Website_BFB_640x340 Anon 1.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Anonymous

Supply chain

Events

Gateway

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Special Reports

Press Releases

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

Truckload

Truck brokers

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

Intermodal providers

Commentary

Podcasts

Webcasts

Videos

Annual Review and Outlook

Top Rankings

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Platts Containers Update

Custom Content

Resources

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Media Kit

Other

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

International rail

Top 100 US Exporters

Top 100 US Importers

Top 25 LTL Trucking Companies

Top 25 North American Ports

Top 25 Truckload Companies

Top 40 Container Carriers

Top 50 3PLs

Top 50 Global Container Ports

Top 50 Global Transportation Providers

Top 50 Trucking Companies

Editorial Calendar

Rail Directories

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The French carrier plans to enter the long-crimped trade lane via subsidiary brand CNC Line, with a targeted launch in January, market sources say.</div>

The French carrier plans to enter the long-crimped trade lane via subsidiary brand CNC Line, with a targeted launch in January, market sources say.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM is in the final stages of laying out the operational framework to begin accepting container bookings from India to Russia as carriers search for incremental cargo opportunities to lift revenue and profitability amid multiple market challenges. The French carrier plans to enter the long-crimped trade lane via subsidiary brand CNC Line, with a targeted launch in January, market sources say. The strategy behind operating on a group arm bill of lading system instead of CMA CGM’s own contract of carriage/instrument is to limit potential operational and compliance risks from ongoing Western sanctions against Russia due to Moscow’s almost four-year-long war against Ukraine, sources believe. Founded in 1971, Singapore-headquartered CNC (formerly Cheng Lie Navigation Company) – a predominant intra-Asia operator – was acquired by CMA CGM in 2007. CMA CGM declined to comment on the matter when contacted by the Journal of Commerce. <h3>Transshipment options </h3>Current indications are that space will be allocated on CMA CGM’s India-Europe “Epic” service for Russian loading out of Nhava Sheva and Mundra with likely transshipment options over Hamburg. To that end, the carrier is said to be considering expanding its Finland Express (FLX) service with a new call to St. Petersburg, Russia’s main gateway port. The Baltic feeder now rotates Bremerhaven, Hamburg, Rauma, Tallinn, Kotka, Helsinki and Bremerhaven, available data shows. Mediterranean Shipping Co. is the only mainline carrier that has continued to provide coverage for Indian shipments to Russia on the back of multiple feeder networks between North Europe and Russia, including the Baltic Loop 02 that shuttles between Antwerp, Klaipeda, Kotka and St. Petersburg. Corten Shipping is one emerging secondary carrier on the India-Russia trade lane, offering two fortnightly direct connections out of Nhava Sheva/Kandla with three 1,500-TEU ships that boast transit times of 25 days to St. Petersburg and 18 days to Novorossiysk. Considering the typical limitations of sanctioned trades, pharmaceutical products as well as food and agricultural items are generally shipped to Russia, although some construction materials, mainly tiles, are also carried by ad-hoc vessel operators. Anecdotal industry data puts India-Russia container volumes at 8,000 TEUs a week. The freight yield is admittedly lucrative for capacity participants -- pegged at $3,000 per TEU and $4,000 per FEU for dry cargo and $9,000 per FEU for reefer loads from Nhava Sheva to St. Petersburg. As US tariff-stricken Indian exporters and policy makers seek trade diversification, Russian volume gains are one option on the table. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com.</a></div>

CMA CGM is in the final stages of laying out the operational framework to begin accepting container bookings from India to Russia as carriers search for incremental cargo opportunities to lift revenue and profitability amid multiple market challenges. The French carrier plans to enter the long-crimped trade lane via subsidiary brand CNC Line, with a targeted launch in January, market sources say. The strategy behind operating on a group arm bill of lading system instead of CMA CGM’s own contract of carriage/instrument is to limit potential operational and compliance risks from ongoing Western sanctions against Russia due to Moscow’s almost four-year-long war against Ukraine, sources believe. Founded in 1971, Singapore-headquartered CNC (formerly Cheng Lie Navigation Company) – a predominant intra-Asia operator – was acquired by CMA CGM in 2007. CMA CGM declined to comment on the matter when contacted by the Journal of Commerce. Transshipment options Current indications are that space will be allocated on CMA CGM’s India-Europe “Epic” service for Russian loading out of Nhava Sheva and Mundra with likely transshipment options over Hamburg. To that end, the carrier is said to be considering expanding its Finland Express (FLX) service with a new call to St. Petersburg, Russia’s main gateway port. The Baltic feeder now rotates Bremerhaven, Hamburg, Rauma, Tallinn, Kotka, Helsinki and Bremerhaven, available data shows. Mediterranean Shipping Co. is the only mainline carrier that has continued to provide coverage for Indian shipments to Russia on the back of multiple feeder networks between North Europe and Russia, including the Baltic Loop 02 that shuttles between Antwerp, Klaipeda, Kotka and St. Petersburg. Corten Shipping is one emerging secondary carrier on the India-Russia trade lane, offering two fortnightly direct connections out of Nhava Sheva/Kandla with three 1,500-TEU ships that boast transit times of 25 days to St. Petersburg and 18 days to Novorossiysk. Considering the typical limitations of sanctioned trades, pharmaceutical products as well as food and agricultural items are generally shipped to Russia, although some construction materials, mainly tiles, are also carried by ad-hoc vessel operators. Anecdotal industry data puts India-Russia container volumes at 8,000 TEUs a week. The freight yield is admittedly lucrative for capacity participants -- pegged at $3,000 per TEU and $4,000 per FEU for dry cargo and $9,000 per FEU for reefer loads from Nhava Sheva to St. Petersburg. As US tariff-stricken Indian exporters and policy makers seek trade diversification, Russian volume gains are one option on the table. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com.

CMA CGM poised to venture into India-Russia trade despite war sanctions

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But many of the initiatives remain stalled by a "feasibility wall" created by the wide cost gap between conventional and zero-emission fuels, according to a new report. </div>

But many of the initiatives remain stalled by a "feasibility wall" created by the wide cost gap between conventional and zero-emission fuels, according to a new report.

<div class="phx-topic">China, India and Brazil are among developing nations setting up a host of new green shipping corridors despite the regulatory uncertainty surrounding investment in alternative fuels following the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) decision in October to postpone its net-zero framework for a year. There have been 25 new green corridors launched so far this year, bringing the total to 84 active corridors worldwide, with major developing economies launching the initiatives for the first time, according to a new progress report published Thursday by the Getting to Zero Coalition and the Global Maritime Forum. “The move of major countries like China, India, and Brazil into green corridors is hugely promising, as these are markets that will determine whether zero-emission shipping scales fast enough to meet global climate goals,” Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, said in a statement accompanying the report. At a Crossroads: Annual Progress Report on Green Shipping Corridors 2025 identified the new initiatives that have seen an expansion in both numbers and in geographic scope. “But even more importantly, we’re seeing recognition from these countries that green corridors are more than just environmental projects – they are strategic economic infrastructure,” Fahnestock added. “Countries that move early stand to gain competitive industrial and geopolitical advantages across energy, trade, and technology.” Green shipping corridors are trade routes designed to demonstrate and drive scale in zero-emission fuels, vessels and technologies. Along with China, India and Brazil are Chile, Ghana and Kenya that are targeting economic opportunities through the development of zero-emission marine fuels and bunkering capabilities in these regions. <h3>Stalled by ‘feasibility wall’ </h3>The report, however, cautions that many of the 84 initiatives remain stalled by a "feasibility wall" created by the wide cost gap between conventional and zero-emission fuels. Lack of action at the government level is the main bottleneck facing green corridor projects, a challenge that the delayed IMO net-zero framework has only intensified. The IMO’s net-zero framework <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">was derailed by US-led opposition</a> during a combative October meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London and postponed for one year. But the Global Maritime Forum report warns that industry and governments should not surrender the next year to a "wait-and-see" approach as the IMO tries to build support for the framework among member nations. Instead, it says corridors should make use of emerging policies and programs from national governments, such as the EU’s Global Gateway initiative and H2Global and Australia’s Hydrogen Headstart program – something that would unlock progress ahead of a global framework and put participants among the frontrunners to benefit from future IMO incentives. Fahnestock maintained a positive outlook on the regulatory delay, noting that 11 months remain until the IMO regulation once again comes up for renewal at MEPC. “That time can either be spent waiting or used to build projects that create strategic economic advantages, generate learnings that can influence the IMO’s reward mechanism, and put participants first in line for future global rewards,” he said. “Those who act now will be best positioned to benefit when regulation catches up,” he added. Among the recommendations in the annual report were for the shipping industry to “pursue strategies and break inertia” to ensure corridors were advanced enough to qualify for first mover rewards once they become available and to “capitalize on opportunities to shape IMO policy.” The report also advised the shipping industry to better engage with ambitious decarbonization goals that could help scale solutions, particularly with cargo owners who may be more willing to pay a premium for cleaner fuels. <h3>Carbon emissions stage recovery </h3>One of the largest of the green corridor projects connects the hubs of Rotterdam and Singapore, and even though forced diversions around southern Africa created longer voyages, carbon emissions in container shipping was showing signs of recovery. The Xeneta and Marine Benchmark Carbon Emissions Index (CEI), which measures carbon emissions across Xeneta’s top 13 global container shipping trades, fell below 100 points for the first time in 12 months to stand at 97.4 points in the second quarter. The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/singapore-rotterdam-ports-commit-to-green-corridor-deal-5242711">Rotterdam-Singapore Green and Digital Shipping Corridor</a> aims to reduce emissions from large container vessels on the 15,000-km route by at least 20% by 2030 by enabling the use of low- and zero-carbon shipping fuels. It is a project with 25 partners operating more than 90 large container vessels on the route with a combined transport capacity of 1.5 million TEUs per year. The concept of green corridors was established in November 2021 as a critical way to scale new sustainable fuels and technologies. They are regarded as being central to delivering the goal of having zero-emission fuels account for 5% of all fuels by 2030, a target considered to be the threshold at which the infrastructure, supply chains and technologies that support zero-emission fuels are mature enough to enable exponential growth. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

