bottom has to end.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Drayage

Port News

Drayage stakeholders say industry under threat from falling rates, increased costs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision cuts against what Schneider announced when it acquired Cowan last November, that Cowan’s brand would be retained and the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary.</div>

The decision cuts against what Schneider announced when it acquired Cowan last November, that Cowan’s brand would be retained and the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary.

<div class="phx-topic">Schneider National is dissolving the brokerage division of Cowan Systems, a company it <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/schneider-bolsters-us-east-coast-business-by-acquiring-cowan-systems-5824223">acquired for $390 million last November</a> to expand its dedicated truckload division. Employees of Cowan Logistics, the acquired company’s brokerage unit, were informed on Tuesday at an internal meeting that Cowan would be rebranded from Oct. 1. The decision cuts against what Schneider announced at the time of the acquisition, when it indicated that Cowan’s brand would be retained and that the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary. “As part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen and streamline our brokerage operations, Cowan Logistics will be fully integrated into Schneider Brokerage effective Oct. 1, 2025,” a spokesperson for Wisconsin-based Schneider told the Journal of Commerce. The spokesperson said the move allows Schneider to “unify our capabilities under a single brand, expand our service offerings, and better support our customers and carrier partners.” The change is specific to the brokerage division and will not affect Cowan Systems’ trucking operations, which will continue to operate independently. A company email to employees explaining the consolidation that was viewed by the Journal of Commerce said, “it became clear there were numerous opportunities to the business and [employees] to expedite growth by combining both groups and rebranding Cowan Logistics to Schneider Brokerage.” <h3>Fate of employees unclear </h3>The absorption of Cowan’s brokerage division into Schneider’s comes amid a prolonged period of intense competition among brokers as they vie for truckload freight in a market constrained by muted demand. It’s not immediately clear how many of Cowan’s brokerage employees Schneider plans to retain. A Cowan source who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Schneider “is basically retaining key employees, trucks [and] key accounts of Cowan’s.” The source said Schneider’s intent is to eliminate redundancies within its own brokerage division, and that its employees were instructed to push off discussions with customers about the dissolution of the Cowan Logistics brand until closer to October. At the time of the acquisition, the 100-year-old, Baltimore-based Cowan provided logistics, trucking, shipping and warehousing services, with a fleet of more than 1,800 trucks and about 7,500 trailers. Schneider will take over Cowan’s motor carrier (MC) number and standard carrier alpha code (SCAC), along with any of Cowan’s retained employees, clients and contracts. Until the rebranding is complete, Cowan’s leadership will largely remain in place but will report to Ben Schuchart, senior vice president of Schneider Transportation Management, and Jim Nicholson, vice president of brokerage operations for Schneider, according to the company email. Schneider is due to release its second-quarter earnings July 31. Contact Clarissa Hawes at <a href="mailto:clarissahawes@gmail.com">clarissahawes@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Schneider National is dissolving the brokerage division of Cowan Systems, a company it acquired for $390 million last November to expand its dedicated truckload division. Employees of Cowan Logistics, the acquired company’s brokerage unit, were informed on Tuesday at an internal meeting that Cowan would be rebranded from Oct. 1. The decision cuts against what Schneider announced at the time of the acquisition, when it indicated that Cowan’s brand would be retained and that the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary. “As part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen and streamline our brokerage operations, Cowan Logistics will be fully integrated into Schneider Brokerage effective Oct. 1, 2025,” a spokesperson for Wisconsin-based Schneider told the Journal of Commerce. The spokesperson said the move allows Schneider to “unify our capabilities under a single brand, expand our service offerings, and better support our customers and carrier partners.” The change is specific to the brokerage division and will not affect Cowan Systems’ trucking operations, which will continue to operate independently. A company email to employees explaining the consolidation that was viewed by the Journal of Commerce said, “it became clear there were numerous opportunities to the business and [employees] to expedite growth by combining both groups and rebranding Cowan Logistics to Schneider Brokerage.” Fate of employees unclear The absorption of Cowan’s brokerage division into Schneider’s comes amid a prolonged period of intense competition among brokers as they vie for truckload freight in a market constrained by muted demand. It’s not immediately clear how many of Cowan’s brokerage employees Schneider plans to retain. A Cowan source who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Schneider “is basically retaining key employees, trucks [and] key accounts of Cowan’s.” The source said Schneider’s intent is to eliminate redundancies within its own brokerage division, and that its employees were instructed to push off discussions with customers about the dissolution of the Cowan Logistics brand until closer to October. At the time of the acquisition, the 100-year-old, Baltimore-based Cowan provided logistics, trucking, shipping and warehousing services, with a fleet of more than 1,800 trucks and about 7,500 trailers. Schneider will take over Cowan’s motor carrier (MC) number and standard carrier alpha code (SCAC), along with any of Cowan’s retained employees, clients and contracts. Until the rebranding is complete, Cowan’s leadership will largely remain in place but will report to Ben Schuchart, senior vice president of Schneider Transportation Management, and Jim Nicholson, vice president of brokerage operations for Schneider, according to the company email. Schneider is due to release its second-quarter earnings July 31. Contact Clarissa Hawes at clarissahawes@gmail.com .

Schneider National to ‘dissolve’ Cowan brokerage arm Oct. 1 in rebranding move

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Bigger carriers have more services and transshipment hubs and are generally able to offer more efficient connecting services, although there is still room to prosper for small and midsize carriers, writes Jeremy Masters.</div>

Bigger carriers have more services and transshipment hubs and are generally able to offer more efficient connecting services, although there is still room to prosper for small and midsize carriers, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">Cross-trades served by transshipment can be of varying sizes and often feature transshipment between two deep-sea services. Some will always remain small, but others linking fast-growing developing economies with each other (or mature markets) will reach a point at which direct services become viable. This is an important opportunity for carriers, transshipment hubs and end ports to be at the ground floor of high-charged growth. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6045854_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The following cross-trades and key lanes were selected to look at how carriers serve these emerging trades in both directions using their online schedules: US Gulf to South Africa (Houston to Durban) India to Central America (Mundra to Veracruz) South Africa to Australia (Durban to Sydney) East Coast of South America to West Africa (Santos to Abidjan) Except for Mundra to Veracruz, where one carrier is offering a direct product, all the other lanes/products are transshipment. These lanes give a good idea of the significant variation we see in the top five carriers’ products and why — in these particular trades at least — some are more successful than others. These excerpts will give you a flavor: For Houston to Durban, southbound transit times as advertised varied over multiple sailings, from a low of 32 days to a high of 79 days, with northbound transit from 42 to 82 days. Transshipment in both directions was offered in the Caribbean, Europe, Asia and South America and included, in some cases, double transshipment. For Mundra to Veracruz, westbound transit times varied between 48 and 82 days, with eastbound from 40 to 100 days. For the transshipment products, North Europe, Mediterranean and Asian hubs were used westbound and North Europe and Mediterranean hubs for eastbound. Double transshipment also featured in some cases. There are some common themes in the above cases and other cross-trades reviewed: <h3>Unique products create positive differentiation </h3>Having a different product that directly connects core markets also allows sub-trades operating through transshipment hubs on that service to also establish product advantage. For example, CMA CGM’s and Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s North Europe/Med/Indian Ocean/Australia service not only provides a strong product in the Med to Indian Ocean and Australia trade, but enables Southern/Eastern Africa export cargo to access a fast eastbound product over Port Louis Mauritius. A similar example is Hapag-Lloyd (with Maersk as slotter) being the only direct operator in the Brazil to South Africa and Angola market, thus giving them the driving seat in the core trade but also enabling them to open sub-markets such as Argentina and Uruguay with very strong transshipment products. <h3>Where transshipment takes place is crucial </h3>The ideal transshipment point for cross-trades is one where there is minimal diversion from the most direct route. For example, the big carriers are all routing Brazil to West Africa over Europe, but MSC has an edge on eastbound transit times because it connects in Las Palmas, Spain, which slightly reduces transit time on both legs. In the US Gulf to South Africa trade, MSC also has the best product because it transships from its direct US East Coast to South Africa service at Freeport (Bahamas), whereas other carriers are transshipping in Europe, Asia or South America. <h3>How transshipment products are constructed is critical </h3>Direct products normally trump transshipment products, but rotations of connecting services are important. If carriers are able to design services allowing the first leg to hit a transshipment point early in its rotation and the second leg calls there late in its rotation, the transshipment product can have a competitive transit time. We see in the Mundra-to-Veracruz pairing that Maersk, CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd’s transshipment transit times stack up okay versus MSC’s direct service. The most obvious overall observation is that the bigger carriers have more services and more transshipment hubs, so they are generally able to offer more efficient connecting services. Their larger fleet sizes also allow them to deploy innovative products and tweak them until they have a profitable service covering both direct and transshipment lanes. Is there hope for the midsized and smaller carriers? There are a number of niche direct products from smaller carriers in some trades and specific port pairs that the bigger guys treat solely as cross-trades. For the nimble, there is still room to prosper, but they will need to adapt again if the big guys lumber into town. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

