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

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

Feature image

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

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

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Maritime

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

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

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

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

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

Breakbulk News

Logistics Technology News

Breakbulk carriers

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

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

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

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

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

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

Xeneta expands shipping data footprint with acquisition of eeSea

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Outpost’s technology aims to answer key supply chain security questions and clarify visibility at terminal gates. </div>

Outpost’s technology aims to answer key supply chain security questions and clarify visibility at terminal gates.

<div class="phx-topic">A company building a network of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/shipper-need-for-agility-fuels-growth-of-us-shared-terminal-trucking-network-6026788">shared terminals for trucking companies</a> and their customers is offering technology designed to overcome one of the main obstacles to supply chain visibility and security: the gate. Outpost, a company founded in 2021 to provide secure fleet yards for truck parking, on Thursday launched a gate automation platform based in part on AI. The technology is designed to identify trucks, tractors, drivers and trailer seals as a vehicle approaches the gate and then clear the vehicle to enter or decline entry. “The reality of a modern industrial gate is that it’s both a security point and an operational control point,” Greg Akselrod, chief technology officer for Outpost, told the Journal of Commerce. The security function is focused on the actual location and decides whether a tractor-trailer gets access to a facility. The operational function is more closely tied to overall supply chain visibility and integrated with Outpost’s network and the customer’s systems. “Tying all this information into one central management layer creates a level of coordination that’s an overlooked opportunity for visibility and control in the supply chain,” said Akselrod. “That creates a ton of ways to offer efficiencies and lower costs.” <h3>Working in a shared space </h3>Outpost isn’t alone in recognizing the problem with gates. Companies, including logistics provider C.H. Robinson Worldwide, are looking into ways to use AI to tackle security issues at terminal and warehouse gates and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ch-robinson-using-ai-to-advance-touchless-truck-scheduling-5214959">help speed truck appointments</a>. What differentiates Outpost is its terminal model, in which several trucking companies, shippers and logistics partners work together in a shared space. “We really see this as key to the fabric of interconnected terminals,” Akselrod said. However, the gate to a truck yard or distribution center or manufacturing plant often is the least automated part of a facility. The historical solution has been to put someone in a gatehouse, but that’s an increasingly inefficient solution, according to Outpost. “Our research shows that the average cost of having someone at a gate, 24/7, is about $25,000 a month,” he said, claiming automation can reduce that cost by 70%. Outpost is offering the technology to customers within its network and to those who want to install it at external facilities, Akselrod said. “We’ve had strong interest from motor carriers, shippers, distribution centers and even railroads,” he said. “The value is outsized when you have a network of facilities.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto://bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

A company building a network of shared terminals for trucking companies and their customers is offering technology designed to overcome one of the main obstacles to supply chain visibility and security: the gate. Outpost, a company founded in 2021 to provide secure fleet yards for truck parking, on Thursday launched a gate automation platform based in part on AI. The technology is designed to identify trucks, tractors, drivers and trailer seals as a vehicle approaches the gate and then clear the vehicle to enter or decline entry. “The reality of a modern industrial gate is that it’s both a security point and an operational control point,” Greg Akselrod, chief technology officer for Outpost, told the Journal of Commerce. The security function is focused on the actual location and decides whether a tractor-trailer gets access to a facility. The operational function is more closely tied to overall supply chain visibility and integrated with Outpost’s network and the customer’s systems. “Tying all this information into one central management layer creates a level of coordination that’s an overlooked opportunity for visibility and control in the supply chain,” said Akselrod. “That creates a ton of ways to offer efficiencies and lower costs.” Working in a shared space Outpost isn’t alone in recognizing the problem with gates. Companies, including logistics provider C.H. Robinson Worldwide, are looking into ways to use AI to tackle security issues at terminal and warehouse gates and help speed truck appointments . What differentiates Outpost is its terminal model, in which several trucking companies, shippers and logistics partners work together in a shared space. “We really see this as key to the fabric of interconnected terminals,” Akselrod said. However, the gate to a truck yard or distribution center or manufacturing plant often is the least automated part of a facility. The historical solution has been to put someone in a gatehouse, but that’s an increasingly inefficient solution, according to Outpost. “Our research shows that the average cost of having someone at a gate, 24/7, is about $25,000 a month,” he said, claiming automation can reduce that cost by 70%. Outpost is offering the technology to customers within its network and to those who want to install it at external facilities, Akselrod said. “We’ve had strong interest from motor carriers, shippers, distribution centers and even railroads,” he said. “The value is outsized when you have a network of facilities.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Trucking News