China, India and Brazil are among developing nations setting up a host of new green shipping corridors despite the regulatory uncertainty surrounding investment in alternative fuels following the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) decision in October to postpone its net-zero framework for a year. There have been 25 new green corridors launched so far this year, bringing the total to 84 active corridors worldwide, with major developing economies launching the initiatives for the first time, according to a new progress report published Thursday by the Getting to Zero Coalition and the Global Maritime Forum. “The move of major countries like China, India, and Brazil into green corridors is hugely promising, as these are markets that will determine whether zero-emission shipping scales fast enough to meet global climate goals,” Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, said in a statement accompanying the report. At a Crossroads: Annual Progress Report on Green Shipping Corridors 2025 identified the new initiatives that have seen an expansion in both numbers and in geographic scope. “But even more importantly, we’re seeing recognition from these countries that green corridors are more than just environmental projects – they are strategic economic infrastructure,” Fahnestock added. “Countries that move early stand to gain competitive industrial and geopolitical advantages across energy, trade, and technology.” Green shipping corridors are trade routes designed to demonstrate and drive scale in zero-emission fuels, vessels and technologies. Along with China, India and Brazil are Chile, Ghana and Kenya that are targeting economic opportunities through the development of zero-emission marine fuels and bunkering capabilities in these regions. Stalled by ‘feasibility wall’ The report, however, cautions that many of the 84 initiatives remain stalled by a "feasibility wall" created by the wide cost gap between conventional and zero-emission fuels. Lack of action at the government level is the main bottleneck facing green corridor projects, a challenge that the delayed IMO net-zero framework has only intensified. The IMO’s net-zero framework was derailed by US-led opposition during a combative October meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London and postponed for one year. But the Global Maritime Forum report warns that industry and governments should not surrender the next year to a "wait-and-see" approach as the IMO tries to build support for the framework among member nations. Instead, it says corridors should make use of emerging policies and programs from national governments, such as the EU’s Global Gateway initiative and H2Global and Australia’s Hydrogen Headstart program – something that would unlock progress ahead of a global framework and put participants among the frontrunners to benefit from future IMO incentives. Fahnestock maintained a positive outlook on the regulatory delay, noting that 11 months remain until the IMO regulation once again comes up for renewal at MEPC. “That time can either be spent waiting or used to build projects that create strategic economic advantages, generate learnings that can influence the IMO’s reward mechanism, and put participants first in line for future global rewards,” he said. “Those who act now will be best positioned to benefit when regulation catches up,” he added. Among the recommendations in the annual report were for the shipping industry to “pursue strategies and break inertia” to ensure corridors were advanced enough to qualify for first mover rewards once they become available and to “capitalize on opportunities to shape IMO policy.” The report also advised the shipping industry to better engage with ambitious decarbonization goals that could help scale solutions, particularly with cargo owners who may be more willing to pay a premium for cleaner fuels. Carbon emissions stage recovery One of the largest of the green corridor projects connects the hubs of Rotterdam and Singapore, and even though forced diversions around southern Africa created longer voyages, carbon emissions in container shipping was showing signs of recovery. The Xeneta and Marine Benchmark Carbon Emissions Index (CEI), which measures carbon emissions across Xeneta’s top 13 global container shipping trades, fell below 100 points for the first time in 12 months to stand at 97.4 points in the second quarter. The Rotterdam-Singapore Green and Digital Shipping Corridor aims to reduce emissions from large container vessels on the 15,000-km route by at least 20% by 2030 by enabling the use of low- and zero-carbon shipping fuels. It is a project with 25 partners operating more than 90 large container vessels on the route with a combined transport capacity of 1.5 million TEUs per year. The concept of green corridors was established in November 2021 as a critical way to scale new sustainable fuels and technologies. They are regarded as being central to delivering the goal of having zero-emission fuels account for 5% of all fuels by 2030, a target considered to be the threshold at which the infrastructure, supply chains and technologies that support zero-emission fuels are mature enough to enable exponential growth. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Series of new green shipping corridors emerge despite IMO regulatory setback

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Rates on ocean services between China and Southeast Asia are at multi-month highs following a midyear peak driven by frontloading prior to the implementation of reciprocal tariffs between the US and China. </div>

Rates on ocean services between China and Southeast Asia are at multi-month highs following a midyear peak driven by frontloading prior to the implementation of reciprocal tariffs between the US and China.

