<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The union claims the Virginia Port Authority is tacitly violating the new master contract by influencing the port’s main terminal employer. </div>

The union claims the Virginia Port Authority is tacitly violating the new master contract by influencing the port’s main terminal employer.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) is suing the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) and its chief executive, alleging they are using their control of the port’s terminal employer to violate the union’s master contract by forcing new rail crane technology on longshore workers. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Virginia, says the VPA and Chief Executive Stephen Edwards leveraged Virginia International Terminals (VIT) — the port’s separate legal entity that handles daily operations and directly employs longshore workers — to implement new technology at the port without going through the process required by the master contract. The suit, which further alleges the port authority sought to influence contract talks held earlier this year and in 2024 even though it was not a party to the talks, seeks to bar the VPA and Edwards from interfering in the contractual relationship between the union and VIT. “VPA and Edwards are aware of the terms and conditions of the master contract, specifically as they relate to the specific processes, procedures and assurances for implementing new technology, as well as the workforce protections guaranteed to ILA labor,” the lawsuit reads. “Yet, despite their knowledge of the terms and conditions of the master contract, VPA and Edwards have knowingly and intentionally interfered with the contract between VIT and ILA by causing VIT to violate that contract,” the suit adds. The VPA declined comment on the lawsuit. <h3>Crane installation began in April </h3>The VPA in April began to install <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-targets-rail-mounted-gantry-cranes-amid-impasse-in-port-labor-talks-5874742">semi-automated rail-mounted gantry cranes</a> on the north berth of Norfolk International Terminals, the suit said. The ILA claims that VIT, as the signatory to the master contract and the actual employer at the terminal, did notify the union about the new technology. Under the ILA master contract ratified this past March, any new technology implemented by ports along the East and Gulf coasts must be vetted by a new technology committee comprised of the union and maritime employers to determine staffing levels for the new equipment, training and pay rates. The local union must also be notified so it can negotiate with employers about the new technology. However, the ILA alleges that VIT did not follow this process. Instead, “VIT said that the cranes had been purchased by VPA, not VIT.” VIT said that because VPA is not a party to the master contract, it did not have to inform the union about the new technology, the suit claims. “Thus, VPA is using its authority to frustrate the collective bargaining process and interfere with the master contract relationship between ILA and VIT,” the lawsuit reads. Even before the new cranes arrived, the ILA alleges that Edwards and the VPA were seeking to influence the contract talks, claiming that VIT “argued vociferously against more stringent workforce protections for ILA labor related to the implementation of new technology.” “VIT’s argument during contract negotiations in favor of automating and against workforce protection was at the behest of defendants VPA, in general, and defendant Edwards, in particular,” the suit alleges. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) is suing the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) and its chief executive, alleging they are using their control of the port’s terminal employer to violate the union’s master contract by forcing new rail crane technology on longshore workers. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Virginia, says the VPA and Chief Executive Stephen Edwards leveraged Virginia International Terminals (VIT) — the port’s separate legal entity that handles daily operations and directly employs longshore workers — to implement new technology at the port without going through the process required by the master contract. The suit, which further alleges the port authority sought to influence contract talks held earlier this year and in 2024 even though it was not a party to the talks, seeks to bar the VPA and Edwards from interfering in the contractual relationship between the union and VIT. “VPA and Edwards are aware of the terms and conditions of the master contract, specifically as they relate to the specific processes, procedures and assurances for implementing new technology, as well as the workforce protections guaranteed to ILA labor,” the lawsuit reads. “Yet, despite their knowledge of the terms and conditions of the master contract, VPA and Edwards have knowingly and intentionally interfered with the contract between VIT and ILA by causing VIT to violate that contract,” the suit adds. The VPA declined comment on the lawsuit. Crane installation began in April The VPA in April began to install semi-automated rail-mounted gantry cranes on the north berth of Norfolk International Terminals, the suit said. The ILA claims that VIT, as the signatory to the master contract and the actual employer at the terminal, did notify the union about the new technology. Under the ILA master contract ratified this past March, any new technology implemented by ports along the East and Gulf coasts must be vetted by a new technology committee comprised of the union and maritime employers to determine staffing levels for the new equipment, training and pay rates. The local union must also be notified so it can negotiate with employers about the new technology. However, the ILA alleges that VIT did not follow this process. Instead, “VIT said that the cranes had been purchased by VPA, not VIT.” VIT said that because VPA is not a party to the master contract, it did not have to inform the union about the new technology, the suit claims. “Thus, VPA is using its authority to frustrate the collective bargaining process and interfere with the master contract relationship between ILA and VIT,” the lawsuit reads. Even before the new cranes arrived, the ILA alleges that Edwards and the VPA were seeking to influence the contract talks, claiming that VIT “argued vociferously against more stringent workforce protections for ILA labor related to the implementation of new technology.” “VIT’s argument during contract negotiations in favor of automating and against workforce protection was at the behest of defendants VPA, in general, and defendant Edwards, in particular,” the suit alleges. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Longshore labor

North American ports

ILA suing Virginia port, chief executive over rollout of new rail cranes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence’s Global Port Congestion Analysis shows that half of Northern Europe’s ports reported year-over-year declines in port moves per hour in the second quarter, while Asian ports faced higher arrival process times and mixed efficiency results. </div>

S&P Global Market Intelligence’s Global Port Congestion Analysis shows that half of Northern Europe’s ports reported year-over-year declines in port moves per hour in the second quarter, while Asian ports faced higher arrival process times and mixed efficiency results.

<div class="phx-topic">A new port performance analysis underscores the extent of congestion in European ports in the second quarter, flow challenges for Asian ports and how US ports were able to handle elevated, tariff-driven volumes. S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence’s Global Port Congestion Analysis shows that half of Northern Europe’s ports reported year-over-year declines in port moves per hour in the second quarter, while Asian ports faced higher arrival process times and mixed efficiency results. Meanwhile, most North American ports maintained average call sizes year over year while improving their arrival process time. The analysis, released Friday, examines the year-over-year shifts in global port congestion metrics in the second quarter, including number of calls, average call size, arrival process time, berth hours, port moves per hour and container dwell times. <h3>Global congestion hurdles </h3>Congestion hurdles in Northern Europe and the Mediterranean include efficiency declines and increased average port hours, or hours spent between arrival or anchorage until vessel departure. Congestion at European ports has been a growing problem for shippers, as the disparity between available capacity and demand <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/underinvestment-exposes-european-ports-to-systematic-bottlenecks-6062033">leaves deep-sea container terminals facing the potential of years-long bottlenecks</a>. Meanwhile, Mediterranean ports faced decreased productivity and increased average port hours. The report showed that Northeast Asian ports exhibited higher arrival process times and lower berth productivity year over year in the second quarter. Southeast Asian ports faced mixed results, with Singapore, Tanjung Pelepas, Manila and Port Klang improving their port moves per hour, while others, such as Laem Chabang, Cai Mep and Chattogram, worsened. <h3>Consistency in North America </h3>The performance of North American ports mostly remained steady, with the Port of Long Beach experiencing a notable drop in average call sizes but an increase in recorded vessel calls in the second quarter year over year. Long Beach will be able to accommodate larger vessels through <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/long-beach-its-terminal-upgrade-to-boost-capacity-by-about-50-6042244">a $365 million upgrade</a> allowing International Transportation Service (ITS) to berth two 18,000-TEU ships simultaneously when the project is completed in early 2029. The project involves filling in a 19-acre slip that will convert the terminal into a larger, square-shaped facility that will enable more efficient container handling. ITS at present is, in effect, two separate terminals separated by the slip, which hinders operational efficiency. While most North American ports reviewed saw an increase in port moves per hour in the second quarter, Charleston showed the largest on-year gains. The port began to regain services from major carriers at its new Leatherman terminal after the South Carolina State Ports Authority and the International Longshoremen’s Association <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/sc-ports-strikes-deal-with-ila-to-fully-open-leatherman-marine-terminal-5192280">settled a legal dispute.</a>Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.Senior Editor Bill Mongelluzzo contributed to this report. </div>

A new port performance analysis underscores the extent of congestion in European ports in the second quarter, flow challenges for Asian ports and how US ports were able to handle elevated, tariff-driven volumes. S&P Global Market Intelligence’s Global Port Congestion Analysis shows that half of Northern Europe’s ports reported year-over-year declines in port moves per hour in the second quarter, while Asian ports faced higher arrival process times and mixed efficiency results. Meanwhile, most North American ports maintained average call sizes year over year while improving their arrival process time. The analysis, released Friday, examines the year-over-year shifts in global port congestion metrics in the second quarter, including number of calls, average call size, arrival process time, berth hours, port moves per hour and container dwell times. Global congestion hurdles Congestion hurdles in Northern Europe and the Mediterranean include efficiency declines and increased average port hours, or hours spent between arrival or anchorage until vessel departure. Congestion at European ports has been a growing problem for shippers, as the disparity between available capacity and demand leaves deep-sea container terminals facing the potential of years-long bottlenecks . Meanwhile, Mediterranean ports faced decreased productivity and increased average port hours. The report showed that Northeast Asian ports exhibited higher arrival process times and lower berth productivity year over year in the second quarter. Southeast Asian ports faced mixed results, with Singapore, Tanjung Pelepas, Manila and Port Klang improving their port moves per hour, while others, such as Laem Chabang, Cai Mep and Chattogram, worsened. Consistency in North America The performance of North American ports mostly remained steady, with the Port of Long Beach experiencing a notable drop in average call sizes but an increase in recorded vessel calls in the second quarter year over year. Long Beach will be able to accommodate larger vessels through a $365 million upgrade allowing International Transportation Service (ITS) to berth two 18,000-TEU ships simultaneously when the project is completed in early 2029. The project involves filling in a 19-acre slip that will convert the terminal into a larger, square-shaped facility that will enable more efficient container handling. ITS at present is, in effect, two separate terminals separated by the slip, which hinders operational efficiency. While most North American ports reviewed saw an increase in port moves per hour in the second quarter, Charleston showed the largest on-year gains. The port began to regain services from major carriers at its new Leatherman terminal after the South Carolina State Ports Authority and the International Longshoremen’s Association settled a legal dispute. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .Senior Editor Bill Mongelluzzo contributed to this report.

Maritime

Marine terminals

Port infrastructure

Port News

European ports face continued congestion; Asia gateways saw mixed results in Q2: analysis

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With no clear definition of what duty and data processes are required by CBP after the Aug. 29 end to all de minimis exemptions, most import shipments via post to the US have been suspended until further notice.</div>

With no clear definition of what duty and data processes are required by CBP after the Aug. 29 end to all de minimis exemptions, most import shipments via post to the US have been suspended until further notice.