Cross-trades served by transshipment can be of varying sizes and often feature transshipment between two deep-sea services. Some will always remain small, but others linking fast-growing developing economies with each other (or mature markets) will reach a point at which direct services become viable. This is an important opportunity for carriers, transshipment hubs and end ports to be at the ground floor of high-charged growth. The following cross-trades and key lanes were selected to look at how carriers serve these emerging trades in both directions using their online schedules: US Gulf to South Africa (Houston to Durban) India to Central America (Mundra to Veracruz) South Africa to Australia (Durban to Sydney) East Coast of South America to West Africa (Santos to Abidjan) Except for Mundra to Veracruz, where one carrier is offering a direct product, all the other lanes/products are transshipment. These lanes give a good idea of the significant variation we see in the top five carriers’ products and why — in these particular trades at least — some are more successful than others. These excerpts will give you a flavor: For Houston to Durban, southbound transit times as advertised varied over multiple sailings, from a low of 32 days to a high of 79 days, with northbound transit from 42 to 82 days. Transshipment in both directions was offered in the Caribbean, Europe, Asia and South America and included, in some cases, double transshipment. For Mundra to Veracruz, westbound transit times varied between 48 and 82 days, with eastbound from 40 to 100 days. For the transshipment products, North Europe, Mediterranean and Asian hubs were used westbound and North Europe and Mediterranean hubs for eastbound. Double transshipment also featured in some cases. There are some common themes in the above cases and other cross-trades reviewed: Unique products create positive differentiation Having a different product that directly connects core markets also allows sub-trades operating through transshipment hubs on that service to also establish product advantage. For example, CMA CGM’s and Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s North Europe/Med/Indian Ocean/Australia service not only provides a strong product in the Med to Indian Ocean and Australia trade, but enables Southern/Eastern Africa export cargo to access a fast eastbound product over Port Louis Mauritius. A similar example is Hapag-Lloyd (with Maersk as slotter) being the only direct operator in the Brazil to South Africa and Angola market, thus giving them the driving seat in the core trade but also enabling them to open sub-markets such as Argentina and Uruguay with very strong transshipment products. Where transshipment takes place is crucial The ideal transshipment point for cross-trades is one where there is minimal diversion from the most direct route. For example, the big carriers are all routing Brazil to West Africa over Europe, but MSC has an edge on eastbound transit times because it connects in Las Palmas, Spain, which slightly reduces transit time on both legs. In the US Gulf to South Africa trade, MSC also has the best product because it transships from its direct US East Coast to South Africa service at Freeport (Bahamas), whereas other carriers are transshipping in Europe, Asia or South America. How transshipment products are constructed is critical Direct products normally trump transshipment products, but rotations of connecting services are important. If carriers are able to design services allowing the first leg to hit a transshipment point early in its rotation and the second leg calls there late in its rotation, the transshipment product can have a competitive transit time. We see in the Mundra-to-Veracruz pairing that Maersk, CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd’s transshipment transit times stack up okay versus MSC’s direct service. The most obvious overall observation is that the bigger carriers have more services and more transshipment hubs, so they are generally able to offer more efficient connecting services. Their larger fleet sizes also allow them to deploy innovative products and tweak them until they have a profitable service covering both direct and transshipment lanes. Is there hope for the midsized and smaller carriers? There are a number of niche direct products from smaller carriers in some trades and specific port pairs that the bigger guys treat solely as cross-trades. For the nimble, there is still room to prosper, but they will need to adapt again if the big guys lumber into town. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

High variance exists in carriers’ cross-trade products

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US shippers have pulled forward as much cargo as they can ahead of the latest deadlines for higher US tariffs, leaving carriers little choice but to cancel more voyages. </div>

US shippers have pulled forward as much cargo as they can ahead of the latest deadlines for higher US tariffs, leaving carriers little choice but to cancel more voyages.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers have begun to reel in capacity ahead of the mid-August expiry of the 90-day pause on higher US tariffs on Chinese goods, with an increasing number of trans-Pacific container services getting blanked for the rest of July. And with most pre-higher tariff imports on the water or ready to ship, spot rates look set for further weakness through the end of summer. Some 175,000 TEUs of container capacity is set to be blanked during July, according to data from maritime intelligence provider eeSea, amounting to 11% of deployed capacity between Asia and the US West Coast. That is an uptick from the 118,500 TEUs of capacity blanked in June, which accounted for about 9% of deployed capacity. The canceled departures from Asia coincide with <a href="https://www.tradecomplianceresourcehub.com/2025/07/17/trump-2-0-tariff-tracker/">the Aug. 12 deadline for the Trump administration to impose country-specific tariffs on China</a> in the absence of a new trade deal. With an Aug. 1 deadline for trade talks with other Asian countries, demand was already drying up, with Chinese goods the last that could get on a ship and enter the US in time to avoid the higher rates. “It’s already too late to ship product from Vietnam and Southeast Asia to beat the Aug. 1 deadline,” an ocean carrier source told the Journal of Commerce. “There has been no spike in imports from Vietnam since June, when it was possible to beat the Aug. 1 deadline, so demand simply isn’t there.” Indeed, many of the services culled through July also call southern Chinese ports that serve as transshipment points for other Asian goods, or services that directly call Southeast Asia. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1c1d9578-c129-4d4e-a136-e220473bd136"></dynamic-object></div>OOCL canceled eastbound sailings on its Pacific South China Express (PSX) service for the last two weeks of July, according to Hong Kong-based logistics provider Honour Lane Shipping. The PSX service will offer an eastbound ad hoc call to Shanghai, though, during the last week of July, with only one call at the southern port of Yantian. Express services are typically the first to get blanked, with CU Lines, SeaLead and other niche carriers also canceling services through July. But the demand slowdown is also hitting big-ship services as well. CMA CGM canceled an eastbound voyage on its Columbus Jax service, which offers average weekly capacity of about 13,000 TEUs, for the last week of July. The pendulum service, which switches to US East Coast ports on its westbound voyages, also calls Malaysia’s Port Klang, Thailand’s Laem Chabang and Vietnam’s Cai Mep.Cosco Shipping canceled a July voyage on its 13,000-TEU Asia-US West Coast service, while the Premier Alliance has also canceled two July voyages on its 13,000-TEU MP2 service. <h3>Weaker second half expected</h3>While a trade deal with China or other Asian countries may be in the offing, forwarders and shippers are not hopeful that it would spark more demand. US importers have mostly frontloaded goods already and will just be dribbling in product as needed through the rest of the year, Sanjay Tejwani, chief executive of consulting firm 365 Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. “A lot of frontloading has happened, which means that the volumes will remain soft,” Tejwani said. “August through December will be soft. Even if the tariffs were to drop back to zero, a lot of merchandise has been shipped and inventory levels are decent, why would anyone bring in more cargo?”Ocean carriers are quoting spot rates near $2,500 per standard container to the US West Coast as of July 15, hoping the step-up in blank sailings for July would tighten the market, Robert Khachatryan, chief executive of Freight Right Global Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. But he doesn’t expect the rate level to hold, adding that he is seeing a number of voyage-specific West Coast rates near $1,700. The mid-July rates “were driven largely by a reduction in capacity,” Khachatryan said. “There is no pickup in demand.” Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, pegged Asia-USWC rates at $1,733 per FEU as of July 16, down 2% on the week. But Drewry’s Shanghai-Los Angeles rate as of July 17 was $2,817 per FEU.Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.Senior Editor Bill Mongelluzzo and Associate Editor Laura Robb contributed to this report.</div>