Surface

Shared-terminal operator rolls out AI-based gate security platform

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Less-than-truckload costs are up 7.3% year over year, according to the latest US data, but changes to the LTL classification system are adding little, if anything, to shipper rates. </div>

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

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

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

US LTL rates still rising after muted response to shipment reclassification

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Mediterranean Shipping Co. is adding new calls to West Africa on its South Africa service as former alliance partner Maersk pulls out of direct services from the continent.</div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. is adding new calls to West Africa on its South Africa service as former alliance partner Maersk pulls out of direct services from the continent.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. is expanding its South Africa-US East Coast service to cover some West African ports, a move that comes as Maersk plans to vacate its direct Africa service and the continent faces new US tariffs.MSC said this week the South Africa direct service it announced in May would now include a northbound call at the Ivory Coast’s Port of San-Pedro, while the southbound rotation would include a call at Togo’s Port of Lomé starting Oct. 1. The US rotation would include the ports of New York and New Jersey, Baltimore and Savannah, along with a seasonal call at Philadelphia and transshipment at Freeport in the Bahamas. The service will use a rotation of eight ships, along with four additional ships available to ensure schedule consistency. MSC’s expansion of direct call services from Africa to the US comes as one-time alliance partner Maersk plans to discontinue its Amex service between South Africa and the US East Coast in October. Amex’s end will leave transshipping African goods through Europe as the only option on Maersk services. The service expansion also leverages MSC’s terminal network throughout Africa, which expanded with the 2021 purchase of the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/msc-offers-6-billion-for-bollors-african-terminal-assets-5228988">Bollore Group’s portfolio of 16 marine terminals on the continent</a>. MSC’s Terminal Investment Ltd. (TiL) runs Lomé’s largest marine terminal and operates the main cocoa export terminal in the Ivory Coast.<h3>MSC leads US-Africa market share </h3>The container trade between Africa and North America is still small, with only 120,972 TEUs of imports from Africa to the US for all of 2024, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. MSC vessels handled 48% of that volume, while Maersk was second at 38%. US exports to Africa totaled 280,097 TEUs last year, with MSC handling 37% of that share and Maersk 33%. Those market shares have become even more lopsided this year due to frontloading. Through Aug. 15, MSC handled 54% of African exports to the US, while Maersk had a 34% share. The second quarter saw volumes from Africa jump 24% from the first quarter, according to PIERS data. The Trump administration has targeted South Africa with a 30% tariff rate that began Aug. 7. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. is expanding its South Africa-US East Coast service to cover some West African ports, a move that comes as Maersk plans to vacate its direct Africa service and the continent faces new US tariffs. MSC said this week the South Africa direct service it announced in May would now include a northbound call at the Ivory Coast’s Port of San-Pedro, while the southbound rotation would include a call at Togo’s Port of Lomé starting Oct. 1. The US rotation would include the ports of New York and New Jersey, Baltimore and Savannah, along with a seasonal call at Philadelphia and transshipment at Freeport in the Bahamas. The service will use a rotation of eight ships, along with four additional ships available to ensure schedule consistency. MSC’s expansion of direct call services from Africa to the US comes as one-time alliance partner Maersk plans to discontinue its Amex service between South Africa and the US East Coast in October. Amex’s end will leave transshipping African goods through Europe as the only option on Maersk services. The service expansion also leverages MSC’s terminal network throughout Africa, which expanded with the 2021 purchase of the Bollore Group’s portfolio of 16 marine terminals on the continent . MSC’s Terminal Investment Ltd. (TiL) runs Lomé’s largest marine terminal and operates the main cocoa export terminal in the Ivory Coast. MSC leads US-Africa market share The container trade between Africa and North America is still small, with only 120,972 TEUs of imports from Africa to the US for all of 2024, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. MSC vessels handled 48% of that volume, while Maersk was second at 38%. US exports to Africa totaled 280,097 TEUs last year, with MSC handling 37% of that share and Maersk 33%. Those market shares have become even more lopsided this year due to frontloading. Through Aug. 15, MSC handled 54% of African exports to the US, while Maersk had a 34% share. The second quarter saw volumes from Africa jump 24% from the first quarter, according to PIERS data. The Trump administration has targeted South Africa with a 30% tariff rate that began Aug. 7. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

