<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The deal comes as freight marketplaces and solutions providers look to expand their services to offer carriers, shippers and brokers end-to-end platforms. </div>

The deal comes as freight marketplaces and solutions providers look to expand their services to offer carriers, shippers and brokers end-to-end platforms.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Freight marketplace Truckstop.com said Tuesday it is expanding the reach of its spot-market technology platform by acquiring Denim, a financial technology company and factoring service. The deal will speed payments for carriers and freight brokers using Truckstop.com. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. The acquisition comes as freight marketplaces and solutions providers look to expand their services to offer carriers, shippers and brokers end-to-end platforms. Truckstop.com rival DAT Freight &amp; Analytics in late July <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dat-acquiring-convoy-automation-platform-from-flexport-6051850">acquired the Convoy platform</a> from Flexport, two months after it acquired <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dat-adds-in-house-factoring-services-with-latest-acquisition-6005462">payments and factoring technology provider Outgo</a>. Earlier this year, factoring provider Triumph Financial <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/triumph-acquires-broker-focused-pricing-technology-provider-greenscreensai-5951484">acquired Greenscreens.ai</a>, a spot truckload pricing and analytics provider. The wave of acquisitions is driven in part by the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) and the need to protect competitive positions in the logistics technology sector. But it also represents an evolution of the load board model, one in which Truckstop has fiercely competed with DAT over the years. Issues like carrier cash flow, cargo theft and fraud, and rate benchmarking have put load boards under intense scrutiny, so DAT and Truckstop have responded by making acquisitions intended to build stickiness with broker customers and trust from carriers. <h3>Truckstop in midst of ‘strategic realignment’ </h3>Truckstop’s purchase of Denim, founded in 2019, is the first acquisition announced by the company since the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/truckstop-begins-strategic-realignment-names-founder-as-interim-ceo-6020214">return of its founder</a>, Scott Moscrip, to the CEO’s seat in June. Moscrip, who founded Truckstop.com in 1995, is serving as interim CEO while leading a “strategic realignment” of the company with an emphasis on innovation. Truckstop.com noted that AI and automation have helped reduce the time to process 75% of Denim’s factoring payments to under one minute. Denim is one of a cohort of payment, finance and factoring software companies to have emerged in recent years, alongside companies like Loop, Upwell, BasicBlock and Moneiva. Established players in that space include US Bank, Cass, and Triumph. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto://bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>Senior Editor Eric Johnson contributed to this report.</div>

Freight marketplace Truckstop.com said Tuesday it is expanding the reach of its spot-market technology platform by acquiring Denim, a financial technology company and factoring service. The deal will speed payments for carriers and freight brokers using Truckstop.com. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. The acquisition comes as freight marketplaces and solutions providers look to expand their services to offer carriers, shippers and brokers end-to-end platforms. Truckstop.com rival DAT Freight & Analytics in late July acquired the Convoy platform from Flexport, two months after it acquired payments and factoring technology provider Outgo . Earlier this year, factoring provider Triumph Financial acquired Greenscreens.ai , a spot truckload pricing and analytics provider. The wave of acquisitions is driven in part by the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) and the need to protect competitive positions in the logistics technology sector. But it also represents an evolution of the load board model, one in which Truckstop has fiercely competed with DAT over the years. Issues like carrier cash flow, cargo theft and fraud, and rate benchmarking have put load boards under intense scrutiny, so DAT and Truckstop have responded by making acquisitions intended to build stickiness with broker customers and trust from carriers. Truckstop in midst of ‘strategic realignment’ Truckstop’s purchase of Denim, founded in 2019, is the first acquisition announced by the company since the return of its founder , Scott Moscrip, to the CEO’s seat in June. Moscrip, who founded Truckstop.com in 1995, is serving as interim CEO while leading a “strategic realignment” of the company with an emphasis on innovation. Truckstop.com noted that AI and automation have helped reduce the time to process 75% of Denim’s factoring payments to under one minute. Denim is one of a cohort of payment, finance and factoring software companies to have emerged in recent years, alongside companies like Loop, Upwell, BasicBlock and Moneiva. Established players in that space include US Bank, Cass, and Triumph. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com Senior Editor Eric Johnson contributed to this report.

Trucking News

Logistics Technology News

Truckload

Surface

Truckstop.com acquires truckload factoring service Denim

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The acquisition will allow Overhaul to incorporate FreightVerify’s visibility data that helps shippers and logistics providers measure when freight is at risk while in transit.</div>

The acquisition will allow Overhaul to incorporate FreightVerify’s visibility data that helps shippers and logistics providers measure when freight is at risk while in transit.

<div class="phx-topic">Supply chain management software vendor Overhaul on Tuesday said it has acquired a visibility provider that caters predominantly to automotive and healthcare shippers in a bid to extend its value from risk management to inventory control. The deal for Michigan-based FreightVerify, terms of which were not disclosed, will see Overhaul incorporating FreightVerify’s part-level visibility data into its platform that helps shippers and logistics providers measure when freight is at risk while in transit. Transportation visibility has traditionally been centered around container or truckload-level tracking, whereas most shippers tend to need more granular information at a part, pallet, or product-level basis. “Enterprises need dynamic inventory control,” Overhaul CEO Barry Conlon told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s not telling them there’s a problem; it’s telling them what was done to resolve the problem.” Conlon said the demand from shippers, in particular, is managed services, not purely a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform, and that the FreightVerify acquisition helps Overhaul move further in that direction. “Putting all these data streams together is compelling,” he said. FreightVerify was founded in 2014 by Larne Dornell and Yossi Sheffi to help shippers with complex supply chains receive granular visibility into parts and stock-keeping units (SKUs). Sheffi is better known as the director of the MIT Center for Transportation &amp; Logistics. FreightVerify has found particular success in the automotive and healthcare verticals. Conlon said incorporating part-level data into Overhaul’s platform will expose FreightVerify’s product to a wider market beyond industries such as automotive and healthcare. Overhaul customers typically use the platform to help track freight and identify security risks that could compromise production schedules or in-store availability. <h3>Goods in motion harder to track </h3>In particular, the merged application will help shippers get a warehouse level of tracking for goods in motion, which are generally harder to track. The solution will be targeted at “high-consequence cargo across the high-tech, consumer, automotive, healthcare, and life sciences industries, where visibility, precision, and protection are non-negotiable,” Overhaul said in a statement. Overhaul nominally competes in the freight visibility category with names such as project44, FourKites, and Shippeo, although it has always been more focused on the risk management end of the visibility spectrum, as it was developed as a tool to help monitor cargo security. Moving into the broader market of risk management pits it against companies such as Everstream Analytics and Resilinc. Overhaul’s last acquisition came in 2023 with its purchase of competitor SensiGuard. Conlon said Overhaul’s strong customer base in high-tech and pharmaceuticals complements FreightVerify’s industry focus, and that there is little existing customer overlap. “It’s a nice tuck-in for us,” Conlon said. “They needed a home, and we won’t break stride.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Supply chain management software vendor Overhaul on Tuesday said it has acquired a visibility provider that caters predominantly to automotive and healthcare shippers in a bid to extend its value from risk management to inventory control. The deal for Michigan-based FreightVerify, terms of which were not disclosed, will see Overhaul incorporating FreightVerify’s part-level visibility data into its platform that helps shippers and logistics providers measure when freight is at risk while in transit. Transportation visibility has traditionally been centered around container or truckload-level tracking, whereas most shippers tend to need more granular information at a part, pallet, or product-level basis. “Enterprises need dynamic inventory control,” Overhaul CEO Barry Conlon told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s not telling them there’s a problem; it’s telling them what was done to resolve the problem.” Conlon said the demand from shippers, in particular, is managed services, not purely a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform, and that the FreightVerify acquisition helps Overhaul move further in that direction. “Putting all these data streams together is compelling,” he said. FreightVerify was founded in 2014 by Larne Dornell and Yossi Sheffi to help shippers with complex supply chains receive granular visibility into parts and stock-keeping units (SKUs). Sheffi is better known as the director of the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. FreightVerify has found particular success in the automotive and healthcare verticals. Conlon said incorporating part-level data into Overhaul’s platform will expose FreightVerify’s product to a wider market beyond industries such as automotive and healthcare. Overhaul customers typically use the platform to help track freight and identify security risks that could compromise production schedules or in-store availability. Goods in motion harder to track In particular, the merged application will help shippers get a warehouse level of tracking for goods in motion, which are generally harder to track. The solution will be targeted at “high-consequence cargo across the high-tech, consumer, automotive, healthcare, and life sciences industries, where visibility, precision, and protection are non-negotiable,” Overhaul said in a statement. Overhaul nominally competes in the freight visibility category with names such as project44, FourKites, and Shippeo, although it has always been more focused on the risk management end of the visibility spectrum, as it was developed as a tool to help monitor cargo security. Moving into the broader market of risk management pits it against companies such as Everstream Analytics and Resilinc. Overhaul’s last acquisition came in 2023 with its purchase of competitor SensiGuard. Conlon said Overhaul’s strong customer base in high-tech and pharmaceuticals complements FreightVerify’s industry focus, and that there is little existing customer overlap. “It’s a nice tuck-in for us,” Conlon said. “They needed a home, and we won’t break stride.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Overhaul dives deeper into ‘part-level’ tracking with FreightVerify deal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The NMFTA’s preliminary freight charges API helps notify shippers of changes to charges, including reweighing and classification, before delivery and final invoicing.</div>

The NMFTA’s preliminary freight charges API helps notify shippers of changes to charges, including reweighing and classification, before delivery and final invoicing.