Ocean carriers have begun to reel in capacity ahead of the mid-August expiry of the 90-day pause on higher US tariffs on Chinese goods, with an increasing number of trans-Pacific container services getting blanked for the rest of July. And with most pre-higher tariff imports on the water or ready to ship, spot rates look set for further weakness through the end of summer. Some 175,000 TEUs of container capacity is set to be blanked during July, according to data from maritime intelligence provider eeSea, amounting to 11% of deployed capacity between Asia and the US West Coast. That is an uptick from the 118,500 TEUs of capacity blanked in June, which accounted for about 9% of deployed capacity. The canceled departures from Asia coincide with the Aug. 12 deadline for the Trump administration to impose country-specific tariffs on China in the absence of a new trade deal. With an Aug. 1 deadline for trade talks with other Asian countries, demand was already drying up, with Chinese goods the last that could get on a ship and enter the US in time to avoid the higher rates. “It’s already too late to ship product from Vietnam and Southeast Asia to beat the Aug. 1 deadline,” an ocean carrier source told the Journal of Commerce. “There has been no spike in imports from Vietnam since June, when it was possible to beat the Aug. 1 deadline, so demand simply isn’t there.” Indeed, many of the services culled through July also call southern Chinese ports that serve as transshipment points for other Asian goods, or services that directly call Southeast Asia. OOCL canceled eastbound sailings on its Pacific South China Express (PSX) service for the last two weeks of July, according to Hong Kong-based logistics provider Honour Lane Shipping. The PSX service will offer an eastbound ad hoc call to Shanghai, though, during the last week of July, with only one call at the southern port of Yantian. Express services are typically the first to get blanked, with CU Lines, SeaLead and other niche carriers also canceling services through July. But the demand slowdown is also hitting big-ship services as well. CMA CGM canceled an eastbound voyage on its Columbus Jax service, which offers average weekly capacity of about 13,000 TEUs, for the last week of July. The pendulum service, which switches to US East Coast ports on its westbound voyages, also calls Malaysia’s Port Klang, Thailand’s Laem Chabang and Vietnam’s Cai Mep. Cosco Shipping canceled a July voyage on its 13,000-TEU Asia-US West Coast service, while the Premier Alliance has also canceled two July voyages on its 13,000-TEU MP2 service. Weaker second half expected While a trade deal with China or other Asian countries may be in the offing, forwarders and shippers are not hopeful that it would spark more demand. US importers have mostly frontloaded goods already and will just be dribbling in product as needed through the rest of the year, Sanjay Tejwani, chief executive of consulting firm 365 Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. “A lot of frontloading has happened, which means that the volumes will remain soft,” Tejwani said. “August through December will be soft. Even if the tariffs were to drop back to zero, a lot of merchandise has been shipped and inventory levels are decent, why would anyone bring in more cargo?” Ocean carriers are quoting spot rates near $2,500 per standard container to the US West Coast as of July 15, hoping the step-up in blank sailings for July would tighten the market, Robert Khachatryan, chief executive of Freight Right Global Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. But he doesn’t expect the rate level to hold, adding that he is seeing a number of voyage-specific West Coast rates near $1,700. The mid-July rates “were driven largely by a reduction in capacity,” Khachatryan said. “There is no pickup in demand.” Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, pegged Asia-USWC rates at $1,733 per FEU as of July 16, down 2% on the week. But Drewry’s Shanghai-Los Angeles rate as of July 17 was $2,817 per FEU. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com . Senior Editor Bill Mongelluzzo and Associate Editor Laura Robb contributed to this report.

Trans-Pacific

Looming August tariff deadline prompts carriers to pull trans-Pacific capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Thanks in large part to the current tariff environment, boardrooms are now increasingly focusing on mitigating their exposure to these new taxes and ensuring they’ll have sufficient inventories no matter the disruption.</div>

Thanks in large part to the current tariff environment, boardrooms are now increasingly focusing on mitigating their exposure to these new taxes and ensuring they’ll have sufficient inventories no matter the disruption.

<div class="phx-topic">A recent annual shipping industry event revealed increased attention from the C-suite on tariff and risk mitigation and how far we’ve come in addressing those items, as well as the need for more sophisticated sourcing strategies. At the American Association of Exporters and Importers’ (AAEI’s) annual conference in late June, I witnessed a noticeable shift in terms of a new focus on mitigating trade-related costs and vulnerabilities. This expanded the scope of the Washington, DC event that traditionally centers around compliance, facilitation and influencing policy change. Thanks in large part to the current tariff environment, boardrooms are now increasingly focusing on mitigating their exposure to these new taxes and ensuring they’ll have sufficient inventories no matter the disruption. The first session set the tone, with panel moderator Laura Siegel Rabinowitz of Greenberg Traurig LLP opening with a telling observation: “Companies today are now looking for sourcing strategies involving classification, valuation, and country of origin.” As a trade optimization strategist, I was all smiles. While current tariff rates have certainly put risk planning back into the spotlight, the movement can arguably be traced to the COVID-19 pandemic, when many companies found themselves critically exposed by single-sourcing components. When combined with the unprecedented blockage of the Suez Canal, risk mitigation lights began burning in earnest. But to support the sourcing strategies being raised, companies may need to rethink existing workflows, procedures and tools that would enable trade compliance to work proactively with procurement. The process begins with the corporate buyers/engineering teams sending a list of new products/components to trade compliance for classification. The resulting harmonized system (HS) codes illuminate tariff obligations, identify eligibility for potential Free Trade Agreement (FTA) benefits, and provide visibility to any admissibility requirements that would need to be satisfied as a condition of import. In addition, by involving trade compliance at the earliest stages of new product build/buy decisions, it promotes the potential discovery of tariff engineering opportunities capable of producing surprising savings. <h3>The ‘risk index’ and due diligence </h3>With tariff data in hand, procurement departments can move beyond surface-level quotes based on product cost alone and conduct a more accurate landed cost analysis across pre-qualified suppliers. I’ve personally witnessed examples where purchase orders were awarded to suppliers in China based solely on a lower cost of goods, versus Mexico, which qualified for FTA, had lower transportation costs, and provided shorter door-to-door delivery times. Landed-cost modeling tools allow companies to perform a more accurate “apples-to-apples” comparison by factoring all the costs associated with the door-to-door movement of an international order. They also support dynamic scenario planning by allowing the user to toggle different Incoterms, shipping modes and related transport costs to find the best balance of costs and operational needs. This step also needs to include a key element of strategic sourcing that is often overlooked, and that is understanding a country’s “risk index” — that is, how it scores against a variety of factors, all capable of adding unplanned costs and/or disruption. These include geopolitical stability, crime and corruption, complexity and cost of trade, infrastructure reliability (labor, energy), environmental and social governance (ESG), and natural disasters and climate risk. The final step is due diligence via supplier vetting. Remaining suppliers should be screened through tools that can trace raw materials back to their sources, ensuring compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and similar controls. This traceability is critical — not just for ethical sourcing, but also for maintaining customs compliance and brand reputation. With this three-step process, corporate procurement departments gain a complete, comprehensive view that balances cost, compliance, risk and continuity with data that can be shared with other stakeholders as part of a broader, collaborative effort. When implemented as corporate policy, it ensures that a purchase order cannot be awarded without completing this analysis. In short, it just simply makes sense. While tariffs might be the current disruptor headline, the broader truth is that supply chain risk lurks in many corners — be it political unrest, environmental disasters, cyberattacks, and even regulatory whiplash. These risks and other potential disruptions have always been part-and-parcel of international trade. However, the current issue is putting trade compliance departments in the boardroom spotlight, providing an opportune time to lobby for those badly needed resources, systems and process changes. Or, as one event panelist who aptly quoted Winston Churchill said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” William G. “Jerry” Peck is a licensed customs broker and trade compliance and optimization specialist with Avalara and can be reached at <a href="mailto:jerry.peck@avalara.com">jerry.peck@avalara.com</a>. </div>