MSC will expand Africa-US trade with new calls

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

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

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

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

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

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

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

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

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

Ro/ro cargo

North American ports

Marine terminals

Port infrastructure

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Current period

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

Remaining year

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

Annual volume

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

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

US YTD container imports (PIERS)

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

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

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

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

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

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Port News

Trans-Pacific

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

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM26GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

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


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

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

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

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

Industrial Real Estate News

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US tariffs are fuel cost-cutting mandates, heaping pressure on cargo owners to push for lower ocean shipping rates even if at the expense of carrier relations. </div>

US tariffs are fuel cost-cutting mandates, heaping pressure on cargo owners to push for lower ocean shipping rates even if at the expense of carrier relations.

<div class="phx-topic">A combination of factors that includes shippers’ hunger to lower costs in the face of the highest US tariffs in decades and a growing supply-demand imbalance are raising the specter of worsening shipper-carrier relations. In the near term, shippers operating under strict cost-cutting mandates could, for example, begin diverting contracted cargo to a lower-priced spot market. In the long term, this dynamic could result in shippers walking away from established carrier and forwarder partnerships in pursuit of marginally lower rates. “The pressure is immense already,” Mark Chadwick, president of the Global Shippers Association, told the Journal of Commerce. “With margins squeezed because of tariffs and nearshoring expenses, many CFOs are pushing their procurement teams to lower other costs, with logistics certainly on the list.” M. Can Fidan, executive vice president at forwarder MTS Logistics, said some shippers are still motivated in part by the record rates seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. “[Some] importers are always looking for lower prices, but I think now they have the appetite to push carriers, or maybe to switch to other carriers, after experiencing what they saw as unfair price increases during COVID-19 from longstanding carrier partners,” Fidan said. Those opportunities to drive down costs may well present themselves; analysts expect new vessel arrivals to tip the market into overcapacity next year, despite factors such as Red Sea diversions, port congestion in Asia and Europe, and alliance reshuffling that worked in carriers’ favor this year. JP Morgan said on Aug. 11 that “steep losses into 2026–27 [are] unavoidable” for Maersk, reflecting a deteriorating freight rate environment for the wider industry. It’s a familiar dynamic in container shipping. One party takes advantage of favorable market forces but in doing so sets itself up for future retaliation when the market turns against them. “The same bosses who are demanding a 10% reduction in your ocean spend now are the ones who are going to be screaming when you can’t get space on a ship,” Chadwick said. “There are many companies for whom air cargo is not a viable alternative, so if they can’t get access to ocean freight, it could be game over.” Shippers will no doubt recall that, in tight markets over the five-plus years since the beginning of the pandemic, carriers sought to maximize revenue, leaving lower-priced yet contracted cargo behind, improving their profitability but hurting customers’ supply chains in the process. They will remember how carriers aggressively use blank sailings and other capacity-restricting tools to support the market, the effect of which for shippers is longer transit times, higher inventory costs and revenue impact. “Even if you tell a customer today, ‘You know this x carrier took care of us during that time,’ they’ll say, ‘Yeah, I know, but they didn’t do it because they love me. They do it because I paid them the highest rate, right? So now, why do I need to support them when they need me?,’” Fidan said. <h3>History, repeated </h3>Shippers, for their part, had the opportunity to turn the tables in 2022 and 2024, when the market collapsed, and they are poised to do it again. Trans-Pacific spot rates have plunged more than 70% to the West Coast and 