<div class="phx-topic">Intra-Asia freight rates are expected to continue to climb on increasingly tighter capacity through January due to an extended peak season ahead of the Lunar New Year in mid-February, shipping executives say. Freight rates on ocean services between China and Southeast Asia are already at multi-month highs following a midyear peak driven by frontloading prior to the implementation of reciprocal tariffs between the US and China, which have since been paused. “Carriers are announcing general rate increases on a bi-weekly basis and they are always successful,” a spokesperson at FIBS Logistics in Singapore told the Journal of Commerce. “The GRI quantum is around $50 to $150 per TEU, although it varies for different trades. “We’re in the peak season now and space is getting tight,” the spokesperson added. The buoyant freight conditions are expected to continue into January to take into account Lunar New Year, which starts on Feb. 17. “Normally factories in China close two weeks in advance to allow migrant workers to return home, so January will be the pre-Lunar New Year rush,” the FIBS spokesperson said. Spot rates from Shanghai to Singapore hit $540 per TEU last Friday, the highest since Jan. 10, according to data from the Shanghai Shipping Exchange (SSE) published on the Journal of Commerce’s Gateway platform. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e625a345-3874-4ee2-855c-c9835148f3e9"></dynamic-object></div>“During November, rates have known only one direction — up,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Data from Xeneta mirrored that from the SSE, with rates for a 40-foot container from Shanghai to Singapore climbing to $1,110 on Tuesday, the highest since June 1. Similarly, rates from Shanghai to Bangkok reached $1,431/FEU on Tuesday, the highest since Aug. 1, while rates from Shanghai to Ho Chi Minh City are now at $1,045/FEU, a level last seen on July 31. “While you always expect intra-Asia rates to increase in November on account of the region’s peak season, we think this year will be unusual because it will last longer due to next year’s Lunar New Year being later than usual,” a senior executive at a Hong Kong-based freight forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. “In effect, this year’s pre-Christmas peak will segue into the new year’s pre-Lunar holiday peak,” the executive added. <h3>Chinese customs data shows ASEAN trade growth </h3>That comes as recent China customs data has shown an increase in trade between China and Southeast Asia, with northeast Asian countries, including South Korea and Japan, slipping in importance as export destinations. Customs data shows year-over-year Chinese exports to Southeast Asia’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region grew by $61 billion between February and September, while exports to Northeast Asia increased $41 billion. By comparison, exports to the US fell $70 billion in the same eight-month period due to tariff wrangles. British advisory firm Oxford Economics said the figures showed ASEAN was among the regions that now account for a “steadily rising share of China’s outbound shipments, offsetting softness in developed markets in the US and Northeast Asia.” Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Intra-Asia freight rates are expected to continue to climb on increasingly tighter capacity through January due to an extended peak season ahead of the Lunar New Year in mid-February, shipping executives say. Freight rates on ocean services between China and Southeast Asia are already at multi-month highs following a midyear peak driven by frontloading prior to the implementation of reciprocal tariffs between the US and China, which have since been paused. “Carriers are announcing general rate increases on a bi-weekly basis and they are always successful,” a spokesperson at FIBS Logistics in Singapore told the Journal of Commerce. “The GRI quantum is around $50 to $150 per TEU, although it varies for different trades. “We’re in the peak season now and space is getting tight,” the spokesperson added. The buoyant freight conditions are expected to continue into January to take into account Lunar New Year, which starts on Feb. 17. “Normally factories in China close two weeks in advance to allow migrant workers to return home, so January will be the pre-Lunar New Year rush,” the FIBS spokesperson said. Spot rates from Shanghai to Singapore hit $540 per TEU last Friday, the highest since Jan. 10, according to data from the Shanghai Shipping Exchange (SSE) published on the Journal of Commerce’s Gateway platform. “During November, rates have known only one direction — up,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at online rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Data from Xeneta mirrored that from the SSE, with rates for a 40-foot container from Shanghai to Singapore climbing to $1,110 on Tuesday, the highest since June 1. Similarly, rates from Shanghai to Bangkok reached $1,431/FEU on Tuesday, the highest since Aug. 1, while rates from Shanghai to Ho Chi Minh City are now at $1,045/FEU, a level last seen on July 31. “While you always expect intra-Asia rates to increase in November on account of the region’s peak season, we think this year will be unusual because it will last longer due to next year’s Lunar New Year being later than usual,” a senior executive at a Hong Kong-based freight forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. “In effect, this year’s pre-Christmas peak will segue into the new year’s pre-Lunar holiday peak,” the executive added. Chinese customs data shows ASEAN trade growth That comes as recent China customs data has shown an increase in trade between China and Southeast Asia, with northeast Asian countries, including South Korea and Japan, slipping in importance as export destinations. Customs data shows year-over-year Chinese exports to Southeast Asia’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region grew by $61 billion between February and September, while exports to Northeast Asia increased $41 billion. By comparison, exports to the US fell $70 billion in the same eight-month period due to tariff wrangles. British advisory firm Oxford Economics said the figures showed ASEAN was among the regions that now account for a “steadily rising share of China’s outbound shipments, offsetting softness in developed markets in the US and Northeast Asia.” Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Tight capacity expected to keep intra-Asia freight rates aloft through January

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The DP World-owned subsidiary provides services across Europe, Africa and Asia, and its involvement with the DCSA+ partnership program will enable it to work with container lines, technology providers and terminals to advance standardized data exchange. </div>

The DP World-owned subsidiary provides services across Europe, Africa and Asia, and its involvement with the DCSA+ partnership program will enable it to work with container lines, technology providers and terminals to advance standardized data exchange.

<div class="phx-topic">Feeder and shortsea vessel operator Unifeeder has joined a partnership group run by the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA), a move that bolsters the reach of the burgeoning program associated with the container line-led consortium. Unifeeder becomes the biggest non-member vessel operator working with DCSA. The DP World-owned subsidiary provides services across Europe, Africa and Asia, and its involvement with the DCSA+ partnership program will enable it to work with container lines, technology providers and terminals to advance standardized data exchange, DCSA said in a statement Tuesday. “Joining DCSA+ allows us to contribute our feeder network expertise to the industry’s collective effort to standardize data exchange and improve interoperability,” Søren Castbak, Unifeeder’s chief commercial officer, said in the statement. The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dcsa-turns-to-industry-partners-to-drive-shipping-standards-adoption-6070237">DCSA+ program</a> now has 12 members, including logistics-focused software vendors WNS and Vinturas, the Port of Valencia and Lufthansa Industry Solutions. Unifeeder joins Samskip as part of the DCSA partnership program, but its scale as the biggest feeder operator in Europe far exceeds Samskip. It also gives DCSA reach into DP World, which operates one of the world’s largest networks of container terminals and has designs on growing its global forwarding business. “Their participation in DCSA+ brings valuable insight from the feeder and shortsea segment and strengthens the collective effort to achieve true interoperability across the container shipping ecosystem,” Mariana Bock-Losada, chief growth officer at DCSA, said in the statement. The idea behind the partnership program is to take standards DCSA has developed around track-and-trace, electronic bills of lading, container booking and just-in-time port calls and embed them within systems used by shipping lines, their partners and customers. Unifeeder has already begun adopting DCSA’s track-and-trace standard as part of a customer-facing visibility portal. DCSA last week launched an <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dcsa-broadens-reach-with-identity-exchange-for-shipping-industry-6119020">identity exchange tool</a> for companies in the logistics industry to manage internal compliance checks, its first such product. The ocean carrier members of DCSA are Mediterranean Shipping Co., Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, CMA CGM, Evergreen, HMM, Yang Ming, Zim Integrated Shipping Services and PIL. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Feeder and shortsea vessel operator Unifeeder has joined a partnership group run by the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA), a move that bolsters the reach of the burgeoning program associated with the container line-led consortium. Unifeeder becomes the biggest non-member vessel operator working with DCSA. The DP World-owned subsidiary provides services across Europe, Africa and Asia, and its involvement with the DCSA+ partnership program will enable it to work with container lines, technology providers and terminals to advance standardized data exchange, DCSA said in a statement Tuesday. “Joining DCSA+ allows us to contribute our feeder network expertise to the industry’s collective effort to standardize data exchange and improve interoperability,” Søren Castbak, Unifeeder’s chief commercial officer, said in the statement. The DCSA+ program now has 12 members, including logistics-focused software vendors WNS and Vinturas, the Port of Valencia and Lufthansa Industry Solutions. Unifeeder joins Samskip as part of the DCSA partnership program, but its scale as the biggest feeder operator in Europe far exceeds Samskip. It also gives DCSA reach into DP World, which operates one of the world’s largest networks of container terminals and has designs on growing its global forwarding business. “Their participation in DCSA+ brings valuable insight from the feeder and shortsea segment and strengthens the collective effort to achieve true interoperability across the container shipping ecosystem,” Mariana Bock-Losada, chief growth officer at DCSA, said in the statement. The idea behind the partnership program is to take standards DCSA has developed around track-and-trace, electronic bills of lading, container booking and just-in-time port calls and embed them within systems used by shipping lines, their partners and customers. Unifeeder has already begun adopting DCSA’s track-and-trace standard as part of a customer-facing visibility portal. DCSA last week launched an identity exchange tool for companies in the logistics industry to manage internal compliance checks, its first such product. The ocean carrier members of DCSA are Mediterranean Shipping Co., Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, CMA CGM, Evergreen, HMM, Yang Ming, Zim Integrated Shipping Services and PIL. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Unifeeder adds scale to DCSA’s partnership program

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While the IMO’s decision to postpone global decarbonization measures for a year will create challenges, several qualifying bids from ocean carriers have been received by the ZEMBA alliance. </div>

While the IMO’s decision to postpone global decarbonization measures for a year will create challenges, several qualifying bids from ocean carriers have been received by the ZEMBA alliance.