A recent annual shipping industry event revealed increased attention from the C-suite on tariff and risk mitigation and how far we’ve come in addressing those items, as well as the need for more sophisticated sourcing strategies. At the American Association of Exporters and Importers’ (AAEI’s) annual conference in late June, I witnessed a noticeable shift in terms of a new focus on mitigating trade-related costs and vulnerabilities. This expanded the scope of the Washington, DC event that traditionally centers around compliance, facilitation and influencing policy change. Thanks in large part to the current tariff environment, boardrooms are now increasingly focusing on mitigating their exposure to these new taxes and ensuring they’ll have sufficient inventories no matter the disruption. The first session set the tone, with panel moderator Laura Siegel Rabinowitz of Greenberg Traurig LLP opening with a telling observation: “Companies today are now looking for sourcing strategies involving classification, valuation, and country of origin.” As a trade optimization strategist, I was all smiles. While current tariff rates have certainly put risk planning back into the spotlight, the movement can arguably be traced to the COVID-19 pandemic, when many companies found themselves critically exposed by single-sourcing components. When combined with the unprecedented blockage of the Suez Canal, risk mitigation lights began burning in earnest. But to support the sourcing strategies being raised, companies may need to rethink existing workflows, procedures and tools that would enable trade compliance to work proactively with procurement. The process begins with the corporate buyers/engineering teams sending a list of new products/components to trade compliance for classification. The resulting harmonized system (HS) codes illuminate tariff obligations, identify eligibility for potential Free Trade Agreement (FTA) benefits, and provide visibility to any admissibility requirements that would need to be satisfied as a condition of import. In addition, by involving trade compliance at the earliest stages of new product build/buy decisions, it promotes the potential discovery of tariff engineering opportunities capable of producing surprising savings. The ‘risk index’ and due diligence With tariff data in hand, procurement departments can move beyond surface-level quotes based on product cost alone and conduct a more accurate landed cost analysis across pre-qualified suppliers. I’ve personally witnessed examples where purchase orders were awarded to suppliers in China based solely on a lower cost of goods, versus Mexico, which qualified for FTA, had lower transportation costs, and provided shorter door-to-door delivery times. Landed-cost modeling tools allow companies to perform a more accurate “apples-to-apples” comparison by factoring all the costs associated with the door-to-door movement of an international order. They also support dynamic scenario planning by allowing the user to toggle different Incoterms, shipping modes and related transport costs to find the best balance of costs and operational needs. This step also needs to include a key element of strategic sourcing that is often overlooked, and that is understanding a country’s “risk index” — that is, how it scores against a variety of factors, all capable of adding unplanned costs and/or disruption. These include geopolitical stability, crime and corruption, complexity and cost of trade, infrastructure reliability (labor, energy), environmental and social governance (ESG), and natural disasters and climate risk. The final step is due diligence via supplier vetting. Remaining suppliers should be screened through tools that can trace raw materials back to their sources, ensuring compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and similar controls. This traceability is critical — not just for ethical sourcing, but also for maintaining customs compliance and brand reputation. With this three-step process, corporate procurement departments gain a complete, comprehensive view that balances cost, compliance, risk and continuity with data that can be shared with other stakeholders as part of a broader, collaborative effort. When implemented as corporate policy, it ensures that a purchase order cannot be awarded without completing this analysis. In short, it just simply makes sense. While tariffs might be the current disruptor headline, the broader truth is that supply chain risk lurks in many corners — be it political unrest, environmental disasters, cyberattacks, and even regulatory whiplash. These risks and other potential disruptions have always been part-and-parcel of international trade. However, the current issue is putting trade compliance departments in the boardroom spotlight, providing an opportune time to lobby for those badly needed resources, systems and process changes. Or, as one event panelist who aptly quoted Winston Churchill said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” William G. “Jerry” Peck is a licensed customs broker and trade compliance and optimization specialist with Avalara and can be reached at jerry.peck@avalara.com .

Supply chain

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Latest market ‘disruptor’ requires focused procurement approach by C-suites

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The win for the trucking company at the Texas Supreme Court sets a powerful precedent that narrows the scope of liability in vehicular negligence cases, especially those involving unpredictable, high-impact crashes.</div>

The win for the trucking company at the Texas Supreme Court sets a powerful precedent that narrows the scope of liability in vehicular negligence cases, especially those involving unpredictable, high-impact crashes.

<div class="phx-topic">Shippers operating private trucking fleets will be buoyed by a June 27 decision by the Supreme Court of Texas, which overturned a nearly $100 million 2023 jury verdict in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake. The court held that the trucking company’s driver, although possibly negligent in how he operated his vehicle on icy roads, was not the proximate cause of a tragic cross-median crash that killed one child and left another permanently paralyzed. The case holds implications for truckload carriers, from large for-hire carriers such as Werner to smaller operators, but also for shippers operating their own private fleets who will be impacted by the precedent set by the court’s decision. That makes it more than merely a procedural victory for Werner Enterprises. It sets a powerful precedent that narrows the scope of liability in vehicular negligence cases, especially those involving unpredictable, high-impact crashes. <h3>Boundaries for shippers </h3>For private fleet operators and shippers with dedicated transportation assets, the implications are significant — and potentially transformative. The ruling offers clarity and potentially limits exposure in high-dollar catastrophic loss cases — particularly those involving third-party drivers who are the true proximate causes of an accident. Previously, plaintiffs’ attorneys have advanced theories of negligent training, hiring, or dispatch to hook employers into liability, even where their driver was not principally at fault. But the Werner decision sharply limits those derivative theories unless the employee’s conduct itself meets the substantial-factor threshold of proximate cause. This limitation matters in an era of rising “nuclear verdicts,” so-called liability verdicts that exceed $10 million, and increasingly aggressive plaintiff strategies in transportation litigation. It restores a degree of predictability to fleet liability by anchoring it in clearly demonstrable causation. <h3>The legal crux: proximate cause </h3>The court’s opinion turned on a technical yet crucial doctrine: proximate cause. Texas law requires that to hold someone liable for negligence, their actions must be a “substantial factor” in causing the injury — not just part of a chain of events. The accident occurred in December 2014, near Odessa, Texas, when an F-350 pickup truck, traveling too fast for the icy conditions, lost control, crossed a 42-foot grassy median, and collided head-on with a Werner 18-wheeler operated by Shiraz Ali, a driver in training. The collision killed seven-year-old Zackery Blake and severely injured his siblings and mother. A Texas jury found Werner and Ali liable, apportioning 70% of the responsibility to Werner and 14% of the responsibility to Ali and awarding $100 million in damages. Werner appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove Ali’s driving was a proximate cause of the crash. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that his conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the injuries. The sole proximate cause, according to the opinion, was the F-350’s sudden loss of control. Crucially, the court emphasized that even if Ali’s speed “furnished the condition that made the injuries possible,” it was not enough for liability. The decision pivots on the idea that legal responsibility requires more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. <h3>Victory for the principle of foreseeability </h3>The ruling clarifies a principle that private fleet operators have long sought courts to recognize: when another driver acts unpredictably and causes an accident, it is unfair — and legally unsound — to hold a fleet operator liable simply because their truck happened to be involved. The decision rebukes the lower court’s expansive view of foreseeability. While a collision might have been possible, the court held, it was not reasonably foreseeable that an out-of-control vehicle would cross a wide median and strike Ali’s truck before he had time to react. It was “a tragic happenstance of place and time,” the opinion declared, “but not a happenstance for which Ali or his employer can reasonably be held responsible.” <h3>A word of caution </h3>While this ruling is a win for carriers and shippers, it also underscores the importance of robust documentation and clear protocols. The Supreme Court of Texas accepted that Werner’s training may have been imperfect. But because the crash wasn’t proximately caused by that training — or by Ali’s conduct — it didn’t matter. Private fleets should take note: This ruling doesn’t absolve companies from preparing their drivers for adverse conditions or documenting compliance with safety protocols. But it does provide a legal firewall when accidents occur beyond their control. Matthew Leffler is a transportation attorney, adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, and the host of the Armchair Attorney® Podcast. Contact him at <a href="mailto:matthew@armchairattorney.com">matthew@armchairattorney.com</a>.</div>