<div class="phx-topic">A new technical standard aims to plug a gap in less-than-truckload (LTL) visibility by giving shippers a better view of how LTL charges may change as shipments cross docks. The release of the preliminary freight charges application programming interface (API) standard last week comes as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-rates-still-rising-after-muted-response-to-shipment-reclassification-6063877">LTL charges are in flux</a>. Changes to the National Motor Freight Classification (NMFC) may increase, or decrease, the rates shippers pay. “It remains to be seen how many invoices will be changed because of the NMFC reclassification,” said Brian Thompson, chairman of the Digital LTL Council, a division of the National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA). ”We really wanted to get out in the forefront of those NMFC changes,” said Thompson, who also is chief commercial officer for SMC3, an LTL association and data solutions provider. Revisions to the NMFC that took effect July 19 shifted more than 2,000 products or commodities into classes determined by density alone, rather than other shipping characteristics. The new API brings the NMFTA closer to offering a set of digital standards covering LTL shipping processes from a shipper’s dock to final delivery at a consignee. The preliminary freight charges API follows an electronic bill of lading standard and a standard for pickup requests and visibility, Thompson said. An in-transit visibility API standard is slated for release by the Digital LTL Council later this year, he said. <h3>Changes in transit </h3>The preliminary freight charges standard addresses a problem for shippers that has grown as new technology becomes available for carriers: invoices that change in transit. More and more carriers have dimensioners and scales used to reweigh shipments and reclassify them after they reach a carrier’s dock. That can lead to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-carriers-laying-groundwork-for-higher-pricing-in-2025-5822094">changes in billed charges</a> that a shipper may not see until an invoice is reviewed weeks later. “This is really valuable for shippers and third-party logistics providers,” said Scooter Sayers, director of business development/LTL solutions for Cubiscan. “It’s all about early visibility, passing information back and forth and getting everybody on the same page.” Cubiscan develops dimensioning equipment and is not part of the LTL Digital Council. Logistics providers and carriers are already providing preliminary data on freight charges to shippers, but “putting a standard out there makes things easier for everybody,” Sayers said. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto://bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A new technical standard aims to plug a gap in less-than-truckload (LTL) visibility by giving shippers a better view of how LTL charges may change as shipments cross docks. The release of the preliminary freight charges application programming interface (API) standard last week comes as LTL charges are in flux . Changes to the National Motor Freight Classification (NMFC) may increase, or decrease, the rates shippers pay. “It remains to be seen how many invoices will be changed because of the NMFC reclassification,” said Brian Thompson, chairman of the Digital LTL Council, a division of the National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA). ”We really wanted to get out in the forefront of those NMFC changes,” said Thompson, who also is chief commercial officer for SMC3, an LTL association and data solutions provider. Revisions to the NMFC that took effect July 19 shifted more than 2,000 products or commodities into classes determined by density alone, rather than other shipping characteristics. The new API brings the NMFTA closer to offering a set of digital standards covering LTL shipping processes from a shipper’s dock to final delivery at a consignee. The preliminary freight charges API follows an electronic bill of lading standard and a standard for pickup requests and visibility, Thompson said. An in-transit visibility API standard is slated for release by the Digital LTL Council later this year, he said. Changes in transit The preliminary freight charges standard addresses a problem for shippers that has grown as new technology becomes available for carriers: invoices that change in transit. More and more carriers have dimensioners and scales used to reweigh shipments and reclassify them after they reach a carrier’s dock. That can lead to changes in billed charges that a shipper may not see until an invoice is reviewed weeks later. “This is really valuable for shippers and third-party logistics providers,” said Scooter Sayers, director of business development/LTL solutions for Cubiscan. “It’s all about early visibility, passing information back and forth and getting everybody on the same page.” Cubiscan develops dimensioning equipment and is not part of the LTL Digital Council. Logistics providers and carriers are already providing preliminary data on freight charges to shippers, but “putting a standard out there makes things easier for everybody,” Sayers said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

New API standard advances LTL billing transparency

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The upbeat results have led several carriers to invest in new tonnage, with vessels scheduled for delivery in 2027 and 2028.</div>

The upbeat results have led several carriers to invest in new tonnage, with vessels scheduled for delivery in 2027 and 2028.

<div class="phx-topic">Intra-Asia carriers saw net profits surge in the first half of the year on the back of strong gains in freight rates and cargo volumes. The upbeat results have led several carriers to invest in new tonnage, with vessels scheduled for delivery in 2027 and 2028. Forwarders said rates and container volumes have been supported by tight capacity partly caused by mainline carriers blanking sailings in April and May. Highlighting the buoyant trading environment, Hong Kong-listed SITC said average revenue per TEU in the first half increased 23% to $776 per TEU from $632/TEU in the prior year. This helped the carrier post an 80% increase in first-half net profit to $630 million, SITC said in a stock exchange filing. Cargo volumes rose 7% to 1.8 million TEUs. Rival Hong Kong-listed regional carrier TS Lines said it expected interim net profit to surge by up to 225% to between $180 million and $200 million, from $56 million last year, when it reports its results on Aug. 25. The increase was due to higher freight rates and an “increase in charter hire revenue” from vessels chartered to other carriers, TS said. Thailand’s Regional Container Lines (RCL) saw its net profit soar 130% to $124 million in the first half, driven by a 28% increase in freight income and a 12% rise in liftings, the carrier said. The strong results, meanwhile, have led some intra-Asia carriers to expand their fleets with new vessel orders and launch new services, including long-haul loops. TS Lines, SITC and South Korean carriers Sinokor Merchant Marine and CK Line have recently placed orders for a total of 16 ships. The largest order, worth $612 million, was awarded by Sinokor for four 13,000-TEU ships with delivery in 2028. RCL completed the delivery of six 7,000-TEU and 12,000-TEU vessels earlier this year as part of a plan to expand its network beyond Asia with the launch of an Asia-Mexico service with six other carriers including TS Lines, Sinokor, Korea Marine Transport Company (KMTC) and China’s Sinotrans Container Line. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Intra-Asia carriers saw net profits surge in the first half of the year on the back of strong gains in freight rates and cargo volumes. The upbeat results have led several carriers to invest in new tonnage, with vessels scheduled for delivery in 2027 and 2028. Forwarders said rates and container volumes have been supported by tight capacity partly caused by mainline carriers blanking sailings in April and May. Highlighting the buoyant trading environment, Hong Kong-listed SITC said average revenue per TEU in the first half increased 23% to $776 per TEU from $632/TEU in the prior year. This helped the carrier post an 80% increase in first-half net profit to $630 million, SITC said in a stock exchange filing. Cargo volumes rose 7% to 1.8 million TEUs. Rival Hong Kong-listed regional carrier TS Lines said it expected interim net profit to surge by up to 225% to between $180 million and $200 million, from $56 million last year, when it reports its results on Aug. 25. The increase was due to higher freight rates and an “increase in charter hire revenue” from vessels chartered to other carriers, TS said. Thailand’s Regional Container Lines (RCL) saw its net profit soar 130% to $124 million in the first half, driven by a 28% increase in freight income and a 12% rise in liftings, the carrier said. The strong results, meanwhile, have led some intra-Asia carriers to expand their fleets with new vessel orders and launch new services, including long-haul loops. TS Lines, SITC and South Korean carriers Sinokor Merchant Marine and CK Line have recently placed orders for a total of 16 ships. The largest order, worth $612 million, was awarded by Sinokor for four 13,000-TEU ships with delivery in 2028. RCL completed the delivery of six 7,000-TEU and 12,000-TEU vessels earlier this year as part of a plan to expand its network beyond Asia with the launch of an Asia-Mexico service with six other carriers including TS Lines, Sinokor, Korea Marine Transport Company (KMTC) and China’s Sinotrans Container Line. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Maritime

Intra-Asia carriers see H1 profits surge on higher freight rates, cargo volumes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Fragmentation and systems that don’t “talk to each other” are holding back the effective use of data in the project cargo industry, stakeholders say.</div>

Fragmentation and systems that don’t “talk to each other” are holding back the effective use of data in the project cargo industry, stakeholders say.

<div class="phx-topic">The slow pace of digitalization in the “super cautious” breakbulk and project logistics industry means engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) firms could be risking excess costs, more waste and less efficiency, according to EPC executives. A traditional mindset, difficulty gaining access to meaningful data and a lack of understanding around real-time large data transfers and analytics are among the factors holding back progress in a project logistics sector already heavy with fragmentation. “As an industry we don’t use data as effectively as we could do,” said Andy Young, corporate manager of logistics at Bechtel Global Logistics. Describing digitalization as a “risk topic,” he said the first challenge is getting the data from logistics services providers. “It’s better if you’re clear with them what you want the data for and how you intend to use it,” he said. Second is understanding how to handle real-time large data transfers — for example, what software and/or platform to use. “Also, integration with freight forwarders’ systems seems to be advanced, but not so with other logistics service providers,” said Young. “Being able to standardize and consolidate data across multiple logistics services providers, multiple projects, and modes of transport brings benefits.” Some project cargo forwarders allow portal access to their transportation management systems (TMSs), and some agree to data transfer. “Credit to them — they have been at the forefront of digitalization in logistics and their wider supply chain service offerings,” Young said. <h3>Fragmentation stymieing progress </h3>Brandy Aurich, vice president/global head of strategy at freight forwarder DHL Global Forwarding Industrial Projects, told the Journal of Commerce that industry fragmentation was one of the biggest challenges to digitalization. Early partnership is crucial, but shippers and forwarders are often at different stages of the digitalization journey. “If a shipper’s goal, focus, and stage in the digitalization journey are much further along than the forwarder or other suppliers, it becomes very difficult to get on the same page,” Aurich said. “On large projects, implementation moves quickly — so if you are not aligned as partners from the start, you may not have the time to get where you need to be.” Many systems don’t interact. “You have a variety of systems across the supply chain, but they don’t necessarily talk to each other,” she said. “Getting them to a point where they can communicate with each other takes significant investment, resources and time.” Aurich said there is a big gap between “wanting to be digital” and being ready and able to get there — “and that’s from both sides.” Another issue is data quality. “Is the data clean, where is that source of truth, can we trust the data?,” she said. “A shipper may provide a certain set of data, while the forwarder has another, and aligning those is critical.” A lack of expertise is also a factor. You can’t just hire a data analyst, she said; you need people who are experts in, or at least understand, project logistics and the complexities of the supply chain. Whether a company hires a project logistics specialist and trains them in data analytics, or does things the other way around, “either way it takes time, investment, and real commitment,” said Aurich. “First, look internally — do we already have people who understand project logistics and might be interested in moving into a data analyst’s role? If not, we need to be more open-minded when we are hiring data analysts or technology specialists,” she said. “Can they learn and grow in a project logistics environment? Are they willing to put in the time?” <h3>Relationships are key </h3>Young emphasized giving the right tools and support to logisticians who are being “turned into” data analysts. “You need to understand logistics, what you want to discover, what the trends are telling you,” he said. An effective strategy requires working with logistics service providers willing to partner on a digitalization journey — even if that might uncover some uncomfortable truths, Young added. “They must be willing to provide data even if it’s not ‘flattering’ to their own performance,” he said. “Fundamentally, it’s about honesty and trust, and the relationship you have with them.” The accumulation and analysis of data can drive business decisions and, more importantly, define strategy, said Young. Performance metrics can encompass areas such as container utilization, on-time status, detention, and damage ratios. Data can be used to measure logistics services providers’ performance in an ongoing project, to inform a new competitive bid, or to benchmark projects internally. Monitoring costs, volumes, locations and durations helps to identify trends and be more predictive. Consolidating data can enable accurate planning of site resources weeks in advance, including laydown allocation, labor and equipment — avoiding the scenario of having 20 people and six all-terrain cranes on site when 10 and two, respectively, would suffice. “A project trending the wrong way on pick-up times indicates a problem with the supplier, the logistics service provider or even our own project management,” Young said. “By tracking KPIs [key performance indicators], we can see early on if there is a problem — and take action to fix it.” Contact Felicity Landon on <a href="mailto:felicity@felicitylandon.com">felicity@felicitylandon.com</a>.</div>