<div class="phx-topic">The winner of an e-fuel-focused tender issued by the Zero Emission Maritime Buyers Alliance (ZEMBA) will be announced before the end of the year despite significant regulatory uncertainty surrounding alternative fuels, the global shippers’ group says. The timing of the announcement was intended to follow the adoption in October of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) net-zero framework of measures intended to close the cost gap between conventional and alternative fuels while accelerating investment in production. But with that adoption derailed by US-led opposition, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">the IMO was forced to postpone the process for a year</a>, a move that has created challenges for those involved in the tender, said a spokesperson for the Aspen Institute that serves as the secretariat for ZEMBA. “While the current political and economic environments, including the IMO decision to delay, create significant challenges, we are energized to see that the private sector is continuing to lead the way,” the Aspen Institute’s Michellie Hess told the Journal of Commerce. It is <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/global-shipper-group-bullish-on-e-fuel-tender-bids-from-ocean-carriers-5950420">the second tender from ZEMBA</a> that calls for an ocean carrier or group of liners to move the equivalent of 1.5 million TEUs across the Pacific on ships powered by renewable synthetic fuels, with the aim of fast-tracking the commercial deployment of e-fuels at scale to create a competitive market. “We received a number of qualifying e-fuel bids from container carriers,” Hess said. “Despite policy setbacks and significant cost pressures, we are heartened that ZEMBA’s freight buyer members are continuing to take a long-term approach and recognize the importance of the clean energy transition of the maritime sector and that it is a smart, forward-looking business strategy.” ZEMBA is a non-profit alliance of more than 40 freight buyers that includes global brands such as IKEA, Electrolux, Nike, Philips and Levi Strauss. <h3>Hapag-Lloyd in bid for second tender </h3>One of the bidders for the second tender is Hapag-Lloyd, which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-wins-asia-europe-green-shipping-tender-to-launch-next-year-5240949">won the inaugural tender from ZEMBA</a> in April 2024. In that first tender, ZEMBA members collectively committed to purchase alternative fuels associated with 1.2 billion TEU-miles of zero-emission shipping on the Singapore to Rotterdam trade lane in 2025 and 2026. The tender covers a negotiated “green premium” paid by shippers and does not involve the base freight rate. As Hapag-Lloyd nears the halfway mark of the first tender, Arne Maibohm, director of decarbonization at the Hamburg-based carrier, said it was “fully on track and meeting all commitments.” “All volumes that were contractually confirmed are being delivered as agreed,” Maibohm told the Journal of Commerce this week. “We have experienced no challenges in sourcing the required biomethane from the European gas grid ... the volumes are fully secured.” As Hapag-Lloyd waits to see whether it will be involved in the second tender, Maibohm noted that the IMO’s postponement of the net-zero framework, “certainly does not make the global decarbonization challenge any easier.” Despite the regulatory setback, he said Hapag-Lloyd remained committed to its climate targets. “Decarbonizing operations is a strategic priority for us and essential to stay competitive and relevant for our customers in the decades ahead,” Maibohm said. “Our long-term direction of achieving net-zero operations by 2045 is therefore not dependent on individual regulatory developments. “Moreover, other frameworks such as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/high-price-to-pay-for-non-compliance-with-fueleu-rules-lloyds-register-5918498">FuelEU Maritime</a> are already in force and will continue to drive the uptake of alternative fuels,” he added. With the IMO delay in adopting global decarbonization measures, improving the fuel efficiency of vessels has attained even greater importance, particularly in Europe. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) carbon tax and FuelEU Maritime fuel intensity regulations will come into full effect in 2026, and cutting vessel emissions will directly impact a carrier’s operating costs. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The winner of an e-fuel-focused tender issued by the Zero Emission Maritime Buyers Alliance (ZEMBA) will be announced before the end of the year despite significant regulatory uncertainty surrounding alternative fuels, the global shippers’ group says. The timing of the announcement was intended to follow the adoption in October of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) net-zero framework of measures intended to close the cost gap between conventional and alternative fuels while accelerating investment in production. But with that adoption derailed by US-led opposition, the IMO was forced to postpone the process for a year , a move that has created challenges for those involved in the tender, said a spokesperson for the Aspen Institute that serves as the secretariat for ZEMBA. “While the current political and economic environments, including the IMO decision to delay, create significant challenges, we are energized to see that the private sector is continuing to lead the way,” the Aspen Institute’s Michellie Hess told the Journal of Commerce. It is the second tender from ZEMBA that calls for an ocean carrier or group of liners to move the equivalent of 1.5 million TEUs across the Pacific on ships powered by renewable synthetic fuels, with the aim of fast-tracking the commercial deployment of e-fuels at scale to create a competitive market. “We received a number of qualifying e-fuel bids from container carriers,” Hess said. “Despite policy setbacks and significant cost pressures, we are heartened that ZEMBA’s freight buyer members are continuing to take a long-term approach and recognize the importance of the clean energy transition of the maritime sector and that it is a smart, forward-looking business strategy.” ZEMBA is a non-profit alliance of more than 40 freight buyers that includes global brands such as IKEA, Electrolux, Nike, Philips and Levi Strauss. Hapag-Lloyd in bid for second tender One of the bidders for the second tender is Hapag-Lloyd, which won the inaugural tender from ZEMBA in April 2024. In that first tender, ZEMBA members collectively committed to purchase alternative fuels associated with 1.2 billion TEU-miles of zero-emission shipping on the Singapore to Rotterdam trade lane in 2025 and 2026. The tender covers a negotiated “green premium” paid by shippers and does not involve the base freight rate. As Hapag-Lloyd nears the halfway mark of the first tender, Arne Maibohm, director of decarbonization at the Hamburg-based carrier, said it was “fully on track and meeting all commitments.” “All volumes that were contractually confirmed are being delivered as agreed,” Maibohm told the Journal of Commerce this week. “We have experienced no challenges in sourcing the required biomethane from the European gas grid ... the volumes are fully secured.” As Hapag-Lloyd waits to see whether it will be involved in the second tender, Maibohm noted that the IMO’s postponement of the net-zero framework, “certainly does not make the global decarbonization challenge any easier.” Despite the regulatory setback, he said Hapag-Lloyd remained committed to its climate targets. “Decarbonizing operations is a strategic priority for us and essential to stay competitive and relevant for our customers in the decades ahead,” Maibohm said. “Our long-term direction of achieving net-zero operations by 2045 is therefore not dependent on individual regulatory developments. “Moreover, other frameworks such as FuelEU Maritime are already in force and will continue to drive the uptake of alternative fuels,” he added. With the IMO delay in adopting global decarbonization measures, improving the fuel efficiency of vessels has attained even greater importance, particularly in Europe. The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) carbon tax and FuelEU Maritime fuel intensity regulations will come into full effect in 2026, and cutting vessel emissions will directly impact a carrier’s operating costs. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Regulatory uncertainty won’t derail e-fuel tender: global shipper group

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Eli Glickman’s buyout proposal first surfaced in Israeli media reports back in August, with his offer said to be about $20 per share, which would value Zim at $2.4 billion. </div>

Eli Glickman’s buyout proposal first surfaced in Israeli media reports back in August, with his offer said to be about $20 per share, which would value Zim at $2.4 billion.