Shippers operating private trucking fleets will be buoyed by a June 27 decision by the Supreme Court of Texas, which overturned a nearly $100 million 2023 jury verdict in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake. The court held that the trucking company’s driver, although possibly negligent in how he operated his vehicle on icy roads, was not the proximate cause of a tragic cross-median crash that killed one child and left another permanently paralyzed. The case holds implications for truckload carriers, from large for-hire carriers such as Werner to smaller operators, but also for shippers operating their own private fleets who will be impacted by the precedent set by the court’s decision. That makes it more than merely a procedural victory for Werner Enterprises. It sets a powerful precedent that narrows the scope of liability in vehicular negligence cases, especially those involving unpredictable, high-impact crashes. Boundaries for shippers For private fleet operators and shippers with dedicated transportation assets, the implications are significant — and potentially transformative. The ruling offers clarity and potentially limits exposure in high-dollar catastrophic loss cases — particularly those involving third-party drivers who are the true proximate causes of an accident. Previously, plaintiffs’ attorneys have advanced theories of negligent training, hiring, or dispatch to hook employers into liability, even where their driver was not principally at fault. But the Werner decision sharply limits those derivative theories unless the employee’s conduct itself meets the substantial-factor threshold of proximate cause. This limitation matters in an era of rising “nuclear verdicts,” so-called liability verdicts that exceed $10 million, and increasingly aggressive plaintiff strategies in transportation litigation. It restores a degree of predictability to fleet liability by anchoring it in clearly demonstrable causation. The legal crux: proximate cause The court’s opinion turned on a technical yet crucial doctrine: proximate cause. Texas law requires that to hold someone liable for negligence, their actions must be a “substantial factor” in causing the injury — not just part of a chain of events. The accident occurred in December 2014, near Odessa, Texas, when an F-350 pickup truck, traveling too fast for the icy conditions, lost control, crossed a 42-foot grassy median, and collided head-on with a Werner 18-wheeler operated by Shiraz Ali, a driver in training. The collision killed seven-year-old Zackery Blake and severely injured his siblings and mother. A Texas jury found Werner and Ali liable, apportioning 70% of the responsibility to Werner and 14% of the responsibility to Ali and awarding $100 million in damages. Werner appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to prove Ali’s driving was a proximate cause of the crash. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that his conduct was not a substantial factor in causing the injuries. The sole proximate cause, according to the opinion, was the F-350’s sudden loss of control. Crucially, the court emphasized that even if Ali’s speed “furnished the condition that made the injuries possible,” it was not enough for liability. The decision pivots on the idea that legal responsibility requires more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Victory for the principle of foreseeability The ruling clarifies a principle that private fleet operators have long sought courts to recognize: when another driver acts unpredictably and causes an accident, it is unfair — and legally unsound — to hold a fleet operator liable simply because their truck happened to be involved. The decision rebukes the lower court’s expansive view of foreseeability. While a collision might have been possible, the court held, it was not reasonably foreseeable that an out-of-control vehicle would cross a wide median and strike Ali’s truck before he had time to react. It was “a tragic happenstance of place and time,” the opinion declared, “but not a happenstance for which Ali or his employer can reasonably be held responsible.” A word of caution While this ruling is a win for carriers and shippers, it also underscores the importance of robust documentation and clear protocols. The Supreme Court of Texas accepted that Werner’s training may have been imperfect. But because the crash wasn’t proximately caused by that training — or by Ali’s conduct — it didn’t matter. Private fleets should take note: This ruling doesn’t absolve companies from preparing their drivers for adverse conditions or documenting compliance with safety protocols. But it does provide a legal firewall when accidents occur beyond their control. Matthew Leffler is a transportation attorney, adjunct professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, and the host of the Armchair Attorney® Podcast. Contact him at matthew@armchairattorney.com .

Truckload

Werner victory in long-running court case has broad implications for truckload carriers

{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: {valueY} 


The Eternity Asia Index (EAX) is a composite measure derived from freight-all-kinds (FAK) tier 0 service contracts with major carriers operating on this trade lane. The EAX reports rates in USD per 40-foot container, weighted by volume capacity expressed in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs). This methodology ensures that the index reflects the actual market conditions and pricing dynamics within this specific shipping corridor. The volume capacity generally ranges weekly between 125,000 TEUs and 150,000 TEUs.  [Eternity](https://eax.eiffmx.com/)

Asia to west coasts of Mexico and South America container spot rates (Eternity)

Eternity Index from Asia Ports to West Coast of Mexico and South America Ports Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Some customers and competitors were surprised by the timing of the surcharges, which are typically implemented in August or September, if at all, and only after volume spikes.</div>

Some customers and competitors were surprised by the timing of the surcharges, which are typically implemented in August or September, if at all, and only after volume spikes.

<div class="phx-topic">J.B. Hunt Transport Services is defending its decision to impose surcharges of up to $1,500 per container on some shippers moving goods from Southern California, saying the fees are necessary to maintain service levels during an unpredictable peak season. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-hits-some-shippers-with-big-surcharges-in-southern-california-6043454">The surcharges</a>, which apply to certain retail, appliance and electronics shippers, are intended to ensure J.B. Hunt has the equipment and personnel in place if demand increases ahead of the holiday season, the company said during its quarterly earnings call late Tuesday. The surcharges are a tool, in a way, for J.B. Hunt to regulate how much unplanned freight it accepts during the busiest weeks of the year, ensuring there are enough drivers and containers to haul shipments for all its customers in Southern California. The surcharges went into effect July 13. “The last thing our industry can do is fail this shipping community at a time when the demand upticks,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on the earnings call. “We have a handful of customers that said, ‘Hey, I might have extra business in July.’ We had many customers say, ‘I’m going to have the same peak I had last year’ ... and we just wanted a plan so we’re not caught by surprise.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="69b9e75c-ee79-4b00-9c29-ef0bc47d2af2"></dynamic-object></div>Meanwhile, maintaining strong service is important as J.B. Hunt and rail partner BNSF Railway performed above average in the second quarter, according to indicators. BNSF’s average Z-score, a proprietary Journal of Commerce calculation factoring train speeds, trains being held and idle laden railcars, has been positive for 13 consecutive weeks based on data filed with the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). Positive Z-scores indicate the railroad is outperforming its own history, while negative scores indicate underperformance. J.B. Hunt was also named the best intermodal provider by 41.5% of shippers in the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Scorecard, the highest percentage among its peers. The survey of more than 240 shippers was conducted between May 1 and June 30. The company regularly topped <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/domestic-intermodal-service-scorecard">prior surveys</a> as well, including in categories such as equipment availability, on-time pickups and on-time deliveries. Executing service becomes harder when week-over-week volumes become volatile. “This added complexity, lack of accurate forecast and potential for volatility, is why our peak season surcharge programs are starting earlier this year,” Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales for J.B. Hunt, said on the call. “Regardless of customer strategy and the shape of peak season, we will be ready to meet their demand when it occurs.” <h3>Some customers will look to skirt the charges </h3>Some J.B. Hunt customers and competitors were surprised by the timing of the surcharges. Peak season surcharges (PSSs) are typically implemented in August or September, if at all, and only after volume spikes. BNSF hauled more than 18,000 ocean containers during the week ending July 13, the highest since late January, according to data platform RailState. However, the railroad only hauled about 12,000 domestic containers during the same week, on par with its rolling 26-week average covering the first half of the year. J.B. Hunt implemented the surcharges after discussions with shippers over the last three weeks, customers told the Journal of Commerce. The fees apply only when a shipper out of Southern California exceeds its weekly contracted allotment, but the added costs can be substantial. “At $1,500 extra, our [competing] truckload rates become far cheaper,” said one J.B. Hunt customer who did not want to be identified. “That’s the trifecta of bad: higher rates, slower transit, and increased risk of theft.” Customers have also questioned whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition equipment to Southern California, or whether the surcharge reflects an attempt by J.B. Hunt to compensate for what it could not obtain during earlier contract negotiations. A second J.B. Hunt customer said they would take steps to avoid the fees. “We will look for opportunities not to pay the $1,500. That’s the short answer,” the source said. “We feel really confident that we’ll be successful.” Shippers said there are multiple ways to sidestep the charges, especially when only a few containers exceed weekly contractual limits. Some may shift overflow freight to J.B. Hunt’s competitors, both asset-based and non-asset-based intermodal providers. Others may opt for truckload carriers on the spot market, particularly as trucking rates remain low. Still others may delay non-urgent cargo by a few days, taking advantage of the weekly reset on allotments. It is not yet clear whether J.B. Hunt’s rivals will follow suit on the surcharges. While most major intermodal providers imposed PSSs last year, none set rates above $1,000 per container, except J.B. Hunt. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