<div class="phx-topic">The suspension of mail shipments to the US has gone global as postal organizations around the world cite their inability to comply with the tight “de minimis” elimination timeline provided by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ahead of the Aug. 29 implementation date. Asia-Pacific postal organizations — including Japan Post, Australia Post and Taiwan’s Chunghwa Post — joined their European Union counterparts this week in suspending parcel shipments through postal networks to the US Postal Service (USPS) as they work through compliance issues. “The US de minimis elimination is causing global logistical disruptions, with postal suspensions reflecting unresolved operational challenges,” Dmitry Kulish, director of air cargo/Asia-Pacific for air freight logistics provider ACN Group, told the Journal of Commerce. “Asian and European shippers alike are seeking clarity from CBP, but until systems are updated, postal halts will likely persist,” Kulish warned. President Donald Trump’s executive order — “Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries” — will from Friday require duties to be paid to US customs on all imported goods, regardless of their country of origin. However, technical details of the new rules were only released on Aug. 15, leaving just two weeks for the world’s postal companies to prepare for a comprehensive change in customs requirements. With still no clear definition of what duty and data processes are required by CBP, most shipments via post to the US have been suspended until further notice. Currently, low-value goods and gifts can be imported into the US duty-free from other countries due to a de minimis customs threshold of $800. Beginning Aug. 29, all imports, except letters and documents with no value and purely private shipments of gifts with a value under $100, will face duties. <h3>‘Little public guidance’ </h3>Cindy Allen, CEO of consulting firm Trade Force Multiplier and a former customs executive with FedEx, said foreign postal services were being forced into a freight forwarder role of arranging customs clearance in the US or requiring shippers to do so on their own. “Little public guidance has been offered to foreign postal services, and without a set procedure or approach, each must determine what is required to move packages into the US,” Allen told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. “The implementation has been chaotic at best,” she added. “The biggest hurdle was who was going to assess, collect and tender the duty to CBP. The postal service doesn’t have the mechanisms or capacity to appoint a broker to handle all the shipments as would happen in a normal freight environment.” Compliance with the new rules will require substantial modification of shipment control processes, and dozens of mostly state-run postal organizations around the world have complained at the short notice given by CBP for new customs requirements. Spain’s state-owned postal service Correos said the two-week notice given by CBP was not enough, considering its impact on critical processes such as the collection of duties at source, the collection and reporting of new data and interaction with the various cross-border institutions involved in the new mechanism. “Due to the limited timeframe to adapt to these new requirements, and in order to protect the interests of its customers, Correos will temporarily suspend shipments to the United States and Puerto Rico until the appropriate solution has been developed and implemented to comply with the new regulation,” the company said in a statement. France’s La Poste said the US customs duties from Aug. 29 would be the responsibility of the sender and not the recipient — unlike in the rest of the world — and must be paid to CBP before the items enter the US. “However, to date, the United States has not provided European postal operators with concrete procedures for collecting taxes,” La Poste said in a statement noting its suspension of US postal shipments this week. “It is therefore impossible for us to undertake the work necessary to implement these new requirements.” <h3>Key import questions remain unanswered </h3>The DHL Group stopped accepting parcel and postal items destined for the US on Aug. 22, pointing out that new processes required by US authorities for postal shipping differed from previously applicable regulations. “Key questions remain unresolved, particularly regarding how and by whom customs duties will be collected in the future, what additional data will be required and how the data transmission to the US Customs and Border Protection will be carried out,” DHL noted in a statement. The global elimination of duty-free access to low-value goods will not have a noticeable impact on air cargo, according to Frederic Horst, managing director of consultancy Trade and Transport Group. “US carriers reported about 22,000 tonnes of inbound mail in the 12 months ended May 2025. That is less than 1% of total US inbound air cargo traffic,” Horst told the Journal of Commerce. “For mail [to the US], the biggest origins are the UK, Australia and Germany with 7,300, 3,200 and 2,100 tonnes, respectively, over the last 12 months,” he added. “Most mail moves on passenger carriers so if there is any impact it will be felt by carriers operating from those countries.” US customs data shows that in 2024, 1.36 billion packages valued at $64 billion entered the country under the de minimis exemption. The e-commerce shipments accounted for close to 50% of China-to-US air freight volume, with big Chinese platforms Temu and Shein filling dozens of freighters every day. That spigot was turned off on May 2 with dramatic effect when the de minimis exemption was eliminated for imports from China and Hong Kong. Data from air freight analyst Rotate shows overall China-US air cargo demand fell more than 30% in June year over year following a 28% drop in May, while China’s e-commerce exports to the US in July were down 44% year over year. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The suspension of mail shipments to the US has gone global as postal organizations around the world cite their inability to comply with the tight “de minimis” elimination timeline provided by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ahead of the Aug. 29 implementation date. Asia-Pacific postal organizations — including Japan Post, Australia Post and Taiwan’s Chunghwa Post — joined their European Union counterparts this week in suspending parcel shipments through postal networks to the US Postal Service (USPS) as they work through compliance issues. “The US de minimis elimination is causing global logistical disruptions, with postal suspensions reflecting unresolved operational challenges,” Dmitry Kulish, director of air cargo/Asia-Pacific for air freight logistics provider ACN Group, told the Journal of Commerce. “Asian and European shippers alike are seeking clarity from CBP, but until systems are updated, postal halts will likely persist,” Kulish warned. President Donald Trump’s executive order — “Suspending Duty-Free De Minimis Treatment for All Countries” — will from Friday require duties to be paid to US customs on all imported goods, regardless of their country of origin. However, technical details of the new rules were only released on Aug. 15, leaving just two weeks for the world’s postal companies to prepare for a comprehensive change in customs requirements. With still no clear definition of what duty and data processes are required by CBP, most shipments via post to the US have been suspended until further notice. Currently, low-value goods and gifts can be imported into the US duty-free from other countries due to a de minimis customs threshold of $800. Beginning Aug. 29, all imports, except letters and documents with no value and purely private shipments of gifts with a value under $100, will face duties. ‘Little public guidance’ Cindy Allen, CEO of consulting firm Trade Force Multiplier and a former customs executive with FedEx, said foreign postal services were being forced into a freight forwarder role of arranging customs clearance in the US or requiring shippers to do so on their own. “Little public guidance has been offered to foreign postal services, and without a set procedure or approach, each must determine what is required to move packages into the US,” Allen told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. “The implementation has been chaotic at best,” she added. “The biggest hurdle was who was going to assess, collect and tender the duty to CBP. The postal service doesn’t have the mechanisms or capacity to appoint a broker to handle all the shipments as would happen in a normal freight environment.” Compliance with the new rules will require substantial modification of shipment control processes, and dozens of mostly state-run postal organizations around the world have complained at the short notice given by CBP for new customs requirements. Spain’s state-owned postal service Correos said the two-week notice given by CBP was not enough, considering its impact on critical processes such as the collection of duties at source, the collection and reporting of new data and interaction with the various cross-border institutions involved in the new mechanism. “Due to the limited timeframe to adapt to these new requirements, and in order to protect the interests of its customers, Correos will temporarily suspend shipments to the United States and Puerto Rico until the appropriate solution has been developed and implemented to comply with the new regulation,” the company said in a statement. France’s La Poste said the US customs duties from Aug. 29 would be the responsibility of the sender and not the recipient — unlike in the rest of the world — and must be paid to CBP before the items enter the US. “However, to date, the United States has not provided European postal operators with concrete procedures for collecting taxes,” La Poste said in a statement noting its suspension of US postal shipments this week. “It is therefore impossible for us to undertake the work necessary to implement these new requirements.” Key import questions remain unanswered The DHL Group stopped accepting parcel and postal items destined for the US on Aug. 22, pointing out that new processes required by US authorities for postal shipping differed from previously applicable regulations. “Key questions remain unresolved, particularly regarding how and by whom customs duties will be collected in the future, what additional data will be required and how the data transmission to the US Customs and Border Protection will be carried out,” DHL noted in a statement. The global elimination of duty-free access to low-value goods will not have a noticeable impact on air cargo, according to Frederic Horst, managing director of consultancy Trade and Transport Group. “US carriers reported about 22,000 tonnes of inbound mail in the 12 months ended May 2025. That is less than 1% of total US inbound air cargo traffic,” Horst told the Journal of Commerce. “For mail [to the US], the biggest origins are the UK, Australia and Germany with 7,300, 3,200 and 2,100 tonnes, respectively, over the last 12 months,” he added. “Most mail moves on passenger carriers so if there is any impact it will be felt by carriers operating from those countries.” US customs data shows that in 2024, 1.36 billion packages valued at $64 billion entered the country under the de minimis exemption. The e-commerce shipments accounted for close to 50% of China-to-US air freight volume, with big Chinese platforms Temu and Shein filling dozens of freighters every day. That spigot was turned off on May 2 with dramatic effect when the de minimis exemption was eliminated for imports from China and Hong Kong. Data from air freight analyst Rotate shows overall China-US air cargo demand fell more than 30% in June year over year following a 28% drop in May, while China’s e-commerce exports to the US in July were down 44% year over year. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Air Cargo

Postal groups cite customs compliance issues in US shipment suspensions

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Tech services company WNS is being added as the Digital Container Shipping Association’s “execution arm” to embed standards into systems commonly used by carriers, forwarders and shippers.</div>