61% to the East Coast since mid-June, when China cargo was unleashed after the temporary easing of 145% tariffs. There are early signs that cost pressures are leading some shippers to seek out lower spot rates, even when failing to fulfill contracted minimum quantity commitments (MQCs). In other words, market forces may yet again overwhelm relationships, partnerships and any semblance of win-win value creation in the container supply chain. Even some shippers are warning that overly aggressive cost-cutting could come back to bite them when the market tightens. This is seen as inevitable given the current environment, characterized by repeated capacity shocks due to external forces and a consolidated carrier industry ready to take advantage. “It’s important for shippers to avoid the temptation of compromising commitments to their carrier partners in exchange for these relatively small, short-term gains,” Chadwick said. “Given the turmoil in international trade, some shippers won’t have the volume to meet their MQCs and should be upfront with the carriers about this, so that they can plan space utilization accordingly. But it’s a different story when that MQC’s missed because the shipper’s chasing an off contract alternative that’s slightly lower cost. “We need to protect the goodwill that we’ve been earning with the carriers, standing by our commitments so that we can expect the same when the market flips again,” he added. <h3>Lessons learned? </h3>But market forces will, as they have many times in the past, exert powerful pressures that undermine partnership. These include the intense margin pressure shippers are under when attempting to mitigate the impact of US tariffs, which are above 18% now on average, up from 2.4% last year and the highest level since the 1930s. Those pressures also include the wave of new vessels currently being delivered to carriers that will result in increasingly attractive rates being shopped to beneficial cargo owners. “We expect [rates] to continue to decline on a widening demand-supply imbalance,” JP Morgan wrote following Maersk’s second-quarter earnings report on Aug. 7. Chadwick said carriers are already floating “low-ball offers,” and this trend will likely accelerate through the end of 2025 and into 2026 as carriers and forwarders look to maintain volumes. “We know to expect the unexpected, so a lot could happen that could quickly reverse this trend, another reason to stay focused on being good partners to our carriers,” he said. Shippers will try different tactics to get away with shipping under lower spot rates while preserving carrier relationships, an increasingly important priority for them given there are fewer carriers available due to consolidation. They will argue, for example, that manufacturing or other delays prevent them fulfilling MQCs, an excuse carriers may accept to the extent the market is weak, and the carrier itself wants to preserve the relationship with the shipper in the upcoming contract cycle. A question hanging over the market is how much carriers learned over the past five years to maximize their advantage, specifically about limiting capacity in various ways when facing soft market conditions, or whether carriers will return to predatory practices of raiding each other’s cargo base just to fill their ships. “For the next few months, you will see carriers blanking capacity because I do think they realize the party is over and they brought in too much capacity this spring,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics. “But that said, they have been pretty good in reacting, and they will react again, pulling capacity out and creating a stable market. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A combination of factors that includes shippers’ hunger to lower costs in the face of the highest US tariffs in decades and a growing supply-demand imbalance are raising the specter of worsening shipper-carrier relations. In the near term, shippers operating under strict cost-cutting mandates could, for example, begin diverting contracted cargo to a lower-priced spot market. In the long term, this dynamic could result in shippers walking away from established carrier and forwarder partnerships in pursuit of marginally lower rates. “The pressure is immense already,” Mark Chadwick, president of the Global Shippers Association, told the Journal of Commerce. “With margins squeezed because of tariffs and nearshoring expenses, many CFOs are pushing their procurement teams to lower other costs, with logistics certainly on the list.” M. Can Fidan, executive vice president at forwarder MTS Logistics, said some shippers are still motivated in part by the record rates seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. “[Some] importers are always looking for lower prices, but I think now they have the appetite to push carriers, or maybe to switch to other carriers, after experiencing what they saw as unfair price increases during COVID-19 from longstanding carrier partners,” Fidan said. Those opportunities to drive down costs may well present themselves; analysts expect new vessel arrivals to tip the market into overcapacity next year, despite factors such as Red Sea diversions, port congestion in Asia and Europe, and alliance reshuffling that worked in carriers’ favor this year. JP Morgan said on Aug. 11 that “steep losses into 2026–27 [are] unavoidable” for Maersk, reflecting a deteriorating freight rate environment for the wider industry. It’s a familiar