The slow pace of digitalization in the “super cautious” breakbulk and project logistics industry means engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) firms could be risking excess costs, more waste and less efficiency, according to EPC executives. A traditional mindset, difficulty gaining access to meaningful data and a lack of understanding around real-time large data transfers and analytics are among the factors holding back progress in a project logistics sector already heavy with fragmentation. “As an industry we don’t use data as effectively as we could do,” said Andy Young, corporate manager of logistics at Bechtel Global Logistics. Describing digitalization as a “risk topic,” he said the first challenge is getting the data from logistics services providers. “It’s better if you’re clear with them what you want the data for and how you intend to use it,” he said. Second is understanding how to handle real-time large data transfers — for example, what software and/or platform to use. “Also, integration with freight forwarders’ systems seems to be advanced, but not so with other logistics service providers,” said Young. “Being able to standardize and consolidate data across multiple logistics services providers, multiple projects, and modes of transport brings benefits.” Some project cargo forwarders allow portal access to their transportation management systems (TMSs), and some agree to data transfer. “Credit to them — they have been at the forefront of digitalization in logistics and their wider supply chain service offerings,” Young said. Fragmentation stymieing progress Brandy Aurich, vice president/global head of strategy at freight forwarder DHL Global Forwarding Industrial Projects, told the Journal of Commerce that industry fragmentation was one of the biggest challenges to digitalization. Early partnership is crucial, but shippers and forwarders are often at different stages of the digitalization journey. “If a shipper’s goal, focus, and stage in the digitalization journey are much further along than the forwarder or other suppliers, it becomes very difficult to get on the same page,” Aurich said. “On large projects, implementation moves quickly — so if you are not aligned as partners from the start, you may not have the time to get where you need to be.” Many systems don’t interact. “You have a variety of systems across the supply chain, but they don’t necessarily talk to each other,” she said. “Getting them to a point where they can communicate with each other takes significant investment, resources and time.” Aurich said there is a big gap between “wanting to be digital” and being ready and able to get there — “and that’s from both sides.” Another issue is data quality. “Is the data clean, where is that source of truth, can we trust the data?,” she said. “A shipper may provide a certain set of data, while the forwarder has another, and aligning those is critical.” A lack of expertise is also a factor. You can’t just hire a data analyst, she said; you need people who are experts in, or at least understand, project logistics and the complexities of the supply chain. Whether a company hires a project logistics specialist and trains them in data analytics, or does things the other way around, “either way it takes time, investment, and real commitment,” said Aurich. “First, look internally — do we already have people who understand project logistics and might be interested in moving into a data analyst’s role? If not, we need to be more open-minded when we are hiring data analysts or technology specialists,” she said. “Can they learn and grow in a project logistics environment? Are they willing to put in the time?” Relationships are key Young emphasized giving the right tools and support to logisticians who are being “turned into” data analysts. “You need to understand logistics, what you want to discover, what the trends are telling you,” he said. An effective strategy requires working with logistics service providers willing to partner on a digitalization journey — even if that might uncover some uncomfortable truths, Young added. “They must be willing to provide data even if it’s not ‘flattering’ to their own performance,” he said. “Fundamentally, it’s about honesty and trust, and the relationship you have with them.” The accumulation and analysis of data can drive business decisions and, more importantly, define strategy, said Young. Performance metrics can encompass areas such as container utilization, on-time status, detention, and damage ratios. Data can be used to measure logistics services providers’ performance in an ongoing project, to inform a new competitive bid, or to benchmark projects internally. Monitoring costs, volumes, locations and durations helps to identify trends and be more predictive. Consolidating data can enable accurate planning of site resources weeks in advance, including laydown allocation, labor and equipment — avoiding the scenario of having 20 people and six all-terrain cranes on site when 10 and two, respectively, would suffice. “A project trending the wrong way on pick-up times indicates a problem with the supplier, the logistics service provider or even our own project management,” Young said. “By tracking KPIs [key performance indicators], we can see early on if there is a problem — and take action to fix it.” Contact Felicity Landon on felicity@felicitylandon.com .

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk carriers

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Slow-moving digitalization is threat to project sector progress, EPCs warn

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The all-Scandinavian takeover will combine data sources in a move designed to bring transparency and efficiency to how ocean freight is bought and sold, Xeneta CEO Patrick Berglund says. </div>

The all-Scandinavian takeover will combine data sources in a move designed to bring transparency and efficiency to how ocean freight is bought and sold, Xeneta CEO Patrick Berglund says.

<div class="phx-topic">Rate benchmarking platform Xeneta said Monday it has acquired fellow maritime and supply chain data company eeSea, creating a combined data source meant to provide deeper insight into an increasingly disrupted container shipping market. Oslo-based Xeneta will add Copenhagen-headquartered eeSea’s global schedule, capacity, transit time and reliability data to its wide range of freight rate information and analysis across major trade lanes, Xeneta said in a statement. Financial details of the transaction were not disclosed. Xeneta CEO Patrik Berglund said the acquisition would further a shared mission by the two companies to bring transparency and efficiency to how ocean freight is bought and sold. “Our combined data sources and coverage will provide customers with more actionable intelligence to control freight spend, as well as delivery reliability,” Berglund said in the statement. Xeneta counts global shippers such as Nestlé, Volvo and Coca-Cola among the customers that use its platform. Simon Sundboell, eeSea’s founder and CEO, said he was fully onboard with Xeneta’s commitment to changing the way ocean freight is negotiated. “A true partnership between carriers and cargo owners relies not only on the freight rates paid, but also on the operational performance provided by the carrier, such as transit times, reliability, canceled sailings, weekly stability and schedule forecasting accuracy,” Sundboell said in the statement. Founded in 2015, eeSea offers insights and predictive analysis for the global container shipping industry. Combining multiple data sources and understanding historical patterns, the eeSea platform offers real-time vessel tracking and forecasting, reliability and transit time analytics and strategic insight into trade lane capacity, including canceled sailings. The Journal of Commerce has data usage deals with both Xeneta and eeSea. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Rate benchmarking platform Xeneta said Monday it has acquired fellow maritime and supply chain data company eeSea, creating a combined data source meant to provide deeper insight into an increasingly disrupted container shipping market. Oslo-based Xeneta will add Copenhagen-headquartered eeSea’s global schedule, capacity, transit time and reliability data to its wide range of freight rate information and analysis across major trade lanes, Xeneta said in a statement. Financial details of the transaction were not disclosed. Xeneta CEO Patrik Berglund said the acquisition would further a shared mission by the two companies to bring transparency and efficiency to how ocean freight is bought and sold. “Our combined data sources and coverage will provide customers with more actionable intelligence to control freight spend, as well as delivery reliability,” Berglund said in the statement. Xeneta counts global shippers such as Nestlé, Volvo and Coca-Cola among the customers that use its platform. Simon Sundboell, eeSea’s founder and CEO, said he was fully onboard with Xeneta’s commitment to changing the way ocean freight is negotiated. “A true partnership between carriers and cargo owners relies not only on the freight rates paid, but also on the operational performance provided by the carrier, such as transit times, reliability, canceled sailings, weekly stability and schedule forecasting accuracy,” Sundboell said in the statement. Founded in 2015, eeSea offers insights and predictive analysis for the global container shipping industry. Combining multiple data sources and understanding historical patterns, the eeSea platform offers real-time vessel tracking and forecasting, reliability and transit time analytics and strategic insight into trade lane capacity, including canceled sailings. The Journal of Commerce has data usage deals with both Xeneta and eeSea. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Xeneta expands shipping data footprint with acquisition of eeSea

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

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

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

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

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base.</div>

The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base.

<div class="phx-topic">For decades, international containerized freight from Michigan and the broader Midwest has been routed through distant US coastal gateways such as New York, Norfolk and Savannah, or Canadian ports such as Halifax and Montreal. Export-side users have included automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel and chemical producers and agricultural shippers, while imports have consisted of tier 1 suppliers, machinery and equipment distributors and retail or e-commerce consolidators. These routes were not chosen for efficiency or cost. They were imposed by federal restrictions that have for decades prevented containerized freight from entering or exiting the Great Lakes by vessel. US Customs today does not permit such movements through Michigan because no facility in the state meets the required federal standards for security and processing. That is about to change. In 2026, the Port of Monroe will activate the first SAFE Port Act-compliant international container terminal in the Great Lakes, along with a new roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) platform that complements existing vessel berths, dual Class I rail access and proximity to interstate highways and Midwest manufacturing. Together, these assets position Monroe as a fully integrated inland gateway for containerized trade and high-value industrial logistics. Conservatively, 1 million to 2 million TEUs of oceangoing cargo are generated annually from the Great Lakes’ industrial core, according to port estimates. This includes high-value shipments from sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and electronics. Rather than projecting future throughput volumes, the Port of Monroe is focused on establishing a lawful and functioning corridor, allowing the market to respond. The goal is to restore balance, provide carriers with a practical entry point and give shippers a logistics option that should have existed decades ago. The terminal at Monroe will be available to operators who recognize the value of establishing service in an underserved but strategically positioned market. The automotive industry, in particular, stands to benefit. With production concentrated in the Midwest and export demand on the rise, direct vessel service from Monroe reduces complexity and supports just-in-time inventory models. Monroe offers a new point of connection between Midwest production and global markets, serving as a strategic outlet for general containerized freight and, more uniquely, for the direct shipment of new vehicles via ro/ro or in containers. Resilience has become a defining priority for today’s logistics networks. The March 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, a critical ro/ro and vehicle export hub, exposed the system’s fragility. Overnight, cargo flows were disrupted, schedules were delayed and shippers were forced to reroute at significant cost. Inland ports such as the Port of Monroe offer a hedge against that kind of single-point failure. <h3>‘Manageable’ constraints </h3>Do the Great Lakes have constraints? Yes, but they are manageable. The annual three-month winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is predictable and published well in advance, allowing cargo owners and carriers to plan accordingly. Intra-lake shipping continues throughout the winter, particularly with ice-class vessels. Recent climate trends indicate shorter freeze periods and milder conditions, which are gradually increasing intralake shipping capacity during the winter months. Other northern regions facing even harsher winter conditions have demonstrated what is possible. The Baltic Sea offers a relevant example. Despite a smaller economic footprint and more severe ice conditions, Baltic ports remain active year-round through the use of ice-capable vessels and integrated multimodal infrastructure. There is no reason the Great Lakes, now that the regulatory path has been cleared, should not do the same and make a comparable contribution to North American trade resilience. Unlike coastal gateways, which face sudden disruptions from hurricanes, labor action and infrastructure failures, the risks on the Great Lakes are stable and foreseeable. That reliability offers a competitive advantage for shippers navigating global volatility. But infrastructure alone is not enough. What is required is a shift in mindset. Federal freight policy must treat the Great Lakes as a fully integrated corridor. Carriers need to revisit assumptions about vessel size and routing patterns. Shippers will now be able to prioritize proximity, reliability and carbon performance rather than adhering to legacy paths shaped by outdated restrictions. The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base. Supporting inland container movement by vessel can drive demand for US-built ships, sustain skilled shipyard jobs, and expand the national maritime workforce. This is not just a logistics upgrade. It is a long-term investment in national capacity, employment, and competitiveness. This is a practical opportunity to enhance the national freight system using inland infrastructure that is efficient, cost-effective and underutilized. Monroe stands ready to serve shippers, carriers and policymakers seeking flexible, durable solutions. The Great Lakes have always had the potential to support containerized trade. Now that the path is open, the Port of Monroe is prepared to deliver. Capt. Paul C. LaMarre III is also director of the Port of Monroe in Michigan. Contact him at <a href="mailto:plamarre@portofmonroe.com">plamarre@portofmonroe.com</a>. </div>