Tech services company WNS is being added as the Digital Container Shipping Association’s “execution arm” to embed standards into systems commonly used by carriers, forwarders and shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">The Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA) is turning to a growing network of partners to help it drive adoption of the process standards it has developed over the last six years for the shipping industry. DCSA this summer added WNS, a technology services company that works with multiple shipping lines, to its roster of partners, which already include Lufthansa Industry Solutions, Valenciaport and multimodal logistics provider Samskip. The addition of WNS is potentially impactful given the company’s reach into global logistics, with 30 customers that include forwarders and non-vessel-operating companies. DCSA is a nonprofit consortium founded in 2019 to develop standards among shipping lines to make it easier for shippers and logistics companies to do business across carriers. The idea behind the partnership program, called DCSA+, is to take standards DCSA has developed around track-and-trace, electronic bills of lading, container booking and just-in-time port calls and embed them within systems used by shipping lines, their partners and customers. Three of DCSA’s 11 carrier members are current WNS customers. Jaison Augustine, WNS’ business unit head for shipping and logistics, told the Journal of Commerce WNS sees itself as the “execution arm” of the DCSA partnership. “We are accountable for delivering outcomes for our customers, and the standards DCSA is developing are moving toward those goals,” he said. “Standards are necessary but not sufficient in and of itself. That’s where we come in.” Augustine said having a growing group of partners that can help implement the standards DCSA has developed might set the association up for its “IATA moment,” a reference to the long-standing International Air Transport Association that supports the airline industry. “Standards by themselves don’t dictate success,” he said. “Adoption is critical.” <h3>Standards implementation grew in 2024 </h3>DCSA had somewhat of a watershed year in 2024. Use of individual standards by DCSA members grew, while nearly three-quarters of the data conveyed by electronic data interchanges (EDI) has now been converted to application programming interfaces (APIs), DCSA Chief Growth Officer Mariana Bock-Losada told the Journal of Commerce. And yet there is still a need for DCSA’s members to go faster to actually implement the standards that have been developed in the systems they use and the ones their customers and partners use. “This is the right moment to actively start accelerating the standards,” Bock-Losada said. “Collaboration has to extend beyond the members developing standards based on carriers and their priorities and implementing them in their own systems. That’s why we have selected these priority partners in areas like short sea, terminals and forwarders.” Augustine said WNS is in a position to help reach those adjacent groups because the work it does is about understanding what processes work and don’t work. “We see how the sausage is made,” he said. “From the quality of shipping instructions to incomplete information to the way companies submit requests, ratings, bills of lading. It’s an ocean of excel sheets and workarounds.” The reason adoption is slow, Augustine said, is because if there is any friction or burden in doing something new, shippers will turn away. “The shippers themselves say, ‘if I’m dealing with six carriers, and everyone is not on the same standards, I’m not going to deal with all these different processes,” he said. “There are some unique aspects of this industry where efforts to unify it have not gotten the buy in. It’s endemic in the industry, primarily because it’s inward-focused.” <h3>Technology spend </h3>Augustine said it has to go back to how carriers spend their technology budget. “Here’s the paradox: every carrier spends hundreds of millions of dollars modernizing their systems, and it’s a continuous cycle,” he said, referencing investment in customer-facing tools like booking, rating and bill of lading. “But my strong contention is the best of these systems doesn’t give them a dollar in freight, and it doesn’t give them a competitive advantage,” he added. “Their service deployment and reliability is the competitive advantage.” Bock-Losada said the DCSA is pushing for investment that tackles common problems that all customers face so they can be solved in a unified way. There will be different metrics to measuring success of the partnership program. Bock-Losada pointed to the “volume of data being exchanged through APIs,” based on DCSA standards, between carrier members and external parties. Augustine said efficacy should be judged by the percentage of cargo moving by member lines that adheres to DCSA standards. “But that’s only from the carrier perspective,” he said. “What is in it for the shippers to adopt the standards? The volume of transactions that are adhering to standards the carriers are propagating will soon be the [key performance indicator] by which we’ll be measured.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA) is turning to a growing network of partners to help it drive adoption of the process standards it has developed over the last six years for the shipping industry. DCSA this summer added WNS, a technology services company that works with multiple shipping lines, to its roster of partners, which already include Lufthansa Industry Solutions, Valenciaport and multimodal logistics provider Samskip. The addition of WNS is potentially impactful given the company’s reach into global logistics, with 30 customers that include forwarders and non-vessel-operating companies. DCSA is a nonprofit consortium founded in 2019 to develop standards among shipping lines to make it easier for shippers and logistics companies to do business across carriers. The idea behind the partnership program, called DCSA+, is to take standards DCSA has developed around track-and-trace, electronic bills of lading, container booking and just-in-time port calls and embed them within systems used by shipping lines, their partners and customers. Three of DCSA’s 11 carrier members are current WNS customers. Jaison Augustine, WNS’ business unit head for shipping and logistics, told the Journal of Commerce WNS sees itself as the “execution arm” of the DCSA partnership. “We are accountable for delivering outcomes for our customers, and the standards DCSA is developing are moving toward those goals,” he said. “Standards are necessary but not sufficient in and of itself. That’s where we come in.” Augustine said having a growing group of partners that can help implement the standards DCSA has developed might set the association up for its “IATA moment,” a reference to the long-standing International Air Transport Association that supports the airline industry. “Standards by themselves don’t dictate success,” he said. “Adoption is critical.” Standards implementation grew in 2024 DCSA had somewhat of a watershed year in 2024. Use of individual standards by DCSA members grew, while nearly three-quarters of the data conveyed by electronic data interchanges (EDI) has now been converted to application programming interfaces (APIs), DCSA Chief Growth Officer Mariana Bock-Losada told the Journal of Commerce. And yet there is still a need for DCSA’s members to go faster to actually implement the standards that have been developed in the systems they use and the ones their customers and partners use. “This is the right moment to actively start accelerating the standards,” Bock-Losada said. “Collaboration has to extend beyond the members developing standards based on carriers and their priorities and implementing them in their own systems. That’s why we have selected these priority partners in areas like short sea, terminals and forwarders.” Augustine said WNS is in a position to help reach those adjacent groups because the work it does is about understanding what processes work and don’t work. “We see how the sausage is made,” he said. “From the quality of shipping instructions to incomplete information to the way companies submit requests, ratings, bills of lading. It’s an ocean of excel sheets and workarounds.” The reason adoption is slow, Augustine said, is because if there is any friction or burden in doing something new, shippers will turn away. “The shippers themselves say, ‘if I’m dealing with six carriers, and everyone is not on the same standards, I’m not going to deal with all these different processes,” he said. “There are some unique aspects of this industry where efforts to unify it have not gotten the buy in. It’s endemic in the industry, primarily because it’s inward-focused.” Technology spend Augustine said it has to go back to how carriers spend their technology budget. “Here’s the paradox: every carrier spends hundreds of millions of dollars modernizing their systems, and it’s a continuous cycle,” he said, referencing investment in customer-facing tools like booking, rating and bill of lading. “But my strong contention is the best of these systems doesn’t give them a dollar in freight, and it doesn’t give them a competitive advantage,” he added. “Their service deployment and reliability is the competitive advantage.” Bock-Losada said the DCSA is pushing for investment that tackles common problems that all customers face so they can be solved in a unified way. There will be different metrics to measuring success of the partnership program. Bock-Losada pointed to the “volume of data being exchanged through APIs,” based on DCSA standards, between carrier members and external parties. Augustine said efficacy should be judged by the percentage of cargo moving by member lines that adheres to DCSA standards. “But that’s only from the carrier perspective,” he said. “What is in it for the shippers to adopt the standards? The volume of transactions that are adhering to standards the carriers are propagating will soon be the [key performance indicator] by which we’ll be measured.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

DCSA turns to industry partners to drive shipping standards adoption

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have reported three upcoming blank calls out of West India through the first half of September in anticipation of lower cargo lifts. </div>

Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have reported three upcoming blank calls out of West India through the first half of September in anticipation of lower cargo lifts.

<div class="phx-topic">The 50% tariffs on Indian exports to the US, which went into effect Wednesday, have seemingly left container carriers active on the westbound trade lane at a crossroads regarding supply-demand dynamics. Realizing the pressure of filling vessels, carriers operating the premier India-US East Coast (USEC) networks have already begun reworking their capacity deployment strategies, industry sources say. Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have reported three upcoming blank calls out of West India (Nhava Sheva/Mundra) through the first half of September in anticipation of lower cargo lifts. “The updated schedules do not show sailings for three USEC services between Weeks 36 and 37,” said a Mumbai-based forwarder who didn’t want to be identified. “Cargo bookings to the US have dropped drastically, so capacity cutbacks were/are in the cards.” West India-North America trades typically have six weekly sailings, although service reliability has been problematic since the Red Sea disruption. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56199e2b-5df4-468f-a149-b18ae7c32e51"></dynamic-object></div>The abrupt capacity pull comes on top of schedule dislocations linked to network structural issues, including two vessel gaps on Ocean Network Express’ (ONE’s) WIN service that lacks the tonnage capacity to offer a weekly rotation. Additionally, sliding schedules have forced a similar sailing cut for CMA CGM’s Indamex service in Week 39 as the French liner works to restore reliability with its recently announced phase-in of three more ships to the network and rotation adjustments. “The carriers are in for enormous demand downturns, so even a service exit will be no surprise,” an industry observer said. <h3>Rate hikes pulled back </h3>As the market tightens, India-USEC carriers have also recalled all rate increase notices previously lined up for Sept. 1 and instead have extended their existing short-term contract rates into at least the first week of September. Average quotes from Asian liners for loads from Nhava Sheva to New York now stand at $2,000 to $2,100 per FEU, compared with the $2,300 to $2,500 range held by mega European operators, forwarder sources said. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, pegged India-USEC spot rates at $2,300 per FEU as of Aug. 26, down 3% on the week. Meanwhile, Indian export industry stakeholders are evaluating the effect of the new tariff structure on trade volumes. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e4740cee-e00c-4254-8216-5ed1bb48d192"></dynamic-object></div>“It [50% tariff] can severely impact India’s exports to the US, with approximately 55% of India’s US-bound shipments now exposed to pricing disadvantages of 30% to 35%, rendering them uncompetitive in comparison to competitors from China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines as well as other Southeast and South Asian countries,” S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organizations, said in a statement. Data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows volumes from the Indian Subcontinent to the US jumped to 152,630 TEUs in July, the highest so far in 2025 as shippers rushed to beat the August tariff deadline.Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

The 50% tariffs on Indian exports to the US, which went into effect Wednesday, have seemingly left container carriers active on the westbound trade lane at a crossroads regarding supply-demand dynamics. Realizing the pressure of filling vessels, carriers operating the premier India-US East Coast (USEC) networks have already begun reworking their capacity deployment strategies, industry sources say. Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have reported three upcoming blank calls out of West India (Nhava Sheva/Mundra) through the first half of September in anticipation of lower cargo lifts. “The updated schedules do not show sailings for three USEC services between Weeks 36 and 37,” said a Mumbai-based forwarder who didn’t want to be identified. “Cargo bookings to the US have dropped drastically, so capacity cutbacks were/are in the cards.” West India-North America trades typically have six weekly sailings, although service reliability has been problematic since the Red Sea disruption. The abrupt capacity pull comes on top of schedule dislocations linked to network structural issues, including two vessel gaps on Ocean Network Express’ (ONE’s) WIN service that lacks the tonnage capacity to offer a weekly rotation. Additionally, sliding schedules have forced a similar sailing cut for CMA CGM’s Indamex service in Week 39 as the French liner works to restore reliability with its recently announced phase-in of three more ships to the network and rotation adjustments. “The carriers are in for enormous demand downturns, so even a service exit will be no surprise,” an industry observer said. Rate hikes pulled back As the market tightens, India-USEC carriers have also recalled all rate increase notices previously lined up for Sept. 1 and instead have extended their existing short-term contract rates into at least the first week of September. Average quotes from Asian liners for loads from Nhava Sheva to New York now stand at $2,000 to $2,100 per FEU, compared with the $2,300 to $2,500 range held by mega European operators, forwarder sources said. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, pegged India-USEC spot rates at $2,300 per FEU as of Aug. 26, down 3% on the week. Meanwhile, Indian export industry stakeholders are evaluating the effect of the new tariff structure on trade volumes. “It [50% tariff] can severely impact India’s exports to the US, with approximately 55% of India’s US-bound shipments now exposed to pricing disadvantages of 30% to 35%, rendering them uncompetitive in comparison to competitors from China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Philippines as well as other Southeast and South Asian countries,” S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organizations, said in a statement. Data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows volumes from the Indian Subcontinent to the US jumped to 152,630 TEUs in July, the highest so far in 2025 as shippers rushed to beat the August tariff deadline. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

International ports

India-US liners adjust capacity to prepare for tariff-linked volume downturn

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Sentiment heard with greater frequency from within the industry and from financial analysts holds that overcapacity will overwhelm constraints on capacity in a possible multi-year swoon.</div>

Sentiment heard with greater frequency from within the industry and from financial analysts holds that overcapacity will overwhelm constraints on capacity in a possible multi-year swoon.