dynamic in container shipping. One party takes advantage of favorable market forces but in doing so sets itself up for future retaliation when the market turns against them. “The same bosses who are demanding a 10% reduction in your ocean spend now are the ones who are going to be screaming when you can’t get space on a ship,” Chadwick said. “There are many companies for whom air cargo is not a viable alternative, so if they can’t get access to ocean freight, it could be game over.” Shippers will no doubt recall that, in tight markets over the five-plus years since the beginning of the pandemic, carriers sought to maximize revenue, leaving lower-priced yet contracted cargo behind, improving their profitability but hurting customers’ supply chains in the process. They will remember how carriers aggressively use blank sailings and other capacity-restricting tools to support the market, the effect of which for shippers is longer transit times, higher inventory costs and revenue impact. “Even if you tell a customer today, ‘You know this x carrier took care of us during that time,’ they’ll say, ‘Yeah, I know, but they didn’t do it because they love me. They do it because I paid them the highest rate, right? So now, why do I need to support them when they need me?,’” Fidan said. History, repeated Shippers, for their part, had the opportunity to turn the tables in 2022 and 2024, when the market collapsed, and they are poised to do it again. Trans-Pacific spot rates have plunged more than 70% to the West Coast and 61% to the East Coast since mid-June, when China cargo was unleashed after the temporary easing of 145% tariffs. There are early signs that cost pressures are leading some shippers to seek out lower spot rates, even when failing to fulfill contracted minimum quantity commitments (MQCs). In other words, market forces may yet again overwhelm relationships, partnerships and any semblance of win-win value creation in the container supply chain. Even some shippers are warning that overly aggressive cost-cutting could come back to bite them when the market tightens. This is seen as inevitable given the current environment, characterized by repeated capacity shocks due to external forces and a consolidated carrier industry ready to take advantage. “It’s important for shippers to avoid the temptation of compromising commitments to their carrier partners in exchange for these relatively small, short-term gains,” Chadwick said. “Given the turmoil in international trade, some shippers won’t have the volume to meet their MQCs and should be upfront with the carriers about this, so that they can plan space utilization accordingly. But it’s a different story when that MQC’s missed because the shipper’s chasing an off contract alternative that’s slightly lower cost. “We need to protect the goodwill that we’ve been earning with the carriers, standing by our commitments so that we can expect the same when the market flips again,” he added. Lessons learned? But market forces will, as they have many times in the past, exert powerful pressures that undermine partnership. These include the intense margin pressure shippers are under when attempting to mitigate the impact of US tariffs, which are above 18% now on average, up from 2.4% last year and the highest level since the 1930s. Those pressures also include the wave of new vessels currently being delivered to carriers that will result in increasingly attractive rates being shopped to beneficial cargo owners. “We expect [rates] to continue to decline on a widening demand-supply imbalance,” JP Morgan wrote following Maersk’s second-quarter earnings report on Aug. 7. Chadwick said carriers are already floating “low-ball offers,” and this trend will likely accelerate through the end of 2025 and into 2026 as carriers and forwarders look to maintain volumes. “We know to expect the unexpected, so a lot could happen that could quickly reverse this trend, another reason to stay focused on being good partners to our carriers,” he said. Shippers will try different tactics to get away with shipping under lower spot rates while preserving carrier relationships, an increasingly important priority for them given there are fewer carriers available due to consolidation. They will argue, for example, that manufacturing or other delays prevent them fulfilling MQCs, an excuse carriers may accept to the extent the market is weak, and the carrier itself wants to preserve the relationship with the shipper in the upcoming contract cycle. A question hanging over the market is how much carriers learned over the past five years to maximize their advantage, specifically about limiting capacity in various ways when facing soft market conditions, or whether carriers will return to predatory practices of raiding each other’s cargo base just to fill their ships. “For the next few months, you will see carriers blanking capacity because I do think they realize the party is over and they brought in too much capacity this spring,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of consulting firm 365 Logistics. “But that said, they have been pretty good in reacting, and they will react again, pulling capacity out and creating a stable market. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Shipper cost pressures risk further fraying carrier relationships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A cautious approach to investment in network and terminal infrastructure is not keeping pace with market growth.</div>