J.B. Hunt Transport Services is defending its decision to impose surcharges of up to $1,500 per container on some shippers moving goods from Southern California, saying the fees are necessary to maintain service levels during an unpredictable peak season. The surcharges , which apply to certain retail, appliance and electronics shippers, are intended to ensure J.B. Hunt has the equipment and personnel in place if demand increases ahead of the holiday season, the company said during its quarterly earnings call late Tuesday. The surcharges are a tool, in a way, for J.B. Hunt to regulate how much unplanned freight it accepts during the busiest weeks of the year, ensuring there are enough drivers and containers to haul shipments for all its customers in Southern California. The surcharges went into effect July 13. “The last thing our industry can do is fail this shipping community at a time when the demand upticks,” Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, said on the earnings call. “We have a handful of customers that said, ‘Hey, I might have extra business in July.’ We had many customers say, ‘I’m going to have the same peak I had last year’ ... and we just wanted a plan so we’re not caught by surprise.” Meanwhile, maintaining strong service is important as J.B. Hunt and rail partner BNSF Railway performed above average in the second quarter, according to indicators. BNSF’s average Z-score, a proprietary Journal of Commerce calculation factoring train speeds, trains being held and idle laden railcars, has been positive for 13 consecutive weeks based on data filed with the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). Positive Z-scores indicate the railroad is outperforming its own history, while negative scores indicate underperformance. J.B. Hunt was also named the best intermodal provider by 41.5% of shippers in the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Scorecard, the highest percentage among its peers. The survey of more than 240 shippers was conducted between May 1 and June 30. The company regularly topped prior surveys as well, including in categories such as equipment availability, on-time pickups and on-time deliveries. Executing service becomes harder when week-over-week volumes become volatile. “This added complexity, lack of accurate forecast and potential for volatility, is why our peak season surcharge programs are starting earlier this year,” Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales for J.B. Hunt, said on the call. “Regardless of customer strategy and the shape of peak season, we will be ready to meet their demand when it occurs.” Some customers will look to skirt the charges Some J.B. Hunt customers and competitors were surprised by the timing of the surcharges. Peak season surcharges (PSSs) are typically implemented in August or September, if at all, and only after volume spikes. BNSF hauled more than 18,000 ocean containers during the week ending July 13, the highest since late January, according to data platform RailState. However, the railroad only hauled about 12,000 domestic containers during the same week, on par with its rolling 26-week average covering the first half of the year. J.B. Hunt implemented the surcharges after discussions with shippers over the last three weeks, customers told the Journal of Commerce. The fees apply only when a shipper out of Southern California exceeds its weekly contracted allotment, but the added costs can be substantial. “At $1,500 extra, our [competing] truckload rates become far cheaper,” said one J.B. Hunt customer who did not want to be identified. “That’s the trifecta of bad: higher rates, slower transit, and increased risk of theft.” Customers have also questioned whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition equipment to Southern California, or whether the surcharge reflects an attempt by J.B. Hunt to compensate for what it could not obtain during earlier contract negotiations. A second J.B. Hunt customer said they would take steps to avoid the fees. “We will look for opportunities not to pay the $1,500. That’s the short answer,” the source said. “We feel really confident that we’ll be successful.” Shippers said there are multiple ways to sidestep the charges, especially when only a few containers exceed weekly contractual limits. Some may shift overflow freight to J.B. Hunt’s competitors, both asset-based and non-asset-based intermodal providers. Others may opt for truckload carriers on the spot market, particularly as trucking rates remain low. Still others may delay non-urgent cargo by a few days, taking advantage of the weekly reset on allotments. It is not yet clear whether J.B. Hunt’s rivals will follow suit on the surcharges. While most major intermodal providers imposed PSSs last year, none set rates above $1,000 per container, except J.B. Hunt. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

J.B. Hunt says surcharges necessary to maintain peak season service

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The European automotive industry has been hammered by Washington’s import tariffs that are imposing a significant financial burden on the continent’s carmakers. </div>

The European automotive industry has been hammered by Washington’s import tariffs that are imposing a significant financial burden on the continent’s carmakers.

<div class="phx-topic">The financial cost of US tariffs on the European automotive industry has been illustrated by Volvo Group, which was forced to take a $1.2 billion impairment charge in the second quarter as tariffs undermined profitability. With President Donald Trump’s threat at the weekend to impose 30% tariffs on all European Union imports from Aug. 1, there is no letting up on the financial pressure facing the automotive industry. “Due to import tariffs the company is currently unable to sell the Volvo ES90 profitably in the United States, while ES90 margins are also under pressure in Europe for the same reason,” Volvo told investors in a statement Monday. The Swedish carmaker said the $1.2 billion write-down reflected adjustments in expected production volumes of its two latest electric car models following the tariffs and “rightsizing the assets to the known market realities.” An impairment charge is the writing down of the value of an asset to reflect its reduced worth. Jaguar Land Rover this week reported a 15.1% drop in sales in the three months up to June after the luxury automaker placed a temporary pause on exports to the US because of the tariffs. The UK-based manufacturer, owned by Indian car giant Tata, is expecting to improve in the third quarter following the UK’s recent trade deal with the US that sets tariffs at 10% on the first 100,000 cars exported. The US imposed 25% tariffs on the steel and aluminum sectors in March and expanded that to include automobiles on April 3 and automobile parts on May 3, also set at 25%, up from 2.5%. Then, last Saturday, Trump, frustrated at a perceived lack of progress on trade negotiations, threatened to impose 30% tariffs on all imports from the EU from Aug. 1. The US is the largest market for Europe’s automotive industry, comprising 23% of the EU’s total car exports, according to data from the European Commission. With such a significant market share, auto exports from the port of Antwerp-Bruges, a huge automotive hub in Europe that handled more than three million vehicles last year, have been particularly hard hit by the US tariffs. There has been “a clear decline” in vehicle exports to the US via Antwerp since May as tariffs dragged down the numbers, the port noted in a statement this week <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strong-h1-volumes-space-crunch-keep-antwerp-terminals-under-pressure-6043917">on its first-half operations</a>. In the first six months of the year, 15.9% fewer new cars and vans (76,089 units) and 31.5% fewer trucks and heavy vehicles (11,751 units) were exported. <h3>Eurozone pushed to ‘edge of recession’ </h3>The US tariffs will do no favors for Europe’s economies. Research consultancy Oxford Economics noted in a report this week that the threat of 30% tariffs was an escalation of the trade war that will push the eurozone economy to the edge of recession, with growth stagnating over the coming quarters. “Using our global economic model, we estimate that this could cut eurozone GDP growth by up to 0.3 percentage point annually over the next two years,” the report said. The 30% tariff threat surprised EU officials who reportedly thought they were close to a preliminary agreement with the US. Brussels has subsequently dusted off plans to impose its own targeted retaliatory measures on US products should the tariffs be implemented, but it is still holding trade talks with Washington. “The latest decision to delay its planned retaliatory measures until next month shows the EU still hopes to reach a deal before the Aug. 1 deadline,” the Oxford Economics report noted. Oxford Economics found US tariffs were also raising uncertainty and damaging business confidence in the EU, and by extension corporate investment, a sentiment that was picked up in the latest S&amp;P Global Germany Business Outlook survey. “Businesses report concerns about disruption to both demand and supply chains from increased US trade tariffs and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, with the related uncertainty expected to limit business investment and growth,” Phil Smith, economics associate director at S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, said in his analysis of the survey results. “The current geopolitical backdrop means that firms overall remain only cautiously optimistic about the outlook and are by no means fully loosening the purse strings, with growth forecasts and investment intentions still running below their respective pre-pandemic averages,” Smith added. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The financial cost of US tariffs on the European automotive industry has been illustrated by Volvo Group, which was forced to take a $1.2 billion impairment charge in the second quarter as tariffs undermined profitability. With President Donald Trump’s threat at the weekend to impose 30% tariffs on all European Union imports from Aug. 1, there is no letting up on the financial pressure facing the automotive industry. “Due to import tariffs the company is currently unable to sell the Volvo ES90 profitably in the United States, while ES90 margins are also under pressure in Europe for the same reason,” Volvo told investors in a statement Monday. The Swedish carmaker said the $1.2 billion write-down reflected adjustments in expected production volumes of its two latest electric car models following the tariffs and “rightsizing the assets to the known market realities.” An impairment charge is the writing down of the value of an asset to reflect its reduced worth. Jaguar Land Rover this week reported a 15.1% drop in sales in the three months up to June after the luxury automaker placed a temporary pause on exports to the US because of the tariffs. The UK-based manufacturer, owned by Indian car giant Tata, is expecting to improve in the third quarter following the UK’s recent trade deal with the US that sets tariffs at 10% on the first 100,000 cars exported. The US imposed 25% tariffs on the steel and aluminum sectors in March and expanded that to include automobiles on April 3 and automobile parts on May 3, also set at 25%, up from 2.5%. Then, last Saturday, Trump, frustrated at a perceived lack of progress on trade negotiations, threatened to impose 30% tariffs on all imports from the EU from Aug. 1. The US is the largest market for Europe’s automotive industry, comprising 23% of the EU’s total car exports, according to data from the European Commission. With such a significant market share, auto exports from the port of Antwerp-Bruges, a huge automotive hub in Europe that handled more than three million vehicles last year, have been particularly hard hit by the US tariffs. There has been “a clear decline” in vehicle exports to the US via Antwerp since May as tariffs dragged down the numbers, the port noted in a statement this week on its first-half operations . In the first six months of the year, 15.9% fewer new cars and vans (76,089 units) and 31.5% fewer trucks and heavy vehicles (11,751 units) were exported. Eurozone pushed to ‘edge of recession’ The US tariffs will do no favors for Europe’s economies. Research consultancy Oxford Economics noted in a report this week that the threat of 30% tariffs was an escalation of the trade war that will push the eurozone economy to the edge of recession, with growth stagnating over the coming quarters. “Using our global economic model, we estimate that this could cut eurozone GDP growth by up to 0.3 percentage point annually over the next two years,” the report said. The 30% tariff threat surprised EU officials who reportedly thought they were close to a preliminary agreement with the US. Brussels has subsequently dusted off plans to impose its own targeted retaliatory measures on US products should the tariffs be implemented, but it is still holding trade talks with Washington. “The latest decision to delay its planned retaliatory measures until next month shows the EU still hopes to reach a deal before the Aug. 1 deadline,” the Oxford Economics report noted. Oxford Economics found US tariffs were also raising uncertainty and damaging business confidence in the EU, and by extension corporate investment, a sentiment that was picked up in the latest S&P Global Germany Business Outlook survey. “Businesses report concerns about disruption to both demand and supply chains from increased US trade tariffs and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, with the related uncertainty expected to limit business investment and growth,” Phil Smith, economics associate director at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in his analysis of the survey results. “The current geopolitical backdrop means that firms overall remain only cautiously optimistic about the outlook and are by no means fully loosening the purse strings, with growth forecasts and investment intentions still running below their respective pre-pandemic averages,” Smith added. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Trans-Atlantic