<div class="phx-topic">It is becoming hard to shake the impression that container shipping is headed into a rocky stretch — for shippers and carriers alike. Sentiment heard with greater frequency from within the industry and from financial analysts holds that overcapacity will overwhelm constraints on capacity in a possible multi-year swoon, sending rates back to pre-COVID-19 levels and leading carriers to experience “deep losses,” according to J.P. Morgan. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6069890_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“We continue to see an industry that is suffering from material oversupply,” J.P. Morgan wrote in a market update Tuesday. “We see this as a clear issue that the industry will be forced to negotiate, even if diversions away from Suez last longer than we expect.” Thus, breaks on capacity driven by factors external to the industry, such as Red Sea diversions, as well as growing port congestion, both of which carriers have benefited enormously from since the pandemic, will be no match for the growing impact of 30% more capacity hitting the water in the coming years as the largest order book since 2009 is processed and delivered. For US shippers facing margin pressure due to tariffs, lower rates will be a welcome relief from the toxic dynamic since COVID, when rates soared while reliability collapsed. But there is a flip side to that: The rocky stretch for shippers will materialize as carriers react to unfavorable market dynamics, as they inevitably will. Carriers may be unable to neutralize the impact of overcapacity, but they can mitigate it, or at the very least will try. As fundamentals deteriorate, carriers will react in ways that will be less visible to shippers, such as by increasing the scrapping of older ships. But they will also react in ways that will directly affect shippers, who will likely experience a prolonged spate of blank sailings, network adjustments and slow steaming that result in longer transit times, causing a broader supply chain impact on inventories and lead times. That scenario will occur because, outside of the Gemini Cooperation alliance, which launched earlier this year on the premise of delivering 90%-plus schedule reliability to the market, the broader carrier industry is focused primarily on managing its network in support of its own financial well-being, even if doing so comes at the expense of customers’ desire for schedule reliability. <h3>Liners ‘no longer intolerant’ of long-term port congestion </h3>Carriers, especially at the higher end of the market, learned long ago that over-investment in things such as fuel to speed up and maintain schedule integrity was not typically rewarded by the market in the form of higher rates. That made carriers skeptical of the value of reliability, a theory that proved itself during and after COVID, when reliability crashed due to the idling of ships and containers, and yet carriers earned record profits during the period. They saw it again in 2024 and 2025 when profits were propped up by the 10% or so of capacity being taken out of the market due to another factor beyond their control — the attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Similarly, carriers are no longer as intolerant as they once were of growing long-term port congestion in Asia and Europe, seeing the upside in taking capacity out of the market. The amount of global container ship capacity removed due to port congestion is now 4% versus 2% pre-COVID, according to J.P. Morgan — hardly a negative issue for carriers staring at a costly, multi-year gap between supply and demand. But that gap is becoming hard to ignore. Carriers are preparing for a potentially prolonged downturn, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-intensify-cost-cutting-efforts-as-rates-slide-on-major-trades-6069811">cutting costs</a> and modeling out scenarios where rates sink well below current levels. In its update Tuesday, J.P. Morgan said volumes grew 4.5% in the first half of 2025 due to accelerated shipments caused by US tariffs, but the market is quickly cooling off. The bank expects market growth to slow to 1.8% in the third quarter and be flat in the fourth quarter, then grow 2% annually in 2026 and beyond based on its GDP growth forecasts. In 2025, it sees effective supply growth of 6.5% versus 2024. “Furthermore, we continue to expect capacity to return to the Suez Canal in 2026, which we believe will drive supply growth up to 9% [year over year],” the bank said. “If the trans-Suez route remains constrained, effective supply would likely still grow by 3%-5%, still putting pressure on rates.” It said the 4% of capacity removed due to port congestion has “normalized” and will not grow more pronounced, meaning less impact for carriers in mitigating overcapacity. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

It is becoming hard to shake the impression that container shipping is headed into a rocky stretch — for shippers and carriers alike. Sentiment heard with greater frequency from within the industry and from financial analysts holds that overcapacity will overwhelm constraints on capacity in a possible multi-year swoon, sending rates back to pre-COVID-19 levels and leading carriers to experience “deep losses,” according to J.P. Morgan. “We continue to see an industry that is suffering from material oversupply,” J.P. Morgan wrote in a market update Tuesday. “We see this as a clear issue that the industry will be forced to negotiate, even if diversions away from Suez last longer than we expect.” Thus, breaks on capacity driven by factors external to the industry, such as Red Sea diversions, as well as growing port congestion, both of which carriers have benefited enormously from since the pandemic, will be no match for the growing impact of 30% more capacity hitting the water in the coming years as the largest order book since 2009 is processed and delivered. For US shippers facing margin pressure due to tariffs, lower rates will be a welcome relief from the toxic dynamic since COVID, when rates soared while reliability collapsed. But there is a flip side to that: The rocky stretch for shippers will materialize as carriers react to unfavorable market dynamics, as they inevitably will. Carriers may be unable to neutralize the impact of overcapacity, but they can mitigate it, or at the very least will try. As fundamentals deteriorate, carriers will react in ways that will be less visible to shippers, such as by increasing the scrapping of older ships. But they will also react in ways that will directly affect shippers, who will likely experience a prolonged spate of blank sailings, network adjustments and slow steaming that result in longer transit times, causing a broader supply chain impact on inventories and lead times. That scenario will occur because, outside of the Gemini Cooperation alliance, which launched earlier this year on the premise of delivering 90%-plus schedule reliability to the market, the broader carrier industry is focused primarily on managing its network in support of its own financial well-being, even if doing so comes at the expense of customers’ desire for schedule reliability. Liners ‘no longer intolerant’ of long-term port congestion Carriers, especially at the higher end of the market, learned long ago that over-investment in things such as fuel to speed up and maintain schedule integrity was not typically rewarded by the market in the form of higher rates. That made carriers skeptical of the value of reliability, a theory that proved itself during and after COVID, when reliability crashed due to the idling of ships and containers, and yet carriers earned record profits during the period. They saw it again in 2024 and 2025 when profits were propped up by the 10% or so of capacity being taken out of the market due to another factor beyond their control — the attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Similarly, carriers are no longer as intolerant as they once were of growing long-term port congestion in Asia and Europe, seeing the upside in taking capacity out of the market. The amount of global container ship capacity removed due to port congestion is now 4% versus 2% pre-COVID, according to J.P. Morgan — hardly a negative issue for carriers staring at a costly, multi-year gap between supply and demand. But that gap is becoming hard to ignore. Carriers are preparing for a potentially prolonged downturn, cutting costs and modeling out scenarios where rates sink well below current levels. In its update Tuesday, J.P. Morgan said volumes grew 4.5% in the first half of 2025 due to accelerated shipments caused by US tariffs, but the market is quickly cooling off. The bank expects market growth to slow to 1.8% in the third quarter and be flat in the fourth quarter, then grow 2% annually in 2026 and beyond based on its GDP growth forecasts. In 2025, it sees effective supply growth of 6.5% versus 2024. “Furthermore, we continue to expect capacity to return to the Suez Canal in 2026, which we believe will drive supply growth up to 9% [year over year],” the bank said. “If the trans-Suez route remains constrained, effective supply would likely still grow by 3%-5%, still putting pressure on rates.” It said the 4% of capacity removed due to port congestion has “normalized” and will not grow more pronounced, meaning less impact for carriers in mitigating overcapacity. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Rocky stretch ahead for shippers, carriers in 2026 and beyond

<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

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Total In service

Total On-order

% of fleet on order

The Sea-web ocean vessel order book database aggregates data for fully cellular container ships on order, including order date, registered owner, operator, TEU capacity and current ship status, on a weekly basis. [Sea-web](https://maritime.ihs.com/EntitlementPortal/Home/Information/Seaweb_Ships)

Global container ship capacity in service and on order (Sea-web)

Global container ship fleet ( Sea-web) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Just over 7,000 TEUs of capacity is scheduled to be withdrawn through blank sailings in September even as carriers increase their deployed capacity by 2%.</div>

Just over 7,000 TEUs of capacity is scheduled to be withdrawn through blank sailings in September even as carriers increase their deployed capacity by 2%.

<div class="phx-topic">Rates on the trans-Atlantic westbound ocean trade — a route dominated by Gemini Cooperation and Mediterranean Shipping Co. — have been stuck at loss-making levels for weeks, yet carriers are showing little appetite for blank sailings to raise prices. Spot rates assessed by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce, are at $1,600 per FEU this week, far below the breakeven level ocean carriers say is near $2,100/FEU. Rates have lost only $100 since mid-May. While carriers on the North Europe-US East Coast route are scheduled to increase deployed capacity to 376,132 TEUs in September, up 2% compared with August, just 7,349 TEUs in capacity will be withdrawn via blank sailings, according to data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. However, Destine Ozuygur, product marketing manager for Xeneta, cautioned about reading too much into the low blank sailings levels. “Blanks used to be a standard measure against persistent demand deficit, but it’s also become a widely used tool for ad-hoc reliability management,” Ozuygur said. “Carriers are far more comfortable admitting them into schedules in the short term, and repealing them, than they used to be. “Regardless of the tariff or rate environment, we would naturally expect at least a few more blanks to trickle in over the coming weeks,” she added. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="004f46ea-f9b5-4bd8-96be-a0146f19f1f0"></dynamic-object></div>The restructured ocean alliances have adjusted market share on the trans-Atlantic, leaving the trade lane dominated by MSC and Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd. Data from Alphaliner shows that after splitting from its 2M partner Maersk, MSC increased its Atlantic market share from 41.1% to 41.8% over the 12 months from July 2024 to July 2025. MSC now deploys a fleet of more than 500,000 TEUs between Europe and North America. Hapag-Lloyd remains the second-largest carrier in the trade, but its market share of 14.9% is significantly lower than the 19.6% share it held in July 2024. Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini-partner Maersk increased its market share from 8.9% in July last year to 14.4% this year. “With the absence of both Ocean Alliance and Premier Alliance on this trade, reliability is largely left to Gemini, MSC and the non-alliances services,” said Ozuygur. Despite a lack of wider carrier representation, the present incumbents are not exactly setting reliability records. North Europe to US East Coast schedule reliability in July was 38%, a dismal level by any measure, although still a significant improvement on January’s 24%, Xeneta data showed. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="face521b-d4c4-40cd-b809-f10a6707a371"></dynamic-object></div>Some of the blame can be attributed to ongoing European port congestion that slows vessel turnarounds, which, on the relatively short transits across the Atlantic, “adds another layer of constraint and reduces effective service frequency,” C.H. Robinson noted in a recent market update. <h3>Addressing a new tariff landscape </h3>The schedule reliability and capacity deployed through the rest of the year will likely depend on how demand shapes up in the new trans-Atlantic tariff landscape. In a July 27 deal, a 15% tariff was applied to most EU goods exported to the US instead of the 30% tariff President Donald Trump had previously threatened, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-atlantic-trade-dispute-averted-as-us-eu-reach-weekend-deal-6051144">averting a destructive trade war</a>. The deal included provisions for zero tariffs on certain US exports to the EU and left the door open for negotiations on further market access. Frontloading in June as US-EU trade tensions escalated saw North Europe to US East Coast volume grow 14.2% year over year to almost 200,000 TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. It was short-lived, however, with July volume sliding to 198,750 TEUs. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="808b5499-12f0-4682-8df3-9427d1d05738"></dynamic-object></div>Most observers believe the 15% tariff, while significantly higher than the pre-deal tariffs of about 4.8%, is not high enough to create a material change in shipper behavior on the trans-Atlantic. But Emily Stausbøll, senior analyst at Xeneta, said while 15% was more manageable than the threatened 30%, it was expected to keep demand muted considering frontloading in the second quarter has left fewer goods needing to be moved over the rest of the year. “We are still in a waiting period before we see the real effects of tariffs on prices and US consumer demand, with frontloading and retailers absorbing some of these extra costs,” Stausbøll told the Journal of Commerce. “But at some point, this will be passed on and should lower demand on this trade over the longer term.” The “wait-and-see” approach was also highlighted by an executive from one of the ocean carriers on the trans-Atlantic who said the market did not seem to have been heavily affected by the tariffs. “There have been clients taking a wait-and-see approach and others adding some shipments, but that is not having a major impact on the trade route, partly due to tariffs not being high enough to affect trade flows,” the carrier executive said, adding that the trade lane was expected to “settle without much change.” Xeneta’s Ozuygur agreed that shippers were taking a wait-and-see approach, noting that after the trade agreement, the trans-Atlantic was on a more stable and positive footing than during the volatile buildup to the deal. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Rates on the trans-Atlantic westbound ocean trade — a route dominated by Gemini Cooperation and Mediterranean Shipping Co. — have been stuck at loss-making levels for weeks, yet carriers are showing little appetite for blank sailings to raise prices. Spot rates assessed by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce, are at $1,600 per FEU this week, far below the breakeven level ocean carriers say is near $2,100/FEU. Rates have lost only $100 since mid-May. While carriers on the North Europe-US East Coast route are scheduled to increase deployed capacity to 376,132 TEUs in September, up 2% compared with August, just 7,349 TEUs in capacity will be withdrawn via blank sailings, according to data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. However, Destine Ozuygur, product marketing manager for Xeneta, cautioned about reading too much into the low blank sailings levels. “Blanks used to be a standard measure against persistent demand deficit, but it’s also become a widely used tool for ad-hoc reliability management,” Ozuygur said. “Carriers are far more comfortable admitting them into schedules in the short term, and repealing them, than they used to be. “Regardless of the tariff or rate environment, we would naturally expect at least a few more blanks to trickle in over the coming weeks,” she added. The restructured ocean alliances have adjusted market share on the trans-Atlantic, leaving the trade lane dominated by MSC and Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd. Data from Alphaliner shows that after splitting from its 2M partner Maersk, MSC increased its Atlantic market share from 41.1% to 41.8% over the 12 months from July 2024 to July 2025. MSC now deploys a fleet of more than 500,000 TEUs between Europe and North America. Hapag-Lloyd remains the second-largest carrier in the trade, but its market share of 14.9% is significantly lower than the 19.6% share it held in July 2024. Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini-partner Maersk increased its market share from 8.9% in July last year to 14.4% this year. “With the absence of both Ocean Alliance and Premier Alliance on this trade, reliability is largely left to Gemini, MSC and the non-alliances services,” said Ozuygur. Despite a lack of wider carrier representation, the present incumbents are not exactly setting reliability records. North Europe to US East Coast schedule reliability in July was 38%, a dismal level by any measure, although still a significant improvement on January’s 24%, Xeneta data showed. Some of the blame can be attributed to ongoing European port congestion that slows vessel turnarounds, which, on the relatively short transits across the Atlantic, “adds another layer of constraint and reduces effective service frequency,” C.H. Robinson noted in a recent market update. Addressing a new tariff landscape The schedule reliability and capacity deployed through the rest of the year will likely depend on how demand shapes up in the new trans-Atlantic tariff landscape. In a July 27 deal, a 15% tariff was applied to most EU goods exported to the US instead of the 30% tariff President Donald Trump had previously threatened, averting a destructive trade war . The deal included provisions for zero tariffs on certain US exports to the EU and left the door open for negotiations on further market access. Frontloading in June as US-EU trade tensions escalated saw North Europe to US East Coast volume grow 14.2% year over year to almost 200,000 TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. It was short-lived, however, with July volume sliding to 198,750 TEUs. Most observers believe the 15% tariff, while significantly higher than the pre-deal tariffs of about 4.8%, is not high enough to create a material change in shipper behavior on the trans-Atlantic. But Emily Stausbøll, senior analyst at Xeneta, said while 15% was more manageable than the threatened 30%, it was expected to keep demand muted considering frontloading in the second quarter has left fewer goods needing to be moved over the rest of the year. “We are still in a waiting period before we see the real effects of tariffs on prices and US consumer demand, with frontloading and retailers absorbing some of these extra costs,” Stausbøll told the Journal of Commerce. “But at some point, this will be passed on and should lower demand on this trade over the longer term.” The “wait-and-see” approach was also highlighted by an executive from one of the ocean carriers on the trans-Atlantic who said the market did not seem to have been heavily affected by the tariffs. “There have been clients taking a wait-and-see approach and others adding some shipments, but that is not having a major impact on the trade route, partly due to tariffs not being high enough to affect trade flows,” the carrier executive said, adding that the trade lane was expected to “settle without much change.” Xeneta’s Ozuygur agreed that shippers were taking a wait-and-see approach, noting that after the trade agreement, the trans-Atlantic was on a more stable and positive footing than during the volatile buildup to the deal. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Trans-Atlantic carriers limit capacity cuts despite ongoing rate weakness