A cautious approach to investment in network and terminal infrastructure is not keeping pace with market growth.

<div class="phx-topic">A growing mismatch at North European ocean gateways between available capacity and demand has left deep-sea container terminals struggling with high utilization levels and likely facing years of port bottlenecks. For much of 2025, persistent congestion across the region’s largest ports has delayed ship turnarounds and dragged down schedule reliability. After reaching a 2025 high of 45%, on-time performance on the trade lane in July was a dismal 28%, according to visibility provider eeSea. Congestion in Europe’s ports was likely to be an issue “for a few years,” Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/high-gemini-reliability-lays-groundwork-for-premium-rate-discussions-maersk-ceo-6059343">during a second-quarter earnings call with analysts</a> last week. “There is a general undercapacity in ports in Europe where we’re starting to feel more and more points of congestions that are impeding the networks,” he explained. “This is the result of terminal capacity being added over the last 15, 20 years at a slower pace than the market has been growing.” Clerc said Maersk was significantly expanding its terminal capacity in Rotterdam and was about to open a terminal in Croatia. “There’s some definite points where we’re looking at expanding and others are doing something similar, but it will take time for all of that to come online,” he said. Europe’s second-busiest container port of Antwerp-Bruges highlighted the lack of space in its first-half results in July, noting that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strong-h1-volumes-space-crunch-keep-antwerp-terminals-under-pressure-6043917">marine terminals were under “heavy strain”</a> with landside space at critically low levels. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7041fe54-edf1-4d59-9d82-94781e7a7eb1"></dynamic-object></div>On top of the terminal undercapacity, several other factors are adding to the bottlenecks. Europe’s hub ports across the Northern Range have seen carriers shift toward deploying larger vessels on mainline Asia-North Europe routes, increasing the average container exchange and generating higher cargo peaks at terminal yards. Disruption on the maritime leg of voyages, such as making greater use of blank sailings to manage capacity and taking a longer route around southern Africa to avoid the Red Sea, also has an impact on yard operations. <h3>Landside capacity restricted </h3>Another contributing factor to the congestion is restricted landside transport capacity, with low water levels on the Rhine limiting barge capacity and poor rail capacity and reliability. “Modal shift initiatives [such as road] will likely put further pressure on landside transport linkages, but perhaps there needs to be a period of demand push to activate the required investments to improve the intermodal connectivity at key ports,” Eleanor Hadland, senior associate for ports and terminals at Drewry, told the Journal of Commerce Tuesday. The ongoing port congestion is absorbing a significant amount of Asia-Europe capacity deployed on the trade lane, constraining capacity by extending vessel turnaround times and reducing effective service frequency, according to C.H. Robinson. Instead of a typical two- or three-day port stay, vessels are now hanging around longer due to berth delays and slower cargo handling, the forwarder wrote in an August market update. “This means a ship that normally completes 12 round trips per year can now complete only eight or nine trips, reducing the total shipping capacity available to the market by roughly 25%-30%,” C.H. Robinson noted. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="eebb48eb-ad03-4e0f-a647-67693692edb4"></dynamic-object></div>Michael Aldwell, executive vice president of sea logistics at Kuehne + Nagel, said capacity reduction has been between 15% and 20% on both Asia-North Europe and Asia-Mediterranean lanes for the last two months. “The reduction in capacity is a combination of where there are still not enough vessels to entirely cover the Cape of Good Hope routing, the replacement of larger vessels with smaller ones [on the trans-Pacific eastbound and Africa trade], and the European port congestion, which started in February and which indeed does not show sign of improvement,” Aldwell told the Journal of Commerce. The congestion in European gateways could be different by terminals of the same port and by carrier, and even within the same alliance, he said. “What K+N does to circumvent the unpredictable and uncontrollable European port congestion is to work with collect on delivery [COD] or with dynamic ETA planning, depending on customer preference and needs.