For decades, international containerized freight from Michigan and the broader Midwest has been routed through distant US coastal gateways such as New York, Norfolk and Savannah, or Canadian ports such as Halifax and Montreal. Export-side users have included automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), steel and chemical producers and agricultural shippers, while imports have consisted of tier 1 suppliers, machinery and equipment distributors and retail or e-commerce consolidators. These routes were not chosen for efficiency or cost. They were imposed by federal restrictions that have for decades prevented containerized freight from entering or exiting the Great Lakes by vessel. US Customs today does not permit such movements through Michigan because no facility in the state meets the required federal standards for security and processing. That is about to change. In 2026, the Port of Monroe will activate the first SAFE Port Act-compliant international container terminal in the Great Lakes, along with a new roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) platform that complements existing vessel berths, dual Class I rail access and proximity to interstate highways and Midwest manufacturing. Together, these assets position Monroe as a fully integrated inland gateway for containerized trade and high-value industrial logistics. Conservatively, 1 million to 2 million TEUs of oceangoing cargo are generated annually from the Great Lakes’ industrial core, according to port estimates. This includes high-value shipments from sectors such as automotive, machinery, chemicals and electronics. Rather than projecting future throughput volumes, the Port of Monroe is focused on establishing a lawful and functioning corridor, allowing the market to respond. The goal is to restore balance, provide carriers with a practical entry point and give shippers a logistics option that should have existed decades ago. The terminal at Monroe will be available to operators who recognize the value of establishing service in an underserved but strategically positioned market. The automotive industry, in particular, stands to benefit. With production concentrated in the Midwest and export demand on the rise, direct vessel service from Monroe reduces complexity and supports just-in-time inventory models. Monroe offers a new point of connection between Midwest production and global markets, serving as a strategic outlet for general containerized freight and, more uniquely, for the direct shipment of new vehicles via ro/ro or in containers. Resilience has become a defining priority for today’s logistics networks. The March 2024 collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, a critical ro/ro and vehicle export hub, exposed the system’s fragility. Overnight, cargo flows were disrupted, schedules were delayed and shippers were forced to reroute at significant cost. Inland ports such as the Port of Monroe offer a hedge against that kind of single-point failure. ‘Manageable’ constraints Do the Great Lakes have constraints? Yes, but they are manageable. The annual three-month winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway is predictable and published well in advance, allowing cargo owners and carriers to plan accordingly. Intra-lake shipping continues throughout the winter, particularly with ice-class vessels. Recent climate trends indicate shorter freeze periods and milder conditions, which are gradually increasing intralake shipping capacity during the winter months. Other northern regions facing even harsher winter conditions have demonstrated what is possible. The Baltic Sea offers a relevant example. Despite a smaller economic footprint and more severe ice conditions, Baltic ports remain active year-round through the use of ice-capable vessels and integrated multimodal infrastructure. There is no reason the Great Lakes, now that the regulatory path has been cleared, should not do the same and make a comparable contribution to North American trade resilience. Unlike coastal gateways, which face sudden disruptions from hurricanes, labor action and infrastructure failures, the risks on the Great Lakes are stable and foreseeable. That reliability offers a competitive advantage for shippers navigating global volatility. But infrastructure alone is not enough. What is required is a shift in mindset. Federal freight policy must treat the Great Lakes as a fully integrated corridor. Carriers need to revisit assumptions about vessel size and routing patterns. Shippers will now be able to prioritize proximity, reliability and carbon performance rather than adhering to legacy paths shaped by outdated restrictions. The introduction of containerized shipping to Michigan presents an opportunity to reinforce the domestic maritime industrial base. Supporting inland container movement by vessel can drive demand for US-built ships, sustain skilled shipyard jobs, and expand the national maritime workforce. This is not just a logistics upgrade. It is a long-term investment in national capacity, employment, and competitiveness. This is a practical opportunity to enhance the national freight system using inland infrastructure that is efficient, cost-effective and underutilized. Monroe stands ready to serve shippers, carriers and policymakers seeking flexible, durable solutions. The Great Lakes have always had the potential to support containerized trade. Now that the path is open, the Port of Monroe is prepared to deliver. Capt. Paul C. LaMarre III is also director of the Port of Monroe in Michigan. Contact him at plamarre@portofmonroe.com .

Ro/ro cargo

North American ports

Marine terminals

Port infrastructure

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Current period

{name}:
 {YTD_month}
 {valueY.formatNumber('#.0a')}
 Y-o-Y: {YTD_teu_change.formatNumber("##.#'%'")}

Remaining year

{name}:
 {valueY.formatNumber('#.0a')}
 Y-o-Y: {Rest_teus_change.formatNumber("##.#'%'")}

Annual volume

{name}:
 {valueY.formatNumber('#.0a')}
 Y-o-Y: {Annual_teus_change.formatNumber("##.#'%'")}

PIERS containerized US import and export volumes is the transportation industry’s largest US waterborne trade data set, covering all US ports. Every day, the PIERS team processes an average of about 60,000 bills of lading filed with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and integrates this transactional trade data with standardized company details. PIERS contains US trade data going back to 2003. [PIERS](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/products/piers.html)

US YTD container imports (PIERS)

PIERS US total imports volume last 10 years (YTD) (year-over-year change) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers have responded by adjusting schedules and blanking sailings, but the capacity management has so far failed to hold up prices on the trade lane.</div>

Carriers have responded by adjusting schedules and blanking sailings, but the capacity management has so far failed to hold up prices on the trade lane.

<div class="phx-topic">The spot market on the Asia-Europe ocean trade continues to decline as carriers battle to overcome a growing capacity overhang despite reports of solid demand through the summer and ongoing port congestion in Europe. While carriers have responded by adjusting schedules and blanking sailings on routes to both North Europe and the Mediterranean, pulling the capacity management levers has not yet been able to slow the steadily falling rates. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told analysts during a first-half earnings call Thursday that bookings on Asia-Europe remain “robust.” And although rates were falling, he described that as normal for this time of year. “Sometimes the peak season ends a little bit early, and right now it looks like we won’t see a strong peak running up to the end of September,” the CEO said. “Volumes into Europe have been pretty steady, and bookings are still robust, but we now need to see what happens in the coming couple of weeks.” Asia to North Europe spot rates of $2,700 per FEU this week are half the level recorded at the beginning of January and have fallen 15% in the past two months, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Asia-Mediterranean rates have been on an even more dramatic slide, falling 44% in the past two months to this week’s price of $2,600/FEU, also a decline of 50% compared with the first week of January. “Carriers face an immense challenge in preventing freight rates from falling further against the backdrop of significant overcapacity in the global fleet,” Emily Stausbøll, senior analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, noted in a recent market update. “It is unlikely the Red Sea will open up to container shipping at large during 2025, but in this scenario the challenge facing carriers in managing capacity would increase exponentially,” she added. <h3>Conservative capacity cuts </h3>The order book is currently at 9.3 million TEUs, or 29% of the in-service container shipping fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just over 1.2 million TEUs of vessels above 14,501 TEUs are expected to be delivered this year, mostly for Asia-Europe, while just 91,000 TEUs will be scrapped. Carriers are blanking sailings in an attempt to slow the rate decline but remain surprisingly conservative in their capacity withdrawals. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="eebb48eb-ad03-4e0f-a647-67693692edb4"></dynamic-object></div>Asia-North Europe carriers will deploy 1.1 million TEUs in capacity in August while blanking 94,470 TEUs, down from the 120,000 TEUs blanked in July, data from visibility provider eeSea shows. Capacity available in September will drop to just over 1 million TEUs, with blank sailings of 42,601 TEUs. Destine Ozuygur, chief analyst at eeSea, said the persistent port congestion in Europe could be contributing to carriers announcing fewer blanks during August and September on Asia-North Europe. “Blanks last August accounted for about 13% of planned calls, and 15% of total planned calls in September, while this year it shapes up to 11% of planned calls in August and just 6% in September,” Ozuygur told the Journal of Commerce. C.H. Robinson advised Asia-Europe shippers in a recent market update to continue booking space three to four weeks ahead, as August capacity was expected to remain tight despite demand softening in some segments. “The combination of port congestion and deliberate capacity cuts favors advance planning over spot market strategies,” the forwarder noted. Schedule reliability data for the Asia-North Europe trade lane reveals the impact of the port bottlenecks. After reaching a 2025 high of 45% in May, on-time performance on the trade lane in July was 28%, according to eeSea. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The spot market on the Asia-Europe ocean trade continues to decline as carriers battle to overcome a growing capacity overhang despite reports of solid demand through the summer and ongoing port congestion in Europe. While carriers have responded by adjusting schedules and blanking sailings on routes to both North Europe and the Mediterranean, pulling the capacity management levers has not yet been able to slow the steadily falling rates. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told analysts during a first-half earnings call Thursday that bookings on Asia-Europe remain “robust.” And although rates were falling, he described that as normal for this time of year. “Sometimes the peak season ends a little bit early, and right now it looks like we won’t see a strong peak running up to the end of September,” the CEO said. “Volumes into Europe have been pretty steady, and bookings are still robust, but we now need to see what happens in the coming couple of weeks.” Asia to North Europe spot rates of $2,700 per FEU this week are half the level recorded at the beginning of January and have fallen 15% in the past two months, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Asia-Mediterranean rates have been on an even more dramatic slide, falling 44% in the past two months to this week’s price of $2,600/FEU, also a decline of 50% compared with the first week of January. “Carriers face an immense challenge in preventing freight rates from falling further against the backdrop of significant overcapacity in the global fleet,” Emily Stausbøll, senior analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, noted in a recent market update. “It is unlikely the Red Sea will open up to container shipping at large during 2025, but in this scenario the challenge facing carriers in managing capacity would increase exponentially,” she added. Conservative capacity cuts The order book is currently at 9.3 million TEUs, or 29% of the in-service container shipping fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just over 1.2 million TEUs of vessels above 14,501 TEUs are expected to be delivered this year, mostly for Asia-Europe, while just 91,000 TEUs will be scrapped. Carriers are blanking sailings in an attempt to slow the rate decline but remain surprisingly conservative in their capacity withdrawals. Asia-North Europe carriers will deploy 1.1 million TEUs in capacity in August while blanking 94,470 TEUs, down from the 120,000 TEUs blanked in July, data from visibility provider eeSea shows. Capacity available in September will drop to just over 1 million TEUs, with blank sailings of 42,601 TEUs. Destine Ozuygur, chief analyst at eeSea, said the persistent port congestion in Europe could be contributing to carriers announcing fewer blanks during August and September on Asia-North Europe. “Blanks last August accounted for about 13% of planned calls, and 15% of total planned calls in September, while this year it shapes up to 11% of planned calls in August and just 6% in September,” Ozuygur told the Journal of Commerce. C.H. Robinson advised Asia-Europe shippers in a recent market update to continue booking space three to four weeks ahead, as August capacity was expected to remain tight despite demand softening in some segments. “The combination of port congestion and deliberate capacity cuts favors advance planning over spot market strategies,” the forwarder noted. Schedule reliability data for the Asia-North Europe trade lane reveals the impact of the port bottlenecks. After reaching a 2025 high of 45% in May, on-time performance on the trade lane in July was 28%, according to eeSea. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Asia-Europe ocean rates edging down despite ‘robust’ bookings