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The announcement of Leatherman’s expansion comes as MSC looks to bring in more trans-Atlantic services to call the terminal.</div>

The announcement of Leatherman’s expansion comes as MSC looks to bring in more trans-Atlantic services to call the terminal.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Charleston plans to add a second big ship berth to its Hugh K. Leatherman marine terminal, with the terminal’s main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co., readying to bring new trans-Atlantic capacity to the port. The South Carolina State Ports Authority (SC Ports) said in a statement this week it began installing the test piles to ensure the integrity of a new 1,600-foot berth at Leatherman. The second berth, outfitted with five cranes, will allow the terminal to handle two super-post-Panamax vessels at once. SC Ports said it expects to complete the second berth by late 2026, bringing Leatherman’s capacity to about 1.6 million TEUs per year. The port’s board of directors approved an $88.5 million contract with Orion Marine Group for the preliminary work. Plans for a third berth at Leatherman, which would bring it to full capacity of 2.4 million TEUs, have yet to go forward. SC Ports said the cost of both the second and third berths could reach a total of $1.5 billion. In addition to the second berth, Leatherman will also be able to offer near-dock rail service with the opening of the Navy Base Intermodal Facility. SC Ports said it is in the process of commissioning six rail-mounted gantry cranes for that facility, which is expected to open by early 2026. <h3>MSC adds services </h3>Leatherman’s sole berth has seen usage rise quickly a little over a year after SC Ports and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) settled <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/sc-ports-strikes-deal-with-ila-to-fully-open-leatherman-marine-terminal-5192280">a legal dispute that kept ocean carriers away from the terminal</a>. Leatherman handled 45 vessels in the second quarter, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The second-quarter vessel count was up from 33 ships in the first quarter and 23 in the fourth quarter of 2024. Zim Shipping became <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-becomes-first-carrier-to-commit-to-reopened-leatherman-terminal-5735909">the first carrier to provide weekly service into Leatherman</a> following its reopening, but it has since moved the service to Charleston’s other marine terminal. Now, Leatherman primarily handles MSC services from the Indian subcontinent and the Mediterranean. SC Ports said MSC will bring two additional trans-Atlantic services to Leatherman starting in September. Those include the “Albatros” service from Baltic ports and London’s Felixstowe, and the “Dragon” service between the Mediterranean and the US East Coast. Thanks to the presence of automakers and other high-value manufacturing in South Carolina, Charleston sees relatively steady freight volumes coming from Europe. Since the start of 2024, containerized imports from Europe into Charleston have averaged 89,125 TEUs per quarter, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Hapag-Lloyd carries the majority of the trans-Atlantic freight into Charleston, with its average quarterly volume near 29,590 TEUs, PIERS data shows. MSC is second with a quarterly average of 21,939 TEUs. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of Charleston plans to add a second big ship berth to its Hugh K. Leatherman marine terminal, with the terminal’s main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co., readying to bring new trans-Atlantic capacity to the port. The South Carolina State Ports Authority (SC Ports) said in a statement this week it began installing the test piles to ensure the integrity of a new 1,600-foot berth at Leatherman. The second berth, outfitted with five cranes, will allow the terminal to handle two super-post-Panamax vessels at once. SC Ports said it expects to complete the second berth by late 2026, bringing Leatherman’s capacity to about 1.6 million TEUs per year. The port’s board of directors approved an $88.5 million contract with Orion Marine Group for the preliminary work. Plans for a third berth at Leatherman, which would bring it to full capacity of 2.4 million TEUs, have yet to go forward. SC Ports said the cost of both the second and third berths could reach a total of $1.5 billion. In addition to the second berth, Leatherman will also be able to offer near-dock rail service with the opening of the Navy Base Intermodal Facility. SC Ports said it is in the process of commissioning six rail-mounted gantry cranes for that facility, which is expected to open by early 2026. MSC adds services Leatherman’s sole berth has seen usage rise quickly a little over a year after SC Ports and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) settled a legal dispute that kept ocean carriers away from the terminal . Leatherman handled 45 vessels in the second quarter, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The second-quarter vessel count was up from 33 ships in the first quarter and 23 in the fourth quarter of 2024. Zim Shipping became the first carrier to provide weekly service into Leatherman following its reopening, but it has since moved the service to Charleston’s other marine terminal. Now, Leatherman primarily handles MSC services from the Indian subcontinent and the Mediterranean. SC Ports said MSC will bring two additional trans-Atlantic services to Leatherman starting in September. Those include the “Albatros” service from Baltic ports and London’s Felixstowe, and the “Dragon” service between the Mediterranean and the US East Coast. Thanks to the presence of automakers and other high-value manufacturing in South Carolina, Charleston sees relatively steady freight volumes coming from Europe. Since the start of 2024, containerized imports from Europe into Charleston have averaged 89,125 TEUs per quarter, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Hapag-Lloyd carries the majority of the trans-Atlantic freight into Charleston, with its average quarterly volume near 29,590 TEUs, PIERS data shows. MSC is second with a quarterly average of 21,939 TEUs. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Charleston’s Leatherman terminal eyes second berth by late 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The difficulties have led to transshipment delays and rolled cargo, which have caused increased yard density at some ports that has exacerbated delays, shipping sources say. </div>

The difficulties have led to transshipment delays and rolled cargo, which have caused increased yard density at some ports that has exacerbated delays, shipping sources say.