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A growing mismatch at North European ocean gateways between available capacity and demand has left deep-sea container terminals struggling with high utilization levels and likely facing years of port bottlenecks. For much of 2025, persistent congestion across the region’s largest ports has delayed ship turnarounds and dragged down schedule reliability. After reaching a 2025 high of 45%, on-time performance on the trade lane in July was a dismal 28%, according to visibility provider eeSea. Congestion in Europe’s ports was likely to be an issue “for a few years,” Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc said during a second-quarter earnings call with analysts last week. “There is a general undercapacity in ports in Europe where we’re starting to feel more and more points of congestions that are impeding the networks,” he explained. “This is the result of terminal capacity being added over the last 15, 20 years at a slower pace than the market has been growing.” Clerc said Maersk was significantly expanding its terminal capacity in Rotterdam and was about to open a terminal in Croatia. “There’s some definite points where we’re looking at expanding and others are doing something similar, but it will take time for all of that to come online,” he said. Europe’s second-busiest container port of Antwerp-Bruges highlighted the lack of space in its first-half results in July, noting that marine terminals were under “heavy strain” with landside space at critically low levels. On top of the terminal undercapacity, several other factors are adding to the bottlenecks. Europe’s hub ports across the Northern Range have seen carriers shift toward deploying larger vessels on mainline Asia-North Europe routes, increasing the average container exchange and generating higher cargo peaks at terminal yards. Disruption on the maritime leg of voyages, such as making greater use of blank sailings to manage capacity and taking a longer route around southern Africa to avoid the Red Sea, also has an impact on yard operations. Landside capacity restricted Another contributing factor to the congestion is restricted landside transport capacity, with low water levels on the Rhine limiting barge capacity and poor rail capacity and reliability. “Modal shift initiatives [such as road] will likely put further pressure on landside transport linkages, but perhaps there needs to be a period of demand push to activate the required investments to improve the intermodal connectivity at key ports,” Eleanor Hadland, senior associate for ports and terminals at Drewry, told the Journal of Commerce Tuesday. The ongoing port congestion is absorbing a significant amount of Asia-Europe capacity deployed on the trade lane, constraining capacity by extending vessel turnaround times and reducing effective service frequency, according to C.H. Robinson. Instead of a typical two- or three-day port stay, vessels are now hanging around longer due to berth delays and slower cargo handling, the forwarder wrote in an August market update. “This means a ship that normally completes 12 round trips per year can now complete only eight or nine trips, reducing the total shipping capacity available to the market by roughly 25%-30%,” C.H. Robinson noted. Michael Aldwell, executive vice president of sea logistics at Kuehne + Nagel, said capacity reduction has been between 15% and 20% on both Asia-North Europe and Asia-Mediterranean lanes for the last two months. “The reduction in capacity is a combination of where there are still not enough vessels to entirely cover the Cape of Good Hope routing, the replacement of larger vessels with smaller ones [on the trans-Pacific eastbound and Africa trade], and the European port congestion, which started in February and which indeed does not show sign of improvement,” Aldwell told the Journal of Commerce. The congestion in European gateways could be different by terminals of the same port and by carrier, and even within the same alliance, he said. “What K+N does to circumvent the unpredictable and uncontrollable European port congestion is to work with collect on delivery [COD] or with dynamic ETA planning, depending on customer preference and needs.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

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

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

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

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

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

Recent Commentary

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Top 5 Most Read Stories