<div class="phx-topic">Zim Integrated Shipping Services confirmed Tuesday it is reviewing buyout offers from several parties, including its chief executive. Zim said in a statement its board of directors has been reviewing a buyout proposal from Chief Executive Eli Glickman and Rami Ungar, who controls roll-on/roll-off carrier Ray Shipping, for several months. “In connection with this review, the ZIM board of directors has received indications of interest from multiple parties, including strategic interest, which it is evaluating carefully,” Zim said. “Strategic interest” generally means a bidder in the same industry, so Zim is at least alluding to another carrier as a potential interested party. As part of its review of the offers, Haifa-based Zim added two new board members, including Yair Avidan, a former bank executive, and Yoram Turbowicz, a former Israeli government executive. Zim has also hired investment bank Evercore as financial advisor and legal firms Meitar and Skadden, Arps. The ocean carrier said there’s no assurance a deal will be made, and that it would provide an update once the strategic review is completed. Glickman’s buyout proposal first surfaced in Israeli media reports back in August, with his offer said to be about $20 per share, which would value Zim at $2.4 billion. The carrier’s market valuation slipped to as low as $1.5 billion in mid-October amid the rout in freight rates. As of March 2025, Glickman owned about 1% of Zim. <h3>Carrier went public in 2021 </h3><a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-ceo-sees-likely-return-to-suez-canal-transits-soon-6120808">Zim reported a 90% year-over-year drop in third-quarter net income last week</a>, but still managed to beat analysts’ estimates and affirmed its previous 2025 profit forecast. Zim shares have risen 14% since its third-quarter earnings release. Zim made its public company debut in January 2021, raising $217.5 million and giving it an initial valuation of $1.3 billion. By March 2022 at the peak of the container shipping surge, the company reached a market value of $8.6 billion. Since its public offering, the carrier has leaned mostly on short-term chartering of Panamax ships that fit with its focus on express services. Zim has also contracted for its own newbuild ships and long-term charters of post-Panamax vessels and is currently in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/decentralized-sourcing-plays-into-mscs-point-to-point-plans-ceo-5745884">a slot charter agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co.</a> for trans-Pacific services. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Zim Integrated Shipping Services confirmed Tuesday it is reviewing buyout offers from several parties, including its chief executive. Zim said in a statement its board of directors has been reviewing a buyout proposal from Chief Executive Eli Glickman and Rami Ungar, who controls roll-on/roll-off carrier Ray Shipping, for several months. “In connection with this review, the ZIM board of directors has received indications of interest from multiple parties, including strategic interest, which it is evaluating carefully,” Zim said. “Strategic interest” generally means a bidder in the same industry, so Zim is at least alluding to another carrier as a potential interested party. As part of its review of the offers, Haifa-based Zim added two new board members, including Yair Avidan, a former bank executive, and Yoram Turbowicz, a former Israeli government executive. Zim has also hired investment bank Evercore as financial advisor and legal firms Meitar and Skadden, Arps. The ocean carrier said there’s no assurance a deal will be made, and that it would provide an update once the strategic review is completed. Glickman’s buyout proposal first surfaced in Israeli media reports back in August, with his offer said to be about $20 per share, which would value Zim at $2.4 billion. The carrier’s market valuation slipped to as low as $1.5 billion in mid-October amid the rout in freight rates. As of March 2025, Glickman owned about 1% of Zim. Carrier went public in 2021 Zim reported a 90% year-over-year drop in third-quarter net income last week , but still managed to beat analysts’ estimates and affirmed its previous 2025 profit forecast. Zim shares have risen 14% since its third-quarter earnings release. Zim made its public company debut in January 2021, raising $217.5 million and giving it an initial valuation of $1.3 billion. By March 2022 at the peak of the container shipping surge, the company reached a market value of $8.6 billion. Since its public offering, the carrier has leaned mostly on short-term chartering of Panamax ships that fit with its focus on express services. Zim has also contracted for its own newbuild ships and long-term charters of post-Panamax vessels and is currently in a slot charter agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for trans-Pacific services. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Zim says reviewing buyout offers, including one from CEO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Index

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

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

US truckload capacity index (JOC)

JOC Truckload Capacity Index Gateway

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

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

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

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

Slump of US imports from Asia deepening

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ocean carrier said it still needs approvals from insurers and others, but the ceasefire in Gaza appears to be holding. </div>

The ocean carrier said it still needs approvals from insurers and others, but the ceasefire in Gaza appears to be holding.

<div class="phx-topic">Zim Integrated Shipping Services is preparing to route its ships through the Suez Canal, possibly as soon as 2026. The ocean carrier added that a return to Red Sea transits will further weaken freight rates, with Zim planning to return some chartered ships to reduce its fleet size. Chief Executive Eli Glickman said that the Israel-based Zim still needs the approval of its insurers and the owners of chartered vessels for a return to Suez routings. But “the current cease fire in Gaza is encouraging progress,” he said Thursday during the company’s third-quarter earnings conference call. Zim reported a 90% plunge in profits on weaker freight pricing. “We believe that a return to the Suez Canal in the near future now appears increasingly likely,” Glickman said. “We are preparing an operational plan to support this transition once the security situation has stabilized.” The Houthi rebels operating in Yemen earlier this month <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/houthi-pause-on-shipping-attacks-lowers-tensions-but-risk-remains-6114790">signaled they will pause attacks</a> on Israel and commercial shipping, but would resume attacks in the Red Sea if the Gaza ceasefire ended.Glickman added that while the shorter route through the Suez Canal will mean lower operating costs, “it will also increase effective vessel supply currently tied up by longer routes around the Cape of Good Hope, adding pressure on freight rates.” Zim, which charters most of its 115 container ships from other owners, is reducing its fleet size in response to further rate pressure. The company returned 22 chartered ships so far in 2025, reducing its fleet capacity by some 80,000 TEUs. Another three charters are ending this year, while another 17 are up for renewal next year, amounting to another 80,000 TEUs of capacity Zim could shed. Chief Financial Officer Xavier Destriau said Zim used short-term charters on smaller Panamax ships to supplement its capacity throughout 2021 and 2022. Going forward, Destriau said Zim will lean more on its “core” fleet of 46 long-term chartered ships and 16-owned ships, which are primarily in the 8,000- to 11,500-TEU range. “I think 2025 was clearly a downward trend in terms of operated tonnage,” he said. “We need to acknowledge that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strong-secondhand-container-ship-demand-defies-deteriorating-market-6077759">the charter market is still elevated</a>. So, it’s expensive to reach out the tonnage at a time when the revenue per TEU carried is under pressure.” <h3>Latin America, Southeast Asia trades in focus </h3>Zim reported third-quarter earnings of $1.02 per share, which was in line with analyst estimates but a 90% drop from the year-earlier quarter. The company largely stuck to its original full-year 2025 profit forecast. Third-quarter volumes decreased 4.5% from a year earlier to 926,000 TEUs. Its trans-Pacific volume was down slightly to 414,000 TEUs for the quarter. But its trans-Atlantic and intra-Mediterranean saw bigger respective drops of 27,000 TEUs and 21,000 TEUs for the quarter. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-signals-changes-to-med-network-amid-apparent-turkish-port-ban-6069871">Zim redirected intra-Mediterranean services away from Turkey</a> in August due to that country’s ban on Israeli-linked shipping. The average rate Zim saw during the quarter was $1,602 per forty-foot equivalent unit, a 35% drop from a year earlier. While the current trade truce between the US and China could benefit volumes, Glickman said the long-term trend of decoupling between the two countries will shape its network decisions. In place of the US-China trade, Glickman said Zim will direct its capacity at Southeast Asia and Latin America. For the first nine months of 2025, Zim saw its Latin America container volumes grow 10% while its intra-Asia volumes grew 8%. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Zim Integrated Shipping Services is preparing to route its ships through the Suez Canal, possibly as soon as 2026. The ocean carrier added that a return to Red Sea transits will further weaken freight rates, with Zim planning to return some chartered ships to reduce its fleet size. Chief Executive Eli Glickman said that the Israel-based Zim still needs the approval of its insurers and the owners of chartered vessels for a return to Suez routings. But “the current cease fire in Gaza is encouraging progress,” he said Thursday during the company’s third-quarter earnings conference call. Zim reported a 90% plunge in profits on weaker freight pricing. “We believe that a return to the Suez Canal in the near future now appears increasingly likely,” Glickman said. “We are preparing an operational plan to support this transition once the security situation has stabilized.” The Houthi rebels operating in Yemen earlier this month signaled they will pause attacks on Israel and commercial shipping, but would resume attacks in the Red Sea if the Gaza ceasefire ended. Glickman added that while the shorter route through the Suez Canal will mean lower operating costs, “it will also increase effective vessel supply currently tied up by longer routes around the Cape of Good Hope, adding pressure on freight rates.” Zim, which charters most of its 115 container ships from other owners, is reducing its fleet size in response to further rate pressure. The company returned 22 chartered ships so far in 2025, reducing its fleet capacity by some 80,000 TEUs. Another three charters are ending this year, while another 17 are up for renewal next year, amounting to another 80,000 TEUs of capacity Zim could shed. Chief Financial Officer Xavier Destriau said Zim used short-term charters on smaller Panamax ships to supplement its capacity throughout 2021 and 2022. Going forward, Destriau said Zim will lean more on its “core” fleet of 46 long-term chartered ships and 16-owned ships, which are primarily in the 8,000- to 11,500-TEU range. “I think 2025 was clearly a downward trend in terms of operated tonnage,” he said. “We need to acknowledge that the charter market is still elevated . So, it’s expensive to reach out the tonnage at a time when the revenue per TEU carried is under pressure.” Latin America, Southeast Asia trades in focus Zim reported third-quarter earnings of $1.02 per share, which was in line with analyst estimates but a 90% drop from the year-earlier quarter. The company largely stuck to its original full-year 2025 profit forecast. Third-quarter volumes decreased 4.5% from a year earlier to 926,000 TEUs. Its trans-Pacific volume was down slightly to 414,000 TEUs for the quarter. But its trans-Atlantic and intra-Mediterranean saw bigger respective drops of 27,000 TEUs and 21,000 TEUs for the quarter. Zim redirected intra-Mediterranean services away from Turkey in August due to that country’s ban on Israeli-linked shipping. The average rate Zim saw during the quarter was $1,602 per forty-foot equivalent unit, a 35% drop from a year earlier. While the current trade truce between the US and China could benefit volumes, Glickman said the long-term trend of decoupling between the two countries will shape its network decisions. In place of the US-China trade, Glickman said Zim will direct its capacity at Southeast Asia and Latin America. For the first nine months of 2025, Zim saw its Latin America container volumes grow 10% while its intra-Asia volumes grew 8%. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Zim CEO sees ‘likely’ return to Suez Canal transits soon