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the growing synergy and efficiencies of its Gemini network with Maersk are expected to generate significant savings over the next few quarters, CEO Rolf Habben Jansen says.</div>

But the growing synergy and efficiencies of its Gemini network with Maersk are expected to generate significant savings over the next few quarters, CEO Rolf Habben Jansen says.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd’s transition to its new Gemini Cooperation network cost the Hamburg-based carrier a “three-digit million-dollar figure,” offsetting robust growth in its first-half revenue and volume, CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said Thursday. But the carrier has implemented an aggressive cost-savings program that, by the end of 2026, will have reduced costs across the Hapag-Lloyd network by $1 billion, upward of 40% of which is expected to be derived from growing synergy and efficiencies of its Gemini partnership with Maersk. “When you look at the savings we anticipated with Gemini, and which we still think we are going to deliver out of Gemini alone, it is going to be $350 million to $400 million,” Habben Jansen told reporters during Hapag-Lloyd’s second-quarter earnings call. “With the new network, we have had some challenges on utilization that are getting less and less, and those benefits of the new network we will start seeing in Q3, Q4 and also into 2026,” he added. Other factors adding to Hapag-Lloyd’s expenses in the first half were higher storage costs for containers as a result of port congestion, particularly on European trades, and increased hinterland transportation costs due to the carrier capturing a rising share of door-to-door business. While Gemini does not increase the size of the fleet deployed by Hapag-Lloyd, it increases the amount of capacity the carrier can offer every week, an effect that was clearly reflected in the revenue and volume numbers. Revenue in the first half rose 11% year over year to $10.6 billion on the back of an 11% increase in volume to 6.7 million TEUs. But the cost-heavy second quarter created a significant drag on first-half earnings. While average spot rates of $1,400 per TEU were flat compared with the first six months of 2024, rates fell 11% sequentially from the first quarter to the second quarter. It was a similar picture in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) that in the second quarter fell 20% year over year, bringing the first-half numbers down 2% to $1.9 billion. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $677 million in the first half were down 23%, while net profit slid 2% to $775 million. <h3>Delivering on reliability promise </h3>Habben Jansen said phasing in the Gemini network concluded in June and the process was able to deliver the promised 90% schedule reliability. “A lot of people were skeptical about that at the beginning of the year, but we have been delivering 90% reliability every month since the start, and I think that’s something to be really proud of,” he told reporters. “Now it’s about fine-tuning that network,” the CEO added. “Despite a lot of planning, reality is always a little bit different, but we are optimistic we will see further improvements.” Data from eeSea shows that the Gemini Cooperation topped reliability among the carrier alliances up to July, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/high-gemini-reliability-lays-groundwork-for-premium-rate-discussions-maersk-ceo-6059343">but its overall on-time performance recorded by the ocean visibility provider was 84%</a>. Gemini’s best performance was on the Europe-North America trade, where it maintained above 90% reliability throughout June and July. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7041fe54-edf1-4d59-9d82-94781e7a7eb1"></dynamic-object></div>With the first half now over, Hapag-Lloyd has narrowed its full-year outlook and expects EBITDA to come in between $2.8 billion and $3.8 billion (previously $2.5 billion to $4 billion) and EBIT to land at $250 million to $1.25 billion (previously zero to $1.5 billion). The carrier expects frontloading and higher permanent tariffs to slow down demand in the second half of the year. Hapag-Lloyd forecasts that global container market volume will grow about 3% to 4% in the second half and that its own volume will be above the market average. “If you look at the beginning of the year, most people would have predicted flat growth or maybe negative in 2025, but for the first six months we saw [overall market] growth of 4.5%,” Habben Jansen said. “Even if the second half is a little bit weaker, we’re going to end the year definitely with a plus.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd’s transition to its new Gemini Cooperation network cost the Hamburg-based carrier a “three-digit million-dollar figure,” offsetting robust growth in its first-half revenue and volume, CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said Thursday. But the carrier has implemented an aggressive cost-savings program that, by the end of 2026, will have reduced costs across the Hapag-Lloyd network by $1 billion, upward of 40% of which is expected to be derived from growing synergy and efficiencies of its Gemini partnership with Maersk. “When you look at the savings we anticipated with Gemini, and which we still think we are going to deliver out of Gemini alone, it is going to be $350 million to $400 million,” Habben Jansen told reporters during Hapag-Lloyd’s second-quarter earnings call. “With the new network, we have had some challenges on utilization that are getting less and less, and those benefits of the new network we will start seeing in Q3, Q4 and also into 2026,” he added. Other factors adding to Hapag-Lloyd’s expenses in the first half were higher storage costs for containers as a result of port congestion, particularly on European trades, and increased hinterland transportation costs due to the carrier capturing a rising share of door-to-door business. While Gemini does not increase the size of the fleet deployed by Hapag-Lloyd, it increases the amount of capacity the carrier can offer every week, an effect that was clearly reflected in the revenue and volume numbers. Revenue in the first half rose 11% year over year to $10.6 billion on the back of an 11% increase in volume to 6.7 million TEUs. But the cost-heavy second quarter created a significant drag on first-half earnings. While average spot rates of $1,400 per TEU were flat compared with the first six months of 2024, rates fell 11% sequentially from the first quarter to the second quarter. It was a similar picture in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) that in the second quarter fell 20% year over year, bringing the first-half numbers down 2% to $1.9 billion. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $677 million in the first half were down 23%, while net profit slid 2% to $775 million. Delivering on reliability promise Habben Jansen said phasing in the Gemini network concluded in June and the process was able to deliver the promised 90% schedule reliability. “A lot of people were skeptical about that at the beginning of the year, but we have been delivering 90% reliability every month since the start, and I think that’s something to be really proud of,” he told reporters. “Now it’s about fine-tuning that network,” the CEO added. “Despite a lot of planning, reality is always a little bit different, but we are optimistic we will see further improvements.” Data from eeSea shows that the Gemini Cooperation topped reliability among the carrier alliances up to July, but its overall on-time performance recorded by the ocean visibility provider was 84% . Gemini’s best performance was on the Europe-North America trade, where it maintained above 90% reliability throughout June and July. With the first half now over, Hapag-Lloyd has narrowed its full-year outlook and expects EBITDA to come in between $2.8 billion and $3.8 billion (previously $2.5 billion to $4 billion) and EBIT to land at $250 million to $1.25 billion (previously zero to $1.5 billion). The carrier expects frontloading and higher permanent tariffs to slow down demand in the second half of the year. Hapag-Lloyd forecasts that global container market volume will grow about 3% to 4% in the second half and that its own volume will be above the market average. “If you look at the beginning of the year, most people would have predicted flat growth or maybe negative in 2025, but for the first six months we saw [overall market] growth of 4.5%,” Habben Jansen said. “Even if the second half is a little bit weaker, we’re going to end the year definitely with a plus.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

High cost of Gemini transition drags on Hapag-Lloyd’s H1 result

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Containerized imports into the US last month set an all-time high, according to PIERS data, reflecting what is likely a peak in 2025 imports as shippers tried to get ahead of tariffs.</div>