Volvo faces $1.2 billion write-down as US tariffs erode profitability

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The infrastructure fund that owns the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal is not looking to divest as it seeks to extend the term of its lease, according to people familiar with the talks.</div>

The infrastructure fund that owns the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal is not looking to divest as it seeks to extend the term of its lease, according to people familiar with the talks.

<div class="phx-topic">Infrastructure investor Macquarie is looking to keep its majority stake in one of largest marine terminals on the US East Coast despite rumors of a sale that would coincide with a new lease at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Macquarie, though, faces millions in new costs under a new lease as the port seeks to offload wharf and berth maintenance onto its tenants. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/deutsche-bank-to-sell-maher-terminals-at-port-of-ny-nj-5230328">which bought New Jersey’s Maher Terminals in 2016 through its MIP III fund</a>, is negotiating with the Port Authority of the New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a new lease, according to people familiar with the talks. Japanese shipping line NYK acquired a 20% stake in Maher from MIP III shortly after the initial acquisition, leaving Macquarie with a majority 80% stake. Macquarie’s current lease for Maher doesn’t expire until 2030. But talks on a renewal started earlier this year under the expectation that MIP III would have to sell Maher as part of a capital return to its investors after the fund’s initial 10-year time horizon, sources said. Nailing down a new lease, which could be up to 30 years, was considered necessary before a potential buyer would consider acquiring a long-term asset such as the marine terminal, they added. In 2023, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ssa-marine-looks-to-expand-into-new-us-ports-with-deal-for-ceres-5221078">MIP III sold one of its portfolio companies</a>, Ceres Terminals, to Carrix, which is the parent company of terminal operator SSA Marine and has financial backing from the infrastructure fund of private equity investor Blackstone. However, investors in MIP III, which is a 2013 vintage fund, have agreed to extend the fund’s time horizon for another 10 years, according to a person familiar with the fund’s operations. MIP III’s extended time horizon means there are no plans — at least in the near term — for a sale of Maher, the source said. MIP III’s extension also delays an informal deadline of mid-2025 that the PANYNJ sought for lease negotiations, although a lease extension is likely to be agreed on later this year. Macquarie and the PANYNJ declined to comment on lease negotiations. <h3>Rising maintenance costs </h3>Since the purchase of Maher, Macquarie has doubled down on US terminal assets, particularly on the US West Coast. In 2019, it bought the Long Beach Container Terminal from OOCL for $1.78 billion and a year later acquired Long Beach’s ITS terminal for an undisclosed sum. In 2023, it purchased significant ownership stakes in TraPac’s Los Angeles and Oakland terminals and in Yusen Terminals. At 450 acres and almost 2 million container lifts per year, Maher is Macquarie’s largest single terminal asset and the largest privately operated terminal on the US East Coast. Maher has served as the primary East Coast hub for carriers in the Ocean Alliance. One of those carriers, CMA CGM, has moved more of its vessel calls to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-adds-terminal-assets-in-new-yorknew-jersey-5217593">the two NY-NJ marine terminals that it bought in 2022</a>. However, CMA CGM’s terminals do not have the capacity to also handle other Ocean Alliance carriers, including Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine. CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal will have more space once a throughput agreement with carriers in the Premier Alliance expires in 2027. Even then, Maher would need to handle some Ocean Alliance vessels, people familiar with the matter say. In addition to Ocean Alliance, Maher handles independent services from Zim and other carriers. It also serves as swing capacity for Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-cranes-put-ny-nj-port-on-track-to-handle-more-ultra-large-ships-by-2025-5226275">amid ongoing capital projects at the two terminals that serve those carriers</a>. Maher’s talks with the PANYNJ come amid the bi-state agency’s focus on shifting costs for maintaining the port’s wharves and berths to terminal operators. While marine terminals have typically only been responsible for everything from the ground up, CMA CGM and APM Terminals, which signed a new lease in March, agreed to terms requiring them to cover costs of wharf and berth maintenance. Damage from a worm called a marine borer has rendered some of the pylons supporting the NY-NJ piers down to the diameter of a “<a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2023/12/08/tiny-shipworms-ravaging-wood-pilings-of-nj-ny-wharves-port-authority-newark-bay/71813583007/">toothpick</a>,” PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney told local press. The additional maintenance responsibility on the part of tenants is lengthening Maher’s lease talks due to the costs involved. Repairing damaged wharves and other maintenance could add $20 million to a terminal operator’s annual costs under a long-term lease. The alternative is spending up to $250 million to fully replace a damaged berth. With each terminal having three or four big-ship berths, a terminal operator could face up to $1 billion in replacement costs. Moreover, any berth replacement would reduce capacity at the port, requiring terminals to coordinate such projects as they occur. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Infrastructure investor Macquarie is looking to keep its majority stake in one of largest marine terminals on the US East Coast despite rumors of a sale that would coincide with a new lease at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Macquarie, though, faces millions in new costs under a new lease as the port seeks to offload wharf and berth maintenance onto its tenants. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, which bought New Jersey’s Maher Terminals in 2016 through its MIP III fund , is negotiating with the Port Authority of the New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a new lease, according to people familiar with the talks. Japanese shipping line NYK acquired a 20% stake in Maher from MIP III shortly after the initial acquisition, leaving Macquarie with a majority 80% stake. Macquarie’s current lease for Maher doesn’t expire until 2030. But talks on a renewal started earlier this year under the expectation that MIP III would have to sell Maher as part of a capital return to its investors after the fund’s initial 10-year time horizon, sources said. Nailing down a new lease, which could be up to 30 years, was considered necessary before a potential buyer would consider acquiring a long-term asset such as the marine terminal, they added. In 2023, MIP III sold one of its portfolio companies , Ceres Terminals, to Carrix, which is the parent company of terminal operator SSA Marine and has financial backing from the infrastructure fund of private equity investor Blackstone. However, investors in MIP III, which is a 2013 vintage fund, have agreed to extend the fund’s time horizon for another 10 years, according to a person familiar with the fund’s operations. MIP III’s extended time horizon means there are no plans — at least in the near term — for a sale of Maher, the source said. MIP III’s extension also delays an informal deadline of mid-2025 that the PANYNJ sought for lease negotiations, although a lease extension is likely to be agreed on later this year. Macquarie and the PANYNJ declined to comment on lease negotiations. Rising maintenance costs Since the purchase of Maher, Macquarie has doubled down on US terminal assets, particularly on the US West Coast. In 2019, it bought the Long Beach Container Terminal from OOCL for $1.78 billion and a year later acquired Long Beach’s ITS terminal for an undisclosed sum. In 2023, it purchased significant ownership stakes in TraPac’s Los Angeles and Oakland terminals and in Yusen Terminals. At 450 acres and almost 2 million container lifts per year, Maher is Macquarie’s largest single terminal asset and the largest privately operated terminal on the US East Coast. Maher has served as the primary East Coast hub for carriers in the Ocean Alliance. One of those carriers, CMA CGM, has moved more of its vessel calls to the two NY-NJ marine terminals that it bought in 2022 . However, CMA CGM’s terminals do not have the capacity to also handle other Ocean Alliance carriers, including Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine. CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal will have more space once a throughput agreement with carriers in the Premier Alliance expires in 2027. Even then, Maher would need to handle some Ocean Alliance vessels, people familiar with the matter say. In addition to Ocean Alliance, Maher handles independent services from Zim and other carriers. It also serves as swing capacity for Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. amid ongoing capital projects at the two terminals that serve those carriers . Maher’s talks with the PANYNJ come amid the bi-state agency’s focus on shifting costs for maintaining the port’s wharves and berths to terminal operators. While marine terminals have typically only been responsible for everything from the ground up, CMA CGM and APM Terminals, which signed a new lease in March, agreed to terms requiring them to cover costs of wharf and berth maintenance. Damage from a worm called a marine borer has rendered some of the pylons supporting the NY-NJ piers down to the diameter of a “ toothpick ,” PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney told local press. The additional maintenance responsibility on the part of tenants is lengthening Maher’s lease talks due to the costs involved. Repairing damaged wharves and other maintenance could add $20 million to a terminal operator’s annual costs under a long-term lease. The alternative is spending up to $250 million to fully replace a damaged berth. With each terminal having three or four big-ship berths, a terminal operator could face up to $1 billion in replacement costs. Moreover, any berth replacement would reduce capacity at the port, requiring terminals to coordinate such projects as they occur. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