<div class="phx-topic">Tight feeder capacity between secondary ports in Asia and the region’s main transshipment hubs are hitting both exports from Asia and imports to the region from the US and Europe, forwarders and carriers say. Shippers are having to wait up to a month to secure space on some carriers serving Thailand and Indonesia, according to forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce. The difficulties have led to transshipment delays and rolled cargo, which have caused increased yard density at some ports that has exacerbated delays, shipping sources say. The problems have been compounded by bad weather, including typhoons in China, carriers said. “For Thailand, cargo bookings must be made at least three to four weeks ahead,” a spokesperson for FIBS Logistics in Singapore said. “Most bookings for Indonesian cargo are only being accepted with a minimum lead time of two to three weeks.” The spokesperson said FIBS Logistics has been impacted by the delays on its own customer shipments, with even short-haul services affected. “We need to book two to three weeks in advance for cargo from Batam, Indonesia, for connections to the mother vessel in Singapore,” the source said. "These delays are largely due to feeder capacity shortages, which are impacting both exports and imports across Asia and resulting in cargo rolling.” Forwarder Rhenus Logistics said the feeder capacity shortages began in June and have been the result of a tariff-related cargo surge from Southeast Asia. “We have been experiencing some challenges with feeder capacity out of Southeast Asia over the past three months,” Scott Dudley, Rhenus’ head of ocean freight for North America, told the Journal of Commerce. “These challenges are mainly tied to carriers and alliances operating transshipment services out of Southeast Asia cargo origins.” <h3>Carriers being particular on US export choices </h3>The disruption at transshipment hubs, including those in Asia, has led carriers to pick and choose which export cargo from the US to accept. “If it’s a direct lane, they have a very high appetite,” said M. Can Fidan, executive vice president of business development at New York-based forwarder MTS Logistics. “If it’s a transshipment or if it is off their hub-and-spoke lanes, then they are not. “So, it’s a very interesting environment where carriers are actually looking for cargo on the export, but only looking for cargo that fits their shipping model, rather than a general area,” he added. A Hong Kong-based freight forwarder said it is fortunate the disruption largely comes after the cargo rush caused by shippers consigning shipments early to beat the Trump administration’s mid-August tariff deadline. “Transshipping cargo to and from second-tier markets like Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam is a mess right now, with cargo rolling and delays at the key hub ports,” the source said. “But it would be significantly worse if these countries hadn’t cut tariff deals with the US at the end of July.” <h3>Multiple-day delays </h3>Highlighting congestion and cargo delays at key Asian gateways, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Kuehne + Nagel all reported disrupted operations at Singapore, Shanghai, Ningbo, Qingdao and Malaysia’s Port Klang in recent customer advisories. CMA CGM said it had up to 60,000 TEUs of transshipment cargo waiting at Singapore last week. “Overall yard density [in Singapore] is high — around 85% to 90% that is impacting overall operations productivity,” the carrier said in a trans-Pacific weekly update. CMA CGM said Singapore terminal operator PSA is rejecting port-in/port-out (PIPO) boxes and vessels that are discharging more containers than loading containers until yard density drops back to a normal level. Heavy berth congestion meant there was at least a two-day delay at all of PSA’s Singapore terminals, both CMA CGM and Kuehne + Nagel said. Shanghai is also heavily congested with a two- to three-day delay at the city center Waigaiqiao terminals and up to a four-day wait at the deepwater Yangshan terminals due to continuing disruption caused by the port’s closure during Typhoon Co-May at the end of July, carriers said. The typhoon was one of three tropical storms to disrupt port operations in eastern and southern China since mid-July. Hapag-Lloyd said vessels are having to wait up to three days to berth at Ningbo due to the bunching of vessels and up to two days at Qingdao. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Tight feeder capacity between secondary ports in Asia and the region’s main transshipment hubs are hitting both exports from Asia and imports to the region from the US and Europe, forwarders and carriers say. Shippers are having to wait up to a month to secure space on some carriers serving Thailand and Indonesia, according to forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce. The difficulties have led to transshipment delays and rolled cargo, which have caused increased yard density at some ports that has exacerbated delays, shipping sources say. The problems have been compounded by bad weather, including typhoons in China, carriers said. “For Thailand, cargo bookings must be made at least three to four weeks ahead,” a spokesperson for FIBS Logistics in Singapore said. “Most bookings for Indonesian cargo are only being accepted with a minimum lead time of two to three weeks.” The spokesperson said FIBS Logistics has been impacted by the delays on its own customer shipments, with even short-haul services affected. “We need to book two to three weeks in advance for cargo from Batam, Indonesia, for connections to the mother vessel in Singapore,” the source said. "These delays are largely due to feeder capacity shortages, which are impacting both exports and imports across Asia and resulting in cargo rolling.” Forwarder Rhenus Logistics said the feeder capacity shortages began in June and have been the result of a tariff-related cargo surge from Southeast Asia. “We have been experiencing some challenges with feeder capacity out of Southeast Asia over the past three months,” Scott Dudley, Rhenus’ head of ocean freight for North America, told the Journal of Commerce. “These challenges are mainly tied to carriers and alliances operating transshipment services out of Southeast Asia cargo origins.” Carriers being particular on US export choices The disruption at transshipment hubs, including those in Asia, has led carriers to pick and choose which export cargo from the US to accept. “If it’s a direct lane, they have a very high appetite,” said M. Can Fidan, executive vice president of business development at New York-based forwarder MTS Logistics. “If it’s a transshipment or if it is off their hub-and-spoke lanes, then they are not. “So, it’s a very interesting environment where carriers are actually looking for cargo on the export, but only looking for cargo that fits their shipping model, rather than a general area,” he added. A Hong Kong-based freight forwarder said it is fortunate the disruption largely comes after the cargo rush caused by shippers consigning shipments early to beat the Trump administration’s mid-August tariff deadline. “Transshipping cargo to and from second-tier markets like Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam is a mess right now, with cargo rolling and delays at the key hub ports,” the source said. “But it would be significantly worse if these countries hadn’t cut tariff deals with the US at the end of July.” Multiple-day delays Highlighting congestion and cargo delays at key Asian gateways, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Kuehne + Nagel all reported disrupted operations at Singapore, Shanghai, Ningbo, Qingdao and Malaysia’s Port Klang in recent customer advisories. CMA CGM said it had up to 60,000 TEUs of transshipment cargo waiting at Singapore last week. “Overall yard density [in Singapore] is high — around 85% to 90% that is impacting overall operations productivity,” the carrier said in a trans-Pacific weekly update. CMA CGM said Singapore terminal operator PSA is rejecting port-in/port-out (PIPO) boxes and vessels that are discharging more containers than loading containers until yard density drops back to a normal level. Heavy berth congestion meant there was at least a two-day delay at all of PSA’s Singapore terminals, both CMA CGM and Kuehne + Nagel said. Shanghai is also heavily congested with a two- to three-day delay at the city center Waigaiqiao terminals and up to a four-day wait at the deepwater Yangshan terminals due to continuing disruption caused by the port’s closure during Typhoon Co-May at the end of July, carriers said. The typhoon was one of three tropical storms to disrupt port operations in eastern and southern China since mid-July. Hapag-Lloyd said vessels are having to wait up to three days to berth at Ningbo due to the bunching of vessels and up to two days at Qingdao. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Tight Asia feeder capacity causing disruption for export, import shippers

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!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code ESSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

END OF SUMMER SALE

Use code ESSW595 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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code ESSGW995 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

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

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

END OF SUMMER SALE: Use code ESSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

END OF SUMMER SALE: Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

END OF SUMMER SALE: Use code ESSW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Premier Alliance is revamping a trans-Pacific service that would otherwise incur hundreds of millions of dollars in US port fees on Chinese-built vessels.</div>

The Premier Alliance is revamping a trans-Pacific service that would otherwise incur hundreds of millions of dollars in US port fees on Chinese-built vessels.

<div class="phx-topic">Container lines are taking preemptive steps to reduce their exposure to hefty tariffs on Chinese-built and -operated vessels calling US ports that take effect in mid-October. The Premier Alliance of Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM and Yang Ming Marine Transport is revamping a trans-Pacific service to avoid the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/revised-china-tonnage-tax-less-disruptive-still-costly-6005402">US Trade Representative’s fees</a>, and other major carriers are expected to follow suit. Carriers say the deployment of non-China-built ships won’t be the most efficient for their networks but balk at fees that will initially equate to $1 million per voyage. The savings that come from removing China-built vessels from US services could increase to ultimately more than $500 million per year by April 2028, as the severity of the tariffs ratchets up over the next three years. Ocean Network Express and HMM have confirmed that the Asia-Mediterranean segment of the current Mediterranean Pacific South 2 (MS2) service will operate as a standalone service, renamed Mediterranean 2 (MD2), starting early next month. The trans-Pacific leg of the MS2 will be incorporated into the alliance’s existing Asia Gulf Express 2 service, which will be rebranded as the Gulf Pacific South 2 (GS2) as of next week, limiting the deployment of 10 Chinese-built ONE container ships currently operating the MS2 service to the shortened MD2 route. According to ONE service schedules, these vessels include seven 15,300-TEU ships built by Yangzijiang Shipbuilding Group, China’s largest privately owned shipyard, and three built by state-controlled China State Shipbuilding Corp. Yang Ming Marine Transport has yet to announce the changes, which stand to save ONE an estimated $185 million in tariffs in the first year after the levy is implemented on Oct. 14. Under the USTR fee proposal, ships operated by China-based carriers or built by Chinese shipyards will be subject to fees of $50 per net ton of capacity per voyage calling at US ports in the first year of enforcement, rising to $140 per net ton in April 2028. The fees will be capped at five voyages, and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-slams-us-port-fees-as-other-carriers-reckon-with-potential-costs-5989606">China-based carriers, the USTR’s primary target</a>, will face higher levies. With each of the MS2 deployed vessels assessed at about 74,000 net tons, ONE would face a bill of $3.7 million per ship per voyage, maxing out at $18.5 million for each of the 10 ships — a total of $185 million — after five voyages. In announcing the MS2 service adjustment, ONE and HMM said the changes would improve connectivity and transit times to certain markets. HMM said the new Mediterranean Service 2 (MD2) would provide an express service from western Mediterranean to Busan and central China. Similarly, GS2 — which HMM calls the Korea Middle East–Pacific South (KMP) loop — will provide direct services from Dubai to the US West Coast and the US West Coast to Dalian and Xingang, HMM said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Container lines are taking preemptive steps to reduce their exposure to hefty tariffs on Chinese-built and -operated vessels calling US ports that take effect in mid-October. The Premier Alliance of Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM and Yang Ming Marine Transport is revamping a trans-Pacific service to avoid the US Trade Representative’s fees , and other major carriers are expected to follow suit. Carriers say the deployment of non-China-built ships won’t be the most efficient for their networks but balk at fees that will initially equate to $1 million per voyage. The savings that come from removing China-built vessels from US services could increase to ultimately more than $500 million per year by April 2028, as the severity of the tariffs ratchets up over the next three years. Ocean Network Express and HMM have confirmed that the Asia-Mediterranean segment of the current Mediterranean Pacific South 2 (MS2) service will operate as a standalone service, renamed Mediterranean 2 (MD2), starting early next month. The trans-Pacific leg of the MS2 will be incorporated into the alliance’s existing Asia Gulf Express 2 service, which will be rebranded as the Gulf Pacific South 2 (GS2) as of next week, limiting the deployment of 10 Chinese-built ONE container ships currently operating the MS2 service to the shortened MD2 route. According to ONE service schedules, these vessels include seven 15,300-TEU ships built by Yangzijiang Shipbuilding Group, China’s largest privately owned shipyard, and three built by state-controlled China State Shipbuilding Corp. Yang Ming Marine Transport has yet to announce the changes, which stand to save ONE an estimated $185 million in tariffs in the first year after the levy is implemented on Oct. 14. Under the USTR fee proposal, ships operated by China-based carriers or built by Chinese shipyards will be subject to fees of $50 per net ton of capacity per voyage calling at US ports in the first year of enforcement, rising to $140 per net ton in April 2028. The fees will be capped at five voyages, and China-based carriers, the USTR’s primary target , will face higher levies. With each of the MS2 deployed vessels assessed at about 74,000 net tons, ONE would face a bill of $3.7 million per ship per voyage, maxing out at $18.5 million for each of the 10 ships — a total of $185 million — after five voyages. In announcing the MS2 service adjustment, ONE and HMM said the changes would improve connectivity and transit times to certain markets. HMM said the new Mediterranean Service 2 (MD2) would provide an express service from western Mediterranean to Busan and central China. Similarly, GS2 — which HMM calls the Korea Middle East–Pacific South (KMP) loop — will provide direct services from Dubai to the US West Coast and the US West Coast to Dalian and Xingang, HMM said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines begin shifting China-built ships out of US loops

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US agriculture exporters say the ongoing trade standoff between Washington and Beijing has effectively shut them out of the key Chinese market, causing them to fear for their long-term survival.</div>

US agriculture exporters say the ongoing trade standoff between Washington and Beijing has effectively shut them out of the key Chinese market, causing them to fear for their long-term survival.