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Rising e-commerce volume out of Vietnam is being piled on top of sustained and heavy demand for high-tech shipments, with space on freighters in short supply.</div>

Rising e-commerce volume out of Vietnam is being piled on top of sustained and heavy demand for high-tech shipments, with space on freighters in short supply.

<div class="phx-topic">High demand in the US ahead of next week’s “Black Friday” online shopping promotion is squeezing available air freight space out of Asia and driving up rates. The demand is particularly high on Vietnam-US routes, with e-commerce volume being piled on top of sustained and heavy demand for high-tech shipments, with freighter capacity under growing pressure. While tightening capacity in the lead up to the official start of holiday shopping season is normal, the growing shipments from Vietnam reflect how importers are diversifying away from China amid the loss of a major demand driver: de minimis. Harsha Ranasinghe, global head of air logistics, customer and products at Kuehne + Nagel, said the forwarder is currently operating 14 freighter flights per week between Vietnam and the US. “The demand is driven primarily by high tech, electronics and semiconductor cargo,” he told the Journal of Commerce Thursday. “We expect this trend to continue as Vietnam has emerged as a leading global growth market. Thailand is also experiencing significant growth,” he added. In a trans-Pacific market update by Honour Lane Shipping, the Hong Kong-based forwarder noted that rates on direct flights from Southeast Asia to the US West Coast airports were as high as $7.50/kg, and up to $8.50/kg to the US East Coast. “On the Southeast Asia air freight market overall demand is very strong and sustained, space is critical and solar cell products and e-commerce [are] hot in Q4 from Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia,” the market update noted. Rates on direct flights from Southeast Asia to the main hubs in Europe were reaching $6.80/kg, according to Honour Lane Shipping. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b6888bd9-e9f5-4f99-a176-3a5fb995e0e9"></dynamic-object></div>The available freighter capacity from Southeast Asia to the US was up 5% last week compared with an average of the previous four weeks, and up 9% on Southeast Asia-Europe routes, according to air freight analyst Rotate. A spokesperson for DHL Global Forwarding said the trends were “not out of the ordinary for this time of the year,” although he acknowledged “some elevated volume out of Vietnam and Thailand.” “But we don’t believe that this represents a ‘super peak’ at present, and that doesn’t seem to be reflected in rates and capacity,” he added. <h3>Solid China e-commerce growth </h3>Air cargo volume and rates out of China are also rising sharply, driven by continuing e-commerce demand despite the US removal of de minimis exemption for low-value items earlier this year. Honour Lane Shipping’s update said e-commerce cargo continues to dominate the China-US corridor with tight capacity on direct flights across the Pacific. “The rate for JFK [New York] direct flights is expected to reach $7–$7.20/kg by the end of this week, reflecting intense competition for capacity,” the market update noted, adding that the Chinese e-commerce platforms and some high-tech brands have secured space through charter flights. Air cargo rates for direct flights from China to Los Angeles’ LAX airport are expected to hold steady near $6.20/kg, which Honour Lane Shipping said indicates “a high and stable market level.” The Freightos Air Index shows China-US rates increased 5% last week to $6.60 per kilogram, up from less than $5/kg in early October and at its highest level this year as peak season demand grows. Last year, rates hit a high of $7.30/kg in mid-December. China-Europe prices increased 2% to $4.01/kg last week, up from the $3.50/kg level before Golden Week at the beginning of October. Ranasinghe said air freight rates were rising as demand ahead of Black Friday began to fill the available capacity out of Asia and the forwarder was working with the airlines to secure enough space to keep its shipments moving. Whether some of the demand was related to Christmas stockpiling was not yet clear, he added. “Until now, we have not seen significant demand that can be directly related to Christmas, though this will likely become more apparent post-Black Friday,” Ranasinghe said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

High demand in the US ahead of next week’s “Black Friday” online shopping promotion is squeezing available air freight space out of Asia and driving up rates. The demand is particularly high on Vietnam-US routes, with e-commerce volume being piled on top of sustained and heavy demand for high-tech shipments, with freighter capacity under growing pressure. While tightening capacity in the lead up to the official start of holiday shopping season is normal, the growing shipments from Vietnam reflect how importers are diversifying away from China amid the loss of a major demand driver: de minimis. Harsha Ranasinghe, global head of air logistics, customer and products at Kuehne + Nagel, said the forwarder is currently operating 14 freighter flights per week between Vietnam and the US. “The demand is driven primarily by high tech, electronics and semiconductor cargo,” he told the Journal of Commerce Thursday. “We expect this trend to continue as Vietnam has emerged as a leading global growth market. Thailand is also experiencing significant growth,” he added. In a trans-Pacific market update by Honour Lane Shipping, the Hong Kong-based forwarder noted that rates on direct flights from Southeast Asia to the US West Coast airports were as high as $7.50/kg, and up to $8.50/kg to the US East Coast. “On the Southeast Asia air freight market overall demand is very strong and sustained, space is critical and solar cell products and e-commerce [are] hot in Q4 from Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia,” the market update noted. Rates on direct flights from Southeast Asia to the main hubs in Europe were reaching $6.80/kg, according to Honour Lane Shipping. The available freighter capacity from Southeast Asia to the US was up 5% last week compared with an average of the previous four weeks, and up 9% on Southeast Asia-Europe routes, according to air freight analyst Rotate. A spokesperson for DHL Global Forwarding said the trends were “not out of the ordinary for this time of the year,” although he acknowledged “some elevated volume out of Vietnam and Thailand.” “But we don’t believe that this represents a ‘super peak’ at present, and that doesn’t seem to be reflected in rates and capacity,” he added. Solid China e-commerce growth Air cargo volume and rates out of China are also rising sharply, driven by continuing e-commerce demand despite the US removal of de minimis exemption for low-value items earlier this year. Honour Lane Shipping’s update said e-commerce cargo continues to dominate the China-US corridor with tight capacity on direct flights across the Pacific. “The rate for JFK [New York] direct flights is expected to reach $7–$7.20/kg by the end of this week, reflecting intense competition for capacity,” the market update noted, adding that the Chinese e-commerce platforms and some high-tech brands have secured space through charter flights. Air cargo rates for direct flights from China to Los Angeles’ LAX airport are expected to hold steady near $6.20/kg, which Honour Lane Shipping said indicates “a high and stable market level.” The Freightos Air Index shows China-US rates increased 5% last week to $6.60 per kilogram, up from less than $5/kg in early October and at its highest level this year as peak season demand grows. Last year, rates hit a high of $7.30/kg in mid-December. China-Europe prices increased 2% to $4.01/kg last week, up from the $3.50/kg level before Golden Week at the beginning of October. Ranasinghe said air freight rates were rising as demand ahead of Black Friday began to fill the available capacity out of Asia and the forwarder was working with the airlines to secure enough space to keep its shipments moving. Whether some of the demand was related to Christmas stockpiling was not yet clear, he added. “Until now, we have not seen significant demand that can be directly related to Christmas, though this will likely become more apparent post-Black Friday,” Ranasinghe said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Black Friday demand tightens trans-Pacific air cargo capacity, elevates rates

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

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

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

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

UP enhances intermodal between LA and Cincinnati

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While liners will remain in the black this year, the growing capacity overhang and weak demand expectations will undermine rate-increasing efforts through 2026, analysts say. </div>

While liners will remain in the black this year, the growing capacity overhang and weak demand expectations will undermine rate-increasing efforts through 2026, analysts say.