Containerized imports into the US last month set an all-time high, according to PIERS data, reflecting what is likely a peak in 2025 imports as shippers tried to get ahead of tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">Tariff-driven frontloading pushed US containerized imports to an all-time high in July, with most ports seeing double-digit volume growth over June’s numbers. While China remained the top source for overseas goods, US shippers appeared more eager to move freight from other tariff targets in southern Europe and Southeast Asia. Total US container volumes last month reached 2.609 million TEUs, the most ever recorded for a single month by PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. July’s volume was a 17.5% gain from June. The Trump administration’s implementation of wide-ranging tariffs against US trading partners this spring — and subsequent 90-day reprieves — were the obvious reasons for the July surge. The month’s numbers followed a 5% year-over-year decline in May volumes as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-saw-china-bookings-drop-hard-after-us-enacted-tariffs-5990185">freight bookings fell after Trump issued his reciprocal tariff plans</a>, and a smaller 3% decline in June as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-spot-rates-falling-as-tariff-linked-demand-surge-loses-steam-6027420">shippers started returning to the market</a> when the administration began pausing its various tariff plans. The month-to-month volatility, though, masks more normal growth in the container trade and the likelihood of a down year. US import volumes year to date through July are up 5.4%, PIERS data shows. The second half of 2025 is not likely to match those numbers, according to the National Retail Federation. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-project-big-year-over-year-import-declines-to-close-out-2025-6060323">It forecasts a 5.6% decline in total container imports</a> due to the uncertain effect tariffs will have on inflation, consumer spending and the overall US economy. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9a6fd2cc-4064-49a6-af1b-2d581edf5eb5"></dynamic-object></div><h3>China down, but not out </h3>After two consecutive months of 20% or higher declines, containerized imports from China, the biggest tariff target, rebounded in July, reaching 1.228 million TEUs, a 36% increase from June, according to PIERS. But July’s volume from China was still down 8% from a year earlier, likely reflecting the longer-term US sourcing shift away from that country. With countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia also receiving a reprieve from tariffs, imports from that region led July’s growth. Container imports from Southeast Asia saw a 24% year-over-year gain last month, reaching a record for any month, of 581,803 TEUs. July’s volume bested the previous record of 542,414 TEUs set just in June. Imports from countries in the Indian subcontinent also reached a record high last month. PIERS data for July shows container volumes from that region totaled 152,630 TEUs, a 21% gain from a year earlier. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="cc01c87a-ccc1-4d28-8673-5c101f0b7bc8"></dynamic-object></div>Imports from Southern Europe, meanwhile, rose 7% from a year earlier to 155,587 TEUs, while July’s imports from Northern Europe were essentially flat. <h3>LA, Houston volumes stand out </h3>As the first call for most container services from Asia, the Port of Los Angeles saw strong growth in July. Containerized import volumes there reached 542,940 TEUs, PIERS data shows, a 10% increase from a year earlier and the highest monthly total for the port since August 2024. Following similarly strong volumes in June, Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka said last month that he expects July may represent the year’s peak season due to the tariff-driven whipsaw in volumes. “Some importers are bringing in year-end holiday cargo now ahead of potential higher tariffs later in the year,” Seroka said in a statement. “July may be our peak season month as retailers and manufacturers bring orders in earlier than usual, then brace for trade uncertainty.” Among big US ports, Houston saw the strongest year-over-year import growth, with July volumes reaching 184,418 TEUs, representing an 18.5% gain from a year earlier. The jump was largely attributable to imports from Southeast Asia, which grew 63% from a year earlier, and China, which rose 9.8%. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Tariff-driven frontloading pushed US containerized imports to an all-time high in July, with most ports seeing double-digit volume growth over June’s numbers. While China remained the top source for overseas goods, US shippers appeared more eager to move freight from other tariff targets in southern Europe and Southeast Asia. Total US container volumes last month reached 2.609 million TEUs, the most ever recorded for a single month by PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. July’s volume was a 17.5% gain from June. The Trump administration’s implementation of wide-ranging tariffs against US trading partners this spring — and subsequent 90-day reprieves — were the obvious reasons for the July surge. The month’s numbers followed a 5% year-over-year decline in May volumes as freight bookings fell after Trump issued his reciprocal tariff plans , and a smaller 3% decline in June as shippers started returning to the market when the administration began pausing its various tariff plans. The month-to-month volatility, though, masks more normal growth in the container trade and the likelihood of a down year. US import volumes year to date through July are up 5.4%, PIERS data shows. The second half of 2025 is not likely to match those numbers, according to the National Retail Federation. It forecasts a 5.6% decline in total container imports due to the uncertain effect tariffs will have on inflation, consumer spending and the overall US economy. China down, but not out After two consecutive months of 20% or higher declines, containerized imports from China, the biggest tariff target, rebounded in July, reaching 1.228 million TEUs, a 36% increase from June, according to PIERS. But July’s volume from China was still down 8% from a year earlier, likely reflecting the longer-term US sourcing shift away from that country. With countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia also receiving a reprieve from tariffs, imports from that region led July’s growth. Container imports from Southeast Asia saw a 24% year-over-year gain last month, reaching a record for any month, of 581,803 TEUs. July’s volume bested the previous record of 542,414 TEUs set just in June. Imports from countries in the Indian subcontinent also reached a record high last month. PIERS data for July shows container volumes from that region totaled 152,630 TEUs, a 21% gain from a year earlier. Imports from Southern Europe, meanwhile, rose 7% from a year earlier to 155,587 TEUs, while July’s imports from Northern Europe were essentially flat. LA, Houston volumes stand out As the first call for most container services from Asia, the Port of Los Angeles saw strong growth in July. Containerized import volumes there reached 542,940 TEUs, PIERS data shows, a 10% increase from a year earlier and the highest monthly total for the port since August 2024. Following similarly strong volumes in June, Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka said last month that he expects July may represent the year’s peak season due to the tariff-driven whipsaw in volumes. “Some importers are bringing in year-end holiday cargo now ahead of potential higher tariffs later in the year,” Seroka said in a statement. “July may be our peak season month as retailers and manufacturers bring orders in earlier than usual, then brace for trade uncertainty.” Among big US ports, Houston saw the strongest year-over-year import growth, with July volumes reaching 184,418 TEUs, representing an 18.5% gain from a year earlier. The jump was largely attributable to imports from Southeast Asia, which grew 63% from a year earlier, and China, which rose 9.8%. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Trans-Pacific

Whipsaw from Trump’s tariffs drove US container import record in July

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM26GW995 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">Less-than-truckload costs are up 7.3% year over year, according to the latest US data, but changes to the LTL classification system are adding little, if anything, to shipper rates. </div>

Less-than-truckload costs are up 7.3% year over year, according to the latest US data, but changes to the LTL classification system are adding little, if anything, to shipper rates.

<div class="phx-topic">Revisions to the US less-than-truckload (LTL) classification system that were expected to result in higher LTL costs have proven more of a damp squib than a high explosive. Almost a month after the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lack-of-accurate-data-a-threat-to-us-shippers-as-ltl-reclassification-nears-5990210">July 19 implementation</a> of the new National Motor Freight Classification (NMFC), shippers, carriers and logistics providers report little to no change in freight invoices. Carriers are reporting few complaints from customers, if any. LTL rates continue to rise, but little if any of that increase can be attributed to changes to the NMFC. The US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) — a measure of all-inclusive LTL costs — rose 1.7% from June to 265.45 in July, a 7.3% year-over-year gain, according to data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Thursday. LTL costs are now 15% higher than they were when the then third-largest provider Yellow collapsed in July 2023, according to the BLS PPI index, now at a record high. The fear was that the “reimagination” of the NMFC would push rates even higher. The changes to the NMFC shifted more than 2,000 products or commodities into classes determined by density alone, rather than other shipping characteristics. Although the NMFC does not set pricing, it helps determine how shipments are priced. In interviews over the past month, large shippers told the Journal of Commerce they either prepared for the revised NMFC ahead of time or that the revisions didn’t affect their freight or their business. Many used FAK (freight-all-kinds) pricing methods for LTL freight. That’s not what LTL executives expected from the biggest overhaul to the NMFC — a system of classifying commodities used to create LTL pricing structures — in its 90-year history. “Leading up to [the revisions], about two months prior, we got a lot of questions,” National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA) COO Joe Ohr told the Journal of Commerce. “But the level of preparation the industry did was amazing.” (The NMFTA oversees the NMFC).“We’re pleasantly surprised,” said Geoff Muessig, chief marketing officer at Pitt Ohio, a multi-regional LTL provider based in Pittsburgh. Pitt Ohio spent several months prepping its customers for classification changes, and Muessig expected some pricing shock. However, in the past month, “I have not seen any significant change in invoice amounts,” Muessig told the Journal of Commerce. “Customer acceptance [of the revisions] has been solid. We’ve had very few requests to make changes to price structures.” “We expected pricing adjustments, calls and complaints, but it’s been quiet for us, and many of the carriers we work with have said it’s been quite quiet,” said Mich Fabriga, vice president of LTL pricing for AFS Logistics, a third-party logistics provider. AFS Logistics handles freight bill auditing for shipper customers. Fabriga told the Journal of Commerce he has seen minor changes to billing caused by the NMFC revisions. “We’re not seeing the big uproar we were expecting” in the wake of NMFC revisions, he said. “It’s almost like a Y2K moment,” he added, referring to the much-predicted computer apocalypse that failed to materialize when 1999 ended and 2000 began. <h3>A muted marketplace </h3>There are several possible reasons why the impact of the NMFC revisions has been muted. One is that many shippers, especially large-volume shippers, did indeed prepare. “Many customers certainly did the research, they made the changes” needed to avoid price increases, said Muessig, namely providing their LTL carriers with accurate information on shipment dimensions and weight to determine density. “My take is the marketplace has absorbed the change,” he said. It’s also early in the data collection process, AFS’ Fabriga said. “It’s probably too early” to make definitive statements about the impact of the classification changes, he acknowledged. Larger shippers are also more likely to use FAK pricing embedded in their contracts to avoid relying on class-based rates, Muessig noted. The impact of the NMFC revisions may become more apparent as annual contracts come up for negotiation. FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fedex-freight-delays-enforcement-of-ltl-re-classification-6047284">delayed implementing the NMFC revisions</a> until Dec. 1, giving thousands of shippers a 150-day reprieve. FedEx Freight said shippers needed more time to get ready for the new classifications. But the rest of the LTL sector did not automatically follow suit. “In terms of the [NMFC] changes, look, we’re not backing down on the implementation,” Matthew Batteh, CFO at Saia, told Wall Street analysts during a July 25 earnings call. Saia runs 75% of its freight through equipment that captures shipment dimensions every day, Batteh said. “We sell space on our trailers, and this aligns more of the book to be density-based,” he said. “We’ve invested heavily in dimensioners for that exact reason.” <h3>Absorbing change </h3>Others have questioned whether LTL carriers would enforce changes that could raise rates in a soft LTL freight market. “Carriers aren’t being very strict about it,” said Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group, a transportation research firm. “Many carriers aren’t set up to capture dimensions and shippers aren’t set up to supply dimensions,” Jindel said. “They both are not letting go of the old system.” It’s also not clear that carriers have much to gain by pushing shippers — especially large customers that provide high volumes of freight in critical lanes. Smaller shippers with low LTL volumes and irregular shipping are most likely absorbing higher costs, but as they deal with increased costs related to higher US tariffs, the NMFC revisions may be the least of their worries. “When we say improve your packaging to improve density, that sounds like an easy ask, but it’s actually not,” Fabriga said. “You often simply can’t add or subtract product to adjust the size of your shipment,” he added. “The cost of offsetting the change can be higher than the revised rate itself.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto://bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Revisions to the US less-than-truckload (LTL) classification system that were expected to result in higher LTL costs have proven more of a damp squib than a high explosive. Almost a month after the July 19 implementation of the new National Motor Freight Classification (NMFC), shippers, carriers and logistics providers report little to no change in freight invoices. Carriers are reporting few complaints from customers, if any. LTL rates continue to rise, but little if any of that increase can be attributed to changes to the NMFC. The US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) — a measure of all-inclusive LTL costs — rose 1.7% from June to 265.45 in July, a 7.3% year-over-year gain, according to data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Thursday. LTL costs are now 15% higher than they were when the then third-largest provider Yellow collapsed in July 2023, according to the BLS PPI index, now at a record high. The fear was that the “reimagination” of the NMFC would push rates even higher. The changes to the NMFC shifted more than 2,000 products or commodities into classes determined by density alone, rather than other shipping characteristics. Although the NMFC does not set pricing, it helps determine how shipments are priced. In interviews over the past month, large shippers told the Journal of Commerce they either prepared for the revised NMFC ahead of time or that the revisions didn’t affect their freight or their business. Many used FAK (freight-all-kinds) pricing methods for LTL freight. That’s not what LTL executives expected from the biggest overhaul to the NMFC — a system of classifying commodities used to create LTL pricing structures — in its 90-year history. “Leading up to [the revisions], about two months prior, we got a lot of questions,” National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA) COO Joe Ohr told the Journal of Commerce. “But the level of preparation the industry did was amazing.” (The NMFTA oversees the NMFC). “We’re pleasantly surprised,” said Geoff Muessig, chief marketing officer at Pitt Ohio, a multi-regional LTL provider based in Pittsburgh. Pitt Ohio spent several months prepping its customers for classification changes, and Muessig expected some pricing shock. However, in the past month, “I have not seen any significant change in invoice amounts,” Muessig told the Journal of Commerce. “Customer acceptance [of the revisions] has been solid. We’ve had very few requests to make changes to price structures.” “We expected pricing adjustments, calls and complaints, but it’s been quiet for us, and many of the carriers we work with have said it’s been quite quiet,” said Mich Fabriga, vice president of LTL pricing for AFS Logistics, a third-party logistics provider. AFS Logistics handles freight bill auditing for shipper customers. Fabriga told the Journal of Commerce he has seen minor changes to billing caused by the NMFC revisions. “We’re not seeing the big uproar we were expecting” in the wake of NMFC revisions, he said. “It’s almost like a Y2K moment,” he added, referring to the much-predicted computer apocalypse that failed to materialize when 1999 ended and 2000 began. A muted marketplace There are several possible reasons why the impact of the NMFC revisions has been muted. One is that many shippers, especially large-volume shippers, did indeed prepare. “Many customers certainly did the research, they made the changes” needed to avoid price increases, said Muessig, namely providing their LTL carriers with accurate information on shipment dimensions and weight to determine density. “My take is the marketplace has absorbed the change,” he said. It’s also early in the data collection process, AFS’ Fabriga said. “It’s probably too early” to make definitive statements about the impact of the classification changes, he acknowledged. Larger shippers are also more likely to use FAK pricing embedded in their contracts to avoid relying on class-based rates, Muessig noted. The impact of the NMFC revisions may become more apparent as annual contracts come up for negotiation. FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider, delayed implementing the NMFC revisions until Dec. 1, giving thousands of shippers a 150-day reprieve. FedEx Freight said shippers needed more time to get ready for the new classifications. But the rest of the LTL sector did not automatically follow suit. “In terms of the [NMFC] changes, look, we’re not backing down on the implementation,” Matthew Batteh, CFO at Saia, told Wall Street analysts during a July 25 earnings call. Saia runs 75% of its freight through equipment that captures shipment dimensions every day, Batteh said. “We sell space on our trailers, and this aligns more of the book to be density-based,” he said. “We’ve invested heavily in dimensioners for that exact reason.” Absorbing change Others have questioned whether LTL carriers would enforce changes that could raise rates in a soft LTL freight market. “Carriers aren’t being very strict about it,” said Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group, a transportation research firm. “Many carriers aren’t set up to capture dimensions and shippers aren’t set up to supply dimensions,” Jindel said. “They both are not letting go of the old system.” It’s also not clear that carriers have much to gain by pushing shippers — especially large customers that provide high volumes of freight in critical lanes. Smaller shippers with low LTL volumes and irregular shipping are most likely absorbing higher costs, but as they deal with increased costs related to higher US tariffs, the NMFC revisions may be the least of their worries. “When we say improve your packaging to improve density, that sounds like an easy ask, but it’s actually not,” Fabriga said. “You often simply can’t add or subtract product to adjust the size of your shipment,” he added. “The cost of offsetting the change can be higher than the revised rate itself.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