<div class="phx-topic">US exporters of soybeans and meat say they are losing key Chinese buyers due to high tariffs and are turning to President Donald Trump for relief. The 34% tariff China imposed in April is suppressing US containerized exports, Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association (ASA), said in a letter this week urging Trump to remove reciprocal duties on China, which also imposed a 32% tariff on US beef and a 57% levy on pork amid the trade standoff between Washington and Beijing. “US soybean farmers cannot survive a prolonged trade dispute with our largest customer,” Ragland said. Approximately 112,000 TEUs of US soybeans and meat were exported to China last year, down about 6% from 2023, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. According to Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, the 34.07% duty rate for cargo into China is pushing American soybean exporters out of the global market. Between July 2024 and June 2025, the most recent data available, PIERS shows a total of 356,830 TEUs of soybeans exported from the US, up 7% compared with the previous 12-month period. Total US meat exports declined 3.5% to 402,610 TEUs during that time. The China tariffs on the US are a boon for Brazilian exporters of soybeans and meat who compete with the US for Chinese buyers. Most US soybean exports are shipped via bulk; the commodity is transported in containers when smaller volumes are ordered. Meat exports move exclusively through refrigerated containers. Since China’s implementation of tariffs on US exports, South American soybeans cost about 20% less than their US competition, according to the ASA. <h3>Export window closing </h3>Meanwhile, the window for US exporters to regain the Chinese market this year is closing. US soybeans are harvested from September to March. After March, China sources soybeans from Brazil until its season ends in September, when US exporters typically resume supply. “The window for US soybean exporters to sell and ship this fall’s harvest to China is rapidly closing,” Steenhoek told the Journal of Commerce. “If an agreement is not reached during the latest US-China three-month [tariff] pause, it will probably be too late for this fall’s harvest.” US meat exporters are facing similar challenges. Last year, China consumed 15% of US pork exports and 14% of US beef exports, said Joe Schuele, spokesperson for the US Meat Export Federation. In 2024, the US exported about 424,000 TEUs of meat, about 56,380 TEUs of which were destined for China. Also creating a problem is the fact that China failed to reauthorize exports from individual US beef plants in February and March when the five-year authorizations expired, further hindering US beef exporters. “We are all but shut out of the China market until those authorizations [for the individual beef plants] are renewed,” Schuele said. Thomas Eskesen, founder of reefer market consultant Eskesen Advisory, said given the ongoing tariff complications, US shippers need to look at new markets to sell their products. “[But] for this year, it’s almost too late to sort of just kind of plan like that,” Eskesen said Wednesday during a Journal of Commerce webcast. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US exporters of soybeans and meat say they are losing key Chinese buyers due to high tariffs and are turning to President Donald Trump for relief. The 34% tariff China imposed in April is suppressing US containerized exports, Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association (ASA), said in a letter this week urging Trump to remove reciprocal duties on China, which also imposed a 32% tariff on US beef and a 57% levy on pork amid the trade standoff between Washington and Beijing. “US soybean farmers cannot survive a prolonged trade dispute with our largest customer,” Ragland said. Approximately 112,000 TEUs of US soybeans and meat were exported to China last year, down about 6% from 2023, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. According to Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, the 34.07% duty rate for cargo into China is pushing American soybean exporters out of the global market. Between July 2024 and June 2025, the most recent data available, PIERS shows a total of 356,830 TEUs of soybeans exported from the US, up 7% compared with the previous 12-month period. Total US meat exports declined 3.5% to 402,610 TEUs during that time. The China tariffs on the US are a boon for Brazilian exporters of soybeans and meat who compete with the US for Chinese buyers. Most US soybean exports are shipped via bulk; the commodity is transported in containers when smaller volumes are ordered. Meat exports move exclusively through refrigerated containers. Since China’s implementation of tariffs on US exports, South American soybeans cost about 20% less than their US competition, according to the ASA. Export window closing Meanwhile, the window for US exporters to regain the Chinese market this year is closing. US soybeans are harvested from September to March. After March, China sources soybeans from Brazil until its season ends in September, when US exporters typically resume supply. “The window for US soybean exporters to sell and ship this fall’s harvest to China is rapidly closing,” Steenhoek told the Journal of Commerce. “If an agreement is not reached during the latest US-China three-month [tariff] pause, it will probably be too late for this fall’s harvest.” US meat exporters are facing similar challenges. Last year, China consumed 15% of US pork exports and 14% of US beef exports, said Joe Schuele, spokesperson for the US Meat Export Federation. In 2024, the US exported about 424,000 TEUs of meat, about 56,380 TEUs of which were destined for China. Also creating a problem is the fact that China failed to reauthorize exports from individual US beef plants in February and March when the five-year authorizations expired, further hindering US beef exporters. “We are all but shut out of the China market until those authorizations [for the individual beef plants] are renewed,” Schuele said. Thomas Eskesen, founder of reefer market consultant Eskesen Advisory, said given the ongoing tariff complications, US shippers need to look at new markets to sell their products. “[But] for this year, it’s almost too late to sort of just kind of plan like that,” Eskesen said Wednesday during a Journal of Commerce webcast. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .  Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk News

Tariff battle suppressing Chinese market for US soybean, meat exports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The joint BNSF/CSX services come as rivals Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have agreed to an $85 billion deal that would create the first transcontinental railroad, if approved by federal regulators.</div>

The joint BNSF/CSX services come as rivals Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have agreed to an $85 billion deal that would create the first transcontinental railroad, if approved by federal regulators.

<div class="phx-topic">BNSF Railway and CSX Transportation are adding new joint intermodal routes linking the US West Coast to the Southeast, a competitive counterpunch to Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern (NS) as they seek federal approval for their <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-looks-to-create-first-coast-to-coast-railroad-with-85-billion-ns-deal-6052288">proposed merger</a>. BNSF and CSX said Friday they will launch bi-directional trains from Southern California to Charlotte, North Carolina, and to Jacksonville, Florida, supplementing their existing joint service to Atlanta. They also announced a new service that will connect Phoenix and Atlanta, opening an intermodal option in a lane long dominated by truckload carriers. The three new trains will travel via BNSF to the jointly-operated BNSF/CSX Fairburn terminal in Georgia, where CSX will take over and haul the cargo to Charlotte and Jacksonville. “This collaboration between BNSF and CSX demonstrates the power of partnership, delivering greater flexibility, efficiency and value for our customers,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, which includes intermodal, said in a statement. In addition, the two railroads announced new international intermodal trains connecting Kansas City with the Port of New York and New Jersey and the Port of Virginia. That comes after Virginia recently saw <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/norfolk-southern-to-drop-international-intermodal-service-on-many-usec-lanes-5993642">NS pulling out</a> of rail service to Memphis. Ocean containers will be routed on CSX to Chicago, then onto Kansas City via BNSF. The joint BNSF/CSX services come as their rivals, UP and NS, have agreed to a deal that would create the first transcontinental railroad, if approved by federal regulators. UP and NS are expected to file their formal application in early 2026; a decision by regulators could come in mid-2027. The proposed UP-NS coupling has drawn notice in the investor community, with activist investor Ancora Holdings writing a scathing letter to CSX on Aug. 6 urging it to pursue its own merger or face a proxy battle. Ancora, which has mounted unsuccessful battles against C.H. Robinson Worldwide and Norfolk Southern, attacked CSX CEO Joe Hinrichs and his management team, calling them “junior varsity executives.” “The [CSX] board needs to announce in the near term that it is working with identified third-party advisors to explore a range of merger options,” Ancora wrote in the letter, shared with the media this week. “Shareholders cannot afford more missteps as CSX plays catch-up in the rail consolidation race.” <h3>Single-line services </h3>BNSF and CSX have operated a direct intermodal service between Southern California and CSX’s Fairburn terminal for nearly two decades, bypassing busy interchanges in Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans, which often add a day or more to transit times. The service functions more like a single-line railroad, with only crew changes along the way. Replicating that model to Charlotte and Jacksonville with a switchover in Atlanta may serve as an important lever to show that an official BNSF-CSX merger is unnecessary. There are significant growth opportunities on the Charlotte and Jacksonville lanes. A total of more than 150,000 domestic intermodal containers move bi-directionally each year between Southern California and Atlanta, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the US Surface Transportation Board. About 80,000 containers move each year between Southern California and Charlotte, and approximately 55,000 between Southern California and Jacksonville. Those volumes highlight the growth potential in the new lanes, although Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern hold a transit time advantage from Southern California to Atlanta and Jacksonville using the Meridian Speedway through Mississippi, which runs faster than the BNSF-CSX service. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

BNSF Railway and CSX Transportation are adding new joint intermodal routes linking the US West Coast to the Southeast, a competitive counterpunch to Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern (NS) as they seek federal approval for their proposed merger . BNSF and CSX said Friday they will launch bi-directional trains from Southern California to Charlotte, North Carolina, and to Jacksonville, Florida, supplementing their existing joint service to Atlanta. They also announced a new service that will connect Phoenix and Atlanta, opening an intermodal option in a lane long dominated by truckload carriers. The three new trains will travel via BNSF to the jointly-operated BNSF/CSX Fairburn terminal in Georgia, where CSX will take over and haul the cargo to Charlotte and Jacksonville. “This collaboration between BNSF and CSX demonstrates the power of partnership, delivering greater flexibility, efficiency and value for our customers,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, which includes intermodal, said in a statement. In addition, the two railroads announced new international intermodal trains connecting Kansas City with the Port of New York and New Jersey and the Port of Virginia. That comes after Virginia recently saw NS pulling out of rail service to Memphis. Ocean containers will be routed on CSX to Chicago, then onto Kansas City via BNSF. The joint BNSF/CSX services come as their rivals, UP and NS, have agreed to a deal that would create the first transcontinental railroad, if approved by federal regulators. UP and NS are expected to file their formal application in early 2026; a decision by regulators could come in mid-2027. The proposed UP-NS coupling has drawn notice in the investor community, with activist investor Ancora Holdings writing a scathing letter to CSX on Aug. 6 urging it to pursue its own merger or face a proxy battle. Ancora, which has mounted unsuccessful battles against C.H. Robinson Worldwide and Norfolk Southern, attacked CSX CEO Joe Hinrichs and his management team, calling them “junior varsity executives.” “The [CSX] board needs to announce in the near term that it is working with identified third-party advisors to explore a range of merger options,” Ancora wrote in the letter, shared with the media this week. “Shareholders cannot afford more missteps as CSX plays catch-up in the rail consolidation race.” Single-line services BNSF and CSX have operated a direct intermodal service between Southern California and CSX’s Fairburn terminal for nearly two decades, bypassing busy interchanges in Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans, which often add a day or more to transit times. The service functions more like a single-line railroad, with only crew changes along the way. Replicating that model to Charlotte and Jacksonville with a switchover in Atlanta may serve as an important lever to show that an official BNSF-CSX merger is unnecessary. There are significant growth opportunities on the Charlotte and Jacksonville lanes. A total of more than 150,000 domestic intermodal containers move bi-directionally each year between Southern California and Atlanta, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the US Surface Transportation Board. About 80,000 containers move each year between Southern California and Charlotte, and approximately 55,000 between Southern California and Jacksonville. Those volumes highlight the growth potential in the new lanes, although Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern hold a transit time advantage from Southern California to Atlanta and Jacksonville using the Meridian Speedway through Mississippi, which runs faster than the BNSF-CSX service. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

Rail News

BNSF, CSX unveil new joint intermodal lanes in aftermath of UP-NS merger

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Domestic intermodal volumes have been stagnant on partner BNSF Railway out of Los Angeles, likely dulling the justification for the original $1,500 fee.</div>

Domestic intermodal volumes have been stagnant on partner BNSF Railway out of Los Angeles, likely dulling the justification for the original $1,500 fee.