<div class="phx-topic">A shift in the supply-demand balance in container shipping dragged down the financial results of ocean carriers in the third quarter, and maritime experts see nothing in market conditions to change their view that the industry’s multi-year profitability voyage will end in 2026. Global fleet capacity is forecast to grow 6.9% to 32.97 million TEUs this year and by another 2.2% in 2026 to 33.7 million TEUs, according to Drewry Shipping Consultants, and Bimco expects global container volume growth of between 2.5% and 3.5% in both years. While carriers will remain in the black this year thanks in large part to a strong first half that is already in the bank, full-year operating profit will be near $20 billion for 2025 compared with more than $60 billion last year, Drewry noted. But the maritime consultant is predicting industry losses will top $10 billion in 2026. The sharp drop in revenue and profits in the third quarter was dramatic across the board. Revenue among the 11 carriers that report their turnover showed a third-quarter drop of $44 billion, down 22% compared with the revenue earned in the third quarter of last year, Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis noted in its latest Sunday Spotlight Newsletter. Despite volume gains across most of the carriers, the combined earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) in the third quarter fell sharply year over year — from $17.06 billion to $5.12 billion. However, Sea-Intelligence emphasized that although the 2024 peak has passed, the EBIT floor has not yet fallen to pre-COVID 2019 levels. The analyst said shipping lines also recorded a double-digit year-over-year contraction in average freight rates in the third quarter as the market corrected from the disruption-driven highs of the previous year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="17f49652-207f-4ee9-9c2c-09b39b5b158e"></dynamic-object></div>The landing will be particularly hard on the trans-Pacific. After a year of US importers frontloading shipments out of fear of higher tariffs as American consumers become more cautious, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/slump-of-us-imports-from-asia-deepening-6120860">replenishment of inventories is being handled judiciously</a>. US retailers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-throttle-back-on-imports-amid-uncertain-consumer-sentiment-6111471">are forecasting double-digit percentage declines</a> in November and December, and monthly volumes are not expected to exceed 2 million TEUs through March, according to the latest Global Port Tracker, produced by Hackett Associates and the National Retail Federation. Drewry is expecting that the negative growth in Asia-North America volume in the fourth quarter will continue into the first three months of 2026, with zero growth on the trans-Pacific for the full year. “Our assessment is that the US container boom of 2023 to late 2025 is truly over,” Drewry noted in its Container Forecaster report. Moody’s Ratings has forecast that US container volumes in 2026 will show growth between 0% to minus 2% year over year. <h3>Significant rate erosion expected </h3>The grim market outlook was shared by transportation analysts at J.P. Morgan, who noted in a report this week following Zim Integrated Shipping’s third-quarter results that a demand-supply analysis of the trans-Pacific pointed to significant freight rate erosion in 2026 and 2027. Zim is heavily exposed to the trans-Pacific trade lane, where the rate dropped 45% year over year in the third quarter. “We expect it is unlikely for rates to strengthen structurally into 2026, unless there is material supply that comes out of the market — scrapping and idling remain extremely low — or there is an acceleration in demand, which again appears less likely, given the strength in year-to-date volume growth of 5% year over year,” J.P. Morgan said in its outlook. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast, as measured by various indexes, are down 30% to 60% year over year, depending on the index and trade lane. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows that average short-term rates on the Asia-US West Coast lane of $1,482 per FEU as of Tuesday are down 70% since the first week of July. The picture on Asia-Europe is not as gloomy as the trans-Pacific — at least not yet — with carriers on trade lanes to North Europe and the Mediterranean managing to cling to some of the rate increases that have been levied on the market every two weeks since early October. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="f42506cc-5dcf-4f07-afda-28027dacc172"></dynamic-object></div>Short-term rates are up more than 20% since Oct. 1 at $2,349/FEU as of Monday, according to Xeneta, and have held on to gains through November as carriers blank sailings to better match capacity with demand. Stefan Verberckmoes, senior shipping analyst at Alphaliner, said the rate increases were more successful on Asia-Europe than on the trans-Pacific because of carriers renegotiating contracts between Asia and Europe. “Carriers are putting more effort into keeping spot freight rates up there as it affects talks with beneficial cargo owners [while] annual contract negotiations on the trans-Pacific are for next year with many contracts starting again in May,” Verberckmoes told the Journal of Commerce. Blank sailings are a popular tool in the carriers’ capacity management bag and are being used to good effect on Asia-Europe. Carriers have announced November blanks of almost 110,000 TEUs of capacity, with blank sailings already at 83,000 TEUs for December, according to Xeneta’s eeSea data. Both of those numbers are expected to increase. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A shift in the supply-demand balance in container shipping dragged down the financial results of ocean carriers in the third quarter, and maritime experts see nothing in market conditions to change their view that the industry’s multi-year profitability voyage will end in 2026. Global fleet capacity is forecast to grow 6.9% to 32.97 million TEUs this year and by another 2.2% in 2026 to 33.7 million TEUs, according to Drewry Shipping Consultants, and Bimco expects global container volume growth of between 2.5% and 3.5% in both years. While carriers will remain in the black this year thanks in large part to a strong first half that is already in the bank, full-year operating profit will be near $20 billion for 2025 compared with more than $60 billion last year, Drewry noted. But the maritime consultant is predicting industry losses will top $10 billion in 2026. The sharp drop in revenue and profits in the third quarter was dramatic across the board. Revenue among the 11 carriers that report their turnover showed a third-quarter drop of $44 billion, down 22% compared with the revenue earned in the third quarter of last year, Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis noted in its latest Sunday Spotlight Newsletter. Despite volume gains across most of the carriers, the combined earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) in the third quarter fell sharply year over year — from $17.06 billion to $5.12 billion. However, Sea-Intelligence emphasized that although the 2024 peak has passed, the EBIT floor has not yet fallen to pre-COVID 2019 levels. The analyst said shipping lines also recorded a double-digit year-over-year contraction in average freight rates in the third quarter as the market corrected from the disruption-driven highs of the previous year. The landing will be particularly hard on the trans-Pacific. After a year of US importers frontloading shipments out of fear of higher tariffs as American consumers become more cautious, replenishment of inventories is being handled judiciously . US retailers are forecasting double-digit percentage declines in November and December, and monthly volumes are not expected to exceed 2 million TEUs through March, according to the latest Global Port Tracker, produced by Hackett Associates and the National Retail Federation. Drewry is expecting that the negative growth in Asia-North America volume in the fourth quarter will continue into the first three months of 2026, with zero growth on the trans-Pacific for the full year. “Our assessment is that the US container boom of 2023 to late 2025 is truly over,” Drewry noted in its Container Forecaster report. Moody’s Ratings has forecast that US container volumes in 2026 will show growth between 0% to minus 2% year over year. Significant rate erosion expected The grim market outlook was shared by transportation analysts at J.P. Morgan, who noted in a report this week following Zim Integrated Shipping’s third-quarter results that a demand-supply analysis of the trans-Pacific pointed to significant freight rate erosion in 2026 and 2027. Zim is heavily exposed to the trans-Pacific trade lane, where the rate dropped 45% year over year in the third quarter. “We expect it is unlikely for rates to strengthen structurally into 2026, unless there is material supply that comes out of the market — scrapping and idling remain extremely low — or there is an acceleration in demand, which again appears less likely, given the strength in year-to-date volume growth of 5% year over year,” J.P. Morgan said in its outlook. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast, as measured by various indexes, are down 30% to 60% year over year, depending on the index and trade lane. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows that average short-term rates on the Asia-US West Coast lane of $1,482 per FEU as of Tuesday are down 70% since the first week of July. The picture on Asia-Europe is not as gloomy as the trans-Pacific — at least not yet — with carriers on trade lanes to North Europe and the Mediterranean managing to cling to some of the rate increases that have been levied on the market every two weeks since early October. Short-term rates are up more than 20% since Oct. 1 at $2,349/FEU as of Monday, according to Xeneta, and have held on to gains through November as carriers blank sailings to better match capacity with demand. Stefan Verberckmoes, senior shipping analyst at Alphaliner, said the rate increases were more successful on Asia-Europe than on the trans-Pacific because of carriers renegotiating contracts between Asia and Europe. “Carriers are putting more effort into keeping spot freight rates up there as it affects talks with beneficial cargo owners [while] annual contract negotiations on the trans-Pacific are for next year with many contracts starting again in May,” Verberckmoes told the Journal of Commerce. Blank sailings are a popular tool in the carriers’ capacity management bag and are being used to good effect on Asia-Europe. Carriers have announced November blanks of almost 110,000 TEUs of capacity, with blank sailings already at 83,000 TEUs for December, according to Xeneta’s eeSea data. Both of those numbers are expected to increase. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Sharp drop in Q3 profits signals tough 2026 for oversupplied ocean carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">All ship-to-shore cranes at Yusen Terminals were inspected and cargo handling resumed on the first shift Monday, according to Yusen’s CEO.</div>

All ship-to-shore cranes at Yusen Terminals were inspected and cargo handling resumed on the first shift Monday, according to Yusen’s CEO.