US LTL rates still rising after muted response to shipment reclassification

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Traditional retailers in the US are scaling back their space requirements, according to an annual report, as the volatility over tariffs trickles down to the industrial real estate market.</div>

Traditional retailers in the US are scaling back their space requirements, according to an annual report, as the volatility over tariffs trickles down to the industrial real estate market.

<div class="phx-topic">US tariff uncertainty is holding back retailers from taking a larger warehousing footprint, fueling demand for domestic manufacturing facilities and giving third-party logistics companies (3PLs) a larger share of the available pipeline of industrial space, according to JLL’s annual Industrial Tenant Demand Study. Traditional retailers in the US have scaled back their industrial space requirements by 16.7% year over year, according to data collected by JLL during the first half of 2025. In contrast, 3PLs expanded their footprint by 12.8% in the same period. Still, overall demand is down almost 11%, marking the third year in a row with demand reductions. “[3PLs are] looking for incremental space,” Daniel Stephen Letter, president and director of Prologis, the largest US industrial real estate firm as measured by square footage, said during a July 16 earnings call. “We’re seeing this mostly from the larger 3PLs, many of them are unphased by all the noise in the macro picture.” Additionally, the average warehouse vacancy rate in the US rose to 7.1% in the second quarter — the highest level in over a decade and up one percentage point from the second quarter of 2024, commercial real estate services firm Cushman &amp; Wakefield said in its second-quarter industrial real estate report. Meanwhile, JLL said first-half demand for warehousing and distribution was down 14.6% compared with a year ago. JLL said the juxtaposition of the two trends signals retailers are becoming more cautious as logistics providers prepare for potential supply chain disruptions. Prologis said 3PLs accounted for about one-third of the company’s leasing in the second quarter. <h3>Significant 3PL growth </h3>In a sign of their growth, the number of 3PLs occupying the top 100 largest US industrial real estate leases rose in the first quarter of 2025, with 38 3PLs managing 28.9 million square feet — a 35% increase in square footage from the first quarter of 2024, when 28 3PLS controlled 20.6 million square feet. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/multiplying-supply-chain-risks-drive-growth-for-global-us-based-logistics-firms-6026573">Amazon tops the annual revenue rankings</a> of both domestic and global 3PLs by logistics research firm Armstrong &amp; Associates, with $156.2 billion in 3PL-related revenue. Meanwhile, DHL Supply Chain &amp; Global Forwarding came in second in the global 3PL rankings, followed by Kuehne + Nagel. The Armstrong report said risk created by trade uncertainty and other geopolitical conflicts <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/multiplying-supply-chain-risks-drive-growth-for-global-us-based-logistics-firms-6026573">will help push global gross 3PL revenue up</a> another 2.7% in 2025 to $1.25 trillion. That revenue should grow again by 4.9% in 2026 to $1.3 trillion, it said. Amid the growth, 3PLs accounted for 13% of build-to-suit projects in 2025 in data JLL collected during the first half of 2025 — the largest share of any industry, JLL said. According to Prologis CFO Timothy D. Arndt, build-to-suit starts for the first half of 2025 totaled $1.1 billion — the largest start to a year that the company has ever had. “In terms of capital deployment, we started over $900 million in new development starts — nearly 65% of which was build-to-suit activity across seven additional projects in both U.S. and Europe,” Arndt said on Prologis’ earnings call. “Beyond this activity, we have signed for an additional three build-to-suits post quarter end.” <h3>Hesitant to commit </h3>Overall, importers are seeking more agile leasing options. Lessees are shifting toward short-term renewals and away from long-term commitments “as they evaluate how evolving global supply chain strategies might impact their space requirements,” JLL wrote in its report. Meanwhile, industrial lessees are slower to move lately, said JLL, with potential lessees staying on the market for an average of 11 months — up almost 70% compared with 6.5 months observed in the fourth quarter of last year. By 2026, JLL projects that figure to reach 14 months. “At the fundamental level, immediate tariff effects have resulted in a pause of deals and decision deferment among occupiers,” said JLL. As tariffs dampen leasing decisions, manufacturing is still showing signs of momentum, with leasing demand up 9% year over year in data collected by JLL during the first half of 2025. The firm noted the shift to manufacturing continues to be a long-term pattern, with those investments taking as long as five years to come to fruition in some cases, said JLL. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

US tariff uncertainty is holding back retailers from taking a larger warehousing footprint, fueling demand for domestic manufacturing facilities and giving third-party logistics companies (3PLs) a larger share of the available pipeline of industrial space, according to JLL’s annual Industrial Tenant Demand Study. Traditional retailers in the US have scaled back their industrial space requirements by 16.7% year over year, according to data collected by JLL during the first half of 2025. In contrast, 3PLs expanded their footprint by 12.8% in the same period. Still, overall demand is down almost 11%, marking the third year in a row with demand reductions. “[3PLs are] looking for incremental space,” Daniel Stephen Letter, president and director of Prologis, the largest US industrial real estate firm as measured by square footage, said during a July 16 earnings call. “We’re seeing this mostly from the larger 3PLs, many of them are unphased by all the noise in the macro picture.” Additionally, the average warehouse vacancy rate in the US rose to 7.1% in the second quarter — the highest level in over a decade and up one percentage point from the second quarter of 2024, commercial real estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield said in its second-quarter industrial real estate report. Meanwhile, JLL said first-half demand for warehousing and distribution was down 14.6% compared with a year ago. JLL said the juxtaposition of the two trends signals retailers are becoming more cautious as logistics providers prepare for potential supply chain disruptions. Prologis said 3PLs accounted for about one-third of the company’s leasing in the second quarter. Significant 3PL growth In a sign of their growth, the number of 3PLs occupying the top 100 largest US industrial real estate leases rose in the first quarter of 2025, with 38 3PLs managing 28.9 million square feet — a 35% increase in square footage from the first quarter of 2024, when 28 3PLS controlled 20.6 million square feet. Amazon tops the annual revenue rankings of both domestic and global 3PLs by logistics research firm Armstrong & Associates, with $156.2 billion in 3PL-related revenue. Meanwhile, DHL Supply Chain & Global Forwarding came in second in the global 3PL rankings, followed by Kuehne + Nagel. The Armstrong report said risk created by trade uncertainty and other geopolitical conflicts will help push global gross 3PL revenue up another 2.7% in 2025 to $1.25 trillion. That revenue should grow again by 4.9% in 2026 to $1.3 trillion, it said. Amid the growth, 3PLs accounted for 13% of build-to-suit projects in 2025 in data JLL collected during the first half of 2025 — the largest share of any industry, JLL said. According to Prologis CFO Timothy D. Arndt, build-to-suit starts for the first half of 2025 totaled $1.1 billion — the largest start to a year that the company has ever had. “In terms of capital deployment, we started over $900 million in new development starts — nearly 65% of which was build-to-suit activity across seven additional projects in both U.S. and Europe,” Arndt said on Prologis’ earnings call. “Beyond this activity, we have signed for an additional three build-to-suits post quarter end.” Hesitant to commit Overall, importers are seeking more agile leasing options. Lessees are shifting toward short-term renewals and away from long-term commitments “as they evaluate how evolving global supply chain strategies might impact their space requirements,” JLL wrote in its report. Meanwhile, industrial lessees are slower to move lately, said JLL, with potential lessees staying on the market for an average of 11 months — up almost 70% compared with 6.5 months observed in the fourth quarter of last year. By 2026, JLL projects that figure to reach 14 months. “At the fundamental level, immediate tariff effects have resulted in a pause of deals and decision deferment among occupiers,” said JLL. As tariffs dampen leasing decisions, manufacturing is still showing signs of momentum, with leasing demand up 9% year over year in data collected by JLL during the first half of 2025. The firm noted the shift to manufacturing continues to be a long-term pattern, with those investments taking as long as five years to come to fruition in some cases, said JLL. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Industrial Real Estate News