<div class="phx-topic">More than a month after imposing a $1,500 peak season surcharge that frustrated some targeted shippers moving goods out of Southern California, J.B. Hunt Transport Services has cut the fee by nearly half, several customers told the Journal of Commerce. The surcharge is primarily directed at retailers moving holiday merchandise in the third quarter. In recent weeks, J.B. Hunt has lowered the fee to approximately $800 per container, according to several shippers who did not want to be identified. J.B. Hunt did not respond to a request for comment. “J.B. Hunt told us that they re-evaluated and were able to work with BNSF to more efficiently reposition capacity to Los Angeles for any surge,” one J.B. Hunt customer said. J.B. Hunt’s decision to lower its surcharge might be related to the volume of the domestic intermodal shipments it handles. BNSF Railway, its exclusive West Coast partner, has seen stronger gains in international intermodal shipments than in domestic shipments during a recent uptick in port volumes in Los Angeles and Long Beach. International shipments rose more than 20% last week in Southern California compared with two months ago, according to data provider RailState. But BNSF’s domestic intermodal has been largely flat since January. J.B. Hunt reported that transcontinental intermodal freight — i.e. anything originating or terminating on the West Coast — declined 1% year over year in the second quarter. Because J.B. Hunt is BNSF’s largest domestic intermodal customer, the data suggests much of the same for J.B. Hunt in the third quarter. <h3>UP implemented its own surcharge </h3>After J.B. Hunt’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-hits-some-shippers-with-big-surcharges-in-southern-california-6043454">initial announcement</a>, competitors introduced their own surcharges ranging from $300 to $900 per container, including one by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) for shippers using non-asset brokers. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-seeks-surcharges-amid-intermodal-volumes-surge-6062080">UP is charging</a> $300 per container on high-volume shippers and $500 per box on low-volume shippers on excess freight in Southern California. Union Pacific has posted stronger results, with domestic intermodal in Southern California up nearly 20% last week compared with two months ago, according to RailState. UP partners Hub Group and Schneider National described July demand in Southern California as robust during recent quarterly earnings calls. Even with the increase in volume, intermodal service out of Southern California has remained stable. Both BNSF and UP have reported faster train speeds, fewer trains being held and a decline in idle railcars compared with their weekly averages since 2017, according to the US Surface Transportation Board. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

More than a month after imposing a $1,500 peak season surcharge that frustrated some targeted shippers moving goods out of Southern California, J.B. Hunt Transport Services has cut the fee by nearly half, several customers told the Journal of Commerce. The surcharge is primarily directed at retailers moving holiday merchandise in the third quarter. In recent weeks, J.B. Hunt has lowered the fee to approximately $800 per container, according to several shippers who did not want to be identified. J.B. Hunt did not respond to a request for comment. “J.B. Hunt told us that they re-evaluated and were able to work with BNSF to more efficiently reposition capacity to Los Angeles for any surge,” one J.B. Hunt customer said. J.B. Hunt’s decision to lower its surcharge might be related to the volume of the domestic intermodal shipments it handles. BNSF Railway, its exclusive West Coast partner, has seen stronger gains in international intermodal shipments than in domestic shipments during a recent uptick in port volumes in Los Angeles and Long Beach. International shipments rose more than 20% last week in Southern California compared with two months ago, according to data provider RailState. But BNSF’s domestic intermodal has been largely flat since January. J.B. Hunt reported that transcontinental intermodal freight — i.e. anything originating or terminating on the West Coast — declined 1% year over year in the second quarter. Because J.B. Hunt is BNSF’s largest domestic intermodal customer, the data suggests much of the same for J.B. Hunt in the third quarter. UP implemented its own surcharge After J.B. Hunt’s initial announcement , competitors introduced their own surcharges ranging from $300 to $900 per container, including one by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) for shippers using non-asset brokers. UP is charging $300 per container on high-volume shippers and $500 per box on low-volume shippers on excess freight in Southern California. Union Pacific has posted stronger results, with domestic intermodal in Southern California up nearly 20% last week compared with two months ago, according to RailState. UP partners Hub Group and Schneider National described July demand in Southern California as robust during recent quarterly earnings calls. Even with the increase in volume, intermodal service out of Southern California has remained stable. Both BNSF and UP have reported faster train speeds, fewer trains being held and a decline in idle railcars compared with their weekly averages since 2017, according to the US Surface Transportation Board. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Intermodal providers

J.B. Hunt reduces peak season surcharge on Southern California moves

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A sense of uncertainty — if not alarm — about future demand and tariff levels on China has slowed, and even paralyzed, some orders from small and medium-sized importers, four veteran forwarders told the Journal of Commerce.</div>

A sense of uncertainty — if not alarm — about future demand and tariff levels on China has slowed, and even paralyzed, some orders from small and medium-sized importers, four veteran forwarders told the Journal of Commerce.

<div class="phx-topic">The true toll of US tariffs on China is just beginning to be felt on the trans-Pacific. Months of frontloading that drove an earlier peak season have come to an end, and US retailers are pulling back on ordering for the rest of the year in the face of a slowing US economy and higher tariff costs. Shippers and consignees are also racking up stiffer demurrage and storage bills because demand uncertainty is slowing their pickup of containers from marine terminals. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6065756_0.1.jpg"></img></div>A sense of uncertainty — if not alarm — about future demand and tariff levels on China has slowed, and even paralyzed, some orders from small and medium-sized importers, four veteran forwarders told the Journal of Commerce. While China bookings haven’t cratered as they did in April when the Trump administration temporarily raised the US tariff level to 145%, forwarders warn of a renewed weakness in the market caused by more than just the end of peak season. Laden volumes from Asia to the US in July surged to a six-month high as shippers moved product ahead of August tariff deadlines. And while US imports are forecast to be up 5.8% year over year in August, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-project-big-year-over-year-import-declines-to-close-out-2025-6060323">according to the latest Global Port Tracker (GPT)</a>, the rest of the year looks dismal. Volumes from September through December are expected to be down at least 20% year over year each month. Granted, volumes were elevated last year due to the threat of a labor strike on the East and Gulf coasts, but the current malaise is more than just tough 2024 comparisons. Small importers in particular are finding it harder to eat higher tariff costs, hampering orders as they try to push price increases onto consumers or back onto suppliers. <h3>Importers passing prices to consumers </h3>An index measuring the likelihood of US small business owners to increase prices hit its highest level in July since March 2024, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses. A US Census Bureau survey of all US businesses, excluding farms, came to a similar conclusion, with 34% of respondents in late July saying they would increase prices over the next six months. Two weeks earlier, that figure was 29%. Even Home Depot, the second-largest US importer as measured by volume in 2024, is having to increase prices modestly. The company told investors Tuesday that while it had pledged in May not to increase prices due to tariffs, the tariff levels have since increased. August tends to be a strong year for inbound volumes, but not this year, said one executive for a forwarder that serves big box importers and a top online retailer. Because of tariff uncertainty, the seasonality of the inbound trade “is out the window,” the source said. “We’re feeling the pinch,” he said. “I think we’ve got a couple rough months ahead.” <h3>Demurrage levels on the rise </h3>Customers importing lower-value goods have even begun abandoning containers as the cost of the tariffs outweighs what the items can be sold for. Even those who tapped bonded warehouse space face the prospect of no more reprieves in tariffs — and a hefty storage bill, the forwarder source said. Other customers are shifting toward origin-controlled cargo, in which the seller bears all shipping and customs costs until it delivers the goods to the buyer, he said. Rising demurrage levels at major US ports also speak to increased deterioration in the trans-Pacific market. Demurrage levels have been rising all year but spiked in July to an average of 8.1 days, up from 3.8 days in January, according to data from transportation management visibility software vendor GoComet. While shipper customers of GoComet say erratic vessel reliability is playing a role in higher demurrage bills, tariff uncertainty is the main driver. Beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) “are either rushing orders to get ahead of tariffs or, more critically, canceling orders while cargo is already on the water,” said Chitransh Sahai, CEO of GoComet. “This leaves them with containers at the destination that have to be held or rerouted, which directly results in demurrage.” Part of that uncertainty is that some importers aren’t confident that the 55% tariff rate agreed upon between the US and China in an initial framework of a trade deal won’t be adjusted again when the since-extended tariff truce expires Nov. 10, said another forwarder source, who predominantly serves Chinese exporters. That has led to dribs and drabs of replenishment. “Customers are doing crazy types of operations to sustain their businesses,” he said. “Some customers have [even] stopped ocean shipping and have gone to small parcel.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The true toll of US tariffs on China is just beginning to be felt on the trans-Pacific. Months of frontloading that drove an earlier peak season have come to an end, and US retailers are pulling back on ordering for the rest of the year in the face of a slowing US economy and higher tariff costs. Shippers and consignees are also racking up stiffer demurrage and storage bills because demand uncertainty is slowing their pickup of containers from marine terminals. A sense of uncertainty — if not alarm — about future demand and tariff levels on China has slowed, and even paralyzed, some orders from small and medium-sized importers, four veteran forwarders told the Journal of Commerce. While China bookings haven’t cratered as they did in April when the Trump administration temporarily raised the US tariff level to 145%, forwarders warn of a renewed weakness in the market caused by more than just the end of peak season. Laden volumes from Asia to the US in July surged to a six-month high as shippers moved product ahead of August tariff deadlines. And while US imports are forecast to be up 5.8% year over year in August, according to the latest Global Port Tracker (GPT) , the rest of the year looks dismal. Volumes from September through December are expected to be down at least 20% year over year each month. Granted, volumes were elevated last year due to the threat of a labor strike on the East and Gulf coasts, but the current malaise is more than just tough 2024 comparisons. Small importers in particular are finding it harder to eat higher tariff costs, hampering orders as they try to push price increases onto consumers or back onto suppliers. Importers passing prices to consumers An index measuring the likelihood of US small business owners to increase prices hit its highest level in July since March 2024, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses. A US Census Bureau survey of all US businesses, excluding farms, came to a similar conclusion, with 34% of respondents in late July saying they would increase prices over the next six months. Two weeks earlier, that figure was 29%. Even Home Depot, the second-largest US importer as measured by volume in 2024, is having to increase prices modestly. The company told investors Tuesday that while it had pledged in May not to increase prices due to tariffs, the tariff levels have since increased. August tends to be a strong year for inbound volumes, but not this year, said one executive for a forwarder that serves big box importers and a top online retailer. Because of tariff uncertainty, the seasonality of the inbound trade “is out the window,” the source said. “We’re feeling the pinch,” he said. “I think we’ve got a couple rough months ahead.” Demurrage levels on the rise Customers importing lower-value goods have even begun abandoning containers as the cost of the tariffs outweighs what the items can be sold for. Even those who tapped bonded warehouse space face the prospect of no more reprieves in tariffs — and a hefty storage bill, the forwarder source said. Other customers are shifting toward origin-controlled cargo, in which the seller bears all shipping and customs costs until it delivers the goods to the buyer, he said. Rising demurrage levels at major US ports also speak to increased deterioration in the trans-Pacific market. Demurrage levels have been rising all year but spiked in July to an average of 8.1 days, up from 3.8 days in January, according to data from transportation management visibility software vendor GoComet. While shipper customers of GoComet say erratic vessel reliability is playing a role in higher demurrage bills, tariff uncertainty is the main driver. Beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) “are either rushing orders to get ahead of tariffs or, more critically, canceling orders while cargo is already on the water,” said Chitransh Sahai, CEO of GoComet. “This leaves them with containers at the destination that have to be held or rerouted, which directly results in demurrage.” Part of that uncertainty is that some importers aren’t confident that the 55% tariff rate agreed upon between the US and China in an initial framework of a trade deal won’t be adjusted again when the since-extended tariff truce expires Nov. 10, said another forwarder source, who predominantly serves Chinese exporters. That has led to dribs and drabs of replenishment. “Customers are doing crazy types of operations to sustain their businesses,” he said. “Some customers have [even] stopped ocean shipping and have gone to small parcel.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

ILA suing Virginia port, chief executive over rollout of new rail cranes

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Trans-Atlantic carriers limit capacity cuts despite ongoing rate weakness

Charleston’s Leatherman terminal eyes second berth by late 2026

Tight Asia feeder capacity causing disruption for export, import shippers

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