Macquarie looks to keep hold on NY-NJ terminal amid lease talks

Use code TPM25GW995 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

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STS20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM25GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

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

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 TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of the region. </div>

The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of the region.

<div class="phx-topic">J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US provider of domestic intermodal shipping, began assessing peak-season surcharges of up to $1,500 per container this week in Southern California. The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of Southern California. The affected customers are companies whose freight volumes peak ahead of the holiday shopping season, indicating the surcharges are aimed at only some shippers. Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing for J.B. Hunt, said the surcharges are necessary for the company to remain agile and resilient enough to support shippers during busy times. “As [federal] trade policy negotiations continue, we are anticipating continued volatility and increasing demand from our customers,” Frazier told the Journal of Commerce in a statement. “To prepare and position capacity, we are engaging in customer discussions about anticipated peak season surcharges in July.” Still, a half-dozen shippers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce about the surcharges expressed frustration, questioning whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition empty containers to Southern California. They also pointed to tepid intermodal volume data published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). “Starting a peak [surcharge] on July 13 is crazy and then they have it ending in December, even though J.B. Hunt told me it doesn’t expect peak [season] to last that long,” said one of the shippers, who did not want to be identified. “We tried to go back and negotiate. They said, ‘Look, if you’re going to give the freight to somebody else, that’s fine.’ I feel like J.B. Hunt rates were very cheap during the bids earlier this year and perhaps now they’re trying to make up for it.” The surcharges are not applied universally, but only after loads surpass a shipper’s weekly allotment. For example, if a shipper typically moves 100 containers out of Southern California via BNSF Railway per week, J.B. Hunt may allocate 120 containers as the peak-season allowance. BNSF is J.B. Hunt’s exclusive partner in the western US. The surcharge would apply only to shipments above the peak season threshold. This marks the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/import-surge-pushing-los-angeles-outbound-spot-truck-rates-higher-5724894">second consecutive year</a> that J.B. Hunt has imposed surcharges exceeding $1,000 on customers who ramp up shipping between July and October. Last year, the company said the fees were necessary to manage market volatility while maintaining service standards, a rationale that likely underlies the latest surcharges. <h3>BNSF volume not spiking in recent weeks </h3>BNSF’s total intermodal volumes declined year over year for seven consecutive weeks from May through late June, but rose 5% for the week ended July 4, according to STB data. Data from RailState, which tracks volume in Southern California, shows BNSF’s volume gains came from international intermodal, while domestic intermodal volumes remained muted. It’s unlikely that volumes in the upcoming peak season will exceed that of a year ago across all North American Class I railroads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Meanwhile, ocean carriers have backed away from proposed spot rate increases, which matters because volumes moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach feed both international and domestic intermodal flows in Southern California. Spot market ocean rates to the West Coast have <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/container-lines-cutting-trans-pacific-capacity-overhang-6040426">declined steadily</a> since peaking in early June, due in part to soft demand. Many retailers accelerated shipments to avoid possible tariff increases under the Trump administration. J.B. Hunt’s decision to implement a peak season surcharge could push its competitors, such as Hub Group, Schneider National, STG Logistics and Swift Intermodal, to impose similar, if smaller, surcharges. Union Pacific Railroad may also implement a small surcharge for using rail-owned equipment in Southern California, if only to prevent too much volume shifting from J.B. Hunt and BNSF to UP. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US provider of domestic intermodal shipping, began assessing peak-season surcharges of up to $1,500 per container this week in Southern California. The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of Southern California. The affected customers are companies whose freight volumes peak ahead of the holiday shopping season, indicating the surcharges are aimed at only some shippers. Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing for J.B. Hunt, said the surcharges are necessary for the company to remain agile and resilient enough to support shippers during busy times. “As [federal] trade policy negotiations continue, we are anticipating continued volatility and increasing demand from our customers,” Frazier told the Journal of Commerce in a statement. “To prepare and position capacity, we are engaging in customer discussions about anticipated peak season surcharges in July.” Still, a half-dozen shippers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce about the surcharges expressed frustration, questioning whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition empty containers to Southern California. They also pointed to tepid intermodal volume data published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). “Starting a peak [surcharge] on July 13 is crazy and then they have it ending in December, even though J.B. Hunt told me it doesn’t expect peak [season] to last that long,” said one of the shippers, who did not want to be identified. “We tried to go back and negotiate. They said, ‘Look, if you’re going to give the freight to somebody else, that’s fine.’ I feel like J.B. Hunt rates were very cheap during the bids earlier this year and perhaps now they’re trying to make up for it.” The surcharges are not applied universally, but only after loads surpass a shipper’s weekly allotment. For example, if a shipper typically moves 100 containers out of Southern California via BNSF Railway per week, J.B. Hunt may allocate 120 containers as the peak-season allowance. BNSF is J.B. Hunt’s exclusive partner in the western US. The surcharge would apply only to shipments above the peak season threshold. This marks the second consecutive year that J.B. Hunt has imposed surcharges exceeding $1,000 on customers who ramp up shipping between July and October. Last year, the company said the fees were necessary to manage market volatility while maintaining service standards, a rationale that likely underlies the latest surcharges. BNSF volume not spiking in recent weeks BNSF’s total intermodal volumes declined year over year for seven consecutive weeks from May through late June, but rose 5% for the week ended July 4, according to STB data. Data from RailState, which tracks volume in Southern California, shows BNSF’s volume gains came from international intermodal, while domestic intermodal volumes remained muted. It’s unlikely that volumes in the upcoming peak season will exceed that of a year ago across all North American Class I railroads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Meanwhile, ocean carriers have backed away from proposed spot rate increases, which matters because volumes moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach feed both international and domestic intermodal flows in Southern California. Spot market ocean rates to the West Coast have declined steadily since peaking in early June, due in part to soft demand. Many retailers accelerated shipments to avoid possible tariff increases under the Trump administration. J.B. Hunt’s decision to implement a peak season surcharge could push its competitors, such as Hub Group, Schneider National, STG Logistics and Swift Intermodal, to impose similar, if smaller, surcharges. Union Pacific Railroad may also implement a small surcharge for using rail-owned equipment in Southern California, if only to prevent too much volume shifting from J.B. Hunt and BNSF to UP. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Potential UP-NS tie-up would cause major shift in US intermodal market

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

J.B. Hunt says surcharges necessary to maintain peak season service

Volvo faces $1.2 billion write-down as US tariffs erode profitability

Macquarie looks to keep hold on NY-NJ terminal amid lease talks

Recent Commentary

Latest market ‘disruptor’ requires focused procurement approach by C-suites

Werner victory in long-running court case has broad implications for truckload carriers

Top 5 Most Read Stories