Retailers cut back on warehouse space as supply chain hurdles fuel 3PL growth

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The reasons for the increase are largely tariff-related, sources say, as market participants adjust to the possibility of permanently higher tariff levels imposed by the Trump administration.</div>

The reasons for the increase are largely tariff-related, sources say, as market participants adjust to the possibility of permanently higher tariff levels imposed by the Trump administration.

<div class="phx-topic">(Adds comment from Maersk’s Aug. 7 earnings call). Growing volumes of trans-Pacific eastbound spot cargo are being controlled at origin countries such as China as the impact of US tariffs bores deeply into shipping practices, sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The reasons for a noticeable increase in origin-controlled container trade are largely tariff-related, sources said, as parties to trade transactions adjust to possibly permanently higher tariff levels imposed by the Trump Administration. Origin-controlled cargo means the purchasing of ocean transportation is done by parties in exporting countries such as China, for example, rather than in the US. “At Toll Group, we are observing a slight upward trend in origin-controlled cargo,” said Marc Meier, Toll’s global head of ocean freight. “This trend appears to be influenced by factors such as the current supply and demand situation, where supply is notably higher than demand, as well as ongoing tariff discussions.” Meier said Toll’s origin-controlled cargo is now about 35% of its total cargo compared with 20% a few years ago. “We believe going forward, it might be 40-45%,” he said. Others see the trend also. “I have noticed a significant shift in the traditional mix of our smaller volume shippers where there is more Asia controlled/nominated shipments as a percent of our overall weekly bookings … this has been going on for the last five to six months,” said Kurt McElroy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex. McElroy said the shift could be due to “smaller importers choosing to buy DDP [delivery duty paid] and leaving the duty uncertainty to the shipper.” “Volatile freight rates could also be a contributing factor in small importers’ decisions to have terms of sale [DDP or cost-insurance-freight], instead of typical [free-on-board] terms of sale,” he said. Under DDP terms, the seller bears all shipping and customs costs until it delivers the goods to the buyer, having cleared customs as the named place of destination. Another possible reason for growth in origin-controlled spot cargo is the growing ease of booking using online tools from carriers such as Maersk, Hapag Lloyd and CMA-CGM, who sources say are allocating greater amounts of their vessel space to online channels. McElroy said the volatile market could also be prompting large US retailers to seek DDP terms from their suppliers versus receiving such goods at origin and shipping them under their own contracts. “Big box retailers like Walmart, when ocean rates are not as volatile, will want to purchase FOB from their smaller suppliers and move under their own contract,” McElroy said. “Yet, when rates get volatile … on the upswing, and space tightens, along with duty uncertainty, Walmart will choose to have small suppliers ship to Walmart distribution centers CIF and not allow price increases. They have such leverage with smaller suppliers to accept these kind of terms.” <h3>Contract market shifting from US control? </h3> Few are seeing the contract market shift from US control, but some see it coming. “In the trans-Pacific trade, there has been a view that importers of goods into the USA were the major buyers of freight as they purchased goods from manufacturers in Asia FOB and controlled the import supply chain into the USA,” said Lian Hoon Lim, Singapore-based partner and managing director of Alix Partners, which has a long history in ocean freight. “So carriers naturally gave priority to marketing and selling freight to the ‘FOB buyer’ over the exporter in Asia who was labelled the ‘CIF buyer,’” he added. “Ten to 15 years ago that was very true for pretty much everything that came out of China, and that you could price up somewhat for FOB cargo vs. CIF.” But as Chinese companies emerge as sellers of goods under their own brand names, the ocean freight landscape will begin to change. “If you look at South Korea and Japan, as their exporting companies became big enough and more adventurous and spread their wings overseas, they established sales units in the US and Europe,” Lim said. “So instead of exporting their goods to third-party distributors, they sold to their own sales companies in the US and Europe. At that point the FOB vs. CIF issue becomes moot, because the control of the freight passes over to those companies and if their [headquarters] are in Japan or Korea or China, they are more likely to buy freight there versus at destination. “I can easily imagine that at some point in time, companies like Huawei saying we have a sales company in the US or Europe and that we should take control of long-distance shipments ourselves, and when that happens you can easily see the freight buying shifting from destination to origin,” Lim added. This is starting to happen.“Now we’re seeing a different phase…China gaining market share on the world stage, not by producing stuff for Western companies, but by having its own companies going global,” AP Moller-Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-brand-expansion-changing-fabric-of-global-trade-clerc-6059345">on an earnings call on Aug. 7</a>, pointing to electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, chemicals, mobile phones and electronics, with ocean freight controlled in China in most or all of those cases.Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

(Adds comment from Maersk’s Aug. 7 earnings call). Growing volumes of trans-Pacific eastbound spot cargo are being controlled at origin countries such as China as the impact of US tariffs bores deeply into shipping practices, sources tell the Journal of Commerce. The reasons for a noticeable increase in origin-controlled container trade are largely tariff-related, sources said, as parties to trade transactions adjust to possibly permanently higher tariff levels imposed by the Trump Administration. Origin-controlled cargo means the purchasing of ocean transportation is done by parties in exporting countries such as China, for example, rather than in the US. “At Toll Group, we are observing a slight upward trend in origin-controlled cargo,” said Marc Meier, Toll’s global head of ocean freight. “This trend appears to be influenced by factors such as the current supply and demand situation, where supply is notably higher than demand, as well as ongoing tariff discussions.” Meier said Toll’s origin-controlled cargo is now about 35% of its total cargo compared with 20% a few years ago. “We believe going forward, it might be 40-45%,” he said. Others see the trend also. “I have noticed a significant shift in the traditional mix of our smaller volume shippers where there is more Asia controlled/nominated shipments as a percent of our overall weekly bookings … this has been going on for the last five to six months,” said Kurt McElroy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex. McElroy said the shift could be due to “smaller importers choosing to buy DDP [delivery duty paid] and leaving the duty uncertainty to the shipper.” “Volatile freight rates could also be a contributing factor in small importers’ decisions to have terms of sale [DDP or cost-insurance-freight], instead of typical [free-on-board] terms of sale,” he said. Under DDP terms, the seller bears all shipping and customs costs until it delivers the goods to the buyer, having cleared customs as the named place of destination. Another possible reason for growth in origin-controlled spot cargo is the growing ease of booking using online tools from carriers such as Maersk, Hapag Lloyd and CMA-CGM, who sources say are allocating greater amounts of their vessel space to online channels. McElroy said the volatile market could also be prompting large US retailers to seek DDP terms from their suppliers versus receiving such goods at origin and shipping them under their own contracts. “Big box retailers like Walmart, when ocean rates are not as volatile, will want to purchase FOB from their smaller suppliers and move under their own contract,” McElroy said. “Yet, when rates get volatile … on the upswing, and space tightens, along with duty uncertainty, Walmart will choose to have small suppliers ship to Walmart distribution centers CIF and not allow price increases. They have such leverage with smaller suppliers to accept these kind of terms.” Contract market shifting from US control? Few are seeing the contract market shift from US control, but some see it coming. “In the trans-Pacific trade, there has been a view that importers of goods into the USA were the major buyers of freight as they purchased goods from manufacturers in Asia FOB and controlled the import supply chain into the USA,” said Lian Hoon Lim, Singapore-based partner and managing director of Alix Partners, which has a long history in ocean freight. “So carriers naturally gave priority to marketing and selling freight to the ‘FOB buyer’ over the exporter in Asia who was labelled the ‘CIF buyer,’” he added. “Ten to 15 years ago that was very true for pretty much everything that came out of China, and that you could price up somewhat for FOB cargo vs. CIF.” But as Chinese companies emerge as sellers of goods under their own brand names, the ocean freight landscape will begin to change. “If you look at South Korea and Japan, as their exporting companies became big enough and more adventurous and spread their wings overseas, they established sales units in the US and Europe,” Lim said. “So instead of exporting their goods to third-party distributors, they sold to their own sales companies in the US and Europe. At that point the FOB vs. CIF issue becomes moot, because the control of the freight passes over to those companies and if their [headquarters] are in Japan or Korea or China, they are more likely to buy freight there versus at destination. “I can easily imagine that at some point in time, companies like Huawei saying we have a sales company in the US or Europe and that we should take control of long-distance shipments ourselves, and when that happens you can easily see the freight buying shifting from destination to origin,” Lim added. This is starting to happen. “Now we’re seeing a different phase…China gaining market share on the world stage, not by producing stuff for Western companies, but by having its own companies going global,” AP Moller-Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said on an earnings call on Aug. 7 , pointing to electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, chemicals, mobile phones and electronics, with ocean freight controlled in China in most or all of those cases. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Truckstop.com acquires truckload factoring service Denim

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Asia-Europe ocean rates edging down despite ‘robust’ bookings

High cost of Gemini transition drags on Hapag-Lloyd’s H1 result

Whipsaw from Trump’s tariffs drove US container import record in July

Recent Commentary

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Top 5 Most Read Stories