<div class="phx-topic">Cargo handling operations at the Port of Los Angeles returned to normal over the weekend following an electrical fire Friday evening aboard the container ship ONE Henry Hudson, which was docked at Yusen Terminals. The blaze caused four of the port’s six container terminals to temporarily shut. “All terminals are operating as usual this [morning],” a spokesperson for the port told the Journal of Commerce Monday. “Four terminals were closed temporarily Friday night and reopened on Saturday morning.” According to the Los Angeles Fire Department, the fire started on a lower deck of the vessel about 6:30 p.m. Friday and spread to multiple decks. Authorities identified hazardous materials in some containers, which intensified the fire. None of the 23 crew members or any firefighting personnel were injured, the fire department said. Yusen had no gates planned over the weekend. All ship-to-shore cranes at the terminal were inspected, and cargo handling resumed on the first shift Monday, said Alan McCorkle, Yusen’s president and CEO, who added that the fire and terminal outage did not create a backlog of containers. The ONE Henry Hudson was towed about one mile into open water over the weekend, where firefighting and salvage operations continued, according to authorities. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Cargo handling operations at the Port of Los Angeles returned to normal over the weekend following an electrical fire Friday evening aboard the container ship ONE Henry Hudson, which was docked at Yusen Terminals. The blaze caused four of the port’s six container terminals to temporarily shut. “All terminals are operating as usual this [morning],” a spokesperson for the port told the Journal of Commerce Monday. “Four terminals were closed temporarily Friday night and reopened on Saturday morning.” According to the Los Angeles Fire Department, the fire started on a lower deck of the vessel about 6:30 p.m. Friday and spread to multiple decks. Authorities identified hazardous materials in some containers, which intensified the fire. None of the 23 crew members or any firefighting personnel were injured, the fire department said. Yusen had no gates planned over the weekend. All ship-to-shore cranes at the terminal were inspected, and cargo handling resumed on the first shift Monday, said Alan McCorkle, Yusen’s president and CEO, who added that the fire and terminal outage did not create a backlog of containers. The ONE Henry Hudson was towed about one mile into open water over the weekend, where firefighting and salvage operations continued, according to authorities. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Normal operations resume at Port of Los Angeles following vessel electrical fire

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Carney government outlined preliminary goals for a new logistics infrastructure fund that would help increase Canada’s trade outside of the US. </div>

The Carney government outlined preliminary goals for a new logistics infrastructure fund that would help increase Canada’s trade outside of the US.

<div class="phx-topic">Canada’s government has laid out plans for more spending on ports and other infrastructure to lessen the country’s trade dependency on the US, with the potential for new container screening and handling capacity along the St. Lawrence River and in the Great Lakes region. Canada’s Minister of Transport, Steven MacKinnon, on Friday announced that the government’s next budget includes C$5 billion (US$3.55 billion) over the next seven years for its Trade Diversification Corridors Fund. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carney-has-fresh-opportunity-to-galvanize-canadian-shipping-industry-6047928">Prime Minister Mark Carney first outlined the spending in March</a> in response to the Trump administration’s decision to impose tariffs on a host of Canadian imports, calling the US “no longer a reliable partner” due to the rupture in trade relations. As outlined in the proposed budget, the fund aims to advance Canada’s “trade relationships with reliable partners” with the goal of “doubling non-US exports over a decade.” While Transport Canada will administer the fund, the Canada Infrastructure Bank will also determine which projects should receive funding. The largest component of Canada’s decoupling from the US is <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-world-to-build-big-ship-container-terminal-in-montreal-6077326">the C$1.6 billion marine terminal at Contrecoeur, Quebec</a>, for which the federal and provincial governments have pledged some C$280 million in backing. While no specific projects were outlined, the government is considering projects that involved port and rail infrastructure on the West Coast, inland railroads, and ports in northeast Quebec. To facilitate those projects, the government’s next budget also outlines the potential for new entry points for goods moving in and out of Canada. The budget will provide additional resources to Canada’s customs agency for designating additional ports along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River for container imports and exports. Designating more container gateways “will help catalyze private investment at ports and is essential to diversifying our trade,” the government said in its budget. Canada’s customs agency currently only scans and clears containers at five ports: Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Montreal, Saint John and Halifax. But an October study by the country’s Chamber of Marine Commerce said that offering customs clearance at six other ports located along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence would generate C$130 million for businesses throughout Ontario and Quebec.Among the recommended sites is Quebec City, which is 155 miles northeast of Montreal. While the Port of Quebec primarily handles bulk goods currently, terminal operator and stevedore QSL last year proposed a 500,000-TEU terminal for Quebec’s port. Hamilton, located on the far western end of Lake Ontario, was also cited as a new container entry point. Last year, the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority and Canadian National started offering intermodal service between the port and Montreal. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Canada’s government has laid out plans for more spending on ports and other infrastructure to lessen the country’s trade dependency on the US, with the potential for new container screening and handling capacity along the St. Lawrence River and in the Great Lakes region. Canada’s Minister of Transport, Steven MacKinnon, on Friday announced that the government’s next budget includes C$5 billion (US$3.55 billion) over the next seven years for its Trade Diversification Corridors Fund. Prime Minister Mark Carney first outlined the spending in March in response to the Trump administration’s decision to impose tariffs on a host of Canadian imports, calling the US “no longer a reliable partner” due to the rupture in trade relations. As outlined in the proposed budget, the fund aims to advance Canada’s “trade relationships with reliable partners” with the goal of “doubling non-US exports over a decade.” While Transport Canada will administer the fund, the Canada Infrastructure Bank will also determine which projects should receive funding. The largest component of Canada’s decoupling from the US is the C$1.6 billion marine terminal at Contrecoeur, Quebec , for which the federal and provincial governments have pledged some C$280 million in backing. While no specific projects were outlined, the government is considering projects that involved port and rail infrastructure on the West Coast, inland railroads, and ports in northeast Quebec. To facilitate those projects, the government’s next budget also outlines the potential for new entry points for goods moving in and out of Canada. The budget will provide additional resources to Canada’s customs agency for designating additional ports along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River for container imports and exports. Designating more container gateways “will help catalyze private investment at ports and is essential to diversifying our trade,” the government said in its budget. Canada’s customs agency currently only scans and clears containers at five ports: Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Montreal, Saint John and Halifax. But an October study by the country’s Chamber of Marine Commerce said that offering customs clearance at six other ports located along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence would generate C$130 million for businesses throughout Ontario and Quebec. Among the recommended sites is Quebec City, which is 155 miles northeast of Montreal. While the Port of Quebec primarily handles bulk goods currently, terminal operator and stevedore QSL last year proposed a 500,000-TEU terminal for Quebec’s port. Hamilton, located on the far western end of Lake Ontario, was also cited as a new container entry point. Last year, the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority and Canadian National started offering intermodal service between the port and Montreal. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

CMA CGM poised to venture into India-Russia trade despite war sanctions

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Slump of US imports from Asia deepening

Zim CEO sees ‘likely’ return to Suez Canal transits soon

Black Friday demand tightens trans-Pacific air cargo capacity, elevates rates

Recent Commentary

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

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

Top 5 Most Read Stories